Young Women’s Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Patterns Across Multiple Relationships

Abstract

We explored patterns of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization at the relationship level within a socioeconomically diverse sample of young women who had experienced IPV. We recruited from a university, a 2-year college, and high-risk community settings. Drawing on life course theory and utilizing the life history calendar, we conducted retrospective interviews with 148 young women aged 18–24 about partner victimization (physical IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV) within each relationship, beginning with their first (up to four relationships; 388 total). We assessed patterns of IPV across participants’ relationship histories: rates of the three IPV types and co-occurrence, by setting and relationship number; relationship length in association with the number of IPV types; and transitions into and out of abusive relationships. Coercive control was the most common IPV type across Relationships 1–4 (46–58% of relationships), followed by physical IPV (42–54%) and sexual IPV (29–34%); the most common co-occurrence patterns were physical IPV plus coercive control and all three IPV types combined. Relationships lasted 15–24 months on average, and relationship length was positively associated with the number of IPV types. Transitions were heterogeneous, with systematic, positive change in physical IPV from Relationships 1 to 2; setting was not associated with transition patterns. In the future, researchers should explore a relationship-level approach; prevention and intervention efforts should integrate sexual assault and partner violence, begin early, and target all youth. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ’s website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684318795880.

Keywords

girls adolescent women dating violence rape/date rape/sexual assault socioeconomic status

Intimate partner violence (IPV), which includes physical, sexual, and psychological abuse by a partner, as well as coercive control and stalking, peaks during adolescence and emerging adulthood, with 70% of women reporting that their first IPV victimization occurred by age 24 (Black et al., 2011). Although debate continues on the extent to which young women and men experience similar rates of physical IPV, it is clear that sexual IPV—especially rape—is much more prevalent among young women (Vagi, Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2008). At least half of all sexual assaults against young women are perpetrated by their male partners (Black et al., 2011; Koss, Dinero, Seibel, & Cox, 1988; Smith, White, & Holland, 2003). Different types of IPV victimization appear likely to co-occur, and sexual IPV in combination with physical IPV has been linked to greater abuse severity and especially poor outcomes; as a result, young women face a disproportionate burden (Hamby & Turner, 2013; Katz, Moore, & May, 2008; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001; Vagi et al., 2015; Ybarra, Espelage, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Korchmaros, & Boyd, 2016).

Despite increased attention to different types of IPV among adolescent and emerging adult women, there are two significant gaps in our knowledge, which together pose a barrier to designing effective prevention and intervention efforts. First, researchers have failed to examine IPV within and across multiple relationships; typically, researchers assess IPV within the last year, with a current partner, or across the lifetime. As a result, we lack basic, foundational knowledge about how patterns of IPV emerge and evolve from the first relationship to subsequent ones. For example, among young women who report at least one experience with IPV victimization, how common are different types of IPV—and their co-occurrence—across their relationship history? Is there stability in the rates of IPV across multiple relationships? For example, does sexual IPV tend to occur only in later relationships, or is it just as common in the first relationship? Is experiencing IPV victimization during one’s first relationship associated with victimization during the next? Only a relationship-level approach (i.e., using the relationship as the reference period and capturing IPV across the relationship history) can address these compelling questions. A relationship-level approach offers the additional advantage of more accurately mirroring young women’s actual experiences with multiple intimate partners, thus optimizing validity (Hammersley, 2008; Winter, 2000). Further, a better understanding of adolescents’ and emerging adults’ relationship history can readily inform prevention and intervention efforts. For example, if we find that coercive control is quite common across abusive relationships and tends to co-occur with both physical and sexual victimization among young women, or sexual IPV is just as likely to occur during the first relationship as subsequent ones, we can improve the effectiveness of our efforts to prevent IPV and help survivors.

A second gap in our knowledge has resulted from researchers relying primarily on high school and university samples, and ignoring other high-risk youth such as those who have dropped out of high school, as well as 2-year community college students. Both of these groups are characterized by lower socioeconomic status (SES) in comparison to university students, which may place them at higher risk of IPV (Cui, Gordon, Ueno, & Fincham, 2013; Foshee et al., 2008; Rennison & Addington, 2014; Vézina & Hébert, 2007; Voth Schrag, 2016). As a result of the overreliance on samples that fail to represent the diversity of this age group, our understanding of IPV among adolescents and emerging adults is unnecessarily homogenous and circumscribed, and we lack critical information to guide efforts aimed at young people who are neither in high school nor attending a university. The goal of the current study was to apply a new relationship-level approach to exploring and describing patterns of IPV victimization (physical, coercive control, and sexual) within a sample of young women who have experienced IPV, recruited from university, 2-year college, and high-risk community settings. We draw on life course theory and utilize the life history calendar (LHC) to examine patterns in (1) the rate of each type of IPV as well as co-occurrence, by setting and relationship number; (2) relationship length in association with the number of IPV types; and (3) transitions into and out of violent relationships, by type of IPV and setting.

Life Course Theory and the LHC

Life course theory posits that intimate relationships are pivotal in shaping people’s lives over time, stratification factors such as gender and SES influence the life course, and the timing of life events and the assumption of social roles are of critical importance (Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2004; Hatch, 2005). While people are understood as interdependent in terms of their close relationships with family members and partners and thus heavily influenced by intimates’ experiences, life course theory also highlights the macro effects of stratification factors such as low SES—especially during childhood and adolescence—in increasing vulnerability to negative life events, victimization, and adversity over time (Elder, 1998; O’Rand, 2002). Precisely how and when people move into roles such as intimate partner also are crucial: The assumption of new social roles is conceptualized as a key developmental period during which the person typically experiences both growth and stress. “Off time” events and roles, which do not occur at expected times based on social and developmental norms (e.g., entering into a serious, very lengthy intimate relationship and the girlfriend role at a young age), can be particularly stressful and lead to poor outcomes (Elder, 1998; Pearlin, Schieman, Fazio, & Meersman, 2005). From this perspective, examining patterns of IPV victimization within a socioeconomically diverse sample of young women, especially during adolescence and emerging adulthood when they are at highest risk, is crucial to building knowledge (Carbone-Lopez, Rennison, & Macmillan, 2012; Macmillan, 2001).

A life history calendar (LHC) approach offers a methodological complement: Distinct from other retrospective methods, the LHC enables increased accuracy in the measurement of the timing of participants’ events and experiences through the use of landmarks (i.e., significant life events), which serve as signposts to aid memory retrieval (Belli, Stafford, & Alwin, 2009). In several early longitudinal studies, researchers compared participants’ prospective data obtained at Time 1, via a traditional interview, with retrospective LHC interview data obtained many years later and demonstrated very high recall accuracy using the LHC (i.e., in the 90% or above range, across three studies; Caspi et al., 1996; Ensel, Peek, Lin, & Lai, 1996; Freedman, Thornton, Camburn, Alwin, & Young-DeMarco, 1988). More recently, IPV researchers (Yoshihama, Gillespie, Hammock, Belli, & Tolman, 2005) directly compared the LHC to a standard retrospective interview in terms of its facilitation of the accurate recall of IPV victimization across participants’ life course. They found that the LHC elicited more reports of IPV, particularly victimization that occurred early in participants’ lives, thus effectively countering demonstrated recall difficulties common among research participants. Taken together, these studies support the LHC’s accuracy and reliability in facilitating participants’ recall of life events and salient experiences. It is the method of choice for anchoring our exploration and description of relationship-level IPV victimization patterns across adolescence and emerging adulthood; for further details on the LHC, please see the Procedure section.

Given that this is an emergent area of study, an exploratory, descriptive approach is warranted: “Descriptive studies often represent the first scientific toe in the water in new areas of inquiry” (Grimes & Schulz, 2002, p. 145). Specifically, we can use a descriptive approach to generate novel information and provide critical foundational detail on who exactly is affected, what in particular they are experiencing, when precisely they are affected, and where (i.e., setting). A descriptive study can also yield clues about possible predictors, which can then be profitably explored via hypothesis testing using more advanced analytic strategies (Grimes & Schulz, 2002; Marincola, 2007). The current study represents the first step in a planned series of analyses using relationship-level data on young women’s experiences with IPV across adolescence and emerging adulthood.

IPV Patterns in Developmental Context

Adolescent developmentalists distinguish between dating relationships, which are transitory without anticipation of longer-term involvement, and committed or intimate relationships, marked by sustained connection and self-reported feelings of love akin to adult relationships (Collins & Sroufe, 1999, pp. 135–139). Intimate relationships are central, defining experiences through which youth learn how to balance autonomy with interpersonal integration (Exner-Cortens, 2014). Results from a nationally representative study indicate that a majority of female adolescents report at least one lengthy (∼12 months) intimate relationship characterized by reciprocal professions of love and meeting one another’s parents (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003). From a life course perspective, these early relationships mark the beginning of the intimate partner trajectory and set the course for later unions. What do we know about the characteristics of young women’s abusive intimate relationships? Specifically, what are the most common patterns of physical IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV victimization, and do these patterns vary across different groups of young women or by relationship number (e.g., first relationship vs. fourth relationship)? How long do these relationships tend to last, and is relationship length positively associated with the number of IPV types? Are violent first relationships related to violent second relationships, and do these transition patterns vary by IPV type or across groups?

