Contextual Risk Profiles and Trajectories of Adolescent Dating Violence Perpetration
- 137 Downloads
Social ecological and developmental system perspectives suggest that interactions among factors within and across multiple contexts (e.g., neighborhood, peer, family) must be considered in explaining dating violence perpetration. Yet, to date, most extant research on dating violence has focused on individual, rather than contextual predictors, and used variable-centered approaches that fail to capture the configurations of factors that may jointly explain involvement in dating violence. The current study used a person-centered approach, latent profile analysis, to identify key configurations (or profiles) of contextual risk and protective factors for dating violence perpetration across the neighborhood, school, friend and family contexts. We then examine the longitudinal associations between these contextual risk profiles, assessed during middle school, and trajectories of psychological and physical dating violence perpetration across grades 8 through 12. Five contextual risk profiles were identified: school, neighborhood, and family risk; school and family risk; school and friend risk; school and neighborhood risk; and low risk. The highest levels of psychological and physical perpetration across grades 8 through 12 were among adolescents in the profile characterized by high levels of school, neighborhood, and family risk. Results suggest that early interventions to reduce violence exposure and increase social regulation across multiple social contexts may be effective in reducing dating violence perpetration across adolescence.
KeywordsAdolescents Contextual risk Latent profile analysis Dating violence Developmental trajectory
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Development of the National Institutes of Health under award number 1R21HD087781-01.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical approval for the parent study and analyses conducted for the current manuscript was provided by the non-biomedical Institutional Review Board at UNC Chapel Hill in accordance with federal regulations governing human subject research. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individuals who participated in the parent study that provided the data used in the analyses reported in the current manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Bauer, D. J., & Shanahan, M. J. (2007). Modeling complex interactions: Person-centered and variable-centered approaches. Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies, 255–283.Google Scholar
- Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Chen, M. S., Reyes, H. L. M., & Foshee, V. A. (2016). Dating abuse: Prevalence, consequences, and predictors. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 1–21). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Davis, J. P., Merrin, G. J., Berry, D. J., Dumas, T. M., Hong, J. S., & Smith, D. C. (2017). Examining within-person and between person effects of victimization and social risk on cannabis use among emerging adults in substance-use treatment. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 30(1), 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
- Ennett, S. T., Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., Cai, L., Reyes, H. L. M., ... & Durant, R. (2008). The social ecology of adolescent alcohol misuse. Child Development, 79(6), 1777–1791.Google Scholar
- Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Lanza, S. T., Rhoades, B. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2010). Modeling the interplay of multilevel risk factors for future academic and behavior problems: A person-centered approach. Development and Psychopathology, 22(2), 313–335.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Lerner, R. M. (1998). Theories of human development: Contemporary perspectives. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 1–24). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Miller, S., Williams, J., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2015). Evaluation of the start strong initiative: Preventing teen dating violence and promoting healthy relationships among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2), S14–S19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (Version 7). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., & Chen, M. S. (2016). Dating abuse: Primary prevention efforts. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 1–27). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Shaw, D. S., Sitnick, S. L., Brennan, L. M., Choe, D. E., Dishion, T. J., Wilson, M. N., & Gardner, F. (2016). The long-term effectiveness of the family check-up on school-age conduct problems: Moderation by neighborhood deprivation. Development and Psychopathology, 28(4), 1471–1486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar