Interracial Comparisons of Intimate Partner Violence Among Military Perpetrators

Abstract

Interracial violence is a high-profile issue in the United States; however, there is little empirical research on interracial intimate partner violence (IPV). Interracial relationships are becoming more common. However, interracial couples continue to face stressors (e.g., discrimination) that likely impact the relationship (e.g., IPV) than their monoracial counterparts. Research indicates that military populations more likely oppose interracial marriages than nonmilitary counterparts. Yet, no study to date has investigated IPV within military monoracial and interracial couples. To understand the intersecting effects of race/ethnicity among military couples, this study investigates male perpetrated IPV in interracial and monoracial relationships. Using structural equation modeling, this study sample contains information about 449 male veterans from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (1994-2008): Waves I and IV. Findings indicate that (a) White and Black veterans are more violent in monoracial relationships, meanwhile, Latino veterans have a higher IPV prevalence in interracial relationships; (b) Black and White veterans were more likely to use alcohol and other drugs (AOD) after IPV perpetration in interracial relationships, in contrast to Latino veterans’ post IPV perpetrations AOD use in monoracial relationships; (c) veteran mental health status was affected after perpetration of IPV, similar to the effects experienced after combat. In an attempt to address the lack of research on the characteristics associated with interracial violence this study addresses the following questions: (a) Are veterans in interracial families more likely to commit IPV and use of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) than in monoracial families? (b) Among the military samples, is AOD a facilitator for IPV? (c) How does mental health status affect IPV perpetration?

Keywords

domestic violence alcohol and drugs violence military sexual assault

Introduction

Greater rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration are reported among military families than the nonmilitary populations when controlling for age and race/ethnicity (Cancio, 2018; Cancio & Altal, 2019). The increase of military-related calls into the National Violence Hotline (457 in 2006 to over 1,100 in 2010), indicates that IPV is getting worse among military families (Women’s Justice Project, 2011). From a military perspective, conflict among service members and their families is closely related to higher levels of health care service use, lower military morale, poorer job performance across actors (i.e., both the perpetrator/s and victim/s), and inflated mission safety risk for service members (Fontana & Rosenheck, 2010). In addition, studies have concluded that beyond injury and death, victims of IPV are more likely to report a variety of acute and chronic health conditions resulting in hospitalization, disability, and/or death (Black, 2011; Cancio, 2020b; Coker et al., 2002). However, among U.S. military IPV perpetrators, empirical research has yet to flesh out the various prevalent forms of violence that manifest distinctively among mixed race military families. To date, there is a limited body of research that has examined interracial relationships and IPV in the United States (Karlsson et al., 2018).

Interracial relationships are becoming more common (Buggs, 2019; Robinson, 2019). It’s been half a century since the U.S. Supreme Court decriminalized interracial marriage (Robinson, 2017). Since then, the share of interracial and interethnic marriages in the United States has increased fivefold, from 3% of all weddings in 1967 to 17% in 2015 (Pew Research Center, 2017). According to the Pew Research Center (2017) a growing share of adults say interracial marriage is generally a good thing for American society. Although ramifications of engaging in an interracial relationship have decreased over time, couples continue to face stressors (e.g., discrimination, prejudice) that are likely to impact the couple’s relationship and may leave interracial couples at greater risk for IPV than their monoracial counterparts (Cancio & Altal, 2019; Fusco, 2010; Martin et al., 2013). A body of research demonstrates that low social support, or the perception of low social support, is a significant risk factor for IPV (Coker et al., 2002; Jewkes, 2002; Thompson et al., 2004). In addition, Cancio (2017) highlights how substance use acts as a facilitator for IPV perpetration. Research also shows that interracial couples are frequently ostracized from their families of origin (Gaines, 2001) and are more likely to hide their relationship from family and friends for fear of rejection (Wang et al., 2006). Research has indicated that military populations are more likely to oppose interracial marriages than nonmilitary counterparts. These contextual explanations are not meant to excuse the violence but to highlight some of the unique challenges often experienced in this community (Fusco, 2010). To date, there are no interracial IPV studies on military families in the United States.

Literature Review

Understanding the complex connections between substance use and violence involves a review into the social contexts in which the two activities intersect. Thus, allowing for understanding the assortment of modes in which social contexts potentially create conditions where violent behaviors can manifest. While there is no shortage of theoretical models of IPV, this study focuses on the theoretical backdrop that premises contextual conditions in which substance use may influence IPV. Studies focused on IPV have investigated the social and psychological effects of alcohol on behavior (Caetano et al., 2004), substance use and racialized behaviors (Ballard et al., 2015; Cancio, 2017, 2018), and initial exposures to substance use and violence (Mandavia et al., 2016; Monahan et al., 2015; Peinado et al., 2014). Although there are other risk factors associated with IPV, this literature review will only focus on factors most prevalent among military families (e.g., alcohol and substance use).

Demographic Factors: Age, Ethnicity, Education, and Income

In a study of veterans, Johnson et al. (2015) found that younger age was associated with higher IPV perpetration among substance abuse inpatients. Focusing on race and age differentials, studies using representative samples of veterans suggest that the execution of IPV perpetration is more frequent among non-Whites than Whites and is negatively associated with the age of the perpetrators (McCarroll et al., 2003; Rosen et al., 2002). Breiding et al., (2014), expands on ethnicity by considering other forms of violence both in and outside the family unit. Studies focused on IPV and military veterans have found that IPV does not manifest uniformly across groups of men of similar racial/ethnic groups (Cancio, 2017).

