This article was downloaded by: [Florida Institute of Technology]

On: 22 August 2014, At: 10:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcap20

A Dyadic Longitudinal Model of Adolescent Dating

Aggression
K. Daniel O'Leary & Amy M. Smith Slep
Published online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: K. Daniel O'Leary & Amy M. Smith Slep (2003) A Dyadic Longitudinal Model of Adolescent Dating
Aggression, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 32:3, 314-327, DOI: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology Copyright © 2003 by
2003, Vol. 32, No. 3, 314–327 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

A Dyadic Longitudinal Model of Adolescent Dating Aggression

K. Daniel O’Leary and Amy M. Smith Slep
Psychology Department, Stony Brook University

The stability of and dyadic influences on physical aggression in adolescents’ dating

relationships have implications for understanding the etiology of intimate partner vi-
olence and, in turn, prevention efforts. We studied the stability of aggression and
tested a longitudinal dyadic model of psychological and physical aggression in sam-
ples of adolescent males and females who remained in relationships for 3 months.
Physical aggression against dating partners was remarkably stable. Verbal aggres-
sion, jealous behavior, and controlling behavior formed a latent construct psycholog-
ical aggression. Psychological aggression predicted physical aggression both con-
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014

currently and longitudinally. Dyadic relations were evident for both psychological
and physical aggression, and these dyadic relations highlight the need for prevention
and intervention incorporating dyadic issues with young dating couples.

Dating aggression among high school students has
been examined sporadically since the early 1980s,
when Henton, Cate, Koval, Lloyd, and Christopher
(1983) first assessed the scope of this problem. The ex-
act percentage of adolescents reporting physical ag-
gression against an intimate partner varies consider-
ably, but such aggression appears to characterize 35%
to 50% of teens’ relationships (Cascardi, Avery-Leaf,
O’Leary, & Slep, 1999; Foshee, 1996; Henton et al.,
1983; Jones, 1987; Kaufman & Jasinski, 1995; Malik,
Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997; O’Keeffe, Brockopp,
& Chew, 1986; Roscoe & Kelsey, 1986; Schwartz,
O’Leary, & Kendziora, 1996). The modal forms of ag-
gression include pushing, slapping, and shoving, or
what is now called mild aggression.
Partner aggression is an important cause of injury
and mental health sequelae in adult samples (e.g.,
Cantos, Neidig, & O’Leary, 1994; Cascardi,
Langhrinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992; Straus & Gelles,
1990). Partner aggression is also a risk factor for some
of the most troubling and endemic adolescent health
problems. Silverman, Raj, Mucci, and Hathaway
(2001) found that about 20% of the approximately
4,000 female high school students studied reported be-
ing physically or sexually hurt by their dating partners.
Further, physical and sexual dating violence was a sig-
nificant risk factor for substance abuse, unhealthy
weight control behaviors, pregnancy, and suicidality.
The adolescent years may be the developmental
phase when individuals are at highest risk for intimate
partner violence. Between the ages of 15 and 25, the
prevalence of physical partner violence increases mark-
This research was supported in part by National Institute of Men-
tal Health Grants MH 47801 and MH 57985.
Requests for reprints should be sent to K. Daniel O’Leary, Psy-
chology Department, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook,
NY 11794–2500. E-mail: K.D.OLeary@sunysb.edu
edly. Based on aggregate data from very large samples,
prevalence appears to peak between 20 to 25 years of age
and then decreases across the latter part of the life span
(O’Leary, 1999). Of course, some individuals continue
to engage in aggression and even escalate in severity
across the age span, making it all the more important that
we better understand predictors of aggression over time.
Prevention programs targeting dating violence have
typically been psychoeducational in nature. They have
shown changes in knowledge and attitudes, but they
have had limited success in changing physically ag-
gressive behavior and rarely have follow-up (O’Leary,
Woodin, & Fritz, 2002; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). This
lack may be due in part to the extremely limited
amount of longitudinal research on dating aggression
(Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). One notable exception is the
work of Capaldi (2002), who has evaluated dyadic and
individual influences on partner aggression in a young
adult high-risk sample. Research that informs us about
the naturally occurring course of dating violence may
allow us to refine our prevention efforts and direct
them to where they might have the greatest impact.
We had several goals for this article. First, we
sought to assess the stability of dating violence across a
several-month period in a sample of steadily dating
couples. Second, we sought to better understand how
psychological aggression, a key risk factor for partner
violence in adult relationships, contributed to violence
in teens’ relationships. Specifically, we were interested
in whether a higher order psychological aggression
construct would emerge from separate indicators that,
based on theories of psychological aggression in adult
relationships, might be less interrelated in a teen sam-
ple. Third, we were interested in how important psy-
chological aggression might be in predicting physical
aggression among teens. Finally, we wanted to deter-
mine the importance of dyadic influences in changes in

