The Moderating Effect of Social Support From a Dating Partner on the Association Between Dating Violence Victimization and Adjustment

Abstract

Dating violence victimization is associated with decreased relationship satisfaction and increased mental health symptomatology. Yet, violent dating relationships often remain intact across time, even when the aggression fails to cease. Thus, research is needed to determine the factors that reduce the negative impact of victimization. One factor may be that abusive dating partners are perceived as supportive by their partners, serving to reduce the negative impact of victimization. The current study sought to examine whether perceived support (i.e., perceptions of support) and capitalization support (i.e., perceptions of support for positive events) moderated and reduced the impact of dating violence victimization on decreased relationship satisfaction and increased depressive symptoms. Using a sample of females in dating relationships (N = 253), results provided partial support for our hypotheses. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

abuse dating violence depression relationship satisfaction social support

Violence against women is a serious and prevalent problem among young dating partners. Research indicates that approximately 20% to 30% of women will experience physical aggression and approximately 80% will experience psychological aggression from a dating partner each year (see Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008, for review).¹ Although research indicates that women will also perpetrate a substantial amount of aggression against their partners each year (e.g., Archer, 2000; Cornelius, Shorey, & Beebe, 2010), male-perpetrated aggression is generally recognized to be more severe and to result in more physical injuries and mental health symptoms for female victims (Archer, 2000). In addition, physical and psychological aggression victimization are associated with decreased relationship satisfaction and increased mental health symptomatology (e.g., depression) among female victims (Kaura & Lohman, 2007).

Despite the high prevalence and negative consequences of dating violence, research indicates that these aberrant relationships often endure over time. For instance, Katz, Moore, and May (2008) found that female college students who had been victimized by physical aggression had a mean relationship length of 18 months, which was longer than women who had not been victimized. However, research has also shown that dating violence is more likely to occur as relationships increase in length (Marcus & Swett, 2002), and this may be one explanation why victims often have longer relationship lengths than non-victims. Still, young adult intimate relationships persist in length even with the occurrence of aggression (e.g., Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby, 2003). Thus, given the high frequency of victimization and the negative outcomes associated with psychological and physical aggression, it is possible that processes are occurring in dating relationships that serve to reduce the negative impact of victimization, keeping these relationships intact. Therefore, research is needed to understand the processes that may help to reduce the negative outcomes associated with victimization.

One process that may be responsible for reducing negative outcomes associated with dating violence victimization is positive relationship behaviors. Positive relationship behaviors from partners can consist of expressions of love, gift giving, and perceptions of support and encouragement from a partner, and these positive behaviors may help to ameliorate the negative consequences associated with victimization (e.g., depression), keeping relationship satisfaction high, and thus maintaining these relationships. For instance, it is generally recognized that positive relationship behaviors by one or both members of an intimate dyad are associated with increased relationship satisfaction and decreased mental health problems (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Gable & Reis, 2010). In addition, because dating violence is often infrequent and relatively minor in severity, positive relationship behaviors may affect relationship satisfaction to a greater extent than victimization experiences (Marshall, Weston, & Honeycutt, 2000). Research also indicates that increased relationship satisfaction is associated with increased commitment to one’s intimate partner (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), and commitment to one’s partner is one of the best predictors of who stays in or leaves a relationship (Rusbult et al., 1998). This is also true for women in violent dating relationships (Rhatigan & Street, 2005). That is, even when aggression is present in a relationship, women with increased relationship satisfaction are more committed to their abusive partner and, in turn, less likely to leave their abusive relationship (Rhatigan & Street, 2005).

Marshall and colleagues (2000) examined the effect of positive partner relationship behaviors on relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction and commitment) among a diverse sample of community women who had been victims of relatively severe domestic violence. Marshall and colleagues postulated that positive relationship behaviors may supersede negative, abusive relationship behaviors and result in increased relationship quality among victims. Findings from this study demonstrated that positivity from an abusive intimate partner (e.g., affectionate and loving behavior, acts respectful) mediated and reduced the impact of victimization on relationship quality. Thus, it is possible that abused women may place more emphasis on their partner’s positive behaviors than negative, abusive behaviors when assessing their relationship quality (Marshall et al., 2000). However, it is difficult to generalize Marshall and colleagues’ findings to female victims of dating violence due to the relatively severe abuse experienced by Marshall and colleagues’ participants.