There is limited research available to answer these questions about abusive relationships among adolescent and emerging adult women. Coercive control, which is distinct from psychological abuse and is defined as non-physical coercion, demands, or constraints in the context of a credible threat of consequences for noncompliance, is a key form of IPV victimization among adult women; it frequently co-occurs with other IPV types and serves as a linchpin in how we conceptualize the gendered abuse women experience (Catallozzi, Simon, Davidson, Breitbart, & Rickert, 2011; Dutton & Goodman, 2005; J. Miller, 2006). For example, both women and men may be similarly likely to use verbal insults against a partner, but men are much more able to convey a credible threat and thus impose coercive control within an intimate relationship (Dutton & Goodman, 2005). Despite this emerging understanding of the role of coercive control, only a few studies have examined it in combination with physical and sexual IPV, among adolescents and emerging adults. The results indicate that coercive control is linked to both forms of IPV (Catallozzi et al., 2011) and that young women report similar rates of experiencing two or three IPV types versus one IPV type (24% vs. 26%; Ybarra et al., 2016). However, no prior studies have examined patterns of individual rates and co-occurrence across multiple relationships, beginning with the first relationship. Researchers also have not examined these patterns within a socioeconomically diverse sample.

Adolescent relationships are typically characterized as brief: “There is general consensus that romantic relationships are regarded as desirable and sought out by adolescents, are of relatively short duration, and tend to emerge following the sequential development of same-sex and then mixed-sex friendships” (National Institute of Justice, 2014, p. 5; see also Furman & Shaffer, 2003; Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2016; White, 2009). However, this consensus is merely an assumption: Very few researchers have actually measured the length of adolescents’ relationships, particularly those that are abusive. Among the handful of studies that have been conducted, L. M. Miller (2011) reported that college students’ relationships averaged 19 months, while Burton, Halpern-Felsher, Rehm, Rankin, and Humphreys (2013) found that adolescents’ abusive relationships were 36 months in duration. A few researchers have found that relationship length was positively associated with either coercive control or physical IPV among adolescents or young adults, but IPV was assessed only within the current or most recent relationship (Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Johnson, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2015; L. M. Miller, 2011), and length was typically measured as an ordinal variable (e.g., “less than a week” to “more than a year”; for an exception, see L. M. Miller, 2011).

Researchers have begun to explore trajectories of co-occurring IPV among adolescents and young adults, using person-centered methods, such as latent transition analysis, to capture patterns of stability and change. However, in most of these studies, IPV is measured using a unit of time as the reference period (e.g., within the past 6 months or since the last wave of data collection), which can neither provide accuracy in capturing co-occurrence within relationships nor shed light on transitions into and out of specific violent relationships (Choi & Temple, 2016; Cui et al., 2013; McNaughton Reyes & Foshee, 2013; S. Miller et al., 2013; Orpinas, Hsieh, Song, Holland, & Nahapetyan, 2013). In a few studies, researchers have captured data on more than one partner, but only to classify participants in terms of their partner stability over time, not to examine patterns at the relationship level across multiple relationships, beginning with the first partner (Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby, 2003; Johnson et al., 2015; Testa, Hoffman, & Leonard, 2011; Timmons Fritz & Smith Slep, 2009). Thus, there is a gap in our knowledge about transitions from one relationship to the next, which a relationship-level approach can address.

IPV Among Young Women in 2-Year College and High-Risk Community Settings

Only 40% of 18- to 24 year olds in the United States are enrolled in postsecondary settings (National Center for Education Statistics, n.d.); of this group, 45% attend 2-year community colleges (American Association of Community Colleges [AACC], 2016). However, the research on physical and sexual violence among emerging adults has focused almost exclusively on university student samples, 76% of whom are White (Voth Schrag, 2016). Two-year college students and non-students aged 18–24 years old are much more likely to be poor or low-income, in comparison to university students (AACC, 2016; The Pell Institute, 2015). Low SES has been linked, in turn, to increased risk of IPV among adolescents and young adults (Cui et al., 2013; Foshee et al., 2008). Some possible mechanisms linking low SES to increased risk of partner violence during adolescence include greater acceptance of relationship violence and gender stereotyping, higher rates of exposure to family violence in the home, and reduced parental monitoring (Foshee et al., 2008; Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung, 2008; Livingston, Hequembourg, Testa, & VanZile-Tamsen, 2007; Maas, Fleming, Herrenkohl, & Catalano, 2010; Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). However, a comparison of IPV victimization patterns across university, 2-year college, and high-risk community settings has not been conducted prior to the current study, resulting in a significant gap in the literature.

The Current Study

In order to both investigate the kinds of questions a relationship-level approach can address and add critical basic knowledge to our empirical understanding of IPV victimization patterns among female adolescents and emerging adults, we drew on relationship-level, retrospective data collected from a sample of socioeconomically diverse young women recruited from university, 2-year community college, and high-risk community settings for this exploratory, descriptive study. Using life course theory as our foundation, we employed the LHC to capture patterns of physical IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV victimization, including the rate of each type of IPV, co-occurrence patterns, relationship length in association with number of IPV types, and transitions into and out of violent relationships. In keeping with the life course emphasis on the importance of assuming a new role (i.e., the intimate partner or girlfriend role), we assessed these patterns within participants’ first relationship as well as subsequent ones. We were guided by the following research questions: (1) What are the rates of physical IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV victimization within each relationship? What are the co-occurrence patterns? How do these rates vary by setting and relationship number? (2) How long are participants’ relationships, and what is the association between relationship length and number of types of IPV? (3) Are violent first relationships related to violent second relationships? Do these transition patterns differ by IPV type or setting?

Method

Research Design and Recruitment

We used a cross-sectional design in which 148 young women (from a university, a 2-year college, and high-risk community settings) completed an LHC interview, recalled landmark events, and provided basic demographic information including SES and IPV victimization (physical, coercive control, and sexual) within each of their relationships with male partners. Before recruitment, we received approval from our institutional review board. At each site, we distributed flyers via bulletin boards, front desks, parking garages, and so on; the flyer described a study on “partner conflict” using behaviorally specific examples (e.g., pushing, hitting) in order to include participants who may not have defined their experiences as abusive or violent. Interested potential participants called the contact number on the flyers and were screened for eligibility, again using behaviorally specific examples (e.g., pushing, hitting). We recruited participants aged 18–24 years old (M _age = 20.75, SD = 1.91) who had experienced any of the three types of IPV (physical, coercive control, or sexual) with a male partner and could speak English, from a 4-year university (n = 50), a 2-year college (n = 48), and community sites serving high-risk young women (e.g., county health clinic; transitional living program; Women, Infants, and Children office; n = 50), all located in a small city in a Midwestern state in the United States; data collection lasted for 1 year, from Fall 2014 until Fall 2015.

Participants

Participants reported 418 total relationships, which included a small number of fifth and sixth relationships (ns = 15 and 5, respectively), as well as a few relationships with female partners (n = 10). We dropped the fifth and sixth relationships, along with those with female partners, because the numbers were so small and the data were anomalous, for example, 80% of the relationships with female partners were non-violent. Thus, our final sample included 148 women who reported 388 relationships. Except for the female partner relationships that were dropped from the analyses, we have no missing data. Participants were just under 15 years old, on average, at the beginning of their first relationship (n = 148, M _age = 14.78, SD = 1.59, range = 12–20), 17 at the start of their second (n = 132, M _age = 17.05, SD = 2.05, range = 13–23), 18 at the beginning of their third (n = 77, M _age = 18.16, SD = 1.97, range = 13–23), and 19 at the start of their fourth (n = 31, M _age = 19.10, SD = 1.80, range = 16–23).

The sample was diverse in terms of race/ethnicity and SES: African American (39%, n = 58) and White (39%, n = 58) young women were the largest groups, followed by Latina (10%, n = 14), biracial (7%, n = 10), Asian American (5%, n = 7), and Native American (1%, n = 1) women. University participants were disproportionately likely to be White (62%, 31/50) or Asian American (10%, 5/50), while the 2-year college and community participants were more likely to be Latina or African American (15%, 7/48 and 64%, 32/50, respectively). In keeping with American Psychological Association recommendations on measuring social class among young people (Diemer, Mistry, Wadsworth, López, & Reimers, 2013), we operationalized SES as primary caregiver’s highest grade completed: SES was highest for university participants (M = 14.62, SD = 2.16), followed by 2-year college (M = 12.79, SD = 2.50), and community participants, M = 11.94, SD = 2.32, F(2, 147) = 17.35, p < .000. Similarly, only 26% (13/50) of the university students reported receiving means-tested public assistance as a child (e.g., Medicaid), compared with 63% (30/48) of the 2-year college students and 88% (44/50) of the community participants, χ²(2, N = 148) = 40.01, p < .000. No university participants had dropped out of high school, while 29% (14/48) of the 2-year college students and 42% (21/50) of the community participants reported they had dropped out, χ²(2, N = 148) = 15.67, p < .000.

Procedure

We used the LHC to structure and guide the retrospective one-on-one interviews with participants; the calendar is composed of multiple grids on a large sheet of paper that capture the variables of interest (arranged in a column along the left) during the focal time period (arranged in a row along the top; see the calendar in the supplemental online materials at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/0361684318795880). The design of the calendar and the use of landmark events to anchor participants’ memory facilitate the accurate recall of retrospective life events and experiences, in comparison to both prospective and more traditional retrospective data collection approaches (Belli, Shay, & Stafford, 2001; Belli et al., 2009; Caspi et al., 1996; Ensel et al., 1996; Freedman et al., 1988; Yoshihama et al., 2005). We conducted the interviews in a private room, typically at either one of the community sites or the university. The interviews lasted just under an hour (M = 53.97 min, SD = 14.61). During the interview, the interviewer recorded each participant’s responses on the paper calendar, using a pencil. She first recorded landmark events (e.g., moving to a new state, parents separating) on the calendar; these events help to anchor and promote accurate recall of the variables of interest. Next, the interviewer recorded all of the participant’s relationships, including when each started and other details about the relationship characteristics (e.g., her age when each began, her partners’ ages, the length of each relationship). We defined “relationship” as a connection with a male partner that the participant considered important and lasted at least 1 week; we defined adolescence as ages 13–20, emerging adulthood as ages 21–24. The interviewer then assessed the participant’s childhood history of adverse experiences, including various types of victimization, starting at age 5 (these data are not included in the current study). After the calendar was completed, the interviewer used additional measures to assess each participant’s experiences with IPV within each relationship previously recorded on the calendar (see below for a description of how we measured physical IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV). Thus, each participant’s relationship history was recorded on the calendar, which served to facilitate recall of the different types of IPV experienced during each relationship. By assessing IPV victimization in this way, we were able to capture patterns within relationships (e.g., co-occurrence of IPV) as well as across relationships (e.g., differences and similarities from the first relationship to subsequent ones). We obtained information on up to four relationships, with 148 participants reporting a first relationship (Relationship 1), 132 a second (Relationship 2), 77 a third (Relationship 3), and 31 a fourth (Relationship 4), for a total of 388. We compensated participants US$50 after their interview.

Measures

Physical IPV victimization

Participants’ experiences with physical abuse within each relationship were measured using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) physical assault subscale (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996); the 12-item subscale has been widely used to measure physical IPV among young people and has demonstrated construct validity and high internal consistency (Straus, 2004). The items range from less severe (e.g., “Has your partner grabbed you?”) to more severe (e.g., “Has your partner beat you?”); response options were no (coded 0), 1–5 times (coded 1), and more than 5 times (coded 2). If a participant reported experiencing any physical IPV item more than 5 times within a relationship, we categorized it as ongoing physical IPV. In keeping with Hamby’s (2016) recommendations, we prefaced our IPV assessment by stating: “Note that we are interested in the use of violence that does NOT include joking around, play-fighting, wrestling, etc.” Internal consistency reliabilities for the CTS2 items for each of the four relationships (Relationships 1-4) in the current study were .93, .92, .92, and .93, respectively.

Coercive control victimization

We assessed participants’ experiences with coercive control within each relationship using 7 items from the pilot Brief Coercion Scale (CTS; Cook & Goodman, 2006). In Cook and Goodman’s (2006) pilot sample, coercive control items were moderately correlated with physical, sexual, and psychological IPV victimization and, after controlling for the different forms of IPV, predicted post-traumatic stress symptoms and safety strategies. Critics of the CTS have argued that simply counting physical behaviors with no regard to gendered contextual factors, such as coercion, can result in data that are misleading and inaccurate (Hamby, 2016). For the current study, we measured coercive control in the context of physical IPV: If a participant endorsed any physical IPV items, she was asked about coercive control in the relationship (e.g., Did he “Say you had to do what he wanted because you were his girlfriend?” “Threaten to hurt someone you loved unless you did what he wanted?”). We also included an eighth item not linked to physical IPV (“Even if he never used physical violence, did he ever try to control you with behaviors like [the seven coercive control items listed]?”); response options were no (coded 0), 1–5 times (coded 1), and more than 5 times (coded 2). If a participant reported experiencing any coercive control item more than 5 times within a relationship, we categorized it as ongoing coercive control. Internal consistency reliabilities for each of the four relationships with the current sample were .81, .81, .82, and .81, respectively.

Sexual IPV victimization

Participants’ experiences with sexual IPV within each relationship were assessed using six behaviorally specific items based on the definition of rape used in the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (Black et al., 2011); items using specific behaviors are linked to greater validity and reporting (Krebs, 2014). We assessed attempted rape via threats, force, or alcohol and/or drugs (e.g., “Has your boyfriend used threats to try to make you have sex [oral, vaginal, or anal]?”) and completed rape likewise via threats, force, or alcohol and/or drugs (e.g., “Has your boyfriend used force [like hitting, holding you down, or using a weapon] to make you have sex [oral, vaginal, or anal]?”). Response options were no (coded 0), 1–5 times (coded 1), and more than 5 times (coded 2). If a participant reported experiencing any sexual IPV item more than 5 times within a relationship, we categorized it as ongoing sexual IPV. Internal consistency reliabilities for each of the four relationships with the current sample were .76, .83, .77, and .85, respectively.

Analytic Strategy

Because our goals for the study were to showcase a new, relationship-level approach to data collection and to provide basic, foundational knowledge about multiple IPV victimization patterns across relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood, we chose an exploratory, descriptive approach to analysis. To compare relationship-level rates and co-occurrence patterns by setting and relationship number, we used Pearson and Fisher’s Exact χ²; we used Cramer’s V to estimate effect size. We used analysis of variance to assess the within-relationship associations between relationship length and number of types of IPV and η² to estimate effect size. To examine whether relationship length in the first relationship was significantly different from subsequent relationships, we used paired-sample t-tests. To examine transitions into and out of violent relationships by IPV type, we used McNemar χ², which assesses for systematic change, for example, a significant number of cases moving from no IPV in Relationship 1 to IPV in Relationship 2; we calculated the odds ratio to estimate effect size. To examine transition patterns for any IPV by setting, we used Pearson and Fisher’s Exact χ²; we used Cramer’s V to estimate effect size.

Results

Individual Rates and Co-Occurrence of IPV Types: Setting and Relationship Number

We assessed patterns of individual IPV types and co-occurrence within the first relationship (n = 148 relationships) and within Relationships 2 (n = 132), 3 (n = 77), and 4 (n = 31), for the full sample as well as each setting (university, 2-year college, and high-risk community). We report Pearson χ² results when all expected frequencies are greater than five and Fisher’s Exact χ² when expected frequencies are less than five. Beginning with the individual rates within the first relationship (see Table 1), over half (58%) of first relationships were characterized by some type of IPV, with coercive control being the most prevalent (53%), followed by physical IPV (42%) and sexual IPV (29%). It was common for each type to be ongoing: When coercive control was present, it was ongoing 64% of the time (derived by dividing the frequency of ongoing coercive control by the frequency of any coercive control, or 50/78); when physical IPV was present, it was ongoing 55% of the time (34/62); and when sexual IPV was present, it was ongoing 37% of the time (16/43). Individual rates did not differ across setting, with three exceptions: Within first relationships, community participants had significantly higher rates of physical IPV compared to university participants, χ²(2, N = 148) = 8.05, p = .018. Ongoing physical IPV rates varied significantly by setting, χ²(2, N = 63) = 6.26, p = .044, though post-hoc Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons indicated no significant pairwise differences. Finally, both university and community participants reported significantly higher rates of ongoing sexual IPV, in comparison to 2-year college participants, χ²(2, N = 42) = 7.70, p = .023.

Table 1.
Rate of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) by Setting and Relationship.

