Relationship Dynamics Associated With Dating Violence Among Adolescents and Young Adults: A Feminist Post-Structural Analysis

Abstract

We focus on the character of adolescent and young adult relationships, and argue that attention to interpersonal features of intimate partner violence (IPV) is necessary for a comprehensive view of this form of violence. Drawing on ideas from feminist post-structural perspectives, we highlight studies that develop a somewhat non-traditional but nevertheless gendered portrait of relationships as a backdrop for exploring dyadic processes associated with IPV. Findings are based on quantitative and qualitative analyses from a longitudinal study of a large, diverse sample of young women and men interviewed first during adolescence, and five additional times across the transition to adulthood.

Keywords

intimate partner violence dating violence gender relationship dynamics feminist post-structural analysis

Introduction

Studies have documented that intimate partner violence (IPV) is not confined to the married couples who were a primary focus of early research on this form of violence. Levels of dating violence (DV) reported in adolescence and young adulthood support the need for continued research and programmatic attention to these earlier phases of the life course (Wincentak et al., 2017). Understanding the etiology of DV is important due to the foundational nature of early experiences, and the significant emotional, physical, and in some instances, life-long consequences that have been identified in previous studies (Karakurt et al., 2014). Recent reviews have identified an array of risk factors that are associated with adolescent and young adult IPV (for excellent overviews of research on the full range of risk factors see Jennings et al., 2017; Vagi et al., 2013; Wolfe & Temple, 2018; Yakubovich et al., 2018). Research has highlighted that traditional risk factors such as witnessing and experiencing violence within the family of origin are robust predictors of dating violence (Narayan et al., 2014; Sutton et al., 2014). Such findings have led some to suggest that general criminological explanations are efficient as explanatory underpinnings (Felson, 2002). Yet feminist scholars have argued that uniquely gendered dynamics are integral to understanding this form of aggression (Ali & Naylor, 2013).

A key contribution of feminist theorizing has been to highlight ways in which gender inequality affects not only large-scale social institutions and policies that disadvantage women, but the character of dynamics within the intimate context (Komter, 1989). Issues of power and men’s use of violence as an act of dominance are critical themes in theory as well as in associated programmatic efforts (e.g., the “power and control” wheel, as developed in connection with the Duluth model—see Pence & Paymar, 1993). These insights inevitably bring the lens closer to the world of romantic relationships in which this form of violence unfolds. In this article, we draw on recent research on adolescent and young relationships in general and relational processes associated with DV in particular to develop a portrait that complicates some of these traditional depictions. Findings from recent analyses do not fundamentally challenge the idea of DV as a form of coercive control, but add attention to the dyadic, gendered, and age-specific aspects of these forms of interpersonal conflict.

Contemporary theorizing in the feminist post-structural tradition provides a useful backdrop for this discussion by problematizing the idea that gender arrangements are a straightforward extension of macro-level forces (Cannon et al., 2015). This approach further highlights the importance of communication in the process of constructing and at times challenging traditional gender arrangements. In this view, women are not merely acted upon, but experience agency as a part of the social construction process. This more “local,” unfinished focus fits with our goal of highlighting dyadic processes associated with DV during adolescence and young adulthood. We argue that the existence of conflict itself implies a level of resistance or “challenge” within the relationship context, but the implications of this have not been explored extensively. One reason for a reluctance to explore dyadic processes is that this has the potential to evoke “blame the victim” stereotypes. However, exclusively focusing on men’s motives (i.e., desire for control) is inconsistent with the larger feminist project of understanding women’s perspectives and actions. Focusing on dyadic, relational processes has the potential to provide insight about areas that are not as well understood, including: (a) how and why some disagreements escalate to more serious levels, (b) where women’s perpetration “fits” within the general experience of DV, and (c) mechanisms underlying life course variability in the experience of dating violence.

Background

The Prevalence and Patterning of DV

Prior research has shown that a substantial share of adolescents and young adults have experienced intimate partner violence. Analyses of the National Longitudinal Adolescent to Adult Health Survey (Add Health) indicate that almost half (47%) of respondents reported physical or sexual victimization by young adulthood (Halpern et al., 2009; Renner & Whitney, 2012). Reciprocal violence is common, with the majority of young adults in community-based surveys reporting bidirectional violence (both perpetration and victimization) (Renner &Whitney, 2012; Whitaker et al., 2007). A number of surveys have shown that young women report comparable or higher levels of perpetration relative to their male counterparts. In the Add Health, 17% of men and 35% of women, ages 18 to 28, reported ever perpetrating intimate partner violence (Whitaker et al., 2007; see also Wincentak et al., 2017). Many researchers have argued that although: (a) violence may be bidirectional and (b) women’s rates of perpetration often exceed self-reports provided by men, this does not indicate that experiences are equivalent across gender (Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020). For example, women report greater fear, and significantly more deleterious emotional and physical consequences (Caldwell et al., 2012; Fergusson et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the nature and meaning(s) of women’s aggressive actions remain undertheorized, as studies have shown that these are not inevitably defensive actions, as originally hypothesized (Capaldi et al., 2007). Research also reveals an age gradient with respect to perpetration of DV, with analyses indicating a peak around age 20 for both men and women (Johnson et al., 2015). Additionally, in that study, the overall trajectory was higher for women than men. Studies based on official crime statistics also indicate that young adulthood appears to be more “risky” relative to other life course stages (Rennison, 2001).

