Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 6, 2013, pp.

619-650

DATING AGGRESSION
WOODIN ET AL.

Dating Aggression
in Emerging Adulthood:
Interactions between Relationship
Processes and Individual Vulnerabilities
Erica M. Woodin and Valerie Caldeira
University of Victoria

K. Daniel O’Leary
Stony Brook University

The current study examined the roles of relationship processes and individual
vulnerabilities in predicting dating aggression perpetration during emerging
adulthood. Drawing from the contextual-situational model of courtship aggres-
sion (CSM; Riggs & O’Leary, 1989), as well as other theoretical models of close
relationships, we hypothesized that individuals’ depressive symptoms and atti-
tudes condoning aggression would moderate the link between the perceived rela-
tionship bond and partner aggression perpetration. Using a multi-method, multi-
informant approach with college dating couples, we found that highly aggressive
couples (n = 23) differed from moderately (n = 27) and nonaggressive couples
(n = 15) in having lower perceived relationship bonds, lower female relation-
ship satisfaction, more female depression, and higher male attitudes condoning
aggression. Among the 50 physically aggressive couples, a lower perceived rela-
tionship bond interacted with symptoms of depression to predict higher levels of
psychological and physical aggression perpetration, and higher attitudes condon-
ing aggression further exacerbated the risk for men’s physical aggression perpe-
tration only. These associations remained even after controlling for self-reported
relationship satisfaction and aggression victimization. Findings from this study are
consistent with the CSM and suggest that a lower perceived relationship bond,
particularly in combination with symptoms of depression and attitudes condon-
ing aggression, place men and women at increased risk for dating aggression
perpetration during emerging adulthood.
Address correspondence to Erica M. Woodin, Department of Psychology, University
of Victoria, PO Box 3050 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P5, Canada; E-mail: ewoodin@
uvic.ca.

© 2013 Guilford Publications, Inc.

619
620 WOODIN ET AL.

Acts of aggression are widespread among dating couples during

emerging adulthood, the developmental period between 18 and 25
years of age. Generally considered a time of increased risk taking
and identity exploration (Arnett, 2000), approximately one third
of dating couples report engaging in acts of physical aggression
(e.g., slapping or shoving) during this period (Chan, Straus, Brown-
ridge, Tiwari, & Leung, 2008; Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). Psychologi-
cal forms of aggression are even more common. For example, in a
sample of college students, 59% of men and 53% of women reported
perpetrating minor psychological aggression (e.g., yelling or insult-
ing) against a dating partner, and 22% of men and 23% of women
reported perpetrating more severe forms of psychological aggres-
sion (e.g., threatening a partner or destroying his or her property;
Scott & Straus, 2007). Victims of partner aggression can experience a
range of physical and mental health conditions (Coker et al., 2002),
and being the victim of psychological aggression can be detrimental
to mental health above and beyond experiences of physical aggres-
sion (Taft et al., 2006).
In late adolescence and young adulthood, women tend to initi-
ate physical aggression as often as or more than men (Archer, 2000;
Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007), and also report perpetrating more
psychological aggression than men (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Part-
ner aggression is also often bidirectional between partners during
emerging adulthood. Data from the Christchurch Health and De-
velopment Study, for instance, found a strong correlation between
physical aggression perpetration and victimization reports among
a large sample of 25-year-olds, with at least 90% of physical ag-
gression mutual between partners (Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood,
2008).
Given that young adults are often both the perpetrators and vic-
tims of partner aggression, it is important to take this overlap into
account when disentangling the risk factors for aggression perpe-
tration from the consequences of aggression victimization. Further,
as young adults often under-report a range of hostile relationship
behaviors compared to their partners (Cui, Lorenz, Conger, Melby,
& Bryant, 2005), having information from both partners within a
relationship is necessary to accurately estimate less socially desir-
able behaviors such as partner aggression perpetration. Finally,
similarities in prevalence rates between men and women may mask
important gender differences in the risk-factors for aggression per-
DATING AGGRESSION 621

petration, and so examining prediction models separately for men

and women is important.
In the current study, we employed a multi-method, multi-infor-
mant sample of college dating couples that were part of a larger
treatment outcome study (Woodin & O’Leary, 2010) to examine
interactions between relationship processes and individual vulner-
abilities in predicting partner aggression perpetration. A number
of previous studies have identified a range of salient predictors of
adult partner aggression perpetration, particularly in regards to the
psychological characteristics of the perpetrator (Dutton, Starzom-
ski, & Ryan, 1996; Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005; Sugarman & Fran-
kel, 1996); however few studies to date have investigated the role of
relationship processes as a context for aggression perpetration and
even fewer have examined couple dynamics in young adult rela-
tionships. Further, we know very little about the possible interactive
effects of individual vulnerabilities and relationship processes for
partner aggression perpetration. The purpose of the current study
is to test a theoretically and empirically grounded model of dating
aggression perpetration, based on the Contextual-Situational Model
of Courtship Aggression (CSM; Riggs & O’Leary, 1989), that incorpo-
rates prominent aspects of individual functioning and relationship
processes derived from previous research.

PARTNER AGGRESSION IN THE CONTEXT

OF RELATIONSHIP PROCESSES

On average, rates of partner aggression perpetration tend to de-

crease across adolescence and early adulthood (Fritz & O’Leary,
2004; Shortt et al., 2012; Whitaker & Niolon, 2010). However, stay-
ing in the same relationship is associated with greater stability in
levels of psychological and physical aggression compared with
transitioning to a new relationship (Fritz & Slep, 2009; Shortt et al.,
2012). Further, persistent aggression across relationships is associ-
ated with new partners’ own aggressive behavior patterns (Shortt
et al., 2012; Whitaker & Niolon, 2010). These findings suggest that
the dynamics within a given relationship are an important source
of information regarding individuals’ risk for partner aggression
perpetration.
Many aggressive young adults engage in relatively mild forms of
dating aggression, often referred to as common couple violence, which
622 WOODIN ET AL.

tend to arise as intermittent responses to conflict within their rela-

tionships (Johnson, 1995). Longitudinal studies have demonstrated
that relationship discord and conflict tend to lead to increased ag-
gression over time in adult samples, even after controlling for earli-
er aggression perpetration (Aldarondo & Sugarman, 1996; O’Leary,
Malone, & Tyree, 1994). Further, meta-analytic findings suggest a
small to moderate association between relationship discord and
physical aggression in adult samples (Stith, Green, Smith, & Ward,
2008). It is likely that couples who have difficulty managing con-
flict are at greatest risk for the onset and perpetuation of aggression
within their relationships.
The CSM posits that dating couples’ overall relationship process-
es, or partners’ perceptions and actions within the relationship, will
be related to dating aggression perpetration. A basic tenet of the
CSM is that couples who view each other and their relationship in
a more positive light and who are able to respond adaptively to re-
lationship stressors will have more stable, nonviolent relationships.
This perspective is also consistent with the Life Span Developmental
Systems Model of partner aggression, which theorizes that unskilled
relationship processes are both a cause and consequence of part-
ner aggression perpetration (LSDSM; Capaldi, Shortt, & Kim, 2005).
These models were developed in part as a reaction to previous theo-
retical accounts of partner aggression, such as the feminist (Walker,
1984) and family systems (Straus, 1973) approaches, which were
unable to account for the influences of both psychological function-
ing and relationship dynamics in the often bidirectional nature of
partner aggression in young adulthood.
An empirically validated observational measure of couples’ re-
lationship processes is the Oral History Interview (OHI), a semi-
structured conjoint interview about couples’ past and current re-
lationship experiences (Krokoff, 1984). The OHI is observationally
coded based primarily on how couples discuss their relationships
rather than the content of the interviews per se, and taps a range
of global beliefs and behaviors such as the degree of positivity and
cohesiveness in the relationship (Buehlman, Carrère, & Siler, 2005).
Termed the perceived relationship bond in the current study, this mea-
sure of relationship processes has been associated with lower rates
of destructive conflict in married couples (Buehlman, Gottman,
& Katz, 1992), was a stronger predictor of long-term relationship
stability than self-reports of relationship satisfaction in a sample
of newlywed adults (Carrère, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruck-
DATING AGGRESSION 623

