Although research about couple violence refers generally to adult couples, many studies have confirmed its early existence in dating relationships, providing very variable data about the prevalence of the phenomenon, which ranges between 12% and 95%, depending on the type of violence analyzed and the sample studied (Archer, Reference Archer2000; Sears, Byers, & Price, Reference Sears, Byers and Price2007; Straus, Reference Straus2004). Chan, Straus, Brownridge, Tiwari, and Leung (Reference Chan, Straus, Brownridge, Tiwari and Leung2008) in a multinational study (15,927 university students from 21 countries) found that about 26% of students had been victimized and 30% of the international sample had physically assaulted a dating partner in the previous 12 months, although there were large differences between countries.

In general, research has outlined that psychological violence is more prevalent than physical violence. Whereas 81% may be displaying psychological violence, 12% may be displaying physical violence (Foshee & Matthew, Reference Foshee and Matthew2007). While psychological violence should be the predominant focus of attention in this field, physical violence is the most frequent target of research as it is easier to assess. We consider it necessary to use alternative instruments to the Modified Conflict Tactic Scale (m-CTS; Neidig, Reference Neidig1986) in which behaviors of psychological maltreatment -considered more difficult to assess due to its greater complexity- hardly appear (Jackson, Reference Jackson1999).

With regard to gender differences, both sexes perpetrate and sustain aggressions in dating relationships: one topic that has caused controversy. On one side of the debate, researchers have argued that violence in these relations is bidirectional (Gonzalez & Santana, Reference González and Santana2001; O’Leary & Slep, Reference O’Leary and Slep2003; Straus, Reference Straus2004), with contradictory data about who exerts a type of violence more frequently (for a review, see Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, Reference Shorey, Cornelius and Bell2008). On one hand, some studies have found that women exert more mild physical violence and more psychological violence than men. Also, women report experiencing higher rates of sexual violence in dating relationships (Chan, Reference Chan2012; Foshee & Mathew, Reference Foshee and Matthew2007; Hokoda, Martin del Campo, & Ulloa, Reference Hokoda, Martín del Campo and Ulloa2012; O'Leary, Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, Reference O’Leary, Slep, Avery-Leaf and Cascardi2008). On the other hand, other studies show opposite results, as for females experiencing more severe forms of physical and sexual violence (Champion, Wagoner, Song, Brown, & Wolfson, Reference Champion, Wagoner, Song, Brown and Wolfson2008; Marquart, Nannini, Edwards, Stanley, & Wayman, Reference Marquart, Nannini, Edwards, Stanley and Wayman2007; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., Reference Wolitzky-Taylor, Ruggiero, Danielson, Resnick, Hanson, Smith and Kilpatrick2008), including emotional and economic abuse (Rey-Anacona, Mateus-Cubides, & Bayona-Arévalo, Reference Rey-Anacona, Mateus-Cubides and Bayona-Arévalo2010), or finding no gender related differences (Antônio & Hokoda, Reference Antônio and Hokoda2009; Katz, Kuffel, & Coblentz, Reference Katz, Kuffel and Coblentz2002). Moreover, there has been found that the results of dating violence studies depend on the operationalization of the concept “teen dating violence”. Therefore, depending on the definition of “teen dating violence” rates for female and male may vary to a great extent (Hamby & Turner, Reference Hamby and Turner2012). Also, they tend to show higher rates of victimization among women. One explanation for this discrepancy in the literature is that studies vary greatly in the methodology, in the conceptualization of abuse and in the instruments used to assess it, a fact that ought to make researchers reflect.