Need for a Relational and Developmentally-Specific Perspective on DV

That there is an apparent age gradient to IPV is not fully explained by general themes stressing male dominance and control. Further, the emphasis does not, in its current form, provide a complete explanatory framework for understanding women’s aggressive actions within dating relationships, or more generally what individuals are trying to “control” within their intimate relationships that increases the odds of experiencing DV. However, moving beyond binary or essentialist portraits is consistent with increased interest in intersectionalities within feminist theorizing (Chesney-Lind & Morash, 2013). Here we focus on the confluence of gender and the unique experiences and developmental tasks associated with adolescence and young adulthood. For example, early feminist theories emphasized how imbalances of power (notably men as primary breadwinners) set the stage for IPV and subsequently, women’s limited options when faced with partner abuse. Yet as noted above, teens and young adults report high levels of IPV, including physical violence, even though they typically are not economically dependent on dating partners.

These rates highlight the need for additional scrutiny of the full range of dynamic processes that may influence patterns of IPV during adolescence and young adulthood. We argue that core concerns during these periods include the development of increasingly more serious romantic ties (Furman & Shaffer, 2003). At the same time, these periods are often characterized by: (a) frequent involvement with peers, (b) the need to confront issues related to educational and later employment uncertainties, and (c) the experiences of relationship churning and changes of partners. These characterizations of adolescence and young adulthood as transitional and in flux provide a general background for expecting some areas of conflict and disagreement among couples during these time periods. Our view is that gendered aspects encompass differences in perspectives and experiences related to these broader concerns, and figure into the immediate context of violence itself.

Prior Research on Relationship-Based or Dyadic Factors

Several researchers drawing on longitudinal data have shown that there is discontinuity across time and particularly the acquisition of different partners in the experience of DV (Shortt et al., 2012). Similarly, Novak and Furman (2016) found that prior partner violence was not significantly related to reports about violence with a current partner. The evidence of this kind of variability has led researchers to consider what each partner brings into the relationship that influences the likelihood of experiencing DV. For example, Herrera et al. (2008), using the linked partner data from Add Health, found that each partner’s delinquency contributed to the risk of DV. Other researchers have focused on each partner’s style of conflict/conflict resolution or negative emotionality, often placing this within a “skill deficit” framework. For example, Novak and Furman (2016) found that negative interactions were associated with DV, net of externalizing symptoms. Sutton et al. (2014) documented that early family experiences (hostile parenting, interparental violence) were related to DV, but effects were mediated by insecure attachment and “destructive conflict beliefs.” Fernet et al. (2016) collected data on the topics about which couples disagreed, but used the information primarily to observe ways in which individuals communicated while discussing areas of potential conflict. They found that those who resorted to “negative affect” rather than “negotiating individual needs” were more likely to report DV (see also Paradis et al., 2017). These researchers have provided new insights about relationship-specific factors that “matter” beyond the effects of more distal risk factors. However, attention to the content of disagreements as contrasted with a primary focus on the individual or couple’s conflict style potentially adds to our understanding of the dynamic underpinnings of DV. Moving in the direction of these content areas, some studies have considered each partner’s jealousy (e.g., Perles et al., 2019); yet frequently jealousy has also been framed as an individual “trait” rather than a reflection on unfolding actions within the relationship.

The Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS)

Our ideas about relationship-specific factors associated with DV, including the role of gender, are based on a longitudinal study of the relationship experiences of a large, diverse sample of young women and men. Respondents were interviewed first as adolescents and five additional times as they have matured into adulthood. In-depth interviews were conducted with a subset of respondents at most waves, and the wave five survey and qualitative interviews focused specifically on IPV. The interviews are a useful adjunct to quantitative analyses in providing entrée to young women’s and men’s understandings about relationship conflicts. A recent qualitative couple-level analysis with respondents and their partners has shed light on distinctively gendered relationship processes associated with DV (Giordano et al., 2020). TARS is a particularly useful data set for our purposes here, as: (a) the study examined a whole host of relationship dynamics that characterize adolescence and young adulthood, as well as factors specifically linked to IPV, (b) school attendance was not required for inclusion, resulting in a sample that includes more disadvantaged youth along with those with higher levels of academic attainment, and (c) the longitudinal framework provides a window on continuity and change as evidenced across adolescence and young adulthood.

