ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Examining the Contemporaneous Occurrence of Bullying and Teen Dating Violence Victimization

Katrina J. Debnam and Tracy E. Waasdorp

Johns Hopkins University

Catherine P. Bradshaw University of Virginia

Teen dating violence (TDV) is a preventable public health issue that has been linked to other forms of aggression and violence victimization. It is also a growing concern for school psychologists who may be working to prevent TDV and related behavioral problems, like bullying. The current study examined various forms of bullying victim- ization (verbal, physical, and relational) and their association with physical and emo- tional TDV. Self-report data from 17,780 adolescents (33% African American, 54% White) in Grades 9 –12 across 58 high schools were analyzed using 3-level models with dichotomous outcomes. Multilevel logistic regressions indicated that adolescents who had experienced bullying (physical, relational, and verbal) were more likely to have also experienced physical and emotional dating violence. Perceived norms about students’ and adults’ bullying interventions were associated with reduced odds of physical (ORadults � .82, p � .001) and emotional TDV (ORadults � .82, p � .001). Findings underscore the need to better understand the relationship between TDV and bullying victimization to design and enhance prevention efforts that address both forms of violence.

Keywords: adolescents, bullying victimization, dating violence

There is a growing body of research which seeks to elucidate the association between bul- lying and teen dating violence (TDV) perpetra- tion and victimization (Corvo & deLara, 2010; Debnam, Johnson, & Bradshaw, 2014; Espelage & Holt, 2007; Wolfe, Crooks, Chiodo, & Jaffe, 2009). Extant literature suggests that these be- haviors may overlap, such that TDV could be

viewed as a form of bullying in which one dating partner may repeatedly and intentionally use physical violence or emotional threats to exert control over the other (Corvo & deLara, 2010). Others suggest a more developmental perspective, wherein teasing may become bul- lying, and bullying may evolve into harassment and violence until abuse becomes a normal part of dating dynamics (Wolfe et al., 2009). Al- though the potential theoretical links between bullying and TDV are being explored (Corvo & deLara, 2010; Miller et al., 2013), more empir- ical work is also needed to understand when these behaviors interact. For instance, adoles- cents who are subjected to physical bullying at school may also be a victim of physical TDV. Findings from the Adverse Childhood Experi- ences Study (ACE; Felitti et al., 1998), together with the developmental victimology framework (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Turner, 2007), suggest that youth who experience multiple forms of victimization are at increased risk of negative health outcomes. Yet, few studies have exam- ined whether the type of bullying experienced (e.g., physically bullied) is associated with their

This article was published Online First July 20, 2015. Katrina J. Debnam and Tracy E. Waasdorp, Department

of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University; Catherine P. Bradshaw, Dean’s Office, Human Services, Curry School of Education, Uni- versity of Virginia.

This work was funded in part by grants from the U.S. Department of Education and William T. Grant Foundation awarded to the third author. We thank the Maryland State Department of Education and Sheppard Pratt Health System for their support of this research through the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Project.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katrina J. Debnam, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 415 North Washington Street, Baltimore, MD 21231. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

School Psychology Quarterly © 2015 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 31, No. 1, 76 –90 1045-3830/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000124

76

odds of being a victim of same type of teen dating violence. The current study sought to extend this line of research by investigating the association between different types of bullying victimization and TDV victimization. This line of work has important implications for school psychologists who are engaged in school-based bullying and youth violence prevention efforts, as those activities may also be impacting TDV. It may be likely that implementing a youth violence prevention program could have effects not only on bullying, but also dating violence within the school. The current study is intended to inform research and prevention programming focused on the intersection of bullying and TDV.

Teen Dating Violence

TDV is defined as the physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence within a dat- ing relationship. Data from the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) reveal that 10.3% of high schools students report being hit, slapped, or physically hurt on purpose by their boyfriend or girlfriend in the previous year (CDC, 2014). Physical abuse is the most widely studied form of TDV. It is defined as the inten- tional or purposeful pushing, hitting, shoving, or kicking by a dating partner (CDC, 2014). Emotional abuse is characterized as threatening a partner and/or harming his or her self-worth (CDC, 2014). This type of abuse can come in the form of name calling, making a partner feel guilty, purposeful embarrassment, or control- ling behaviors such as keeping him/her away from friends and family.

TDV victimization has been shown to be associated with a host of adverse mental and physical health problems, including depression, substance use, suicidal ideation, risky sexual behavior, and drug use (Howard, Debnam, Wang, & Gilchrist, 2012; Howard, Debnam, & Wang, 2013; Wagers, Gittelman, Bennett, & Pomerantz, 2013). These risky behaviors are not limited to adolescence; five years after ex- periencing TDV, young adults reported in- creased heavy episodic drinking, depressive symptomatology, antisocial behaviors, suicidal ideation, smoking, marijuana use, and adult in- timate partner victimization (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013). Given the nu- merous immediate and longitudinal likely ef-

fects of TDV, there is increased research being devoted to developing school-based prevention interventions for adolescents (e.g., Taylor, Stein, Mumford, & Woods, 2013). Moreover, although school psychologists are often in- volved in the implementation of school-based violence prevention programs (Hicks, Shahidul- lah, Carlson, & Palejwala, 2014), they rarely have training specifically focused on TDV pre- vention.

Forms of Victimization

Many of the correlates of TDV victimization are also associated with bullying victimization (Fredland, 2008; O’Keefe, 2005). Defined as a form of peer victimization that is repeated, in- tentional, and involves a real or perceived power imbalance (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014), bullying vic- timization is associated with both internalizing and externalizing problems such as depressive symptoms, alcohol and drug use, and violent behaviors (e.g., Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & O’Brennan, 2013; Nansel et al., 2001). Bullying consists of behaviors that are overt in nature such as physical and verbal (e.g., name calling, threats) bullying, as well as those that are rela- tional in nature and damaging to one’s reputa- tion (e.g., rumor spreading, social isolation/ exclusion; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). Studies have shown that the more forms of bullying victimization a youth experiences, the more physical and psychological distress they may exhibit (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011). For ex- ample, youth who experience relational, verbal, and physical forms are at an increased risk for concurrent internalizing symptoms as compared to victims who do not experience all three forms (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & O’Brennan, 2013).

