Adolescent dating and relationship quality: The role of exposure to intimate partner violence in early childhood

Abstract

Children who grow up with exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) experience disproportionately greater cognitive, psychological, and emotional impairments when compared to their peers. Increasingly, research has provided evidence of the long-lasting effects of IPV exposure throughout the life course. This study uses data from four waves (baseline and Years 1, 3, and 15) of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) to examine how IPV exposure affects adolescents’ dating behavior and relationship quality at Year 15. Results indicate that those adolescents with exposure to physical violence at Years 1 and 3 were more likely to be in dating relationships at Year 15 than those without (effect size = 0.40), and for adolescents who were in a dating relationship at Year 15, IPV exposure, particularly exposure to physical violence, significantly reduced relationship quality (effect size = −0.24). These findings call for early screening of IPV exposure among mothers, children, and adolescents, as well as interventions to support victimized mothers and promote healthy adolescent relationships.

Keywords

child neglect children dating intimate partner violence adolescents relationship quality adolescent relationships

Introduction

Approximately 6% of children up to 17 years old have witnessed an assault between their parents within the past year (Finkelhor et al., 2015). The disaggregation of this data reveals that an even greater portion of infants (7.1%) and young children (9.2%) have witnessed violence between their parents (Finkelhor et al., 2015). As child welfare professionals and others continue to engage in discourse regarding the implications of victimized mothers’ involvement in the child welfare system, there has been a rise in scholarship on the effects of early childhood exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) on children. In fact, exposure to IPV is starting to gain recognition as a distinct form of child maltreatment (Kimber et al., 2018). Recent expansions to the definition of violence have also ushered in the production of knowledge on forms of IPV beyond physical abuse and psychological abuse. For example, scholars have begun to consider how exposure to economic abuse may affect children’s developmental outcomes (Huang et al., 2015; Koutselini & Valanidou, 2013; Sternberg et al., 2006; Stylianou et al., 2013). Longitudinal studies that examine the intergenerational transmission of the effects of IPV have indicated that IPV-exposed children may experience effects throughout the life course: later childhood (Harding et al., 2013; Howell et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2015); adolescence (Cisler et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2020; Howell et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2020); and adulthood (Kimber et al., 2018).

IPV exposure may disrupt the successful completion of developmental tasks, like prosocial skill development. This includes learning to be cooperative, having self-assertion and self-control, and showing empathy (Carlson et al., 2019). As early as pre-school age, children who have been exposed to IPV were found to have less social competence compared to their non-exposed peers (Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Wolfe et al., 1985). Poor social competence among IPV-exposed children appears to permeate throughout adolescence (Carlson et al., 2019). Scholarship on the effects of IPV exposure have indicated that adolescents who were exposed to IPV during early childhood may be more likely to be involved in teen dating violence (TDV), indicating their propensity for poorer quality—and even harmful—relationships (Karlsson et al., 2016; O’Keefe, 1997; Temple et al., 2013). Missing from the literature, however, is a longitudinal analysis that investigates the relation between early IPV exposure and teens’ dating behaviors and relationship quality, which may be seen as precursors to the escalation of relationship violence. This study thus utilizes four waves of a nationally representative longitudinal dataset, collected over the course of 15 years, to investigate whether exposure to IPV in early childhood affects adolescents’ dating behaviors and dating relationship quality.

Literature review

The effects of early childhood exposure to IPV

The extant literature on early childhood exposure to IPV has made significant strides in understanding the effects of IPV exposure on child and adolescent development. For instance, mechanism studies have explored the cognitive processes by which IPV-exposed children appraise and understand the violence that they have witnessed (DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011; Överlien, 2017). Semi-structured interviews conducted with children ages 7 to 12 revealed that many children may understand IPV incidents through cause-and-effect, focusing on why violence may occur and the subsequent consequences of violence (DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011). In another study, researchers interviewed an older sample of children and adolescents, ages 8–20 years old, and found that the participants actively used coping strategies to mitigate growing tensions, prevent violence, and manage the fallout of IPV incidents (Överlien, 2017). Participants shared about trying to distract their mothers’ partners, comfort their mothers, and even to “take revenge” against the perpetrator. Both studies exemplified children’s active engagement in attempts to process—and sometimes intervene in—the IPV to which they have been exposed. Beyond this, the results of these studies point to the cognitive processes that may lead to the development of psychopathology and sociobehavioral issues as children grow.

IPV-exposed children display disproportionately higher rates of impaired behavioral, emotional, social, and cognitive functioning, relative to their non-IPV-exposed peers (Koutselini & Valadinou, 2013; Sternberg et al., 2006). Children with early childhood exposure to IPV engage in aggressive and antisocial behaviors more frequently (Moylan et al., 2010; Sousa et al., 2011), as exhibited by a youth participant in Överlien’s (2017) study who described acting violently and destroying his stepfather’s property to “get even” with him after harming the participant’s mother. IPV-exposed children also have higher rates of depression and anxiety (Garrido et al., 2011; Överlien, 2010) as well as of behavior disorders (Miranda et al., 2011). They have also been shown to experience greater symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For example, children exposed to IPV have been shown to experience great distress in the presence of inter-adult conflict (DeJonghe et al., 2005), supporting the concept of relational PTSD (Scheeringa & Zeanah, 2001), or the co-occurrence of trauma symptoms in a caregiver and their child when the caregiver cannot successfully self-regulate their emotions and behaviors. Similarly, Bogat et al. (2006) found that 44% of the infants in a sample of mother-infant dyads exhibited at least one trauma symptom. These psychosocial effects can also manifest in later outcomes such as substance use, engagement in delinquency, and violence perpetration and victimization (Huang et al., 2015; Överlien, 2017; Ruel et al., 2020; Schiff et al., 2014).

Early dating and relationship quality: precursors of teen dating violence

Involvement in TDV, including both victimization and perpetration, has been studied widely in adolescent populations with various kinds of adverse childhood experiences. For example, studies have found that TDV occurs most frequently among adolescents who have witnessed interparental violence (Karlsson et al., 2016; O’Keefe, 1997; Temple et al., 2013) and those who have experienced child abuse and neglect (Wekerle et al., 2009). Meanwhile, fewer scholars have studied relationship conditions that may precipitate TDV, like self-rated relationship quality (Linder et al., 2002; Orpinas et al., 2013).