Using a sample of pre-9/11 veteran perpetrators, Cancio (2017) found that White veterans were more disposed to perpetuate sexual violence against their partners; meanwhile, Black veterans were more likely to carry out physical IPV. The study also posited that a number of social determinants of mental and physical health, such as limited access to education, economic resources, and social services, likely play important roles in IPV types and perpetration rates (Cancio, 2017). The stress associated with the financial situation of the family unit may also be related to the perpetration of IPV because higher IPV prevalence has been found among families with combined household income less than $50,000 than for families with a combined income over $75,000 (Breiding et al., 2014). Consistent with some studies, there exists an inverse relationship between IPV and income (Cunradi et al., 2002), and between IPV and education (Ackerson et al., 2008), and a direct relationship between education and income (Erten & Keskin, 2018). Considering variations based on demographic constructs offers a particular context from which substance use and IPV perpetrators manifest. These demographics also affect the availability and acceptability of substance types and rates of use.

Interracial/Monoracial IPV

The development and patterns of cross-group relationships remains an element of active research, and studies indicate that cross-race or cross-ethnicity friendships or relationships tend to develop in situations where peer norms are supportive (Plummer et al., 2016; Titzmann et al., 2015; Tropp et al., 2014). Given potential disapproval from their community, it is possible that people in interracial relationships feel less welcome within their milieu. The resulting stress on the couple from a relative lack of social integration could increase conflict and IPV within their relationship (Brownridge et al., 2018).

Interracial relationships are vulnerable to experiencing cultural contrasts due to the different cultural background of each partner. These contrasts translate to the couples’ manners of communication. These cultural contrasts are facilitators for miscommunication and frustration. For example, interracial couples may experience more communication differences which could potentially lead to higher levels of violence than monoracial relationships (Kochman, 2013). Taking into consideration that every culture acquires unique perspectives and alternate meanings to words, miscommunication due to differences in race or ethnicity can lead to arguments oftentimes manifesting into different forms of violence whether it be verbal, sexual, or physical.

Carbone-Lopez (2013) examined differences in IPV based on the race/ethnicity of couples and found that partner education, childhood victimization, and being in a non-White monoracial relationship were associated with higher likelihood of physical violence, verbal aggression, and coercive control than with a White monoracial relationship. Being in an interracial relationship was associated with higher likelihood of verbal aggression and coercive control than physical violence. Studies suggest that there may be differences based on the specific nature of the racial or ethnic composition of the pair in which violence occurs. There is no theory specifically designed to explain why interracial relationships face an elevated risk of violence (Brownridge, 2016). Validated measures of relevant concepts and constructs, such as stress, couple communication, differences in expectations, and racism and discrimination, need to be examined (Brownridge, 2016).

Drugs/Alcohol and IPV

Substance use is only one of several important factors that influence the risk for IPV, and vice versa (De Bruijn & De Graaf, 2016). Regardless of the direction of the relationship between substance use and IPV, the co-occurrence of IPV and substance use is substantial across a series of studies (Ahmadabadi et al., 2019; Cancio, 2017; De Bruijn & De Graaf, 2016; Shorey et al., 2014). Substance use may also be influenced by other risk factors (e.g., violence in the family) and substance use may also influence other risk factors (e.g., belief that violence is appropriate). Illicit drug use is more correlated to IPV than alcohol (Choenni et al., 2017). The higher the frequency of inebriation also increases IPV perpetration among men (Shorey et al., 2014). Regardless of what substance is consumed, higher levels of substance use are related to higher IPV perpetration.

Military Service: Stress, Mental Health, and IPV

Occupational-related stress manifests differently between civilian and military occupations. This difference is increased by military stressors (e.g., military deployments, the ambiguity of family relations, combat, etc.) (Campbell & Nobel, 2009). From indoctrination, military recruits are socialized to new social norms (i.e., values and norms of masculinity, military vocabulary, a new set of values, etc.) (Cancio, 2015). Intense physical and psychological stressors stimulate military recruits to operate under new sets of norms, emotional and physical. This social and psychological conditioning into military life includes hyperactive vigilance to perceived threats and emotional distancing from others (Grossman, 1995). Other military-related factors (e.g., exposure to combat, the number of deployments, and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]) may also influence the use of various substances (Gewirtz et al., 2010) and IPV connections (Taft et al., 2011). Under these conditions, service members and veterans respond to perceived threats of hostility by using military-related reactions (i.e., violence) (Gonzalez et al., 2016).

Novaco and Chemtob (2015) concluded that veterans are more likely to employ an overly hostile interpretation of events and will override their ability to engage in self-monitoring to lower the risk for aggressive reactions. The presence of combat-related PTSD places a service member at a substantially higher risk for experiencing IPV (Taft et al., 2011). PTSD symptoms and impulsivity, as seen among combat veterans, can help account for aggressive behavior in the absence of active substance use (Heinz et al., 2015).

Higher IPV perpetration has also been linked to depression among perpetrators (Taft et al., 2011). This suggests an added risk connected with these comorbid diagnoses. This is because depression has been found to co-occur with PTSD (Seal et al., 2009). Post-9/11 veterans have reported rates of depression around 20% with symptom rates even higher when both PTSD and depression are co-occurring, and over half had severe impairment in close relationships with others (RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research, 2008). Consequently, a person suffering from depression may have agitated behavior, this exacerbated by the presence of PTSD. Excessive episodes of agitated behavior have been linked to risk of IPV perpetration (Gerlock, 1999).

Existing research suggests that stress and depression among active-duty personnel are associated with an increased risk of IPV perpetration. Marshall et al. (2005) found higher rates of depressive symptoms among Army IPV perpetrators, compared with those who were nonviolent. Personality traits (e.g., attitudes toward women) did not distinguish IPV perpetrators from nonaggressive controls in a sample of active-duty service members (Marshall et al., 2005).

When an IPV perpetrator expresses the belief that there is nothing to lose, and feels jealousy, there is a potential increased risk for an IPV-related homicide (Campbell, 1992). Service members and veterans experience changes in the ways in which they view the world after being exposed to extreme stress, combat, and possible war-related atrocities, including difficulties with respect to trusting others, developing closeness, and struggles with power and control (Taft et al., 2011). There is also some empirical evidence suggesting that IPV perpetration is more common among low-ranking military personnel than higher-ranked personnel (Rosen et al., 2003).

In an attempt to move toward a theoretical framework that allows for the framing and exploring of variables relevant to understanding the causes of IPV, unbound by the usual theoretical limitations and that may provide a clearer understanding of the association between substance use and IPV in cross-racial relationships. It is important to understand the dynamic ways in which behavior and substance uses interact. In an attempt to address the lack of research on the characteristics associated with cross-racial violence this study addresses the following questions: (a) Are veterans in interracial families more likely to commit IPV and use of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) than in monoracial families? (b) Among the military samples, is AOD a facilitator for IPV? (c) How does mental health status affect IPV perpetration?

Methods

The study sample contains information about 449 active duty and veteran male¹ participants from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (1994-2008): Wave I and IV In-Home Interview in 2008 (Harris et al., 2009). Add Health is a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample following initial adolescents, between grades 7 and 12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school years. Participants have been followed through four in-home interviews, the most recent in 2008 when the sample was aged 24-32. This study used Wave I and IV, conducted in 2008, includes in-home interviews with original respondents, now young adults. Inclusion criteria for military sample included responding if the participant has ever been in the military and/or is currently serving in the military (N = 449). Accounting for the relative sample size,² the analytic strategy took two approaches in order to address potential issues with the subsample (Wolf et al., 2013). First, as recommended by Muthén & Muthén (2002), we tested the stability of the results by running the analyses multiple times with a new, randomly selected seed number³ (i.e., so that data generation began at a different point). Second, we designed models in which the number of indicators per factor was greater than the minimum number of indicators required for model identification (Marsh et al., 1998).

Measures

The following variables were used as exogenous indicators. Frequency of physical IPV, from the perpetrator (Physical abuse toward partner) and physical IPV from victim (IPV physical from partner) were constructed by aggregating IPV in the past 12 months (i.e., violent toward partner, slap/hit/kick partner, and injured partner) making the mean is zero and the standard deviation is one. This allowed for a standardized composite score for physical IPV. Sexual IPV (sexual abuse toward partner) and sexual IPV from victim (sexual IPV from partner) were measured as a dichotomous variable, where respondents answered questions about forced sex on partners. Perpetrator and partner demographic factors as reported by the perpetrator include military service (yes/no), race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Latino).

A measurement model was used to create an endogenous latent construct SES. SES created using income and education. Income designates annual income of the perpetrator; this variable was constructed as a categorical ordinal variable using 12 categories with increments of $10,000 each, beginning with $5,000 or less to $150,000 and more. Education was created using a single item intake question, education designates the highest grade completed at the time of the survey; this variable was constructed as a categorical ordinal variable using six categories beginning with less than a high school diploma and ending at postgraduate school. A measurement model was also used to create an endogenous latent construct mental health history. Mental health history is manifested by three observed variables: being diagnosed with depression, diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and diagnosed with panic or anxiety.

The observed substance use variables⁴ (i.e., drug use of a prescription drug without prescription) were all dichotomized where zero indicated that the individual did not use the specific substance within the last 30 days, and one has used the substance (≥1 times) within the last 30 days. Marijuana and alcohol use were examined as single-item indicators, zero indicated that the individual did not use the specific substance within the last 30 days, and one has used the substance (≥1 times) within the last 30 days. Alcohol use and marijuana use were operationalized so that one indicated that the substance was used more than 12 days per month, and zero indicated that the substance was used less than 8 days per month. A measurement model was also used to create an endogenous latent construct, mental health history. Mental health history is manifested by three observed variables: ever being diagnosed with depression, diagnosed with PTSD, and diagnosed with panic or anxiety.

Analysis

The analytic strategies first employed descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and category percentages) using STATA 15 (Table 1). Second, confirmatory factor analysis and SEM were utilized to examine the total effects of the simultaneous equation path model of veterans by race/ethnicity, followed by an examination of the similarity among military and nonmilitary perpetrators (Table 2). All estimated parameters were hypothesized a priori, intending to estimate a parsimonious and theoretically based model testing line three of the model, focused on the relationship between substance use and IPV (Espinoza & Cancio, 2020) (Figure 1). To compare the general population to veterans and service members, this study tested the factor structures between military and nonmilitary by race/ethnicity and cohort (Table 3). In Table 3, a group comparison procedure was conducted for the different racial/ethnic groups examining veteran and nonveteran models together and then again grouping all veterans with nonveteran perpetrators. Results from STATA regression analysis of the selected variables indicated that multicollinearity did not need to be a concern in this model. Absolute values of correlations among the independent variables are less than 0.3; estimated regression coefficients are positive as expected. All standardized coefficients are relatively small, and the significance of the regression coefficients is consistent with the significant R2.

Figure 1.

Theoretical Simultaneous Path Model of the Correlates of IPV.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	ADD Health	Military/Veteran Sample
Exogenous Variables	N = 6,504	N = 449
White	66.02%	71.7%
Black	26.48%	26.2%
Latino	11.43%	11.9%
White w/White partner	38.8%	40.2%
White w/other partner	29.9%	30.2%
Black w/Black partner	14.7%	12.8%
Black w/other partner	13.4%	10.5%
Latino w/Latina partner	4.3%	2.5%
Latino w/other partner	10.5%	9.4%
Military veteran	5.2%	71.2%
Currently in the military	2.1%	28.7%
Endogenous Variables
IPV physical from partner	9.9%	17.9%
Sexual IPV from partner	6.4%	5.9%
Income (mean)	$40,000 to $49,999 (8)	$40,000 to $49,999 (8.19)
Education (grad HS/GED or more)	85.10%	93.4%
Mental health history (diagnosed)
Depression	12.7%	12.8%
PTSD	2.5%	10.3%
Panic/anxiety	9.8%	8.5%
Alcohol use	20.5%	20.2%
Marijuana use	16.9%	17.4%
Prescription drug use	13.5%	17.9%
Physical abuse toward partner	13.4%	11.9%
Sexual abuse toward partner	2.9%	4.8%

Table 2.

Theoretical Simultaneous Path Model.

	Full Sample	Nonmilitary	Military/Veteran
IPV from partner ↓ IPV	.737	.730	.816
IPV from partner ↓ Mental health	.035	.089	–.081
IPV from partner ↓ AOD	–.189	.125	–.485
Mental health ↓ IPV	.135***	.138***	.093
Mental health ↓ AOD	–.150	–.110	–.034
Mental health ↓ IPV from partner	–.061	–.105	.176
AOD ↓ IPV	–.327	–.335	–.848
AOD ↓ Mental health	.401	.355	.352
AOD ↓ IPV from partner	.361	.097	.881
IPV ↓ Mental health	.061***	.060***	.090
IPV ↓ AOD	.383	.407	.508
IPV ↓ IPV from partner	.273	.313	.072
Goodness of Fit Statistics
χ²	461.69***	692.22***	692.22***
RMSEA	0.043	0.046	0.046
DF	46	112	112
CFI	0.954	0.937	0.937

Note. N = 6,504; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01; IPV was constructed by merging physical and sexual IPV.

Table 3.

Theoretical Simultaneous Path Model for White Perpetrators.

(a) White

(b) Black

Monoracial

Interracial

Monoracial

Interracial

Monoracial

Interracial

Mono

MIL Mono

MIL IR

Mono

MIL Mono

MIL IR

Mono

MIL Mono

MIL IR

Race/ethnicity of partner ↓ IPV

0.021

–0.072

–0.006

–0.028

0.004

0.012

–0.012

–0.008

0.014

0.052

0.004

0.063

Race/ethnicity of partner ↓ MH

0.029

–0.018

0.007

0.02

–0.014

–0.036

–0.031

0.012

–0.027

–0.211

0.001

–0.037

Race/ethnicity of partner ↓ AOD

0.067

0.044

0.038

–0.005

–0.107

–0.141

–0.059

–0.036

–0.032

0.178

–0.001

–0.014

Race/ethnicity of partner ↓ IPV from partner

–0.025

0.084

–0.005

0.028

0.053

–0.008

0.014

0.041

0.014

0.079

–0.001

0.085

IPV from partner ↓ IPV

.757*

.716*

.726*

.708*

.700**

.717**

.767**

.700**

.717*

.666**

.682*

.706*

IPV from partner ↓ MH

0.043

0.055

0.062

0.044

–0.123

–0.033

0.077

–0.121

0.063

0.01

0.034

–0.002

MH ↓ AOD

–0.14

–0.122

–0.12

–0.125

–.344*

–.221*

–0.128

–.353*

–0.112

–0.141

–0.122

–0.174

MH ↓ IPV from partner

–0.056

–0.073

–0.076

–0.063

0.044

–0.014

–0.091

0.038

–0.076

–0.038

–0.054

–0.032

AOD ↓ IPV

–.348*

–.344**

–.352*

–.360*

–.273*

–.306*

–.331*

–.257*

–.359*

–.387*

–.382*

–.336**

AOD ↓ MH

.403*

.381*

.391*

.375*

.634**

.467**

.406**

.597**

.363**

.389**

.370*

.421*

IPV ↓ AOD

.371**

.387*

.373**

.411*

.313*

.366*

.349*

.326**

.408**

.431*

.429*

.391**

IPV ↓ IPV from partner

.265*

.293*

.288*

.3131*

.283*

.282**

.241*

.281*

.305**

.354**

.341*

.304***

Goodness of Fit Statistics

χ²

489.31

537.9

479.01

493.06

476.96

463.58

480.44

473.15

472.36

468.82

472.55

493.06

RMSEA

0.04

0.043

0.04

0.041

0.04

0.039

0.04

0.039

0.04

0.041

CFI

0.952

0.947

0.953

0.951

0.954

0.955

0.953

0.954

0.951

Note. N = 6,504; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01; IPV was constructed by merging physical and sexual IPV.

The goodness-of-fit was used to specify a baseline model that fits the data’s veteran perpetrators of IPV and substance use.⁴ The baseline model specification process took two sequential stages by the status of military service. Starting with the “propositional” model shown in Figure 1, the researchers first observed indications of model misspecification. To this end, modification indices were employed.⁵ The second stage involved systematically trimming out of nonsignificant paths (i.e., coefficient estimates with p values >.05).⁶ At each step, interim evaluations were carried out in search of any relevant path once the model had been simplified. The process of finding the best-fitting model stopped when no additional paths were suggested by the modification indices, as all-remaining paths retained statistically significant given acceptable levels of model fit.

Findings

The theoretical simultaneous path models illustrated in Table 2, indicate that there are significant differences between military and nonmilitary IPV perpetrators and the context of their relationships (e.g., having partners who reciprocate IPV-type behaviors). When looking at the IPV reciprocated from the partner to the IPV perpetrator, military veterans are more likely to reciprocate violence when provoked than the general population. In addition, military veterans’ mental health is less affected when receiving IPV from their partners than their civilian counterparts. IPV from the partner is most likely to affect the use of AOD in nonmilitary populations than among veterans. The impact mental health has on the perpetrators of IPV is 1.4 times less significant for veterans than among their civilian counterparts. veterans who use AOD are nine times more likely to experience IPV from their partner, than their civilian counterparts. IPV is 1.5 times more likely to affect veteran perpetrators’ mental health than that of nonmilitary perpetrators. Military perpetrators are 1.3 times more likely to indulge in AOD after an incident of IPV perpetration than the general IPV perpetrator population. Veterans are four times less likely to receive reciprocation of IPV from their partner after they have committed IPV than their civilian counterparts.

For Whites, being in the military is a protective factor for IPV. This is more prevalent in monoracial than interracial military families where the perpetrator is White. Findings from Table 3a, or the theoretical simultaneous path model for White perpetrators indicate that although White military perpetrators are more violent in interracial relationships, they are less violent than White veterans in monoracial relationships. White veterans in monoracial relationships have higher rates of AOD and are more likely to reciprocate IPV than White veterans in interracial relationships. The reciprocation for IPV is more likely to affect the mental health of White veterans in monoracial relationships than White veterans in interracial counterparts. AOD use is more likely to occur after IPV incidents than AOD use to influence IPV outcomes, this is most significant among White veterans in interracial relationships than monoracial.

Black veteran perpetrators are more violent in monoracial relationships than in interracial relationships (Table 3b). Black veterans in interracial relationships are 3.9 times most likely to use AOD than their monoracial counterparts. In addition, Blacks veterans in monoracial relationships are more likely to reciprocate IPV than in interracial relationships. The reciprocation of IPV is more likely to affect the mental health of Black veterans in monoracial relationships as opposed to their interracial counterparts. Among Black veterans, AOD use is more likely to occur after IPV incidents than AOD use to influence IPV outcomes, this is most significant among interracial relationships than monoracial.

For Latinos, military status is not a protective factor against IPV perpetration (Table 3c). Latino veteran population is more violent in interracial relationships than their monoracial counterparts. Latino veteran monoracial relationships overwhelmingly use 13.7 times more AOD than their interracial counterparts. Latino veterans in interracial relationships show significantly higher prevalence in IPV reciprocation, as a reaction to IPV from their partner, than in monoracial relationships. Military IPV perpetrators, in monoracial relationships, who are also victims of IPV, suffer higher effects on their mental health status than those in interracial relationships. In contrast to other groups, AOD use is more likely to occur after IPV incidents than used to influence IPV outcomes in monoracial relationships than interracial relationships. Reciprocation, initial IPV from perpetrator manifesting into IPV from victim to military perpetrator, is more likely to occur in monoracial relationships than interracial relationships.

Discussion

In an attempt to address the lack of research on the characteristics associated with interracial violence this study addressed the following questions: (a) Are veterans in interracial families more likely to commit IPV and use of alcohol and other drugs (AOD) than in monoracial families? (b) Among the military samples, is AOD a facilitator for IPV? (c) How does mental health status affect IPV perpetration? This study was able to conclude that military IPV was most prevalent in White and Black monoracial relationships. Although White veterans have higher IPV in interracial relationships, they are less violent than White veterans in monoracial relationships. Similar to White veterans, Black veteran IPV perpetrators are more likely to engage in AOD after IPV incidents in interracial relationships than monoracial. Latino veterans demonstrated higher prevalence of IPV in interracial relationships.

Argued by Kochman (2013), interracial couples may experience more cultural differences and couple conflict, which could potentially lead to higher levels of violence, we found this not to be statistically significant, in military families where male perpetrators were White and/or Black. Latino perpetrators in interracial relationships did show significant increases in IPV in interracial relationships. Similarly, many scholars argue that interracial couples may experience more communication differences (Kochman, 2013). Taking into consideration that every culture acquires unique perspectives and alternate meanings to words, miscommunication due to differences in race or ethnicity can lead to arguments oftentimes manifesting into different forms of violence whether it be verbal, sexual, or physical. As such in interracial Latino families where cultural (e.g., language usage, machismo, gendered customs, etc.) and contextual (e.g., mixed status families, community composition, varying degrees of social support) factors greatly differ than among other types of families (Cancio, 2018). Given potential disapproval from their community, it is possible that people in interracial relationships feel less welcome within their milieu. The resulting stress on the couple from a relative lack of social integration could increase conflict and IPV within their relationship (Brownridge et al., 2018).

Although several lines of evidence suggest that AOD use plays a facilitative role in IPV by precipitating of exacerbating violence, this study found that Black and White veterans were more likely to use AOD after perpetrating IPV in interracial relationships (Table 3a and c). Meanwhile, Latinos were more susceptible to AOD use after an IPV incident in monoracial relationships. Altogether, Latino and Black veterans were more likely to use AOD in interracial relationships than their respective counterparts (Table 3b and c). Some studies suggest the benefit of interventions that focus on AOD use/addiction in men who have histories of IPV (Cancio, 2017, 2020a; Cancio & Altal, 2019); in this study we suggest considering interventions that do not fixate on AOD use as facilitator of IPV but possibly as an outcome for military populations. The strong relationship between AOD use and perpetration of IPV has been found in primary health care settings, family practice clinics, prenatal clinics, and rural clinics.

Findings show a significant impact of mental health status on IPV prevalence, and vice versa. Specifically, mental health status on IPV prevalence is 1.4 times less significant for veterans than among their civilian counterparts. IPV perpetration is 1.5 times more likely to affect veteran perpetrators’ mental health status than that of nonmilitary perpetrators. This finding might be related to military socialization processes. Military personnel are socialized and conditioned to respond in violent ways to threats. Under these conditions, service members and veterans respond to perceived threats of hostility by using military-related reactions (i.e., violence) (Gonzalez et al., 2016). For service members, postcombat may manifest feelings of guilt from trauma; as such, contributing to potential combat/trauma-related PTSD. This sense of post guilt may manifest similarly within their relationships (i.e., post-IPV perpetration). Novaco and Chemtob (2015) have concluded that veterans are more likely to employ an overly hostile interpretation of events and will override their ability to engage in self-monitoring to lower the risk for aggressive reactions. When conflict arises within their relationships, veterans or service members may respond violently, reflecting military conditioning. In the end, IPV perpetrators may have feelings of guilt or disconnection that potentially contribute to poorer mental health status, and subsequently higher AOD use/misuse (Cancio, 2021).

Although this study provides significant contributions to the literature on family violence in military families, it is not without limitations. First, qualitative data should be collected in order to fully depict the interactive effects of the various risk and protective factors in military families suffering from IPV. Such data can be useful in creating grounded theoretical models that can be tested using larger samples. Second, the sample size in this study was small, yet significant. Finally, the data employed was limited to specific military measures (e.g., era of service, rank, and military occupation) of an individual service member and/or veteran might allow for a closer examination of the lasting effects of exposure to the military lifestyle in the form of a military career. Finally, the data did not include violence occurring between partners of the same gender or where female perpetrators were violent toward men.

Conclusion

There is no overarching theory that explains why interracial relationships face an elevated risk of violence (Cancio, 2021); in this study, we have created validated a priori measures of relevant concepts and constructs. We found that (a) White and Black veterans are more violent in monoracial relationships, meanwhile, Latino veterans have a higher IPV prevalence in interracial relationships; (b) Black and White veterans were more likely to use AOD after IPV perpetration in interracial relationships, in contrast, Latino veterans use AOD in monoracial relationships; (c) veteran mental health status was affected after perpetration of IPV, similar to the effects experienced after combat.

This study is an important step in understanding the nature of military service and its impact on IPV perpetration in interracial and monoracial relationships. The theoretical findings in this study suggest that there is uniqueness about the military context in which the lives of those who are directly (e.g., service members and veterans) and indirectly (e.g., spouses, partners, and/or other dependents) associated with military life are exposed to a unique context. It is within that military-specific context that IPV perpetration manifests uniquely. Future research should consider expanding on this study by including instigation and provocation risk factors (e.g., communication, differences in expectations) and racism and discrimination, need to be examined (Figure 1). Future studies should consider other possible correlates of IPV and military factors. The effect of military service IPV perpetration suggests an expansion in the understanding of violence in the context beyond theories of substance use and race/ethnicity of partners. Findings warrant further investigation to understand the differences in patterns and dynamics of IPV associated with military service and nonmilitary service–related IPV in interracial and monoracial families. The differences may highlight opportunities for potential interventions and have implications for the design of perpetrator programs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

ORCID iDs

Denise Espinoza

Roberto Cancio

Author Biographies

Roberto Cancio, PhD, is a U.S. veteran and head of the Veteran and Military Family Research Laboratory. Dr. Cancio focuses on the intersection between the social and behavioral pathways underpinning resilience and susceptibility to adverse health conditions that disproportionately affect racial/ethnic priority in military populations.

Denise Espinoza is an undergraduate research assistant in the Veteran and Military Family Research Laboratory and Tobacco Research Team at Loyola Marymount University (LMU). Her work focuses on substance use and monoracial and interracial family violence in military families. In addition, she is a researcher in the Tobacco Research Team in the Sociology Department at LMU.

References

Ackerson

L. K.

Kawachi

Barbeau

E. M.

Subramanian

S. V.

(2008). Effects of individual and proximate educational context on intimate partner violence: A population-based study of women in India. American Journal of Public Health , 98(3), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.113738

Ahmadabadi

Najman

J. M.

Williams

G. M.

Clavarino

A. M.

d’Abbs

Smirnov

(2019). Intimate partner violence in emerging adulthood and sub- sequent substance use disorders; Findings from a longitudinal study. Addiction , 114(7), 1264–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14592

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in prac- tice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin , 103(3), 411.

Ballard

E. D.

Musci

R. J.

Tingey

Goklish

Larzelere-Hinton

Barlow

Cwik

(2015). Latent class analysis of substance use and aggressive behavior in reservation-based American Indian youth who attempted suicide. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research , 22(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.5820/aian.2201.2015.77

Black

M. C.

(2011). Intimate partner violence and adverse health consequences: Implications for clinicians. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine , 5(5), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559827611410265

Bray

Fairbank

Marsden

(1999). Stress and substance use among mili- tary men and women. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse , 25(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1081/ada-100101858

Breiding

M. J.

Chen

Black

M. C.

(2014). Intimate partner violence in the United States—2010 . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Brownridge

D. A.

(2016). Intimate partner violence in interracial relationships. Journal of Family Violence , 31(7), 865–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9809-z

Brownridge

D. A.

Taillieu

Chan

K. L.

Piotrowski

(2018). Understanding the elevated prevalence of intimate partner violence in interracial relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(7-8), NP3844–NP3868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518781803

10.

