Gender and Conflict Resolution Strategies in Spanish Teen Couples: Their Relationship With Jealousy and Emotional Dependency

Abstract

Previous research has pointed to the need to address the study of violence in teen couples. However, research has not delved into the study of the variables related to the different types of violence employed by boys and girls. The purpose of this study was to test whether gender, jealousy, and dependency predict specific strategies for conflict resolution (psychological aggression and mild physical aggression). Another objective of the study was to test gender differences in the conflict resolution strategies used by Spanish teen couples and to test the association between these variables and jealousy and emotional dependency. A sample of 296 adolescent high school students between 14 and 19 years of age of both genders from the south of Spain participated in this study. Hierarchical regression models were used to estimate the relationship between psychological aggression and mild physical aggression, and jealousy, and dependency. Results showed that jealousy correlated with psychological aggression and mild physical aggression in girls but not in boys. Psychological aggression and mild physical aggression were associated with dependency in boys. Girls scored higher in psychological aggression and jealousy than did boys. Finally, the interaction between jealousy and dependency predicted psychological aggression only in girls. These results highlight the need to address the role of the interaction between dependence and jealousy in the types of violence employed in teen dating. However, it is necessary to delve into the gender differences and similarities to develop appropriate prevention programs.

Keywords

teen dating violence conflict resolution strategies jealousy emotional dependency

Introduction

The study of violence in adolescent and young couple relationships has received a good deal of attention (James, West, Deters, & Armijo, 2000; O’Keefe, 2005). In the review of international literature on intimate partner violence carried out by Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller (2005), numerous studies focus on the juvenile population (Jackson, Cram, & Seymour, 2000; Krahé & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2002; Kury, Chouaf, Obergfell-Fuchs, & Woessner, 2004). These studies show that a characteristic trait of violence dynamics in young couple relationships is the reciprocal use of violence, with the exception of sexual abuse. With respect to the foregoing results, there is debate regarding gender symmetry or asymmetry. Research on violence in young couples has revealed inconsistent results about gender differences in aggression perpetrated by boys and girls. Thus, studies based on U.S. samples found practically the same rates in the use of physical violence for boys as for girls (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar, 1996; O’Leary & Smith, 2003). However, other studies based on samples from the United States (Foshee, 1996; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997; O’Keefe, 1997), New Zealand (Magdol et al., 1997), and South Africa (Swart, Stevens, & Ricardo, 2002) found that young women use more physical violence than men. However, studies with Spanish adolescents showed that the frequency of both aggression and victimization was low, though girls reported victimization rates that were higher than those for boys. As for the type of violent behavior, girls were more involved in mild physical aggression, whereas boys were more involved in severe physical aggression (Viejo, 2012).

Some authors studied the relationship between the different types of violence in couples. Accordingly, studies conducted on U.S. adolescents found higher scores for psychological aggression in both boys and girls, and that physical aggression was preceded by psychological aggression (O’Leary & Smith, 2003). Research carried out in Spain with adolescents and young people found that there are higher rates of verbal and psychological violence than physical violence, and that the most severe forms of violence are perpetrated by boys at a higher rate than girls (González & Santana, 2001; Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007). Other studies conducted with Spanish university students found that boys affirmed physically assaulting their partners more frequently than the other way around, and girls reported a higher incidence of psychological violence than boys (Corral, 2009). Regarding this major presence of psychological aggression among adolescents, studies conducted with Spanish adolescents concluded that adolescents perceived certain aggressive violent behavior (e.g., pushing, provocations, threats) as a normalized and acceptable interactive style of solving conflicts in their relationships (Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, & González, 2011; Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007). In addition, other studies found that Spanish adolescents downplayed some indicators of violence such as abuse of control, domination, and jealousy/possession (De la Peña, Ramos, Luzón, & Recio, 2011).

Previous research has found some gender differences in the type of aggression carried out by teenage couples but without conclusive results. It is necessary to delve into the study of gender differences and similarities in the conflict resolution strategies used by teenage couples considering different types of aggression.

Jealousy and Violence

Jealousy is a complex social emotion (Harris & Darby, 2010). The importance of social relationships in psychological and social well-being makes human beings sensitive to the possibility of the loss of valuable social relations, including couple relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006). Studies involving U.S. samples found that feelings of jealousy were commonplace in romantic relationships, and they arose as a reaction to the feeling that the relationship which was considered to be worthwhile was threatened (Pines & Friedman, 1998). In addition, studies conducted with undergraduates provide empirical evidence of the mediating role of the threatened self-esteem in the evocation of jealousy, and that intensity of jealousy had a mediating role in eliciting aggression toward the partner (DeSteno et al., 2006). According to the above, jealousy can become a threat to both, the relationship and self-esteem (Salovey & Rodin, 1986). As regards gender differences, studies conducted with U.S. samples found that women’s jealousy was associated with more distress and more relationship variables than men, and provided some evidence of the fact that, for men, jealousy was a response to threats to their masculine self-esteem (Pines & Friedman, 1998). The fact that jealousy has a different meaning for men and women could explain the different reactions to that emotion.

The interest of researching jealousy stems not only from the distress it engenders but also from its association with aggressive behavior which has been found in U.S. undergraduates (DeSteno et al., 2006). In this regard, research has examined the relationship of jealousy with intimate partner violence. Thus, studies conducted with Spanish samples showed the influence of jealousy as a variable related to violent conflict resolution strategies in couples (Perles, San Martín, Canto, & Moreno, 2011). Other studies involving Canadian samples found that men who used physical violence against their wives were more jealous than those who were not violent (Dutton, Saunders, Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994). Also, studies involving U.S. samples (both young people and adolescents) showed that jealousy and the threat of a breakup constituted the main causes of psychological aggression (Davis, Ace, & Andra, 2000) and physical aggression (Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010). Similarly, studies with Spanish high school students found that the predictive variable showing the greatest influence of psychological aggression on both boys and girls was men’s jealousy (González, 2003), and jealousy was also one of the main motives of physical aggression (Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007).

An important issue for understanding the role of jealousy in romantic relationships is that jealousy constitutes one of the main romantic myths in some Western societies, such as the Spanish one, which validates it as a sign, and even a necessary requirement, for true love (Yela, 2003). Studies with U.S. samples found that when violence was justified by jealousy, it was perceived in a less negative way (Puente & Cohen, 2003). Also, studies conducted with Spanish adolescents found that a higher percentage of boys as opposed to girls considered jealousy a proof of love (De la Peña et al., 2011). Beliefs that jealousy and exaggerated control are symptoms of love and concern from the partner were present in many Spanish adolescent women, and this causes them not to foresee the possible triggering of a serious problem as a consequence (González & Santana, 2001; Hernando, 2007). Previous research has found that jealousy is present in the relationships among adolescents, and that many teens consider jealousy to be a sign of love. However, research has not delved into the role of gender in the relationship between jealousy and violence in teen dating.

Dependency and Violence

According to Bornstein (2012), dependency plays a significant role in close relationships, and high levels of dependency lead to positive outcomes in some situations and negative outcomes in others. Thus, studies involving U.S. undergraduate students found that a high level of dependency was associated with high levels of loyalty and commitment in romantic relationships (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). However, studies conducted with U.S. undergraduate students found that the partners of dependent women showed a decrease in positive emotions and a tendency toward greater hostility (Mongrain, Vettese, Shuster, & Kendal, 1998), and dependent persons had difficulty managing their anger and other negative emotions (Casillas & Clark, 2002). Some theoretical approaches argued that dependent persons may exhibit different partner-specific social influence strategies, some of which include indirect strategies designed to emphasize the person’s submissiveness and vulnerability as well as more direct strategies aimed at strengthening ties and minimizing the possibility of abandonment through assertive, even aggressive, means (Bornstein, 2006; Pincus & Wilson, 2001).

An important part of the research on the relationship between dependency and partner violence has focused on the violent behavior of men (Buttell, Muldoon, & Carney, 2005; Henning & Connor-Smith, 2011; Murphy, Meyer, & O’Leary, 1994) and the tolerance of abuse by women (Hendy, Eggen, Gustitus, McCleod, & Ng, 2003; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Few studies dealt with this issue within teen dating. Accordingly, studies conducted with U.S. female college students found dependency to be associated with dating violence and the acceptance of abuse as an acceptable means of conflict resolution (Charkow & Nelson, 2000). Studies conducted with Spanish undergraduate students showed gender differences in the relationship between dependency and conflict resolution strategies. Thus, in women, dependency predicted using loyalty to manage their conflicts in the relationship, and in men, dependency produced greater intensity of anger, which in turn facilitated the use of coercive strategies to solve their conflicts (Valor-Segura, 2010). Other studies, involving Spanish undergraduate students, found that dependent women showed a high level of guilt when the conflict was serious while this was not observed in men (Valor-Segura, Expósito, & Moya, 2014). Previous studies are consistent with other research, including Swedish samples, which found that women tend to assume a higher level of responsibility to make the relationship work (Enander, 2010). Although research has provided some enlightening results, it is necessary to continue exploring the relationship of dependence with the use of different conflict resolution strategies in adolescent girls and boys.

The Association Between Dependency, Jealousy, and Dating Violence

Bornstein (2006, 2012) argued that dependency is associated with jealousy, possessiveness, and insecurity. Some authors suggested that insecurity and fear of abandonment in emotionally dependent people may lead them to be abusive when they believe that their partners are leaving them (Dutton, 1995, 1998). In this sense, studies with U.S. men showed that jealousy may arise as a reaction to fear of breakup, contributing to an escalating cycle of coercive control (Murphy et al., 1994). Abusiveness reflects the dependent person’s inability to manage insecurity-related emotional upset (Bornstein, 2005), and it represents a strategy for controlling and intimidating one’s partner to prevent that person from terminating the relationship (Murphy et al., 1994). In this regard, some studies dealt with the role of jealousy and dependency in harassment behavior after the breakup of the relationship. In this respect, studies conducted with U.S. students found higher scores in anger-jealousy in those partners who experienced greater fear of breaking up (Davis et al., 2000). Also, studies conducted with female undergraduate students from the United Kingdom found that jealousy was a significant predictor of stalking violence, and the victims of violence pointed out that their partners had a highly possessive and dependent concept of love (Roberts, 2005). In a similar way, studies conducted with U.K. undergraduates found that scores in both jealousy and dependency were higher in those participants who had manifested harassing behavior toward their ex-partners than among those who did not (Ashton, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2008).

The role of jealousy and dependency in dating violence has been dealt with in very few studies, and it is necessary to analyze the relationship between these variables when romantic relationships begin to thoroughly explore the variables that are present in abusive relationships and to develop preventive actions. Previous studies showed that dependent people could experience jealousy when they feel that their relationship is threatened and use aggression as a strategy to preserve it (Murphy et al., 1994). The research also found gender differences in the meaning of jealousy (Pines & Friedman, 1998) and in the strategies used by dependent men and women (Valor-Segura, Expósito, Moya, & Kluwer, 2014). Previous research has not addressed the interaction between gender, dependency, and jealousy in the conflict resolution strategies of adolescent couples.

The purpose of our study was to test whether gender, jealousy, and emotional dependency predict the conflict resolution strategies employed by Spanish adolescents in their romantic relationships. Our study also wanted to analyze gender differences in the conflict resolution strategies employed by boys and girls, considering two types of aggression: psychological aggression and mild physical aggression. We believe that all the aforementioned is important for the following reasons: Psychological and physical aggression in dating relationships during adolescence may be linked to later violence within adult relationships according to studies carried out on U.S. samples (Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001; O’Leary, & Slep, 2003). Furthermore, data provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Ministerio del Interior) of Spain in the years 2003 and 2005 about victims of violence by their partner showed that 5,129 offenses were reported by women and men aged between 21 and 30. Also, studies conducted with Spanish samples on aggression in adult couple relationships indicate that, in many cases, the first violent behavior occurs during dating (Amor, Echeburúa, Corral, Zubizarreta, & Sarasua, 2002). The above results suggest that violence does not usually emerge spontaneously during marriage, but that it frequently begins during the dating relationship. In Spain, there is a major concern about partner violence among adolescents, with preventive campaigns recently launched in the media. In addition, although aggression in adolescent couples is usually of low intensity, the severity of aggression might increase over time. Thus, studies with samples of U.S. adolescents (Feiring, Deblinger, Hoch-Espada, & Haworth, 2002) and Spanish adolescents (Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007; Viejo, 2012) found that aggression toward the partner is more important in older adolescents. One of the main gaps in previous research is that it has not delved into the study of variables related to teen dating violence. The present study deals with the relationship between jealousy and dependence with two types of violence (psychological and mild physical aggression) going deeper into the study of gender differences and similarities. The main contribution of this study lies in addressing the effect of the interaction between gender, dependency, and jealousy in the psychological and mild physical aggression.