Full Sample University Two-Year College High-Risk Community χ² Cramer’s V

Frequency (%)

Any IPV^a

Rel 1 86 (58) 26 (52) 28 (58) 32 (64) 1.48 .10

Rel 2 83 (63) 31 (63) 32 (76)^b 20 (49)^c 6.68* .23

Rel 3 41 (53) 15 (46) 10 (46) 16 (73) 4.70 .25

Rel 4 20 (65) 6 (46) 6 (86) 8 (73) 3.31 .34

Any physical IPV

Rel 1 62 (42) 14 (28)^b 20 (42) 28 (56)^c 8.05* .23

Rel 2 71 (54) 25 (51) 31 (74)^b 15 (37)^c 11.81 .30

Rel 3 32 (42) 9 (27)^b 8 (36) 15 (68)^c 9.44 .35

Rel 4 14 (45) 5 (39) 3 (43) 6 (55) 0.73 .14

Physical IPV > 5×

Rel 1 34 (23) 6 (12) 8 (17) 20 (40) 6.26* .32

Rel 2 40 (30) 9 (18)^b 22 (52)^c 9 (22) 6.98* .31

Rel 3 16 (21) 3 (9) 3 (14) 10 (46) 3.08 .32

Rel 4 9 (29) 2 (15) 2 (29) 5 (46) 2.22 .40

Any coercive control

Rel 1 78 (53) 22 (44) 27 (56) 29 (58) 2.32 .13

Rel 2 77 (58) 29 (59) 30 (71)^b 18 (44)^c 6.49* .22

Rel 3 35 (46) 12 (36) 9 (41) 14 (64) 4.22 .23

Rel 4 18 (58) 6 (46) 5 (71) 7 (64) 1.38 .21

Coercive control > 5×

Rel 1 50 (34) 12 (24) 16 (33) 22 (44) 2.89 .19

Rel 2 46 (35) 14 (29) 20 (48) 12 (29) 2.54 .18

Rel 3 22 (29) 7 (21) 5 (23) 10 (46) 0.85 .15

Rel 4 14 (45) 4 (31) 3 (43) 7 (64) 3.41 .43

Any sexual IPV

Rel 1 43 (29) 19 (38) 10 (21) 14 (28) 3.54 .16

Rel 2 45 (34) 19 (39) 16 (38) 10 (24) 2.49 .14

Rel 3 23 (30) 7 (21) 7 (32) 9 (41) 2.50 .18

Rel 4 9 (29) 2 (15) 4 (57) 3 (27) 3.61 .35

Sexual IPV > 5×

Rel 1 16 (11) 9 (19)^b 0 (0)^c 7 (14)^b 7.70* .41

Rel 2 23 (17) 10 (20) 8 (19) 5 (12) 0.13 .03

Rel 3 11 (14) 3 (9) 3 (14) 5 (23) 0.49 .12

Rel 4 2 (7) 0 (0) 2 (29) 0 (0) 2.44 .60

Note. Rel 1 = Relationship 1 (n = 148); Rel 2 = Relationship 2 (n = 132); Rel 3 = Relationship 3 (n = 77); Rel 4 = Relationship 4 (n = 31).

^a Any IPV defined as the presence of any type of IPV (physical, coercive control, or sexual). Percentages are within setting and have been rounded. We report Pearson χ² when observed frequencies are greater than 5, Fisher’s Exact χ² when observed frequencies are less than 5; we report Cramer’s V for effect size.

^b–cDifferent superscripts within row indicate significant pairwise differences at Bonferroni-adjusted p < .05.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Co-occurrence rates within the first relationship revealed two patterns as the most common (not shown in table): physical IPV plus coercive control (21% of first relationships), as well as all three types combined (19%). In contrast, many patterns were very rare or nonexistent: Physical IPV alone and sexual IPV alone were reported by 2–3% of participants, while physical IPV plus sexual IPV was reported by none. This indicates that sexual IPV was most often experienced in tandem with coercive control or, most commonly, with both physical IPV and coercive control. While most co-occurrence patterns did not differ across settings, 2-year college and community participants were more likely to have had a first relationship characterized by physical IPV plus coercive control, in comparison to university participants, χ²(2, N = 148) = 10.31, p = .006.

Turning to Relationships 2–4, we found that 53–65% of these relationships were characterized by some type of IPV, with coercive control again the most common (46–58%; ongoing 60–78% of the time), followed by physical IPV (42–54%; ongoing 50–64% of the time) and sexual IPV (29–34%; ongoing 24–50% of the time). There were some significant differences in individual IPV rates by setting. Within Relationship 2, 2-year college participants reported significantly higher rates of any IPV, χ²(2, N = 132) = 6.68, p = .035; physical IPV, χ²(2, N = 132) = 11.81, p = .003; and ongoing physical IPV, χ²(2, N = 71) = 6.98, p = .030. They also reported significantly higher coercive control, χ²(2, N = 132) = 6.49, p = .039. Within Relationship 3, community participants reported significantly higher physical IPV, χ²(2, N = 77) = 9.44, p = .009. As with the co-occurrence patterns within first relationships, we found that among Relationships 2–4, physical IPV plus coercive control (16–25% of Relationships 2–4), as well as all three types combined (16–29%), was the most common, while physical IPV alone (2–4%), sexual IPV alone (2–3%), and physical IPV plus sexual IPV (0–1%) continued to be atypical patterns within our sample. Within Relationship 2, 2-year college participants reported a significantly higher rate of physical IPV plus coercive control, χ²(2, N = 132) = 6.77, p = .034.

In terms of differences in rates of individual IPV types or co-occurrence patterns by relationship number: Using Pearson and Fisher’s Exact χ², we found no significant differences in the rate of physical IPV, coercive control, or sexual IPV across different relationships. Likewise, we found no significant differences in co-occurrence patterns by relationship number. Thus, overall there were some within-relationship differences by setting, but across Relationships 1–4, we found that the individual rates of IPV as well as the patterns of co-occurrence were stable and consistent. Finally, among those participants (n = 132) with at least two relationships, we examined how common it was to experience IPV within more than one relationship. Just under half of the participants (49%) reported IPV within more than one relationship, with 29% reporting co-occurring IPV within more than one relationship; we found no significant differences by setting.

Length of Relationships and Association With Number of Types of IPV

First relationships were just under 2 years long (M = 23.83 months, SD = 23.03, range = 1–84 months). Each subsequent relationship was shorter, on average, than the one before: Relationship 2 (M = 20.44, SD = 19.49, range = 1–84 months), Relationship 3 (M = 18.35, SD = 17.99, range = 0.33–90 months), and Relationship 4 (M = 15.00, SD = 15.34, range = 2–60 months), though paired-sample t-tests revealed no significant differences in length across relationships. However, within each relationship (with the exception of Relationship 3), there were significant differences in relationship length as the number of types of IPV increased (see Table 2). For example, first relationships that were characterized by either two or three types of IPV were significantly longer than first relationships with no IPV, F(3, 147) = 7.61, p < .000, with a similar pattern found for Relationship 2, F(3, 131) = 6.52, p < .000. Within Relationship 4, those relationships marked by all three types of IPV were significantly longer than all other relationships, F(3, 30) = 3.95, p = .019.

Table 2.
Relationship Length by Number of Types of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), by Relationship.

Relationship

1 2 3 4

Relationship Length (in Months)

Number of IPV Types M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

0 15.55^a (18.55) 13.35^a (11.25) 13.72 (11.64) 13.00^a (9.72)

1 17.29 (20.31) 10.09^a (8.54) 22.63 (20.12) 6.25^a (4.03)

2 32.32^b (23.95) 26.91^b (21.23) 18.67 (22.96) 11.82^a (12.96)

3 33.71^b (24.92) 26.79^b (24.10) 26.31 (21.10) 33.40^b (23.64)

F(df, N) 7.61* (3, 147) 6.52* (3, 131) 2.07 (3, 76) 3.95* (3, 30)

η² .14 .13 .08 .31

Note. We report η² for effect size.

^a–bDifferent superscripts within column indicate significant pairwise differences within relationship.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

Transitions Into and Out of Violent Relationships: Differences by Type or Setting?

To examine whether violent first relationships are related to subsequent violent relationships, we explored the occurrence and rate of any IPV (the presence of any IPV, including physical, coercive control, and/or sexual), physical IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV, from the first relationship to the second; we used McNemar χ² with paired cases (N = 132) to identify any significant systematic change from Relationships 1 to 2 (see Table 3). We found great heterogeneity in terms of transition patterns, with no clear evidence that victimization in the first relationship was related to victimization in the second. For example, 72 (55%) of participants’ first relationships were characterized by any IPV; among those participants with a violent first relationship, 50% went on to experience an abusive second relationship and 50% did not. Among those who reported no IPV in their first relationship (60, or 45% of participants), a majority (78%) reported any IPV in their second; this pattern held for physical IPV and coercive control as well, but not for sexual IPV. In terms of change from Relationships 1 to 2, only physical IPV evidenced significant systematic change: Among those 49 (37%) participants whose first relationships were characterized by physical IPV, 33% reported physical IPV in their second, while 67% did not. The reverse was true for those 83 (63%) participants who reported no physical IPV in their first relationship, with 66% reporting physical IPV in their second and 34% reporting no physical IPV; overall, the occurrence of physical IPV increased from 37% to 54% across Relationships 1–2, p = .025.