Buggs

S. G.

(2019). Color, culture, or cousin? Multiracial Americans and framing boundaries in interracial relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family , 81(5), 1221–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12583

11.

Caetano

Ramisetty

McGrath

(2004). Acculturation, drinking, and intimate partner violence among Latino couples in the US. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences , 26(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986303261812

12.

Campbell

D. J.

Nobel

O. B.-Y

. (2009). Occupational stressors in military service: A review and framework. Military Psychology , 21(Suppl. 2), S47–S67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600903249149

13.

Campbell

J. C.

(1992). “If I can’t have you, no one can”: Power and control in homicide of female partners. In Radford

Russell

D. H.

(Eds.), Femicide: The politics of woman killing Twayne.

14.

Cancio

Jr (2015). The pain of combat for Mexican-American veterans: A cohort analysis of Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan veterans (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami).

15.

Cancio

(2017). Structural pathways between race/ethnicity, substance use, mili- tary service, and male-perpetrated intimate partner violence in pre-9/11 mili- tary families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 35(23-24), 5624–5651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723142

16.

Cancio

(2018). Pain and masculinity: A cohort comparison between Mexican American Vietnam and post-9/11 combat veterans. Men and Masculinities , 23(3- 4), 725–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18761779

17.

Cancio

(2020a). Post-9/11 service era veterans: Intimate partner vio- lence and substance use. Substance Use & Misuse , 55(2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1662812

18.

Cancio

(2020b). Military cohorts, substance use, and male-perpetrated inti- mate partner violence. Violence Against Women , 27(3-4), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219893475

19.

Cancio

(2021). Military cohorts, substance use, and male-perpetrated inti- mate partner violence. Violence against women , 27(3-4), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219893475

20.

Cancio

Altal

(2019). Comparing post-Gulf war and post-9/11 era of service among veterans: Intimate partner violence and substance use by race and ethnicity. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse , 20(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2019.1571978

21.

Carbone-Lopez

(2013). Across racial/ethnic boundaries: Investigating intimate violence within a national sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 28(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512448850

22.

Census Bureau., (2010). Census (1 January 2017). http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/

23.

Census Bureau., (2011). Income, poverty, and health insurance cover- age in the US: 2010 [Current Population Reports]. https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf

24.

Choenni

Hammink

van de Mheen

(2017). Association between substance use and the perpetration of family violence in industrialized countries. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 18(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015589253

25.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner vio- lence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 23(4), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00514-7

26.

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal , 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

27.

Cunradi

C. B.

Caetano

Schafer

(2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence , 17(4), 377–389. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020374617328

28.

De Bruijn

D. M.

De Graaf

I. M.

(2016). The role of substance use in same- day intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Aggression & Violent Behavior , 27, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.02.010

29.

Defense.

Department of

U.S. (2015). 2015 Demographics profile of the military com- munity . The Pentagon.

30.

Ding

Velicer

W. F.

Harlow

L. L.

(1995). Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , 2(2), 119–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519509540000

31.

Erten

Keskin

(2018). For better or for worse? Education and the preva- lence of domestic violence in Turkey. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 10(1), 64–105. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160278

32.

Espinoza

Cancio

. (2020). IPV Reciprocation in Military Families. Loyola Marymount University, 2020. Undergraduate Research Symposium.

33.

Fontana

Rosenheck

(2010). War zone veterans returning to treatment: Effects of social functioning and psychopathology. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 198(10), 699–707. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181f4ac88

34.

Fusco

R. A.

(2010). Intimate partner violence in interracial couples: A compari- son to White and ethnic minority monoracial couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 25(10), 1785–1800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354510

35.

Gaines

(2001). Coping with prejudice: Personal relationship partners as sources of socioemotional support for stigmatized individuals. Journal of Social Issues , 57(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00204

36.

Gerlock

(1999). Health impact of domestic violence. Issues in Mental Health Nursing , 20(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/016128499248547

37.

Gewirtz

A. H.

Polusny

M. A.

DeGarmo

D. S.

Khaylis

Erbes

C. R.

(2010). Posttraumatic stress symptoms among National guard soldiers deployed to Iraq: Associations with parenting behaviors and couple adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 78(5), 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020571

38.

Gonzalez

Novaco

Reger

Gahm

(2016). Anger intensification with combat-related PTSD and depression comorbidity. Psychological Trauma , 8(1), 9–16. http://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000042

39.

Grossman

(1995). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society . Little, Brown.

40.

Harris

K. M.

Halpern

C. T.

Whitsel

Hussey

Tabor

Entzel

Udry

J. R.

(2009). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health: Research design [WWW document]. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

41.

Heinz

A. J.

Makin-Byrd

Blonigen

D. M.

Reilly

Timko

(2015). Aggressive behavior among military veterans in substance use disorder treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment , 50, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.10.014

42.

Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.). (1999). Statistical strategies for small sample research . Sage.

43.

Hoyle

R. H.

Kenny

D. A.

(1999). Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation. Statistical strategies for small sample research , 1, 195–222.

44.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal , 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

45.

Jewkes

(2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet , 359(9315), 1423–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5

46.

Johnson

Giordano

Manning

Longmore

(2015). The age-IPV curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 44, 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0158-z

47.

Karlsson

Quiñones

López

C. M.

Andrews.

A. R.

Wallace

M. M.

Rheingold

(2018). Sociodemographic and incident variables as predictors of victiminjury from intimatepartnerviolence: Findings from police reports. Violence Against Women , 24(12), 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217733558

48.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In Williams

Vogt

W. P.

(Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods . https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268261.n31

49.

Kochman

(2013). Black and White styles in conflict . University of Chicago Press.

50.