314
 DYADIC MODEL OF DATING AGGRESSION
physical aggression over time. The introduction to this
article is organized around these four issues.
Stability of Partner Aggression
The majority of high school students have multiple,
short-term dating relationships (Slep, Cascardi,
Avery-Leaf, & O’Leary, 2001). Prior to understanding
how moving in and out of relationships with multiple
partners might influence the stability of dating violence,
it is necessary to first understand the stability of physical
aggression in steady relationships. The rules of relation-
ships in the late teenage years are still in formative
stages, and, based on the frequency of re-partnering
alone, one would expect that most teens would not
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
choose to remain in relationships they felt were “unsat-
isfactory.” If physical aggression is stable in dating part-
ners, such aggression may presage more serious forms
of partner aggression such as partner abuse as defined in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders (4th ed. [DSM–IV], American Psychiatric Associa-
tion, 1994; O’Leary & Jacobson, 1997).
Stability of physical aggression against married
partners has been investigated in both community and
clinical samples. Taken together, these studies suggest
that (a) partner aggression is quite stable, and (b) more
severe or frequent partner aggression is more stable.
Physical aggression in young married couples is al-
ready quite stable (O’Leary et al., 1989; Quigley &
Leonard, 1996). More specifically, O’Leary et al.
(1989) found that if a man engaged in physical aggres-
sion against a partner in the year before marriage, there
was an approximately 50% chance that he would ag-
gress during the 1st year of marriage. Quigley and
Leonard (1996) found that 76% of young married men
who were physically aggressive in the 1st year of mar-
riage were physically aggressive at some point in the
next 2 years of marriage. The stability of partner vio-
lence seems to be even higher among married men se-
lected for frequent or severe partner aggression.
Among these men, 93% remained aggressive across a
2-year period (Jacobson, Gottman, Gortner, Berns, &
Shortt, 1996). These findings may suggest that partner
violence might be less stable in teen dating relation-
ships, where exiting the relationship may be easier.
However, our own research indicated remarkable con-
sistency in the extent of physical aggression across
partners during the high school years (Cano,
Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, & O’Leary, 1998; Chase,
Treboux, O’Leary, & Strasberg, 1998). We do not have
much data to indicate how stable physical aggression is
with the same dating partner. If the stability of dating
aggression is much lower in dating than marital rela-
tionships, this may indicate that etiological influences
may be more “in flux” and potentially more malleable
in teens than in adults.
Coherence Among Measures of
Psychological Aggression
There have been a number of scholars and investi-
gators who have developed classifications of different
types of psychological aggression in adult relation-
ships (see Maiuro, 2001). For example, classification
schemes have been proffered by individuals working
with battered women (Marshall, 1996), physically abu-
sive men (Tolman, 1999), and college students
(Murphy & Hoover, 2001). All of these frameworks for
defining psychological aggression are strongly influ-
enced by the notion of coercive male dominance within
a patriarchical marriage (Dobash & Dobash, 1979;
Schechter, 1982). This model emphasizing power and
control tactics of men posits that physical aggression is
just one of many possible ways through which abusive
men impose their will and control over their partners.
Based on this framework, a variety of controlling tac-
tics (e.g., monitoring partner’s whereabouts, limiting
contact with her friends, belittling her) are thought to
constitute psychological aggression. Because the
classes of behavioral indicators of psychological ag-
gression have been based on theory first developed
with battered women, it is not clear whether these same
classes of behaviors (a) occur in teen dating relation-
ships and (b) interrelate as meaningfully in teen dating
relationships as they do in marriages.
Research suggests that at least some distinct classes
of behaviors typically considered to indicate psycho-
logical aggression do occur in college students’ dating
relationships. Murphy and Hoover (2001) found evi-
dence of four types of psychological aggression that
can be identified in a college dating sample: hostile
withdrawal (e.g., refused to discuss problems), domi-
nation or intimidation (e.g., threatened to harm part-
ner’s friends), denigration (e.g., calling partner ugly),
and restrictive engulfment (e.g., asking where partner
has been). Verbal aggression, such as yelling, although
not identified as a type of psychological aggression by
Murphy and Hoover, is perhaps the most commonly
assessed potential type of psychological aggression in
college dating relationships (e.g., Riggs & O’Leary,
1996). However, existing research does not speak to
the higher order concordance of these behavioral
classes for adolescents’ behavior or whether these be-
haviors relate to physical aggression in dating relation-
ships as they do in marriages.
To address these questions, we assessed three
classes of behavior that are indicators of psychological
abuse in the battering literature (O’Leary, 1999). These
included controlling behaviors (e.g., tried to keep my
partner from talking with his or her friends), jealous
behaviors (e.g., checked up on my partner’s where-
abouts), and verbal aggression (e.g., yelling). Overall,
we hypothesized a model in which these three con-
structs could be subsumed under one overall latent
315
 O’LEARY AND SLEP
construct for both boys and girls. In turn, we predicted
that, as is the case in marital relationships (e.g.,
O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994), one’s psychological
aggression would predict one’s physical aggression
both concurrently and longitudinally.
Psychological Aggression as a
Predictor of Physical Aggression in
Teen Dating Relationships
Past multivariate research has shown that many fac-
tors are correlated cross-sectionally with the use of
physical aggression against a dating partner. Most of
this research has been with college students and young
adults, but the research has relevance for the prediction
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
of physical aggression in teens’ dating relationships.
Further, the multivariate studies allow one to evaluate
the relative value of different variables to predict partner
aggression. Variables found to be predictive include the
following: violence in the family of origin (Barnett &
Fagan, 1993; Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe, 2001; Widom,
1989), family conflict (Andrews, Foster, Capaldi, &
Hops, 2000), antisocial behavior in childhood and ado-
lescence (Andrews et al., 2000; Capaldi, Dishion,
Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001), relationship dissatisfac-
tion (Makepeace, 1989; Riggs & O’Leary, 1996), atti-
tudes supporting the use of physical aggression (Cano et
al., 1998; Malik et al., 1997; Reitzel-Jaffee & Wolfe,
2001; Slep et al., 2001), hostile talk about women with
friends or negative peer associations (Capaldi et al.,
2001; Reitzel-Jaffee & Wolfe, 2001), and verbal con-
flicts with the partner (O’Keefe, 1997; Riggs &
O’Leary, 1996).
Our own theoretical framework is the back-
ground-situational model of dating aggression (Riggs &
O’Leary, 1989, 1996), initially developed for college
dating relationships. Background factors such as expo-
sure to interpartner aggression, parent to child aggres-
sion, and prior aggressive behavior place an individual
at risk for aggressive behavior against a partner. Later,
situational factors that increase conflict in a relation-
ship, such as verbal aggression and jealousy, increase
the probability of physical aggression. Because risk
from background factors is established early on, these
influences are less amenable to change through preven-
tion efforts administered during high school. In contrast,
situational factors within the context of early dating re-
lationships may be especially powerful leverage points
for intervention. In the early stages of a relationship and
early in one’s dating history, it is likely that individuals’
responses to situational triggers are less practiced and,
therefore, less automatic (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000).
The background-situational model (Riggs &
O’Leary, 1989) has been evaluated in several samples
of young adults, and psychological partner aggression
has consistently been one of the most powerful predic-
316
tors of physical partner aggression. With 1,307 male
and 1,477 female Navy recruits, White, Merrill, and
Koss (2001) found the background-situational model
accounted for 67% of the variance in the men’s physi-
cal aggression and 55% of the variance in women’s
physical aggression. Partners’ verbal aggression was
the single best predictor of physical aggression, and
partners’ physical aggression was the second best pre-
dictor. Psychological or verbal aggression is also
among the most robust predictors of cross-sectional
physical partner aggression in high school students
(e.g., Cano et al., 1998). Thus, we were particularly in-
terested in the role of psychological aggression be-
tween partners as a longitudinal predictor of physical
aggression in high school relationships.
Dyadic Patterns in Partner Aggression
Although there is strong evidence that partners’ ver-
bal and physical aggression are important predictors of
concurrent aggression, understanding potential dyadic
influences on dating has not been a priority. The dating
violence research has been heavily influenced by the
battering literature, which understandably emphasizes
the power and control tactics of men within a patriar-
chal society as the key issue in partner violence
(Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Some propose that physical
aggression in marriages should not be addressed in a
dyadic context, because the aggression or abuse is the
man’s problem, “not the relationship’s or his partner’s”
(for debate see McMahon & Pence, 1996, vs. O’Leary,