TDV represents an extreme form of harmful interpersonal processes. By contrast, early onset of dating behaviors and poor relationship quality may come across as less immediately concerning. Yet, both may give way to future problems such as smoking and drinking (Fidler et al., 2006; Orpinas et al., 2013), TDV involvement (Linder et al., 2002; Orpinas et al., 2013), and delinquency (Seffrin et al., 2009). In a longitudinal study by Orpinas et al. (2013), relationship quality, measured by respondents’ perception of whether they are in a caring relationship, was lower among adolescents who reported increasing trajectories of dating violence. Furthermore, adolescents who report a high level of involvement in dating relationships are more likely to associate with delinquent peers and, in turn, engage in delinquency themselves (Seffrin et al., 2009). Other outcomes associated with early dating include alcohol use (Martin et al., 2007) and low self-esteem (Simmons et al., 1979), which have been found to be predictive of TDV involvement—both perpetration (O’Keefe, 1997; Temple et al., 2013) and victimization (Bolívar-Suárez et al., 2021; Maas et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2018a).

In sum, early dating behaviors and poor relationship quality are associated with a considerable number of risks that often precede TDV victimization and perpetration. By contrast, evidence points to a positive correlation between romantic relationship quality and happiness (Demir, 2007). Based on previous research, it is evident that the age at which adolescents begin dating and their perceived relationship quality can have great influence on their development and future outcomes. However, the literature on dating and relationship quality among IPV-exposed adolescents is scant.

Early childhood IPV exposure and adolescent dating

Given that early childhood IPV exposure can disrupt the development of healthy parent-child relationships and attachment (Beeble et al., 2007; Sousa et al., 2011), adolescents with such exposure may be at greater risk of being in dating relationships of poor quality. Past research has indicated that attachment style can be an important predictor of romantic relationship quality. Both anxious attachment and avoidant attachment, for example, are detrimental to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicators of relationship quality (Li & Chan, 2012; Saavedra et al., 2010). Those with avoidant attachment tend to experience less relationship satisfaction, connectedness, and support (Li & Chan, 2012). Such individuals have been found to engage in less relationship-focused disclosure with their partners (Tan et al., 2012). Meanwhile, those individuals with anxious attachment experience greater relationship conflict (Li & Chan, 2012), a predictor of female-perpetrated TDV in high school students (O’Keefe, 1997), but less is known about antecedents of dating behaviors and relationship quality in a broader sense.

Theory

Applying Herman’s (1992) trauma theory, we hypothesize that those adolescents who were exposed to IPV in early childhood will be more likely to be in dating relationships at age 15 and will be more likely to report low quality relationships. Herman’s (1992) seminal work on trauma succinctly states that trauma “calls into question basic human relationships” (Herman, 1992, “Disconnection,” para. (1)). Damage to relational life, according to trauma theory, is a manifestation of the primary effects of trauma on an individual’s systems of attachment. This creates a sense of alienation or disconnection that permeates an individual’s relationships, ranging from familial bonds, friendships, romantic partnerships, and even “abstract affiliations of community” (Herman, 1992, “Disconnection,” para. (4)). With respect to early childhood IPV exposure, IPV between a mother and partner creates an environment of disrupted and unstable relationships. As such, a child’s feelings of safety and intimacy may be challenged. Especially amid caretakers, such as a mother or parents, the lack of safety and connection can create developmental conflicts, including disrupted development of the self, shattered belief in safety and community, and other psychological vulnerabilities (Herman, 1992). Together, these can limit the progression of healthy and positive relationships. Even so, a survivor of trauma may seek out intimate relationships to gratify a deeply rooted need for protection and care (Herman, 1992). Indeed, a past study found that stress in family life, marital unhappiness, and child-mother emotional distance were indirectly associated with earlier dating through early menstruation (Kim et al., 1997; Kim & Smith, 1998). This aligned with Belsky et al.’s (1991) hypothesis that early childhood stress is associated with childhood behavioral symptoms, early onset of puberty, and early and less discriminate sexual activity. While emphasis has been placed on the link between family conflict and early engagement in sexual activity, however, the onset of dating behavior remains largely understudied. As such, conceptualizing IPV exposure as a traumatic event which can cause significant childhood stress, we hypothesize that IPV-exposed children are more likely to seek out intimate relationships at age 15 in response to “the fear of abandonment and exploitation” (Herman, 1992, “The Child Grown Up,” para. (2)). We also hypothesize that due to disruptions to the ability to form meaningful social relationships, IPV-exposed children may report lower quality dating relationships.

Relevance and significance

To our knowledge, researchers have yet to examine the dating experiences of IPV-exposed children, as the long-term effects of childhood IPV exposure constitute an emerging field of study. Past research has already highlighted that childhood exposure to family violence and IPV may predict TDV involvement (Karlsson et al., 2016; O’Keefe, 1997; Temple et al., 2013), but broader adolescent dating experiences remain understudied, despite the significant and negative relation between relationship quality and TDV. This study examines the complex relations among different types of IPV exposure (i.e., physical, economic, and emotional) and dating in adolescence, while controlling for several covariates. Using four waves of data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS; Reichman et al., 2001), this study examines the effects of IPV exposure at Years 1 and 3 on dating and dating quality at Year 15. These results can be applied to the work of those who are involved in clinical practice, law enforcement, policy, and child welfare, among others.

Data and method

Data

The data for this study came from the FFCWS, which provides comprehensive information on family characteristics and the well-being of children over the course of more than 15 years. Data collection took place in 20 large U.S. cities, defined as those cities with populations of 200,000 people or greater, via stratified random sampling. Interviewers collected baseline data at the time of the focal child’s birth between 1998 and 2000. At baseline, data were collected from 4898 mothers. Subsequent follow-up surveys were conducted when the focal child was 1, 3, 5, 9, and 15 years old. This paper utilizes data from baseline and Years 1, 3, and 15 (see Reichman et al., 2001 for detailed research design).

4365 mothers, out of the 4898 at baseline, were interviewed at Year 1, and 4231 were interviewed at Year 3. At Year 15, data were collected from focal children and their parents. Dating behavior and relationship quality were self-reported by the focal children at Year 15. Thus, we include data reported by the focal children in our analysis. Out of 4898 baseline cases, 3444 children answered the surveys at Year 15.

The use of a longitudinal dataset allows us to properly account for temporal sequencing of the independent and dependent variables. IPV exposure, our main independent variable, was based on mothers’ reports of IPV victimization at Years 1 and 3. The dependent variables, dating behavior and relationship quality, were based on adolescents’ self-reported dating behaviors during the Year 15 interview. Given that IPV exposure, dating behavior, and relationship quality are the variables of interest in this study, cases with missing information on any of these variables were excluded. 30 adolescents did not answer questions about dating behaviors in the Year 15 survey. At Year 1, 758 mothers did not provide information about exposure to IPV, and at Year 3, 378 did not provide information about exposure to IPV. Excluding these cases, our final analytic sample consisted of 2510 adolescents. Rates of missing information for other variables were below 5%. To predict missing information, we performed multiple imputations, imputing five datasets, assuming that missing observations were missing at random (MAR).

Measures

Dating Behavior in Adolescence (Year 15) was measured by three metrics. The first asked respondents if they had ever dated someone. When reporting our results, we call this variable dating history. The question reads as follows: “Have you ever dated someone? Remember, by dating we mean when you like someone and she or he likes you back. It doesn’t have to mean going on a ‘formal’ date.” The second question asked whether respondents were in a dating relationship at the time of survey: “Is there someone you are currently dating?” In our results, we refer to this variable as current dating. Respondents who answered affirmatively to this question were then asked about their relationship quality: “In general, would you say that your relationship with your partner is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” We coded the answers from 1 to 5, reflecting poor to excellent relationship quality, respectively.

IPV (Years 1 and 3) was measured in three dimensions: physical violence, economic abuse, and emotional control. At Years 1 and 3, interviewers asked mothers to report their experiences with IPV. Three items were used to measure physical violence. Mothers were asked about whether their partners “slapped or kicked” them, hit them “with [their] fist or a dangerous object,” and “tried to make [them] have sex or do sexual things [that they] didn’t want to do.” Due to low prevalence of sexual violence in the sample (less than 4%) and the high correlation between sexual violence and physical violence (r = 0.41), sexual violence was treated as a type of physical violence. Economic abuse was measured according to the following items (Huang et al., 2013), which asked whether the mother’s partner engaged in these behaviors: “tried to prevent you from going to work and/or school” and “withheld money, made [respondent] ask for money, or took [respondent’s] money.” Emotional control was measured by whether the partner engaged in the following two behaviors: “insults or criticizes [respondent] or [respondent’s] ideas” and “tries to keep [respondent] from seeing or talking with [respondent’s] friends or family.” When violence occurred at Year 1 or Year 3, occurrence of violence, a binary variable, had a value of 1. Otherwise, it was assigned a value of 0. We assessed level of violence by adding together the occurrences of each type of violence at Years 1 and 3. The levels of physical violence, economic abuse, and emotional control each ranged from 0-s. Total level of violence was calculated by taking the sum of all types (range 0–6).

IPV (Year 15) was measured by one question to mothers: “Have you and your current partner or biological father of the child had a physical fight in front of child in the last year?” Affirmative answers were assigned a value of 1. Otherwise, this variable had a value of 0. The Year 15 survey of FFCWS did not use the same IPV measures as those used in Years 1 and 3, thus limiting our ability to capture the occurrence of other IPV types when the focal children were about 15 years old.

We include both mother and child socioeconomic characteristics that have been shown to be associated with various child behavioral outcomes, including TDV, in previous research. For child characteristics, we include sex (0 = girl, 1 = boy), age (Year 15), race, and temperament (Year 1). Maternal perception of the focal child’s temperament was measured using a 6-item scale which asked mothers to respond with the degree to which each statement described their child: “child tends to be shy, often fusses and cries,” “is very sociable” (reverse coded), “is easily upset,” “reacts strongly when upset,” and “is very friendly with strangers” (reverse coded). Mothers could respond from 1 (not at all like my child) to 5 (very much like my child), and higher scores indicate a more difficult temperament. The score for the entire scale was measured by taking the average of all responses. Maternal and family characteristics included mother’s age (at baseline), race, educational attainment (at baseline), and relationship status (at baseline). Educational attainment was a categorical variable with the following three categories: less than a high school degree, high school degree, and college and above. Relationship status with the child’s father at baseline was measured in four categories: not romantically involved; visiting (meaning the father did not reside with the family but was romantically involved with the mother); cohabiting; and married.

Analytic techniques

We hypothesize that adolescents’ dating history, current dating, and relationship quality at Year 15 are influenced by IPV exposure at Years 1 and 3, IPV exposure at Year 15, the child’s characteristics, and their mother’s characteristics. First, we conducted descriptive analyses to assess occurrence and level of exposure to IPV during early childhood (Years 1 and 3), IPV exposure (Year 15; occurrence only), and dating behaviors (Year 15), along with the child’s and mother’s socioeconomic characteristics. This was followed by multivariate regressions with dating history, current dating, and relationship quality at Year 15.

The framework underlying this study posits that dating outcomes in adolescence are determined by IPV Exposure at Years 1 and 3, IPV exposure at Year 15, and socioeconomic characteristics of the adolescents and their mothers. The specification of the analytic model is represented by the following equation

Y_{i} = α_{i} + β_{i} * χ_{i} + C_{i} + ε_{i}

where Y_i is dating history, current dating, or relationship quality (Year 15) of subject i; α_i is the individual constant; χ is a vector of early childhood IPV (Years 1 and 3), IPV during adolescence (Year 15), and socioeconomic characteristics of respondent i and their mother (baseline); β is a vector of regression coefficients; and ε_i is the cross-section error component. We first used logit regression to examine the effects of independent variables on dating at Year 15 within the whole sample (N= 2510), then used ordinary least squares (OLS) and logit regressions to investigate the relation between the independent variables and dating behavior and, for adolescents who reported that they were in a dating relationship (N = 685), relationship quality. STATA software 16.0 was used for all analyses.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for all variables. For brevity, here, we highlight only the descriptive statistics of main variables, as well as some of the mothers’ characteristics. Among the 2510 adolescents in our sample, about 77% of respondents had a history of dating, and 27% were in a dating relationship at the time of survey (N = 685). Among those that were in a dating relationship, the average score for relationship quality was 0.2. About 47% of the sample was Black, followed by Hispanic (24.9%), non-Hispanic White (24.6), and other races (3.8%). The racial composition of our analytic sample mirrored that of the FFCWS baseline sample.

