Abstract
Guided by a review of the literature on intergenerational transmission of violence, or “the cycle of violence”, and Johnson’s typology of domestic violence, the current study qualitatively examined the romantic relationship experiences of 23 young adult women who were exposed to father-mother-perpetrated domestic violence (DV) during childhood and adolescence. Findings are partially consistent with the hypothesis that DV exposure is associated with an increased risk of later experiencing dating violence, such that half of the sample reported having abusive partners or relationships during high school. However, none of the young women reported violence or abuse during the early years of college, suggesting the salience of developmental timing when examining transmission of violence. Beyond whether the women experienced dating violence, they described how their earlier DV exposure experiences influence how they entered into, managed, and exited romantic relationships. By comparing their potential, former, and current romantic relationships with their fathers’ violence and abuse, their mothers’ victimization, and high school relationship partners’ behaviors, the young women actively and strategically managed their relationship involvement over time. Although women exposed to both situational couple and coercive controlling violence reported experiencing abuse during high school, only women with coercive controlling exposure experienced reported having nonabusive, healthy, and supportive relationships. Findings suggest that the romantic relationship experiences of DV-exposed young adult women are complex, warranting a holistic approach that takes into consideration the full range of potential relationship experiences, the role of former relationships, and developmental timing when seeking to prevent and intervene in intergenerational transmission processes.
Keywords
Exposure to interparental domestic violence (DV) during childhood and adolescence is associated with a range of maladaptive outcomes over the life span, though questions remain regarding exposure’s association with later romantic relationship experiences. There is a variety of documented factors explaining pathways from early life trauma experiences, such as DV exposure, to interpersonal relationships challenges, including the role of social information–processing biases and deficits (Pettit, Lansford, Malone, Dodge, & Bates, 2010). Yet, the majority of studies, to date, largely utilize social learning theory (Bandura, 1978) to explain this pathway—often referred to as intergenerational transmission of violence (hereafter referred to as transmission of violence) or “the cycle of violence.” According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1978), youth who observe DV in their homes are more likely to experience DV or dating violence in future relationships (Kalmuss, 1984). Findings in support of this theory, however, are mixed, and the strength in predicting later dating violence perpetration and victimization is modest at best (Smith-Marek et al., 2015). In a recent methodological review and critique, Haselschwerdt, Savasuk-Luxton, and Hlavaty (2019b) suggested that the mixed and modest findings might be due, in part, to a combination of too much methodological variability (e.g., types of DV) and too little methodological complexity (e.g., overreliance on discrete acts of physical violence)—obscuring researchers’ ability to fully examine the salience of transmission of violence. Furthermore, as Smith-Marek and colleagues (2015) noted, DV exposure is only one piece of the puzzle. Other interactional factors, such as prior romantic relationship experiences, will also influence adolescent and young adult romantic relationship experiences—warranting their inclusion in examinations of transmission of violence.
Although most DV-exposed youth do not later experience dating violence or DV in adulthood (see Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Kalmuss, 1984; Smith-Marek et al., 2015), the research on their romantic relationship experiences has largely focused on risk of dating violence or DV. Examining the romantic relationship experiences of individuals who were exposed to DV and do not later perpetrate DV or become victimized in romantic relationships could help researchers better understand potential risk and protective factors associated with transmission of violence, ultimately helping guide prevention and intervention efforts. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to qualitatively examine the retrospective (i.e., high school [HS]) and current (i.e., early college) romantic relationship experiences of 23 young adult women who were exposed to father–mother DV during childhood and adolescence, with attention to the diversity within their DV exposure experiences.
Dating Violence in Adolescence and Young Adulthood
Romantic relationships are a hallmark of adolescent development (Collins, 2003) and set the stage for young adult relationships (Furman & Shaffer, 2003). However, romantic relationships come with many risks, including the potential for dating violence. Broad definitions of dating violence include physical and sexual violence and nonphysical verbal and emotional abuse with the purpose of getting one’s partner to do what they want, gain power and control, retaliate against a partner, or humiliate and promote fear (Foshee & Langwick, 2010). Many risk factors (e.g., dating violence acceptance, adherence to traditional gender role beliefs, bullying perpetration; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014) increase one’s propensity for dating violence involvement, though the most frequently cited are family of origin factors, such as exposure to interparental DV (Olsen, Parra, & Bennett, 2010). The family of origin plays a key role in socializing and launching children into adulthood, ideally with the skills necessary to develop healthy interpersonal relationships (Kalmuss, 1984).
According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1978), when families model aggressive behaviors, their children are more likely going to observe and then model these aggressive behaviors in later relationships (Kalmuss, 1984). This theorized pattern of familial socialization is often touted as central to understanding the transmission of violence—positing that when violence is modeled as an acceptable means of communication and family interaction, children hold beliefs that violence is acceptable in their own romantic relationships (see Kalmuss, 1984). Specific modeling of transmission of violence (Kalmuss, 1984), the focus of the current study, refers to the replication of specific acts of violence and aggression, either as a perpetrator or a victim, after exposure in the family of origin.
There is substantial evidence that childhood exposure to DV is associated with future violence perpetration and/or victimization; however, findings are somewhat mixed, and the strength of the association is weaker than often portrayed. For example, Black, Sussman, and Unger (2010) found that children exposed to physical violence or psychological aggression were at a greater risk of perpetrating physical violence or psychological aggression, respectively. Further supporting the theory of transmission of violence, Gover et al. (2008) found that DV exposure predicted physical and psychological dating violence victimization and perpetration. In contrast, other researchers have not found support for transmission of violence, such that witnessing DV does not increase one’s propensity to perpetrate or be victimized (e.g., Edwards, Dixon, Gidycz, & Desai, 2014). Although Smith-Marek and colleagues (2015) found an association between DV exposure and later involvement in DV during adulthood, the strength of the association was modest at best. Furthermore, these patterns varied by gender, such that there was a stronger effect size for perpetration among men and victimization among women. Taken together, these findings suggest that a more nuanced examination that takes into consideration additional factors (e.g., measurement of DV exposure) is warranted.
