Urgent Help

Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Paul Nicodemus, Department of

Psychology, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, TN 37044

North American Journal of Psychology, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 3, 455-462.

 NAJP

The Effects of Maternal Relationships on

Physical and Psychological Dating Violence

Paul Nicodemus Austin Peay State University

Patricia A. Davenport Our House, Inc., Greenville, MS

Lynn E. McCutcheon NAJP

Psychological and physical dating violence patterns were examined to

determine if maternal relationships affected dating violence patterns

differently for male and female adolescents. Participants consisted of 469

ninth grade students from various schools across the Mississippi Delta

region. Participants completed self-report evaluations regarding the

number of experienced and perpetrated violent acts with a dating partner.

A series of two-way ANOVAs were calculated to determine the influence

of maternal relationships on dating violence. These findings indicated

that maternal relationships do not significantly influence the physically

violent behaviors; however, significant interactions were found between

maternal relationships by gender, with males perpetrating greater

numbers of and being victimized more psychologically when the

relationship with the mother was negative. Female participants displayed

completely opposite patterns of psychological violence when

experiencing negative maternal relationships as compared to the males.

The issue of dating violence has received considerable research

attention over the past several years. The social problem created by

adolescents being both physically and psychologically violent toward a

dating partner, and the resulting victimization, is cause for serious

concern. Several factors have emerged from the extant research. First, it

is apparent that both physical and psychological abuse occurs regularly

among adolescents. Secondly, certain individual attributes increase the

likelihood of adolescents becoming abusive toward their dating partners.

Previous research has indicated that dating violence among

adolescents is a prevalent problem. James, West, Deters, and Armijo

(2000) reported that 50% of their adolescent participants perpetrated

physical violence in the form of scratching, pushing, shoving, and hitting

with fist. Yet other studies have indicated that as many as 40% of the

adolescent participants had perpetrated some form of physical violence

456 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

against the dating partner (Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997;

O′Keefe, 1997; O′Keefe & Treister, 1998; O’Leary, Smith Slep, Avery-

Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008; Reuterman & Burcky, 1989). The exhibiting of

violent acts of a more serious nature is also apparent during the

adolescent years. In one such study, James et al. (2000) found that 20%

of the participants reported committing violent behaviors such as biting,

choking, burning, physically twisting an arm, and hitting a partner with a

hard object. O’Leary et al. (2008) found that injuries were reported by

more than 25% of their high-schoolers who had been the recipients of

physical aggression. Furthermore, another study unearthed a disturbing

trend; the prevalence of serious aggression increased as age increased in

a huge sample of 16-20 year-olds (Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O’Leary, &

Gonzalez, 2007).

Similar prevalence percentages have also been reported for

perpetrating psychological dating violence and experiencing

psychological victimization in dating relationships. James et al. (2000)

found that approximately half of the adolescent participants reported

being psychologically abusive toward the dating partner; furthermore,

James and his colleagues reported that 50% had been victims of

psychological dating violence. Verbal aggression was perpetrated by

about 94% of the adolescents in another study (Munoz-Rivas, et al.,

2007).

In an attempt to understand the nature of this violence, recent

research has focused on identifying characteristics of the abusers.

Alcohol/drug intoxication has been shown to increase the likelihood of

engaging in dating violence (O′Keefe, 1997; O′Keeffe, Brockopp &

Chew, 1986; Roscoe & Kelsey, 1986). Adolescents who live in rural

settings also tend to be more likely to perpetrate dating violence

(Reuterman & Burcky, 1989; Spencer & Bryant, 2000). Linder, Crick

and Collins found that being alienated from one’s mother was a marker

for physical dating violence (2002). There is also considerable evidence

for gender differences in the perception and use of violence in dating

relationships (O’Keefe & Treister, 1998; also see Straus, 1999, for an

excellent review of the lengthy history of the gender controversy in

violent dating relationships).

Straus (1999) argued that effective prevention strategies for

adolescents and young adults are likely to follow in the wake of research

on violence in dating relationships. With that ultimate goal in mind, the

purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects that the

relationship with the maternal figure would have on the tendency to

display both psychological and physical abusive patterns. In light of

existing gender differences it was further decided to compare males and

females across three categories of maternal relationships. We

Nicodemus, Davenport & McCutcheon DATING VIOLENCE 457

hypothesized that dating aggression would be higher among those

persons identified as having a negative maternal relationship.

METHOD

Participants

The participants came from a pool of 688 ninth grade students across

the mid-region of the Mississippi Delta, with a mean age of 14.84 years.

Sixty-eight percent of those pooled reported having experienced previous

dating relationships (n=469). Of these 469 participants, 96% were

African American, 2% were White, and 1% were “other.” Fifty-one

percent of the participants were females and 49% were males.

Measures

Dating Violence Questionnaire. The dating violence assessment

consisted of four abusive components including: 1) victimization of

physical violence, 2) perpetration of physical violence, 3) victimization

of psychological violence, and 4) perpetration of psychological violence

(for a lengthier description of the dating violence questionnaire, see

Foshee et al., 1996). The subtest measuring victimization-physical

violence included an 18-item self-report list that measures the number of

physically violent acts experienced by the individual (e.g., scratched me,

slapped me, physically twisted my arm, etc.). The subtest for

perpetration-physical violence consisted of an 18-item self-report list

assessing the frequency of committing physically violent behaviors

toward the dating partner (e.g., scratched them, slapped them, physically

twisted their arm, etc.). The victimization of psychological violence was

measured with a 14-item self-report subtest (e.g., damaged something

that belonged to me, said something to hurt my feelings, etc.). The

subtest measuring perpetration of psychological violence toward the

dating partner was a 14-item self-report assessment (e.g., damaged

something that belonged to them, said things to hurt their feelings on

purpose, etc.). Total scores for each of the four violent behavior subtests

were obtained by summing the respective test item scores for each

question within the specific subtest.

Foshee and colleagues (1996) did not report psychometric data, but

their items were written in simple, direct language and had face validity

for an instrument designed to measure dating violence (i.e. slapped,

kicked, hit with a fist, forced to have sex). Furthermore, the results they

obtained from using this dating violence questionnaire are consistent

with what one would expect from the use of a valid measure of this sort.

For example, we would expect that the percentage of teens that had been

pushed, slapped or kicked on a date would be considerably higher than

the percentage of those who had been assaulted with a knife or gun. In

458 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

fact, Foshee and colleagues found that almost 20% of their sample

reported having experienced these milder forms of aggression, but only

2.4% reported having been assaulted with a knife or gun. Similar (but

slightly lower) numbers were reported for perpetration of these violent

acts.

Procedure

Each of the participants completed the dating violence questionnaire

in a single setting for approximately one hour. Participants were excused

from the regular class schedule to participate in the present study. The

data analyzed in the present study were obtained from the pretest

measurement used in a three-year study investigating several issues

related to dating violence.

The three levels in the independent variable of maternal relationship

were determined by responses from the participants to the question,

“How close are you to your mother?” Those participants that reported

being very close to the mother were designated as the “positive” group.

Those who reported being either somewhat close or not very close were

placed in the “neutral” group. Finally, those participants that reported not

being close at all were placed in the “negative” group.

RESULTS The prevalence of dating violent behaviors in our study was relatively

high. Results showed that 67% of our participants indicated being a

victim of physical dating violence at least once in a dating relationship.

Sixty-six percent reported perpetrating physical violence toward the

dating partner at some point in the relationship. Furthermore, 76%

indicated that the dating partner had directed some form of psychological

violence toward them, and 80% reported being psychologically violent at

some point toward the dating partner.

The data were analyzed with a series of 3 x 2 (maternal relationship x

gender) two-way Analyses of Variance. These results showed that

maternal relationships and gender had minimal influence on physical

dating violence. Neither maternal relationship nor gender showed

significant main effects for perpetrating physical violence toward the

dating partner; furthermore, these factors demonstrated little influence for

victimization of physical violence for gender differences. In addition,

these results did not yield significant interactions between gender and

maternal relationships for either the perpetration or victimization in

physical dating violence.

However, our results indicated that gender and maternal relationships

do have significant effects in the perpetration and victimization of

psychological dating violence. Results showed a significant main effect

Nicodemus, Davenport & McCutcheon DATING VIOLENCE 459

for gender regarding the victimization of psychological violence, F(1,

452) = 8.77, p < .01 (see Table 1). Closer inspection revealed that males

TABLE 1 Analysis of Variance for Psychological Dating Violence –

Victimization .

Source df F P Gender (A) 1 8.77 .003

Maternal Relationship (S) 2 1.53 .22

A x S 2 3.36 .04

Within-group error 452

had scores that were only slightly higher than those of females in the

positive and neutral categories. However, the sharp elevation in the

experiencing of psychological violence incidents reported by males who

indicated poor maternal relationships, combined with a slight drop for

females who reported negative maternal relationships resulted in a

significant maternal relationship x gender interaction, F(2, 452) = 3.36, p

= .04. The data indicated that males who experienced negative maternal

relationships tended to experience considerably higher levels of

psychological violence than the other two male groups.

A significant interaction was also found with maternal relationships x

gender for perpetration of psychological violence toward the dating

partner, F (2, 452) = 3.53, p = .03 (see Table 2). This significant inter-

TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance for Psychological Dating Violence –

Perpetration Source .

Source df F P Gender (A) 1 0.12 .73

Maternal Relationship (S) 2 1.01 .37

A x S 2 3.53 .03

Within-group error 452

action also involved those who reported negative relationships with their

mothers. Females reported slightly more perpetration than males in the

positive and neutral categories. However, males who reported having

negative maternal relationships tended to perpetrate significantly greater

numbers of psychologically violent acts than did males in the other two

groups, and females with negative maternal relationships reported much

less of a tendency to be psychologically abusive toward the dating

partner than did female participants with positive or neutral relationships.

460 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

This crossover effect wiped out the possibility of a significant main effect

for gender, while simultaneously generating a significant interaction.

DISCUSSION

The tendency for the participants in the present study to demonstrate

high percentages in the perpetration and victimization of physical dating

violence is consistent with previous findings. James, et al. (2000)

reported that 50% of their adolescent participants perpetrated some form

of physical dating violence. Other researchers have found that about 40%

of adolescent participants have been involved in administering a form of

physical violence toward the dating partner (Malik, Sorenson, &

Aneshensel, 1997; O′Keefe, 1997; O′Keefe & Treister, 1998; O’Leary, et

al., 2008; Reuterman & Burcky, 1989). The tendency for adolescent

participants in the present study to display higher percentages than

normally expected may be explained by the fact that African Americans

(Foshee et al., 1996; Malik et al., 1997; O′Keefe, 1997) and individuals

residing in rural settings (Reuterman & Burcky; Spencer & Bryant, 2000)

tend to report higher levels in physical dating violence both as victims

and perpetrators. Therefore, the higher number of psychological dating

violent acts reported by the participants in the present study may be the

result of being primarily African American, or residing in predominantly

rural settings, or a combination of both.

The fact that generally speaking, females were just about as likely to

perpetrate dating violence as males, is consistent with a host of studies

identified by Straus (1999) as ones that used a very broad operational

definition of the term “violence.” According to his interpretation of social

exchange theory, violent exchanges are reciprocal – it takes two to have a

violent exchange. Also, most of these exchanges occur in private, where

couples can get away with (mostly) mild types of aggression, like yelling

and slapping each other. This helps to explain why the frequency of

dating violence is high in studies like ours and roughly the same between

genders. It also enables us to understand why the patterns of perpetration

and victimization parallel each other, within each gender. In other words,

in an exchange of violence both members of the dyad will be perpetrators

and victims, hurting someone and being hurt in return.

According to our results, maternal relationships appear to

significantly influence psychological dating violence. This finding

appears to be partially consistent with Linder, Crick, and Collins (2002),

who reported that the level of mother alienation significantly predicted

the initiation of psychological dating violence. On the other hand, mother

alienation did not predict victimization in psychological dating violence

in their study. Reuterman and Burcky (1989) found that teens who

experienced the most dating violence came from families in which harsh

Nicodemus, Davenport & McCutcheon DATING VIOLENCE 461

punishment was common. Our results, combined with those of these

other two studies, suggest that more attention should be directed toward

parental influences in attempting to understand the precursors to teen

dating violence.

Our gender-by-maternal interactions are of particular interest. The

first of these involves the victimization of psychological dating violence.

Our findings indicated that males demonstrated a higher likelihood of

perceiving themselves as victims of psychological abuse if they

experienced a negative relationship with the mother figure. For females

who reported negative maternal relationships the opposite was true. The

patterns seen in the perpetration interaction were similar to that of the

victimization interaction. In other words, if you are going to “dish it out”

you must learn to “take it” as well.

How might we explain these interaction effects? We might begin by

asking “What do both teen-age boys and girls do when they don’t get

along with their mothers?” One likely answer is that they avoid her

company when possible. According to Straus (1999), this might result in

boys spending more time “hanging out” with boys and girls spending

more time “hanging out” with girls. In our society male culture is more

prone to use violence, while female culture emphasizes talking out one’s

disagreements. Thus, boys who spend much time with other boys may

learn to be more violent and girls who spend much time with other girls

may learn to be less violent. The weakness in this hypothesis is that it

failed to account for the non-interaction in the physical violence domain.

The present research is not without some limitations. First, our results

cannot be generalized to other ethnic groups or to the American

population as a whole. In addition, it may not be prudent to generalize to

other adolescent age groups, since participants in the present study were

primarily within the initial stages of middle adolescence. Because this

time period is more volatile for parent-child relationships (Collins &

Lausen, 2006), our findings may be the result of the typical turmoil found

within these relationships. Finally, both of our interaction effects were

barely significant (.03 and .04). That fact, combined with a huge sample

size, rendered our effect sizes very small.

Straus (1999) suggested that further research is needed to identify

precursors of dating violence in order to design effective prevention

strategies to reduce these inappropriate social behaviors. The present

findings suggest that maternal relationships may be a link to later violent

behaviors in intimate relationships, even if that link is a weak one.

REFERENCES Collins, W. A., & Lausen, B. (2006). Parent-adolescent relationships. In P. Noller

& J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Function forms and processes

(pp. 111-125). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

462 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B.,

Heath, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The safe dates

project: Theoretical basis, evaluation, design, and selected baseline findings.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5), 39-47.

James, W. H., West, C., Deters, K. E., & Armijo, E. (2000). Youth dating

violence. Adolescence, 35(139), 455-465.

Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, A. (2002). Relational aggression and

victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with

perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social

Development, 11(1), 69-86.

Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating

violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 21(5), 291-302.

Munoz-Rivas, M. J., Grana, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & Gonzalez, M. P. (2007).

Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and

health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298-304.

O′Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(4), 546-568.

O′Keefe, M., & Treister, L. (1998). Victims of dating violence among high

school students: Are the predictors different for males and females?

Violence Against Women, 4(2), 195-223.

O′Keeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social

Work, 31(6), 465-468.

O′Leary, K. D., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of

adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent

Psychology, 32 (3), 314-327.

O′Leary, K. D., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2008). Gender differences in dating

aggression among multi-ethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 42, 473-479.

Roscoe, B., & Kelsey, T. (1986). Dating violence among high school students.

Psychology, A Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 23(1), 51-59.

Reuterman, N. A. & Burcky, W. D. (1989). Dating violence in high school: A

profile of the victims. Psychology, A Journal of Human Behavior, 26(4), 1-

9.

Spencer, G. A., & Bryant, S. A. (2000). Dating violence: A comparison of rural,

suburban, and urban teens. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27(5), 302-305.

Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A

methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. P.

Arrage & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp 17-44),

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Acknowledgements: This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention Grant SU4-CCU414165-03. Portions of this article were

presented at the 49 th

Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological

Association, New Orleans, LA.

Copyright of North American Journal of Psychology is the property of North American Journal of Psychology

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.