Unfortunately, the topic of positive behaviors from an abusive partner has received scant attention from researchers in the field of domestic violence, and dating violence specifically. This may be due to fear of blaming victims for remaining in violent relationships and/or it may be perceived as an attempt to diminish recognition of the negative effects of victimization. We believe that recognizing that there are positive aspects of abusive dating relationships may increase understanding of these relationships, providing information that may be helpful for individuals working with victims. Toward this end, there has been a small amount of research that has examined the impact of partner perceived support on dating violence victims’ mental health (Skomorovsky, Matheson, & Anisman, 2006). Perceived social support reflects subjective judgments by support recipients that members of their social network (e.g., family and friends) will be there for them during times of stress to provide support (Lakey & Scoboria, 2005). Perceived support has consistently been related to positive mental health and relationship outcomes (Barrera, 1986; Lakey & Scoboria, 2005). It should be noted that perceived support is qualitatively different from the positive relationship behaviors studied by Marshall and colleagues. Whereas Marshall and colleagues (2000) focused on specific acts considered positive relationship behaviors (e.g., expressions of love), perceived support does not involve the actual receipt of specific behaviors; rather, it is a perception that one’s partner is supportive.

As applied to the current article, Skomorovsky and colleagues (2006) examined the stress-buffering effect of perceived support from an abusive dating partner on the relationship between dating violence victimization and mental health outcomes among college-aged females. Theoretically, the stress-buffering hypothesis states that perceived support can buffer (i.e., moderate) and ameliorate the association between negative life events and negative outcomes (S. Cohen & Wills, 1985). Indeed, this is one of the most common theoretical explanations for perceived support’s beneficial effects (S. Cohen & Pressman, 2004). Findings from Skomorovsky and colleagues showed that as perceptions of perceived support from a dating partner increased, the positive association between dating violence victimization and mental health decreased in strength. Thus, positive perceptions of an abusive dating partner being available during times of stress can buffer the impact of sustaining dating violence victimization from that same partner. However, research has yet to examine the impact of perceived support from an abusive dating partner on relationship satisfaction or other mental health outcomes (e.g., depression). Determining whether perceived support from a dating partner buffers the association between victimization and relationship satisfaction and/or mental health outcomes would provide researchers with a better understanding of the dyadic processes that may affect victims’ mental health and judgments of their relationship.

In addition to perceived support, Skomorovsky and colleagues (2006) postulated that support from an abusive partner for positive events/behaviors may also play an important role in reducing the impact of dating violence victimization on mental health and relationship outcomes. Specifically, capitalization support from an abusive dating partner may also buffer the association between victimization and relationship/mental health outcomes. Capitalization support refers to the process of informing close others about personal positive events, which in turn produces positive benefits above and beyond the positive events themselves (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). It is theorized that capitalization support will be beneficial if those being told about the positive event are perceived as responding in an active-constructive manner to positive event disclosure (e.g., “Good job!”). Indeed, capitalization support is linked to positive mental health and relationship outcomes when support providers respond in an active-constructive manner, but is associated with negative health and relationship outcomes when providers respond passively or destructively (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006; Gable et al., 2004). Thus, social support for positive life events plays an important role in relationship quality and mental health, and this may also hold true for women in abusive dating relationships. However, to our knowledge previous research has not investigated this possibility.

Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to determine whether perceived and/or active-constructive capitalization support from a dating partner buffers (moderates) the association between physical and psychological victimization from the same partner and relationship satisfaction and symptoms of depression. Knowing whether social support from a dating partner moderates and reduces the impact of victimization experiences among women will provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the dyadic processes that may be responsible for maintaining these abusive relationships. Based on the stress-buffering hypothesis, we expected that both forms of social support would moderate the association between physical and psychological victimization and relationship satisfaction and depression. We controlled for relationship length, as research has shown a positive association between relationship length and satisfaction (Kaura & Lohman, 2009) and dating violence (Marcus & Swett, 2002).