From a social learning perspective, children may begin bullying because of vicarious rein- forcement; in which they have witnessed their parents or other peers model aggression (Ban- dura, 1986; Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 1997). Indeed, research shows that students who reported that their parents used physical disci- pline strategies when they broke a rule at home were more likely to report engaging in bullying behavior (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000). A similar relationship has been found among peers, wherein bullies tend to have friends who are also bullies or reinforces bullying behaviors

77BULLYING AND DATING VIOLENCE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

(e.g., Huitsing & Veenstra, 2012; Mouttapa, Valente, Gallaher, Rohrbach, & Unger, 2004). Similarly, social learning is supported in the dating violence literature (Dardis, Dixon, Ed- wards, & Turchik, 2015). Peer and parental involvement in partner violence is consistently correlated with dating violence perpetration (Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001). It is hypothesized that adolescents may begin using dating violence after they observed friends engage in TDV (Foshee et al., 2001). From a developmental perspective, it is also possible that bullying others is somewhat rein- forcing, for it may increase the bully’s social status and increase popularity (Mayeux, Sand- strom, & Cillessen, 2008; Waasdorp, Baker, Paskewich, & Leff, 2013). As a result, when adolescents begin dating relationships and dat- ing, they may similarly engage in these negative behaviors to reap status and power benefits in their dating relationships.

Although social learning theory has largely been used to understand perpetration behaviors in bullying and dating violence, the current study extends this line of thinking from perpe- tration to victimization. If youth witness family members’ and peers’ maladaptive responses to aggressive behaviors (e.g., bullying and TDV), then they may model these responses in their own relationships. Research shows that victims of bullying demonstrate lower social compe- tence, higher rates of social rejection, internal- izing symptoms, poor social skills and external- izing behavior symptoms (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010). If children wit- ness victimization in childhood, they may de- velop into adolescents with some of these mal- adaptive responses reflected in their dating relationships.

Increasing theoretical and empirical research is also showing linkages between TDV and bullying victimization. The developmental vic- timology framework (Finkelhor, 1995) suggests that one form of victimization may create vul- nerability for another. Although the framework does not specifically explain how or why this happens, it proposes that forms of victimization may co-occur in such a way that a victim of bullying at school may also be a victim of dating violence from his or her partner. Existing research provides support for the framework. For example, a study by Espelage and Holt (2007) found that bully–victims (i.e., youth who

bully others and are victimized themselves) re- ported more sexual harassment and dating vio- lence victimization than uninvolved youth. Few other studies have investigated the contempora- neous occurrence of these multiple forms of victimization. Specifically, the existing litera- ture has typically focused on the overlap be- tween perpetration and victimization (i.e., the bully and the victim) of bullying behaviors and dating violence (e.g., Fredland, 2008; Miller et al., 2013; Wolfe et al., 2009). Additional re- search is needed to understand not only the association between different forms of bullying behaviors (i.e., physical, verbal, and relational) and the co-occurrence of physical and emo- tional dating violence victimization (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013), but also when one form of victimization may create vul- nerability for the same kind of victimization in a different relational context. The current study focused on the contemporaneous occurrence of these multiple forms of victimization, in light of social learning theory and evidence that adoles- cents who report multiple forms of maltreat- ment may be more likely to experience greater adverse psychological affects when compared with adolescents who experience only one form (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011). For example, Finkelhor et al. (2007) found that poly victims (i.e., youth who experienced multiple different forms of victimization in a single year) are com- mon and many have experienced bullying and/or dating violence. In addition, they found that poly victimization was a significant predictor of trauma symptoms over and above the influence of indi- vidual victimization. These findings are consistent with data from the ACE study, which indicated that exposure to stressors (i.e., abuse and neglect) increased risk factors for negative outcomes in a strong graded fashion.

The School Context

The school environment is an important con- text for understanding and preventing TDV. Adolescents spend much of their time in school; as a result, the majority of their dating relation- ships are formed and experienced in this context (Broderick & Blewitt, 2005). Indeed, in a study by Molidor and colleagues (1998), 42% of boys and 43% of girls reported that the worst abusive incident they experienced occurred in a school building or on school grounds. In addition, pre-

78 DEBNAM, WAASDORP, AND BRADSHAW

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

vious research has showed that adolescents who have experienced peer victimization also per- ceive that TDV is a problem at their school (Debnam, Johnson, & Bradshaw, 2014). As a result, similar to bullying, schools are most commonly targeted for implementing dating vi- olence prevention interventions (Taylor, Stein, & Burden, 2010). For example, school-based interventions like Safe Dates (Foshee et al., 1998), In Touch with Teens (Aldridge, Fried- man, & Gigans, 1993), and Expect Respect School Project (Rosenbluth, 2002) have all shown an impact on knowledge and attitudes regarding peer aggression. In fact, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (Olweus et al., 2007), which is used by many schools and school psychologists to prevent bullying, in- cludes lessons on dating violence prevention and stresses the importance of bystander in- volvement. Thus, there is great potential for prevention programming to influence and pre- vent both bullying and TDV.

Although there is a dearth of literature which examines the specific influence of the school context on dating violence (Debnam, Johnson, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2014), several studies have examined contextual influences on bully- ing. For example, Bradshaw and colleagues (2009) found that higher student–teacher ratios, numbers of students receiving reduced-cost meals, and mobility rates were associated with a lower likelihood that students would feel safe from bullying victimization and violence. Moreover, students who are both bullies and victims feel less safe and less belonging to school, and perceive the school climate as sup- portive of bullying behaviors (Goldweber, Wa- asdorp, & Bradshaw, 2013). Although there are several school contextual findings for bullying (e.g., Saarento, Garandeau, & Salmivalli, 2014), it is unknown whether similar associations exist for TDV. Preliminary research has shown that school contextual factors may be linked to TDV perpetration. Schnurr and Lohman (2008) found that African American males who perceived their school environment as unsafe were at greater risk of TDV perpetration as compared with males from other racial/ethnic groups. In an attempt to further understand the influence of the school context, the current study examined the association between TDV victimization and school safety that previous research has linked to bullying behaviors.