Gender and Adolescent and Young Adult Relationships

The TARS study initially focused on basic characteristics of adolescent dating relationships, as at the time relatively few researchers had examined romantic ties in depth (Giordano et al., 2006a). Early on, Maccoby (1990) argued that due to their earlier socialization in all-male peer groups and based on broader societal messages, male adolescents would be likely to affect this transition to dating more easily—simply transporting their dominant interaction style into the new relationship. This line of argument fits well with the general focus on power differentials in early feminist theorizing about IPV. However, feminist post-structural scholars view power as inherently relational, locally constructed, and malleable (Cannon et al., 2015). This paves the way for understanding variability in the nature of young men’s and women’s experiences and the notion that the relationship itself is the site of considerable “learning” (Giordano, 2020).

Recognizing that young women’s own previous socialization within peer groups and the family includes a strong focus on the give-and-take of dyadic relationships and of intimate communication, we argued that in some respects male adolescents will generally need to travel farther—that is to change considerably and in a sense, more than their female counterparts—to participate in even the rudiments of the intimacy that characterizes dating relationships (Giordano et al., 2006b). The results of analyses of these data indicated that on average, young men did not report that they had more power within their relationships, reported significantly more “partner control attempts” relative to young women’s reports, and more “actual” influence of partners. Thus, while power remains an overarching consideration in understanding gender, relationships, and IPV, the idea of control has an active, grounded quality in reflecting each partner’s attempts to influence or change the other.

This more localized approach focused on control dynamics inevitably connects to specific issues of concern and at times contestation that have potential to further illuminate gendered dynamics within early dating relationships. A comprehensive understanding of the genesis of intimate partner conflict and more troubling outcomes such as IPV also requires attention to positive dynamics that may characterize these early relationships, including feelings of caring and sexual attraction, the experience of intimate self-disclosure, the provision of social support, as well as benefits for self-esteem and social status. Our focus on general dynamics within early dating relationships accords with the goal of avoiding what Cohen (1970) labeled the “evil causes evil” fallacy—a tendency to focus only on negative dynamics when endeavoring to explain a negative or problematic outcome. For example, researchers have highlighted that gang membership may confer companionship, protection, and status, while also increasing risk of injury and arrest, and compromising an array of long-term life outcomes (Gilman et al., 2014). Studies that have zeroed in on IPV have noted a range of other negative relationship processes that often accompany abuse, such as attempting to isolate the partner from friends and family, stalking the partner, or engaging in various forms of “gaslighting” (Smith-Darden et al., 2016; Sweet, 2019). While these add considerable nuance to our understanding of the phenomenon of IPV, such studies can be seen as elaborating on the dependent variable, rather than focusing on longer range relationship-based pathways that may eventuate in these problematic outcomes.

Much has been written about adolescent girls’ and women’s heavy focus on relationships and intimacy, but another surprising finding from the early TARS analyses was that young men reported similar levels of caring and feelings of love for a current partner relative to their female counterparts (Giordano et al., 2006b). While male adolescents reported lower levels of intimate self-disclosure and greater feelings of communication awkwardness with partners relative to young women, we argued that the levels of intimate talk within intimate heterosexual relationships represent a strong contrast and potential reward men enjoy relative to the competitive one-up style of their peer-based interactions. Men also benefit from the high levels of support that they often receive from female partners, as suggested by a voluminous literature on men’s health over all phases of the life course. The in-depth interviews accord well with analyses of the survey data, as we were often surprised at how open young men were about their feelings, including feelings of loss after relationship breakups (“my friends and my family tell me I’ll get over this soon, but when?”).

One possibility we investigated was that adolescents’ lack of experience in romantic relationships and this level of engagement might figure into male partners’ reports about partner influence. With additional age and experience, as well as increasingly consequential decisions that take place during later phases of the life course, we wondered whether young men might later on report gendered inequalities of control that comport more readily with traditional depictions. However, longitudinal analyses have continued to reveal significant gender differences in reports of partner influence attempts across the transition to adulthood (ages 22–29—see Giordano et al., 2012). Analyses of the most recent data from wave 5 continue to show this pattern (i.e., men score higher on scales measuring partner control attempts, including areas of intrusive control such as monitoring the partner’s whereabouts).

Gender and “Problem Behaviors”

In addition to the idea that young men may need to change in basic ways to participate in intimate relationships, gender differences in behavioral choices as documented in the broader criminological literature also contribute to our understanding of young women’s influence attempts. Thus, young men, relative to similarly aged and positioned young women, more often do things that are likely to be considered problematic. They, on average, are more likely to engage in delinquent and later criminal acts, experiment with alcohol and drugs, spend more time socializing with same gender-peers, and face higher risks of arrest and incarceration (Giordano et al., 2020; Moffitt et al., 2001). Criminological studies have also shown that marriage in adulthood and even dating (love) relationships in adolescence (Laub & Sampson, 2003; McCarthy & Casey, 2008) are associated with criminal “desistance.” Nevertheless, few studies have considered the relationship-level communications and other dynamics associated with the process of making these changes, or variability in receptivity to what are generally considered moves in a prosocial, more “adult” direction.