Method

Procedure

Female undergraduate students from Psychology courses were recruited from a large southeastern university. Students at this university who are enrolled in Introduction to Psychology courses, as well as advanced Psychology courses, have the opportunity to earn course credit in return for participating in research studies. Students are free to participate in any study for which they are eligible. Students who were at least 18 years of age and currently involved in a 1-month long or longer dating relationship were eligible for participation and received course credit in return for their participation. Participants completed all measures using an online survey website that uses encryption to ensure confidentiality of responses. This method allowed participants to complete the measures at the time and location of their greatest convenience. Students were provided with an informed consent form that they also completed online. Upon consent, standardized instructions for all measures were administered. A list of referrals for assistance with dating violence and substance use was provided upon completion. No adverse events or limitations were reported by any student when using the online survey website.

Participants

A total of 253 female students completed all questionnaires. Academically, 66.8% were freshmen, 20.2% were sophomores, 10.7% were juniors, 2% were seniors, and 0.4% were postgraduates. The ethnic background of participants was 83.7% non-Hispanic White, 9.9% African American, 2.4% Asian, 1.2% Native American, and 2.4% identified as “other.” This is consistent with the ethnic background of students from the university where the research took place. The mean age of participants was 19.01 years (SD = 1.34), and 96.8% of women were heterosexual. The average length of participants’ current dating relationships was 11.51 months (SD = 12.82).

Materials

Demographic Questionnaire

Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, ethnicity, academic status, sexual orientation, and length of their current dating relationship.

Dating violence

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure dating violence victimization, which is the most commonly used measure to examine aggression between intimate partners (Vega & O’Leary, 2007). Respondents were instructed to indicate their frequency of psychological and physical victimization by their current dating partner during the past 6 months. Example items include “my partner insulted or swore at me,” “my partner threatened to hit or throw something at me” (psychological victimization), “my partner pushed or shoved me,” and “my partner slapped me” (physical victimization). Scores were obtained by summing the frequency of each behavior, with scores for each item ranging from 0 to 25 and higher scores indicating more frequent victimization. The CTS2 has demonstrated good internal consistency ranging from .79 to .95 (Straus et al., 1996). Internal consistencies for the current study were .66 (Psychological Victimization) and .82 (Physical Victimization). Both victimization subscales were skewed and were log-transformed (natural log) to reduce skewness prior to performing analyses.

Perceived support

The Social Provisions Scale short version (SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987) was used to examine perceived support. Participants indicated their agreement with each of the 12 statements using a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 4 = strongly agree). Sample items include “I can depend on my partner to help me if I need it” and “my partner is a trustworthy person I could turn to for advice if I were having problems.” Higher scores on the SPS are reflective of greater perceived support. For the current study, participants were instructed to only rate their dating partner. The SPS has demonstrated good internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Cutrona & Russell, 1987). The internal consistency of the SPS within the current sample was .87.

Capitalization support

Participants rated their perceived responses of their dating partner to capitalization attempts using the Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts Scale (PRCA; Gable et al., 2004). The 12-item PRCA contains four subscales, each consisting of three items, which assess a different response to capitalization attempts. The possible responses to capitalization attempts included active-constructive, passive-constructive, active-destructive, and passive-destructive. In the current study, only the three-item Active-Construction subscale (e.g., “My partner usually reacts to my good fortune enthusiastically”) was used because research shows that this form of provider response is the only capitalization response associated with positive mental health and relationship outcomes (Gable & Reis, 2010). Participants indicated on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all true; 7 = very true) their perceptions of whether their partner generally responds to their good fortune in an active-constructive manner, with the mean score across the three items used as a total score (Gable et al., 2006). Higher scores indicate greater active-constructive support. The PRCA has demonstrated good validity and reliability. Internal consistency of the Active-Constructive subscale in the current study was .72.

Relationship satisfaction

The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) is a brief seven-item measure of relationship satisfaction. The RAS includes items that inquire about how well one’s partner meets personal needs, how well one’s relationship expectations have been met, problems with the relationship, and love for one’s partner (e.g., “How good is your relationship compared to most?” “How often do you wish you hadn’t gotten into this relationship?”), and asks the respondent to rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Higher scores on the RAS indicate greater relationship satisfaction. The RAS has good internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Hendrick, 1988; Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998). Research suggests that the RAS is highly correlated with the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Hendrick et al., 1998). For the current study, internal consistency was .89.

Depression

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies on Depression Scale (CESD; Radloff, 1977) is a widely used scale to measure the presence of depressive symptoms. This 20-item self-report measure assesses psychological distress common to depression, experienced within the previous week, using a 0 (rarely or never) to 3 (most or all the time) rating scale. Higher scores on the CESD indicate greater depressive symptoms. Research has supported the psychometric properties of the CESD with college students (e.g., Martens et al., 2008). The internal consistency of the CESD within the current study was .91.

Data Analytic Strategy

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test possible moderating effects of perceived and capitalization support on the association between psychological and physical dating violence victimization and relationship satisfaction and depressive symptoms. AMOS version 17.0 was used for moderation analyses. Models were estimated using full information maximum likelihood estimation (FIMLE), which uses all data to estimate parameters and does not exclude observations with missing data (Kline, 2005). Relative to pairwise and listwise deletion, FIMLE has been shown to be more efficient and less biased for managing missing data (Arbuckle, 1996) and has been shown to be appropriate for even large amounts of missing data (Little & Rubin, 2002). The amount of missing data in the current study was minimal (less than 8% for any one variable). Model fit was evaluated using chi-square statistic (χ²), comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The chi-square fit index is the most conventional method of determining overall fit in SEM and it assesses the discrepancy between the sample and the fitted covariance matrices. The chi-square fit index is determined by dividing the chi-square estimate by the degrees of freedom, with values less than 2.0 indicative of good model fit. The CFI compares the estimated model’s fit with that of the null, or “independence,” model, with a cutoff value of 0.95 or higher indicating a good fit to the model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA is an indicator of model error per degrees of freedom, with values less than 0.08 indicative of good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The CFI and RMSEA have superior ability to identify misspecified models and are widely used (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991) for testing moderation, predictor variables (i.e., aggression), moderators (i.e., social support), and the control variable (i.e., relationship length) were mean centered to aid in the interpretation of moderated effects and reduce multicollinearity among variables. Once all variables were centered, three steps were used to examine potential interactions. First, main effects of the predictor variables and control variable on the dependent variables (i.e., relationship satisfaction and depression) were estimated to establish the association between variables. Second, two-way interaction terms were added to the model, one at a time. These interaction terms were computed by multiplying the centered scores of the predictor variables with the moderating variables (i.e., perceived and capitalization support). Finally, if significant interactions were identified, predictor variables were probed at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of the moderator (Aiken & West, 1991).

A common approach to evaluate moderation within a SEM framework is multiple group modeling (Kline, 2005). It is important to note that this approach requires grouping individuals based on levels of the moderator. However, dichotomizing continuous variables to create groups, as is the case with the current moderators, reduces power (J. Cohen, 1983; MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). Accordingly, it is recommended to evaluate continuous moderators by adding interactions to the path model (Tomarken & Waller, 2005). Consequently, the addition of interactions was chosen over a multiple group modeling approach for the current analyses.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

First, bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations among study variables were examined. These findings are presented in Table 1. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Harned, 2001; Kaura & Lohman, 2007), psychological and physical victimization were significantly associated with decreased relationship satisfaction and increased depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were negatively associated with relationship satisfaction. Both perceived support and active-constructive capitalization support from a dating partner were significantly associated with decreased depressive symptoms and increased relationship satisfaction. In addition, both types of support were negatively related to victimization. Relationship length was not significantly associated with any variables at the bivariate level.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations Among Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Relationship length	—	.03	−.01	−.01	−.01	−.02	−.02
2. Relationship satisfaction		—	.42**	.58**	−.47**	−.43**	−.31**
3. Active-constructive capitalization support			—	.49**	−.31**	−.24**	−.26**
4. Perceived support				—	−.40**	−.19*	−.25**
5. Depression					—	.34**	.36**
6. Psychological victimization						—	.51**
7. Physical victimization							—
M	11.51	28.89	5.61	41.71	13.89	8.14	2.68
SD	12.82	5.18	1.18	5.27	9.94	13.88	11.56

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

Moderation

First, main effects of predictor variables were entered into the model to establish the associations between the independent and dependent variables. This is displayed in Figure 1. Because predictor variables were mean centered, only unstandardized betas are reported. The proposed model fit the data well, χ²(1) = .003, p = .95, CFI = 1.0, RMSEA = 0.00. Psychological victimization was significantly associated with decreased relationship satisfaction and increased depressive symptomatology, whereas physical victimization was only significantly associated with increased depressive symptomatology.

Figure 1.

Main effects model of predictor variables.

Perceived support

Next, the main effect of perceived support and interactions between aggression and perceived support were entered into the model. This model also fit the data well, χ²(1) = .005, p = .94, CFI = 1.0, RMSEA = 0.00. As shown in Figure 2, findings indicate that the interaction between perceived support and psychological victimization was significant when predicting relationship satisfaction. Likewise, the interaction between perceived support and physical victimization was significant when predicting relationship satisfaction. The interaction terms were not significantly related to depression and, thus, were not examined further.

Figure 2.

Perceived support interaction model.

The significant interactions were then probed at high and low levels of perceived support. At high levels of perceived support, psychological victimization was not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction (B = −.55, p > .05). However, at low levels of perceived support from a dating partner, psychological victimization was significantly associated with decreased relationship satisfaction (B = −2.25, p < .001), consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis. In addition, physical victimization was not significantly associated with relationship satisfaction at high levels of perceived support (B = −.58, p > .05). Furthermore, the association between physical victimization and relationship satisfaction remained non-significant at low levels of perceived support (B = .69, p > .05).

Capitalization support

The main effect of capitalization support and interactions between aggression and capitalization support were entered into the model. This model fit the data well, χ²(1) = .001, p = .97, CFI = 1.0, RMSEA = 0.00. As shown in Figure 3, findings indicated that the interaction between capitalization support and psychological victimization was significant when predicting relationship satisfaction. However, the interaction between capitalization support and physical victimization was not significant when predicting relationship satisfaction. Consistent with perceived support, the interaction terms were not significantly related to depression and, thus, were not examined further.

Figure 3.

Active-constructive capitalization support model.

Next, the significant interaction between capitalization support and psychological victimization was probed at high and low levels of capitalization support. At high levels of capitalization support, psychological victimization was significantly associated with decreased relationship satisfaction (B = −.80, p < .05). In addition, at low levels of capitalization support from a dating partner, psychological victimization was significantly associated with decreased relationship satisfaction (B = −1.85, p < .001). Findings suggest that the relative magnitude of the negative association between psychological victimization and relationship satisfaction was stronger at low relative to high capitalization support, consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether social support from a dating partner moderated the relationship between dating violence victimization and relationship satisfaction and depression. Research indicates that abusive dating relationships persist in length despite the presence of aggression (Capaldi et al., 2003) and positive behaviors have been shown to mitigate the effects of victimization on relationship satisfaction (Marshall et al., 2000) and mental health (Skomorovsky et al., 2006). Therefore, controlling for relationship length, we hypothesized that perceived and capitalization support from an abusive dating partner would buffer the effects of victimization among currently dating college women. Findings from the current study partially supported this hypothesis.