stuhl, 2000), and displays similar properties in dating and married

couples (Flora & Segrin, 2003).
Despite the established link between the perceived relationship
bond and various aspects of relationship discord and stability, to our
knowledge no previous published studies have examined the link
between the perceived relationship bond and partner aggression
perpetration. However, based on the CSM we posit that a strong
perceived relationship bond will predict lower levels of partner ag-
gression perpetration, particularly because it is an index of relation-
ship perceptions and behaviors. Specifically, we hypothesized that a
more cohesive relationship will provide partners with an important
resource to manage conflicts and other relationship stressors more
effectively, even controlling for self-reported satisfaction with the
relationship.

THE ROLE OF INDIVIDUAL VULNERABILITIES

The CSM also suggests that vulnerabilities specific to each partner,

including their current attitudinal and emotional states, can have an
impact on dating aggression perpetration at a given point in time.
In addition, other theoretical models of close relationships explic-
itly posit that individual vulnerabilities likely interact with relation-
ship processes to influence relationship outcomes in general (the
Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model; Karney & Bradbury, 1995) and
partner aggression perpetration in particular (the I3 Theory; Finkel,
2007). In the case of dating aggression, for example, an individu-
al in a poorly functioning relationship may be more likely to act
aggressively toward their partner if they also possess attitudes or
mood states that tend to make aggression more likely. Conversely,
evidence suggests that factors such as strong relationship commit-
ment may serve as inhibitory mechanisms to reduce the likelihood
of partner aggression perpetration even in the context of high dis-
positional tendencies towards aggression (Slotter et al., 2011).
The LSDSM discussed previously posits that deviant peer associa-
tions and depressive symptoms during adolescence may contribute
to a process of assortative mating, in which young adults partner
with individuals who share their attitudinal and affective charac-
teristics, thereby increasing the risk of aggression within these re-
lationships (Capaldi et al., 2005). Although we cannot explore the
developmental aspects of this model with our cross-sectional sam-
624 WOODIN ET AL.

ple, we are able to examine the way in which attitudes condoning

aggression and symptoms of depression interact with relationship
processes during a developmental period in which assortative mat-
ing processes are likely operating.
Several meta-analyses have demonstrated that attitudes condon-
ing aggression are one of the strongest psychological predictors of
adult partner aggression, particularly for men (Schumacher, Feld-
bau-Kohn, Slep, & Heyman, 2001; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt,
2003). Further, there is extensive evidence that young adults who
possess attitudes condoning aggression are more likely to perpe-
trate acts of aggression towards a partner (Slep, Cascardi, Avery-
Leaf, & O’Leary, 2001), and these pro-aggression attitudes may ac-
tually further increase the risk of aggression perpetration over time
in young adult populations (Fincham, Cui, Braithwaite, & Pasley,
2008). Attitudes condoning aggression may place young adults in
general at increased risk for aggression perpetration, but it is plau-
sible that such attitudes are relatively more important in the con-
text of poor relationship functioning (see for example Slotter et al.,
2011). Specifically, pro-aggression attitudes may be most likely to
lead to aggression perpetration when held in combination with a
lower perceived relationship bond.
Another potentially important individual vulnerability is de-
pressed mood. There is a well established link between depression
and various aspects of adult relationship functioning, including re-
lationship distress (Whisman, Uebelacker, & Weinstock, 2004) and
conflict (Du Rocher Schudlich, Papp, & Cummings, 2004). There is
also mounting evidence that psychopathology in general and de-
pression in particular are strongly related to adult partner aggres-
sion perpetration (Schumacher et al., 2001; Stith et al., 2003). In a
sample of at-risk dating couples, symptoms of depression in both
young men and women were associated with greater longitudinal
risk of partner aggression perpetration, even after controlling for
antisocial behavior (Kim & Capaldi, 2004). Depression tends to be
more closely related to aggression perpetration for women in gen-
eral (Vaeth, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Caetano, 2010) and for women in
dating relationships in particular (Foshee, Reyes, & Ennett, 2010),
even after controlling for potentially confounding factors such as
socioeconomic status.
In addition to predictions about the ways in which relationship
processes and individual vulnerabilities might impact the risk for
dating aggression, we also posit that these two factors likely inter-
DATING AGGRESSION 625

act with one another. Specifically, symptoms of depression and at-

titudes condoning aggression are likely to serve as direct vulner-
abilities to aggression perpetration, but may also interact with re-
lationship processes to increase the risk of aggression perpetration
particularly in the context of a lower perceived relationship bond.
Finally, it is also possible that depression and attitudes condoning
aggression will also interact with one another such that individu-
als with both attitudinal and affective vulnerabilities may be most
likely to be aggressive in the context of a lower perceived relation-
ship bond.

THE CURRENT STUDY

Using a multi-method, multi-informant approach with a U.S. sam-

ple of 65 college dating couples, the current study had two primary
goals. First, we compared individual vulnerabilities and relation-
ship processes across groups of nonaggressive, moderately aggres-
sive, and highly aggressive couples to determine the way in which
these factors are related to differing levels of aggression perpetra-
tion. Second, we examined the interactive risk of individual vulner-
abilities (e.g., attitudes condoning aggression and depressive symp-
toms) as potential moderators of the link between relationship pro-
cesses (e.g., the perceived relationship bond) and dating aggression
perpetration. We hypothesized that partner aggression perpetration
would be more likely for individuals with poor relationship pro-
cesses (e.g., a lower perceived relationship bond), but that individ-
ual vulnerabilities (attitudes condoning aggression and symptoms
of depression) would interact with a lower perceived relationship
bond to further increase the risk for aggression perpetration. We
also hypothesized that these associations would hold after control-
ling for self-reported relationship satisfaction, given previous find-
ings with young married couples demonstrating that the perceived
relationship bond was incrementally predictive of relationship sta-
bility above and beyond self-reported relationship satisfaction (Car-
rère et al., 2000). Based on previous findings suggesting significant
gender differences in the impact of individual vulnerabilities (Fos-
hee et al., 2010; Schumacher et al., 2001; Stith et al., 2004; Vaeth et
al., 2010), we also hypothesized that attitudes condoning aggression
would be a significant moderator for men whereas symptoms of
depression would be a significant moderator for women.
626 WOODIN ET AL.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-five college students and their opposite-sex dating partners

were recruited from Stony Brook University, a mid-sized, state uni-
versity in Long Island, New York. Fifty couples were recruited as
part of a larger treatment study (Woodin & O’Leary, 2010) and 15
additional couples were recruited as a nonaggressive comparison
group. Two lesbian dating couples also participated in the larger
project, however their data were not included in the current study
as a key aim was to examine gender differences in the risk of aggres-
sion perpetration.
Advertisements for participation included flyers posted around
campus, announcements on student message boards, emails sent to
undergraduates with campus email accounts, and postings in the
Psychology subject pool. Eligibility included currently being in a
nonmarried dating relationship of at least three months duration,
no prior history of marriage or cohabitation, and both partners be-
tween 18 and 25 years old. Further eligibility for the nonaggressive
group was no history of physical aggression perpetration in the cur-
rent relationship and eligibility for the aggressive group was at least
one act of male-to-female mild physical aggression in the current
relationship reported by either partner. Mild physical aggression
referred to throwing something that could hurt, twisting an arm
or hair, pushing or shoving, grabbing, or slapping (Straus, Hamby,
Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).
Participant Demographics. Of the 65 couples, the average length
of relationship was 22.22 months (SD = 17.80). The average age of
women and men was 19.49 (SD = 1.21) years and 20.15 (SD = 1.53)
years, respectively. For both men and women, the median yearly
family income was in the range of $60,000 to $69,999 and the me-
dian level of completed education was two years of college. All fe-
males were enrolled in college full-time. 85% of males were enrolled
full-time in college, 3% were part-time students, and 12% were not
in college.
In terms of racial identification, 8% of both women and men iden-
tified as African American, 35% of women and 40% of men identi-
fied as Asian American, 54% of both women and men identified as
Caucasian, 2% of women and 6% of men identified as American
DATING AGGRESSION 627

Indian, 5% of men identified as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander,

and 8% of women and 11% of men identified as Other Race. Eight
percent of women and 20% of men reported more than one racial
identification. Measured separately, 18% of women and 15% of men
identified as being of Hispanic ethnicity.

PROCEDURE

Eligible couples were scheduled for a two-hour assessment. After

informed consent procedures, partners were seated in nonadjoining
rooms and completed a series of questionnaires. Couples were then
jointly administered the Oral History Interview (OHI; Buehlman et
al., 1992), a brief semi-structured interview regarding the history
and course of their relationship. They were asked to describe how
they first met, what attracted them to each other, and how their rela-
tionship has progressed (i.e., time spent together, special moments,
how they dealt with any hard times). At the end of the assessment
session, couples were given two $5 gift certificates to a local fast food
restaurant. The 50 aggressive couples then participated in an inter-
vention designed to reduce partner aggression (Woodin & O’Leary,
2010), whereas the nonaggressive group did not participate further.
Data from the 50 aggressive couples presented in the current study
are from the pre-treatment assessment session.

MEASURES

Partner Aggression. Aggression between partners was assessed us-

ing the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996),
which assesses the frequency of partner aggression perpetration and
victimization. The CTS2 contains five subscales measuring negotia-
tion, psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual coercion,
and injury. As we were primarily interested in acts of aggression
that are likely to arise out of conflict between partners (Johnson,
1995), we chose to use the two subscales representing the frequency
of psychological (8 items) and physical (12 items) forms of aggres-
sion. The physical aggression subscale can be further divided into
mild (5 items) and severe (7 items) aggression. Responses are on
a 7-option Likert scale representing never to more than 20 acts of
each form of aggression, and a higher score on each subscale indi-
628 WOODIN ET AL.

cates more frequent aggression. Example items include “Have you

insulted or sworn at your partner?” (psychological) and “Have you
pushed or shoved your partner?” (physical). Initially created with
a college sample (Straus et al., 1996), the CTS2 has established con-
struct and factor validity (Newton, Connelly, & Landsverk, 2001).
Because eligibility criteria stipulated that participants could be
dating for as little as three months before participation, the CTS2
was modified so that all participants reported only on the preceding
three months. The higher of the two partners’ reports were used to
calculate each individual’s levels of psychological and physical ag-
gression perpetration and victimization (O’Leary & Williams, 2006).
This procedure is recommended to account for the well-established
tendency for adolescents and adults to underreport a variety of hos-
tile and aggressive relationship behaviors (Cui et al., 2005; Heyman
& Schlee, 1997). Internal consistency was good for both psychologi-
cal and physical aggression, computed separately for women and
men (alphas ranged from .75 to .82).
Relationship Functioning. Relationship satisfaction was assessed
using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), a widely-
used 32-item scale of relationship adjustment. Example items in-
clude “In general, how often do you think that things between you
and your partner are going well?” and “Do you and your partner
engage in outside activities together?” Internal consistency was ex-
cellent for both men (α =.83) and women (α =.85) in this sample.
Observed relationship processes were assessed using the Oral
History Coding System (OHCS; Buehlman et al., 2005), a global
rating scale measuring expressed beliefs and observed behaviors
exhibited by both partners during the OHI (fondness / affection,
negativity toward partner, we-ness versus separateness, expansive-
ness, gender stereotypy, chaotic relationships, volatile relationships,
glorifying the struggle, and relationship disappointment / disillu-
sionment). Three undergraduate research assistants who were blind
to the study hypotheses participated in 6 hours of training to use
the OHCS, and then conducted practice coding until achieving suf-
ficient levels of interrater reliability. All videotapes were then coded
by one research assistant and 86% of the videotapes were randomly
selected to be coded by a second research assistant. Intraclass cor-
relation coefficients were good to excellent for most subscales (ICCs
= .74 to .84), but were fair for chaotic relationships (ICC = .63) and
poor for gender stereotypy (ICC = .39).
DATING AGGRESSION 629

Based on procedures developed in previous studies (Buehlman et

al., 1992; Carrère et al., 2000), we conducted a principal components
analysis to determine the factor structure of the OHI in this sam-
ple. All subscales except gender stereotypy and volatile relation-
ships loaded onto the first principal component (all loadings >. 50),
which accounted for 39% of the total variance. A perceived relation-
ship bond total score was computed from these subscales (fondness/
affection, lower negativity toward partner, we-ness, expansiveness,
lower chaotic relationships, glorifying the struggle, and lower re-
lationship disappointment / disillusionment), with a higher score
indicating a stronger perceived relationship bond (ICC = .81).
Individual Vulnerabilities. Attitudes condoning psychological ag-
gression were assessed using the Justification of Verbal / Coercive
Tactics Scale (JVCT; Slep et al., 2001). The JVCT elicits the degree
of acceptance of verbally aggressive, controlling, and jealous tactics
for both men and women in dating situations, using a 5-option Lik-
ert scale format ranging from “Not justified NO MATTER WHAT”
to “Justified in MANY situations.” In the current study, only the
11 items referring to participants’ attitudes about psychological ag-
gression by members of the same sex were used, with higher scores
indicating greater pro-aggression attitudes. Example items include
“Doing or saying something to spite the partner,” “Being jealous
and suspicious of the partner’s friends,” and “Checking up on the
partner, making them say where they were.” Internal consistency
was excellent for both women (α = .86 for beliefs about female psy-
chological aggression) and men (α = .82 for beliefs about male psy-
chological aggression).
Beliefs about the acceptability of physical aggression were mea-
sured using the Attitudes about Aggression in Dating Situations
scale (AADS; Slep et al., 2001), which asks about the acceptability of
men and women responding in a physically aggressive manner to
a range of interpersonally provocative situations. Response options
are on a six-option Likert scale format, ranging from strongly dis-
agree to strongly agree, with higher scores indicating attitudes more
condoning of physical aggression. Example items include “Michelle
gets really angry at Carlos for ignoring her, so she hits him to get his
attention” and “Peter gets really angry at Patti and slaps her when
she threatens to break up with him.” The five AADS items tapping
beliefs about members of the same sex were used as an index of ag-
gression attitudes (α = .69 for women’s beliefs about female physi-
630 WOODIN ET AL.

cal aggression; α = .73 for men’s beliefs about male physical aggres-
sion).
Symptoms of depression were assessed using the Beck Depres-
sion Inventory—Revised (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996), a 21-
item Likert scale measure of current depressive symptoms in which
higher scores reflect more symptoms of depression. Participants are
asked how frequently they have experienced a range of depressive
symptoms, including sadness, loss of pleasure, and changes in sleep
and eating patterns, within the last two weeks. Internal consistency
for the current study was excellent for women (α = .90) and men (α
= .80).