Measurement of DV Exposure
One of these additional factors might be rooted in how we measure “DV exposure.” For example, there is research to suggest that moving from dichotomous or simplistic conceptualizations of DV exposure toward conceptualizing DV exposure with an emphasis on characteristics and dimensions of physical violence (e.g., severity, frequency) may better explain specific modeling of transmission of violence. For example, Ireland and Smith (2009) found support for the transmission of violence but only when adolescents were exposed to severe physical DV (e.g., hitting, choking); exposure to mild physical DV (e.g., throwing items, grabbing) was not associated with dating violence perpetration. DV exposure is predominately conceptualized and measured using physical violence without taking into consideration the context in which the DV occurs. Within the past few years, however, researchers have begun theorizing (e.g., Haselschwerdt, 2014) and testing (e.g., Jouriles & McDonald, 2015) the influence of coercive control, or the context in which DV occurs, on youth adjustment outcomes. According to Hardesty and colleagues (2015), coercive control “involves the repetitive use of tactics to regulate and dominate an intimate partner’s daily life and restrict personal liberties” (p. 2). In one of the few studies to date examining both physical violence and coercive control exposure on youth adjustment outcomes, Jouriles and McDonald (2015) found that coercive control was the strongest predictor of subsequent developmental outcomes. They noted how the mixed findings regarding the overall impact of DV exposure may be due, in part, to the inconsistent and imprecise measures of DV and measurement that excludes coercive control. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Coercive control is central to making distinctions between physical violence that occurs within the context of repeated patterns of violence and nonphysical abuse tactics, such as surveillance and monitoring (i.e., coercive controlling violence [CCV], or previously described as battering), as opposed to physical violence that occurs within the context of situational conflict (i.e., situational couple violence [SCV]; Johnson, 2008). Using this typological approach has become increasingly common in the adult DV literature, though less so in the DV exposure and adolescent and young adult dating violence literatures. CCV is more likely to be gender asymmetric (i.e., men primarily perpetrate, women primarily are victimized), whereas SCV is predominately gender symmetric (i.e., men and women equally or mutually perpetrate), though men’s use of violence in heterosexual partnerships tends to be more severe and injurious (Johnson, 2008). The degree of coercive control is the distinguishing factor between CCV and SCV, yet, physical violence differences between CCV and SCV have been documented. For example, compared with SCV, CCV includes physical violence that is, on average, more severe, frequent, injurious, and fear inducing (Hardesty et al., 2015; Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Leone, 2005). Given the overrepresentation of male perpetrators of CCV and our goal of understanding the experiences of exposure to CCV and SCV, this study focused on exposure to father-/mother-perpetrated DV. Specifically, we examined how exposure to physical violence and coercive control influenced 23 college-attending women’s romantic relationship experiences during adolescence and early young adulthood.
The Present Study
The present study sought to address several limitations in the DV exposure and transmission of violence literatures with a sample of DV-exposed young adult women. First, the findings in support of specific modeling of transmission of violence are mixed, warranting a more detailed examination of the association between DV exposure and later romantic relationship violence. The role of different DV types (i.e., CCV vs. SCV) has only recently been applied to the youth exposure literature, but not yet to the study of transmission of violence (see Haselschwerdt et al., 2019b for review). Thus, the current study sought to examine whether diversity within DV exposure experiences influenced later romantic relationship experiences during adolescence and young adulthood. Second, although prior exposure to DV may increase the likelihood of experiencing dating violence—as perpetrators, victims, or both—many youth do not report subsequent dating violence; yet, little is known about these individuals’ romantic relationship experiences (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003). In this study, we move beyond categorizing romantic relationships as nonabusive or abusive (or no involvement) by describing the ways in which DV exposure seemingly influenced the participants’ initiation into romantic relationships, their relationship maintenance, how the relationships ended, and their perceptions of relationships over time. Therefore, the overarching purpose of the current study was to examine the holistic nature of DV-exposed young adults’ romantic relationships.
Although our intention was to include the experiences of both young men and women, the full analytic sample was only comprised of two young men; thus, we made the decision to exclude them from the presented analyses. The two young men’s experiences were consistent with the young women’s experiences, but given the substantial body of literature documenting gender differences in how DV exposure (e.g., Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008) and dating violence perpetration and violence (e.g., Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Smith-Marek et al., 2015) are experienced, we decided to exclude the two male participants from the current study.
Method
Twenty-three young adult participants from one state university in the Southeast United States were recruited and qualitatively interviewed as a part of a larger qualitative study (Haselschwerdt, Hlavaty, Carlson, Schneider, Maddox, & Skipper, 2019a) investigating the experiences of DV-exposed young adults (19-25 years). Qualitative methods were particularly well suited to address our study’s purpose given the mixed findings regarding the strength of the association between DV exposure and dating violence, as well as the lack of research on exposed youth who do not report experiencing dating violence. Thus, with qualitative methods, we are able to explore in greater depth these young adults’ relationship experiences. In addition, given the sensitivity of the study’s purpose, qualitative methods provide participants’ agency through the telling of their stories in their own words (Goldberg & Allen, 2015).
Participants
From September 2014 to March 2015, potential participants were recruited through advertisements on campus and in newspapers, emails from instructors, announcements in classes, social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter), and word of mouth. Flyers called for participants to describe their experiences while growing up to the present time. To be eligible to participate in the larger study, the participants had to meet the following criteria: (a) between the ages 19 and 25 years, (b) their father or father-like figure (hereafter referred to as father) must have physically hurt their mother on more than one occasion (e.g., pushed or shoved with force, slapped, punched, kicked, or beat up) during childhood or adolescence, and (c) their parents either must still be married or must have separated or divorced sometime after their 13th birthday to help reduce retrospective bias. Halfway through recruitment, we adjusted the third inclusion criteria to allow for participants whose parents had separated after their eighth birthday as all interviewed participants vividly recalled their earliest DV exposure experiences earlier or around this age; thus, their eighth birthday was a modest cutoff for inclusion. The participants interviewed following this decision reported similar ages of first DV exposure unless their mothers married their stepfathers later in life; thus, this criterion remained throughout the duration of the study. For the current study, we added the inclusion criterion of identifying as a girl or woman.
The analytic sample for the current study consisted of 23 female young adults who were, on average, 20.4 years old (SD = 1.6 years). At the time interview, three were freshmen, nine were sophomores, four were juniors, six were seniors, and one participant was in graduate school. The majority of participants were European American/White (n = 12) or African American/Black (n = 6), with the remaining participants identifying as biracial (n = 3, European American/Black), Latina (n = 1), and Asian American (n = 1). Participants had between one and five siblings. The majority of mothers (n = 19) and fathers (n = 18) had at least some education beyond HS/a graduate education diploma. Sixteen fathers were biologically related to the participant, and seven were stepfathers who played a significant role in the participant’s upbringing. Nine mothers were married to the participants’ father, 12 were divorced, and two were separated at the time of the interview. Based on the participants’ self-report, they came from a nearly equal distribution of rural (n = 8), urban (n = 7), or suburban (n = 8) communities. Half of the participants reported that their family received at least one type of public assistance support, such as free or reduced school lunch (n = 9) and food (n = 7), health or child care (n = 5), and/or cash assistance (n = 2).
Procedure
Institutional review board approval was obtained to protect the rights of participants in our study. Interviews were guided by a semistructured interview protocol with four sections: (a) basic demographic and family background, (b) violence and abuse, (c) family dynamics and functioning, and (d) interpersonal relationships. Interviews ranged from 48 to 142 min, with the average being 88 min (SD = 26 min). All interviews were conducted in person, with the exception of one phone interview, and were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The first author has extensive experience conducting both in-person and telephone interviews, and thus, was able to establish rapport with the participant via telephone in a fashion similar to that of an in-person interview as evidenced by the depth of information the participant provided and her unsolicited willingness to share challenging life experiences that were unrelated to the study. Participants were assigned pseudonyms used in reporting the findings, and identifying information in participants’ quotes was altered to protect confidentiality without changing the meaning. Following the interview, participants were given US$25 and a list of DV resources.
Data Analysis
Interviews were analyzed using content analysis (Sandelowski, 2000) along with grounded theory techniques (e.g., constant comparison; Charmaz, 2014). Data collection and analysis were concurrent in the larger project, though data collection had ceased before analysis for this study began. In accordance with grounded theory, constant comparison—comparing interview with interview and within interviews—was used throughout data analysis (Charmaz, 2014). Before describing how we analyzed the participants’ romantic relationships and the influence of their DV exposure experiences, we briefly describe how we categorized participants into either SCV or CCV (see more detailed description in Haselschwerdt et al., 2019a).
DV exposure categorization process
Following the completion and transcription of each interview, all research team members (i.e., one assistant professor, two graduate students, and two undergraduate students) independently categorized the participants’ exposure experiences into no, low, moderate, or high coercive control along with a written justification. The participants’ described exposure to father-mother-perpetrated, nonphysical abuse tactics (e.g., verbal and financial abuse), their perceived motives for the DV, the overall family environment, and whether they perceived their fathers as controlling of their mothers were examined as part of the categorization. Following each categorization, the team met to discuss the independent categorizations and to discuss any discrepancies. Only three meaningful discrepancies (e.g., whether to classify a participant as no or low coercive control) occurred and group consensus was reached through discussion and referring to the transcript when needed. After all individual interviews were categorized, we decided to collapse no and low coercive control into SCV (n = 10) and moderate and high into CCV (n = 15) to be consistent with Johnson’s (2008) typology. In this study, the DV-type breakdown includes eight young adults exposed to SCV and 15 exposed to CCV, as the two men, dropped from this study, were exposed to SCV. These categorizations were established prior to beginning analyses for the current study.
Content analysis
Given the earlier analytic work with these participant transcripts, the authors had already read each of the interviews. To begin analyses for this study, the first author wrote detailed summary memos for all interviews on a variety of topics (e.g., interpersonal relationships, family dynamics). This serves the purpose of making written analytic connections between raw interview data and patterns identified in the data (Birks, Chapman, & Francis, 2008). Simultaneously, the second author wrote detailed summary memos specific to the participants’ narratives on romantic relationships. These detailed early memos led us to begin making comparisons between participants’ experiences, as the second author wrote detailed relationship comparative memos after every four interview summary memos were complete to be consistent with the technique of constant comparison (Charmaz, 2014).
In conjunction with writing these comparative memos, the second author wrote more focused memo on topics such as “romantic relationships over time,” noting trends in relationship trajectories between HS and college. This more focused memo led to the creation of a table in Microsoft Word that allowed us to track each participant’s involvement in HS and college romantic relationships, descriptions of these relationships when present, and the influence of her DV exposure on her perceptions of and involvement in these relationships. The first author checked this table against her detailed summary memos. Around this time, the two undergraduate research assistants coded the transcripts using MAXQDA, a qualitative software, for all discussions of romantic relationships. We iteratively used written memos, tables, and the MAXQDA data to triangulate the data to assure our confidence in our emerging findings and the ultimate analytic product in the “Findings” section.