Findings showed that perceived support moderated the relationship between physical and psychological victimization and relationship satisfaction. That is, at high levels of perceived support from a dating partner, the relationship between victimization and relationship satisfaction decreased in strength, consistent with social support theory (i.e., the stress-buffering hypothesis). Thus, even in the presence of aggression, victimized women’s perceptions that their partner will be there for them during times of stress/crisis can reduce the harmful effects of sustained aggression on relationship satisfaction. This is important because research has shown that increased relationship satisfaction is related to increased commitment to one’s partner (Rusbult et al., 1998), even abusive partners (Rhatigan & Street, 2005), making it more likely that women will remain in their relationship. Therefore, it is possible that perceiving an abusive partner as supportive is one of the reasons why abusive dating relationships often persist in length, although longitudinal research is needed to determine if this is indeed true.

Although perceived support buffered the victimization–relationship satisfaction association, it is unclear why abused women continue to view their partners as supportive despite the presence of aggression. One explanation may be that abusive behaviors are often followed by love and positive behaviors from an abusive partner (Walker, 1984), which may serve the function of maintaining and/or creating perceptions of available support. This may be especially true for victims of dating violence due to the low frequency and severity of abuse experiences (Skomorovsky et al., 2006). That is, positive behaviors may supersede the relatively infrequent abusive experiences sustained by the majority of women in the current study. This is not to say that abusive experiences are not detrimental to victims of infrequent or low severity aggression. Rather, in examining the myriad factors that contribute to relationship satisfaction, it is possible that positive perceptions of a partner are given more weight than their abusive behaviors.

In addition, findings showed that active-constructive capitalization support from a dating partner buffered the association between psychological victimization and relationship satisfaction. Active-constructive support refers to positive responses (e.g., “Good job!”) from a partner to the disclosure of a personal positive event. Specifically, results showed that as active-constructive capitalization support increased in frequency, the strength of the association between psychological victimization and relationship satisfaction decreased in strength. Again, this is consistent with the stress-buffering hypothesis and speculation that support for positive events may reduce the impact of victimization experiences (Skomorovsky et al., 2006). Because research indicates that positive events occur more frequently than negative events (Gable & Reis, 2010), the chances for capitalization support to occur are numerous. Thus, it is possible that the frequency of capitalization support exceeds that of abuse from a dating partner, making it likely that active-constructive support may ameliorate the impact of victimization experiences on relationship satisfaction.

It is also possible that abusive partners attempt to provide active-constructive support following abusive experiences, which would be consistent with Walker’s (1984) notion that positive behaviors often follow abuse. In other words, abusive partners may go out of their way to be nice to their partners after they have perpetrated aggression. As applied to the current study, active-constructive support is at the opposite end of the spectrum of behaviors when compared with psychological aggression. Whereas active-constructive support relays to the recipient that they performed well, did something good, or are competent (Gable et al., 2004), psychological aggression often conveys that one is worthless, incompetent, or stupid (Murphy & Hoover, 1999). Therefore, in an attempt to undo the effects of psychological aggression on victims and to maintain the relationship, abusers may provide active-constructive support when possible. However, longitudinal investigations are needed to determine whether active-constructive support from an abusive partner is more likely to occur after psychologically aggressive episodes.

Contrary to our hypothesis, neither perceived nor capitalization support buffered the relationship between physical and psychological victimization and depressive symptomatology. However, research with perceived support has indicated that the stress-buffering effect on depressive symptomatology is often not found and may not be the best explanation for perceived support’s link to depression (see Lakey & Cronin, 2008, for review), though alternative theoretical explanations are lacking. It is possible that this may also hold true for capitalization support, although additional research is needed to determine if this is accurate given that capitalization support has received minimal empirical attention. It is possible that perceived and capitalization support only have main effects on depressive symptomatology, such that they affect depression regardless of victimization experiences. Indeed, longitudinal research with a community sample of battered women showed that perceived support from family and friends had a main effect on depressive symptomatology, but not a stress-buffering effect (Beeble, Bybee, Sullivan, & Adams, 2009). Therefore, longitudinal research is needed to determine if perceived and capitalization support only have main effects on depressive symptomatology among abused dating women or if the stress-buffering effect is evident across time.