Based on the existing literature, we designed a study to explore the interplay between gender, jealousy, dependency, and aggression (psychological and mild physical aggression) in Spanish teen couples. The first hypothesis is related to gender differences in psychological and mild physical aggression. Gender differences among Spanish young people regarding the attitude toward partner violence against women along with the persistence of sexist attitudes could explain gender differences in the types of violence used to solve conflicts in Spanish adolescent couples. Thus, studies with Spanish adolescents found that boys rejected partner violence less than girls (Díaz-Aguado, 2002, 2003). In addition, boys were more sexist than girls (De la Peña et al., 2011; Díaz-Aguado & Carvajal, 2011) and showed greater tolerance for certain forms of violence toward women (Lameiras & Rodríguez, 2002; Silván-Ferrero & Bustillos, 2007). These attitudes in Spanish boys reveal that young people still have a perception of gender inequality in relationships, which could imply a perception of superiority on the part of the young males, and different gender roles in boys and girls in dating relationships are expected. These attitudes could explain why boys use more severe aggression to resolve conflicts (Corral, 2009; González & Santana, 2001; Viejo, 2012). Furthermore, some studies with Spanish adolescents found that girls had a greater involvement in serious relationships than boys (González & Santana, 2001; Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007), which increased not only satisfaction with the relationship but also the conflict. A greater involvement in serious relationships by Spanish girls could explain the use of psychological aggression to maintain the relationship. However, the use of psychological aggression by girls rather than physical aggression could be explained by the fact that Spanish adolescents seem to downplay some violent behavior related to psychological aggression (De la Peña et al., 2011; Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2011; Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007). We expected girls to use higher levels of psychological aggression than boys. In addition, we hypothesized that boys use higher levels of mild physical aggression than girls (Hypothesis 1).

The second hypothesis concerns the association between jealousy and aggression. As previously noted, there is evidence that myths about jealousy as an indicator of love are present in Spanish adolescents and are more likely in boys than in girls. Thus, they could consider jealousy to be normal in a relationship and, therefore, justify violent behavior. Furthermore, although research has not delved into the meaning of jealousy in boys and girls, studies on Spanish adolescents indicate that jealousy in boys could be related to controlling behavior toward their partner. Thus, it is possible that the boys used psychological and mild physical aggression when they experience jealousy, so as to try to control their partners. Also, as we have discussed previously, the Spanish girls stated that they were involved in more serious relationships than boys and jealousy may arise when they feel their relationship threatened. In addition, Spanish adolescents perceive certain forms of psychological aggression as a normalized and acceptable interactive style of solving conflicts in their relationships (Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2011; Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007), and this could explain that this behavior is justified in an attempt to maintain their relationship. We expected a positive association between psychological aggression and jealousy both in boys and in girls. We also expected to find a positive association between jealousy and mild physical aggression in boys (Hypothesis 2).

The third hypothesis dealt with the relationship between dependency, and psychological and mild physical aggression. Previous studies with Spanish samples suggest that intimate conflict situations can elicit different emotional reactions in men and women, and that dependency and emotional reactions to conflict are both predictors of the manner in which members of the couple manage problems in relationships (Valor-Segura, et al., 2014). Thus, in women, dependency may be more related to loyalty behavior aimed at maintaining the relationship, whereas in men, dependency may be more related to aggression in couples. We expect a positive association between dependency, and psychological and mild physical aggression in boys (Hypothesis 3).

The fourth hypothesis dealt with the relationship between jealousy, dependency, and aggression (psychological and mild physical aggression) in boys and girls. Involvement in serious relationships by Spanish girls could make them more dependent on their partners, and thus feel jealous when they perceive that their relationship is threatened. This could explain the use of psychological aggression to try to maintain the relationship. In this sense, it is possible that girls perceive psychological aggression as a normalized and acceptable interactive style of solving conflicts in their relationships. As for boys, the interaction between dependency and jealousy, trigged by the threat of breaking off the relationship, could lead to feelings of anger. The use of mild physical aggression could be caused by an attempt at controlling their partner. In girls, we expect that the interaction between dependency and jealousy would predict psychological aggression. As for boys, we expected that the interaction between dependency and jealousy would predict the use of mild physical aggression (Hypothesis 4).

Method

Participants

The sample was obtained from five public high schools located near one another in the city of Malaga (in the south of Spain). Initially, two classes per level (from ninth grade onward) were requested, using a nonprobability sampling procedure, which resulted in an initial sample of 720 students, 44.4% of which were boys and 55.6% were girls; 38.1% of boys and 46.3% of girls had partners. Subsequently, those participants who had not had romantic relationships of a minimum duration of 6 months at the time of the study or during the last year were eliminated. After the data were cleaned and frequencies were examined, six participants did not answer the scale of dependency and two participants did not answer the scale of jealousy. These participants were eliminated from the sample. The final sample was composed of a total of 296 students ranging in age from 14 to 19 years. With respect to educational levels, 20.5% were in ninth grade, 27.2% were in 10th grade, 27.3% were in 11th grade, 10.2% were in 12th grade, and 14.8% were in vocational training programs. The participants identified themselves as Spaniards (95.9%), Hispanic-American (2.9%), East Europeans (0.9%), and Moroccans (0.3%). Finally, in terms of family income levels, 14.3% reported earning 1,000 € a month, 28.4% earned between 1,000 and 1,500 €, 36.2% earned between 1,500 and 2,500 €, and 11% earned more than 2,500 €.

Measures

To assess conflict resolution strategies in couples, the modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (M-CTS; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), validated in the Spanish youth population (Muñoz-Rivas, Andreu, Graña, O’Leary, & González, 2007), was used. This scale consists of 18 items which refer to both the participating individual (own CTS) and the perception that he or she has of the behavior of his or her partner (partner’s CTS). Participants had to indicate how often they used different conflict resolution strategies, evaluated on a 5-point scale (where 1 indicates never and 5 very frequently). In our study, only the scale pertaining to one’s own conflict resolution strategies was used. The scale had four factors: argument, psychological aggression, mild physical aggression, and severe physical aggression. In this study, we used only two factors: psychological aggression (Cronbach’s α = .75) and mild physical aggression (Cronbach’s α = .87). The total scores of psychological aggression and mild physical aggression were calculated as the mean of items in each subscale. Psychological aggression included five items (“Have you insulted or cursed your boyfriend/girlfriend?” “Have you refused to speak about a particular subject?” “Have you ever left the room or the house because you were angry?” “Have you cried?” “Have you said or done anything to irritate or “wind up” your boyfriend or girlfriend?”). Mild physical aggression included seven items (“Have you threatened your boyfriend/girlfriend with hitting them or throwing something at them?” “Have you tried to physically restrain your boyfriend/girlfriend?” “Have you thrown something at your boyfriend/girlfriend?” “Have you hit, kicked, or thrown something at your boyfriend/girlfriend?” “Have you pushed or dragged your boyfriend/girlfriend?” “Have you slapped your boyfriend/girlfriend?” “Have you hit or bitten your boyfriend/girlfriend?”).

Interpersonal dependency has been measured with the Spanish version of the Spouse Specific Dependency Scale (Rathus & O’Leary, 1997), developed and validated by Valor-Segura, Expósito, and Moya (2009). This scale consists of 17 items, with a Likert-type answer format, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), through which three dimensions are assessed: exclusive dependency, emotional dependency, and anxious attachment. According to these authors, it is possible to use an overall score. The total score was calculated as the mean of all the items in the scale. Therefore, in this study, a total score was used (some sample items: “My partner is the only one I could go to in case of a problem,” “It is difficult for me to be away from my partner,” “It makes me feel depressed to realize that my partner is not thinking of me”). Cronbach’s α for interpersonal dependency was .90.

To evaluate jealousy, a scale of romantic jealousy was used (White, 1976), validated in the Spanish population by Montes-Berges (2008) and consisting of five items that constitute a single factor that measures the existence of romantic jealousy. The total score was calculated as the mean of all the items of the scale. It has a Likert-type answer format, from 1 (not at all jealous) to 5 (very jealous). Some sample items are as follows: “How jealous do you become when you know that your partner is with persons of the opposite sex?” “In general, how jealous do you think you are?” In this study, Cronbach’s α was .90.

Procedure

For data collection, secondary schools in Malaga were contacted. In total, five schools from demographical zones with similar characteristics participated. The heads of the centers informed the families about the students’ participation in the study. To participate in the research, it was required to have a partner at the time of the study or to have had one in the last year. The relationship had to have a minimum duration of 6 months. The questionnaires were administered in class by a member of the research team who had previously been trained in how the scales were to be applied. They stressed the importance of not leaving any question unanswered and participation was voluntary, individual, and anonymous. They could choose to leave the study at any time without penalty. No participant left the study. Data confidentiality was assured by coding each questionnaire using a numerical identification. The approximate time to complete the scales was 20 min.

Statistical Analyses

A MANOVA was used to determine whether there were any gender differences in psychological and mild physical aggression. To examine the relationship between jealousy, interpersonal dependency, and psychological and mild physical aggression, the sample was stratified by gender, and Pearson’s correlation analysis was used. Hierarchical regression models were estimated to examine the predictive ability of the interaction of three variables (gender, dependency, and jealousy) on psychological and mild physical aggression.

Results

The mean scores and standard deviations of all variables by gender are presented in Table 1. The mean level of psychological aggression was below the midpoint of the scale and very low in mild physical aggression. For jealousy and dependency, the mean scores were at the middle point on the scale. There were no differences in terms of age and gender. The results showed differences in psychological aggression, mild physical aggression, and jealousy, with the mean scores higher in girls than in boys in the three variables. However, the effect size was small in jealousy (d = −.3) and mild physical aggression (d = −.21), and medium in psychological aggression (d = −.52). Therefore, we cannot conclude that there are differences in jealousy and mild physical aggression. We expected scores for adolescent girls to be higher in psychological aggression and scores for boys to be higher in mild aggression (Hypothesis 1). These results showed that Hypothesis 1 was partially confirmed as there were no gender differences in mild physical aggression.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations, and Results of MANOVA Comparing Boys (n = 132) and Girls (n = 164) on Psychological Aggression, Mild Physical Aggression, Jealousy, and Dependency.

Variables	Boys		Girls		MANOVA Results
Variables	M	SD	M	SD	F	df	p	d
Age (range = 4-19)	16.9	1.33	16.78	1.51	0.8	1,296	.77	.08
Psychological aggression	2_a	0.74	2.4_a	0.8	26.96	1,296	.00	−.52
Mild Physical Aggression	1.34_b	0.4	1.43_b	0.42	5.14	1,296	.02	−.21
Jealousy	2.3_c	1.04	2.6_c	1.1	4.14	1,296	.04	−.3
Dependency	3.18	0.91	3.13	0.9	0.12	1,296	.72	.06

Note. Dependency was measured on a 6-point scale. All other measures were assessed on 5-point scales. Means that share a subscript are significantly different from each other.

Among boys, we found that none of the variables of aggression correlated with jealousy. The correlation analysis in girls showed that jealousy correlated with psychological aggression and mild physical aggression (see Table 2). However, the correlations found were low. In Hypothesis 2, we expected jealousy to correlate positively with psychological aggression in girls. In boys, we also hypothesized a positive relationship between jealousy and mild physical aggression. The aforementioned results show that Hypothesis 2 was partially confirmed, as no significant correlation was found between jealousy and mild physical aggression in boys.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Psychological Aggression, Mild Physical Aggression, Dependency, and Jealousy for Boys (Below the Diagonal) and Girls (Above the Diagonal).

	Psychological Aggression	Mild Physical Aggression	Dependency	Jealousy
Psychological aggression	—	.45**	.28**	.33**
Mild Physical Aggression	.52**	—	.31**	.28**
Dependency	.32**	.21*	—	.44**
Jealousy	.16	.14	.48**	—

p < .05. **p < .01.

Among boys, we found that interpersonal dependency was significantly correlated with psychological aggression and mild physical aggression (see Table 2). The correlations were low. In Hypothesis 3, we expected a positive relationship between interpersonal dependency and psychological aggression and mild physical aggression in boys. The aforementioned results show that Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. In addition, the correlation analysis in girls showed that interpersonal dependency was significantly correlated with psychological aggression and mild physical aggression.

As Table 2 shows, aside from the correlations with the dependent variables (psychological and mild physical aggression), interpersonal dependency and jealousy significantly correlated in both boys and girls.