Table 1.

Characteristics of key variables.

	Mean (S.D.)
Child characteristics
Dating history (%)	77.2
Currently dating at Y15 (%)	27.3
Relationship quality [1–5] *	4.3 (0.8)
Boy (%)	50.6
Age at Year 15	15.6 (0.7)
Race (%)
Non-Hispanic White	24.6
Black	46.7
Hispanic	24.9
Other race	3.8
Temperament at Year 1	2.5 (0.8)
Mother and family characteristics
Age at baseline	25.4 (6.0)
Educational attainment at baseline (%)
Below high school	29.6
High school	30.9
Above high school	39.5
Relationship status at baseline (%)
Not involved	3.9
Visiting	26.1
Cohabiting	40.6
Married	29.4
Physical violence occurrence at Y1–3 (%)	14.2
Economic abuse occurrence at Y1–3 (%)	26.9
Emotional control occurrence at Y1–3 (%)	63.7
IPV Occurrence at Y1–3 (%)	66.8
Physical violence at Y1–3 [0–2]	0.2 (0.5)
Economic abuse at Y1–3 [0–2]	0.4 (0.6)
Personal control at Y1–3 [0–2]	0.9 (0.8)
IPV at Y1–3 [0–6]	1.5 (1.5)
IPV at Y15 (%)	4.8
N	2510

Note: * Only those dating at the time of the survey were asked this question (N=685).

About two-thirds (66.8%) of mothers reported having experienced IPV at either Year 1 or Year 3. Specifically, 14% experienced physical violence, 27% experienced economic abuse, and 64% experienced emotional control. On a 0 to 6 scale, the average level of IPV experienced by mothers was 1.5. The average levels of physical violence, economic abuse, and emotional control were 0.2, 0.4, and 0.9, respectively. At Year 15, about 5% of the mothers reported that they had physical fights in front of their children in the last year.

Regression results

Dating during adolescence

Table 2 shows the logit regression estimates of dating in adolescence (Year 15). While holding all other variables constant, IPV at Years 1 and 3 and IPV at Year 15 were not associated with the likelihood of having a dating history nor current dating at Year 15. Current dating was positively related to respondent age. Maternal socioeconomic characteristics had significant associations with current dating as well. Adolescents with mothers whose educational attainment was below high school were more likely to be in a relationship at Year 15 than those whose mothers had a college education or higher (b = 0.29, OR = 1.34). Adolescents with mothers who were married at baseline were less likely to engage in dating at Year 15 than those with mothers who had no relationship with the adolescent’s father (b = −0.58, OR = 0.55).

Table 2.

Logit regression estimates of dating at Year 15.

	Dating history			Current dating
	B	S. E.	p	B	S. E.	p
IPV at Year 15 (occurrence)	0.18	0.29	0.538	0.13	0.22	0.560
IPV at Years 1–3 (level)	0.06	0.03	0.064	0.04	0.03	0.173
Boy	0.50	0.10	0.000***	−0.04	0.09	0.646
Age	0.40	0.07	0.000***	0.19	0.06	0.002**
Non-Hispanic Black	−0.06	0.14	0.657	−0.01	0.13	0.951
Hispanic	−0.49	0.14	0.001***	−0.18	0.14	0.195
Other race	−0.75	0.24	0.002**	−0.41	0.29	0.148
Temperament	−0.01	0.07	0.829	0.03	0.06	0.637
Mother’s age at birth	−0.04	0.01	0.000***	−0.02	0.01	0.043*
Below high school at birth	0.03	0.13	0.807	0.29	0.12	0.019*
High school at birth	0.25	0.13	0.047*	0.26	0.12	0.028*
Visiting at birth	0.30	0.27	0.269	−0.17	0.23	0.445
Cohabited at birth	0.06	0.26	0.817	−0.25	0.22	0.263
Married at birth	−0.41	0.27	0.129	−0.59	0.24	0.015*
Constant	−4.24	1.17	0.000	−3.35	0.99	0.001

Note: N=2510. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Table 3 presents tests of robustness using various IPV specifications. We performed the same regression analyses that produced Table 2 but replaced the IPV variable with different specifications of IPV, either IPV occurrence (dichotomous variable) or level of each IPV type (i.e., physical, economic, or emotional; continuous variable). For simplicity, we only present the results of the IPV specifications in Table 3, as the results for other variables were similar to those reported in Table 2. Each entry represents a different regression analysis. Occurrence (b = 0.26, OR = 1.30) and level (b = 0.20, OR = 1.22) of exposure to economic abuse increased the likelihood of reporting dating history at Year 15. The results also show that exposure to physical abuse at Years 1 and 3 had a significant effect on current dating at Year 15. Adolescents whose mothers experienced physical violence had a greater likelihood of dating at Year 15 than those whose mothers did not experience any physical violence (b = 0.30, OR = 1.35). The level of physical violence also had a significant and positive effect on dating at Year 15 (b = 0.20, OR = 1.22). The effect size of exposure to physical IPV was moderate (0.2/0.5 = 0.4).

Table 3.

Robustness tests of IPV on dating at Year 15.

	Dating history			Current dating
	B	S. E.	p	B	S. E.	p
Occurrence of IPV
IPV at Years 1–3	0.13	0.10	0.195	−0.03	0.09	0.788
Physical violence at Y1–3	0.17	0.15	0.265	0.31	0.12	0.012*
Economic abuse at Y1–3	0.26	0.12	0.024*	0.16	0.10	0.122
Personal control at Y1–3	0.10	0.10	0.292	−0.04	0.09	0.659
Level of IPV
IPV at Years 1–3 [0–6]	0.06	0.03	0.064	0.04	0.03	0.173
Physical violence at Y1–3 [0–2]	0.10	0.11	0.359	0.21	0.09	0.022*
Economic abuse at Y1–3 [0–2]	0.20	0.09	0.023*	0.1	0.07	0.151
Personal control at Y1–3 [0–2]	0.06	0.06	0.268	0.01	0.05	0.967

Note: N=2510. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Relationship quality

OLS regression (Table 4) was performed to examine the effects of exposure to IPV on relationship quality among those adolescents who reported that they were in a dating relationship at the time of the Year 15 survey (N= 685). IPV exposure at Years 1 and 3 was negatively associated with relationship quality (b = −0.04), while IPV exposure at Year 15 did not have a significant effect on relationship quality. Adolescents of the “other race” category were more likely to report negative relationship quality than White adolescents.

Table 4.

Regression estimates of relationship quality at Year 15.

	Relationship quality
	B	S. E.	p
IPV at Year 15 (occurrence)	−0.03	0.17	0.880
IPV at Years 1–3 (level)	−0.04	0.02	0.035*
Boy	0.12	0.06	0.073
Age	0.03	0.04	0.363
Non-Hispanic Black	−0.16	0.09	0.067
Hispanic	−0.10	0.10	0.285
Other race	−0.64	0.21	0.003**
Temperament	−0.03	0.04	0.504
Mother’s age at birth	0.00	0.01	0.714
Below high school at birth	−0.02	0.09	0.804
High school at birth	0.10	0.08	0.213
Visiting at birth	−0.06	0.15	0.683
Cohabited at birth	0.11	0.15	0.446
Married at birth	0.13	0.16	0.436
Constant	3.78	0.68	0.000

Note: N=685. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

We conducted robustness tests by regressing dating quality on different IPV specifications in Table 5. The analyses were the same as those of the models in Table 4, except that the IPV variable was replaced by either occurrence or level of each type of IPV. For simplicity, we only present the results for the IPV specifications in Table 5; the results for other variables were similar to those reported in Table 4. Each entry represents a different regression analysis. The results indicate that adolescents’ relationship quality is affected by level of IPV but not IPV occurrence. Levels of physical abuse, economic abuse, and total abuse all had significant negative effects on relationship quality (b = −0.12, −0.10, and −0.04, respectively). The relative effect sizes were small to moderate, at −0.24, −0.17, and −0.03, respectively.

Table 5.

Robustness tests of IPV on dating quality at Year 15.

	Relationship quality
	B	S. E.	p
Occurrence of IPV
IPV at Years 1–3	−0.01	0.07	0.840
Physical violence at Y1–3	−0.14	0.08	0.095
Economic abuse at Y1–3	−0.12	0.07	0.075
Personal control at Y1–3	−0.03	0.07	0.618
Level of IPV
IPV at Years 1–3 [0–6]	−0.04	0.02	0.035*
Physical violence at Y1–3 [0–2]	−0.12	0.06	0.044*
Economic abuse at Y1–3 [0–2]	−0.11	0.05	0.035*
Personal control at Y1–3 [0–2]	−0.04	0.04	0.289

Note: N=685. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Discussion

This study examined whether IPV exposure during early childhood is related to adolescent dating and relationship quality while controlling for several covariates. The results of analyses using a large longitudinal dataset indicated that being in a dating relationship at Year 15 is not significantly associated with early exposure to IPV, but results from robustness tests showed that exposure to physical violence had a particularly strong and positive effect on adolescents’ likelihood of dating at Year 15 (effect size = 0.4). Other indicators that were predictive of dating at Year 15 included age, which was positively associated with dating, and mother’s educational attainment, which had a negative association with adolescent dating. Relationship quality was negatively related to IPV exposure and was lower among adolescents who were exposed to physical and economic abuse. In all, the results of this study suggest that IPV-exposed children, particularly those who were exposed to physical violence, are more likely to be in a dating relationship at Year 15. While dating itself is not inherently a risky behavior, our results show that adolescents who have been exposed to physical IPV during early childhood tend to report dating relationships that are poorer in quality, which, according to our literature review, may predispose them to greater TDV involvement. In fact, in results not shown, there was a positive association between reporting poor relationship quality and TDV involvement. At the time of writing this article, we are working on another paper which uses the FFCWS dataset to examine the relation between early childhood IPV exposure and TDV involvement. Results showed that early IPV exposure is related to TDV involvement, including both perpetrating dating violence and being a victim of dating violence.

Poor romantic relationship quality has been found to be associated with a number of severe outcomes: alcohol and drug use (Fidler et al., 2006; Orpinas et al., 2013), TDV involvement (Linder et al., 2002; Orpinas et al., 2013), and delinquency (Seffrin et al., 2009). This raises concerns for the healthy development of adolescents who have been exposed to IPV during early childhood, as close relationships, such as romantic relationships, during adolescence and early adulthood are integral to the promotion of healthy development and well-being (Brown, 1999; Connolly & Goldberg, 1999; Furman & Shaffer, 2003; Furman & Wehner, 1994). In fact, contrary to the common and dismissive conceptualization that adolescent dating is merely “puppy love,” theories about adolescent romantic relationships posit that involvement in a dating relationship accomplishes certain developmental tasks and holds a key role in the development of identity, sexuality, and close peer relationships (Furman & Wehner, 1994). Other scholars have theorized a normative trajectory wherein adolescents progressively become involved in a long-term committed relationship after gradually building up sexual and emotional intimacy with past partners (Brown, 1999; Connolly & Goldberg, 1999). Indeed, adolescent relationships are also strongly associated with relationship quality in young adulthood (Madsen & Collins, 2011; Seiffge-Krenke, 2003). Those adolescents who reported better quality dating relationships at age 16 demonstrated healthier relationship processes, such as conflict negotiation, later during young adulthood (Madsen & Collins, 2011).

The life course has dramatically changed in current generations of emerging adults, with young people typically marrying at later ages than past generations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Half of all adolescents have been in dating relationships by age 15 to 16 (Carver et al., 2003; van Zantvliet et al., 2020), leading most individuals to have anywhere from 10 to 12 years of romantic experience prior to marriage now. This, taken with the fact that IPV-exposed children are more likely to be involved in poor quality relationships, which can predispose them to later TDV experiences, suggests that IPV-exposed youth may experience considerable disruptions in their development during this time and subsequently struggle to develop intimacy with and trust in others (Herman, 1992).

The findings of this study point to the existence of long-term effects of childhood exposure to IPV, whether that violence takes the form of physical or economic abuse. This is consistent with trauma theory (Herman, 1992) and adds to the existing evidence supporting persistent effects of early IPV exposure, including teen depression symptoms (Chen et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020) and late childhood delinquency (Huang et al., 2015). Using a representative longitudinal dataset, this study points to the intergenerational transmission of IPV effects, whereby children of victimized mothers may develop parallel experiences of negative romantic relationships. The potential mechanism for this relation may be explained by trauma theory (Herman, 1992), which posits that childhood trauma challenges feelings of safety, intimacy, and connectedness and, in turn, results in negative behavioral, health, and relational outcomes. Our study illustrates a negative relational outcome—poor dating quality—of childhood IPV exposure, but a future study may empirically test a trauma theory-informed mechanism to uncover mediators between IPV exposure and dating quality.

The presence of significantly lower quality relationships among those adolescents who were exposed to severe IPV suggests that they may also be at risk of TDV involvement, although further research is required. Even so, this is concerning, considering that some studies have found that relationship violence in adolescence is linked to adult IPV, indicating the potential cyclic nature of IPV (Cutter-Wilson & Richmond, 2011). This necessitates early screenings and rigorous interventions to detect possible exposure to IPV and to mitigate later socioemotional and behavioral problems. Prenatal and perinatal care appointments should include routine screenings to identify individuals experiencing IPV and to make the appropriate referrals for community domestic violence agencies (Bailey, 2010; O’Reilly et al., 2010; Sharps et al., 2007). Healthcare providers must receive training and acquire the knowledge to be able to identify signs of abuse, as well as to create a nonjudgmental environment in which victims may feel safe to disclose their situations (Elliot et al., 2002).

School-based prevention programming remains the most popular form of TDV prevention in this age group. Such programs can educate adolescents on healthy interpersonal skills to encourage positive and caring relationships (Adler-Baeder et al., 2007; Antle et al., 2011; Close, 2005; Foshee et al., 2005; Tharp, 2012; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). While prevention programs have been both universal and targeted (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999), our study suggests that IPV-exposed children are particularly at risk of having worse relationships, indicating a need for more targeted interventions for this vulnerable population (e.g., Antle et al., 2011). It is also worth emphasizing that programs and policies for IPV-exposed children and adolescents should remain strengths-based, supporting the resilience of children and adolescents, as well as leveraging already existing community- and family-based supports (Nguyen et al., 2012).

Finally, a discussion of our study’s results is incomplete without acknowledging the implications of the findings with respect to the racial composition of our analytic sample. Nearly half (46.7%) of the analytic sample was Black, which approximated the 47.5% of Black respondents in the original FFCWS sample. Applying key tenets of QuantCrit (Garcia et al., 2018), it is necessary for us to interrogate the assumed neutrality of numbers and their role in “promoting deficit analyses that serve white racial interests” (p. 151). One reason for this pitfall is that racism, as a central, complex, and deeply rooted aspect of society, cannot be easily quantified (Garcia et al., 2018). This is evidenced in our statistical model, which uses the variable of “race” rather than one called “racism.” Indeed, it is not race that is necessarily driving our results, but likely the systemic oppression of racial groups and especially of those who hold multiply marginalized identities, such as Black women (Crenshaw, 1991). Over three decades ago, Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) called attention to the intragroup differences among women with respect to race and among Black Americans with respect to gender. However, recent scholarship has underscored that Black women continue to experience greater rates of physical IPV (Black et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2018b), greater mental health burden (Lacey et al., 2021b; Stockman et al., 2015), and greater barriers to supportive services (Lacey et al., 2021a). In consideration of this, interventions must also be cognizant of the systemic factors (Pickover et al., 2017) that increase Black women’s risk of victimization, their children’s risk of exposure, and the mental health burden that both mothers and their children must subsequently carry.

These results must be interpreted within the context of a few limitations. First, due to sample attrition, the final sample only included about 51.2% of the original sample, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. Second, many of our variables relied on self-reports. These include mothers’ experiences with IPV and all variables related to dating. Thus, these variables are subject to reporting errors. Given that many of these variables involve sensitive and stigmatized subjects, both mothers and adolescents may not have answered truthfully, and results may have been affected by social desirability bias. Third, the FFCWS was not designed to collect in-depth data on IPV and therefore did not include rich measures of different types of IPV. The narrow measures may underestimate the prevalence of IPV within the sample, biasing the estimates produced by our analyses. In addition, the items used to measure economic abuse may be related to concepts of coercive control and entrapment, warranting future studies to apply a more comprehensive scale that encompasses economic control, economic exploitation, and employment sabotage (Stylianou et al., 2013). Furthermore, while FFCWS is a longitudinal study, limitations of the publicly available dataset prevented us from being able to track the outcome variable over multiple timepoints. At the time of writing this article, the most recent wave of data comes from Year 15. The dating variables had just been added to data collection during this wave. Although fieldwork for Year 22 data collection began in 2020, it is not yet available.

Finally, a few limitations related to sociodemographic information must be mentioned. It is well-documented that LGBTQ+ individuals (Decker et al., 2018) and individuals with disabilities (Mitra et al., 2013) may be particularly vulnerable to dating violence victimization, which warrants the future examination of dating quality among IPV-exposed LGBTQ+ adolescents and adolescents with disabilities. We did not include gender identity, sexuality, and disability in our model. It is therefore essential to recognize the underlying assumptions of heteronormativity and able-bodied participants in the current model.

Despite these limitations, this paper increases our understanding of the effects of exposure to IPV on children’s long-term behavioral outcomes. We provide evidence to support frequent prenatal and perinatal IPV screening, along with appropriate follow-up safety measures and referrals, and the implementation of programming to promote healthy interpersonal skills and relationships among adolescents with early childhood exposure to IPV.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained at: . The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: huangc@ssw.rutgers.edu.

ORCID iD

Shannon P. Cheung

References

Adler‐Baeder

Kerpelman

Schramm

Higginbotham

Paulk

(2007). The impact of relationship education on adolescents of diverse backgrounds. Family Relations, 56(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00460.x

Antle

B. F.

Sullivan

D. J.

Dryden

Karam

E. A.

Barbee

A. P.

(2011). Healthy relationship education for dating violence prevention among high-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review , 33(1), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.031

Bailey

B. A.

(2010). Partner violence during pregnancy: Prevalence, effects, screening, and management. International Journal of Women’s Health, 2(1), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S8632

Beeble

M. L.

Bybee

Sullivan

C. M.

(2007). Abusive men’s use of children to control their partners and ex-partners. European Psychologist, 12(1), 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.12.1.54

Belsky

Steinberg

Draper

(1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62(4), 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01558.x

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Chen

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Bogat

G. A.

DeJonghe

Levendosky

A. A.

Davidson

W. S.

von Eye

(2006). Trauma symptoms among infants exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.09.002

Bolívar-Suárez

Gómez

J. A. M.

Yanez-Peñúñuri

L. Y.

Anacona

C. A. R.

Gómez

A. M. G.

(2021). Self-esteem, body image, and dating violence in Colombian adolescents and young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521994588.

Brown

B. B.

(1999). You’re going out with who?": Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Cambridge University Press (pp. 291–329). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316182185.013

10.

Carlson

Voith

Brown

J. B.

Holmes

(2019). Viewing children’s exposure to intimate partner violence through a developmental, social-ecological, and survivor lens: The current state of the field, challenges, and future directions. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816187.

11.

Carver

Joyner

Udry

J. R.

(2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In Florsheim

(Ed), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum (pp. 23–56).

12.

Chen

Cheung

Huang

C.-C.

(2020). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: Effects of maternal depression symptoms and parenting on teen depression symptoms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520967754.

13.

Cisler

Begle

Amstadter

Resnick

Danielson

Saunders

Kilpatrick

(2012). Exposure to interpersonal violence and risk for PTSD, depression, delinquency, and binge drinking among adolescents: Data from the NSA-R. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21672

14.

(2005). Dating violence prevention in middle school and high school youth. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 18(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2005.00003.x

15.

Connolly

Goldberg

(1999). Romantic relationships in adolescence: The role of friends and peers in their emergence and development. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Cambridge University Press (pp. 266–290). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316182185.012

16.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

17.

Cutter-Wilson

Richmond

(2011). Understanding teen dating violence: Practical screening and intervention strategies for pediatric and adolescent healthcare providers. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 23(4), 379–383. https://doi.org/10.1097/mop.0b013e32834875d5

18.

DeBoard-Lucas

R. L.

Grych

J. H.

(2011). Children’s perceptions of intimate partner violence: Cause, consequences, and coping. Journal of Family Violence, 26(5), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9368-2

19.

Decker

Littleton

H. L.

Edwards

K. M.

(2018). An updated review of the literature on LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence. Sexual Orientation and Identity, 10(4), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-018-0173-2

20.

DeJonghe

E. S.

Bogat

G. A.

Levendosky

A. A.

von Eye

Davidson

W. S.

II. (2005). Infant exposure to domestic violence predicts heightened sensitivity to adult verbal conflict. Infant Mental Health Journal, 26(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.20048

21.

Demir

(2007). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(2), 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9051-8

22.

Elliott

Nerney

Jones

Friedmann

P. D.

(2002). Barriers to screening for domestic violence. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 17(2), 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10233.x

23.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

DePaola

L. M.

Lambert

Martino

Anderson

Sutton

(1991). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of young children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.258.

24.

Fidler

J. A.

West

Jarvis

M. J.

Wardle

(2006). Early dating predicts smoking during adolescence: A prospective study. Addiction, 101(12), 1805–1813. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01613.x

25.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Shattuck

Hamby

S. L.

(2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 746–754. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0676

26.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Ennett

S. T.

Suchindran

Benefield

Linder

G. F.

(2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “safe dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0007-0

27.

Furman

Shaffer

(2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development. In Florsheim

(Ed), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers (pp. 3–22).

28.

Furman

Wehner

E. A.

(1994). Romantic views: Toward a theory of adolescent romantic relationships. In Montemayor

Adams

G. R.

Gullotta

T. P.

(Eds), Advances in adolescent development: An annual book series, Vol. 6. Personal relationships during adolescence. Sage Publications, Inc (pp. 168–195).

29.

Garcia

N. M.

López

Vélez

V. N.

(2018). Quantcrit: Rectifying quantitative methods through critical race theory. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377675

30.

Garrido

E. F.

Culhane

S. E.

Petrenko

C. L.

Taussig

H. N.

(2011). Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) exposure in maltreated adolescents: Assessing more than IPV occurrence. Journal of Family Violence, 26(7), 511-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-011-9386-0

31.

Harding

H. G.

Morelen

Thomassin

Bradbury

Shaffer

(2013). Exposure to maternal- and paternal-perpetrated intimate partner violence, emotion regulation, and child outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9487-4

32.

Herman

J. L.

(1992). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books.

33.

Howell

K. H.

Barnes

S. E.

Miller

L. E.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2016). Developmental variations in the impact of intimate partner violence exposure during childhood. Journal of Injury & Violence Research, 8(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.5249/jivr.v8i1.663

34.

Huang

C.-C.

Chen

Cheung

(2020). Early childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and teen depression symptoms in the U.S. Health and Social Care in the Community, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13240.

35.

Huang

C.-C.

Postmus

J. L.

Vikse

J. H.

Wang

(2013). Economic abuse, physical violence, and union formation. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(5), 780–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.01.020

36.

Huang

C.-C.

Vikse

J. H.

(2015). Children's exposure to intimate partner violence and early delinquency. Journal of Family Violence, 30(8), 953–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9727-5

37.

Karlsson

M. E.

Temple

J. R.

Weston

V. D.

(2016). Witnessing interparental violence and acceptance of dating violence as predictors for teen dating violence victimization. Violence Against Women, 22(5), 625–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215605920

38.

Kimber

Adham

Gill

McTavish

MacMillan

H. L.

(2018). The association between child exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and perpetration of IPV in adulthood – A systemic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.007.

39.

Kim

Smith

P. K.

(1998). Retrospective survey of parental marital relations and child reproductive development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(4), 729–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502598384144

40.

Kim

Smith

P. K.

Palermiti

A. -L.

(1997). Conflict in childhood and reproductive development. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(2), 109–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(96)00114-6

41.

Koutselini

Valanidou

(2013). Children living with violence against their mothers: The side effects on their behaviour, self-image and school performance. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2013.815259

42.

Lacey

K. K.

Jiwatram-Negron

Sears

K. P.

(2021a). Help-seeking behaviors and barriers among black women exposed to severe intimate partner violence: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Violence Against Women, 27(6–7), 952–972. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220917464

43.

Lacey

K. K.

Mouzon

D. M.

Parnell

R. N.

Laws

(2021b). Severe intimate partner violence, sources of stress, and the mental health of U.S. black women. Journal of Women’s Health, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2019.8215

44.

Chan

D. K.-S.

(2012). How anxious and avoidant attachment affect romantic relationship quality differently: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 406–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1842

45.

Linder

J. R.

Crick

N. R.

Collins

W. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00187

46.

Maas

C. D.

Fleming

C. B.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Catalano

R. F.

(2010). Childhood predictors of teen dating violence victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.2.131

47.

Madsen

S. D.

Collins

W. A.

(2011). The salience of adolescent romantic experiences for romantic relationship qualities in young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00737.x

48.

Martin

C. A.

Lommel

Cox

Kelly

Rayens

M. K.

Woodring

J. H.

Omar

(2007). Kiss and tell: What do we know about pre- and early adolescent females who report dating? A pilot study. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 20(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2006.10.008

49.

Miranda

J. K.

de la Osa

Granero

Ezpeleta

(2011). Maternal experiences of childhood abuse and intimate partner violence: Psychopathology and functional impairment in clinical children and adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(9), 700-711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.008.

50.

Mitra

Mouradian

V. E.

McKenna

(2013). Dating vioklence and associated health risks among students with disabilities. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 17(6), 1088–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1091-y

51.

Moylan

C. A.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Sousa

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Russo

M. J.

(2010). The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9269-9

52.

Nguyen

H. T.

Edleson

J. L.

Kimball

(2012). Honor our voices: A strength-based approach to supporting children exposed to domestic violence. Relational Child & Youth Care Practice, 25(4), 51.

53.

O’Keefe

(1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(4), 546–568.

54.

O’Reilly

Beale

Gillies

(2010). Screening and intervention for domestic violence during pregnancy care: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 11(4), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010378298

55.

Orpinas

Horne

A. M.

Song

Reeves

P. M.

Hsieh

H.-L.

(2013). Dating trajectories from middle to high school: Association with academic performance and drug use. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4), 772–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12029

56.

Överlien

(2010). Children exposed to domestic violence: Conclusion from the literature and challenges ahead. Journal of Social Work, 10, 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017309350663.

57.

Överlien

(2017). ‘Do you want to do some arm wrestling?’: Children’s strategies when experiencing domestic violence and the meaning of age. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 680-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12283.

58.

Pickover

A. M.

(2017). An ecological systems approach to understanding intimate partner violence outcomes. Publication No 1749, Electronic Theses and Dissertations, [University of Memphis]. https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/etd/1749

59.

Reichman

N. E.

Teitler

J. O.

Garfinkel

McLanahan

S. S.

(2001). Fragile families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-7409(01)00141-4

60.

Ruel

Lavoie

Hébert

Blais

(2020). Gender’s role in exposure to interparental violence, acceptance of violence, self-efficacy, and physical teen dating violence among Quebec adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(15–16), 3079–3101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517707311

61.

Saavedra

M. C.

Chapman

K. E.

Rogge

R. D.

(2010). Clarifying links between attachment and relationship quality: Hostile conflict and mindfulness as moderators. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019872

62.

Scheering

M. S.

Zeanah

C. H.

(2001). A relational perspective on PTSD in early childhood. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14(4), 799–815. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013002507972

63.

Schiff

Plotnikova

Dingle

Williams

G. M.

Najman

Clavarino

(2014). Does adolescent’s exposure to parental intimate partner conflict and violence predict psychological distress and substance use in young adulthood? A longitudinal study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(12), 1945–1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.001

64.

Seffrin

P. M.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2009). The influence of dating relationships on friendship networks, identity development, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 26(2), 238–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802245052

65.

Seiffge-Krenke

(2003). Testing theories of romantic development from adolescence to young adulthood: Evidence of a developmental sequence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27(6), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000145

66.

Sharps

P. W.

Laughon

Giangrande

S. K.

(2007). Intimate partner violence and the childbearing year: maternal and infant health consequences. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838007302594

67.

Simmons

R. G.

Blyth

D. A.

Van Cleave

E. F.

Bush

D. M.

(1979). Entry into early adolescence: The impact of school structure, puberty, and early dating on self-esteem. American Sociological Review, 44(6), 948–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094719

68.

Smith

Cénat

J. M.

Lapierre

Dion

Hébert

Côté

(2018a). Cyber dating violence: Prevalence and correlates among high school students from small urban areas in Quebec. Journal of Affective Disorders, 234, 220–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.043

69.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Merrick

M. T.

Wang

Kresnow

Chen

(2018b). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf.

70.

Sousa

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Moylan

C. A.

Tajima

E. A.

Klika

J. B

Herrenkohl

R. C.

Russo

M. J.

(2011). Longitudinal study on the effects of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence, parent-child attachments, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510362883

71.

Sternberg

Baradaran

Abbott

Lamb

Guterman

(2006). Type of violence, age, and gender differences in the effects of family violence on children’s behavior problems: A mega-analysis. Developmental Review, 26(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.12.001

72.

Stockman

J. K.

Hayashi

Campbell

J. C.

(2015). Intimate partner violence and its health impact on ethnic minority women. Journal of Women’s Health, 24(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.4879

73.

Stylianou

A. M.

Postmus

J. L.

McMahon

(2013). Measuring abusive behaviors: Is economic abuse a unique form of abuse? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3186–3204. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260513496904

74.

Tan

Overall

N. C.

Taylor

J. K.

(2012). Let’s talk about us: Attachment, relationship-focused disclosure, and relationship quality. Personal Relationships, 19(3), 521–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01383.x

75.

Temple

J. R.

Shorey

R. C.

Fite

Stuart

G. L.

V. D.

(2013). Substance use as a longitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 596–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1

76.

Tharp

A. T.

(2012). Dating matters^TM: The next generation of teen dating violence prevention. Prevention Science, 13(■■■), 398–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0307-0

77.

U.S. Census Bureau (2020). Historical marital status tables. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/marital.html

78.

van Zantvliet

P. I.

Ivaanova

Verbakel

(2020). Adolescents’ involvement in romantic relationships and problem behavior: The moderating effect of peer norms. Youth & Society, 52(4), 574–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X17753643

79.

Wekerle

Leung

Wall

A. M.

MacMillan

Boyle

Trocme

Waechter

(2009). The contribution of childhood emotional abuse to teen dating violence among child protective services-involved youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.006

80.

Wekerle

Wolfe

D. A.

(1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(98)00091-9

81.

Wolfe

D. A.

Jaffe

Wilson

S. K.

Zak

(1985). Children of battered women: The relation of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(5), 657–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.53.5.657.