Dating Norms and Dating Violence Among Ninth Graders in Northeast Georgia

Participants

We collected data as part of Healthy Teens, a longitudinal, mixed-methods study that followed a cohort of students yearly from Grades 6 to 12. Students attended one of nine middle schools, which fed into eight high schools, located in six counties in Northeast Georgia. Students who moved to other schools (n = 44) or dropped out of school (n = 3) were also assessed. The counties where the schools are located had a slightly higher proportion of students living in poverty and a much higher prevalence of juvenile arrests for violent crime than in the United States as a whole (Henry, Farrell, & Multisite Violence Prevention Project, 2004). Individually, the schools in this study were very different in terms of the demographic characteristics of students, urban versus rural location, and level of poverty, but collectively the sample reflects the diversity of schools in Northeast Georgia. The middle school (Grades 6 to 8) assessments were part of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP, 2004, 2009), which included two samples of sixth graders: (a) a large, random sample of students, and (b) a small high-risk sample identified by teachers as having problems with aggression as well as being influential among peers. The MVPP study used a cluster randomized design to examine the effects of a universal and a targeted program on peer violence among sixth graders. Thirty-seven schools from four states participated in the MVPP study, and Healthy Teens followed the students from Georgia into high school. The MVPP sixth-grade intervention did not address dating or dating violence and, in ninth grade, control and intervention groups did not differ in the prevalence of dating or norms supporting dating violence. No other intervention was part of the study.

The sixth-grade response rate was 78%. Of these students, 82% reconsented in high school. No information was obtained on students who declined to participate. Differences by consent status were minimal. Among sixth graders, the prevalence of dating and norms that support boys aggressing girlfriends did not differ by consent status. Mean scores of norms supporting girls aggressing boyfriends only differed by consent status among African American boys: The small number who did not reconsent to participate in ninth grade had significantly lower scores in sixth grade than those who reconsented (F = 9.59, p = .002).

This study presents results from surveys and focus groups when the students were in the ninth grade. We report the results from this grade because it was the 1st year we collected quantitative and qualitative data. Although our analysis of the middle school data (quantitative) indicated that dating and dating aggression were common among boys and girls, we believed our understanding of these phenomena would be enhanced by exploring the perspectives of the students themselves. Healthy Teens added a qualitative component to capture students’ experiences, in their own words.

The final sample (surveys) comprised 624 students (53% boys, 47% girls; 47% White, 38% African American, 11% Latino, and 5% other ethnicity; the race distribution of participating students was similar to that of the schools). Schools varied in the proportion of minority students: Two schools had less than 20% of non-Caucasian students, three schools had between 30% and 60%, and three schools had between 70% and 92%. Of these students, 466 (75%) were randomly selected in sixth grade, 52 (8%) were identified by teachers as having problems with aggression, and 106 (17%) were both randomly selected and identified by the teachers. Data were analyzed for the total sample because dating norms from the small number of students (n = 52) who were not part of the random selection did not differ significantly from those randomly sampled. The large majority of students reported dating someone of the opposite sex although one girl reported dating another girl and five students reported dating both girls and boys.

Ninety students (51 girls, 39 boys; 60 White, 24 African American, 6 other) participated in 12 focus groups, two in each of six participating schools. (Two schools did not permit focus groups. Students from these two schools did not differ from other schools in the prevalence of dating or mean scores of norms for girls hitting boys. However, African American boys in the nonparticipating schools reported significantly higher mean scores of norms for boys hitting girls.) Six focus groups were with boys and six with girls. Within each school and gender group, 9 to 12 students were randomly selected (76% participation rate) because random sampling strengthens external validity or the transferability of findings to the larger student population (Merriam, 2009). Absence from school and scheduling conflicts were the main reasons for nonparticipation.

Data Collection

Data consisted of student surveys and focus groups. Students completed surveys online in the schools’ media centers and received a US$20 gift card. We conducted focus groups on site and gave students a healthy snack. Research assistants monitored all data collection activities. Parents signed a permission form (active consent) for child participation in Grades 6 and 9, and students signed an assent form at every data collection point. The university’s Institutional Review Board approved all protocols.