To test Hypothesis 4, a hierarchical regression model was estimated (see Table 3). Preliminary analyses indicated that the variables representing psychological aggression met the assumptions required for linear regression analyses: The dependent variable was normally distributed, and the predictor variables lacked multicollinearity. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values were all acceptable with values across the independence variables ranging from 1 to 1.28 in Step 1, VIF values ranging from 1 to 1.2 in Step 2, and a VIF value of 1.01 in Step 3. In Step 1, gender and jealousy explained 15% of the variance for F(3, 296) = 18.51, p < .001. In Step 2, Gender × Dependency and Jealousy × Dependency explained 16% of the variance for F(5, 296) = 12.25, p < .001. In Step 3, Gender × Jealousy × Dependency explained 17% of the variance for F(6, 296) = 11.46, p < .001.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Psychological Aggression as a Function of Gender, Jealousy, and Dependency.

	Psychological Aggression
	β	t	p
Step1
Gender	.27	5.04	.00
Jealousy	.23	3.78	.00
Dependency	.04	0.74	.45
Step 2
Gender × Jealousy	.39	1.78	.07
Gender × Dependency	−.43	−2.11	.03
Jealousy × Dependency	−.12	−2.32	.02
Step 3
Gender × Jealousy × Dependency	−.14	−2.53	.01

The significant interactions were explored further, producing low levels (−1 SD) and high levels (+1 SD) of psychological aggression in boys and girls. As can be observed in Figures 1 and 2, the associations were stronger in the case of girls compared with boys. As expected, a test of simple slopes revealed that in girls, psychological aggression was associated with jealousy. This association was stronger when both jealousy and dependency were low (β = −.36, p < .01) as when they were high (β = −.36, p < .01). This association was weaker when jealousy was low and dependency was high (β = −.23 p < .01), and when jealousy was high and dependency was low (β = −.29 p < .01). In boys, these associations were not significant, neither in the case of high dependency (β = −.13) nor in the case of low dependency (β = −.09). This result confirmed what was expected, as in girls the interaction between jealousy and dependence predicted psychological aggression.

Figure 1.

Interaction between jealousy and dependency on boys’ psychological aggression.

Figure 2.

Interaction between jealousy and dependency on girls’ psychological aggression.

Preliminary analyses indicated that the mild physical aggression variable was skewed. Because skew represents a violation of one of the assumptions of linear regression, logistic regression was the appropriate analysis strategy for the mild physical aggression variable. To conduct the hierarchical logistic regression, the mild physical aggression variable was dichotomized to allow for a comparison between participants who indicated absence and presence of mild physical aggression (0 in the scores of nonviolence and 1 in the scores of violence). The independent variables were gender, jealousy, and dependency in Step 1. In Step 2, we introduced the two-way interactions: Gender × Jealousy, Gender × Dependency, and Jealousy × Dependency. The three-way interaction of Gender × Jealousy × Dependency was introduced in Step 3. Participants (68.4%) were correctly classified by the interaction terms between gender and jealousy, χ²(7) = 9,622; p = .211, R² de Nagelkerke = .064. Only the interaction gender × jealousy was included in the model, β (SE) = .2 (0.05), Exp(β) = 1.227, Wald = 13.94, p < .001. The three-way interaction of Gender × Jealousy × Dependency was not statistically significant. We expected the interaction between dependency and jealousy to be more predictive of mild physical aggression in boys. The results have not confirmed this prediction.

Discussion

In this study, the first aim was to analyze gender differences in psychological aggression and mild physical aggression. The gender differences were found only in psychological aggression, where these scores were higher for girls than for boys. This result confirms what was expected. Girls could admit to a greater use of psychological aggression because of the minor importance given to the violence exerted by women, along with considering certain forms of violence not to be really serious. In addition, some studies on Spanish adolescents showed that girls indicated having had more serious relationships than boys (Sánchez, Ortega-Rivera, Ortega, & Viejo, 2008), and this could be related to the results found in our study, as the importance of the relationship was related to more conflicts, and psychological aggression could be a strategy to maintain the relationship. However, the fact of having found no differences in mild physical aggression may be because the scores on such violence have been very low. A possible explanation for this may be that partner violence during adolescence is usually of low severity, as has been found in studies with U.S. samples (Katz, Carino, & Hilton, 2002; Straus et al., 1996) and Spanish samples (Viejo, 2012). However, it is necessary to take into account that the answers of the participants may have been influenced by social desirability.

Previous research on gender differences in the violence of young couples has found different results. Thus, studies conducted with Spanish samples showed that girls got more involved in psychological aggression, while boys did so in severe physical aggression (Corral, 2009; Viejo, 2012). Also, studies based on samples from the United States (Foshee, 1996; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Malik et al., 1997; O’Keefe, 1997), New Zealand (Magdol et al., 1997), and South Africa (Swart et al., 2002) found that young women used more physical violence than men. The results of this study show that the differences occur only in psychological aggression, which is the type most recognized by boys and girls alike, although to a greater extent by girls. The latter confirms the findings in some studies with Spanish undergraduates (Corral, 2009) and reflects the need to continue studying different types of aggression in young couples but also to more specifically assess psychological aggression (Blázquez, Moreno, & García-Baamonde, 2012).

A second aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between psychological aggression, mild physical aggression, and jealousy in adolescent couples. In the case of girls, jealousy correlated with psychological aggression and mild physical aggression. This result partially confirmed our expectations, and can be explained by the fact that psychological violence and some mild forms of physical violence, such as those found in this study, are not identified by girls as violence. In addition, some abusive behavior might be justified by jealousy. In relation to the above, studies conducted with Spanish adolescents have found that both boys and girls considered jealousy to be a proof of love, and they downplayed some indicators of violence such as abuse of control, domination, and jealousy/possession (De la Peña et al., 2011). Some argued that such a myth may be used in romantic relationships as a way to justify behavior that is selfish, unfair, repressive, or, on occasion, violent (Barrón & Martínez-Iñigo, 2001; Yela, 2003). Such beliefs may be linked to the socialization processes, as Spanish adolescents report having received some advice from adults, indicating that jealousy is an expression of love (Díaz-Aguado, Martínez, & Martín, 2013). In the case of boys, we found no correlation between jealousy and the two types of aggression. The last result was contrary to what was expected both in this study and in previous research that found that jealousy was related to violent behavior in boys in U.S. samples (O’Keefe, 1997) and Spanish samples (González, 2003). A possible explanation for this may be that boys are reluctant to recognize not only that they are jealous but also that they used aggression toward their partners because of awareness campaigns on the use of violence against women. In Spain, an important effort has been made in this regard (Ferrer & Bosch, 2006), and most young people adopt a discourse of gender equality (Díaz-Aguado, 2003; Díaz-Aguado & Martínez, 2001). Archer (2000) argued that in those societies where values are opposed to violence perpetrated by men against women, both women and men view acts of physical aggression toward a partner more negatively when the aggressor is a man, and this could result in lesser recognition of violence by men. The results found in boys, in any case, point to the need for further in-depth study as to the degree to which adolescent boys and girls are jealous and how this is related to the use of violent conflict resolution strategies.

In the case of interpersonal dependency, the results confirmed what was expected, as a positive relationship was found between dependency, and psychological aggression and mild physical aggression in boys. Previous research on the relationship between dependency and violence in couples has focused on the adult population, finding that men who were violent toward their partners were more dependent than those who were not violent (Buttell et al., 2005; Murphy et al., 1994). Regarding the above, it is possible for some people to remain in an unsatisfactory relationship because of high dependency (Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). Furthermore, the study by Valor-Segura (2010), conducted with Spanish undergraduate students, showed that men with a higher level of dependency tended to employ coercive conflict resolution strategies with their partners. In women, dependency predicted using loyalty to manage their relationship conflicts. In this study, we expected a positive relationship between dependency, and psychological aggression and mild physical aggression in boys, and the results confirmed our expectations. However, in girls, dependency also correlated with the two types of aggression. The results above allow us to confirm that emotional dependency is also associated with violent behavior toward the partner in adolescents. In addition, this relationship has been found in girls, which was not expected in this study. These results represent a contribution to the study of violence in teen dating and suggest the need for future research to address the role played by emotional dependency in this type of aggression. It is also necessary to delve into the emotions generated by dependency in boys and girls, and how this relates to violence against the partner.

Finally, the main aim of this study was to test whether gender, jealousy, and emotional dependency predict the conflict resolution strategies employed by Spanish adolescents in their romantic relationships. The results showed that the interaction between gender, jealousy, and dependency predicted psychological aggression in the case of girls but not in the case of boys. This result confirms the expectations in this study and indicates that when girls scored higher in dependency and jealousy, they used more psychological violence, but also that when girls scored low in both variables, they used less psychological aggression. Some authors suggested that emotionally dependent people could be abusive when they believe that their partners are leaving them (Dutton, 1995, 1998). In these cases, jealousy may arise as a reaction to the fear of breaking up (Murphy et al., 1994). Previous research found that in women, both jealousy and dependency were associated with a greater concern for the relationship (Pines & Friedman, 1998; Valor-Segura, 2010). Also, Spanish adolescents seemed to underestimate certain types of psychological aggression (De la Peña et al., 2011). In relation to the above, the results of our study may indicate that increased concern for the functioning of the relationship in girls is linked to more dependent relationships, and when a threat to this relationship is perceived, jealousy may arise, which is a predictor of violence against the couple. However, it is possible that girls do not identify this abusive psychological behavior as aggression and also tend to justify it. Future studies should delve into the perception of some expressions of violent behavior toward adolescents and young couples, as well as its justification.

In the case of boys, we expected that gender, jealousy, and dependency would predict mild physical aggression but the results did not confirm this prediction. However, it was found that the interaction of gender with jealousy predicted mild physical aggression. This result indicates that the most jealous girls are more likely to use mild physical aggression. The foregoing may relate to other results of this study where we found that there was a positive relationship between jealousy and mild physical aggression in girls. This may be due, as discussed above, to the fact that jealousy and mild forms of violence are not perceived by them in a negative way. The foregoing results could be related to the nature of our sample. Thus, in this study, the scores of girls and boys in mild physical aggression were very low, and this may have influenced the results obtained. In this regard, it was observed that the type of violence found in the present study fits more into a case of situational violence, similar to the one found in research studies conducted on Spanish adolescents (Viejo, 2012). In this sense, it is worth pointing out the importance of distinguishing types of violence and the need to approach research in this field from different methodologies that would allow accessing population samples with different types of dating violence. Future research should take into account this issue. As argued by Feiring et al. (2002), recognition of different forms of partner aggression is essential when designing gender-effective interventions for adolescents.

These results have shown that violence in couple relationships occurs at very young ages and early on in these relationships. In this respect, it is important to implement preventative programs, in addition to facilitating an early detection of risk indicators for different types of aggression in teen dating. Research on Spanish adolescents has found that the participation in training programs on gender violence has an influence on being less sexist, demystifying romantic love, and holding fewer beliefs that justify gender violence (De la Peña et al., 2011; Díaz-Aguado et al., 2013). However, these interventions should incorporate actions aimed at preventing different types of violence and address the differences and similarities between the teen boys and the girls on the type of aggression used and their relation with variables such as jealousy and dependency.

The main strength of this study is that it addresses the study of variables related to two types of aggression (psychological and mild physical aggression) in teen dating, finding gender differences. The results found in this study highlight the need for continued study on the relationship between these variables and their capacity to predict violent conflict resolution strategies, in addition to gender differences and the common elements of violent behavior in Spanish adolescent couples. It is necessary to examine in depth about how the cultural context may influence romantic relationships from the first dating experiences in adolescence and how they evolve over time. Our study has a number of limitations that also provide for promising future research directions. Thus, our study participants are boys and girls who are just entering into relationships, and it would be necessary to assess older adolescents with more stable relationships. In this regard, Feiring et al. (2002) showed that older adolescents were more likely to report having experienced emotional abuse. Moreover, our study has not analyzed the perception of adolescents regarding the seriousness of the relationship, and this may be an important issue to address in future research. In addition, this study did not examine relationships between same-gender couples and violence. Some authors have pointed out the need for research on this issue in same-gender dating relationships to enhance our understanding of the phenomenon among this underserved population as well as to target prevention and intervention efforts appropriately (Gillum & DiFulvio, 2012). Finally, although the confidentiality of responses was ensured, it is necessary to note that the type of measures used in the present study may have influenced the responses from the participants, and that some forms of aggression were underreported.

The main contribution of this study is that it provides an explanation of some of the variables involved in psychological aggression in adolescent couples, highlighting the role of gender in the interaction between dependency and jealousy. This study has led to an in-depth analysis of the variables related to violence in Spanish adolescent couples, highlighting the need to continue conducting research on gender differences in the perception and acknowledgment of dating violence when this type of relationship is starting.

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.

Author Biographies

Fabiola Perles, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Social Psychology (University of Málaga, Spain). Her research interests include violence against women and dating violence.

Jesús San Martín, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Social Psychology (University of Málaga, Spain). His research interests include well-being, violence against women, and dating violence.

Jesús M. Canto, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of Social Psychology (University of Málaga, Spain). His research focuses on psychology of groups and romantic perception on rape.

References

Amor

Echeburúa

Corral

Zubizarreta

Sarasua

(2002). Repercusiones psicopatológicas de la violencia doméstica en la mujer en función de las circunstancias del maltrato [Psychopathological consequences in battered women related to violent circumstances]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 2, 227-246.

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.5.651

Ashton

Graham-Kevan

Archer

(2008). Investigating sub-groups of harassers: The roles of attachment, dependency, jealousy and aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 557-568. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9171-x

Barrón

Martínez-Iñigo

(2001). Los celos: una perspectiva psicosocial [Jealousy: A psychosocial perspective]. Málaga, Spain: Aljibe.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Blázquez

Moreno

García-Baamonde

(2012). Indicators of psychological abuse associated with the length of relationships between couples. Anales de Psicología, 28, 772-779. doi:10.6018/analesps.28.3.123261

Bornstein

(2005). The dependent patient: A practitioner’s guide. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bornstein

(2006). The complex relationship between dependency and domestic violence. American Psychologist, 61, 595-606. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.595

Bornstein

(2012). From dysfunction to adaption: An interactionist model of dependency. The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 291-316. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143058

10.

Buttell

Muldoon

Carney

(2005). An application of attachment theory to court-mandated batterers. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 211-217. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-5984-2

11.

Carrado

George

M. J.

Loxam

Jones

Templar

(1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337

12.

Casillas

Clark

(2002). Dependency, impulsivity, and self-harm: Traits hypothesized to underlie the association between cluster B personality and substance use disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 424-436. doi:10.1521/pedi.16.5.424.22124

13.

Charkow

Nelson

(2000). Relationship dependency, dating violence and scripts of female college students. Journal of College Counseling, 3, 17-28. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1882.2000.tb00160.x

14.

Corral

(2009). Estudio de la violencia en jóvenes universitarios/as: cronicidad, severidad y mutualidad de las conductas violentas [Study of violent behavior in university students: Chronicity, severity and mutuality of aggressive behavior]. Psicopatología Clínica, Legal y Forense, 9, 29-48.

15.

Davis

K. E.

Ace

Andra

(2000). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break-up context. Violence and Victims, 15, 407-425.

16.

Peña

Ramos

Luzón

Recio

(2011). Andalucía detecta: Sexismo violencia de género en la juventud [Andalusia detects: Sexism and gender violence in youth]. Sevilla, Spain: Instituto Andaluz de la Mujer, Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social, Junta de Andalucía.

17.

DeSteno

Valdesolo

Bartlett

(2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 626-641. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.626

18.

Díaz-Aguado

M. J.

(2002). Prevenir la violencia contra las mujeres construyendo la igualdad. Programa para educación secundaria [Preventing violence against women by building equality. Program for high school]. Madrid, Spain: Instituto de la Mujer.

19.

Díaz-Aguado

M. J.

(2003). Adolescencia, sexismo y violencia de género [Adolescence, sexism and gender violence]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 23, 35-44.

20.

Díaz-Aguado

M. J.

Carvajal

M. I.

(2011). Igualdad y prevención de la violencia de género en la adolescencia [Equality and prevention of gender violence in adolescence]. Madrid, Spain: Ministry of Health, Social Policy, and Gender Equality of the Spanish Government.

21.

Díaz-Aguado

M. J.

Martínez

(2001). La construcción de igualdad y la prevención de la violencia contra la mujer desde la educación secundaria. [Building equality and prevention of violence against women from secondary education]. Madrid: Instituto de la mujer.

22.

Díaz-Aguado

M. J.

Martínez

Martín

(2013). La evolución de la sociedad española sobre la igualdad y la prevención de la violencia de género [Evolution of Spanish society in equality and prevention of gender violence]. Madrid, Spain: Ministry of Health, Social Services, and Gender Equality of the Spanish Government.

23.

Drigotas

Rusbult

(1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62-87. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.62

24.

Dutton

D. G.

(1995). Intimate abusiveness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 207-224. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.1995.tb00040.x

25.

Dutton

D. G.

(1998). The abusive personality: Violence and control intimate relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

Dutton

D. G.

Saunders

Starzomski

Bartholomew

(1994). Intimacy-anger and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1367-1386. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01554.x

27.

Enander

(2010). A fool to keep staying: Battered women labeling themselves stupid as an expression of gendered shame. Violence Against Women, 16, 5-31. doi:10.1177/1077801209353577

28.

Feiring

Deblinger

Hoch-Espada

Haworth

(2002). Romantic relationship aggression and attitudes in high school students: The role of gender, grade, and attachment and emotional styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 373-385. doi:10.1023/A:1015680625391

29.

Ferrer

Bosch

(2006). The role of feminist movement in social consideration about gender violence: The case of Spain. Revista Labrys, 10, 1-30.

30.

Foshee

(1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11, 275-286. doi:10.1093/her/11.3.275

31.

Gillum

DiFulvio

(2012). “There’s so much at stake”: Sexual minority youth discuss dating violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 725-745. doi:10.1177/1077801212455164

32.

Giordano

Soto

Manning

Longmore

(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

33.

González

(2003). La dinámica de la violencia en las parejas jóvenes [The dynamics of violence in young couples]. Documentación Social, 131, 231-243.

34.

González

Santana

(2001). La violencia en parejas jóvenes [Violence in young couples]. Psicothema, 13, 127-131.

35.

Gray

Foshee

(1997). Adolescent dating violence: Differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126-141. doi:10.1177/088626097012001008

36.

Halpern

C. T.

Oslak

S. G.

Young

M. L.

Martin

S. L.

Kupper

L. L.

(2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1679-1685.

37.

Harris

C. R.

Darby

R. S.

(2010). Jealousy in adulthood. In Hart

S. L.

Legerstee

(Eds.), Handbook of jealousy (pp. 257-271). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

38.

Hendy

H. M.

Eggen

Gustitus

McCleod

K. C.

(2003). Decision to leave scale: Perceived reasons to stay in or leave violent relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 162-173. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00096

39.

Henning

Connor-Smith

(2011). Why doesn’t he leave? Relationship continuity and satisfaction among male domestic violence offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1366-1387. doi:10.1177/0886260510369132

40.