Data Analysis Plan

Before conducting analyses, we examined our data for missing val-

ues. Less than 1% of the self-report data were missing at the item
level, and in each case only one or two items was missing from each
subscale. We thus used mean substitution to replace missing values
for each subscale. There were no missing items at the variable level.
We first compared the physically aggressive (n = 50) and nonag-
gressive (n = 15) couples to understand how relationship processes
and individual vulnerabilities varied across these groups. Further,
we expected that there would be significant variation within the
aggressive group, so we created a total aggression perpetration score
for each couple that represented the total amount of psychological
and physical aggression perpetrated by each partner. We then as-
signed aggressive couples into a moderately (n = 27) or highly (n =
23) aggressive group based on whether they were below or above
the mean for the total aggression score. Our general hypothesis was
that the highly aggressive group would report the most problem-
atic relationship processes and individual vulnerabilities, followed
by the moderately aggressive and nonaggressive groups. One-way
ANOVAs and planned orthogonal comparisons were computed
to test for differences between the nonaggressive and aggressive
groups (moderately and highly aggressive combined), between the
nonaggressive and moderately aggressive groups, and between
the moderately and highly aggressive groups. There were no sig-
nificant differences between the three groups on any demographic
variable (p > .05), so demographic factors were not controlled for in
subsequent analyses.
DATING AGGRESSION 631

Second, we examined the bivariate associations between the pre-

dictor variables and aggression perpetration levels for the 50 ag-
gressive couples (excluding the nonaggressive group). Before con-
ducting these analyses, we examined our data for normality. With
the exception of psychological aggression perpetration and self-re-
ported relationship satisfaction, all our predictor and outcome vari-
ables were significantly positively skewed and contained outliers
greater than two standard deviations from the mean. To improve
normality the skewed variables were re-coded so that each outlier
was one unit larger than the next largest response (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). We decided to combine the mild and severe physical
aggression items for these and subsequent analyses because the two
subscales were highly correlated for both men (r = .64) and women
(r = .71) in this sample.
Third, to examine the role of depression and attitudes condoning
aggression as moderators of the association between the relation-
ship bond and aggression perpetration, we conducted a separate
multiple regression analysis for each gender and for each form of
perpetration (psychological and physical). First, aggression victim-
ization and self-reported relationship satisfaction were entered as
covariates of aggression perpetration. Second, predictor variables
(the perceived relationship bond, depression, and attitudes condon-
ing aggression) were entered into the second step to determine the
unique multivariate influence of each predictor. Third, all two-way
and three-way interactions were entered into the third step to test
the hypothesis that depression and attitudes condoning aggression
would moderate the link between the perceived relationship bond
and partner aggression perpetration. If no three-way interaction
was present, separate analyses were run for each two-way interac-
tion to preserve power. Given a sample size of 50, we had suffi-
cient power to detect a medium effect size with all covariates, vari-
ables, and two- and three-way interactions entered into the models
(Green, 1991; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

RESULTS
COMPARISONS ACROSS AGGRESSION GROUPS

Means and standard deviations for each outcome and predictor

variable, presented separately for men and women in the nonag-
 632

TABLE 1. Comparisons between Nonaggressive, Moderately Aggressive, and Highly Aggressive Couples on Levels of Aggression Perpetration,
Attitudes condoning Aggression, Symptoms of Depression, and the Relationship Bond
Aggression Group
Highly
Nonaggressive Moderately Aggressive Aggressive
Variable Comparison (n = 15) (n = 27) (n = 23) F Planned Comparisons
Women
nonaggressive < aggressive;
Psychological aggression perpetration (CTS2) 16.67 (17.37) 13.67 (10.52) 57.78 (25.68) 39.63*** moderate < high
nonaggressive < aggressive;
Mild physical aggression perpetration (CTS2) 0.00 (0.00) 6.89 (8.16) 18.57 (20.78) 9.46*** non < moderate; moderate < high
nonaggressive < aggressive;
Severe physical aggression perpetration (CTS2) 0.00 (0.00) 0.70 (1.49) 4.04 (8.72) 3.52* non < moderate
Relationship Satisfaction (DAS) 118.73 (12.83) 117.10 (9.25) 109.96 (11.22) 3.88* moderate > high
Attitudes condoning psychological aggression
(JVCT) 21.27 (6.40) 24.88 (8.16) 25.05 (6.25) 1.53
Attitudes condoning physical aggression
(AADS) 17.20 (4.11) 16.78 (4.73) 18.00 (3.84) 0.50
Depression (BDI-II) 9.27 (6.54) 8.07 (4.68) 14.09 (10.03) 4.38* moderate < high
WOODIN ET AL.
Men
nonaggressive < aggressive;
Psychological aggression perpetration (CTS2) 9.07 (13.70) 10.41 (8.44) 45.00 (22.32) 36.72*** moderate < high
nonaggressive < aggressive;
Mild Physical aggression perpetration (CTS2) 0.00 (0.00) 1.96 (2.16) 14.57 (20.87) 8.52** non < moderate; moderate < high
Severe physical aggression perpetration (CTS2) 0.00 (0.00) 0.26 (0.59) 1.35 (3.96) 1.87 non < moderate
Relationship Satisfaction (DAS) 119.30 (10.65) 118.15 (12.36) 114.39 (9.95) 1.09
Attitudes condoning psychological aggression nonaggressive < aggressive;
(JVCT) 18.47 (3.94) 19.85 (4.54) 24.10 (5.71) 7.29** moderate < high
Attitudes condoning physical aggression
(AADS) 9.40 (3.31) 8.15 (2.64) 11.23 (4.86) 4.23* moderate < high
Depression (BDI-II) 8.80 (5.83) 6.59 (5.58) 6.00 (4.12) 1.41
Dyadic
Relationship bond (OHI) 76.93 (20.78) 78.07 (22.75) 60.00 (30.53) 3.60* moderate < high
Note. CTS2 = Conflict Tactics Scales Revised; JVCT = Justification for Verbal and Coercive Tactics Scale; AADS = Attitudes in Aggressive Dating Situations Scale; BDI-II =
Beck Depression Inventory—Second Edition; OHI = Oral History Interview.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
DATING AGGRESSION 633
634 WOODIN ET AL.

