The Relationship Between Child Maltreatment and Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration Among College Students

Abstract

Partner violence is a pervasive public health concern that has received significant attention over the past three decades. Although a number of studies have reported that college students who are Deaf or hard of hearing are at an increased risk of experiencing partner violence compared with their hearing counterparts, little is known about partner violence perpetration among college students who are Deaf or hard of hearing. Furthermore, beyond disability, studies examining partner violence among students with disabilities tend to ignore other potential risk factors that may increase the risk of partner violence as a victim and/or a perpetrator. This exploratory study examines the extent of partner violence among male and female college students by auditory status and the relationship between experiencing and perpetrating partner abuse (i.e., physical abuse and psychological abuse) and child maltreatment (i.e., witnessing abuse and experiencing child physical abuse). The study also examines gender differences in the relationship between child maltreatment and physical and psychological abuse victimization and perpetration. Data were collected from a sample of approximately 680 college students at a northeastern university. Findings indicate that having witnessed interparental abuse as a child was only significant for being an adult victim of physical abuse. Having been a child victim of parental abuse was not significant for any of the abuse measures. Gender was only significant for being an adult victim of physical abuse. Deaf students were significantly more likely to report all abuse measures. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

Keywords

partner violence dating violence college students child maltreatment Deaf hard of hearing

Introduction

In the United States, partner violence in college is manifested in the prevalence of physical and psychological abuse in dating relationships. Although the vast majority of the research literature has focused on partner violence among non-disabled college students, a limited number of empirical studies have focused on partner violence victimization among college students with disabilities, particularly students who are Deaf or hard of hearing (Anderson & Kobek Pezzarossi, 2012; Anderson & Leigh, 2011; Porter & McQuiller Williams, 2011a, 2011b). Despite preliminary work documenting the rates of partner violence victimization among Deaf and hard of hearing college students, there is no research to date that has focused specifically on the rates of both victimization and perpetration and the correlates of partner violence among Deaf and hard of hearing college students. Using a survey-instrument with a sample of college students in the northeastern United States, the current study sought to investigate two forms of partner violence, psychological and physical abuse, among a college population that included a significant percentage of Deaf and hard of hearing students. The focus of this exploratory study is to examine the extent of partner violence victimization and perpetration among a sample of hearing, Deaf, and hard of hearing male and female college students and whether these experiences vary by auditory status. The few studies that examine auditory status in the partner violence literature are often limited to the victimization experiences of women and ignore perpetration. In addition to examining whether disability is a risk factor for partner violnce in male and female college students, this study also examines whether risk factors in addition to disability increase the risk of partner violence for both victimization and perpetration. Specifically, we explore both childhood physical abuse and witnessing interparental abuse for men and women and whether these factors vary by auditory status.

Last, we explore gender differences for child maltreatment with both victimization and perpetration in light of research that suggests that the etiology of victimization and perpetration may differ by gender (Chen & White, 2004; Gomez, 2011; Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2011; Herrenkohl et al., 2004; Millett, Kohl, Jonson-Reid, Drake, & Petra, 2013; Smith, Ireland, Park, Elwyn, & Thornberry, 2011). Having a better understanding of the rates of both victimization and perpetration and risk factors that may increase Deaf and hard of hearing students’ risk of experiencing and perpetrating abuse is important in developing and implementing target prevention and intervention programs.

Disabilities and Partner Violence

Research suggests that individuals with mental and physical disabilities are at an increased risk of experiencing violence (Anderson, Leigh, & Samar, 2011; Brownlie, Jabbar, Beitchman, Vida, & Atkinson, 2007; Brownridge, 2006; Knutson, Johnson, & Sullivan, 2004; Nannini, 2006; Powers et al., 2009; Sebald, 2008; Spencer et al., 2005; Sullivan & Knutson, 2000; Turner, Vanderminden, Finkelhor, Hamby, & Shattuck, 2011). Although this body of research highlights the fact that disability is a risk factor for violence, researchers have almost exclusively relied on victimization, leaving it unclear whether disability is a risk factor for perpetration. Similar to the larger body of disabilities literature, research focused specifically on partner violence among Deaf and hard of hearing college students has almost exclusively focused on victimization. Along these lines, recent studies using college samples in the United States indicate that Deaf¹ and hard of hearing individuals experience an elevated risk of partner violence in comparison with their hearing peers (Anderson, 2010; Anderson & Leigh, 2011; Barrow, 2008; Porter & McQuiller Williams, 2011a, 2011b). For example, in a recent study conducted by Anderson and Leigh (2011), a significantly higher proportion of Deaf women undergraduates at a college in Washington, D.C., reported physical assault (52%) and psychological aggression (91%) than did hearing students in the previous year (i.e., physical assault [28.1%] and psychological aggression [34.4%]). Using randomized samples of more than 1,000 college men and women, including more than 200 Deaf and hard of hearing students at a large U.S. northeastern university, it was found that Deaf and hard of hearing college students were twice as likely to report psychological abuse and nearly two and a half times more likely to experience physical abuse at the hands of a partner than were hearing students in the prior year (Porter & McQuiller Williams, 2011a, 2011b).

Studies of IPV among Deaf or hard of hearing college students at a predominantly Deaf college in Washington, D.C., found psychological abuse to be more prevalent (30%) than physical abuse (11%) in their current relationships among the Deaf or hard of hearing men and women respondents (Mason, 2010). Anderson and Leigh’s (2011) study of IPV during the last 12 months among 100 Deaf and hard of hearing undergraduate women students at the same university found psychological abuse to be much more prevalent (more than 90%), and 50% had been the victim of a physical assault. The discrepant findings between these studies may be explained by the differing measures and respondents surveyed for partner violence. For example, Mason (2010) used the measure of being assaulted “at least sometimes,” while the other studies used one incident to qualify as IPV. In addition, while Anderson and Leigh’s (2011) study only focused on women, Porter and McQuiller Williams’s (2011a; 2011b) and Mason’s (2010) studies included both men and women. It may be that the reported prevalence rates across studies change when separated by gender.

Despite increased attention paid to the perpetuation of partner violence by both men and women in non-disabled samples, researchers tend to ignore the effect that disability may have on the risk of perpetrating partner violence. Only Anderson and Leigh (2011) have addressed this issue in a sample of Deaf college women. They reported that 92% of the female sample perpetrated psychological aggression, and 64% perpetrated physical assault within the past year. However, because this study only examined college females, very little is known about partner violence perpetration among male college students with disabilities.

Risk Factors for Partner Violence

While previous studies demonstrate that disability plays a role in college students’ likelihood of becoming a victim, and to a lesser extent a perpetrator, of partner violence (Anderson, 2010; Anderson & Leigh, 2011; Barrow, 2008; Porter & McQuiller Williams, 2011a, 2011b), it is unclear whether risk factors other than disability place students at an elevated risk. In analyzing risk factors for partner violence in non-disabled samples, numerous studies have examined the link between experiencing child abuse and/or witnessing interparental violence in the family of origin and later partner victimization and/or perpetration, although the majority of studies focus on the outcome of physical victimization and/or perpetration, to the exclusion of psychological abuse (Cyr, McDuff, & Wright, 2006; Foshee, Benefield, Ennett, Bauman, & Suchindean, 2004; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2011; Maas, Fleming, Herrenkohl, & Catalano, 2010). Results indicate that for both men and women, parent-to-child physical abuse is associated with psychological and physical partner violence as both victim and perpetrator (Coffey, Leitenberg, Henning, Bennett, & Jankowski, 1996; Foshee et al., 2004; Gomez, 2011; Jankowski, Leitenberg, Henning, & Coffey, 1999; Lavoie et al., 2002; Marshall & Rose, 1988; Millett et al., 2013; O’Keefe, 2005; Simons, Lin, & Gordon, 1998; Stith et al., 2000). Similarly, witnessing interparental violence has been associated with partner victimization (Brownridge, 2006; Cappell & Heiner, 1990; Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, & Trinke, 2003) and the perpetration of partner violence (Carr & VanDeuse, 2002; Holt & Gillespie, 2008; Murrell, Christoff, & Henning, 2007). However, some data suggest no significant relationship between family of origin variables and subsequent IPV (Busby, Holman, & Walker, 2008; Foshee, Ennett, Bauman, Benefield, & Suchindra, 2005). While there is evidence that witnessing or experiencing parental violence is a risk factor for partner perpetration and/or victimization, not all children exposed to family of origin violence later inflict or experience violence. As such, research has considered factors that may more thoroughly explain the relationship between child family of origin variables and subsequent partner violence, including gender, although findings have been mixed. For example, some studies reveal moderate to strong relationships between interparental violence and subsequent partner victimization only for women (Gover et al., 2008), interparental violence and subsequent partner perpetration only for men (Chen & White, 2004), parent-to-child abuse and subsequent partner victimization only for women (Chen & White, 2004: Stith et al., 2000), and parent-to-child abuse and subsequent partner perpetration only for women. However, Fergusson, Boden, and Horwood’s (2006) results reported no significant victimization differences between witnessing violence and the men and women in their sample. White and Widom (2003) found that both men and women who had been abused as children were more likely to be perpetrators of IPV. There was no significant difference between genders.

Although past studies examining the relationship between child maltreatment and partner violence have yielded a lot of data, a number of studies are limited to risk factors for physical dating violence, to the exclusion of psychological partner violence. In addition, research on partner violence among persons with disabilities tends to focus solely on disability as a risk factor, neglecting additional risk factors that may increase the likelihood of partner violence. More empirical evidence is thus needed to ascertain which factors, in addition to disability, may increase the risk of partner violence.

Present Study

The current study adds to the literature on interpersonal violence between dating partners in several ways. First, we will examine the extent of partner violence victimization and perpetration among a sample of hearing, Deaf, and hard of hearing male and female college students, and whether these experiences vary by auditory status. The few studies that examine auditory status in the partner violence literature are often limited to victimization among women and ignore perpetration. By including male and female college students in the analysis, this study is able to explore whether disability increases the risk for partner violence for both sexes, not just women. Second, this study makes a contribution by exploring whether risk factors other than disability increase the risk of partner violence victimization and perpetration. This is an important contribution because very little, if anything, has been published about risk factors for partner violence, other than disability, for college students who are Deaf or hard of hearing.