Hernando

(2007). La prevención de la violencia de género en adolescentes. Una experiencia en el ámbito educativo [The prevention of gender dating violence. An experience in educative context]. Apuntes de Psicología, 25, 325-340.

41.

Jackson

S. M.

Cram

Seymour

F. W.

(2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high school students’ dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 23-36. doi:10.1023/A:1007545302987

42.

James

W. H.

West

Deters

K. E.

Armijo

(2000). Youth and dating violence. Adolescence, 35, 455-465.

43.

Katz

Carino

Hilton

(2002). Perceived verbal conflict behaviors associates with physical aggression and sexual coercion in dating relationships: A gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 17, 93-109. doi:10.1891/vivi.17.1.93.33641

44.

Krahé

Bieneck

Möller

(2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807-827. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4201-0

45.

Krahé

Scheinberger-Olwig

(2002). Sexuelle aggression. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

46.

Kury

Chouaf

Obergfell-Fuchs

Woessner

(2004). The scope of sexual victimization in Germany. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 589-602. doi:10.1177/0886260504262967

47.

Lameiras

Rodríguez

(2002). Evaluación del sexismo moderno en los adolescentes [Assessment of modern sexism in Young people]. Revista de Psicología Social, 17, 119-127.

48.

Magdol

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Newman

D. L.

Fagan

Silva

P. A.

(1997). Gender differences in partner in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68-78. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.1.68

49.

Malik

Sorenson

Aneshensel

(1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291-302.

50.

Mongrain

Vettese

Shuster

Kendal

(1998). Perceptual biases, affect, and behavior in the relationships of dependents and self-critics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 230-241.

51.

Montes-Berges

(2008). Tácticas para la resolución de conflictos y celos románticos en relaciones íntimas: adaptación y análisis de las escalas CTS2 y CR [Tactics for conflicts resolution and romantic jealousy in close relationships: Adaptation and analysis of CTS2 and CR scales]. Estudios de Psicología, 29, 221-234. doi:10.1174/021093908784485138

52.

Muñoz-Rivas

Andreu

Graña

O’Leary

González

(2007). Validación de la versión modificada de la Conflicts Tactics Scale (M-CTS) en población juvenil española [Validation of modified version of the Conflicts Tactics Scale (M-CTS) in Spanish young people]. Psicothema, 19, 693-698.

53.

Muñoz-Rivas

Graña

González

(2011). Abuso psicológico en parejas jóvenes [Psychological abuse in young couples]. Psicología Conductual, 19, 117-131.

54.

Muñoz-Rivas

Graña

O’Leary

González

(2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298-304. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137

55.

Murphy

Meyer

O’Leary

(1994). Dependency characteristics of partners assaultive men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 729-735. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.103.4.729

56.

O’Keefe

(1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568. doi:10.1177/088626097012004005

57.

O’Keefe

(2005). Teen dating violence: A review of risk factors and prevention efforts. VAWnet Applied Research Forum. Retrieved from http://vawnet.org/advanced-search/print-document.php?doc_id=409&find_type=web_desc_AR

58.

O’Leary

Slep

(2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32, 314-327. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01

59.

O’Leary

Smith

(2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32, 314-327. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP320301

60.

Perles

San Martín

Canto

J. M.

Moreno

(2011). Inteligencia emocional, celos, tendencia al abuso y estrategias de resolución de conflictos en la pareja [Emotional intelligence, jealously, propensity for abusiveness and conflict solving strategies in the couple]. Escritos de Psicología, 4, 34-43. doi:10.5231/psy.writ.2011.6.5

61.

Pincus

Wilson

(2001). Interpersonal variability in dependent personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 223-251. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00143

62.

Pines

Friedman

(1998). Romantic jealousy. Causes, symptoms, cures. New York, NY: Routledge.

63.

Puente

Cohen

(2003). Jealousy and the meaning (or non-meaning) of violence. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 29, 449-460. doi:10.1177/0146167202250912

64.

Rathus

O’Leary

(1997). Spouse-Specific Dependence Scale: Scale development. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 159-168.

65.

Roberts

(2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women, 11, 89-114. doi:10.1177/1077801204271096

66.

Rusbult

Van Lange

(2003). Interdependence, interaction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351-375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

67.

Salovey

Rodin

(1986). The differentiation of social comparison jealousy and romantic jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1100-1112.

68.

Sánchez

Ortega-Rivera

Ortega

Viejo

(2008). Las relaciones sentimentales en la adolescencia: satisfacción, conflictos y violencia [Romantic relationships in adolescence: Satisfaction, conflicts and dating violence]. Escritos de Psicología, 2, 97-109.

69.

Silván-Ferrero

M. P.

Bustillos

(2007). Benevolent sexism toward men and women: Justification of the traditional system and conventional gender roles in Spain. Sex Roles, 57, 607-614. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9271-8

70.

Simpson

Gangestad

(1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870

71.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

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

72.

Swart

Stevens

Ricardo

(2002). Violence in adolescents’ romantic relationships: Findings from a survey amongst school-going youth in a South African community. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 385-395. doi:10.1006/jado.2002.0483

73.

Valor-Segura

(2010). Legitimación de la violencia contra la mujer: factores socioculturales e interpersonales en el mantenimiento de la relación abusiva [Legitimation of violence against woman: Sociocultural and interpersonal factors in maintenance of abusive relation]. Granada, Spain: Editorial de la Universidad de Granada.

74.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

Moya

(2009). Desarrollo y validación de la versión española de la Spouse-Specific Dependency Scale [Development and validation of Spanish version of Spouse-Specific Dependency Scale]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9, 479-500.

75.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

Moya

(2014). Gender, dependency and guilt in intímate relationships conflict among Spanish couples. Sex Roles, 70, 496-505. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0351-2

76.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

Moya

Kluwer

(2014). Don’t leave me: The effect of dependency and emotions in relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 579-587. doi:10.1111/jasp.12250

77.

Viejo

(2012). Dating violence y cortejo adolescente. Un estudio sobre la violencia en las parejas sentimentales de los jóvenes andaluces [Dating violence and teen courtship. A study on violence in romantic relationships of Andalusian youth]. Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba.

78.

White

G. L.

(1976). The social psychology of romantic jealousy. Unpublished dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.

79.

Yela

(2003). La otra cara del amor: mitos, paradojas y problemas [The other face of love: Myths, paradoxes and problems]. Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1, 263-267.