1996). This view, though especially warranted in part-
ner violence cases consistent with the construct of pa-
triarchal terrorism (Johnson, 1995), may be less appro-
priate in cases of what has been termed by Johnson
“common couple violence.”
In fact, there is considerable evidence for dyadic in-
fluence on partner aggression among young married
couples. Relationship discord and communication
problems have been repeatedly documented in part-
ner-aggressive couples (Pan, Neidig, & O’Leary,
1994). Further, partner aggression most frequently oc-
curs in the context of an argument (Cascardi & Vivian,
1995; Dobash & Dobash, 1984; O’Leary, 1993). It may
be that for younger couples in fluid relationships,
dyadic influences are relatively more important than
they are for couples in long-established marriages in
which power dynamics are more established. If dyadic
influences on teen dating aggression are substantial, it
may suggest that prevention programs focus on rela-
tionship factors as well as individual factors. Among
adolescent couples, we predicted that there would be
strong dyadic associations between partners’ psycho-
logical and physical aggression.
In summary, we hypothesized that relations be-
tween Time 1 and Time 2 behavior would be signifi-
 DYADIC MODEL OF DATING AGGRESSION
cant and sizable, reflecting the overall stability of ag-
gression. Further, we hypothesized a model (see Figure
1) wherein each partner’s verbal aggression, control
tactics, and jealous tactics form a latent construct of
psychological aggression that directly and specifically
predicts each partner’s concurrent physical aggression.
Further, each partner’s Time 1 psychological aggres-
sion was hypothesized to predict their physical aggres-
sion 3½ months later through its relation with concur-
rent physical aggression. We predicted significant
stability in physical aggression from Time 1 to Time 2.
Based on the White et al.’s (2001) research, we pre-
dicted that the physical aggression of the partner at
Time 1 would be strongly related to one’s own Time 2
physical aggression. With some exceptions, such as ex-
posure to weapons and violent injury for boys (Malik
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
et al., 1997), the variables that predict perpetration of
physical aggression have been very similar for both
sexes (e.g., Riggs & O’Leary, 1986; White et al.,
2001). Thus, we hypothesized the same overall model
for boys and girls. However, we modeled physical ag-
gression by boys and girls separately because male and
female aggression may have different dynamics.
Method
Participants
Participants were 206 high school students, 86 boys
and 120 girls. All students were enrolled in mandatory
Figure 1. Hypothesized model. Only paths indicated with a solid line were tested in the Stage 1 (isolated stability) model. All paths were in-
cluded in the Stage 2 model.
health education in the Spring 1995 or Fall 1996 se-
mesters and were participants in a longitudinal study to
evaluate the efficacy of a dating violence prevention
program (an intervention vs. control comparison).
Seven Suffolk County, New York, high schools were
selected on the basis of racial and ethnic diversity and
interest in the project. The average per-pupil expendi-
ture rate across the seven schools was $8,889 (range:
$7,107 to $10,776); the average dropout rate was 4.5%
(range: 3.1 to 5.8). Participation in the study was vol-
untary and passive parental consent was obtained; no
parents refused their children’s participation and no
adolescents refused to participate. More specifically,
letters were sent home to parents indicating that a team
from the university was conducting an evaluation of a
curriculum to assess the impact of the program on pre-
venting dating violence. The curriculum was part of
the regular health education program, and because the
research was evaluating a curriculum and survey data
were not identifiable, passive consent was possible.
During our teacher training, teachers and guidance
counselors were alerted that there might be students
who would seek them out following discussions of dat-
ing aggression, and, in turn, referral sources outside the
school were given to guidance counselors. Assessment
procedures and protections are detailed later. In addi-
tion, as part of the research, the responses of students in
physically aggressive relations to dating violence were
assessed (Watson, Cascardi, Avery-Leaf, & O’Leary,
2001). In brief, many students reported that they talked
317
 O’LEARY AND SLEP
with peers about dating aggression after the program
but few talked with guidance counselors or reported
aggression to authorities.
Our model was evaluated for both boys and girls. To
be included in these analyses, participants had to report
that they were in the same relationships at the initial as-
sessment and at the post-assessment (approximately
14 weeks later), and they had to be from control
schools. These restrictions ensured that all participants
completed the behavioral measures about the same
partners at both assessments and that the longitudinal
relations were not influenced by participation in a dat-
ing violence prevention program. The 14-week fol-