In interpreting the results of the current study, it is important to be aware of its limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of the study precludes the determination of causality among study variables despite causal assumptions. Although longitudinal research demonstrates that victimization experiences predict decreased relationship satisfaction and increased depressive symptomatology (Anderson, Saunders, Yoshihama, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2003; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005), longitudinal investigations are needed to determine whether the findings of the current study hold true. Second, the majority of women in the present study were of non-Hispanic Caucasian decent, limiting the generalizability of these findings to more diverse samples. The sample of women used, university students, also limits the generalizability of findings. In addition, it is unknown whether these findings would generalize to women with longer relationship lengths. In addition, only one mental health outcome (depression) was examined. Future research should examine whether similar results would apply to other common mental health problems among victims of dating violence (e.g., anxiety, somatic complaints). It is also possible that due to low response rates for some of the variables (e.g., depression, aggression), some of our hypotheses were not supported. Future research that uses more diverse samples may obtain more variability in response rates and, thus, different results. Furthermore, only a small portion of the overall sample experienced injuries from their victimization (7.5%), suggesting that the majority of aggression was not overly severe. Thus, the extent to which these findings would generalize to women experiencing more severe victimization is an empirical question that should be investigated. In addition, our measure of aggression, the CTS2, has been criticized for failing to consider context and motives for aggression, as well as for only counting acts of aggression (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998). Thus, future research using additional measures of victimization is needed. Finally, although our sample size was large enough for SEM (Kline, 2005) and to detect medium to large interaction effects (Aiken & West, 1991), our sample size may not have been large enough to detect small moderating effects, which could help explain why we obtained some null findings. Future research using larger sample sizes will help to answer this question.

Overall, findings from the current study demonstrated that physical and psychological victimization experiences may have less of a detrimental effect on relationship satisfaction when victims perceive their dating partners as being available to help them during times of stress. In addition, support from a dating partner for positive life events may reduce the impact of psychological aggression on relationship satisfaction. This indicates that researchers and clinicians need to recognize that positive relationship characteristics may get weighed more heavily than abusive experiences when victims assess their relationship satisfaction. It is possible that positive partner behaviors may also increase women’s commitment to their abusive partners, primarily through the enhancement of relationship satisfaction. In addition, findings from the present study suggest that individuals working with victims of dating violence need to recognize both the positive and negative aspects of these relationships, which may aid them in providing victims with more supportive, empathic assistance.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Ryan C. Shorey is an assistant professor in the Psychology Department at Ohio University. He received his PhD in clinical psychology at the University of Tennessee–Knoxville. His research focuses primarily on intimate partner violence, with an emphasis on dating violence, social support, and substance use.

Amanda E. Seavey received her PhD in clinical psychology at the University of Tennessee–Knoxville. She completed her predoctoral internship at Duke University Medical Center.

Hope Brasfield received her MS in applied psychology from the University of South Alabama.

Jeniimarie Febres, M.A., is a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Tennessee. She received her M.A. from the University of Tennessee. Her research interests include correlates of intimate partner violence, perpetrator characteristics, and the social context and prevention of intimate partner violence.

Paula J. Fite is an associate professor in the Clinical Child Psychology Program at the University of Kansas. She obtained her PhD from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 2007. Her primary research focus is the etiology and developmental progression of child and adolescent problem behavior.

Gregory L. Stuart, Ph.D., is a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville and the director of family violence research at Butler Hospital. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson

D. K.

Saunders

D. G.

Yoshihama

Bybee

D. I.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2003). Long-term trends in depression among women separated from abusive partners. Violence Against Women, 9, 807-838.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In Marcoulides

G. A.

Shumaker

R. E.

(Eds.), Advances in structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Archer

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

Barrera

Jr. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 413-455.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Finkenauer

Vohs

K. D.

(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.

Beeble

M. L.

Bybee

D. I.

Sullivan

C. M.

Adams

A. E.

(2009). Main, mediating, and moderating effects of social support on the well-being of survivors of intimate partner violence across 2 years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 718-729.

Bell

K. M.

Naugle

A. E.

(2007). Effects of social desirability on students’ self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22, 243-256.