Furthermore, while bystander intervention or “telling an adult” is a widely advocated re- sponse to bullying victimization by bullying prevention programs and parents, there is com- paratively little research to determine the effec- tiveness of this strategy for TDV (Casey & Ohler, 2012). Public health research suggests that bystander intervention is an effective strat- egy for preventing sexual violence among adults and adolescents (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004; Palm Reed, Hines, Arm- strong, & Cameron, 2015); however, more re- search is needed to evaluate the viability of this strategy for physical and emotional TDV in schools (Casey & Ohler, 2012; Taylor et al., 2013). Previous research has shown that adoles- cents mainly reach out to peers, rather than adults, when experiencing violence (e.g., Ah- rens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, & Ward, 2010). A recent study (Van Camp, Hébert, Guidi, Lavoie, & Blais, 2014) also found that many adolescents feel confident in their ability to deal with dating violence, including reporting greater self- efficacy in helping someone else than in seeking help for themselves. However it is less clear how adolescents’ perceive the role of other by- standers (i.e., school staff) in addressing TDV.

Current Study

The current study examined how the various forms of bullying victimization (verbal, physi- cal, and relational) were related to adolescents’ experiences of physical and emotional dating violence. Our first aim was to examine the as- sociation between adolescents’ experiences of various forms of bullying victimization in rela- tion to the individual experiences of the same kind of dating violence victimization (i.e., phys- ical and emotional) in the past year. We hypoth- esized that adolescents who reported physical bullying victimization would be more likely to experience physical TDV victimization. Both social learning theory and the developmental victimology framework provide evidence for an association between bullying and dating vio- lence victimization (Corvo & deLara, 2010; Finkelhor, 1995). Similarly, adolescents who reported experiencing verbal and relational bul- lying victimization were expected to be more likely to experience emotional TDV. Our sec- ond aim was to investigate the association be-

79BULLYING AND DATING VIOLENCE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

tween students’ beliefs about intervening in bul- lying situations and their experiences of physical and emotional TDV. In schools where students believe that staff and other students will not intervene in bullying, youth were ex- pected to be less likely to report experiencing physical and emotional TDV. Finally, we sought to examine the association between school contextual factors (i.e., safety) and stu- dent experiences with dating violence. We hy- pothesized that in schools where students re- ported a more positive school climate, as evidenced by increased perceptions of school safety, there would be lower reports of physical and emotional dating violence. The findings from this study have implications for school psychologists, particularly those involved in school safety efforts, including bullying and teen dating violence prevention.

Method

Participants

Data came from 58 Maryland high schools in 12 counties participating in a state-wide project focused on measuring and improving the school environment, called the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Initiative (MDS3). Data were collected on 27,698 adolescents, 49.2% male, via a web-based survey administered in spring 2013. An average of 25.6 classrooms per school participated in the data collection. Only those who reported they had dated in the past year were included in the current analyses; this resulted in an analysis subsample of 17,780 adolescents. Youth and school demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1, both for the full sample and dating/analysis subsample.

Procedures

School and youth participation in the MDS3 Initiative was voluntary. Districts were ap- proached in order of perceived need as deter- mined by the Maryland State Department of Education. Upon expressing interest in the MDS3 Initiative, district specific administrator meetings were conducted to obtain school-level commitment to the project. The anonymous, online survey was administered using a waiver of active consent process for parents and youth assent process. The survey was administered

online in language arts classrooms to approxi- mately 7 classrooms of 9th grade students and 6 classrooms for all other grade levels of students (10th, 11th, and 12th grade students) at each school. School staff administered the survey following a written protocol. The analysis of nonidentifiable data was approved by the uni- versities’ Institutional Review Board.

Measures

The MDS3 School Climate Student Survey was developed by the Johns Hopkins Center for Youth Violence Prevention in collaboration with project partners (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, Debnam, & Johnson, 2014). For the purposes of the current study, we focus solely on those items measuring TDV, bullying victimization, and school safety. Additional information on the full survey and broader focus of the study is available (Bradshaw et al., 2014).

Student-Level Variables

Student demographic variables. Individual demographics of students were collected on the survey. The specific variables used for these analyses include self-reported grade, gender, and race on the survey. Similar to other studies, grade was collapsed to combine students in Grades 9 –10 (ages 12–16) and students in Grades 11–12 (ages 17–21; e.g., Bradshaw, Wa- asdorp, Goldweber, & Johnson, 2013). Students self-selected their racial/ethnic identification as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American In- dian/Native American, or Other. Student race/ ethnic identity was recoded so that White was the reference group for Black, Hispanic, and Other student groups (Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander and American Indian/Native American were included in the ‘Other’ category). This recoding is consistent with the categories used in the state.

Forms of bullying victimization. Consistent with the definition by Olweus (1993) and the CDC (Gladden et al., 2014), the survey included a definition of bullying, which read, “A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons. Bullying often oc- curs in situations where there is a power or status difference. Bullying includes actions like

80 DEBNAM, WAASDORP, AND BRADSHAW

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

threatening, teasing, name-calling, ignoring, ru- mor spreading, sending hurtful emails and text messages, and leaving someone out on pur- pose.” After reading this definition, participants responded to a question regarding their experi- ence as a victim of different bullying behaviors which together represented three different expe- riences of victimization: relational, verbal, and physical. The instructions read as follows:

Within the last month, has someone repeatedly tried to hurt you or make you feel bad by . . . name calling; making physical or verbal threats; teasing, picking on, or making fun of; making sexual comments or ges- tures; making racial comments (verbal items); spread- ing rumors or lies; emailing, e-messaging, texting or posting something bad on the Internet; ignoring or leaving you out on purpose (relational items); pushing

or shoving; stealing your things; hitting, slapping, or kicking (physical items).