Mandavia

, Robinson

G. G.

, Bradley

, Ressler

K. J.

, & Powers

(2016). Exposure to childhood abuse and later substance use. Journal of Traumatic Stress , 29(5), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22131

51.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

(1999). Confirmatory factor analysis: Strategies for small sample sizes. Statistical strategies for small sample research , 1, 251–284.

52.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K. T.

Balla

J. R.

Grayson

(1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate behav- ioral research , 33(2), 181–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1

53.

Marshall

A. D.

Panuzio

Taft

(2005). Intimate partner violence among mili- tary veterans and active duty servicemen. Clinical Psychology Review , 25(7), 862–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2005.05.009

54.

Martin

B. A.

Cui

Ueno

Fincham

F. D.

(2013). Intimate partner violence in interracial and monoracial couples. Family Relations , 62(1), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00747.x

55.

McCarroll

Ursano

Newby

Liu

Fullerton

Norwood

(2003). Domestic violence and deployment in U.S. army soldiers. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 191(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-200301000-00002

56.

Monahan

, King

, Shulman

, Cauffman

, & Chassin

(2015). The effects of violence exposure on the development of impulse control and future orientation across adolescence and early adulthood: Development and Psychopathology , 27(4), 1267–1283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579414001394

57.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural equation modeling , 9(4), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8

58.

Novaco

Chemtob

(2015). Violence associated with combat-related post- traumatic stress disorder. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy , 7(5), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000067

59.

Peinado

Villanos

Singh

Leiner

(2014). Lower-socioeconomic-status Mexican-American adolescent’s exposure to violence, alcohol, and drugs and their psychosocial and behavioral profile. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics , 35(2), S15. https://doi.org/10.20882/ADICCIONES.125

60.

Peters

Williams

Ross

Atkinson

Yacoubain

(2007). Codine cough syrup use among African-American crack cocaine users. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , 39(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2007.10399868

61.

PewResearchCenter. (2011). Themilitary-civiliangap:Warandsacrificeinthepost-9/11 era . https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/10/veterans-report.pdf

62.

Pew Research Center. (2017). Intermarriage in the U.S. 50 years after Loving v. Virginia . https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/intermarriage-in-the-u-s-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/

63.

Plummer

D. L.

Stone

R. T.

Powell

Allison

(2016). Patterns of adult cross- racial friendships. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , 22(4), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000079

64.

RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research. (2008). Invisible wounds of war. In Tanielian

Jaycox

L. H.

(Eds.), Psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery . RAND Corporation.

65.

Robinson

J. J.

(2019). Mindfulness, tolerance of ambiguity, and attitudes toward interracial relationships [Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University].

66.

Robinson

M. C.

(2017). Black and White biracial marriage in the United States. The Family Journal , 25(3), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480717711117

67.

Rosen

L. N.

, Kaminski

R. J.

, Parmley

A. M.

, Knudson

K. H.

, & Fancher

(2003). The effects of peer group climate on intimate partner violence among married U.S. Army soldiers. Violence Against Women , 9(9), 1045–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801203255504

68.

Rosen

L. N.

Knudson

K. H.

Brannen

S. J.

Fancher

Killgore

T. E.

Barasich

G. G.

(2002). Intimate partner violence among U.S. Army soldiers in Alaska: A comparison of reported rates and survey results. Military Medicine , 167(8), 688–691. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/167.8.688

69.

Seal

Metzler

Gima

Bertenthal

Maquen

Marmar

(2009). Trends and risk factors for mental health diagnoses among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans using department of veterans affairs health care, 2002-2008. American Journal of Public Health , 99(9), 1651–1658. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.150284

70.

Shorey

Stuart

Mcnulty

Moore

(2014). Acute alcohol use tempo- rally increases the odds of male perpetrated dating violence. Addictive Behaviors , 39(1), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.025

71.

Smith

Hormish

Collins

Giovino

White

Leonard

(2014). Couples’ marijuana use is inversely related to their intimate partner violence over the first 9 years of marriage. Annual Psychological Association , 28(3), 734–742. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037302

72.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). SAS for windows workbook for Tabachnick and Fidell using multivariate statistics . Allyn and Bacon.

73.

Taft

Stafford

Watkins

Street

(2011). Posttraumatic stress disor- der and intimate relationship programs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 79(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022196

74.

Thompson

M. P.

Kingree

J. B.

(2004). The role of alcohol use in intimate partner violence and nonintimate partner violence. Violence and victims , 19(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.19.1.63.33233

75.

Tinsley

H. E.

Tinsley

D. J.

(1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychol- ogy research. Journal of counseling psychology , 34(4), 414.

76.

Titzmann

P. F.

Brenick

Silbereisen

R. K.

(2015). Friendships fighting prejudice: A longitudinal perspective on adolescents’ cross-group friendships with immigrants. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 44(6), 1318–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0256-6

77.

Tropp

O’Brien

Migacheva

(2014). How peer norms of inclusion and exclusion predict children’s interest in cross-ethnic friendships. Journal of Social Issues , 70(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12052

78.

Tucker

L. R.

Lewis

(1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika , 38(1), 1–10.

79.

Wang

Kao

Joyner

(2006). Stability of interracial and intraracial roman- tic relationships among adolescents. Social Science Research , 35(2), 435–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.10.001

80.

Wolf

E. J.

Harrington

K. M.

Clark

S. L.

Miller

M. W.

(2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and psychological measurement , 73(6), 913–934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413495237

81.

Wo en’s Justice Project. (2011). Military calls 2006–2011. https://www.bwjp.org/assets/documents/pdfs/ndvh_military_calls_2006_2014.pdf