Through this process, we were able to identify and describe patterns in the data. For example, by going back and forth between and within the participants’ experiences, we noted how the majority of participants were comparing their potential dating partners or partners while in the relationship with their father or their parents’ marriages. However, the developmental stages at which they made these comparisons varied and this variation was further explored. We classified each romantic relationship as either healthy or abusive based on the participants’ descriptions of their partners and the relationship itself. A few of the relationships were not healthy (e.g., infidelity) or abusive, so we changed the categorization to either abusive or nonabusive. After all relationships were categorized and the categorizations were agreed upon by the authors, the second author created a matrix that organized the participants’ relationships as being either abusive or nonabusive and taking place during either HS or college (see Figure 1). Through constant comparison of the raw data, written memos, coded data, and visual representations (e.g., tables, matrix), we ultimately arrived at the “Findings” section.
Relationship type by developmental period.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness, or the degree to which qualitative findings are supported by evidence and can be trusted as accurate reflections of participants’ beliefs and experiences (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), was achieved in three ways. First, the data were independently coded and checked by at least two research team members at all stages of data collection and analysis process. In addition, the third author, who served as the project coordinator and was deeply immersed in the data, provided an additional check and insights throughout the data analysis and writing process. Second, trustworthiness was established by presenting direct quotes from the participants as evidence of the findings. Finally, reflexivity (Charmaz, 2014; Goldberg & Allen, 2015) was integrated into the analyses through regular research team discussions and writing reflective memos on social positioning and personal experiences, as they pertained to this research study with the goal of reducing subjective bias. For example, we were attuned to the fact that the authors are White women, raised in middle and upper middle class families by nonviolent parents, and either uninvolved in a romantic relationship or involved in healthy, heterosexual relationships. Like with all research, these identities and lived experiences had the potential to inform interpretations and categorization of what constitutes abusive and nonabusive romantic relationship patterns. Thus, when categorizing abusive versus nonabusive relationships, other research team members with diverse DV exposure and romantic relationship violence experiences were included in the discussion to assure our subjective experiences were not informing our categorizations. Through the strategic use of critical self-reflection, we actively worked to reduce interpretation bias.
Findings
Participants had varying romantic relationship experiences during adolescence and early young adulthood (HS and college though most participants were still enrolled in college when interviewed). Before describing these relationships, we first provide the context of their DV exposure experiences based on the severity and frequency of the physical violence, degree of coercive control (see Table 1 for breakdown), and type of DV (i.e., CCV vs. SCV). We return to the impact of DV exposure at the end of the “Findings” section by making connections between DV exposure by type of DV and romantic relationship experiences.
Romantic Relationship Experiences by Participant and Domestic Violence Exposure Experiences.
Note. SCV = situational couple violence; CCV = coercive controlling violence.
Participants categorized as having been exposed to CCV (n = 10) described notable different violence and abuse exposure experiences than those categorized as having been exposed to SCV (n = 13; see Haselschwerdt et al., 2019a for full description). Specifically, CCV exposure entailed exposure to a greater number of nonphysical abuse tactics than those in the SCV group, such that they reported more chronic exposure to financial abuse, surveillance, and monitoring, and being used as tools of abuse by their fathers toward their mothers. The CCV-exposed group also reported exposure to more severe and frequent physical violence throughout their childhood and adolescence as opposed to the SCV-exposed youth who more often reported to less severe physical violence on a few or less occasions. These differential experiences painted a picture of quite distinct familial interactions and home life, though all participants described their parents’ marriage as creating a heightened sense of fear and uneasiness.
Romantic Relationship Experiences
Fifteen participants were involved in romantic relationships both during HS and college, four were in HS relationships only, and one participant reported only experiencing a college relationship. Of those who reported relationship involvement, most reported only having one romantic relationship during each developmental stage, but when participants reported multiple romantic relationships, we focused on the relationship they deemed most salient versus any casual or less exclusive partnerships. Three participants had not experienced any salient romantic relationships at the time of the interview, but we made the decision to keep them in the current study’s analytic sample, as they discussed the influence of their DV exposure on their lack of romantic relationships. Romantic relationships were categorized as either nonabusive (i.e., no explicit discussions of physical violence or nonphysical abuse) or abusive, with consideration for the variations within each type. For example, not all nonabusive relationships were described as good or supportive; they were simply not violent or abusive.
HS romantic relationships
The 19 HS romantic relationships were categorized as either nonabusive (n = 8) or abusive (n = 11) relationships. Nonabusive HS relationships were developmentally appropriate and did not involve physical violence or abuse, whereas abusive HS relationships involved violence, verbal abuse, and/or coercive control. HS romantic relationships varied in length from 1 month to more than 5 years (M = 2.36 years); regardless of length, participants described these relationships as salient or important to them, which warranted their inclusion. All participants reported on opposite-sex relationships. Notably, all participants reporting nonabusive HS romantic relationships were exposed to moderate or high coercive control (i.e., CCV-exposed group), whereas the abusive HS romantic relationships were split relatively equally between the two groups. Two participants in the SCV group and one participant in the CCV group reported no salient HS romantic relationship.
Nonabusive HS romantic relationships
Eight participants reported involvement in nonabusive romantic relationships during HS, ranging in length (M = 2.43 years), level of commitment, and quality. In general, these relationships were healthy, supportive, developmentally appropriate, and ended amicably. In contrast, two HS relationships or romantic partners were described as unhealthy and unsupportive, but not violent or abusive. For example, Aaliyah’s boyfriend reportedly used drugs, got into trouble in school, and made poor grades. Aaliyah described trying to help and motivate him to do better, but ultimately ended the relationship because he cheated on her and as she described, she “was giving it 100%, and he was giving like 50% [to the relationship].”