Student Survey Measures

Focus Groups Interviews

We invited randomly selected students (within gender groups) to participate in 60-minute focus group at their schools. The purpose was to understand how they view dating and how they learn about appropriate and inappropriate dating behaviors. We also asked about their perceptions of aggression, probing for gender-based beliefs in particular. Toward the end of the session, we invited students to participate in a think-aloud protocol that “walked us through” what precipitates dating aggression and the ways it might manifest. The IRB advised that we instruct students not to share personal experiences but, instead, to respond as if they were speaking for ninth-grade students in general. This strategy allowed us to tap into perceived norms, which represented focus group participants’ interpretations of the “prevailing codes of conduct” (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005, p. 129) of ninth-grade students. The first author of this article led the focus groups, supported by a research assistant who cofacilitated the groups and took notes. Six research assistants participated in the collection of focus group data, and each focus group was co-facilitated by a research assistant of the same gender as the students. Focus groups were audiotaped, and tapes were transcribed verbatim. To promote confidentiality, students selected fake names.

Student Survey

Overall support for dating violence was low. Mean scores for the four items measuring dating violence norms from girls to boys ranged between 1.40 (SD = .77) and 1.84 (SD = 1.02), and means scores for the four items measuring dating violence norms from boys to girls ranged between 1.24 (SD = .63) and 1.40 (SD = .81). For the regression analysis, strongly agree or agree responses to at least one of the four statements for each type of violence (male-to-female or female-to-male) were coded as endorsing that type of dating violence. We used a generalized mixed model with school as a random effect; random effect can be viewed as reflecting natural heterogeneity due to many unobservable factors. A logit link function was used to model the effects of sex, race/ethnicity, and dating status on the probability of reporting norms that support dating violence. Sex, race/ethnicity, and dated during the 3 months prior to the survey were defined as fixed effects, the areas of interest in this study (Table 1). Only data from students attending the eight participating schools were included in this analysis. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS 9.2 PROC GLIMMIX. The result was expressed as an adjusted odds ratio (AOR). If the 95% confidence interval of the AOR does not include 1, the difference between the groups is considered statistically significant.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Norms Supporting Dating Violence by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Dating Status Among Ninth Graders

		OK for a Girl to			OK for a Boy to
	Sample	Hit Her Boyfriend			Hit His Girlfriend
	n*	%	AOR	95% CI	%	AOR	95% CI
Sex
Girls	271	36	1		16	1
Boys	306	38	1.13	[0.80, 1.60]	19	1.45	[0.91, 2.30]
Race/ethnicity
White	280	32	1		6	1
Black	227	45	1.71	[1.17, 2.50]	30	5.60	[3.02, 10.40]
Latino	51	27	0.84	[0.43, 1.65]	24	4.72	[2.00, 11.13]
Other	19	37	1.26	[0.47, 3.34]	21	3.63	[1.05, 12.62]
Dated 3 months prior
No	202	31	1		14	1
Yes	375	40	1.43	[0.99, 2.08]	20	1.43	[0.86, 2.36]

Note: Percentages indicate responding strongly agree or agree to at least one of four items in the norms for dating violence scale. AOR = Adjusted odds ratio; all variables (sex, race/ethnicity, and having dated 3 months prior to the survey) were entered in the model simultaneously; school was included as a random effect. Bold indicate a statistically significant AOR

As detailed in Table 1, one third of the participants reported some support for girls hitting boyfriends, while only one-sixth reported support for boys hitting girlfriends. More boys (19%) than girls (16%) supported boys hitting girlfriends, but this difference was not statistically significant after controlling for having dated in the 3 months prior to taking the survey and race/ethnicity. Strong racial differences were observed in the support for dating violence. Support for violence from girls to boyfriends was significantly higher for African American students, and support for violence from boys to girlfriends was significantly higher for all non-White students. In addition, students who had dated reported slightly more acceptance of norms supporting dating violence, but the difference was not statistically significant (Table 1).

To examine whether beliefs supporting violence are associated with action, we correlated support for violence with physical dating violence perpetration and victimization among students who had dated. Two thirds of the students reported dating during the 3 months prior to the survey. Of the students who had dated, one-fourth reported at least one act of physical aggression toward their date, and one-third reported at least one act of physical victimization. Table 2 illustrates prevalence by sex and race/ethnicity.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Prevalence of Dating and Dating Aggression Among Ninth Graders by Sex and Race/Ethnicity

			Girls			Boys
	Girls	Boys	White	Black	Latina	White	Black	Latino
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Reported dating	68	62	63	74	43	58	72	42
Reported physical aggression a	33	17	17	46	38	4	35	9
Reported physical victimization a	23	37	12	31	25	24	51	39

a.

Percentage of those who reported dating.

As shown in Table 3, the correlation between victimization and perpetration was very high for boys and girls, suggesting that violence at this age is bidirectional. The high correlation between beliefs that support female-to-male violence and male-to-female violence (r = .62) deserves further explanation: 75% of students reported consistency with regard to the acceptability of violence (i.e., they supported both types of violence or did not support either type); 22% supported girls hitting boyfriends, but not vice versa; and less than 3% supported boys hitting girls but not girls hitting boys.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficients (Pearson) Between Study Variables and Sex Among Ninth Graders

	1	2	3	4
1. OK for a boy to hit his girlfriend	—	.62**	.48**	.47**
2. OK for a girl to hit her boyfriend	.62**	—	.27**	.29**
3. Physical dating violence perpetration a	.04	.20**	—	.78**
4. Physical dating violence victimization a	.12	.10	.75**	—

Note: Correlations for boys’ scores are on the top half of the matrix, and correlations for girls’ scores are on the bottom half.

a.

Includes only students who had dated 3 months prior to the survey.

**

Correlation significant at .01.

Among girls, beliefs that support boys hitting girlfriends were not associated with girls’ dating aggression perpetration (r = .04) or victimization (r = .12); beliefs that support girls hitting boyfriends were significantly, although weakly, associated with dating violence perpetration (r = .20). Among boys, beliefs that support boys hitting girlfriends were significantly and strongly associated with boys’ dating violence perpetration (r = .48) and victimization (r = .47), and beliefs that support girls hitting boyfriends were significantly associated with dating violence perpetration (r = .27) and victimization (r = .29; Table 3). In other words, the association between norms and behaviors was weak to nonexistent for girls, while it was relatively strong for boys.

Focus Groups

We analyzed focus group data using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) although the intent of the research was not to build grounded theory. Consistent with the constant comparative method, data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously. Two graduate assistants who co-facilitated the focus groups assisted with data analysis. Investigators and students individually read, reread, and coded the transcripts for key points and possible themes, meeting on numerous occasions to discuss the analyses. By constantly moving between the data and the interpretations within the same transcript and across different transcripts, a tighter structuring of the data emerged. This process resulted in findings that reflect our interpretation of students’ perceptions of dating aggression. To insure the trustworthiness of the findings, we employed three types of triangulation suggested in Denzin’s (1978) seminal work: data triangulation, methodological triangulation, and investigator triangulation. We also collected and analyzed data over a 3-month period, and we employed thick, rich description to contextualize the findings. Finally, the first author kept a detailed audit trail, an account of the methods, procedures, and decision points in conducting the study.

Three themes emerged in using the constant comparative method of analysis. Boys and girls: (a) defined dating aggression broadly and viewed all forms negatively; (b) considered male-to-female physical aggression particularly unacceptable; and (c) perceived female-to-male physical aggression as less offensive.

All Forms of Dating Aggression Were Viewed Negatively

Participants asserted that dating aggression is an issue for most high school students. They noted that it is particularly salient “when 9th graders are dating an older guy,” and commented that it usually takes place in a “nonpublic place,” that is, “not at school.” As one of the males put it, “I really don’t see it [aggression] in action, but I’ve known people that have done it or been through it.” As this comment suggests, students first associated the word “aggression” with behavior of a physical nature. When asked what came to mind when they thought about the word “aggression,” students responded with words such as “force,” “violence,” and “being rough.”

It should be noted, however, that on further reflection, participants indicated that aggression can be verbal as well and stated that it can take many forms, from “yelling” to “cussing out” to “putting somebody down.” Of especial note is that most participants considered “rumors” or “gossip” particularly problematic among teens. They were divided as to whether rumors would be considered a form of verbal aggression, but were united in the belief that rumors can lead to verbal aggression. In addition, they unanimously concurred that rumors are “a very big thing” for high school students. A comment by one of the males, “it [spreading rumors] is pretty much all they [students] do around here,” captured a sentiment shared by all focus group participants.

Given that participants viewed rumors/gossip as particularly pervasive, it is not surprising that they perceived verbal aggression more commonplace in dating relationships than physical aggression. Statements such as “it [aggression] is more verbal than like what they [students] do with their actions . . . [it is] more with their words,” and dating aggression is “mainly verbal abuse, sometimes physical” are representative of the kinds of comments shared. The more ubiquitous nature of verbal aggression, however, did not inure participants to its insidious effects. Female participants were particularly aware of how injurious verbal aggression can be. Finishing one another’s thoughts in what became a single stream-of-consciousness sentence, one group of female focus group participants somberly noted that verbal aggression will

always be in the back of your head . . . a bruise, it will go away . . . verbal aggression will still be in your mind . . . you never think that your boyfriend is going to [say something mean to you] and then one day he just blows off and does . . . it really hurts inside when he does.

Interestingly, male participants were less certain about the lasting effects of verbal aggression. Some maintained that it “could be just as dangerous” as physical aggression because “their [victims’] self-esteem drops,” whereas others believed that “if you call a girl something [bad name], that can always be fixed. You can always talk it out and, you know, apologize. If you hit a girl, smack her in the face, there’s no ‘I’m sorry.’”

Male-to-female Aggression Was Particularly Unacceptable

One of the more salient findings in this study is the near unanimous intolerance by males and females of male-to-female aggression, especially physical aggression. Males shared a clear belief that “you don’t hit girls . . . period,” and they did so with a strong sense of conviction. Emphasizing the point that hitting a female is not acceptable, two males commented that “you don’t hit girls even [if] they, like, start beating the crap out of you,” and you “wouldn’t hit a girl for anything.” And even though, as one participant said, “it’s kind of alright for a guy to hit a guy if he deserves it, if it’s a girl you don’t do anything about it. You just try to talk it out as much as you can and try to get her to understand what you’re trying to say.”

Four factors exerted considerable influence over the way male participants perceived aggression toward females: peer pressure, legal prohibitions, parents’ (especially fathers’) beliefs about aggression, and the physical advantage of males. That peers wield influence in shaping the beliefs of adolescents is not surprising, given the pivotal role peers play in identity development during the high school years. The sway of one’s peers is graphically illustrated in the comment by one male participant: “You don’t hit a girl or else you’re gonna get . . . some guy’s gonna come kick your butt really bad.” Peer influence is also conveyed in the more subtle, yet equally powerful comment by the male who stated that a “guy who is hitting [a girl] wouldn’t definitely be my friend.” Even if hit first by a female or provoked in some other way, male participants maintained that “you would just resist . . . you wouldn’t want to hit her back.” Several referred to this tacit understanding about behavioral expectations as “common sense,” with one participant commenting, “I think any guy, no matter, the race or religion, knows not to hit a girl.”

Some of the male participants attributed a healthy respect for “the law” as a primary reason for their perspective on male-to-female aggression. One in particular evidenced an especially keen awareness of the real-world consequences of aggression in his remark that “in the movies, they make it okay to show aggression . . . but when you do it in real life, it’s like the worst thing possible . . . you can go to jail for hitting your girl.”