Adding to this discussion, Johnson (Reference Johnson1995) has pointed out the difference between violence perpetrated by men to women (“patriarchal terrorism” or gender violence) and the “common couple violence” that can be bidirectional or unidirectional. The first type of violence differs from the other kinds as it represents a pattern of control and subjugation of women by virtue of being women (Johnson & Leone, Reference Johnson and Leone2005). Both of Johnson’s types of violence can coexist in any setting. However, few studies have understood this issue and taken it into account. As such, most research in this arena has reduced understanding to the mere distinction between unidirectional or bidirectional violence. O'Leary et al. (Reference O’Leary, Slep, Avery-Leaf and Cascardi2008) found that approximately 94% of males and females reported that psychological aggression was mutual and that approximately 65% of physically aggression was also mutual. Straus (Reference Straus2008) reported that bidirectional violence rates varied between 48% and 60%. Moreover, a significant proportion of studies have been carried out taking into account only the presence - and not always the frequency - of the violent acts, therefore ignoring critical aspects such as the context, motivation or consequences of victimization. Therefore, we should know what exactly it is being measured when male and female experiences of violence in dating relationships are compared (Sebastián et al., Reference Sebastián, Ortiz, Gil, Gutiérrez, Hernáiz and Hernández2010).

Another field of interest concerns representativeness of violent behaviors assessed by an instrument or test, as test results can be biased, potentially over-representing a particular type of violence. Such is the case of many instruments which only assess physical assaults, omitting important psychological aspects such as control, isolation, devaluation, blame, dominant behaviors, threats, intimidation, emotional blackmail or jealousy. Representativeness may also be compromised by using instruments with few items (e.g. Haynie et al., Reference Haynie, Farhat, Brooks-Russell, Wang, Barbieri and Iannotti2013). Finally, it is essential to mention that when consequences of violence are examined, gender related differences are shown as the impact is more detrimental for women than for men in terms of both physical and psychological harm (Follingstad, Wright, & Lloyd, Reference Follingstad, Wright and Lloyd1991; Haynie et al., Reference Haynie, Farhat, Brooks-Russell, Wang, Barbieri and Iannotti2013, Jackson, Reference Jackson1999).

Furthermore, we argue that it is important for research to identify participants' perceptions of their partner's violence. For instance, behaviors classified as violent (shoving, insulting, slapping...) may not be perceived as such by young adults, but instead may be attributed to their partner's personality or momentary stress, especially in the case of psychological violence (González-Ortega, Echeburúa, & Corral, Reference González-Ortega, Echeburúa and Corral2008; Samaniego & Freixas, Reference Samaniego and Freixas2010). Violent behaviors may be even justified in certain conditions (for example, a girl slaps her boyfriend because of a comment made) (Sears et al., Reference Sears, Byers and Price2007; Straus, Reference Straus2004), rendering frequency rates lower than they actually are. There is some tolerance towards violence in young couples that may make it difficult to understand and identify it as maltreatment - both for the victim and for the perpetrator and even for their social milieu.

In Spain, many studies have reported similar results about the prevalence of dating violence. A macro-level survey carried out by the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equality in 2010 with a sample of 11,020 students, concluded that 13.1% of the males reported having perpetrated maltreatment, while 9.2% of the females reported having sustained dating violence (Diaz-Aguado & Carvajal, Reference Diaz-Aguado and Carvajal2011). Both perpetrators and victims reported that the most frequent behaviors were attempting to control one’s partner and isolating one’s partner from his or her friends.

Rodríguez-Franco et al. (Reference Rodríguez-Franco, López-Cepero, Rodríguez-Díaz, Bringas, Estrada, Antuña and Quevedo-Blasco2012) with a sample of 709 females aged between 16 and 21 years, found that 71% had suffered technical maltreatment, that is, they had suffered some kind of violence which they did not consider or identify as maltreatment. Furthermore, studies with Spanish samples have concluded that 22.1% of university students have physically assaulted their partners (Corral & Calvete, Reference Corral and Calvete2006) and that more than 7% of teenagers of both sexes have hit or shoved their partners at least once (González & Santana, Reference González and Santana2001).

Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, and González (2007a) studied 1,886 university students and found that 29.5% of men and 32.3% of women had sustained some form of physical aggression in the last year. In another study (n = 2416) these authors found sex related differences. Whereas severe violence was exerted mainly by men, moderate violence was more habitually displayed by women. Moreover, more than 90% of their sample reported verbal aggression, with 95.3% of girls displaying this, compared to 92.8% of boys (Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, & Gonzalez, Reference Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary and González2007b). Similar results were obtained by Fernández-Fuertes et al. (Reference Fernández-Fuertes, Orgaz and Fuertes2011) who reported that 95% of their sample admitted having perpetrated or sustained verbal aggressions in dating relationships.