low-up period resulted from practical and theoretical
concerns. First, in most schools, health is a one-semes-
ter course, and a 14-week assessment lag was the lon-
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
gest lag we could build in that would still enable us to
survey students while in class. Second, to evaluate the
impact of the prevention program on aggressive behav-
ior, we determined that a 3-month postprogram lag was
minimally sufficient to detect short-term program ef-
fects. These participants are a subset of 2,320 students
included in a psychometric study of the Conflict Tac-
tics Scale (CTS; Cascardi et al., 1999) based on the ini-
tial assessment data from the overall project. It should
be emphasized that the number of participants herein
includes only those students who continued to date the
same partner 14 weeks after the initial assessment.
This subset includes 27.6% of the boys and 38.0% of
the girls who attended both assessments at control
schools, reflecting the brevity and instability of rela-
tionships among high school students.
Participant characteristics appear in Table 1.
Briefly, the average age was approximately 16.5 years
for both boys and girls. Almost all of the students were
in 11th or 12th grade, with the majority in the 11th
grade. On average, these participants had started dating
at the age of 12 and had had four to six dating partners.
Most participants characterized their current relation-
ships as “steady” or “serious.” Approximately 17% of
male participants and 31% of female participants re-
ported physically aggressing against their current dat-
ing partners, whereas 24% of male participants and
22% of female participants reported that their current
dating partners had physically aggressed against them.
Finally, there was greater ethnic diversity among our
female than our male participants; slightly less than
70% of male participants and 60% of female partici-
pants described themselves as Caucasian.
Procedure
Students completed all questionnaires during the
pre- and postprogram assessments as part of a larger
survey associated with the program evaluation. Sur-
veys were completed within a 40-min period in health
classes. Trained graduate research assistants adminis-
318
tered surveys. These monitors were available to ex-
plain survey instructions, answer student questions in a
standardized manner, and appropriately respond to any
students who were distressed or wanted to seek help as
a result of the assessments. No students ever became
noticeably upset by the assessments.
Measures
Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (mCTS; Pan et
al., 1994). The mCTS, a modified version of the
CTS (Straus, 1979), is a 19-item instrument measuring
an individual’s means of resolving conflict during the
course of a disagreement with his or her partner.
Examples of verbal aggression items are “Have you
done or said something to spite your boyfriend/girl-
friend?” and “Have you insulted or sworn at your boy-
friend or girlfriend?” Physical aggression items in-
clude “Have you thrown something at your
boyfriend/girlfriend?” and “Have you kicked, bit, or
hit your boyfriend/girlfriend?” Respondents indicate
how often each item occurred on a 5-point scale rang-
ing from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).
The mCTS differs from the CTS in that the mCTS
contained two items that were not in the CTS, namely,
“Have you physically restrained your partner?” and
“Have you raped your partner?” This later item and the
item “Have you used a knife or gun against your part-
ner?” were excluded in our current use of the mCTS
because school administrators requested their removal.
Given the instability and varying duration of dating re-
lationships, modifications to the most typical adminis-
tration of the CTS were made. At the initial assess-
ment, students were asked to rate each CTS behavior
for themselves and their dating partners for the entire
duration of their current dating relationship. At the
time of the follow-up assessment, students were asked
to rate each CTS behavior since the last time they com-
pleted the questionnaires (with the date of the prior as-
sessment given). Also, to allow comparability of re-
ports given the differing time periods students were
reporting on, response options on the CTS were modi-
fied from the more typical frequency count to a more
global 5-point rating scale (from 1 [never] to 5 [very
often]). The self-reported verbal aggression (Items 4 to
8, excluding “cried”) and physical aggression (Items 9
to 18) indexes were used in this study. The
psychometrics of this format of the mCTS, using data
from the same study as reported herein, are described
in detail by Cascardi et al. (1999). Briefly, there is sup-
port roughly for comparable factor structures of the
scale for both boys’ and girls’ perpetration of and vic-
timization of dating aggression, although factors were
not invariant across all conditions. Taken as a whole,
the Cascardi et al.’s (1999) results suggest that this
modified version of the CTS has psychometric proper-
ties consistent with those of the original CTS. Verbal
 DYADIC MODEL OF DATING AGGRESSION