It is important to highlight that while a range of scholarly literatures document positive health and behavior benefits of these intimate ties for men, some individuals may lack an initial “openness” to change, and/or may continue to resist changes in these areas (DiClemente & Prochaska, 1998; Giordano et al., 2002). This suggests the utility of considering women’s own frustrations, and some young men’s resentments about any efforts to change or control their actions. Such resentments are likely to be based in the recognition that their early socialization and experiences included greater freedom of movement and independence. This accords with prior research on parental supervision that has consistently documented that male children are not as closely monitored as their similarly-aged female counterparts (Giordano et al., 2020). At the risk of oversimplification, we have suggested that in many instances—at least initially—men may not wish to control their partners so much as to avoid any sense that they are being controlled.

This emphasis on the emergence of resentments about women’s attempts to change or control their actions traces a circuitous route back to the notion of male privilege, long an emphasis in feminist theorizing. Nevertheless, the research findings outlined above have not generally been included in feminist treatments of the dynamics of IPV within these intimate relationships. However, women’s influence attempts and evidence that there is an element of “contestation” within relationships—in general, and within those that contain more serious levels of conflict—fits well with feminist post-structural approaches. As sketched briefly above, theorizing in this tradition has emphasized a level of challenge to traditional arrangements and the role of communication in this process. Nevertheless, as noted at the outset, it is important to underscore that the research we have conducted relies on an adolescent and later on a young adult sample, where relationships and associated power arrangements are likely more unsettled than is the case at later stages of the life course. Further, analyses focus on responses from women and men elicited from a community-based sample, where fewer relationships fit the intimate or patriarchal terrorism profile in which domination and one-sided power assertion are undoubtedly more characteristic of these relationship dynamics (Johnson, 1995).

Incorporating Women’s Perspectives and Actions into Research/Program Content

A limitation of IPV research is that investigations have concentrated on what men want and do (e.g., to consolidate power, control women’s interactions with other men), and to a large extent have not considered women’s goals, feelings, and relationship frustrations. The emphasis on men’s perspectives and actions flows naturally from the central concern with male perpetration, an appropriate focus given the significantly greater costs associated with men’s acts of violence against women. Yet this emphasis should not negate the reality that this form of conflict includes an interpersonal element. The voices and perspectives of women have been incorporated in previous research, particularly those studies using a feminist perspective, but the emphasis has often been on how abuse affects women’s lives and well-being, considerations that underlie difficult decisions to prosecute an offender, or factors that figure into stay/leave decision-making. Women’s understandings about how and why they believe conflicts escalate, and about their own actions, have garnered less attention.

Adding to the complexity, research on IPV indicates that, during adolescence and young adulthood, relationship duration is generally positively related to IPV (Kaufman-Parks et al., 2019). This is another potentially important basic finding, as it suggests that overall attitudes such as men’s adherence to traditional gender role ideologies does not completely account for the differential patterning of serious conflicts and IPV over the course of a relationship. In general, the presence of some positive elements is typically associated with relationship longevity, and as relationships progress, investments and shared experiences create a reluctance to give up on a particular relationship. At the same time, a certain amount of longevity may increase willingness and the felt need to express areas of dissatisfaction with a partner, recognizing that having the kind of romantic relationship desired is virtually impossible without both partners’ cooperation.

Consistent with literature indicating that intimate relationships constitute an important, often central aspect of women’s lives, the idea of investment that builds up over time, and men’s greater involvement in problem behaviors, it is reasonable to expect that some women may attempt to influence or change aspects of their partners’ behavior or lifestyles. In turn, men may value aspects of the relationship and want it to continue, but not to alter the lifestyle they have previously enjoyed. The presence of conflict about specific domains represents a level of engagement (the partners have not given up completely), but also sets up background conditions for conflict to occur. Yet research suggests that most disagreements do not result in the use of violence, even when such conflicts occur within a relationship.

Gender and Infidelity

Our research on specific contested domains associated with violence suggests that issues such as frequently “hanging out with friends” and criminal involvement were indeed associated with odds of reporting IPV (Giordano et al., 2015). Growth curve models indicate that within-individual variations in these behaviors across the full study period are significantly linked to IPV. These findings indicate that a kinds-of-people or selection argument is incomplete as an explanation for these variable patterns. Yet a key finding is that concerns about infidelity and actual evidence of cheating are important flashpoints within both adolescent and young adult relationships. Relying on a scale tapping both “actual” infidelity and associated concerns, we found that higher scores were strongly related to IPV (Giordano et al., 2015; Manning et al., 2018).