This measure was adapted from previous measures of the different forms of victimization (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & O’Brennan, 2013; Nansel et al., 2001). Participants indicated whether they had experienced each form of victimization (i.e., yes/no). Participants could also indicate ‘they were not bullied’ in response to this question. After creating the subscales (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015), we then indi- cated whether or not the participants had en- dorsed one or more of the forms of victimiza- tion for each of the three scales, thereby yielding a dichotomous score on each of the

Table 1 Student and School Demographic Characteristics for Full Sample and Dating Subsample

Student characteristics Full sample N (%) Dating subsamplea N (%)

Gender Male 13,619 (50.7) 8,878 (50.1) Female 13,254 (49.3) 8,899 (49.9)

Race/ethnicity Black/African American 8,343 (30.1) 5,490 (33.3) White/Caucasian 13,601 (49.1) 9,181 (53.6) Hispanic 1,349 (4.9) 924 (6.1) Asian/Pacific Islander 1,247 (4.5) 643 (3.0) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 166 (0.6) 123 (0.3) American Indian/Native American 395 (1.4) 293 (0.7) Other 1,768 (6.4) 2,180 (2.8)

Grade 9th/10th 14,376 (53.8) 9,077 (49.7) 11th/12th 12,366 (44.6) 8,612 (50.3)

Bullying Relational victim 3,725 (13.4) 2,750 (14.7) Verbal victim 6,094 (22) 4,244 (22.9) Physical victim 2,501 (9) 1,801 (9.3)

Physical TDV 2,625 (10.8) — Emotional TDV 2,611 (10.7) — Students interveneb 2.30 (.89) 2.27 (.89) Adults interveneb 2.77 (.95) 2.74 (.95)

M (SD)

School characteristics (N � 58 schools) % Attendance 93.1 (1.6) % Minority 45.9 (25.1) % Suspension 22.3 (11.1) School enrollment 1,325.3 (449.8) % FARMS 35.9 (17.1) School safety 3.01 (.15)

Note. Full sample N � 27,698 students, dating subsample n � 17,780. a Individuals that reported that they dated in the past year were included in analyses for the current study. b M (SD).

81BULLYING AND DATING VIOLENCE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

three victimization scales of relational, verbal, and physical.

Students and teachers intervene. Students’ perception of the likelihood that a staff member would intervene in a bullying situation was as- sessed by asking whether “Adults at this school try to stop bullying.” Perception of peer inter- vention was assessed by asking a parallel ques- tion, “Students at this school try to stop bully- ing.” Students responded on a scale with response options ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Items were re- versed coded so that higher values indicated a greater belief in adult and student intervention.

Dating violence victimization. Based on the YRBS indicators (CDC, 2014), students were asked about the occurrence of physical and emotional dating violence in the past 12 months. To assess physical dating violence, the question read, “During the past 12 months, did someone you were dating or going out with ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose?” To assess emotional dating violence, the question read, “During the past 12 months, did someone you were dating or going out with threaten, degrade, or intimidate you?” The following re- sponse options were provided for both ques- tions: yes, no, or I did not date or go out with anyone during the past 12 months. Only for those that went on dates in the past 12 months, TDV was dichotomized as 0 � no experience of violence in the past 12 months versus 1 � yes.

School-Contextual Variables

School safety. A school-level perceptions of safety subscale score (safety; � � .74) was created based on student responses to items measuring perceived safety (4 items), bully- ing and aggression (4 items), and perceived substance use (3 items; Bradshaw et al., 2014). Perceived safety items included stu- dents’ feelings of safety at school and going to and from school. The bullying and aggres- sion items assessed the climate of bullying and aggression including whether students had witnessed another student being bullied (answer choice yes/no), youths’ perceptions that students in their school would intervene to stop bullying, and whether staff in their school would intervene to stop bullying. Par- ticipants also rated the extent to which harass- ment or bullying of students and students

fighting were a problem at their school. Sim- ilarly, perceived substance use assessed the extent to which each was a perceived problem at school: alcohol, tobacco, and drug use in- cluding marijuana, LSD, cocaine, and ecstasy (Bradshaw et al., 2014). Together, these vari- ables formed the perceptions of safety sub- scale.

School demographics. A set of school- level demographic variables was obtained from the Maryland State Department of Edu- cation for inclusion in the models as school- level covariates. Those variables were the percent of students receiving free and reduced priced meals (FARMS), the percentage of stu- dents who received an out of school suspen- sion, the percentage of minority students en- rolled in the school (minority), and the total number of students enrolled in the school (enrollment), as an indicator of school size. These variables were considered school-level covariates in the model with no specific hy- potheses about their effects.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics were run using SPSS v21 and all variables were assessed for col- linearity. To examine the association between TDV and forms of bullying victimization, mul- tilevel logistic regression models were con- ducted in the HLM 7.0 software for both emo- tional TDV and separately for physical TDV. Variables included at level 1 were age, gender, race, three forms of bullying victimization (re- lational, verbal, and physical), and perception of staff and peer intervention with bullying. All variables at level 1 were tested for randomly varying slopes, however no random effects for the covariates were included. Continuous vari- ables were grand-mean centered. At level 2 we accounted for classroom-level nesting of stu- dents because the data collection was conducted by classroom and there is a potential for non- independence of observations within class- rooms (Bradshaw et al., 2014); however, no other variables were included. At level 3 we included overall perceptions of school safety, percent FARMS, percent minority, enrollment, and percent suspended. All level 3 variables were grand mean centered (Enders & Tofighi, 2007).

82 DEBNAM, WAASDORP, AND BRADSHAW

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Results

Descriptives

Descriptives for those who reported they dated in the past 12 months and those who had not are presented in Table 1. The subsample of 17,780 students who reported they had dated within the past 12 months was utilized for all analyses presented below. More males (18.4%) than females (11.9%) reported that they were victims of physical TDV, �2(1) � 141.2, p � .001, Phi � .09 (where .10 indicates a small effect). There were no significant differences between groups on reports of emotional TDV. Additional descriptives are reported in Table 1.