Capaldi

D. M.

Shortt

J. W.

Crosby

(2003). Physical and psychological aggression in at-risk young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 1-27.

10.

Cohen

(1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249-253.

11.

Cohen

Pressman

(2004). The stress-buffering hypothesis. In Anderson

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of health and behavior (pp. 780-782). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Cohen

Wills

T. A.

(1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

13.

Cornelius

T. L.

Shorey

R. C.

Beebe

S. M.

(2010). Self-reported communication variables and dating violence: Using Gottman’s marital communication conceptualization. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 439-448.

14.

Cutrona

C. E.

Russell

D. W.

(1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances in Personal Relationships, 1, 37-67.

15.

DeKeseredy

Schwartz

(1998). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships: A critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet. Available from http://www.vawnet.org

16.

Gable

S. L.

Gonzaga

Strachman

(2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 904-917.

17.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

(2010). Good news! Capitalizing on positive events in an interpersonal context. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 195-257). London, England: Elsevier.

18.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

Impett

E. A.

Asher

E. R.

(2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245.

19.

Harned

M. S.

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

20.

Hendrick

S. S.

(1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 93-98.

21.

Hendrick

S. S.

Dicke

Hendrick

(1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137-142.

22.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

23.

Katz

Moore

May

(2008). Physical and sexual covictimization from dating partners: A distinct type of intimate abuse? Violence Against Women, 14, 961-980.

24.

Kaura

S. A.

Lohman

B. J.

(2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 367-381.

25.

Kaura

S. A.

Lohman

B. J.

(2009). Does acceptability of violence impact the relationship between satisfaction, victimization, and commitment levels in emerging adult dating relationships? Journal of Family Violence, 24, 349-359.

26.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

27.

Lakey

Cronin

(2008). Low social support and major depression: Research, theory and methodological issues. In Dobson

K. S.

Dozois

(Eds.), Risk factors for depression (pp. 385-408). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

28.

Lakey

Scoboria

(2005). The relative contribution of trait and social influences to the links among perceived social support, affect, and self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 73, 361-388.

29.

Little

R. J.

Rubin

D. B.

(2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

30.

MacCallum

R. C.

Zhang

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

(2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19-40.

31.

Marcus

R. F.

Swett

(2002).Violence and intimacy in close relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 570-586.

32.

Marshall

L. L.

Weston

Honeycutt

T. C.

(2000). Does men’s positivity moderate or mediate the effects of their abuse on women’s relationship quality? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 660-675.

33.

Martens

M. P.

Martin

J. L.

Hatchett

S. E.

Fowler

R. M.

Fleming

K. M.

Karakashian

M. A.

Cimini

M. D.

(2008). Protective behavioral strategies and the relationship between depressive symptoms and alcohol-related negative consequences among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 535-541.

34.

Murphy

C. M.

Hoover

S. A.

(1999). Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14, 39-53.

35.

Prospero

(2007). Mental health symptoms among male victims or partner violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 1, 269-277.

36.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

37.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Street

A. E.

(2005). The impact of intimate partner violence on decisions to leave dating relationships: A test of the investment model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1580-1597.

38.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

39.

Schnurr

M. P.

Lohman

B. J.

Kaura

S. A.

(2010). Variation in late adolescents’ reports of dating violence perpetration: A dyadic analysis. Violence and Victims, 25, 84-100.

40.

Schumacher

J. A.

Leonard

K. E.

(2005). Husbands’ and wives’ marital adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 28-37.

41.

Shorey

R. C.

Cornelius

T. L.

Bell

K. M.

(2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 185-194.

42.

Skomorovsky

Matheson

Anisman

(2006). The buffering role of social support perceptions in relation to eating disturbances among women in abusive dating relationships. Sex Roles, 54, 627-638.

43.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

44.

Tomarken

A. J.

Waller

N. G.

(2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations, and misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 31-65.

45.

Vega

E. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(2007). Test-retest reliability of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Journal of Family Violence, 22, 703-708.

46.

Walker

(1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer.