Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Understanding the specific risk profile for distinct forms of dating aggression (DA) is very informative to define cross-cutting interventions. The study aims to evaluate whether specific profiles of risk defined using a person-oriented approach predicted physical, sexual, and psychological DA after 6 months.
Methods
Eight hundred sixty-six Spanish adolescents were interviewed at two time points (50.5% male; average age = 15.04). Latent profile analysis at T1 was used to delineate profiles of individual and relational risk.
Results
A three-class model best represents the data: a “normative” class (N = 768; 88%); a “highly aggressive” class characterized by acceptance of violent norms, bullying behaviors, and anger dysregulation (N = 13, 1.5%); a “jealous-conflictual” class characterized by cognitive and emotional jealousy, negative couple quality, and anger dysregulation (N = 85, 10%). Controlling for age, sex, and longitudinal stability, physical DA was predicted significantly by the “highly aggressive” profile (β = .11; p < .05), psychological DA by the “jealous-conflictual” profile (β = .16; p < .01), and sexual DA by the “jealous-conflictual” (β = .20; p < .001) and “highly aggressive” profile as a trend (β = .08; p = .071).
Conclusions
Specific risk profiles differentially predict risk for physical, sexual, and psychological DA perpetration. A general aggressive pattern predicts physical DA and sexual DA weakly, whereas psychological and sexual DA are associated with a couple of risks, where the dimension of jealousy, control, and conflict characterizes the dynamic between partners.
Policy Implications
Findings suggested that physical DA, and at a lower level sexual DA, should be prevented using cross-cutting strategies on general aggression. Psychological and sexual DA might require more contextually based interventions.
Funder
Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness
Università degli Studi di Firenze
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Health (social science),Gender Studies
Reference69 articles.
1. Birkley, E. L., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2015). Anger, hostility, internalizing negative emotions, and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 37, 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.002
2. Capaldi, D. M., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2012). Informing intimate partner violence prevention efforts: Dyadic, developmental, and contextual considerations. Prevention Science, 13(4), 323-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0309-y
3. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280. https://doi.org/10.1891/2F1946-6560.3.2.231
4. Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2005). A life span developmental systems perspective on aggression toward a partner. En W.M. Pinsof, & J. Lebow (Eds.), Family psychology: The art of the science (pp. 141–167). Oxford University Press.
5. Carrascosa, L., Cava, M. J., Buelga, S., & de Jesus, S. N. (2019). Reduction of sexist attitudes, romantic myths, and aggressive behaviors in adolescents: Efficacy of the DARSI program. Psicothema, 31(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.245
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献