With regard to sexual aggression, Ortega, Ortega, & Sánchez (Reference Ortega, Ortega and Sánchez2008) provided evidence suggesting that 48% of their sample displayed it, while 66.5% sustained sexual violence. Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary, and González (Reference Muñoz-Rivas, Graña, O’Leary and González2009) found that 35.7% of the boys sample and 14.9% of the girls sample displayed some form of sexual violence; whereas, the rates for victimization were 21.1% for males and 25.1% for females. Graña, Rodríguez, and Peña (Reference Graña, Rodríguez and Peña2009) found also that gender influenced both the interception and slope of sexual violence perpetration and victimization, where males reported higher rates of perpetration (22.1% versus 12%) and where girls reported higher rates of victimization (14.3% versus 18, 2%). Most of the studies that analyze gender differences show that boys exert higher rates of sexual violence perpetration than girls (Foshee, Reference Foshee1996, Hokoda et al., Reference Hokoda, Martín del Campo and Ulloa2012; O´Keefe, Reference O´Keefe1997; Wekerle & Wolfe, Reference Wekerle and Wolfe1999). However, other studies show the opposite situation. Chan et al. (Reference Chan, Straus, Brownridge, Tiwari and Leung2008) conducted a multinational study that showed practically no difference between boys and girls in sustaining sexual violence; although boys from all countries showed higher frequency rates of perpetration than girls. The median rates for perpetrating sexual coercion was 20% and for sustaining sexual coercion 24%.

Studies addressing jealous behavior in the dating violence arena are infrequent and are not always based on real life behaviors (e.g. Hansen, Reference Hansen1985). The results on jealousy are varied and contradictory. Some studies have found no difference between boys and girls on perpetration nor on victimization (Hokoda et al., Reference Hokoda, Martín del Campo and Ulloa2012); while other researchers have found that girls are less jealous than boys (Kasian & Painter, Reference Kasian and Painter1992), or the opposite: that women show higher rates of jealous behaviors perpetration and not victimization behaviors (Gonzalez, Munoz-Rivas, Peña, Gámez, & Fernández, Reference González, Muñoz-Rivas, Peña, Gámez and Fernández2007). In another study of the aforementioned authors, girls reported “Being jealous of another boy /girl” to a greater extent than boys (72.3% versus 63.7% respectively), and they also reported higher rates when asked if their partner had been jealous of another boy/girl. However, boys on this sample report higher rates than girls when asked if their partner had accused them of maintaining other parallel relationships (Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2007a), which may show a pattern of mutual accusations.

Few studies have been carried out taking into account the age of couples. The few studies that have analyzed this variable conclude that the prevalence of dating violence increases with age (Hokoda et al., Reference Hokoda, Martín del Campo and Ulloa2012; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., Reference Wolitzky-Taylor, Ruggiero, Danielson, Resnick, Hanson, Smith and Kilpatrick2008).

Based on the above findings, the goals of the current research are to (a) analyze the prevalence of dating violence among Spanish youth and how frequently various types of violent acts occur and (b) analyze gender differences in violent behaviors. The present research compares results to those of previous studies. Novel aspects of this study are: (a) the use of the mean difference to study the frequency of the behaviors and not only their presence (the vast majority of research uses the dichotomy presence/absence of a behavior to analyze rates of dating violence, which we understand can bias the results. This research therefore makes use of quantitative indicators and not only categorical ones), (b) the use of the contingency coefficient, which indicates the strength of the relation, (c) the study of age as a mediator in the patterns of violence, (d) the inclusion of jealously in the analysis in order to obtain a more in-depth approach, and (e) the chi-square test recoded three responses as presence (sometimes, often, and very often) or absence of the violent behavior, in contrast to other studies that included very seldom in the category, thereby increasing the prevalence). We understand the importance of a behavior that has been done only once or very infrequently to be different from behaviors that are performed frequently (including low frequency). Moreover, some behaviors may occur in a given context, enabled by circumstances, and not related to a general personality trait. Taking this into consideration we hypothesized that our results will not be increased indiscriminately.

Results

Data is presented concurrently and separated by sex in order to understand how the patterns of violence in dating relationships could differentially affect boys and girls and to study the global prevalence of the phenomenon. Frequency data about perpetration and victimization is also presented.

Mild and Severe Physical Violence

Concerning frequency data, descriptive analysis and differences between means among the study variables are reported. Table 1 shows that 13.8% of the participants admitted having exerted violence, whereas 12.3% reported having sustained it. The most frequently performed (6.7%) and sustained (6.4%) violent behavior involving mild physical violence is trying to grab the partner and, with regard to severe physical violence, trying to choke the partner (1% and 0.09%, respectively).

Table 1.

Prevalence of physical aggression (%)

* p < .05; ***p < .001.

Gender related differences emerged. Girls reported having exerted greater mean levels of physical violence [18.5% of the girls versus 8.1% of the boys; χ²(1) = 13.057, p < .001, contingency coefficient = .149]. Significant main effects when analyzing sustained physical violence were not found. Therefore, approximately equal proportions of boys and girls sustained physical violence. However, these results refer mainly to mild physical violence as the prevalence of severe physical violence was very low and no significant sex differences were found in our study.

With regard to mild physical violence, 12.1% of the sample reported being victims and 13.8% perpetrators. Girls reported performing this type of behavior significantly more than boys [18.5% versus 8.1%, respectively; χ²(1) = 13.057, p < .001, contingency coefficient = .149], but no significant gender-related differences were obtained in victimization. The analysis of specific items showed that slapping (5.7%) or hitting, kicking, and biting (6%), are reported significantly higher among women aggressors, whereas throwing an object at the girl (4.2%), hit or throw some object (4.6%), and being slapped (6.2%) are reported as significantly higher among victim men.

Psychological Violence

When examining rates of psychological violence, very high rates were obtained in our results: 87.4% reported having exerted it and 75.3% admitted having sustained it. Significant gender-related differences were found. Girls were much more likely to be psychologically violent than boys [90.3% versus 83.3% of the boys; χ²(1) = 5.385, p < .05, contingency coefficient = .096]. However, frequency data revealed that comparable numbers of boys and girls reported having sustained psychological violence. In other words, no significant sex-related differences were found in victimization (76.5% of the boys and 74.3% of the girls). Although, it is noteworthy to acknowledge that the rates obtained from sustaining psychological violence suggested greater rate levels comparing to other types of violence (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Prevalence of psychological aggression (%)

* p < .05; ***p < .001.

Verbal Violence

Verbal violence is the subtype of violence most frequently exerted (80.1%) and suffered (69.6%) by our sample. Significant gender-related differences emerged. Dating girls exerted greater levels of verbal violence than boys [84.6% versus 47.6%, respectively; χ²(1) = 9.043, p < .005, contingency coefficient = .124]. However, no significant differences were obtained in victimization.

Girls obtained higher percentages in perpetration in all test items concerning verbal violence. With regard to victimization, boys reported having suffered their partner's weeping (51.4%) to a greater extent, whereas partner's leaving the room in anger (33.2%) and saying or doing something to annoy them (42%) were behaviors sustained to a greater extent among girls by their partners.

Dominant Behavior

In comparison to the other two types of psychological violence, named as verbal violence and jealous behavior, dominant behaviors rates were found less frequent. 31.8% of the sample referred having carried out these behaviors and 23.7% reported having suffered them during their dating relationship. No significant gender-related differences were obtained neither in perpetration nor in victimization. The behavior most frequently carried out was threatening to leave the relationship (20.6%) and the behavior most frequently sustained was attempting to make their partners stop doing things that could help them (11.2%).

However, the analysis of specific behaviors concerning the scale items showed gender related differences. Such as, boys tried significantly more than girls to make their partners stop doing things that could help them (6.9%), but they also suffered because their partners would not let them see their family (3.5%) to a greater extent as girls.

Jealous Behavior

In the current sample, about 59.2% of the participants had been involved in a dating relationship in which they had exerted jealous behaviors. And 25.4% of the participants had sustained it from their dating partners. Significant gender-related differences were found in perpetration. Girls exerted jealous behaviors to a more extent than boys [63.6% of girls versus 53.8% of the boys; χ²(1) = 5.686, p < .05, contingency coefficient = .099]. However, no gender related differences were found in victimization.

The behavior most frequently perpetrated by the sample was being jealous of other girls/boys (46.1%) whereas the one most frequently sustained was being jealous and suspecting one's friends (20.4%) and being jealous of other girls/boys (19.2%).

When examining specific behaviors, significant gender related differences were found in these such items girls reported higher percentages: being jealous and suspecting one's girlfriends (38.8 versus 47%), being jealous of other girls (37.7 versus 53%) and checking out what the partner does and demanding explanations (11.9% versus 19.1%).

Sexual Violence

The results in this category ranged dramatically depending on whether perpetration (8.8%) or victimization (42%) was being reported. Girls and boys did differ significantly according to overall frequency (Table 3), obtaining perpetration rates of 13.5% for boys and 5% for girls. However, significant differences were obtained in the perpetration of sexual aggression, with boys reporting higher rates, χ²(1) = 12.721, p < .001, contingency coefficient = .147, but again, no differences was found in victimization where 40.8% of the boys and 42.9% of the girls reported having suffered it.

Table 3.

Prevalence of sexual aggression (%)

* p < .05; ***p < .001.

When analyzing specific behaviors significant gender-related differences were also found as boys obtained higher percentages of perpetration in specific behaviors as threatening to end the relationship if the partner did not engage in sexual relations with them (4.6%) and in verbal pressure to have sex despite the partner's refusal (7.7%).

Frequency of Violent Behaviors

Using the chi-square and the t-test, we could verify that the data coincides when rating the presence/absence (chi-square) of a violent behavior or its frequency (t-test) in the relationship. In general terms, it is observed that the frequency of behaviors that involve perpetration of any type of violence is higher than the frequencies found in the current research relating to victimization. There is only one exception, which is sexual violence, where the frequency of occurrence is higher in victimization (with an average of 8.27) than in perpetration (with an average of 5.47). As it was the case with prevalence, behaviors considered as psychologically violent are the most frequent, both in perpetration acts (28.13) and in victimization (24.40).

Thus, as shown in Table 4, girls obtained higher means in perpetration of physical violence, t(572) = 3.651, p < .001, mild physical violence, t(564) = 4.466, p < .001, psychological violence, t(572) = 4.247, p < .001, verbal violence, t(574) = 6.608, p < .001, and jealous behavior, t(577) = 3.061, p < .05. While boys reported having perpetrated higher means of sexual violence behaviors and aggressions than girls t(391) = –4.716, p < .001. No significant gender-related differences were found in any form of violence when victimization was analyzed.

Table 4.

Mean of kind violence

* p < .05; ***p < .001.

Prevalence of Violent Behaviors as a Function of Age

In general, when differentiating age groups of adolescents (from 12 to 17 years) (n = 484) and young adults (18 to 22 years) (n = 95), the results followed the same tendency as the preceding analyzed data: psychological violence (and, specifically, verbal violence) obtains higher percentages both in perpetration and in victimization (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Prevalence of dating violence by age (%)

* p < .05; **p < .01.

Our findings revealed interesting aspects about how adolescents and young adults may resolve couple conflicts. Whereas no significant differences were found in physical violence (mild and severe) or psychological violence (verbal violence and dominant behavior), significant differences were observed within jealous behavior of young adults compared to adolescents, both in perpetration [48.4% versus 61.4% of the adolescents, respectively; χ²(1) = 5.509, p < .05] and in victimization [11.6% versus 28.1% of the adolescents, respectively; χ²(1) = 11.441, p < .01]. In contrast, the group of young adults reported having perpetrated greater means levels of sexual violent behaviors compared to the younger adolescents [14.7% versus 7.6%, respectively; χ²(1) = 4.973, p < .05]. Furthermore, young adults reported to have suffered greater mean levels of sexual violence in comparison to adolescents [53.7% versus 39.7%, respectively; χ²(1) = 6.404, p < .05].