The participants with healthy and supportive HS partners recalled bonding over common interests (e.g., camping) and described their partners as sweet and supportive. Involvement in healthy relationships seemingly encouraged disclosure of their DV exposure experiences, and thus, many relied on their partners for support and help managing their home lives. Supportive HS boyfriends often exhibited protective behaviors such as helping participants escape or avoid dangerous situations involving their fathers, opening their homes as a safe place from the DV, and intervening when fathers became violent in front of them. For example, Caitlin described an instance in which her father was physically attacking her brother and her boyfriend intervened: “My boyfriend . . . walked in and actually pulled my dad off him. I was extremely grateful for that.” The majority of nonabusive relationships ended either before the participant began college or during her first year of college except for one relationship that resulted in a marital engagement during graduate school. Relationship dissolution was most often participant initiated for normative relationship dissolution reasons (e.g., loss of romantic feelings).
Abusive HS romantic relationships
In contrast, 11 participants were in abusive relationships during HS with male partners. These relationships lasted an average of 2.29 years. Abusive HS relationships involved varying forms of violence and abuse, including physical violence (n = 4), verbal abuse (n = 4), and coercive control (n = 10); most relationships involved at least two forms of abusive behaviors (n = 7).
With one exception who reported the mutual use of physical violence, the participants reported experiencing physical violence victimization. Acts of physical violence ranged in severity and frequency and included behaviors such as shoving, hitting, and being pushed down the stairs. Equal numbers of participants reported repeated versus sole instances (i.e., pushing on one occasion) of victimization. All participants minimized the violence by justifying their partners’ use of violence or diminishing its impact by not blaming their partner for their use of violence, or by placing full or partial blame on themselves for engaging in arguments that led to violence. Participants diminished the impact or severity of the violence by describing a lack of injury or distress after describing the violence. Allison said, “He never broke any bones; he never hurt my face . . . The last time that I saw him, he did push me down the stairs, but they were short stairs, like, I was not injured.” Besides or, in some cases, in addition to physical violence, participants reported experiencing verbal abuse, including being called names, degraded and demeaned, and yelled or cussed at.
Although physical violence and verbal abuse were commonly described by the participants, HS partners’ use of controlling behaviors was the most prevalent form of abuse (n = 10). Abusive partners use of controlling behaviors limited the participants’ independence and autonomy. These controlling behaviors included using surveillance and monitoring and controlling partners’ clothing and appearance—actions that are consistent with the definition of coercive control in the adult literature (Hardesty et al., 2015). Elizabeth recalled how her former boyfriend would say, “you look like a tramp for wearing this . . . you should wear more make-up for me when you come over to visit because I don’t like that you come back from work looking like a sweaty mess.” With one exception, controlling behaviors were a pervasive, continuous part of these HS relationships. It appeared that the root cause of the controlling behaviors was jealousy, or concern that the participant would be unfaithful or act in disapproving ways while in his absence. Hence, abusive partners would use surveillance and monitoring behaviors to maintain awareness of participants’ whereabouts and company kept or demand that their partner refrain from certain activities. Mia said, People would put pictures on Facebook, and if I were standing next to a boy . . . and he would get very upset and say, “You’re standing too close to him. I don’t even know why you’re going out.”
With the exception of two relationships that ended during the first year of college, the abusive relationships ended prior to entering college. Participants ended these relationships upon realizing that their partners were indeed abusive, the control was escalating, and out of fear the violence would escalate. The influence of or interference from another individual (e.g., close friend, mother) also helped participants recognize signs of abuse. For example, after observing and then comparing London’s stepfather and HS boyfriend’s abusive behavior, London’s best friend encouraged her to “get away from it now” because they both knew “what abusive relationships can lead to [referring to London’s mothers marriage].” Going away to college also served as a catalyst for recognizing signs of violence and abuse, ultimately leading the participants to end these relationships. Jasmine explained, “It was getting to college and realizing the world is humongous because I grew up in a small town . . . I didn’t have to be stuck with anyone I didn’t want to be stuck with.”
The influence of DV exposure on relationships during HS
DV exposure influenced the participants’ HS relationship perception and management regardless of relationship involvement, though its influence manifested differently in each group. Participants compared their HS partners, relationship dynamics, and themselves with their abusive fathers and their parents’ relationship, but these comparisons occurred at different times depending on their involvement and type of romantic relationship.
Participants with no romantic relationship involvement and those with nonabusive HS relationships compared potential partners and their relationships with their fathers’ behavior and their parents’ relationship before entering a relationship or in early stages of the relationship. Although both groups expressed caution, hesitancy, or avoidance, those without HS relationships seemingly avoided relationships all together, whereas those in nonabusive HS relationships were cautious but not avoidant. Participants with nonabusive HS partners—who were also exposed to most severe and frequent physical violence exposure and a greater number of nonphysical abuse tactic—recalled being vigilantly aware of violence and abuse warning signs, and therefore, actively sought out partners whom they believed would treat them well. Ellie explained, “I think I observe things a lot more than people who come from happy homes because they don’t know what to look for, and I know what [relationships] could turn into in the future.”
Participants who had abusive HS relationships similarly compared their partner and relationship with their abusive fathers and their parents’ marriage, but did so during the relationship or after the relationship dissolved. Only once these relationships were underway did the participants begin to see signs of violence or abuse emerging, but at that time, they began comparing their abusive partner and relationship with that of their father and parents’ marriage. By making these comparisons, the participants described altering their own behavior predominately as victims but also as mutual perpetrators. Blair explained that both her and her HS boyfriend used violence as a way to resolve conflict, which she attributed to her DV exposure. She said, “It’s like, that’s the way that you fix [conflict], just hitting, and then you deal with it. I see now that [hitting] is not solving anything.” In some instances, the participants began noticing overlap in how their mother responded to their father’s violence and how they responded to their partner’s violence. For example, Jasmine explained how she “constantly kind of just brushed [her boyfriend’s abuse] off,” and then she realized, “This is what I saw my mom do. ‘Oh it’s okay because he still loves me.’” Coming to the realization that their HS relationship experiences were reminiscent of their DV exposure played a key role in their decision to end abusive relationships. For example, when Lauren’s boyfriend became physically violent, she ended the relationship because her partner “was too much like her dad.”
College romantic relationships
Sixteen participants reported involvement in at least one romantic relationship during college; one participant described two salient college romantic relationships. In contrast to the HS relationships, there was less heterogeneity in college experiences, as all college relationships were categorized as nonabusive and reasonably positive, healthy, and long lasting (M = 2.57 years; hereafter referred to as healthy college relationships). At the time of the interview, seven participants reported no involvement in committed, college romantic relationships. Three participants without college relationships also did not date in HS, and therefore, had not had any romantic relationships at the time of the interview. Like the nonabusive, healthy HS partners, college partners were described as caring, supportive, empathic, and protective, but the participants described the college relationships as more committed, which is consistent with past research on HS versus young adult romantic relationships (Meier & Allen, 2008).
Involvement in serious and committed relationships seemingly created an environment in which participants were comfortable disclosing their DV exposure experiences, resulting in their feeling validated and supported by their partner, thus deepening the relational bonds and commitment level. Although the majority fully disclosed the DV to their college partners, four participants were cautious, selectively disclosing some but not all family issues (e.g., sharing about affairs but not violence). Others recalled being initially reluctant to disclose because their partners did not have similar experiences, and they feared judgment or pity, but when they did eventually disclose, they all received the emotional support they sought. Allison said, He grew up in a different household than I did . . . they are [boyfriend’s family] normal . . . He was the only person that I was really worried about judging me when he found out, but he’s taken it very well.
Unsurprisingly, given the participants’ description of these relationships as healthy, supportive, and committed, the majority (n = 15) of nonabusive college relationships remained intact at the time of the interview, whereas three relationships ended due to normative relationship dissolution reasons (e.g., growing apart).
The influence of DV exposure on relationships during college
DV exposure was also a salient factor in how participants initiated, managed, and understood their college romantic relationships. As with those in nonabusive HS relationships, participants in healthy college relationships actively sought out romantic partners who were dissimilar to their fathers, directly comparing potential and current partners with their father, and their own relationships to their parents’ marriages. Ellie stated, “ . . . he’s [her college partner] very different from my dad—very different. He is just very easy going. He’s not like my dad in any aspect . . . he is a lot more caring.”
For the seven participants without college relationship experiences, exposure to DV seemingly contributed to their lack of involvement. However, with one exception, all participants reported that their experiences had not diminished their desire to date—all aspiring for marriage during adulthood. Exposure to DV contributed to their beliefs regarding what was acceptable and unacceptable relationships, providing them with tools to better recognize the red flags of an unhealthy relationship. London said she has “probably set [her] expectations a little higher” when looking for a partner. She explained, “I do look for those red flags a lot . . . I think it has made me a little more picky than others, but that’s just because I want to be cautious.”
Actively avoiding partners with traits that were like their fathers’ was common among these participants, leading them to remain guarded to the point of relationship avoidance or deeper intimacy when casually dating in college. For example, Emma, like London, reflected, “I am very cautious about what I do. I have that wall and you better start chiseling it because it is not coming down anytime soon.” She continued, “I am just like very protective of myself . . . I am not going to let you hurt me, harm me, or control me.”
Seven participants from the total sample recalled how they compared themselves with either their mother or father, noting how their similarities (e.g., verbally aggressive) or differences (e.g., more cautious in romantic partner choice) not only affected their decision to enter or avoid relationships but also how they managed relationships while in one. Those who compared themselves with their mothers described being fearful that they, too, would end up in an abusive relationship and struggle to leave. Sarah termed her mother a “people pleaser” and feared that she was also a people pleaser because she “lets people push her around.” In contrast, participants who compared themselves with their fathers generally noted how their own aggressive tendencies in romantic relationships mirrored those of their fathers. However, they recognized their fathers’ behaviors through their own actions and were working to modify these behaviors. Keli explained how her boyfriend used to ask, “What is wrong with you?” when she would yell at him, and she explained it was because of her home life, but at the interview, she said, “I like pride myself on not yelling, like I don’t raise my voice anymore.”
The influence of abusive HS relationships on college relationships
Just as many participants made comparisons between their families of origin and romantic partners to guide their relationship involvement and management, participants who had abusive HS partners described using their DV exposure and past relationship to inform their college relationships. Being exposed to DV and having an abusive HS relationship further emphasized red flags of abusive partners, or what they were not looking for in a romantic partner. In retrospect, some participants expressed regret or were surprised that they did not recognize the similarities between the abusive partner and their father or the signs of abuse sooner. However, as we know from the adult DV literature (e.g., Hardesty et al., 2015; Johnson, 2008), not all DV is the same, which can contribute to missed warning signs if you are cognizant of some aspects of abuse but not all. For example, Elizabeth described her father’s abusive behaviors, “I know what abuse looks like. It looks like yelling, and screaming, and hitting walls, and throwing grills” in contrast with those of her boyfriend, “ . . . it can be a lot more subtle . . . like snide digs that happen over the course of several months,” emphasizing the difficulty she had recognizing her boyfriend’s initial behaviors as abusive, as they were quite different from her father’s behaviors. Elizabeth was exposed to SCV and her romantic partner was engaging in be abusive tactics more akin to CCV, which may have contributed to her inability to initially identify some of the partner’s behaviors as abusive or controlling. Moving forward, these participants said they would never accept the kind of treatment and abuse they had experienced in their homes or in their HS relationships, knowing what they know now and when contrasting their abusive HS partners to their healthy and supportive current partners.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to build on the literature examining the association between early DV exposure and adolescent and young adult romantic relationships, particularly dating violence, to shed light on the complexity of this association. The theory of transmission of violence posits that exposure to DV increases one’s propensity for involvement in dating violence during adolescence and adulthood (Kalmuss, 1984), but support for this theory is mixed (e.g., Haselschwerdt et al., 2019b; Edwards, Dixon, Gidycz, & Desai, 2013; Smith-Marek et al., 2015). These mixed findings and the unitary focus on testing the transmission of violence, neglecting the full range of potential romantic relationships (Gover et al., 2008; Smith, White, & Holland, 2003), warranted a qualitative examination of DV-exposed young adult women’s relationship experiences. Our findings provide additional evidence that the influence of DV exposure on later dating violence is more complex than the current literature suggests. Nearly half of the women reported abusive HS relationships, but none reported abusive relationships during college through the interview. We identified some variations in experiencing abusive versus nonabusive HS relationships depending on the young adults’ DV exposure experiences (i.e., CCV vs. SCV).