Method

Data Collection

The cross-sectional data for this study were collected from students at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), a northeastern university in the United States. A total of 64 classes were randomly selected by the researchers. After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at RIT, surveys were distributed within randomly selected classes to all students. Students were informed that the survey was voluntary and were told that if they had previously filled out a survey, they should not fill out the survey again. Students volunteered to take the survey with the understanding that the respondent could discontinue participation at any time. The survey was distributed in the spring quarter of 2011. A total of 686 students filled out the surveys for a response rate of 99.3%. The strength of doing a survey on victimization at RIT is that the university has a sizable percentage of Deaf and hard of hearing students. The National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) is one of the colleges at the university.

Participants

Females numbered 301 (43.9%) in the sample, and there were 395 males. The majority of the respondents were White (563, 82.1%) with 53 African American (7.7%), 37 Asian or Pacific Islander (5.4%), 23 Hispanic or Latino (3.4%), and 10 American Indian or Alaskan Native (1.5%). Similarly, the vast majority were hearing (465, 67.8%), while 122 were hard of hearing (17.8%) and 99 identified as Deaf (14.4%). Of those, 65 men and 57 women were hard of hearing, while 57 men and 42 women were Deaf.

Measures

The dependent variables for analysis are dummy variables created from a variety of questions pertaining to various types of victimization: physical violence and psychological abuse. To measure psychological and physical abuse among dating partners within the past school year, Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman’s (1996) Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2) was used to measure IPV by “a partner” over the previous school year. Use of the term “partner” denotes IPV may exist among heterosexual and same-sex partners. The definition of “a partner” was left up to the respondent to decide if the actions under review had involved a partner—spouse, significant other, date, and so on. To measure physical violence, respondents were asked how often they experienced or perpetrated the following 11 specific behaviors within the past school year: threw something that could hurt, twisted arm or hair, gun or knife used, beat up, burned or scalded on purpose, kicked, slapped, punched or hit with hand or object, choked, slammed against wall, and grabbed. Eight items assessed psychological abuse victimization and perpetration: insulted or swore, called fat or ugly, destroyed something belonging to you on purpose, shouted or yelled, stomped out of house or yard, accused of being a lousy lover, did something out of spite, and threatened to hit or throw something. For victimization and perpetration, subjects responded on a 5-point scale (never, once, twice, 3 to 5 times, and 6 or more times). Previous studies using the CTS-2 on Deaf and hard of hearing college students reported sound validity between the psychological and physical abuse scales for these students (Anderson & Leigh, 2010). American Sign Language interpreters were available during survey administration in the event that written questions needed clarification.

Three childhood maltreatment variables were assessed: experiencing child abuse, witnessing mother-to-father physical violence, and witnessing father-to-mother physical violence. The child abuse measure was created from 6 items from the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Desmond, 1998) to indicate whether a respondent experienced physical abuse at the hands of a parent, caregiver, or guardian. Students were asked how many times before the age of 18 did a parent or a guardian or caretaker throw something at you that could have hurt you or knocked you down, hit you with their fist or kicked you hard, grabbed you around the neck and choked you, beat you up, hit you with some object—not including spanking and burned or scalded you on purpose. Witnessing interparental abuse was measured by asking respondents whether before the age of 18, they had witnessed their mother hit their father and/or witnessed their father hit their mother. For the child maltreatment measures, subjects responded on a 5-point scale (never, once, twice, 3 to 5 times, and 6 or more times). Auditory status and gender are two variables of interest. Auditory status was measured with the question: “Which best describes your auditory status?” Students were able to answer hearing, hard of hearing, or Deaf. Hard of hearing and Deaf were combined into one category due to small sizes, and hearing was the comparison category. In addition, two control variables—age and race—were included due to prior research that has found a relationship between these variables and victimization and perpetration (Caetano, Schafer, & Cunradi, 2001; Gover et al., 2008; Harned, 2002; Makepeace, 1987; Rouse, 1988).

Data Analysis

All data analyses for descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate were conducted using SPSS 19. Bivariate analyses were used in the estimation of partner victimization and perpetration by study independent variables. All variables were dichotomized. All measures for abuse were dichotomized with a simple yes or no. All responses indicating that an event had occurred were coded as 1, and a 0 if the event had not occurred. Respondents who did not have a current or past relationship were coded into the non-violence category (0), by virtue of not having a partner on whom to report. Men were coded 0 and women were coded 1. Auditory status was coded as a 0 for hearing and 1 for Deaf and hard of hearing. Race and ethnicity was coded 0 for White and 1 for racial or ethnic minority. Age was coded as a 0 for ages 18 to 19 years and 1 for ages 20 and above. Age was coded as a 0 for ages 18 to 19 years and 1 for ages 20 and above. Correlation matrices were calculated for all measures. Binomial regression analyses were run with all variables for victimization and perpetration of psychological and physical abuse. In addition, binomial regression analyses were calculated for Deaf and hard of hearing disaggregated with victimization and perpetration of psychological and physical abuse. All regression analyses were run with variables in a hierarchical position and with the Wald backward stepwise selection method. Both multivariate and univariate binomial regression analyses are run and confidence intervals are provided.