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Boys Girls

Mean age in years (SD) 16.51 (0.70) 16.40 (0.73)

Current grade in school
10th grade 1.2% 0.8%
11th grade 67.4% 77.7%
12th grade 31.4% 21.5%
Mean age when first dated in years (SD) 12.38 (2.17) 12.69 (2.16)
Total number of dating relationships (SD) 4.71 (3.31) 5.97 (6.41)
Seriousness of current relationship (at pre)
New 13.7% 9.5%
Casual 0% 6.3%
Steady 47.1% 42.1%
Serious 37.3% 40.0%
Engaged 2.0% 2.1%
Prevalence of physical aggression in
current relationship (at pre)
Aggressed against partner 17.4% 30.6%
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014

Victimized by partner 24.4% 22.3%

Race/ethnicity
Caucasian 69.8% 59.2%
African American 12.8% 17.5%
Hispanic/Latino 7.0% 9.2%
Asian American 4.7% 3.3%
Mixed race 5.8% 8.3%
Other 0% 2.5%

aggression and physical aggression factor scores were
quite strongly related for boys and strongly related for
girls; aggression scores are significantly related with
other measures of psychological aggression; and phys-
ical aggression scores are significantly, though mod-
estly, related to several measures of attitudes accepting
of dating aggression (Slep et al., 2001).
Dominating and Jealous Tactics Scale. An ab-
breviated version of the Psychological Maltreatment of
Women Inventory (Tolman, 1989) was used to assess
both dominance and jealous behaviors. Although the
Maltreatment Inventory has been used primarily with
men and women in moderate to severely abusive rela-
tionships, Kasian and Painter (1992) had 1,600 college
students complete the measure, and they identified six
factors in the Maltreatment Inventory. Two of those
factors, Control and Jealousy, were used in this study.
The Control and Jealous scales were among the stron-
gest correlates of self-reported physical aggression, as-
sessed with a modified version of the CTS, in an urban
sample of adolescents ages 10 to 14 years (O’Brien,
Cascardi, & Avery-Leaf, 1999).
The 22-item Dominance and Jealous Tactics Scale
assesses the frequency with which both the respondent
and his or her dating partner engaged in seven control
and four jealous tactics in their current relationship
(Time 1) or the last assessment (Time 2). Two exam-
ples of control tactics are as follows: “I tried to keep
my boyfriend/girlfriend from seeing or talking to
his/her family” and “I monitored my partner’s time and
made him/her account for his/her whereabouts.” Two
examples of jealous tactics are as follows: “I was jeal-
ous and suspicious of my boyfriend’s/girlfriend’s
friends,” and “I accused my boyfriend/girlfriend of
seeing another girl/boy.” The measure yields a jealous
tactics score and a control tactics score for the respon-
dent and his or her partner. Due to time restrictions for
the administration of the assessment, only conceptu-
ally distinct items with factor loadings greater than .38
in the Kaisan and Painter (1992) factor analysis were
retained for this study.
Internal consistency of the dominance scale was .72
(alpha) and the internal consistency of the jealousy
scale was .76 (alpha) in a sample of 280 high school
students who had dating experience (Cano et al.,
1998).
Results
Prior to testing the proposed models with structural
equation modeling, all data were examined for
univariate and multivariate normality. As expected,
several variables of interest were significantly skewed,
leptokurtic, or both, and mulitvariate normality indica-
tors (i.e., Mardia’s coefficients) were highly signifi-
cant. Because structural equation modeling is paramet-
ric and has been shown to be sensitive to extreme
violations of normality (e.g., West, Finch, & Curran,
1995), it was necessary to transform variables.
Square-root transformations normalized verbal ag-
gression and jealous tactics variables. Controlling tac-
tics variables and all physical aggression variables re-