A more recent analysis refined our understanding of these dynamics, as we focused on specific questions about whether disagreements about issues such as infidelity were related to concerns about male partner actions and/or concerns about the female partner. In these analyses, we found that while both types of concerns were related to IPV, concerns about male actions was more strongly linked to reports about the presence of any IPV within the relationship. Further, in-depth couple-level interviews with respondents who had experienced IPV and a corresponding partner revealed a surprising level of agreement about the source(s) of conflict, again more often referencing conflicts related to the male partner’s actions (Giordano et al., 2020). The qualitative and quantitative results converge is suggesting that women’s feelings of disappointment and concern about their partners’ actions are a significant dynamic associated with the genesis of conflict during young adulthood. This follows logically from the results, as men would be unlikely to be concerned or angry about their own recent actions. The finding that male infidelity often figured into adolescent and young adult conflicts provides a potentially useful contribution beyond prior work, as previous theorizing and associated studies have often focused primarily on men’s jealousy as an impetus for conflict escalation.

The results fit well with more basic studies that have examined rates of infidelity or involvement with more than one partner during the same time period, where most investigations have shown that men’s rates exceed those of similarly aged women (Ford et al., 2002). Although we have not systematically investigated configurations or clusters of the various concerns we described, the qualitative results reveal that these appear to be interrelated—at least from the perspective of these young adult partners. For example, spending large amounts of time socializing with friends is often related to excessive drinking and substance use. In turn, in addition to effects on life circumstances such as the stability of employment, these aspects of “lifestyle” may well provide opportunities for casual sex with another partner. This increases the likelihood that women may express concerns, even when a male partner considers his actions innocuous and something he deserves (As one respondent put it, “I feel like she should’ve gave me more trust, let me go out, feel free to do what I want to do”).

The portrait that emerges from the various quantitative and qualitative TARS analyses contains some non-traditional and indeed surprising findings. Yet these results should be viewed as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, the feminist emphases of prior work in the area of IPV. Analyses revealed that male partner concerns about women’s infidelity was, in addition to women’s concerns related to male partners’ actions, a significant predictor of IPV, and conflicts and violence respondents linked to men’s jealousy are also contained within the lengthy relationship history accounts we elicited. Further, while multivariate analyses are designed to assess the relative contribution of each set of concerns to variations in the dependent variable (IPV), the narratives and quantitative data alike underscore that within a focal relationship, the presence of one type of concern is often related to the presence of another. For example, results based on TARS have shown that infidelity of one partner is a significant correlate of infidelity of the other partner (Giordano et al., 2015). In addition, a recent analysis showed that if one partner engages in actions that fit under the rubric of jealousy induction (trying to make the other partner jealous), this is also significantly related to the odds that the other partner will engage in these forms of behavior (Kaufman-Parks et al., 2019). Importantly, Kaufman-Parks et al. (2019) documented that the use of these jealousy induction strategies was significantly linked to self-reports of IPV. Further, and of interest given our specific focus on gender, Kaufman-Parks et al. (2019) also found that men were significantly more likely to report engaging in these kinds of behaviors. This pattern fits well with the other TARS results in providing additional context for understanding women’s negative reactions to these and other partner behaviors and lifestyle choices. This finding provides a general basis for expecting that women may react negatively to and express dissatisfaction about some of these actions as they unfold over the course of adolescent and young adult relationships.

The Meaning(s) of Women’s Perpetration

Focusing on women’s anger and feelings of disappointment inevitably raises the issue of women’s acts of “perpetration” within these intimate contexts. Our view is that women’s relatively high levels of perpetration as reflected in self-report indices during adolescence and young adulthood do not provide evidence for the idea that there is “gender symmetry” in violence perpetration. As scholars have noted, such scales are devoid of context and fail to account for the key issues of severity and negative consequences (Lehrner & Allen, 2014). Thus, as many scholars and practitioners have argued, emergency room visits, reports of physical and emotional sequelae, and arrest statistics make clear that men’s violence constitutes the larger problem. Yet continuing to document that women’s IPV perpetration is not as serious as that of men potentially impedes our understanding of where women’s own violence “fits” within the context of intimate relationship dynamics. The in-depth qualitative narratives suggest a role for women’s negative reactions in some sequences, as integral to the escalation of these conflicts.

Prior research has shown that while scales measuring men’s use of violence against their female partners typically receive low rates of endorsement (see Waltermaurer, 2012), using the TARS data, Copp et al. (2019) documented that attitudes toward women’s use of violence were not as strongly negative. Researchers investigating women’s perpetration or making direct gender comparisons have pointed to findings that tend to minimize the felt impact of women’s actions. For example, researchers have highlighted that a common reaction of men was to indicate that a partner’s actions did not hurt them, or even to laugh (Miller & White, 2003). While this certainly occurs, such expressed reactions may not fully capture the larger meaning and impact of women’s negative reactions and use of various conflict tactics within particular situations. As outlined in more detail in a recent analysis of the TARS’ couple-level data, men may not view the physical act as a serious threat, but nevertheless understand that these words and actions reflect a high level of dissatisfaction with and critique of their recent choices (Giordano et al., 2020). When men rely on violence within this context, they must overcome their understanding that “it is wrong to hit a woman,” but in a sense, by virtue of their earlier socialization and experiences are returning to more familiar terrain. In contrast, typically women do not have as strong a background the use of aggression, but prohibitive norms are not as clear-cut. Regardless of which partner hits the other first, both may see their use of aggression as defensive—whether it is attempting to defend against negative attributions the other partner has levied against them, actions they believe threaten the relationship, or defending their physical selves.

Conclusion

Power is a central concept within feminist theorizing, and often in related IPV prevention materials. The frequently used power and control wheel locates these concepts at the center of the wheel, and various spokes include features of abusive relationships such as wanting to be the master of the castle, controlling all decisions, and attempting to isolate female partners from friends and family (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Yet results of the TARS studies indicate that most respondents did not indicate that male partners held more decision-making power within their relationships, and both women and men reported that women engaged in more attempts to control or change their partners. Within the context of relationships that include IPV experience, men were more likely to engage in control attempts, but women’s controlling actions were also higher (Giordano et al., 2016). We do not conclude that men’s and women’s control attempts are experienced similarly (i.e., men’s intrusive control efforts often lead to fear and intimidation that does not have a parallel with women’s control attempts). Yet feminist post-structural theories are useful in highlighting that one’s stance within a relationship is socially constructed and ever shifting, and subject to contestation as the relationship unfolds. This fits well with TARS’ focus on control rather than the more global concept of power, and our attempt to localize these dynamics by examining specific domains around which control attempts and conflict tend to revolve during this period.

A central finding of recent TARS analyses is not only that areas such as infidelity are key domains of contestation (Giordano et al., 2015), but that concerns about men’s actions were strongly linked to IPV (Giordano et al., 2020). This complicates the traditional focus on men’s jealousy or dissatisfaction with their partners as a primary locus of conflict and conflict escalation, and even approaches that have adapted a “gender neutral” posture. Concerns about women’s actions were also associated with increased odds of reporting IPV, however, consistent with prior work. Adding to the dyadic focus, results of a range of TARS analyses show that control attempts, jealousy, jealousy induction, infidelity, and IPV on the part of one partner are associated with increased likelihood of observing those behaviors on the part of the other partner.

This dyadic focus inevitably includes greater attention to the perspectives and behavior of women. This dovetails with feminist theorizing and particularly the feminist post-structural perspective. However, topics such as women’s feelings of disappointment, anger, and use of various “conflict tactics” have often been bracketed off in prior work on IPV. Going forward, however, it may be useful to include attention to some of the dynamics we describe, particularly in connection with programs targeting classrooms or other community-based groups. This more complex portrait of commonly occurring relationship dynamics could potentially allow more young people to “see themselves” and their relationships in such depictions. Some discussions of warning signs of abuse may better capture later-stage relationships and dynamics such as severe levels of isolation and control that do not evoke the mutual control attempts that often occur in many adolescent and young adult relationships that include IPV. For example, at wave five, young women who reported IPV did not report lower levels of time spent with friends relative to their female counterparts. However, young men report more nights out per week, raising the prospect that this could become a domain of contestation in some relationships (Giordano et al., 2020). And, as noted above, the base rates of young men’s “problematic” actions relative to women’s—from infidelity to substance use—provide a backdrop for interpreting the higher levels of women’s control attempts we observed based on surveys administered from adolescence to young adulthood.

Finally, while we have focused on the experience of IPV in this discussion, in other analyses utilizing the TARS data, we have described dynamics associated with desistance from these negative forms of behavior (Giordano et al., 2015). Analyses of aggregate data highlight the beginning of declines in IPV during young adulthood (Johnson et al., 2015), and in-depth qualitative interviews we conducted revealed that desistance had at times occurred when individuals changed partners, and in some instances within the context of an ongoing focal relationship (Giordano et al., 2015). Dynamics underlying desistance appear to connect in fundamental ways to factors related to onset and continuation of these destructive patterns. That is, respondents often indicated that relationship-based considerations were an important impetus for change relative to external threats such as the fear of arrest, or even life course changes such as becoming a parent. This finding, at a minimum with respect to this form of behavior, challenges the idea that factors associated with desistance are likely to be distinct from those associated with onset.

Our research findings align with programmatic approaches that locate IPV within a broader “healthy relationships” framework. However, in addition to teaching more effective communication skills and positive coping strategies, our work underscores the importance of attending as well to the content of areas of concern and disagreement. For example, if a young man continues to engage in a range of problem behaviors that his partner views as problematic—the example of infidelity being a particularly important flashpoint—these new communication and coping skills may nevertheless prove limited in their utility. The focus on sources of disagreement within adolescent and young adult relationships and aspects of the feminist post-structural perspective may also be useful as a basic conceptual template for examining relationship experiences across a more complete range of sexual and gender identities (see Cannon et al., 2015), or for exploring ways in which the intersection of race/ethnicity, social class, and gender influence the nature of these processes during the formative periods of adolescence and young adulthood.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Grants from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD036223, HD044206, and HD66087), the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice (Award Numbers 2009-IJ-CX-0503 and 2010-MU-MU-0031), and in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice or the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

ORCID iD

Peggy C. Giordano

Author Biographies

Peggy C. Giordano, PhD, is a distinguished research professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. Her research focuses on qualities and dynamics of close relationships during adolescence and young adulthood, and the influence of these close ties on a range of developmental outcomes, including juvenile delinquency and intimate partner violence.

Jennifer E. Copp, PhD, is an associate professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her research focuses on crime and other problem behaviors during adolescence and young adulthood, with a particular emphasis on intimate partner violence (IPV).

Wendy D. Manning, PhD, is the Dr. Howard E. Aldrich and Penny Daum Aldrich distinguished professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. She is the co-director of the National Center for Family and Marriage Research and Director of the Center for Family Demographic Research. She is a family demographer with a research emphasis on family structure, union formation and stability and relationships among adolescents as well as adults.

Monica A. Longmore, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Sociology at Bowling Green State University. She is a social psychologist with interests in identity, dating and sexual relationships during adolescence and adulthood, and the ways in which these self and social processes influence emotional well-being.

References

Ali

P. A.

Naylor

P. B.

(2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(6), 611–619.

Caldwell

J. E.

Swan

S. C.

Woodbrown

V. D.

(2012). Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence, 2(1), 42.

Cannon

Lauve-Moon

Buttell

(2015). Re-theorizing intimate partner violence through post-structural feminism, queer theory, and the sociology of gender. Social Science, 4(3), 668–687.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

Shortt

J. W.

(2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 101–111.

Chesney-Lind

Morash

(2013). Transformative feminist criminology: A critical re-thinking of a discipline. Critical Criminology, 21, 287–304.

Cohen

A. K.

(1970). Multiple factor approaches. In Wolfgang

Savitz

Johnston

(Eds.), The sociology of crime and delinquency, Second edition (pp. 123–126). Wiley.

Copp

J. E.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2019). The development of attitudes toward intimate partner violence: An examination of key correlates among a sample of young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1357–1387.

DiClemente

C. C.

Prochaska

J. O.

(1998). Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change: Stages of change and addictive behaviors. In Miller

W. R.

Heather

(Eds.), Applied clinical psychology. Treating addictive behaviors (pp. 3–24). Plenum Press.

Felson

R. B.

(2002). Violence and gender reexamined. American Psychological Association.

10.

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

L. J.

Ridder

E. M.

(2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1103–1119.

11.

Fernet

Hebert

Paradis

(2016). Conflict resolution patterns and violence perpetration in adolescent couples: A gender-sensitive mixed-methods approach. Journal of Adolescence, 49, 51–59.

12.

Ford

Sohn

Lepkowski

(2002). American adolescents: Sexual mixing patterns, bridge partners, and concurrency. Journal of the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association, 29, 13–19.

13.

Furman

Shaffer

(2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent development. In Florsheim

(Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research and practical implications (pp. 3–22). Erlbaum.

14.

Gilman

A. B.

Hill

K. G.

Hawkins

J. D.

(2014). Long-term consequences of adolescent gang membership for adult functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 938–945.

15.

Giordano

P. C.

(2020). Continuing education: Toward a life -course perspective on social learning. Criminology, 58(2), 199–225.

16.

Giordano

P. C.

Cernkovich

S. A.

Rudolph

J. L.

(2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990–1064.

17.

Giordano

P. C.

Copp

J. E.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2015). Contested domains, verbal “amplifiers,” and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Social Forces, 94(2), 923–951.

18.

Giordano

P. C.

Copp

J. E.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2016). Anger, control, and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 31(1), 1–13.

19.

Giordano

P. C.

Copp

J. E.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2020). When worlds collide: Linking involvement with friends and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Social Forces, 98(3), 1196–1222.

20.

Giordano

P. C.

Grace

M. M.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2020). Gender, couple-level dynamics, and intimate partner violence in young adulthood (Working Paper Series). Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

21.

Giordano

P. C.

Johnson

W. L.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

Minter

M. D.

(2015). Intimate partner violence in young adulthood: Narratives of persistence and desistance. Criminology, 53(3), 330–365.

22.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2006a). Adolescent romantic relationships: An emerging portrait of their nature and developmental significance. In Booth

Crouter

(Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood (pp. 127–150). Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

Manning

W. D.

(2006b). Gender and the meanings of adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71, 260–287.

24.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

Flanigan

C. M.

(2012). Developmental shifts in the character of romantic and sexual relationships from adolescence to young adulthood. In Booth

Brown

S. L.

Landale

N. S.

Manning

W. D.

McHale

S. M.

(Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 133–164). Springer.

25.

Halpern

C. T.

Spriggs

A. L.

Martin

S. L.

Kupper

L. L.

(2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(5), 508–516.

26.

Hardesty

J. L.

Ogolsky

B. G.

(2020). A socioecological perspective on intimate partner violence research: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 454–477.

27.

Herrera

V. M.

Wiersma

J. D.

Cleveland

H. H.

(2008). The influence of individual and partner characteristics on the perpetration of intimate partner violence in young adult relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(3), 284–296.

28.

Jennings

W. G.

Okeem

Piquero

A. R.

Sellers

C. S.

Theobald

Farrington

D. P.

(2017). Dating and intimate partner violence among young persons ages 15-30: Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 33, 107–125.

29.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 283–294.

30.

Johnson

W. L.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2015). The age-IPV curve: Changes in the perpetration of intimate partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 44, 708–726.

31.

Karakurt

Smith

Whiting

(2014). Impact of intimate partner violence on women’s mental health. Journal of Family Violence, 29(7), 693–702.

32.

Kaufman-Parks

A. M.

Longmore

M. A.

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. M.

(2019). Inducing jealousy and intimate partner violence among young adults. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 36(9), 2802–2823.

33.

Komter

(1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3(2), 187–216.

34.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press.

35.

Lehrner

Allen

N. E.

(2014). Construct validity of the conflict tactics scale: A mixed-method investigation of women’s intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 4(4), 477–490.

36.

Maccoby

(1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520.

37.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

Giordano

P. C.

(2018). Cohabitation and intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment. Journal of Family Issues, 39(4), 1030–1055.

38.

McCarthy

Casey

(2008). Love, sex, and crime: Adolescent romantic relationships and offending. American Sociological Review, 73(6), 944–969.

39.

Miller

White

N. A.

(2003). Gender and adolescent relationship violence: A contextual examination. Criminology, 41(4), 1207–1248.

40.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Rutter

Silva

P. A.

(2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge University Press.

41.

Narayan

A. J.

Englund

M. M

Carlson

E. A.

Egeland

(2014). Adolescent conflict as a developmental process in the prospective pathway from exposure to interparental violence to dating violence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 239–250.

42.

Novak

Furman

(2016). Partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood: Individual and relationship level risk factors. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 45, 1849–1861.

43.

Paradis

Hebert

Fernet

(2017). Dyadic dynamics in young couples reporting dating violence: An actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(1), 130–148.

44.

Pence

Paymar

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model. Springer.

45.

Perles

Martin

J. S.

Canto

J. M.

(2019). Gender and conflict resolution strategies in Spanish teen couples: Their relationship with jealousy and emotional dependency. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1461–1486.

46.

Renner

L. M.

Whitney

S. D.

(2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(1), 40–52.

47.

Rennison

(2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Report.

48.

Shortt

J. W.

Capaldi

D. M.

Kim

H. K.

Kerr

D. C.

Owen

L. D.

Feingold

(2012). Stability of intimate partner violence by men across 12 years in young adulthood: Effects of relationship transitions. Prevention Science, 13(4), 360–369.

49.

Smith-Darden

J. P.

Reidy

D. E.

Kernsmith

P. D.

(2016). Adolescent stalking and risk of violence. Journal of Adolescence, 52, 191–200.

50.

Sutton

T. E.

Simons

L. G.

Wickrama

K. A. S.

Futris

T. G.

(2014). The Intergenerational transmission of violence: Examining the mediating roles of insecure attachment and destructive disagreement beliefs. Violence & Victims, 29(4), 670–687.

51.

Sweet

(2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875.

52.

Vagi

K. J.

Rothman

Latzman

N. E.

Tharp

A. T.

Hall

D. M.

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(4), 633–649.

53.

Waltermaurer

(2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(3), 167–175.

54.

Whitaker

D. J.

Haileyesus

Swahn

Saltzman

L. S.

(2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 941–947.

55.

Wincentak

Connolly

Card

(2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224.

56.

Wolfe

D. A.

Temple

J. R.

(2018). Adolescent dating violence: Theory, research, and prevention. Elsevier.

57.

Yakubovich

A. R.

Stöckl

Murray

Melendez-Torres

G. J.

Steinert

J. I.

Glavin

C. E.

Humphreys

D. K.

(2018). Risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence against women: Systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective–longitudinal studies. American Journal of Public Health, 108(7), e1–e11.