Results

Descriptive and Binomial Regression Results

Descriptive analyses (see Table 1) revealed that of the total sample, almost one third of students had been victims of physical violence and almost 40% of students perpetrated physical violence during the past 12 months. More than 70% of respondents had been victims of psychological partner violence, and almost the same percentage of students perpetrated psychological dating abuse during the past 12 months. A total of 16% of the respondents had witnessed interparental violence. More than a quarter of the respondents had been victims of parental violence as a child. The majority of students were hearing (465, 67.8%), male (365, 56.1%), and White (563, 82.1%). Deaf students made up 14.4% (99) of the survey respondents, and hard of hearing students totaled 122 (17.9%). Women were 43.9% (301) of the survey respondents, and racial and ethnic minorities were 17.9% (123) of the total. The age of the students was weighted a little older, with 57.1% (392) being 20 years of age or older, and 42.9% (294) being 18 to 19 years old.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations for Variables (N = 686).

	n	%	M	SD
Adult perpetrator physical abuse	260	37.9	0.3790	0.48549
Adult victim physical abuse	224	32.7	0.3265	0.46929
Adult perpetrator psychological abuse	500	72.9	0.7289	0.44487
Adult victim psychological abuse	499	72.7	0.7274	0.44562
Child witness to interparental violence	110	16.0	0.1297	0.33626
Child victim of parental violence	179	26.1	0.2609	0.43946
Auditory status			0.3222	0.46764
Hearing	465	67.8	1.6778	0.46764
Deaf	99	14.4	0.1443	0.35167
Hard of hearing	122	17.8	0.1778	0.38266
Gender			0.4388	0.49660
Male	365	56.1
Female	301	43.9
Race			0.1793	0.38388
White	563	82.1
Racial or ethnic minority	123	17.9
Age			0.5714	0.49523
18 to 19 years	294	42.9
≤ 20 years	392	57.1

Table 2 provides the correlations for all abuse measures, whether one had witnessed interparental abuse as a child, whether one had experienced child abuse, auditory status, gender, and race. Auditory status was statistically significant and correlated with both perpetration and victimization of psychological and physical abuse, and with having witnessed interparental abuse and having been a child victim of parental abuse. Auditory status was significantly correlated with all four measures of abuse, with Deaf status related to higher perpetration and victimization of psychological and physical abuse, more witnessing of interparental abuse, and a higher proportion of respondents being victims of parental abuse. Gender was statistically significant and correlated with a greater risk of having been an adult victim of physical abuse and with a higher proportion of respondents having witnessed interparental abuse as a child. Race was statistically significant and correlated with a higher proportion of racial minorities being Deaf or hard of hearing. Psychological victimization and perpetration are statistically significant and correlated with each other.

Table 2.

Correlations for Disaggregated Auditory Status and Abuse Measures (N = 686).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Adult perpetrator physical abuse
2. Adult victim physical abuse	.603
3. Adult perpetrator psychological abuse	.427	.294
4. Adult victim psychological abuse	.612	.864	.000****
5. Child witness interparental violence	.686	.232	.117	.406
6. Child victim parental violence	.700	.162	.280	.259	.135
7. Deaf	.001***	.000****	.000****	.000****	.000****	.000****
8. Hard of hearing	.876	.859	.641	.341	.588	.472	.000****
9. Gender	.262	.000****	.533	.993	.011**	.187	.753	.486
10. Race	.369	.503	.763	.222	.546	.983	.832	.004**	.227
11. Age	.683	.511	.824	.474	.670	.960	.900	.287	.641	.886

p < .01. ***p < .001. ****p < .000.

Binomial Regression Analysis

Our binomial regression analysis examined the effects of having witnessed interparental abuse or having been a victim of physical abuse prior to 18 years of age and whether there was an association with adult perpetration or victimization of psychological abuse or physical violence. Also of interest is whether such factors may have different effects in relation to auditory status. Did witnessing or having been a victim of abuse as a child have the same or different effects if one were Deaf or hard of hearing when compared with hearing respondents? Also of concern is gender, and whether women had different experiences when compared with men.

The first analysis is of the complete dataset with all cases, and the second analysis of only those respondents who were Deaf or hard of hearing. Findings in the full dataset indicated that having witnessed the father hit the mother was statistically significant and positively associated with having been the adult victim of physical partner violence. Both datasets indicated that being female was statistically significant and positively associated with being the adult victim of physical partner violence. Regarding gender, none of the child maltreatment variables achieved statistical significant association with being either a victim of psychological abuse or having perpetrated psychological abuse. Similarly, regarding gender, none of the child maltreatment variables were significantly associated with having been the victim or perpetrator of physical violence.

Auditory status was statistically significant and positively associated with all four outcome variables—Deaf or hard of hearing respondents compared with hearing respondents were much more likely to have been both a perpetrator and a victim of psychological partner abuse and physical partner violence. The dataset containing only Deaf and hard of hearing respondents, like the complete dataset, also found that witnessing the father hitting the mother was positively associated with being the adult victim of physical partner violence. In neither dataset did being the child victim of abuse achieve a statistically significant association with any of the four outcome variables.

Physical violence victimization

The variable for having witnessed parental abuse achieved statistical significance and was positively associated with having experienced physical partner victimization as an adult (Table 3). Those respondents who had witnessed their father hit their mother were more than one and a half times as likely to report having been the victim of physical partner violence as an adult, Exp(B) = 1.570, SE = 0.266, p < .10, than those who had not witnessed such abuse. Auditory status was statistically significant and positively associated with having been physically abused as an adult. Deaf and hard of hearing respondents were nearly one and a half times as likely to report having been the victim of physical partner violence, Exp(B) = 1.533, SE = 0.177, p < .05, as those who were hearing. Gender was statistically significant. Women were nearly three times as likely to have reported being physically abused as an adult, Exp(B) = 2.899, SE = 0.171, p < .000, when compared with men.