gressive, moderately aggressive, and highly aggressive groups, are

presented in Table 1, along with results from the ANOVA analyses.
As expected, there were significant differences across groups in psy-
chological, mild physical, and severe physical aggression perpetra-
tion. Orthogonal comparisons indicated that the aggressive groups
were more psychologically and mild physically aggressive than
the nonaggressive group and that the highly aggressive group was
more psychologically and mild physically aggressive than the mod-
erately aggressive group. Not all orthogonal comparisons were sta-
tistically significant for the severe aggression analyses, possibly due
to the low base rate of severe physical aggression in this sample.
Consistent with the hypotheses, there were significant differenc-
es across the three groups in terms of both relationship processes
and individual functioning. Compared to moderately aggressive
couples, highly aggressive couples had lower female relationship
satisfaction, a weaker perceived relationship bond, higher male
attitudes condoning aggression, and greater symptoms of female
depression. The only significant difference between the nonaggres-
sive and aggressive couples was that nonaggressive men possessed
attitudes less condoning of psychological aggression. Overall, the
pattern of these results suggests that the highly aggressive couples
were most different from the other two groups on relationship pro-
cesses and individual vulnerabilities.
Table 2 demonstrates the frequency of psychologically, mild phys-
ically, and severely physically aggressive acts for women and men
in the aggressive group. Nearly all men and women in the aggres-
sive group engaged in psychological and mild physical aggression
within the preceding three months, and roughly one third of wom-
en and one quarter of men engaged in severely aggressive acts. The
most frequently endorsed psychological items for both women and
men were “insulted or swore at partner” and “shouted or yelled
at partner.” The most frequently endorsed mild physical items for
women were “pushed or shoved partner” and “slapped partner”
and for men were “grabbed partner” and “pushed or shoved part-
ner.” The most frequently endorsed severe aggression item for both
partners was “punched or hit partner with something that could
hurt.”
As shown in Table 3, bivariate correlations indicated that the re-
lationship bond was significantly associated with psychological
DATING AGGRESSION 635

TABLE 2. Percentages of Women and Men in the Aggressive Group who Engaged in
Psychological, Mild Physical, and Severe Physical Aggression within the Preceding Three
Months as Indexed by the CTS2
Subscale Item Women (%) Men (%)
Psychological Insulted or swore at partner 96 90
Called partner fat or ugly 40 32
Destroyed something belonging to partner 16 16
Shouted or yelled at partner 94 90
Stomped out of the room or house or yard 80 56
during a disagreement
Accused partner of being a lousy lover 30 34
Did something to spite partner 74 64
Threatened to hit or throw something at partner 32 32
Any Psychological Aggression Perpetration 96 96
Mild Physical Threw something at partner that could hurt 36 20
Twisted partner’s arm or hair 30 22
Pushed or shoved partner 70 42
Grabbed partner 60 66
Slapped partner 68 14
Any Mild Physical Aggression Perpetration 96 100
Severe Physical Used a knife or gun on partner 0 0
Punched or hit partner with something that 33 14
could hurt
Choked partner 4 8
Slammed partner against a wall 10 8
Beat up partner 8 2
Burned or scalded partner on purpose 2 2
Kicked partner 26 8
Any Severe Physical Aggression Perpetration 38 26
Note. N = 50; CTS2 = Conflict Tactics Scales Revised.

and physical aggression perpetration for women, and with physi-

cal perpetration for men, whereas attitudes condoning aggression
were generally only significantly associated with aggression perpe-
tration for men. Depressive symptoms were not bivariately related
to aggression perpetration for either gender. As expected, the rela-
tionship satisfaction was positively associated with the perceived
relationship bond, and was also negatively related to female psy-
chological aggression. The predictor variables were generally mod-
erately correlated with each other, with no evidence of substantial
multicolinearity. Aggression perpetration and victimization were
strongly correlated for both psychological (r = .75) and physical (r
= .86) forms of aggression, and hence levels of victimization were
controlled for in subsequent multiple regression analyses.
 636

TABLE 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations between Partner Aggression Perpetration and Risk-Factors for Aggression in the
Physically Aggressive Group
Measure (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) M SD
(1) Psychological aggression
(CTS2) .75*** .56*** –.37** .13 .32* .13 –.48*** 33.96 29.12
(2) Physical aggression (CTS2) .35* .86*** –.19 .01 .20 .06 –.35** 8.14 8.24
(3) Relationship Satisfaction
(DAS) –.17 –.07 .54*** –.19 –.33** –.30* .39*** 113.81 10.72
(4) Acceptability of psychological
aggression (JVCT) .49*** .28 –.32* .07 .07 .09 –.17 24.79 6.73
(5) Acceptability of physical
aggression (AADS) .35* .18 –.22 .39** .29* .10 –.46** 17.32 4.35
(6) Depressive symptoms (BDI-II) .09 –.09 –.34** .16 –.11 .20 –.28* 10.94 8.50
(7) Relationship bond (OHI) –.24 –.29* .49** –.33* –.44** –.22 (N/A) 69.76 27.86
M 26.32 5.24 116.42 21.76 9.45 6.10 69.76
SD 23.77 6.66 11.36 5.47 3.78 4.22 27.86
Note. Women’s scores are presented above the diagonal; men’s scores are below the diagonal; bivariate correlations between women’s and men’s scores are presented
along the diagonal. CTS2 = Conflict Tactics Scales Revised; DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale; JVCT = Justification for Verbal and Coercive Tactics Scale; AADS = Attitudes in
Aggressive Dating Situations Scale; BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory—Second Edition; OHI = Oral History Interview.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
WOODIN ET AL.
DATING AGGRESSION 637

TABLE 4. Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Predicting Psychological Aggression Per-

petration from the Perceived Relationship Bond, Depression, and Attitudes Condoning
Psychological Aggression
Psychological Aggression Perpetration
Women Men
Predictor ∆R2 β ∆R2 β
Step 1 (Covariates) .60*** .58***
Psychological victimization (CTS2) .80*** .88***
Relationship satisfaction (DAS) –.11 .10
Step 2 (Predictors) .07* .03
Perceived relationship bond (OHI) –.28** .09
Depression (BDI-II) –.12 .12
Attitudes condoning psychological aggression (JVCT) –.01 N/A
Step 3 (Interactions) .10** .04*
OHI × BDI-II –.24* –.22*
OHI × JVCT .29** N/A
BDI-II × JVCT –.01 N/A
OHI × BDI-II × JVCT .20* N/A
Total R2 .76*** .64***
n 50 50
Note. N/A indicates that the variable was nonsignificant in the two-way and three-way interaction
analyses, and so was removed from the final analysis to preserve power. CTS2 = Conflict Tactics Scales
Revised; JVCT = Justification for Verbal and Coercive Tactics Scale; AADS = Attitudes in Aggressive
Dating Situations Scale; BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory – Second Edition; OHI = Oral History
Interview. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES

Psychological Aggression. For women, adding the predictor vari-

ables to the second step of the hierarchical regression analysis yield-
ed a statistically significant improvement in variance explained
above the covariates of psychological aggression victimization and
relationship satisfaction (Table 4). The perceived relationship bond
was the only significant multivariate predictor of psychological ag-
gression perpetration for women. The third step, in which interac-
tion terms were also included, explained statistically significant ad-
ditional variance. There were significant two-way interactions be-
tween depression and the perceived relationship bond and between
attitudes condoning psychological aggression and the perceived
relationship bond, as well as a three way interaction between the
perceived relationship bond, attitudes condoning aggression, and
depression.
638 WOODIN ET AL.

FIGURE 1. Depression and attitudes condoning aggression

as moderators of the link between the relationship bond and
psychological aggression perpetration.

To interpret the significant interactions, regression lines were

plotted separately for scores above and below the median for each
predictor variable (Aiken & West, 1991). Then, separate multiple
regression models were analyzed to test whether each regression
slope was statistically significant. As shown in Figure 1, a poor per-
ceived relationship bond was a risk factor for psychological aggres-
sion perpetration, particularly in the case of women who were de-
pressed but had low attitudes condoning aggression, t (14) = 2.95,
p < .05, β = -0.63. It appears that women who are depressed may
be more likely to engage in psychological aggression in the context
DATING AGGRESSION 639

TABLE 5. Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Predicting Physical Aggression Perpetration

from the Perceived Relationship Bond, Depression, and Attitudes Condoning Physical
Aggression
Physical Aggression Perpetration
Women Men
Predictor ∆R2 β ∆R2 β
Step 1 (Covariates) .75*** .72***
Psychological victimization (CTS2) .86*** .86***
Relationship satisfaction (DAS) –.01 –.11
Step 2 (Predictors) .02 .01
Perceived relationship bond (OHI) –.07 –.01
Depression (BDI-II) .02 –.21*
Attitudes condoning physical aggression (AADS) N/A –.05
Step 3 (Interactions) .02* .06*
OHI × BDI-II –.18* –.07*
OHI × AADS N/A –.10
BDI-II × AADS N/A –.12
OHI × BDI-II × AADS N/A –.32*
Total R2 .79* .78*
n 50 50
Note. N/A indicates that the variable was nonsignificant in the two-way and three-way interaction
analyses, and so was removed from the final analysis to preserve power. CTS2 = Conflict Tactics Scales
Revised; JVCT = Justification for Verbal and Coercive Tactics Scale; AADS = Attitudes in Aggressive
Dating Situations Scale; BDI-II = Beck Depression Inventory—Second Edition; OHI = Oral History
Interview. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

of poor relationship processes, even if they do not condone such

acts in general, whereas depression alone does not increase the risk
of aggression in the context of adequate relationship processes. No
other simple paths were statistically significant.
For men, the addition of the predictor variables did not explain
significant additional variance above and beyond participants’ psy-
chological aggression victimization, and no multivariate predictors
were statistically significant (Table 4). The third step including in-
teraction terms did however explain significant additional variance.
Although there was no significant three-way interaction, the two-
way interaction between depression and the perceived relationship
bond was statistically significant. Figure 1 demonstrates that symp-
toms of depression were only more likely to raise the risk of psy-
chological aggression perpetration for men with a low perceived
relationship bond, t (20) = 2.08, p < .05, β = -0.43, suggesting that
640 WOODIN ET AL.

Figure 2. Depression and attitudes condoning aggression as

moderators of the link between the relationship bond and physical
aggression perpetration.

symptoms of depression may sensitize men to behave aggressively

in the context of poor relationship processes.
Physical Aggression. For women’s physical aggression perpetra-
tion, the addition of the predictor variables did not explain signifi-
cant additional variance, and no multivariate predictor variables
were significant (Table 5). There was also no significant three-way
interaction. There was, however, a significant two-way interaction
between depression and the perceived relationship bond. Figure 2
demonstrates that, similar to male psychological aggression, a poor
perceived relationship bond increased the risk of physical aggres-
DATING AGGRESSION 641

sion perpetration particularly for women high in depression, t (22)

= 2.13, p < .05, β = -0.42. The simple path for women low in depres-
sion was not statistically significant.
For physical aggression perpetration in men, the inclusion of the
individual predictors did not account for significant additional
variance, and no multivariate predictors were significant (Table 5).
The inclusion of the interaction terms did however explain signifi-
cant additional variance, and the two-way interaction term between
the perceived relationship bond and depression was significant, as
was the three-way interaction. As demonstrated in Figure 2, the
only statistically significant simple path suggested that men with a
poor perceived relationship bond were most likely to be physically
aggressive in the context of high levels of both depression and at-
titudes condoning aggression, t (9) = 2.34, p < .05, β = -0.64. Thus,
for male physical aggression perpetration only, there appears to be
an additive increase in risk for poor relationship processes in com-
bination with greater symptoms of depression and attitudes more
condoning of aggression; however, as demonstrated in the figure,
men with low levels of depression and high attitudes condoning ag-
gression were at greatest risk for physical aggression perpetration
regardless of the quality of their perceived relationship bond.

DISCUSSION

The findings of the current study support one of the major tenets of
the CSM, namely the importance of considering both relationship
processes and pertinent individual vulnerabilities in understanding
dating aggression perpetration during emerging adulthood. Spe-
cifically, a poor perceived relationship bond in combination with
symptoms of depression placed both men and women at elevated
risk for psychological and physical aggression perpetration. The
results of this study also underscore the importance of examining
direct effects as well as interactions between relationship processes
and individual vulnerabilities (Finkel, 2007; Karney & Bradbury,
1995) to understand the factors that place young adults at greatest
risk for partner aggression perpetration.
Attitudes condoning aggression were important in understand-
ing men’s aggression perpetration in particular. First, men in highly
aggressive couples were more likely than men in moderately ag-
gressive couples to hold attitudes condoning psychological and
642 WOODIN ET AL.

physical aggression perpetration. Second, men’s risk for behaving

in physically aggressive ways increased significantly when they
held attitudes condoning physical aggression in concert with a poor
perceived relationship bond. Extant research has documented that
both attitudes condoning aggression as well as individual vulner-
abilities (particularly symptoms of depression) are risk factors with
moderate to strong effect sizes for male partner aggression perpe-
tration (Schumacher et al., 2001; Stith et al., 2004). In the current
study, men’s attitudes regarding the appropriateness of aggressive
behaviors exacerbated their risk of dating aggression, both in gen-
eral as well as in the context of depression and poor relationship
processes. Attitudes condoning aggression may therefore be an im-
portant target of intervention for men and particularly for men who
are more frequently or more severely aggressive or who are also ex-
periencing co-occurring relationship and individual difficulties that
might make them more vulnerable to acting on such pro-aggression
attitudes.
Surprisingly, lower attitudes condoning aggression were actually
related to higher rates of psychological aggression perpetration for
women if held in concert with a lower perceived relationship bond
and more symptoms of depression. We speculate that this unex-
pected finding suggests that women may be particularly sensitive
to perceived relationship difficulties (Sanford, 2010), and that such
perceptions in concert with a general tendency to view themselves
and their environments through a negative lens may create a con-
text in which women are more likely to behave in a psychologically
aggressive manner than they might otherwise do based on their
own personal belief systems. Thus, female psychological aggression
may be more likely to occur as a dysregulated reaction to negative
perceptions of the partner and the state of the relationship rather
than as an outgrowth of beliefs supportive of aggression in general.
Consistent with this finding, a study of 453 representatively sam-
pled couples found that the endorsement of attitudes approving of
partner aggression was not a unique predictor of partner aggression
perpetration after controlling for factors such as relationship adjust-
ment and relationship attributions (O’Leary, Slep, & O’Leary, 2007).
This finding suggests that programs designed to prevent or reduce
young women’s dating aggression perpetration may be most ben-
eficial to the extent that they focus on improving general interper-
sonal coping abilities rather than targeting attitudes towards the
use of aggression in general. Conversely, it is possible that, despite
DATING AGGRESSION 643

the fact that we controlled for aggression victimization, we are ac-

tually observing women’s response to aggression (e.g., depression
and poor relationship functioning) rather than the cause of their ag-
gression. We discuss this issue further below.
Another notable finding from the current study was the rela-
tive similarity between the nonaggressive and moderately aggres-
sive couples in terms of individual vulnerabilities and relationship
processes. Although more physically aggressive by definition, the
moderately aggressive group was virtually indistinguishable from
the nonaggressive group in the extent of psychological aggression
perpetration, as well as in levels of depression, attitudes condoning
aggression, and the perceived relationship bond. The only caveat is
that men in the moderately aggressive group possessed attitudes
more supportive of psychological aggression perpetration than
men in the nonaggressive group. In contrast, the highly aggressive
group was clearly more elevated on all predictor and outcome mea-
sures compared to the other two groups.
It may be that dating couples who are engaging in more frequent
acts of psychological and physical aggression are qualitatively dif-
ferent from couples who have engaged in only one or two acts of
aggression. We speculate that these highly aggressive dating cou-
ples may be more at risk for ongoing and escalating aggression over
time, given their more seriously compromised individual and rela-
tionship functioning (Woodin & O’Leary, 2006). In contrast, moder-
ately aggressive couples may engage in infrequent acts of aggres-
sion in the context of situational or sporadic stress that temporarily
weakens an otherwise relatively well-functioning relationship sys-
tem (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
The role of depression in dating aggression is also important to
note. Previous findings from a large representative birth cohort, for
example, demonstrated that 18-year-olds with a history of psychi-
atric disorders were more likely to become involved in physically
abusive relationships at age 26, and women who were in physically
aggressive relationships at age 26 had an increased risk of psychiat-
ric disorders after controlling for earlier symptoms (Ehrensaft, Mof-
fitt, & Caspi, 2006). Thus, even though we controlled for aggression
victimization in our analyses, it is possible that the consistent asso-
ciations between depression and aggression perpetration, particu-
larly for women, might be indicative of the impact of previous ag-
gressive acts by a partner. Future longitudinal studies are needed to
644 WOODIN ET AL.

systematically examine the interplay between depression and vari-

ous aspects of relationship functioning across time.
Finally, a statement regarding gender and aggression perpetra-
tion is important. Meta-analytic findings demonstrate that men and
women tend to report similar levels of aggression perpetration and
victimization in community samples (Archer, 2000), a finding that
was clearly replicated in the current study. There is ongoing debate,
however, regarding the equivalence of aggressive acts and the con-
sequences of such acts for men and women in close relationships
(see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010, for a review). Thus, gender re-
mains an important factor to consider when examining partner ag-
gression in heterosexual relationships, particularly in regards to the
impact of aggressive acts.
A primary strength of the current study is the use of a multi-
method, multi-informant approach to understanding dating ag-
gression perpetration. By employing a combination of self-report,
partner-report, and observational indices of the relevant constructs,
we were able to avoid many of the self-report pitfalls that plague re-
search on less socially desirable relationship behaviors (Baumeister,
Vohs, & Funder, 2007; Heyman, 2001; Heyman & Schlee, 1997). This
strategy also allowed us to statistically control for experiences of ag-
gression victimization that may have clouded our understanding of
the impact of relationship processes and individual vulnerabilities.
Another strength of this study was the targeted recruitment of a
substantial group of aggressive couples as well as a nonaggressive
comparison group. This strategy allowed us to compare differences
in relationship processes and individual vulnerabilities between ag-
gressive and nonaggressive couples, as well as to tease apart dif-
ferences among various types of aggressive couples. This targeted
recruitment strategy of deliberately oversampling an at-risk group
of couples is relatively unusual in the field of dating aggression re-
search, and allowed us to move beyond the prediction of the occur-
rence of aggression to the prediction of the intensity of aggression.
As our results demonstrate, this approach yielded valuable infor-
mation about the variability of dating aggression in emerging adult-
hood.
Finally, a key strength of this study is the examination of relation-
ship processes as a key component in the prediction of aggression
perpetration in young couples. We illustrated that there are complex
yet predictable interactions between well-established individual
vulnerabilities and aspects of the current relationship in predicting
DATING AGGRESSION 645

psychological and physical aggression perpetration. These findings

help to move the field beyond an exclusive focus on individual psy-
chopathology and towards a more multifaceted focus on important
systemic processes that are unique to each relationship.
An important limitation of the current study is also worth noting.
Although we controlled for aggression victimization, the current
study is cross-sectional in design and thus we cannot make spe-
cific statements regarding the direction of effects. The experience
of aggression undoubtedly has multiplicative reciprocal effects on
individuals and relationships as a whole. We have chosen to focus
our investigation on the predictors of aggression perpetration, as an
understanding of these predictors has implications for theoretical
models of aggression and ultimately for prevention and interven-
tion efforts to improve dating relationships. However, we acknowl-
edge the importance of understanding aggression as both an ante-
cedent and consequence of disrupted individual and relationship
functioning.
Another limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size
and restriction to college dating couples. Given the relatively narrow
age range and high level of education in this sample, the results of
this study cannot be generalized to noncollege student populations.
We also note that the physically aggressive group in this study was
recruited specifically for men’s physical aggression, and hence may
not generalize to couples experiencing only women’s physical ag-
gression or to couples only experiencing psychological aggression.
In sum, the primary contribution of the current study is to further
our understanding of the ways in which individual vulnerabilities
interact with relationship processes to impact the risk of partner ag-
gression perpetration. This study clearly demonstrated first that re-
lationship processes matter in understanding aggression perpetra-
tion for both men and women, and second that individual vulner-
abilities further exacerbate an already strained relationship. These
findings support and extend existing models and have implications
for targeted prevention programs to improve the ability of at-risk
young adults to form successful relationships.
We believe that the key implication for prevention and interven-
tion that emerges from these findings is that the relationship context
matters in young adult relationships (Capaldi et al., 2005; O’Leary
& Slep, 2012). Given the high degree of bidirectional aggression ob-
served in this sample and others, as well as previous findings that
aggression is more stable within young relationships than across
646 WOODIN ET AL.

relationships (Fritz & Slep, 2009; Shortt et al., 2012), there is mount-
ing evidence that conceptualizing common couple violence (John-
son, 1995) solely in terms of individual pathology during emerging
adulthood is insufficient. Instead, universal prevention programs
should specifically target interpersonal and relationship building
skills so that young adults are more likely to initiate and sustain
nonviolent relationships. In addition, selected targeted prevention
programs can identify individuals with greater vulnerabilities (par-
ticularly in regards to pro-aggression attitudes and depression) to
provide more intensive interventions to individuals who are likely
at highest risk for aggression perpetration. Finally, indicated target-
ed prevention programs, which are used when sub-clinical levels
of problem behavior are already occurring (Institute of Medicine,
1994), should be used to screen and intervene with couples who
are already displaying early signs of partner aggression (Woodin
& O’Leary, 2010). These theoretically- and empirically-supported
multi-stage prevention approaches can provide young adults with
the best chance of establishing and maintaining close relationships
that are stable, fulfilling, and nonviolent.

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Aldarondo, E., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and
persistence of wife assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64,
1010–1019. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.5.1010
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.126.5.651
Arnett, J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.55.5.469
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science
of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual be-
havior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2007.00051.x
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck depression inventory—Second edi-
tion (BDI-II), Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Buehlman, K., Carrère, S., & Siler, C. (2005). The oral history coding system: A mea-
sure of marital cognition. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal
measures: Going beyond words (pp. 209–219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DATING AGGRESSION 647

Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past
predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.5.3-4.295
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity
of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22,
101–111. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1
Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2005). A life span developmental sys-
tems perspective on aggression toward a partner. In W. M. Pinsof & J. Lebow
(Eds.), Family psychology: The art of the science (pp. 141–167). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Carrère, S., Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J. M., Coan, J. A., & Ruckstuhl, L. (2000). Pre-
dicting marital stability and divorce in newlywed couples. Journal of Family
Psychology, 14, 42–58. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.14.1.42
Chan, K. L., Straus, M. A., Brownridge, D. A., Tiwari, A., & Leung, W. C. (2008).
Prevalence of dating partner violence and suicidal ideation among male
and female university students worldwide. Journal of Midwifery and Women’s
Health, 53, 529–537.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith,
P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence
for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260–268.
doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00514-7
Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Melby, J. N., & Bryant, C. M. (2005). Observer,
self-, and partner reports of hostile behaviors in romantic relationships. Jour-
nal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1169–1181. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00208.x
Du Rocher Schudlich, T. D., Papp, L. M., & Cummings, E. (2004). Relations of hus-
bands’ and wives’ dysphoria to marital conflict resolution strategies. Journal
of Family Psychology, 18, 171–183. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.171
Dutton, D. G., Starzomski, A., & Ryan, L. (1996). Antecedents of abusive personality
and abusive behavior in wife assaulters. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 113–132.
doi:10.1007/BF02336665
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Is domestic violence followed
by an increased risk of psychiatric disorders among women but not among
men? A longitudinal cohort study. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163,
885–892. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.163.5.885
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Developmental antecedents
of interpartner violence in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Family Vio-
lence, 23, 737–753. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9199-y
Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Braithwaite, S., & Pasley, K. (2008). Attitudes toward in-
timate partner violence in dating relationships. Psychological Assessment, 20,
260–269. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.260
Finkel, E. J. (2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate
partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11, 193–207. doi:10.1037/1089-
2680.11.2.193
Flora, J., & Segrin, C. (2003). Relational well-being and perceptions of relational his-
tory in married and dating couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
20, 515–536. doi:10.1177/02654075030204005
Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H., & Ennett, S. T. (2010). Examination of sex and race differ-
ences in longitudinal predictors of the initiation of adolescent dating violence
648 WOODIN ET AL.

perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 492–516. doi:10

.1080/10926771.2010.495032
Fritz, P.A.T., & O’Leary, K. D. (2004). Physical and psychological partner aggres-
sion across a decade: A growth curve analysis. Violence and Victims, 19, 3–16.
doi:10.1891/088667004780842886
Fritz, P., & Slep, A. (2009). Stability of physical and psychological adolescent dating
aggression across time and partners. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 38, 303–314. doi:10.1080/15374410902851671
Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Mul-
tivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 499–510. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7
Heyman, R. E. (2001). Observation of couple conflicts: Clinical assessment applica-
tions, stubborn truths, and shaky foundations. Psychological Assessment, 13,
5–35. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.1.5
Heyman, R. E., & Schlee, K. A. (1997). Toward a better estimate of the prevalence of
partner abuse: Adjusting rates based on the sensitivity of the conflict tactics
scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 332–338. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.11.3.332
Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physi-
cal, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict
tactics scales. Violence and Victims, 18, 197–217. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197
Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preven-
tive intervention research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two
forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 57, 283–
294. doi:10.2307/353683
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality
and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bul-
letin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). The association of antisocial behavior and
depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in roman-
tic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 82–96. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.18.1.82
Krokoff, L. J. (1984). The anatomy of blue-collar marriages. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate
partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179–193. doi:10.1007/
s11199-009-9628-2
Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature.
Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 105–127. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00042-2
Newton, R. R., Connelly, C., & Landsverk, J. A. (2001). An examination of mea-
surement characteristics and factorial validity of the revised conflict
tactics scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 317–335.
doi:10.1177/00131640121971130
Norlander, B., & Eckhardt, C. (2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of inti-
mate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25,
119–152. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.10.001
O’Leary, K., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage:
Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 62, 594–602. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.594
DATING AGGRESSION 649

O’Leary, K., & Slep, A. (2012). Prevention of partner violence by focusing on be-
haviors of both young males and females. Prevention Science, 13, 329–339.
doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0237-2
O’Leary, K., Slep, A.M.S., & O’Leary, S. G. (2007). Multivariate models of men’s and
women’s partner aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75,
752–764. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.752
O’Leary, K., & Williams, M. C. (2006). Agreement about acts of aggression in mar-
riage. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 656–662. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.656
Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. (1989). A theoretical model of courtship aggression. In
M. A. Pirog-Good, J. E. Stets, M. A. Pirog-Good, & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence
in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 53–71). New York, England:
Praeger Publishers.
Sanford, K. (2010). Perceived threat and perceived neglect: Couples’ underlying
concerns during conflict. Psychological Assessment, 22, 288–297. doi:10.1037/
a0018706
Schumacher, J. A., Feldbau-Kohn, S., Slep, A., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Risk factors
for male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6,
281–352. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00027-6
Scott, K., & Straus, M. (2007). Denial, minimization, partner blaming, and intimate
aggression in dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 851–871.
doi:10.1177/0886260507301227
Shortt, J., Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., Kerr, D. R., Owen, L. D., & Feingold, A. (2012).
Stability of intimate partner violence by men across 12 years in young adult-
hood: Effects of relationship transitions. Prevention Science, 13, 360–369.
doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0202-0
Slep, A., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary, K. (2001). Two new measures of
attitudes about the acceptability of teen dating aggression. Psychological As-
sessment, 13, 306–318. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.3.306
Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C., Pond, R. R., Lambert, N. M., Bodenhausen, G.
V., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a roman-
tic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 391–305. doi:10.1037/a0024915
Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the
quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38,
15–28. doi:10.2307/350547
Stith, S. M., Green, N. M., Smith, D. B., & Ward, D. B. (2008). Marital satisfaction and
marital discord as risk markers for intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 149–160. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9137-4
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner
physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic re-
view. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001
Straus, M. A. (1973). A general systems theory approach to a theory of vio-
lence between family members. Social Science Information, 12, 105–125.
doi:10.1177/053901847301200306
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised
conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric
data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001
650 WOODIN ET AL.

Sugarman, D. B., & Frankel, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault:

A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13–40. doi:10.1007/
BF02333338
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Taft, C. T., O’Farrell, T. J., Torres, S. E., Panuzio, J., Monson, C. M., Murphy, M.,
& Murphy, C. M. (2006). Examining the correlates of psychological aggres-
sion among a community sample of couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 20,
581–588. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.581
Vaeth, P. C., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Caetano, R. (2010). Depression among couples
in the United States in the context of intimate partner violence. Journal of In-
terpersonal Violence, 25, 771–790. doi:10.1177/0886260509336957
Walker, L. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer.
Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., & Weinstock, L. M. (2004). Psychopathology
and marital satisfaction: The importance of evaluating both partners. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 830–838. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.72.5.830
Whitaker, D. J., Le, B., & Niolon, P. (2010). Persistence and desistance of the per-
petration of physical aggression across relationships: Findings from a na-
tional study of adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 591–609.
doi:10.1177/0886260509334402
Woodin, E. M., & O’Leary, K. (2006). Partner aggression severity as a risk marker for
male and female violence recidivism. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32,
283–296. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01607.x
Woodin, E. M., & O’Leary, K. (2010). A brief motivational intervention for physi-
cally aggressive dating couples. Prevention Science, 11, 371–383. doi:10.1007/
s11121-010-0176-3
Copyright of Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology is the property of Guilford Publications Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.