Multilevel Logistic Regression Models

Physical dating violence. Males had a higher odds than females of being a victim of physical TDV (Odds Ratio [OR] � 1.70, p � .001; see Table 2). Black and ‘Other’ youth had a higher odds of being a victim of physical TDV as compared with White youth (ORBlack � 1.30, p � .01, OROther � 1.58, p � .001). Those who

experienced all forms of bullying victimization had an increased odds as compared to those that did not experience bullying victimization of re- porting physical TDV (ORrelational � 1.36, p � .001; ORverbal � 1.34, p � .001; ORphysical � 2.40, p � .001). When students perceive that students and adults intervene in response to bullying, youth had a reduced odds of experi- encing physical TDV (ORstudents � .90, p � .001;ORadults � .82, p � .001). At the school level, only suspension was significant, suggest- ing that in schools with higher levels of suspen- sions youth had an increased odds of physical TDV (OR � 1.01, p � .01).

Emotional dating violence. Youth in 11th and 12th grades had an increased odds of being a victim of emotional TDV as compared with 9th and 10th graders (OR � 1.18, p � .01; see Table 2). Black and ‘Other’ youth had an in- creased odds of being a victim of emotional TDV as compared with White youth (ORBlack � 1.21, p � .05, OROther � 1.57, p � .001). With regard to the forms of victimization, similar to physical TDV, victims of all forms of bullying victimization had significantly increased odds

Table 2 HLM Results for 3-Level Model Examining the Association Between Forms of Bullying and Dating Violence

Level

Physical TDV Emotional TDV

OR CI OR CI

Individual level Older (11th to 12th graders) 1.08 (0.989, 1.188) 1.18�� (1.060, 1.306) Male 1.70�� (1.510, 1.911) 0.98 (0.884, 1.087) Blacka 1.30�� (1.102, 1.534) 1.21� (1.027, 1.417) Hispanica 0.81 (0.637, 1.024) 0.74 (0.542, 1.010) Asiana 1.11 (0.780, 1.569) 1.38 (0.983, 1.932) Othera 1.58��� (1.276, 1.959) 1.57��� (1.260, 1.960) Relational victim 1.36��� (1.131, 1.623) 1.94��� (1.657, 2.261) Verbal victim 1.34��� (1.143, 1.576) 1.51��� (1.282, 1.780) Physical victim 2.40��� (2.025, 2.843) 1.79��� (1.524, 2.095) Students intervene 0.90��� (0.843, 0.959) 0.94 (0.886, 1.001) Adults intervene 0.82��� (0.777, 0.863) 0.82��� (0.773, 0.862)

School level Perceptions of safety 0.873 (0.499, 1.527) 0.995 (0.588, 1.685) FARMS 1.002 (0.997, 1.007) 1.003 (0.996, 1.009) % Minority 0.998 (0.994, 1.001) 0.994��� (0.990, 0.997) Enrollment 1.014 (0.998, 1.030) 1.019�� (1.006, 1.032) Suspensions 1.007� (1.001, 1.013) 1.003 (0.996, 1.009)

Note. FARMS � Free and reduced priced meals. OR � Odds Ratio. CI � 95% Confidence Interval. TDV � Teen Dating Violence. a White is the reference group. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

83BULLYING AND DATING VIOLENCE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

of emotional TDV (ORrelational � 1.94, p � .001; ORverbal � 1.51, p � .001; ORphysical � 1.79, p � .001). When students perceive that adults intervene in response to bullying, youth have a reduced odds of experiencing emotional TDV (ORadults � .82, p � .001). At the school level, minority was significantly associated with emotional TDV, indicating that in schools with higher percentages of minority youth, youth had a reduced odds of emotional TDV (OR � .994, p � .001). Enrollment was significantly associ- ated with reports of emotional TDV, indicating that in schools with higher enrollment the odds of reporting emotional TDV was increased (OR � 1.019, p � .01).

Discussion

Although current research is expanding our knowledge of the longitudinal effects of TDV, recent exploration into the association between TDV and bullying is shedding light on how these aggressive behaviors may overlap one an- other. More research is needed to understand factors precipitating the co-occurrence of these two forms of victimization in adolescents, as that may inform the targeting of prevention programs and support services provided by school psychologists. To address this research gap, the current study examined the overlap between bullying victimization (verbal, physi- cal, and relational) and adolescents’ experiences of physical and emotional dating violence, with a particular interest in student- and school-level contextual risk factors. Multilevel analysis with dichotomous outcomes was used to determine whether being a victim of one of form of bul- lying was associated with a similar form of TDV.

Our results provided support for the initial hypothesis, such that adolescents who reported physical bullying victimization as compared with relational or verbal had increased odds of experiencing physical TDV victimization. However, the relationship is not as clear for emotional TDV. With regard to relational bul- lying victimization, we hypothesized that they would be more likely to report experiencing emotional TDV; although those who were rela- tional victims had twice the odds of experienc- ing emotional TDV, this association was not significantly higher than the odds for reporting physical victimization. Notably however, all

forms of peer victimization were associated with both forms of TDV. The findings from the current study provided partial support for social learning theory and the developmental victimol- ogy framework. Adolescents who are reporting being bullied are also reporting being victim- ized in their dating relationships. Given our reliance on cross-sectional data, we cannot as- sume a causal relationship, therefore it is un- clear whether the bullying occurs before or as a result of the TDV. Future studies would benefit from examining the longitudinal associations between peer victimization and TDV.

Although we are not suggesting that victim- ization is a learned behavior, it is interesting that these behaviors contemporaneously occur. It is important for future studies to further ex- amine why some youth experience these multi- ple forms of victimization. Social learning the- ory suggests vicarious reinforcement as a driving force for perpetration of aggressive be- haviors. Therefore, with respect to victimiza- tion, it is possible that youth may be at higher risk for bullying and/or TDV if they witness maladaptive responses to aggressive behaviors in both their peer and family relationships. Bul- lying researchers often suggest that family in- fluences, including attachment styles, may cre- ate a “victim schema” in some children (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001). On the other hand, Finkelhor and colleagues (2007) suggest that for children who experience multiple forms of victimization at early age, victimization can be more of a condition instead of an event. Thus, as children grow up they may inadvertently begin to associate with peers who contribute to their sustained victimization (e.g., bullies and TDV perpetrators). The current study is an initial step in determining when and how these forms of victimization overlap. Clearly, more work is needed in this area to further explicate why this overlap occurs. As a result, school psycholo- gists may need to assess polyvictimization when they encounter a victimized youth.

Currently, measures of bullying victimization are not intended to capture TDV. For example, surveys of bullying typically stipulate a power imbalance (Gladden et al., 2014); however, such an imbalance could occur in the context of dating partners. The findings of this study sug- gest that those who experience TDV are also at increased odds of experiencing bullying. During adolescence having safe and supportive peer

84 DEBNAM, WAASDORP, AND BRADSHAW

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

relationships can be a buffer for engaging in risk behavior (Hammack et al., 2004), thus the ex- perience of both TDV and bullying victimiza- tion could be extremely detrimental to the de- velopment of youth. As such, it is crucial that measures of bullying not only assess the possi- bility that the perpetrator is a dating partner,1

but should also assess if youth are simultane- ously experiencing other forms of TDV.

The current study also sheds light on the role of school contextual factors on dating violence victimization. Consistent with our hypothesis, in schools where students believed that staff and other students would not intervene in bullying, an increased number of students reported expe- riencing physical and emotional dating vio- lence. Extending prior findings on bullying and climate (e.g., Lindstrom Johnson, Waasdorp, Debnam, & Bradshaw, 2013), this suggests that when youth and adults intervene with bullying, it can create an environment where all forms of victimization are reduced. These findings have important implications for school psychologists involved in prevention programming. Cur- rently, bystander involvement has mostly been limited to bullying and sexual violence preven- tion (Banyard et al., 2004; Palm Reed et al., 2015). However, our findings suggest that this strategy commonly used in bullying prevention may also be helpful for addressing physical and emotional TDV. School psychologists may be able to leverage their efforts in increasing by- stander intervention in bullying to prevent TDV. Additional research is needed to examine this association for TDV experimentally to di- rectly test this hypothesis. In fact, recent re- search indicates that whole-school approaches to TDV prevention may be more effective than programs which only target subgroups or one setting (Taylor et al., 2013). This suggests that bystander responses and shifted school-wide norms may play a role in TDV prevention, much like they do in school-wide bullying pre- vention programs (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012). Interestingly, in contrast to our hypoth- esis, there was not an observed relationship between school-level safety and TDV. Specifi- cally, the school’s overall level of safety was not associated with reports physical or emo- tional TDV. This suggests that perceived safety may not be as closely coupled with TDV as it is with bullying (Bradshaw et al., 2009).

In considering the effects of individual stu- dent demographics on dating violence victim- ization, male, Black, and “Other” race students reported greater odds of experiencing physical dating violence while older (11th and 12th grad- ers), Black, and “Other” race students reported greater emotional dating violence. These find- ings are generally consistent with previous re- search on dating violence victimization (e.g., Howard, Wang, & Yan, 2007; Howard et al., 2012). Adolescents in 11th and 12th grade, as a result of having been in more relationships, often report higher rates of dating violence. Nationally, males also consistently report a greater prevalence of dating violence victimiza- tion when compared to females (Howard et al., 2012). Recent studies and research funding an- nouncements have emphasized the need to bet- ter understand why males report higher victim- ization rates and the dynamics of aggression and fighting within dating relationships (O’Leary et al., 2008). Males’ dating experiences may con- dition them to reciprocate or tolerate violence in relationships as acceptable dating behaviors (Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001; Howard et al., 2012; O’Leary et al., 2008). Furthermore, Black adolescents have of- ten reported higher dating violence prevalence, though these findings are somewhat inconsis- tent across samples (Howard et al., 2013; Rai- ford, Wingood, & Diclemente, 2007). Benson et al. (Benson, Wooldredge, Thistlethwaite, & Fox, 2004) attributed these elevated rates of violence for Blacks to their historically lower socioeconomic status, which causes them to live in disadvantaged community contexts. These disadvantaged communities contribute to higher rates of violence, including domestic violence. For example, in one of the few qualitative stud- ies examining dating experiences of Black ad- olescents, Johnson and colleagues (2005) found that the African American youth often observed gender-based violence in their families and

1 As a post hoc analysis, we wanted to examine whether individuals may have perceived that their TDV experience was the bullying victimization experience they reported on, and not a separate experience. A measure of agreement, Kappa, would indicate how often those who reported rela- tional bullying also reported emotional TDV. The results showed that the agreement was minimal (�physical � .158; �emotional/relational � .158), indicating that for the most part youth view their TDV experience as a separate experience to bullying.

85BULLYING AND DATING VIOLENCE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

struggled to understand the boundaries of vio- lence in their own dating relationships. Addi- tional research is needed to further explicate why and how these behaviors differ by race and ethnicity (Hamby, 2015).

Limitations

We measured physical and emotional TDV, but were not able to measure cyber and sexual forms of dating violence. However, a recent study found that experiences of cyber TDV often overlap with emotional TDV (Zweig et al., 2013). Although scholars continue to debate whether there is a clear distinction between cyberbullying and face-to-face bullying victim- ization (Hertz & David-Ferdon, 2011; Li, 2007; Williams & Guerra, 2007), the measure of bul- lying victimization in the current study was limited to verbal, physical, and relational; how- ever, we included cyberbullying as an indicator of relational bullying. This categorization of cyberbullying as a form of relational bullying victimization limited our ability to tease apart and analyze cyberbullying separately. Future analyses with approaches, such as latent class analysis, may also be helpful in examining ad- ditional patterns in TDV experiences and how certain patterns of victimization may be differ- entially related to bullying. It should also be noted that our measures of TDV were single- item indicators for physical and emotional TDV; however, similar single-item indicators are used on most national risk behavior surveys (e.g., YRBS; CDC, 2014). Further, the TDV items were asked within the past year and the bullying items were asked within the past month. However, given the transient nature of adolescent dating relationships, most relation- ships last less than 6 months, restricting the sample to adolescents’ who had dated within the last month would substantially reduce preva- lence and be inconsistent with existing stan- dards in dating violence literature. We did re- strict the analysis sample to only youth who had been in a dating relationship within the past year; however, it is possible that there may have been some youth who experienced TDV with- out considering themselves to have been in a dating relationship.

Although self-report measures are widely used in TDV and bullying research (e.g., YRBS; CDC, 2014), there are some inherent

limitations of self-report data, which would be improved through multimethod assessment (parent, peer, or teacher ratings). For example, validation data from adolescents’ partners would provide rich contextual data regarding the TDV events and teacher or school-level reporting of bullying events provide more infor- mation about the school safety environment. However, this was not feasible given the design of the current study. Analysis of a validity ques- tion (i.e., I told the truth on this survey; Cornell, Lovegrove, & Baly, 2014) suggested that stu- dents responded truthfully to the survey, al- though this is an area for further exploration in future studies. Nevertheless, the study sample was rather large with multiple classrooms and students within 58 public high schools. Al- though the schools are not necessarily a repre- sentative sample of all high schools in the state of Maryland, as they volunteered to be in the project, schools were drawn from 12 of the state’s 24 school districts. Finally, the cross- sectional nature of this study design precludes the ability for causal inferences to be made based on the findings.

Conclusions

Taken together, the current results provided further evidence of a link between various forms of bullying victimization and TDV. These findings are consistent with the develop- mental victimology framework, which suggests that TDV victimization may overlap with bul- lying victimization (Corvo & deLara, 2010). Findings also extend the use of social learning theory to understand when youth may experi- ence multiple forms of victimization. Addi- tional research is needed to better understand why this contemporaneous occurrence of vic- timization is happening, as the mechanisms un- derlying this overlap are unknown. Our results suggest that school-based programs aimed at preventing bullying should include efforts to address TDV as well as increasing students’ and teachers’ intervention or responses to bullying occurring within the school. In fact, recent re- search by Taylor et al. (2013) supports the hy- pothesis that general violence prevention pro- grams may also reduce rates of TDV. School psychologists may benefit from understanding the overlap in these forms of victimization and consider implementing an integrated youth vio-

86 DEBNAM, WAASDORP, AND BRADSHAW

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

lence prevention, which could have effects not only on bullying, but also TDV.

References

Ahrens, C. E., & Campbell, R. (2000). Assisting rape victims as they recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 959 – 986. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626000015009004

Aldridge, L., Friedman, C., & Gigans, P. (1993). In touch with teens: A relationship violence preven- tion curriculum. Los Angeles, CA: Commission on Assaults Against Women.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Walsh, W. A., Cohn, E. S., & Ward, S. (2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 242–256. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334407

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence preven- tion. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61– 79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078

Benson, M. L., Wooldredge, J., Thistlethwaite, A. B., & Fox, G. L. (2004). The correlation between race and domestic violence is confounded with commu- nity context. Social Problems, 51, 326 –342. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2004.51.3.326

Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2009). A social disorganization perspective on bullying-related attitudes and behaviors: The influ- ence of school context. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 43(3– 4), 204 –220. http://dx .doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9240-1

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Debnam, K. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2014). Measuring school climate in high schools: A focus on safety, engagement, and the environment. The Journal of School Health, 84, 593– 604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12186

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Goldweber, A., & Johnson, S. L. (2013). Bullies, gangs, drugs, and school: Understanding the overlap and the role of ethnicity and urbanicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 220 –234. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-012-9863-7

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2013). A latent class approach to examining forms of peer victimization. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 105, 839 – 849. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0032091

Broderick, P. C., & Blewitt, P. (2005). The life span: Human development for helping professionals (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Casey, E. A., & Ohler, K. (2012). Being a positive bystander: Male antiviolence allies’ experiences

of “stepping up”. Journal of Interpersonal Vio- lence, 27, 62– 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260511416479

CDC. (2014). 1991–2013 high school youth risk be- havior survey data. Retrieved from http://apps .nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 65– 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0020149

Cornell, D. G., Lovegrove, P. J., & Baly, M. W. (2014). Invalid survey response patterns among middle school students. Psychological Assessment, 26, 277–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034808

Corvo, K., & deLara, E. (2010). Towards an inte- grated theory of relational violence: Is bullying a risk factor for domestic violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 181–190. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.avb.2009.12.001

Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological ad- justment. Child Development, 66, 710 –722. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131945

Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2015). An examination of the fac- tors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 136 –152. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1524838013517559

Debnam, K. J., Johnson, S. L., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Examining the association between bully- ing and adolescent concerns about teen dating vi- olence. The Journal of School Health, 84, 421– 428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12170

Debnam, K. J., Johnson, S. L., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Equity, connection, and engagement in the school context to promote pos- itive youth development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 447– 459. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/jora.12083

Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering pre- dictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel mod- els: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 1082-989X.12.2.121

Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Coun- seling & Development, 78, 326 –333. http://dx.doi .org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2007). Dating vio- lence & sexual harassment across the bully-victim continuum among middle and high school stu- dents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 799 – 811. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9109-7

87BULLYING AND DATING VIOLENCE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71–78. http://dx.doi .org/10.1542/peds.2012-1029

Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., William- son, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., . . . Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

Finkelhor, D. (1995). The victimization of children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 177–193. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/h0079618

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected compo- nent in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 7–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006 .06.008

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45–50. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2105/AJPH.88.1.45

Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating vio- lence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128 –141. http://dx .doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000.0793

Fredland, N. M. (2008). Sexual bullying: Addressing the gap between bullying and dating violence. Ad- vances in Nursing Science, 31, 95–105. http://dx .doi.org/10.1097/01.ANS.0000319560.76384.8a

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveil- lance among youths: Uniform definitions for pub- lic health and recommended data elements, ver- sion 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention, U.S. Department of Educa- tion.

Goldweber, A., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining the link between forms of bul- lying behaviors and perceptions of safety and be- longing among secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 469 – 485. http://dx.doi .org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.04.004

Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic rela- tionships: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1679 –1685. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2105/AJPH.91.10.1679

Hamby, S. (2015). On the use of race and ethnicity as variables in violence research. Psychology of Vio- lence, 5, 1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038470

Hammack, P. L., Richards, M. H., Luo, Z., Edlynn, E. S., & Roy, K. (2004). Social support factors as moderators of community violence exposure among inner-city African American young adoles- cents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 450 – 462. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_3

Hertz, M. F., & David-Ferdon, C. (2011). Online aggression: A reflection of in-person victimization or a unique phenomenon? Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 119 –120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .jadohealth.2010.11.255

Hicks, T. B., Shahidullah, J. D., Carlson, J. S., & Palejwala, M. H. (2014). Nationally Certified School Psychologists’ use and reported barriers to using evidence-based interventions in schools: The influence of graduate program training and educa- tion. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 469 – 487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000059

Howard, D. E., Debnam, K. J., & Wang, M. Q. (2013). Ten-year trends in physical dating violence victimization among U.S. adolescent females. The Journal of School Health, 83, 389 –399. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/josh.12042

Howard, D. E., Debnam, K. J., Wang, M. Q., & Gilchrist, B. (2012). 10-year trends in physical dating violence victimization among U.S. adoles- cent males. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 32, 283–305. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2190/IQ.32.4.c

Howard, D. E., Wang, M. Q., & Yan, F. (2007). Psychosocial factors associated with reports of physical dating violence among U.S. adolescent females. Adolescence, 42, 311–324.

Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2012). Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles from a social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 494 –509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21438

Johnson, S. B., Frattaroli, S., Campbell, J., Wright, J., Pearson-Fields, A. S., & Cheng, T. L. (2005). “I know what love means.” Gender-based violence in the lives of urban adolescents. J Womens Health (Larchmt), 14, 172–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ jwh.2005.14.172

Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1777–1791. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005

Lindstrom Johnson, S., Waasdorp, T. E., Debnam, K., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). The role of by- stander perceptions and school climate in influenc- ing victims’ responses to bullying: To retaliate or seek support? Journal of Criminology, 10. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/780460

88 DEBNAM, WAASDORP, AND BRADSHAW

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Mayeux, L., Sandstrom, M. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2008). Is being popular a risky proposition? Jour- nal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 49 –74. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00550.x

Miller, S., Williams, J., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clin- ton-Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2013). Dating vio- lence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudi- nal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 607– 618. http://dx.doi .org/10.1007/s10964-013-9914-8

Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4, 180 –194. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004002004

Mouttapa, M., Valente, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L. A., & Unger, J. B. (2004). Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adoles- cence, 39, 315–335.

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and asso- ciation with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094 –2100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.285 .16.2094

O’Keefe, M. (2005). Teen dating violence: A review of risk factors and prevention efforts. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Vio- lence.

O’Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school stu- dents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 473– 479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school. Oxford, Eng- land: Blackwell.

Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., Flerx, V. C., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M. (2007). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Schoolwide guide. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Palm Reed, K. M., Hines, D. A., Armstrong, J. L., & Cameron, A. Y. (2015). Experimental evaluation of a bystander prevention program for sexual as- sault and dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 5, 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037557

Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and new model of family influence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73–104). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander inter- vention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47– 65.

Raiford, J. L., Wingood, G. M., & Diclemente, R. J. (2007). Prevalence, incidence, and predictors of

dating violence: A longitudinal study of African American female adolescents. Journal of Women’s Health, 16, 822– 832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ jwh.2006.0002

Rosenbluth, B. (2002). Expect respect: A school based program promoting health relationships for youth. National Resource Center on Domestic Vi- olence.

Saarento, S., Garandeau, C. F., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Classroom- and school-level contributions to bullying and victimization: A review. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, n/a-n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.2207

Schnurr, M., & Lohman, B. (2008). How much does school matter? An examination of adolescent dat- ing violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 266 –283. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-007-9246-7

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68, 665– 675. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1132117

Taylor, B., Stein, N., & Burden, F. (2010). The effects of gender violence/ harassment prevention programming in middle schools: A randomized experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims, 25, 202–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25 .2.202

Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting Boundaries: An exper- imental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14, 64 –76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012- 0293-2

Van Camp, T., Hébert, M., Guidi, E., Lavoie, F., & Blais, M. (2014). Teens’ self-efficacy to deal with dating violence as victim, perpetrator or bystander. International Review of Victimology, 20, 289 –303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269758014521741

Waasdorp, T. E., Baker, C. N., Paskewich, B. S., & Leff, S. S. (2013). The association between forms of aggression, leadership, and social status among urban youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 263–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964- 012-9837-9

Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2011). Exam- ining student responses to frequent bullying: A latent class approach. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 103, 336 –352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0022747

Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). The overlap between cyberbullying and traditional bul- lying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 483– 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.12.002

Wagers, B., Gittelman, M., Bennett, B., & Pomer- antz, W. (2013). Prevalence of male adolescent dating violence in the pediatric emergency depart- ment. The Journal Of Trauma And Acute Care

89BULLYING AND DATING VIOLENCE

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Surgery, 75, S313–S318. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/TA.0b013e318294f83b

Williams, K. R., & Guerra, N. G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying. Journal of Ad- olescent Health, 41, S14 –S21. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018

Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. C., Chiodo, D., & Jaffe, P. (2009). Child maltreatment, bullying, gender- based harassment, and adolescent dating violence: Making the connections. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 21–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j .1471-6402.2008.01469.x

Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063–1077. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013- 9922-8

Received December 17, 2014 Revision received June 18, 2015

Accepted June 22, 2015 �

Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected]. Please note the following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.

APA now has an online video course that provides guidance in reviewing manuscripts. To learn more about the course and to access the video, visit http://www.apa.org/pubs/ authors/review-manuscript-ce-video.aspx.

90 DEBNAM, WAASDORP, AND BRADSHAW

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.