Table 3.
Transitions Into and Out of Violent Relationships, by Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Type.

Occurrence of Same Type of IPV in Rel 2 (%)

Occurrence of IPV in Rel 1 (%) Total IPV No IPV McNemar χ² p-value OR

Any IPV^a 72 (55) 36 (50) 36 (50) .27 0.77

No IPV 60 (45) 47 (78) 13 (22)

Any physical IPV 49 (37) 16 (33) 33 (67) .03 0.60

No physical IPV 83 (63) 55 (66) 28 (34)

Any coercive control 65 (49) 26 (40) 39 (60) .25 0.76

No coercive control 67 (51) 51 (76) 16 (24)

Any sexual IPV 38 (29) 13 (34) 25 (66) .43 0.78

No sexual IPV 94 (71) 32 (34) 62 (66)

Note. N = 132. Odds ratio is conditional on whether or not IPV was experienced in Relationship 1 and reflects the odds of not experiencing IPV in Relationship 2 after having experienced IPV in Relationship 1. Percentages have been rounded. Rel 2 = Relationship 2; Rel 1 = Relationship 1; OR = odds ratio.

^a Any IPV defined as the presence of any type of IPV (physical, coercive control, or sexual).

To explore whether transition patterns differed by setting, we examined transitions in any IPV from the first relationship to the second, by setting, using Pearson and Fisher’s Exact χ² (see Table 4). We found some modest variability in transitions, with the pattern of no IPV in Relationship 1 followed by IPV in Relationship 2 the most common for both university and 2-year college participants (37% and 43%, respectively), while community participants’ most common transition pattern was IPV in Relationship 1 followed by no IPV in Relationship 2 (39%); the pattern of no IPV in both relationships was the least common across setting, ranging from 5% to 12%. However, setting was not significantly associated with transition pattern, χ²(6, N = 132) = 7.26, p = .295; in addition, post-hoc Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons indicated no significant pairwise differences.

Table 4.
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Transition Patterns, by Setting.

Any IPV^a Relationship 1–2 (%)

Setting Yes-Yes Yes-No No-Yes No-No Total

University 13 (27) 12 (25) 18 (37) 6 (12) 49 (37)

2-year college 14 (33) 8 (19) 18 (43) 2 (5) 42 (32)

High-risk community 9 (22) 16 (39) 11 (27) 5 (12) 41 (31)

Total 36 (27) 36 (27) 47 (36) 13 (10) 132

Note. N = 132. Percentages are within setting and have been rounded. Fisher’s Exact χ² = 7.26, p = .295. Cramer’s V = .17. Post-hoc Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons indicated no significant pairwise differences.

^aAny IPV defined as the presence of any type of IPV (physical, coercive control, or sexual).

Discussion

Our first research question focused on patterns of IPV rates and co-occurrence, including differences and similarities by setting and relationship number. Although the sample was recruited based on at least one experience with IPV, we found variability in the rate of IPV victimization across relationship history. We found that coercive control was the most common type of IPV victimization (46–58% of all relationships), followed by physical IPV (42–54%) and then sexual IPV (29–34%). Our findings echo the relative rates reported by the few studies that have examined all three types of IPV among adolescents or young adults (Bonomi et al., 2012; Catallozzi et al., 2011; Ybarra et al., 2016); however, the rates we found are higher, given that our participants were recruited on the basis of having experienced IPV.

Our study is the first to examine rates of ongoing (defined in the current study as more than five incidents within a given relationship) IPV victimization at the relationship level during adolescence and emerging adulthood. We found that when participants experienced physical IPV, coercive control, or sexual IPV, it was oftentimes not an isolated incident: In over half to three-quarters of relationships marked by physical IPV or coercive control, the abuse was ongoing, with ongoing sexual IPV somewhat less common, ranging from one-quarter to half of all relationships characterized by sexual IPV. It should be noted that we operationalized sexual IPV as rape or attempted rape, rather than including less severe forms of sexual assault, so these rates of ongoing sexual IPV in this sample of young women are especially alarming.

While most individual IPV rates were similar across settings, we did find that high-risk community participants’ first and third relationships were significantly more likely to be characterized by physical IPV, compared to university participants. For women in Relationship 2, 2-year college participants experienced a higher rate of both any IPV and physical IPV, in comparison to community participants, and a higher rate of ongoing physical IPV, in comparison to university participants. Overall, 2-year college and high-risk community participants tended to have higher rates of physical IPV across relationships, while university participants had lower rates. These findings appear to both support the life course theory tenet that lower SES during adolescence is associated with increased vulnerability to victimization, and add to the empirical literature indicating that lower SES is linked to higher rates of physical IPV among adolescents and young adults (Cui et al., 2013; Foshee et al., 2008). However, because there was within-group heterogeneity in terms of SES, and we did not explicitly test SES as a predictor, these findings are preliminary and should be interpreted as the first step in better understanding the role of SES in influencing relationship-level IPV victimization within diverse groups of young women.

We found that co-occurring IPV is the norm, even during the first relationship: The majority of all relationships marked by IPV involved either physical IPV plus coercive control or all three IPV types combined, with sexual IPV overwhelmingly likely to be present only in combination with the other two. Ours is the first study to examine these patterns of co-occurrence at the relationship level, across relationship history, so we are unable to compare our results to the existing empirical literature. However, we know that co-occurring physical and sexual IPV victimization among adolescents has been linked to substance use (heavy smoking, binge drinking, drug use), unhealthy weight control (laxative or diet pill use, purging), sexual risk-taking, and considering and attempting suicide (Silverman et al., 2001; Vagi et al., 2015). The young women in our current study who have experienced co-occurring IPV—particularly those who report co-occurring IPV across more than one relationship—appear to be at heightened risk of poor outcomes and further physical and sexual victimization, as they reach adulthood (Testa et al., 2011; Vézina & Hébert, 2007). Last, rates of individual IPV and co-occurrence patterns did not significantly differ by relationship number: First relationships, begun when participants were just under 15 years of age on average, were not distinct from subsequent relationships, in terms of how common each type of victimization was or what the patterns of co-occurrence were.

On average, first relationships were approximately 2 years long, while subsequent relationships were somewhat shorter, ranging from 20 months (Relationship 2) to 15 months (Relationship 4), though these differences were not statistically significant. Across Relationships 1, 2, and 4, we found that relationship length significantly increased as the number of types of IPV increased, with relationships characterized by two to three types of IPV lasting much longer than relationships with no IPV. For example, first relationships with no IPV were 15 months on average, while those with all three types of IPV lasted 32 months. Taken together, these findings suggest that many adolescent relationships, particularly those that are abusive, are likely mischaracterized as brief, casual dating (Furman & Shaffer, 2003; Giordano et al., 2016; National Institute of Justice, 2014; White, 2009). Instead, they should be understood as quasi-adult intimate partnerships, in the sense that they are serious, very long-lasting commitments. From a life course perspective, while adolescent relationships lasting a year or so are normative (Carver et al., 2003), these lengthy, serious relationships during adolescence—especially in early adolescence—are off-time (i.e., not normative developmentally or socially; Elder, 1998) and thus fraught with risk, as the demands of the relationship are likely to exceed the developmental preparedness of the maturing adolescent.

How might an abusive adolescent relationship continue for many months, long after the onset of violence? A young woman may idealize her relationship and become overdependent on it to meet her self-esteem and social status needs and thus self-silence to reduce conflict and the potential loss of the relationship (Burton, Halpern-Felsher, Rehm, Rankin, & Humphreys, 2013; Exner-Cortens, 2014; Jack & Dill, 1992). As the relationship lengthens, she may feel compelled to “stick it out” in order to honor her original choice to enter into the relationship as well as her time investment (Few & Rosen, 2005; Katz, Kuffel, & Brown, 2006). Other key factors may include feelings of shame, self-blame, and anticipatory stigma (i.e., belief that she will be judged as at fault or blameworthy if others find out); inexperience and uncertainty about whether to label her experiences as abuse, especially if it is her first relationship; an increasing tolerance for aggression as her commitment to the relationship increases; and fear of what he might do to her and others close to her if she leaves (Arriaga, Capezza, & Daly, 2016; Burton et al., 2013; Helm, Baker, Berlin, & Kimura, 2017; Kennedy & Prock, 2016; Littleton, Breitkopf, & Berenson, 2008; L. M. Miller, 2011; Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013).