Table 3.

Binomial Regression Analysis of Adult Victim of Physical Abuse With Dichotomous Auditory Status^a (N = 686).

Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	95% CI Exp(B)
Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	Lower	Upper
Child witness mom as victim	0.451	0.266	2.869	.090^†	1.570	0.932	2.647
Child witness dad as victim	−0.335	0.425	0.623	.430	0.715	0.311	1.644
Child victim^b	0.260	0.192	1.842	.175	1.297	0.891	1.889
Auditory status	0.427	0.177	5.788	.016**	1.533	1.082	2.170
Gender	1.064	0.171	38.809	.000****	2.899	2.074	4.052
Race^c	−0.278	0.226	1.516	.218	0.757	0.486	1.179
Age^d	0.107	0.172	0.390	.532	1.113	0.795	1.558
Constant	−1.434	0.144	99.041	.000	0.238

Hearing or Deaf and hard of hearing.

Child victim of parental abuse.

White or racial/ethnic minority.

Aged 18 to 19 years or 20 years old or more.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. ****p < .000.

Physical violence perpetration

Neither witnessing interparental abuse nor having been a victim of child abuse achieved statistical association with having perpetrated physical partner violence as an adult (Table 4). Auditory status was statistically significant and positively associated with having perpetrated physical partner violence as an adult. Deaf and hard of hearing respondents were nearly one and a half times as likely to report having been the perpetrator of physical partner violence, Exp(B) = 1.532, SE = 0.167, p < .010, in comparison with their hearing counterparts.

Table 4.

Binomial Regression Analysis of Adult Perpetrator of Physical Abuse With Dichotomous Auditory Status^a (N = 686).

Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	95% CI Exp(B)
Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	Lower	Upper
Child witness mom as victim	−0.165	0.260	0.404	.525	0.848	0.510	1.410
Child witness dad as victim	0.161	0.381	0.179	.672	1.175	0.557	2.479
Child as victim^b	0.035	0.181	0.037	.847	1.035	0.727	1.475
Auditory	0.427	0.167	6.550	.010**	1.532	1.105	2.124
Gender	−0.186	0.160	1.348	.246	0.830	0.607	1.136
Race^c	0.152	0.205	0.550	.458	1.164	0.779	1.739
Age^d	−0.165	0.260	0.404	.525	0.848	0.510	1.410
Constant	−0.636	0.097	42.525	.000	0.530

Hearing or Deaf and hard of hearing.

Child victim of parental abuse.

White or racial/ethnic minority.

Aged 18 to 19 years or 20 years old or more.

p < .01.

Psychological abuse perpetrator

The results indicated that neither witnessing interparental abuse nor having been a victim of child abuse achieved statistical association with having perpetrated psychological partner abuse as an adult (Table 5). Auditory status, however, was statistically significant and positively associated with having perpetrated psychological partner abuse as an adult. Deaf and hard of hearing respondents were nearly twice as likely to report having been the perpetrator of psychological partner abuse, Exp(B) = 1.989, SE = 0.200, p ≤ .001, when compared with hearing respondents.

Table 5.

Binomial Regression Analysis of Adult Perpetrator of Psychological Abuse With Dichotomous Auditory Status^a (N = 686).

Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	95% CI Exp(B)
Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	Lower	Upper
Child witness mom as victim	.340	.306	1.235	.266	1.405	0.771	2.561
Child witness dad as victim	−.167	.421	.157	.692	.846	0.371	1.932
Child victim^b	.124	.205	.369	.544	1.132	0.758	1.692
Auditory status	.688	.200	11.836	.001***	1.989	1.344	2.944
Gender	.122	.176	.483	.487	1.130	0.800	1.596
Race^c	−.006	.230	.001	.980	.994	0.633	1.561
Age^d	.025	.175	.020	.887	1.025	0.727	1.446
Constant	.792	.100	62.526	.000	2.207

Hearing or Deaf and hard of hearing.

Child victim of parental abuse.

White or racial/ethnic minority.

Aged 18 to 19 years or 20 years old or more.

***

p < .001.

Psychological abuse victimization

In the binomial regression analysis, having witnessed parental abuse or having been a child victim of abuse did not achieve statistical significance in any of the four measures for adult victim or perpetrator of psychological partner abuse. Auditory status achieved statistical significance and was positively associated with having been the victim of psychological partner abuse. Deaf and hard of hearing respondents were nearly two and a half times more likely to have been the victim of psychological abuse, Exp(B) = 2.368, SE = 0.206, p < .000, when compared with hearing respondents (Table 6).

Table 6.

Binomial Regression Analysis for Victims of Psychological Abuse With Dichotomous Auditory Status^a (N = 686).

Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	95% CI Exp(B)
Variables	B	SE (B)	Wald	ρ	Exp(B)	Lower	Upper
Child witness mom as victim	−0.006	0.319	0.000	.986	0.994	0.532	1.857
Child witness dad as victim	0.245	0.437	0.315	.575	1.278	0.543	3.009
Child victim^b	0.106	0.206	0.265	.607	1.112	0.742	1.665
Auditory status	0.862	0.206	17.568	.000****	2.368	1.582	3.544
Gender	0.020	0.177	0.012	.911	1.020	0.721	1.443
Race^c	−0.365	0.222	2.703	.100	0.694	0.449	1.073
Age^d	−0.151	0.177	0.723	.395	0.860	0.608	1.217
Constant	1.913	0.329	33.847	.000	6.776

Hearing or Deaf and hard of hearing.

Child victim of parental abuse.

White or racial/ethnic minority.

Aged 18 to 19 years or 20 years old or more.

***

*p < .000.

Discussion

One purpose of this study was to examine the extent of partner violence victimization and perpetration among a sample of hearing, Deaf, and hard of hearing male and female college students and whether these experiences varied by auditory status. Overall, the rate of psychological abuse in the current sample was very high. More than 70% of the sample reported experiencing or perpetrating psychological abuse. This is comparable with prevalence rates of partner victimization and perpetration reported by college students as reported in previous studies (Black, Sussman, & Unger, 2010; Harned, 2002; Hines & Saudino, 2003). The prevalence of physical violence in the current study is also consistent with prevalence rates in previous studies (Black et al., 2010; Cogan & Ballinger, 2006; Hines & Saudino, 2003).

Consistent with previous research (Anderson & Leigh, 2010; Porter & McQuiller Williams, 2011a, 2011b), we find that Deaf and hard of hearing students were significantly more likely to experience psychological abuse and physical violence at the hands of a partner than hearing students. While studies examining auditory status and partner violence often ignore perpetration, it is important to highlight that Deaf and hard of hearing students were significantly more likely to perpetrate physical partner violence and psychological abuse than hearing students. These findings highlight the importance for education among groups about their varying risks for different types of abuse. Students who are Deaf or hard of hearing, for example, may be exposed to “disability-specific forms of violence” by partners, such as destruction of communication devices (Powers et al., 2009, p. 1041), isolation manifested by checking the victim’s communication devices, or may include an abuser “insulting the victim by calling her [or him] ‘hearing’ or making fun of her [or his] ASL [American Sign Language] skills” (Anderson et al., 2011, p. 204). These coercive tactics are used to further isolate and control Deaf victims and may make them less likely to seek help, both psychologically and physically, through the use of communication devices (Powers et al., 2009). Although our analysis does not indicate why Deaf and hard of hearing students are more likely to perpetuate physical partner abuse and psychological partner abuse than hearing students, it has been suggested that Deaf and hard of hearing students in particular have “historically lacked access to comprehensive health and sex information” (Anderson & Kobek Pezzarossi, 2012, p. 4) and, given limited information from their parents and teachers, often “rely on their peers to obtain health-and-sex related information” (Anderson & Kobek Pezzarossi, 2012, p. 4, citing Fitz-Gerald and Fitz-Gerald, 1985; Job, 2004; Swartz, 1993). The reliance on peers for health-and-sex-related information suggests the need for targeted education approaches that focus on healthy relationships for Deaf and hard of hearing students.

The second purpose of this study was to examine whether risk factors, in addition to disability, increase the risk of IPV for both victimization and perpetration. Consistent with previous research (Fergusson et al., 2006), we found that witnessing father or male guardian/caretaker to mother or female guardian/caretaker violence was significantly related to physical abuse victimization. This finding is consistent with the findings of Gover et al. (2008) who found a significant relationship between witnessing father-to-mother violence and physical partner victimization and suggests “that children who observe parents using violence are witnessing a script for that behavior” (p. 1683). Similarly, our findings show that for Deaf and hard of hearing students, witnessing father or male guardian/caretaker to mother or female guardian/caretaker violence is significantly related to physical abuse victimization. However, witnessing mother or female guardian/caretaker to father or male guardian/caretaker violence and experiencing abuse as a child do not emerge as significant correlates of experiencing or perpetuating physical violence and psychological abuse. The current findings are unexpected given the expansive research on the role of witnessing violence in the family and physical child abuse on subsequent partner violence (Coffey et al., 1996; Foshee et al., 2004; Gover et al. 2011; Jankowski et al., 1999; Marshall & Rose, 1988; O’Keefe, 2005; Simons et al., 1998). This suggests the need to investigate factors beyond those relied upon with hearing college samples to understand the dynamics of partner violence victimization and perpetration among Deaf and hard of hearing college students.

Although the current study extends our understanding of the correlates of partner perpetration and victimization, findings should be viewed with caution in light of several limitations. First, data were obtained by self-report. Thus, the possibility of deliberate response distortion must be considered. Second, present findings may not generalize beyond the particular sample. We note our sample consisted of a small number of Deaf and hard of hearing college men and women who may differ from other groups in their experiences of psychological and physical abuse. The study does, however, provide evidence for future comparisons. Third, the cross-sectional design of this investigation does not allow causal inferences to be made as the temporal order of variables.

Future research is also needed concerning specific episodes of psychological and physical abuse to learn more about the dynamics of such abuse. For example, for violence between partners, such research could examine the process, precipitating circumstances, and motivation underlying the violence. A better understanding of these mechanisms might provide a clearer picture of the reasons for victimization and perpetration. The results of this study illustrate the importance for college health professionals to develop broader approaches when addressing partner violence that includes reaching out to underrepresented populations and both men and women. Consistent with previous studies (Avant, Swopes, Davis, & Elhai, 2010; Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005; Forke, Myers, Catallozzi, & Schwartz, 2008; Harned, 2001), this study indicates that men, as well as women, are both victims and perpetrators of physical violence and psychological abuse. Moreover, although not all children who witness violence in the family of origin will become victims of physical abuse, the heightened risk of physical partner victimization makes it vital to consider the implications of witnessing abuse for subsequent dating relationships. Accordingly, when developing programs and services, college health professionals must strive for inclusivity, as well as develop targeted approaches for outreach to populations on their campuses that may be at greater risk.

Finally, substantiation of the present findings, which indicate that partner abuse occurs with frequency among Deaf and hard of hearing college students, and that most traditional risk factors for partner violence among hearing college samples are not significant when examined for Deaf and hard of hearing students, is crucial for the dissemination of educational information. The findings presented here reiterate the need for a continued focus on risk factors for partner violence, both in terms of victimization and perpetration, to address and prevent further instances of partner violence.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

LaVerne McQuiller Williams is the chairperson and associate professor of criminal justice at the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). She earned a PhD in sociology from the University of Buffalo, her JD from Albany Law School and her MS in Criminal Justice from Buffalo State College. Her research interests include therapeutic justice and intimate partner victimization. Prior to joining the RIT faculty, she was an assistant district attorney specializing in sexual assault and domestic violence cases.

Judy L. Porter is an associate professor of criminal justice at the Rochester Institute of Technology. She earned her PhD in Criminal Justice from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, an MA in Sociology from New Mexico State University, and a BA in Sociology from the University of Northern Colorado. Her research interests include minority groups, corrections, communities, gender, and violence.

References

Anderson

M. L.

(2010). Prevalence and predictors of intimate partner violence victimization in the Deaf community. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.

Anderson

M. L.

Kobek Pezzarossi

C. M.

(2012). Is it abuse? Deaf female undergraduates’ labeling of partner violence. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17, 273-286. doi:10.1093/deafed/enr048

Anderson

M. L.

Leigh

I. W.

(2010). Internal consistency and factor structure of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales in a sample of Deaf female college students. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 475-483. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9308-6

Anderson

M. L.

Leigh

I. W.

(2011). Intimate partner violence against Deaf female college students. Violence Against Women, 17, 822-834. doi:10.1177/1077801211412544

Anderson

M. L.

Leigh

I. W.

Samar

V. J.

(2011). Intimate partner violence against deaf women: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 200-206. doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.006

Avant

E. M.

Swopes

R. M.

Davis

J. L.

Elhai

J. D.

(2010). Psychological abuse and posttraumatic stress symptoms in college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3080-3097. doi:10.1177/0886260510390954

Barrow

L. B.

(2008). Criminal victimization of the Deaf. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly .

Black

D. S.

Sussman

Unger

J. B.

(2010). A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1022-1042. doi:10.1177/0886260509340539

Brownlie

Jabbar

Beitchman

Vida

Atkinson

(2007). Language impairment and sexual assault of girls and women: Findings from a community sample. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 618-626.

10.

Brownridge

D. A.

(2006). Partner violence against women with disabilities. Violence Against Women, 12, 805-822. doi:10.1177/107780120629268

11.

Busby

D. M.

Holman

T. B.

Walker

(2008). Pathways to relationship aggression between adult partners. Family Relations, 57, 72-83.

12.

Caetano

Schafer

Cunradi

C. B.

(2001). Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcohol Research & Health, 25, 58-65.

13.

Cappell

Heiner

R. B.

(1990).The intergenerational transmission of family aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 135-152.

14.

Carr

J. L.

VanDeuse

K. M.

(2002). The relationship between family of origin violence and dating violence in college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 630-646.

15.

Cercone

J. J.

Beach

S. R.

Arias

(2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims, 20, 207-218. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.2005.20.2.207

16.

Chen

P. H.

White

(2004). Gender differences in adolescent and young adult predictors of later intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8, 1283-1301. doi:10.1177/107780120426900

17.

Coffey

Leitenberg

Henning

Bennett

R. T.

Jankowski

M. K.

(1996). Dating violence: The association between methods of coping and women’s psychological adjustment. Violence and Victims, 11, 227-238.

18.

Cogan

Ballinger

B. C.

(2006). Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 924-953. doi:10.1177/088626050628917

19.

Cyr

McDuff

Wright

(2006). Prevalence and predictors of dating violence among adolescent female victims of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1000-1017. doi:10.1177/088626050629020

20.

Fergusson

D. M.

Boden

J. M.

Horwood

L. J.

(2006). Examining the intergenerational transmission of violence in New Zealand birth cohort. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 89-108. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.006

21.

Forke

C. M.

Myers

R. K.

Catallozzi

Schwartz

D. F.

(2008). Relationship violence among women and male college undergraduate students. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161, 634-641. doi:10.1001/archpedi.162.7.634

22.

Foshee

V. A.

Benefield

T. S.

Ennett

S. T.

Bauman

K. E.

Suchindean

(2004). Longitudinal predictors of severe physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 39, 1007-1016.

23.

Foshee

V. A.

Ennett

S. T.

Bauman

Benefield

Suchindra

(2005). The association between family violence and adolescent dating violence onset: Does it vary by race, socioeconomic status, and family structure? Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 317-344.

24.

Gomez

A. M.

(2011). Testing the Cycle of Violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in adulthood. Youth & Society, 43, 171-192. doi:10.1177/0044118X09358313

25.

Gover

Kaukinen

Fox

K. A.

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693. doi:10.1177/088626050831433

26.

Gover

Park

Tomsich

E. A.

Jennings

(2011). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1232-1263. doi:10.1177/0886260510368161

27.

Harned

M. S.

(2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269-285.

28.

Harned

M. S.

(2002). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for dating violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1179-1197. doi:10.1177/088626002237401

29.

Herrenkohl

Mason

Klosterman

Lengua

Hawkins

Abbott

(2004). Pathways from physical abuse to partner violence in young adulthood. Violence and Victims, 19, 123-136.

30.

Hines

D. A.

Saudino

K. J.

(2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and Victims, 18, 197-217.

31.

Holt

Gillespie

(2008). Intergenerational transmission of violence, threatened egoism, and reciprocity: A test of multiple psychosocial factors affecting intimate partner violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 252-266.

32.

Jankowski

M. K.

Leitenberg

Henning

K. R.

Coffey

(1999). Intergenerational transmission of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents vs. opposite sex parents vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 267-279. doi:10.1023/A:102281441666610

33.

Knutson

J. F.

Johnson

C. R.

Sullivan

P. M.

(2004). Disciplinary choices of mothers of deaf children and mothers of normally hearing children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 925-937.

34.

Kwong

M. J.

Bartholomew

Henderson

A. J. Z.

Trinke

S. J.

(2003).The intergenerational transmission of relationship violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 288-301.

35.

Lavoie

Herbert

Tremblay

Vitaro

Vezina

McDuff

(2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 375-383. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00347-6

36.

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.

37.

Makepeace

J. M.

(1987). Social factors and victim offender differences in courtship violence. Family Relations, 36, 87-91.

38.

Marshall

L. L.

Rose

(1988). Family of origin violence and courtship abuse. Journal of Counseling & Development, 66, 414-418.

39.

Mason

T. C.

(2010). Does knowledge of dating violence keep Deaf college students at Gallaudet University out of abusive relationships? Journal of American Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, 43, 74-91.

40.

Millett

Kohl

Jonson-Reid

Drake

Petra

(2013). Child maltreatment victimization and subsequent perpetration of young adult intimate partner violence: An exploration of mediating factors. Child Maltreatment, 18, 71-84. doi:10.1177/107755957348482

41.

Murrell

A. R.

Christoff

K. A.

Henning

K. R.

(2007). Characteristics of domestic violence offenders: Associations with exposure to violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 523-532.

42.

Nannini

(2006). Sexual assault patterns among women with and without disabilities seeking survivor services. Women’s Health Issues, 16, 372-379. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2006.10.001

43.

O’Keefe

(2005). Teen dating violence: A review of risk factors and prevention efforts. Violence Against Women/National Rssouce Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved August 2013, from http://new.vawnet.org/assoc_files_vawnet/ar_teendatingviolence.pdf.

44.

Porter

J. L.

McQuiller Williams

(2011a). Auditory status and experiences of abuse among college students. Violence and Victims, 26, 788-798. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.6.788

45.

Porter

J. L.

McQuiller Williams

(2011b). Intimate violence among underrepresented groups on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3210-3224. doi:10.1177/0886260510393011

46.

Powers

L. E.

Renker

Robinson-Whelen

Oschwald

Hughes

Swank

Curry

M. A.

(2009). Interpersonal violence and women with disabilities: Analysis of safety promoting behaviors. Violence Against Women, 9, 1040-1069. doi:10.1177/1077801209340309

47.

Rouse

L. P.

(1988). Abuse in dating relationships: A comparison of Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 312-319.

48.

Sadusky

Obinna

(2002). Violence against women: Focus groups with culturally distinct and underserved communities. Minneapolis, MN: Rainbow Research.

49.

Sebald

(2008). Child abuse and deafness: An overview. American Annals of the Deaf, 153, 376-383. doi:10.1353/aad.0.0059

50.

Simons

R. L.

Lin

K. H.

Gordon

L. C.

(1998). Socialization in the family of origin and male dating violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 467-478.

51.

Smith

Ireland

Park

Elwyn

Thornberry

(2011). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in intimate partner violence: A two-generational prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3720-3752. doi:1177/0886260511403751

52.

Spencer

Devereux

Wallace

Sundrum

Shenoy

Bacchus

Logan

(2005). Disabling conditions and registration for child abuse and neglect: A population-based study. Pediatrics, 116, 609-613.

53.

Stith

S. M.

Rosen

K. H.

Middleton

K. A.

Busch

A. L.

Lundeberg

Carlton

R. P.

(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640-654.

54.

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

55.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Moore

D. W.

Desmond

(1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249-270.

56.

Sullivan

P. M.

Knutson

J. F.

(2000). Maltreatment and disabilities: A population-based epidemiological study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1257-1273.

57.

Turner

H. A.

Vanderminden

Finkelhor

Hamby

S. L.

Shattuck

(2011). Disability and victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Child Maltreatment, 16, 275-286.

58.

White

H. R.

Widom

C. S.

(2003). Does childhood victimization increase the risk of early death? A 25-year prospective study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 841-853. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00110-8