Romantic Relationships Over Time
Romantic relationship experiences varied depending on whether we were examining the HS or college relationships, emphasizing the salience of developmental timing when exploring the relationship between DV exposure and dating violence involvement. The theory of transmission of violence suggests that there is a linear association between DV exposure and later involvement in dating violence, but our findings suggest there is more complexity than linearity. The broader adolescent literature suggests that dating violence or abuse is quite common, with endorsement of dating violence experiences ranging from 20% of adolescent females when using more conservative estimates (Vagi, Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015) to 69% of all adolescents when using more liberal estimates (Taylor & Mumford, 2016). Our findings are situated within these two studies as just less than half of the young women (n = 11/23) recalled abusive HS romantic relationships. Consistent with Smith-Marek et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis on the transmission of violence with adults reporting on their violence experiences, the young women in our study almost entirely reported on victimization and not perpetration.
According to the developmental timing theory, early involvement in serious and committed relationships can often lead to maladaptive outcomes, as young adolescents’ coping skills are too underdeveloped to successfully navigate serious relationships (Furman & Shaffer, 2003). This, however, might be a bit different for adolescents exposed to family violence.
Participants involved in nonabusive HS relationships described how they used romantic partners as a source of protection or support from their home environments, especially given that their DV exposure experiences were more extreme (e.g., severe and frequent physical violence rooted in coercive control) than those with abusive relationship experiences. Nonetheless, it may be that one or both partners were ill equipped to handle these more committed relationships, given the mismatch between their developmental stage and the heightened commitment (Collins, 2003; Meier & Allen, 2008). Finally, it appeared that leaving abusive home environments and smaller towns or particular community contexts allowed young adults to start fresh and create a new and seemingly healthier reality. Going to college created distance from a home environment that may have fostered negative relationship beliefs and habits as well as unsupportive or distant parents. With college also came a new pool of eligible partners, likely larger than that of their hometown’s, providing greater opportunities for healthy relationship formation.
Had we stopped our analyses with the participants’ HS relationship experiences, we would likely be discussing the salience of transmission of violence when examining the relationships of DV-exposed adolescent women, though we would still be missing the experiences of the 12 individuals who experienced nonabusive or no HS relationships. However, when also examining the participants’ college relationships, the story becomes more complex, as none of the 23 women reported experiencing abusive relationships during college through the time of the interview. Our findings suggest that relationship experiences tend to improve over time, albeit with different partners, as nine of the women with abusive HS relationships were in healthy relationships during college and two had abstained from relationships for the time being. Abusive HS relationships seemingly influenced college relationships, such that the DV-exposed young women actively used their father’s behavior and parents’ marriage in conjunction with their abusive HS dating experiences to guide their college partner selection and relationship involvement. Thus, our findings are consistent with prior research demonstrating the distinct influence of adolescent relationships as providing scaffolding for young adult relationships (Meier & Allen, 2008), though likely in a different way than envisioned (i.e., healthy adolescent relationships begets healthy young adulthood relationships). Our finding underscores the importance of examining transmission of violence at multiple developmental stages with the goal of interventions targeting abusive relationship patterns earlier in adolescence because earlier relational experiences often serve as a scaffold for later relationships (Meier & Allen, 2008).
In addition, these findings suggest that researchers also examine how young adults actively break the transmission of violence cycle, as their decision-making process and actions may provide researchers and practitioners with clearer points of entry for intervention and prevention efforts.
Finally, our findings are consistent with Smith-Marek and colleagues’ (2015) conclusion following their extensive meta-analysis, suggesting that future research examine multiple risk markers from various social contexts (e.g., romantic and peer relationships), above and beyond DV exposure, to better understand the complex and seemingly nonlinear relationship between DV exposure and later dating violence involvement. This was demonstrated by our participants’ extensive discussions of the ways in which they compared their potential and actual romantic partners and relationships with their maritally violent fathers and parents’ relationship, as well as when they compared prior relationships, particularly abusive HS partners, with future or current partners. If a participant reported experiencing dating violence or abuse from an HS partner, this experience was then added to her relationship vetting and decision-making process as she shifted toward young adulthood, highlighting both the salience of DV exposure and romantic relationship experiences, as well as these young women’s agency.
Digging Deeper: The Influence of DV Exposure
Exposure to DV influenced the young adults’ romantic relationship experiences over time, but in more nuanced ways than are typically examined when seeking to test the association between DV exposure and later dating violence or DV involvement. Findings from this study document the complex ways in which one’s diverse DV exposure experiences (e.g., type of DV, severity of physical violence) inform subsequent romantic relationship experiences and decisions. Experiencing an abusive relationship cut across both the SCV and CCV groups, suggesting that exposure to DV that ranges in coercive control and severity and frequency of violence may increase young women’s likelihood of having an abusive HS partner. However, equally notable is that none of the women exposed to SCV, who were also exposed to less severe and frequent physical violence, reported nonabusive or healthy HS romantic relationships. In contrast, the young women exposed to higher degrees of coercive control (i.e., CCV), who were also exposed to more severe and frequent violence, reported nearly equal numbers of abusive and nonabusive HS relationships. All but one of the CCV-exposed women reported romantic relationship involvement during HS, whereas three out of eight SCV-exposed women reported no relationship involvement. Furthermore, only three young women reported no relationship involvement through the study interview—all of who were in the SCV group. These variations highlight the unique ways in which DV exposure can affect relationship involvement over time depending on the context in which the violence occurs and characteristics of the violence itself.
Although we noticed these patterns within the HS relationships, it is important to note that like adult women who have experienced violence, these young women were active in their efforts not only to identify healthy and nonabusive partners but also to leave relationships when signs of abuse were identified. This finding is consistent with survivor theory, such that women who experience DV are active, not passive in their attempts to achieve safety and healthy relationships (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988). Over time, all participants were strategic and selective in choosing romantic partners dissimilar to their fathers, and in some cases, dissimilar to their fathers and abusive HS partners. The CCV-exposed young women may have been particularly cautious and attuned to the nuances of violence and abuse, given that they were exposed to a range of nonphysical and physical abuse tactics; thus, they watched for both types of abusive behaviors prior to entering a relationship. They may have also been more likely to enter into committed relationships during HS because their home lives were particularly frightening, and healthy partners provided them with an escape and protection at times. Participants exposed to SCV may have been attuned to the potential for physical violence but missed early warning signs of nonphysical abuse, as their fathers engaged in far less of these tactics toward their mothers over time. More specifically, it is possible that these participants were less attuned to coercive types of abuse, as was the case for Elizabeth, because her HS boyfriend’s abuse (i.e., coercive but not physically violent) differed from that of her father’s (i.e., physical violence without coercion). Considering that Smith-Marek and colleagues (2015) found a stronger effect size for perpetration among DV-exposed men and victimization among DV-exposed women, our largely gender-asymmetric findings are not surprising. Future research with samples of men and women is needed to fully disentangle the role of gender and types and characteristics of DV exposure when examining dating violence and intimate partner violence.
Limitations
Our findings should be considered in the context of several limitations. First, the conducted interviews were at least partially retrospective. Although the participants were seemingly able to recall detailed memories from their childhood and adolescence, we could not fully avoid retrospective bias, in that memories may have been incorrectly recalled or influenced by more contemporary experiences in romantic relationships. Second, despite our concerted effort to recruit male participants, our sample predominantly comprised of females, leading us to remove the two young men from our sample. With a sample of both men and women, we may have been able to more fully examine abusive relationship victimization and perpetration, as previous research has found small effect sizes for DV and gender such that exposure is more often related to later perpetration for males and victimization for females (Smith-Marek et al., 2015). Third, these findings are specific to the experiences of young adults currently or recently enrolled in a 4-year college, limiting the generalizability to non–college-attending young adults, a largely understudied subpopulation. The participants in the study had not finished college; thus, their reports on college relationships are not conclusive, though they do demonstrate a noted shift from abusive to nonabusive romantic relationships over time. Fourth, self-selection and social desirability biases may have influenced the type of sample we obtained because none of the young adults reported experiencing current or recent dating violence, suggesting that those with a “success story” may have been more likely to participate. Finally, our study solely focused on selective versus generalized modeling of transmission of violence, such that we focused on the role of DV exposure without also examining direct child maltreatment. The inclusion of child maltreatment was beyond our study’s scope, but should be examined in future studies.
Implications for Future Research
Despite the noted limitations, our findings have implications for future research. Consistent with Smith-Marek and colleagues’ (2015) meta-analysis, the relationship between DV exposure and dating violence in adolescence and young adulthood is complex and seemingly nonlinear, even if exposed youth are at greater risk of experiencing dating violence. Future research should assess the multifaceted nature of DV exposure (e.g., characteristics of physical violence and degree of coercive control) and dating violence (e.g., cyber abuse and reproductive coercion). We also recommend our field shift from solely measuring transmission of violence to more holistically assessing DV-exposed individuals’ relationship experiences, including nonabusive and healthy relationship experiences among DV-exposed youth. Romantic relationship involvement, particularly in committed and healthy relationships, may be quite protective for DV-exposed young adults in the short and long term. The key is to study transmission of violence and patterns of romantic relationship involvement over time—beginning in adolescence and continuing into adulthood to better understand points for intervention and prevention programming. Finally, though our sample was not meant to be generalizable, we did note a few subgroups within our sample that warrant further exploration, including a participant who dated women in college, first-generation Americans, and young women from small, rural towns. Given the intersection of these young people’s salient identities (e.g., gender, sexual orientation) and their unique contexts (e.g., rural upbringing), it is likely that a close examination of these relationship narratives will provide greater clarity to the complexity between early family life experiences and romantic relationships over time.
Conclusion
DV-exposed young adult women reported varying romantic relationship experiences over time that were seemingly affected by not only whether they were exposed to CCV or SCV but also whether they experienced abuse during HS or not. Our findings are partially in line with research documenting transmission of violence during HS; yet, the findings diverge from the literature when examining college relationships. Nevertheless, all participants described various ways in which their DV exposure experiences influenced their involvement in and management of relationships. A shift from more abusive and unhealthy HS relationships to healthy college relationships suggests that developmental timing matters when testing transmission of violence. By comparing their exposure and prior romantic relationship experiences with current and future partners, these young adult women were actively working to break any potential cycles of violence, regardless of whether they had salient relationships to date. Moving toward examining the holistic nature and patterns in DV-exposed adolescent and young adult romantic relationships will provide more depth and clarity on the role of DV exposure on later life relationships.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by Auburn University’s Office of the Vice President for Research & Economic Development Intramural Grants Program.