Finally, our exploration of transitions into and out of violent relationships, by IPV type and setting, revealed great heterogeneity across participants’ transitions, with no evidence that victimization in the first relationship is related to victimization in the second. Overall rates of any IPV, coercive control, and sexual IPV were consistent from Relationships 1 to 2, while the rate of physical IPV systematically increased, from 37% to 54%; transition patterns for any IPV victimization did not significantly vary by setting. A few studies have examined patterns of stability and change in physical and psychological IPV perpetration among adolescents and young adults using data from more than one relationship: The findings indicate that stability in terms of partner (i.e., retaining the same partner from one time point to the next) is associated with a higher rate of IPV perpetration (Capaldi et al., 2003; Testa et al., 2011; Timmons Fritz & Smith Slep, 2009). However, these results may be more about the positive association between relationship length and IPV, rather than relationship transitions, per se, and as such are not directly comparable to our findings on transitions from the first to second relationship. Johnson and colleagues, in their (2015) longitudinal study of physical IPV perpetration and victimization among adolescents and young adults, assessed IPV within up to five relationships; they used the data to compute what proportion of relationships were characterized by IPV, rather than taking a relationship-level approach. Among female participants, 45% reported all of their relationships were non-violent, while 8% indicated that all of their relationships were characterized by physical IPV, with both patterns suggesting stability or continuity; 48% reported physical IPV in some relationships, demonstrating a pattern of discontinuity across time. While these data (Johnson et al., 2015) indicate heterogeneity across adolescents in terms of their rate of IPV, they cannot illuminate the actual transitions into and out of specific relationships.

Study Limitations

Our study has several limitations. First, our study is exploratory, retrospective, and descriptive; future research should employ more advanced statistical approaches using prospective, longitudinal data, to examine predictors of IPV victimization patterns across relationships among young women. Second, we do not know to what extent our sample is representative of young women who have experienced IPV from university, 2-year college, and high-risk community settings. Third, our sample is small, particularly in terms of Relationship 4, which may have reduced our power to make comparisons. Fourth, we relied on participants’ retrospective self-report; self-report has been shown to yield reliable, valid data when assessing sensitive topics with adolescents (Caskey & Rosenthal, 2005), but we could have strengthened our study with other supporting, confirmatory data. Fifth, our measurement of coercive control as linked to physical IPV limited our analyses; future research should examine these two types of IPV independently. Sixth, we did not examine psychological abuse, which may be linked to other types of IPV (Ybarra et al., 2016).

Research Implications

Our method and findings highlight the usefulness of examining IPV patterns using a relationship-level approach beginning with participants’ first relationship, rather than measuring IPV within the last year, with a current partner, or over the lifetime: Our findings begin to challenge the assumption that adolescent relationships—especially those that are abusive—tend to be brief and casual dating relationships. Future research should consider using relationship-level data to examine IPV characteristics, patterns, and predictors, including transitions into and out of violent relationships, across adolescence and young adulthood. Our next steps include using a multilevel modeling approach to examine predictors of sexual IPV, trajectories of disclosure and help-seeking, and the role of childhood cumulative victimization and adversity in influencing patterns of IPV across relationships. We also explored socioeconomic diversity among young IPV survivors by recruiting participants from university, 2-year college, and high-risk community settings; it is imperative that we move beyond relying on high school and university samples for our adolescent and young adult IPV research. Finally, given that sexual revictimization is understood as at least two distinct episodes of sexual violence, experienced during two developmental periods (e.g., childhood and adulthood), or via two different perpetrators (Classen, Palesh, & Aggarwal, 2005; Walker, Freud, Ellis, Fraine, & Wilson, 2017), how should we categorize ongoing sexual IPV? If revictimization is associated with particularly poor outcomes among survivors (Classen et al., 2005), it seems plausible that multiple rapes at the hands of one’s partner may also be linked to especially poor outcomes, though to our knowledge, this has not been examined among adolescent or young adult survivors.

Practice Implications

Practitioners working with adolescent and emerging adult women who have experienced IPV victimization should assess for multiple types of IPV, given the high rate of co-occurrence. Very lengthy intimate partner relationships, especially in early adolescence, may indicate heightened risk for IPV victimization; practitioners should be aware of this potential connection and screen and follow up accordingly. IPV prevention and intervention approaches for adolescents and emerging adults must be comprehensive and include all types of IPV, including sexual violence and coercive control; given that coercive control appears to be quite common within abusive relationships, content about it should be incorporated and emphasized (Catallozzi et al., 2011). Because young women who have experienced physical or sexual violence from a partner may not identify it as abuse (Littleton et al., 2008; L. M. Miller, 2011; Orchowski et al., 2013), prevention and intervention efforts should use behaviorally specific language in order to reach everyone affected, whether or not they define themselves as victims or survivors. Given that there is a great deal of overlap between IPV and sexual assault/rape (i.e., at least half of sexual assaults against young women are committed by an intimate partner; Black et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2003), it makes sense to integrate the two in terms of prevention and intervention approaches, rather than conceptualizing and addressing them as distinct issues requiring different solutions. For example, if sexual violence is occurring within relationships, but it happens in private and young women normalize it, do not identify it as “sexual assault” or “rape,” and do not disclose to anyone, an exclusive bystander intervention approach will not be effective in preventing and reducing their victimization.

Prevention and intervention should begin in early adolescence and should be available to all adolescents and emerging adults, not just those who attend high school or universities. Although violence prevention and intervention efforts at traditional 4-year college and university settings have received the most attention from researchers, advocates, and the media, there is a clear need for similar efforts at 2-year community colleges, which are oftentimes characterized by scarce resources, few employees dedicated to violence prevention, limited training, a lack of access to best practices, and fewer mental health and victims’ services for students, compared to universities (Association for Student Conduct Administration, 2015; Karjane, Fisher, & Cullen, 2002; Sabina & Ho, 2014). If we are to be effective in reducing the rate of IPV victimization among adolescent and emerging adult women, we must begin very early, integrate our understanding of violence to acknowledge the co-occurring nature of IPV, as well as the overlap between IPV and sexual assault, and implement our efforts across a variety of settings, so that we can reach everyone, including those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged.

Conclusions

Using a novel methodological approach enabled us to capture relationship-level patterns of IPV types, co-occurrence, relationship length in association with number of IPV types, and transitions into and out of abusive relationships within a socioeconomically diverse sample of young women. In the future, researchers should explore the utility of a relationship-level approach in advancing knowledge in the area of adolescent and young adult IPV. Effective prevention and intervention efforts aimed at these age groups should start prior to early adolescence, integrate sexual assault and partner violence, and be implemented beyond high school and university settings.

	Full Sample	University	Two-Year College	High-Risk Community	χ²	Cramer’s V
Frequency (%)
Any IPV^a
Rel 1	86 (58)	26 (52)	28 (58)	32 (64)	1.48	.10
Rel 2	83 (63)	31 (63)	32 (76)^b	20 (49)^c	6.68*	.23
Rel 3	41 (53)	15 (46)	10 (46)	16 (73)	4.70	.25
Rel 4	20 (65)	6 (46)	6 (86)	8 (73)	3.31	.34
Any physical IPV
Rel 1	62 (42)	14 (28)^b	20 (42)	28 (56)^c	8.05*	.23
Rel 2	71 (54)	25 (51)	31 (74)^b	15 (37)^c	11.81**	.30
Rel 3	32 (42)	9 (27)^b	8 (36)	15 (68)^c	9.44**	.35
Rel 4	14 (45)	5 (39)	3 (43)	6 (55)	0.73	.14
Physical IPV > 5×
Rel 1	34 (23)	6 (12)	8 (17)	20 (40)	6.26*	.32
Rel 2	40 (30)	9 (18)^b	22 (52)^c	9 (22)	6.98*	.31
Rel 3	16 (21)	3 (9)	3 (14)	10 (46)	3.08	.32
Rel 4	9 (29)	2 (15)	2 (29)	5 (46)	2.22	.40
Any coercive control
Rel 1	78 (53)	22 (44)	27 (56)	29 (58)	2.32	.13
Rel 2	77 (58)	29 (59)	30 (71)^b	18 (44)^c	6.49*	.22
Rel 3	35 (46)	12 (36)	9 (41)	14 (64)	4.22	.23
Rel 4	18 (58)	6 (46)	5 (71)	7 (64)	1.38	.21
Coercive control > 5×
Rel 1	50 (34)	12 (24)	16 (33)	22 (44)	2.89	.19
Rel 2	46 (35)	14 (29)	20 (48)	12 (29)	2.54	.18
Rel 3	22 (29)	7 (21)	5 (23)	10 (46)	0.85	.15
Rel 4	14 (45)	4 (31)	3 (43)	7 (64)	3.41	.43
Any sexual IPV
Rel 1	43 (29)	19 (38)	10 (21)	14 (28)	3.54	.16
Rel 2	45 (34)	19 (39)	16 (38)	10 (24)	2.49	.14
Rel 3	23 (30)	7 (21)	7 (32)	9 (41)	2.50	.18
Rel 4	9 (29)	2 (15)	4 (57)	3 (27)	3.61	.35
Sexual IPV > 5×
Rel 1	16 (11)	9 (19)^b	0 (0)^c	7 (14)^b	7.70*	.41
Rel 2	23 (17)	10 (20)	8 (19)	5 (12)	0.13	.03
Rel 3	11 (14)	3 (9)	3 (14)	5 (23)	0.49	.12
Rel 4	2 (7)	0 (0)	2 (29)	0 (0)	2.44	.60