If the prospect of legal sanctions failed to sufficiently impress on these young men society’s intolerance of aggressing females, legal sanctions coupled with parental disapproval, particularly from fathers, did not. In a chorus of laughter as other group members nodded in agreement, one male stated, “The law and my Dad say you are not supposed to hit girls.” Similarly, others noted that their fathers communicated a “don’t do anything I wouldn’t do” message that was impossible to miss—a message translated by one participant as “you’re on a short leash.” And, with eyebrows raised, eyes opened wide, and a shake of the head another male participant uttered the single word, “Whoa . . .” to communicate a clear understanding of his parents’ response if he hit a girl. Perhaps the influence of parents is best captured by the remark of the participant who said, “We always follow our parents because, I guess, they’re gonna find out anyway. And, besides, your parents are practically the law.”

Males commonly noted superior physical advantage as another reason why male-to-female aggression is not acceptable. In a particularly poignant expression of this belief one male remarked,

You don’t need to hit a girl . . . no matter how angry you are. They’re not strong. If a guy gets hit, it’s not gonna hurt him as bad as if a girl gets hit because . . . her bones are kind of tender and . . . she’s weak. It’s gonna hurt her really bad. You learned that from Day One—since you were born.

Similarly, another participant indicated that because males are typically stronger than females, they “could really hurt them [girls] and if you’re a guy you just don’t really want to hurt anybody like that.” Some of the males noted that physical aggression often has consequences beyond bodily injury, as the remark by one participant underscores: “And it’s mental stuff, too. If you ever did [hit a girl] she might be afraid to go out with another guy . . . it could damage her mentally.”

The females in this study were equally emphatic in their belief that male-to-female aggression is unacceptable. As one commented, boys “are not supposed to hit girls . . . period.” Interestingly, she, as did one of the males referenced above, used the word “period” to underscore this position, adding that not hitting girls “is all about respect.”

So strongly did the females in this study believe that male-to-female aggression is unacceptable that there is no mention in any focus group of a time when it would be justified. Even when they are the aggressors, female participants maintained that boys “should never hit” them. For females, male hitting involves a level of violence completely unacceptable because boys “don’t have to hit a girl to get her off. They can push her off.” As did the male participants, the females emphasized boys’ physical advantage: “Boys are so much stronger. Anything that they want they can get.” It should be noted that participants were given considerable breadth in the topics explored. Male participants did not focus on male violence although two tentatively suggested that there might be a situation when male-to-female aggression could be justified. When pressed by the lead author for a fuller response, they did not elaborate, possibly constrained by the strong anti-physical-aggression sentiment expressed by other male participants.

Female-to-male Aggression Was Less Offensive

In contrast, male and female focus group participants evidenced more nuanced perspectives about female-to-male aggression. How “hitting” was defined varied according to which gender perpetrated the aggression. When males were the perpetrators, “hitting” was narrowly defined by male and female focus group participants alike as physical aggression with the intent to harm, “more directly as hurt” as one participant explained, or to force submission in some way (e.g., sexual). However, when females were the perpetrators, “hitting” was defined more broadly by both gender groups and included “playfulness,” “joking around,” even a “love tap.” Whatever the intent underlying female aggression, the males commonly believed that “you [males] just have to take it”—an expectation that neither gender had for females. According to one of the female participants,

This double standard doesn’t make sense when you think about it, [but] it is the way of the world. If a man hits a woman, then he can go to jail, but if a woman hits a man, she won’t get such a harsh punishment.

The tone of the male and female focus groups was very different when the discussion focused on female-to-male aggression. Although both acknowledged greater acceptance of female-to-male aggression, female participants were puzzled by this disparity, as the comment from one female indicates: “It just confuses me!” The males, however, were not similarly confused. Neither puzzled by the existence of a double standard nor outraged by the injustice of it, comments about female-to-male aggression were often accompanied by laughter, a you-know-what-I-mean look, and a roll of the eyes. One participant, for example, making a joke about female-to-male aggression, said, “I’m in an abusive relationship . . . with my sister (laughter). She hits me all the time.” Similarly, another male, provoking laughter by members in his focus group, commented, “Apparently it’s okay [for girls to hit boys] because they do it all the time!” Still another, implicitly invoking a “boys will be boys” assumption about behavior, noted that “they [males] kind of have it [aggression by females] coming, so it’s okay. That’s also kind of expected because of pop culture.”