College Women's Aggression in Relationships:the Role of Childhood and Adolescent Victimization

Abstract

Despite growing evidence suggesting that women engage in verbal and physical dating aggression, there is a dearth of research examining the predictors of women's engagement in these behaviors. Utilizing a college sample, the purpose of the current study was to explore women's perpetration of dating aggression within the context of victimization experiences. Women (N = 374) completed surveys at the beginning and end of a 10‐week academic quarter for course credit. Results from two retrospective regression analyses (all Time 1 variables) suggested that (1) paternal physical abuse and adolescent/adulthood verbal victimization predicted women's reports of verbal perpetration and (2) childhood sexual abuse, adolescent/adulthood verbal victimization, adolescent/adulthood physical victimization, and adolescent/adulthood verbal perpetration predicted women's reports of physical perpetration. Results from the two prospective, longitudinal regression analyses suggested that (1) verbal perpetration (as measured at Time 1) and verbal victimization over the interim predicted women's reports of verbal perpetration over the interim and (2) physical perpetration (as measured at Time 1), verbal perpetration over the interim, and physical victimization over the interim predicted women's reports of physical perpetration over the interim. These data suggest the importance of considering previous victimization experiences, mutual partner aggression, and a history of aggressive behaviors when examining women's use of aggression in dating relationships.

The mediating role of trauma‐related symptoms in the relationship between sexual victimization and physical health symptomatology in undergraduate women

“…The rate of AASA (42.4%) in the current study is similar to past studies of college women utilizing behaviorally specific measures of sexual victimization (Edwards, Desai, et al, 2009). Although some studies using different measures and methodologies (particularly noncollege samples) have found higher rates of CSA (Dube, Anda, Felitti, Chapman, Williamson, & Giles, 2001;Lechner, Vogel, Garcia-Shelton, Leichter, & Steibel, 1993), the rate of CSA (7.7%) in our study is similar to those in past studies of college women using the same measure (CSVQ ;Finkelhor 1979) and including noncontact items of CSA (Edwards, Desai, et al, 2009;Rich, Gidycz, Warkentin, Loh & Weiland, 2005).…”

“…The rate of AASA (42.4%) in the current study is similar to past studies of college women utilizing behaviorally specific measures of sexual victimization (Edwards, Desai, et al, 2009). Although some studies using different measures and methodologies (particularly noncollege samples) have found higher rates of CSA (Dube, Anda, Felitti, Chapman, Williamson, & Giles, 2001;Lechner, Vogel, Garcia-Shelton, Leichter, & Steibel, 1993), the rate of CSA (7.7%) in our study is similar to those in past studies of college women using the same measure (CSVQ ;Finkelhor 1979) and including noncontact items of CSA (Edwards, Desai, et al, 2009;Rich, Gidycz, Warkentin, Loh & Weiland, 2005). Childhood sexual abuse rates in college populations may be lower than community or clinical samples as college populations are generally higher functioning populations; those with more severe or numerous experiences of CSA may not attend college due to the negative and possibly debilitating psychosocial sequelae following such traumatic experiences (Runtz, 2002;Schaaf & McCanne, 1998).…”

“…but intercourse did not occur (from age 14 on)?" Similar to previous research using this measure (e.g., Edwards, Desai, et al, 2009;Ullman, Karabatosos, & Koss, 1999), women were categorized according to the most severe sexual victimization they endorsed (no experience of AASA, unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, or completed rape) as AASA was considered an ordinal variable (rated 0-4 based on severity). Koss and Gidycz (1985) found the SES to demonstrate good 2-week test-retest reliability (r = .93) and validity in a college student sample.…”

“…An example of a contact CSA item is "Another person had intercourse (oral, vaginal, or anal) with you (any amount of penetrationejaculation is not necessary)." Similar to previous research (e.g., Edwards, Desai, Gidycz, & VanWynsberghe, 2009;Edwards, Kearns, Calhoun, & Gidycz, 2009), women were grouped in the most severe category they endorsed (i.e., no experience of CSA, noncontact CSA, contact CSA, or attempted or completed rape) as CSA history was considered an ordinal variable (rated 0-3 based on severity). Risin and Koss (1987) conducted a study to assess the concurrent validity of the instrument.…”

Co-Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence and Child Maltreatment: Service Providers’ Perceptions

“…Physical abuse, harsh psychological punishment, and child neglect have all been found to be strongly related to IPV (e.g., Hartley 2002;Zolotor et al 2007). Child maltreatment (CM) and IPV may also overlap with other forms of family violence -such as sibling violence (e.g., Hoffman and Edwards 2004) and children's violence perpetration and/or victimization later in life (e.g., Edwards, Desai, and Gldycz 2009;Palazzolo, Roberto, and Babin 2010).…”