	Relationship
0	15.55^a (18.55)	13.35^a (11.25)	13.72 (11.64)	13.00^a (9.72)
1	17.29 (20.31)	10.09^a (8.54)	22.63 (20.12)	6.25^a (4.03)
2	32.32^b (23.95)	26.91^b (21.23)	18.67 (22.96)	11.82^a (12.96)
3	33.71^b (24.92)	26.79^b (24.10)	26.31 (21.10)	33.40^b (23.64)
F(df, N)	7.61*** (3, 147)	6.52*** (3, 131)	2.07 (3, 76)	3.95* (3, 30)
η²	.14	.13	.08	.31

Occurrence of Same Type of IPV in Rel 2 (%)
Any IPV^a	72 (55)	36 (50)	36 (50)	.27	0.77
No IPV	60 (45)	47 (78)	13 (22)
Any physical IPV	49 (37)	16 (33)	33 (67)	.03	0.60
No physical IPV	83 (63)	55 (66)	28 (34)
Any coercive control	65 (49)	26 (40)	39 (60)	.25	0.76
No coercive control	67 (51)	51 (76)	16 (24)
Any sexual IPV	38 (29)	13 (34)	25 (66)	.43	0.78
No sexual IPV	94 (71)	32 (34)	62 (66)

Any IPV^a Relationship 1–2 (%)
University	13 (27)	12 (25)	18 (37)	6 (12)	49 (37)
2-year college	14 (33)	8 (19)	18 (43)	2 (5)	42 (32)
High-risk community	9 (22)	16 (39)	11 (27)	5 (12)	41 (31)
Total	36 (27)	36 (27)	47 (36)	13 (10)	132

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.

References

American Association of Community Colleges. (2016). 2016 fact sheet. Retrieved from www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Documents/AACCFactSheetsR2.pdf

Arriaga

X. B.

Capezza

N. M.

Daly

C. A.

(2016). Personal standards for judging aggression by a relationship partner: How much aggression is too much? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 36–54. doi:10.1037/pspi0000035

Association for Student Conduct Administration. (2015). Community colleges and sexual misconduct: Unique challenges and opportunities. Retrieved from www.theasca.org/Files/2015communitycolleges&titleIX.pdf

Belli

R. F.

Shay

W. L.

Stafford

F. P.

(2001). Event history calendars and question list surveys: A direct comparison of interviewing methods. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 45–74. doi:10.1086/320037

Belli

R. F.

Stafford

F. P.

Alwin

D. F.

(Eds.). (2009). Calendar and time diary: Methods in life course research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

… Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bonomi

Anderson

M. L.

Nemeth

Bartle-Haring

Buettner

Schipper

(2012). Dating violence victimization across the teen years: Abuse frequency, number of abusive partners, and age at first occurrence. BMC Public Health, 12, 637–646. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-637

Burton

C. W.

Halpern-Felsher

Rehm

R. S.

Rankin

Humphreys

J. C.

(2013). “It was pretty scary”: The theme of fear in young adult women’s descriptions of a history of adolescent dating abuse. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34, 803–813. doi:10.3109/01612840.2013.827286

Capaldi

D. M.

Shortt

J. W.

Crosby

(2003). Physical and psychological aggression in at-risk young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 1–27. doi:10.1353/mpq.2003.0001

10.

Carbone-Lopez

Rennison

C. M.

Macmillan

(2012). The transcendence of violence across relationships: New methods for understanding men’s and women’s experiences of intimate partner violence across the life course. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 319–346. doi:10.1007/s10940-011-9143-9

11.

Carver

Joyner

Udry

J. R.

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

(Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Caskey

J. D.

Rosenthal

S. L.

(2005). Conducting research on sensitive topics with adolescents: Ethical and developmental considerations. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 61–67.

13.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Thornton

Freedman

Amell

J. W.

Harrington

… Silva

P. A.

(1996). The life history calendar: A research and clinical assessment method for collecting retrospective event-history data. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 6, 101–114. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1234-988X(199607)6:23.3.CO;2-E

14.

Catallozzi

Simon

P. J.

Davidson

L. L.

Breitbart

Rickert

V. I.

(2011). Understanding control in adolescent and young adult relationships. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 165, 313–319. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.32

15.

Choi

H. J.

Temple

J. R.

(2016). Do gender and exposure to interparental violence moderate the stability of teen dating violence?: Latent transition analysis. Prevention Science, 17, 367–376. doi:10.1007/s11121-015-0621-4

16.

Classen

C. C.

Palesh

O. G.

Aggarwal

(2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 103–129. doi:10.1177/152483800527508

17.

Collins

W. A.

Sroufe

L. A.

(1999). Capacity for intimate relationships: A developmental construction. In Furman

Brown

B. B.

Feiring

(Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 125–147). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Cook

S. L.

Goodman

L. A.

(2006). Beyond frequency and severity: Development and validation of the brief coercion and conflict scales. Violence Against Women, 12, 1050–1072. doi:10.1177/1077801206293333

19.

Cui

Gordon

Ueno

Fincham

F. D.

(2013). The continuation of intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 300–313. doi:10.1111/jomf.12016

20.

Diemer

M. A.

Mistry

R. S.

Wadsworth

M. E.

López

Reimers

(2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 77–113. doi:10.1111/asap.12001

21.

Dutton

M. A.

Goodman

L. A.

(2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743–756. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6

22.

Elder

G. H.

(1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x

23.

Elder

G. H.

Johnson

M. K.

Crosnoe

(2004). The emergence and development of life course theory. In Mortimer

J. T.

Shanahan

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Springer.

24.

Ensel

W. M.

Peek

M. K.

Lin

Lai

(1996). Stress in the life course: A life history approach. Journal of Aging and Health, 8, 389–416. doi:10.1177/089826439600800305

25.

Exner-Cortens

(2014). Theory and teen dating violence victimization: Considering adolescent development. Developmental Review, 34, 168–188. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2014.03.001

26.

Few

A. L.

Rosen

K. H.

(2005). Victims of chronic dating violence: How women’s vulnerabilities link to their decision to stay. Family Relations, 54, 265–279. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2005.00021.x

27.

Foshee

V. A.

Karriker-Jaffe

K. J.

Reyes

H. L. M.

Ennett

S. T.

Suchindran

Bauman

K. E.

Benefield

T. S.

(2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual mediators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 596–604. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.11.005

28.

Freedman

Thornton

Camburn

Alwin

Young-DeMarco

(1988). The life history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociological Methodology, 18, 37–68. doi:10.2307/271044

29.

Furman

Shaffer

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

(Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

30.

Giordano

P. G.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2016). Adolescent romantic relationships: An emerging portrait of their nature and developmental significance. In Booth

Crouter

A. C.

Snyder

(Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and opportunities (pp. 127–150). New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Giordano

P. C.

Soto

D. A.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2010). The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research, 39, 863–874. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.009

32.

Grimes

D. A.

Schulz

K. F.

(2002). Descriptive studies: What they can and cannot do. The Lancet, 359, 145–149. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07373-7

33.

Hamby

(2016). Self-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Psychology of Violence, 6, 323–335. doi:10.1037/a0038207

34.

Hamby

Turner

(2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. Psychology of Violence, 3, 323–339. doi:10.1037/a0029706

35.

Hammersley

(2008). Assessing validity in social research. In Alasuutari

Bickman

Brannen

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 42–53). London, England: Sage.

36.

Hatch

S. L.

(2005). Conceptualizing and identifying cumulative adversity and protective resources: Implications for understanding health inequalities. Journal of Gerontology, 60B, 130–134. doi:10.1093/geronb/60.Special_Issue_2.S130

37.

Helm

Baker

C. K.

Berlin

Kimura

(2017). Getting in, being in, staying in, and getting out: Adolescents’ descriptions of dating and dating violence. Youth & Society, 49, 318–340. doi:10.1177/0044118X15575290

38.

Jack

D. C.

Dill

(1992). The silencing the self scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 97–106. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1992.tb00242.x

39.

Johnson

W. L.

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

(2015). Relationship context and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57, 631–636. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.014

40.

Karjane

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

(2002). Campus sexual assault: How America’s institutions of higher education respond. Final Report, NIJ Grant #1999-WA-VX-0008. Newton, MA: Education Development Center.

41.

Katz

Kuffel

S. W.

Brown

F. A.

(2006). Leaving a sexually coercive dating partner: A prospective application of the investment model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 267–275. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00295.x

42.

Katz

Moore

May

(2008). Physical and sexual covictimization from dating partners: A distinct type of intimate abuse? Violence Against Women, 14, 961–980. doi:10.1177/1077801208320905

43.

Kennedy

A. C.

Prock

K. A.

(2016). “I still feel like I am not normal”: A review of the role of stigma and stigmatization among female survivors of child sexual abuse, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1524838016673601

44.

Koss

M. P.

Dinero

T. E.

Seibel

C. A.

Cox

S. L.

(1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1988.tb00924.x

45.

Krebs

(2014). Measuring sexual victimization: On what fronts is the jury still out and do we need it to come in? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 170–180. doi:10.1177/1524838014521028

46.

Leadbeater

B. J.

Banister

E. M.

Ellis

W. E.

Yeung

(2008). Victimization and relationship aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of parental and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 359–372. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9269-0

47.

Littleton

Breitkopf

C. R.

Berenson

(2008). Beyond the campus: Unacknowledged rape among low-income women. Violence Against Women, 14, 269–286. doi:10.1177/1077801207313733

48.

Livingston

J. A.

Hequembourg

Testa

VanZile-Tamsen

(2007). Unique aspects of adolescent sexual victimization experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 331–343. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00383.x

49.

Maas

C. D.

Fleming

C. B.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Catalano

R. F.

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

50.

Macmillan

(2001). Violence and the life course: The consequences of victimization for personal and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 1–11. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.1

51.

Marincola

F. M.

(2007). In support of descriptive studies: Relevance to translational research. Journal of Translational Medicine, 5, 1–3. doi:10.1186/1479-5876-5-21

52.

McNaughton Reyes

H. L.

Foshee

V. A.

(2013). Sexual dating aggression across grades 8 through 12: Timing and predictors of onset. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 581–595. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9864-6

53.

Miller

(2006). A specification of the types of intimate partner violence experienced by women in the general population. Violence Against Women, 12, 1105–1131. doi:10.1177/1077801206293501

54.

Miller

L. M.

(2011). Physical abuse in a college setting: A study of perceptions and participation in abusive dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 71–80. doi:10,1007/s10896-010-9344-2

55.

Miller

Williams

Cutbush

Gibbs

Clinton-Sherrod

Jones

(2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 607–618. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9914-8

56.

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast facts. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

57.

National Institute of Justice. (2014). Teen dating relationships: Understanding and comparing youth and adult conceptualizations, final report. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248465.pdf

58.

O’Rand

A. M.

(2002). Cumulative advantage theory in life course research. In Crystal

Shea

(Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics: Focus on economic outcomes in later life (Vol. 22, pp. 14–30). New York, NY: Springer.

59.

Orchowski

L. M.

Untied

A. S.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2013). Factors associated with college women’s labeling of sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 28, 940–958. doi:10.1891/0886-6708

60.

Orpinas

Hsieh

Song

Holland

Nahapetyan

(2013). Trajectories of physical dating violence from middle to high school: Association with relationship quality and acceptability of aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 551–565. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9881-5

61.

Pearlin

L. I.

Schieman

Fazio

E. M.

Meersman

S. C.

(2005). Stress, health, and the life course: Some conceptual perspectives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 205–219. doi:10.1177/002214650504600206

62.

The Pell Institute. (2015). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States: 45 year trend report. Retrieved from http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Indicators_of_HigherEducation_Equity_in_the_US_45_Year_Trend_Report.pdf

63.

Rennison

C. M.

Addington

L. A.

(2014). Violence against college women: A review to identify limitations in defining the problem and inform future research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 159–169. doi:10.1177/1524838014520724

64.

Repetti

R. L.

Taylor

S. E.

Seeman

T. E.

(2002). Risky families: Family social environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 330–366. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.330

65.

Sabina

L. Y.

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 201–226. doi:10.1177/1524838014521322

66.

Silverman

J. G.

Raj

Mucci

L. A.

Hathaway

J. E.

(2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572–579.

67.

Smith

P. H.

White

J. W.

Holland

L. J.

(2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1104–1109. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1104

68.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407–432. doi:10.1177/1069397104269543

69.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

70.

Testa

Hoffman

J. H.

Leonard

K. E.

(2011). Female intimate partner violence perpetration: Stability and predictors of mutual and nonmutual aggression across the first year of college. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 362–373. doi:10.1002/ab.20391

71.

Timmons Fritz

P. A.

Smith Slep

A. M.

(2009). Stability of physical and psychological adolescent dating aggression across time and partners. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 303–314. doi:10.1080/15374410902851671

72.

Vagi

K. J.

Olsen

E. O.

Basile

K. C.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

(2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among US high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 474–482. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3577

73.

Vézina

Hébert

(2007). Risk factors for victimization in romantic relationships of young women: A review of empirical studies and implications for prevention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8, 33–66. doi:10.1177/1524838006297029

74.

Voth Schrag

R. J.

(2016). Campus based sexual assault and dating violence: A review of study contexts and participants. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 32, 67–80. doi:10.1177/0886109916644644

75.

Winter

(2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of “validity” in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4, 1–14. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol4/iss3/4

76.

Wolitzky-Taylor

K. B

Ruggiero

K. J.

Danielson

C. K.

Resnick

H. S.

Hanson

R. F.

Smith

D. W.

… Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2008). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 755–762. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e318172ef5f

77.

Ybarra

M. L.

Espelage

D. L.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Korchmaros

J. D.

Boyd

(2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap of physical, psychological, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1083–1099. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0748-9

78.

Yoshihama

Gillespie

Hammock

A. C.

Belli

R. F.

Tolman

R. M.

(2005). Does the life history calendar method facilitate the recall of intimate partner violence? Comparison of two methods of data collection. Social Work Research, 29, 151–163. doi:10.1093/swr/29.151

79.

Walker

H. E.

Freud

J. S.

Ellis

R. A.

Fraine

S. M.

Wilson

L. C.

(2017). The prevalence of sexual revictimization: A meta-analytic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1524838017692364

80.

White

J. W.

(2009). A gendered approach to adolescent dating violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 1–15. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01467.x

	Relationship
	1	2	3	4
	Relationship Length (in Months)
Number of IPV Types	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
0	15.55^a (18.55)	13.35^a (11.25)	13.72 (11.64)	13.00^a (9.72)
1	17.29 (20.31)	10.09^a (8.54)	22.63 (20.12)	6.25^a (4.03)
2	32.32^b (23.95)	26.91^b (21.23)	18.67 (22.96)	11.82^a (12.96)
3	33.71^b (24.92)	26.79^b (24.10)	26.31 (21.10)	33.40^b (23.64)
F(df, N)	7.61*** (3, 147)	6.52*** (3, 131)	2.07 (3, 76)	3.95* (3, 30)
η²	.14	.13	.08	.31

Occurrence of Same Type of IPV in Rel 2 (%)
Occurrence of IPV in Rel 1 (%)	Total	IPV	No IPV	McNemar χ² p-value	OR
Any IPV^a	72 (55)	36 (50)	36 (50)	.27	0.77
No IPV	60 (45)	47 (78)	13 (22)	.27	0.77
Any physical IPV	49 (37)	16 (33)	33 (67)	.03	0.60
No physical IPV	83 (63)	55 (66)	28 (34)	.03	0.60
Any coercive control	65 (49)	26 (40)	39 (60)	.25	0.76
No coercive control	67 (51)	51 (76)	16 (24)	.25	0.76
Any sexual IPV	38 (29)	13 (34)	25 (66)	.43	0.78
No sexual IPV	94 (71)	32 (34)	62 (66)	.43	0.78

Any IPV^a Relationship 1–2 (%)
Setting	Yes-Yes	Yes-No	No-Yes	No-No	Total
University	13 (27)	12 (25)	18 (37)	6 (12)	49 (37)
2-year college	14 (33)	8 (19)	18 (43)	2 (5)	42 (32)
High-risk community	9 (22)	16 (39)	11 (27)	5 (12)	41 (31)
Total	36 (27)	36 (27)	47 (36)	13 (10)	132