319
 O’LEARY AND SLEP
quired inverse transformations. Transformation nor-
malized controlling tactics variables for all partici-
pants. For girls, two physical aggression variables (i.e.,
physical aggression against partner at Time 1 and
physical aggression by partner at Time 2) were normal-
ized by transformation. The other two physical aggres-
sion variables, although substantially improved, re-
mained nonnormal. For boys, all four physical
aggression variables were improved substantially but
remained significantly nonnormal. For ease of inter-
pretation, inverse transformed variables were reflected
to preserve the original direction of the variables. Final
Mardia’s coefficients remained significant for both
boys and girls. Two approaches to modeling
nonnormal data appear to result in satisfactory results:
robust maximum likelihood estimation (including the
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
Satorra–Bentler chi-square and robust standard errors
for evaluating the significance of parameter estimates)
and asymptotic distribution free estimation (West et
al., 1995). Because asymptotic distribution free meth-
ods require very large (i.e., N > 1,000) to work well, we
selected robust maximum likelihood estimation, avail-
able in EQS modeling software (Bentler, 1995). Ro-
bust estimation methods are not available for
multigroup analyses in the most recently released ver-
sion of EQS (i.e., EQS 5.7b). Thus, because we were
using robust maximum likelihood estimation methods
to model our nonnormal data from a moderately sized
sample, it was necessary to evaluate the models for
males and females separately. If unconstrained by nor-
mality considerations, models for boys and girls could
have been evaluated in tandem in a multigroup analy-
sis. However, the nonnormality of the data led us to pri-
oritize robust estimation of effect sizes.
As a final step prior to model testing, all zero-order
associations were examined. A full correlation matrix
appears in Table 2. Generally, medium-to-strong asso-
ciations are found among the variables for both boys
and girls (Cohen, 1977), supporting the evaluation of
our proposed models.
Stability Analyses
Stability was evaluated in three ways in this sample
of steadily dating partners: (a) correlations of physical
aggression at Time 1 with physical aggression at Time
2; (b) conditional probabilities (the probability of
self-reported physical aggression at Time 2, given
self-reported physical aggression at Time 1); and (c)
mean levels of aggression at Time 1 compared to mean
levels of physical aggression at Time 2.
As is evident in Table 2, the 3-month stability coef-
ficients (i.e., Pearson correlations computed with in-
versely transformed variables) were quite high for the
self-report of physical aggression by boys (r = .55, p <
.01) and girls (r = .57, p < .01). Moreover, the stability
coefficients were similarly high for boys’ (r = .69, p <
320
.01) and girls’ (r = .62, p < .01) reports of their partners’
physical aggression.
Next, stability was examined by looking at the con-
ditional probabilities of patterns of stable and unstable
physical aggression status across the two time points.
Conditional probabilities were calculated by dividing
the number of people who met the target condition
(e.g., physical aggression at Time 2) by the number of
people who met the group definition (e.g., physical ag-
gression at Time 1). For boys, conditional probability
of Time 2 physical aggression given Time 1 physical
aggression was .47; for girls, it was .78. In contrast, the
conditional probability of physical aggression at Time
2, given no physical aggression at Time 1, was .06 for
boys and .15 for girls. These data show that, for both
boys and girls, there was a much greater likelihood of
engaging in physical aggression at the second assess-
ment if they had engaged in physical aggression at the
initial assessment. Conversely, if boys and girls did not
engage in physical aggression at the initial assessment,
they were not very likely to do so at the second assess-
ment.
Stability was also assessed by looking at the overall
level of self-reported physical aggression at Time 1 and
at Time 2 using repeated measures t tests. There was no
significant difference in the levels of physical aggres-
sion across time for either boys (Time 1 mean = 1.42,
Time 2 mean = 1.34; t = .55; df = 14, ns) or girls (Time 1
mean = 1.44, Time 2 mean = 1.47; t = –.58. df = 36, ns).
Model Testing
Models were tested with the EQS program (Bentler,
1995). Several indexes are commonly used to deter-
mine goodness of fit. Because our data were
multivariately nonnormal, we used the scaled or
Satorra–Bentler chi-square statistic to evaluate model
fit, as it corrects for the tendency of the chi-square sta-
tistic to inflate in the presence of nonnormal indicators
(Curran, West, & Finch, 1996). The standardized root
mean square residual also appears to perform well un-
der all distributional conditions (Hu & Bentler, 1998).
Other standard and robust fit indexes were also used to
evaluate the models (average off-diagonal standard-
ized residuals, the standardized root mean square re-
sidual, the root mean square error of approximation,
the Bentler–Bonnett Normed Fit Index [NFI] and
Nonnormed Fit Index [NNFI], and the comparative fit
index [CFI]). In addition to goodness of fit, signifi-
cance testing of the paths was conducted using z
scores. When data are nonnormal, a scaled z score (z
score robust) is used. This adjusts the standard error for
nonnormality.
As a first step in testing the models, we evaluated
measurement models for both boys and girls. These
models specified a self-psychological aggression fac-
tor and a partner psychological aggression factor. The
 DYADIC MODEL OF DATING AGGRESSION

Table 2. Correlations Among Psychological and Physical Aggression Measures

Phys Agg Phys Vict Phys Agg Phys Vict
Verb Agg Jeal Agg Cont Agg Verb Vict Jeal Vict Cont Vict (pre) (pre) (f-u) (f-u)

Verb Agg — 0.55** 0.57** 0.81** 0.44** 0.40** 0.46** 0.51** 0.45** 0.44**
Jeal Agg 0.31** — 0.39** 0.41** 0.55** 0.33* 0.23* 0.23* 0.25* 0.21*
Cont Agg 0.54** 0.46** — 0.50** 0.53** 0.79** 0.31* 0.40** 0.41** 0.37**
Verb Vict 0.80** 0.36** 0.58** — 0.43** 0.54** 0.52** 0.69** 0.61** 0.50**
Jeal Vict 0.43** 0.54** 0.50** 0.48** — 0.52** 0.09 0.37** 0.39** 0.13
Cont Vict 0.41** 0.43** 0.81** 0.53** 0.50** — 0.26* 0.41** 0.42** 0.29*
Phys Agg (pre) 0.61** 0.17 0.37** 0.52** 0.25* 0.36** — 0.73** 0.55** 0.69**
Phys Vict (pre) 0.44** 0.21* 0.34** 0.57** 0.26* 0.45** 0.78** — 0.77** 0.62**
Phys Agg (f-u) 0.35** 0.21* 0.22* 0.43** 0.16 0.33** 0.57** 0.67** — 0.81**
Phys Vict (f-u) 0.46** 0.23* 0.25* 0.41** 0.20* 0.28* 0.69** 0.62** 0.85** —

Note: Correlations for boys (n = 86) appear in the upper right and girls (n = 120) in the lower left diagonals. Verb = verbal tactics; Jeal = jealous
tactics; Cont = controlling tactics; Phys = physical tactics; Agg = self-reported aggression; Vict = self-reported victimization; Pre = initial assess-
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014

ment; f-u = 14 week follow-up assessment.

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

loadings of the verbal aggression indicators on each of
these latent factors were fixed to 1.0. These factors
were free to covary. The CTS and Dominating and
Jealous Tactics Scale administer items in couplets, ask-
ing about how often the respondent committed a given
act against his or her partner and then how often the
partner committed the same act against the respondent,
and because all acts on a particular factor are adminis-
tered in sequence. We reasoned that these formatting
conventions might contribute to patterns of associa-
tions in residuals. Therefore, residuals of like variables
across perpetrator were also permitted to covary (e.g.,
self verbal aggression residual was free to correlate
with partner verbal aggression residual). Finally, all
physical aggression variables (measured variables)
were free to covary among themselves and with the la-
tent variables. Testing these models revealed that this
was a good measurement model for boys, but the re-
sults of the Lagrange Multiplier Test indicated that the
fit of the model would be significantly improved for
girls if the self verbal aggression residuals and self
physical aggression at Time 1 were also free to covary
(this change would not have significantly changed the
fit of the models for boys). Given that verbal aggres-
sion and physical aggression scales are both from the
same measure (the mCTS), and given that this associa-
tion was within perpetrator but across the two scale
score residuals, we thought freeing this association
likely improved our ability to model measure-driven
variance and was theoretically acceptable. This modi-
fication was made to the measurement model for girls.
We then evaluated the hypothesized models (as dia-
gramed in Figure 1), which were the same for boys and
girls, with the exception of the difference noted previ-
ously in the measurement models. In the hypothesized
models, the latent variables, the residuals of self and
partner’s physical aggression at Time1, and the residu-
als of self and partner’s physical aggression at fol-
low-up remained free to covary. The variances of latent
variables and residuals were also all free to vary.
To enable us to identify the most parsimonious ver-
sion of our model consistent with the data, we tested
the models in a two-stage process. In the first stage, we
evaluated an isolated stability model, as represented by
the solid lines in the model diagrammed in Figure 1
(Vuchinich, Bank, & Patterson, 1992). This model did
not take cross-dyad relations into account, and it did
not provide an adequate fit to the data for either boys
and girls. For boys, the maximum likelihood χ2 =
174.33, df = 29, p < .001, Satorra–Bentler χ2 = 139.86,
df = 29, p < .001, the NFI, NNFI, CFI, and robust CFI
were all < .78, the standardized root mean square resid-
uals were .20, the root mean square error of approxi-
mation was .24. For girls, the maximum likelihood χ2 =
148.69, df = 28, p < .001, Satorra–Bentler χ2 = 99.61,
df = 28, p < .001, the NFI, NNFI, CFI, and robust CFI
were all < .86, the standardized root mean square resid-
uals were .17, the root mean square error of approxi-
mation was .19.
Because this isolated stability model (i.e., positing
stability of each person’s aggression, but no dyadic re-
lations) did not fit the data, in the second stage we pro-
ceeded to test our hypothesized model, which included
both stability and cross-dyad effects (all paths indi-
cated in Figure 1). For boys, the hypothesized
cross-dyad model was consistent with the data. All
standard indexes suggested an adequate but not excel-
lent fit of the model. The maximum likelihood χ2 =
56.39, df = 27, p < .001, Satorra–Bentler χ2 = 54.00, df
= 27, p < .001, NFI = .92, NNFI = .92, CFI = .95, robust
CFI = .90. Moreover, the standardized root mean
square residuals were .07, the root mean square error of
approximation was .11, the average off-diagonal stan-
dardized residuals were small, and all but two hypothe-
sized paths were statistically significant. Self and part-
ner’s psychological aggression latent factors were

321
 O’LEARY AND SLEP
strongly associated (r = .83, p < .001). Standardized in-
dicator loadings and paths are presented in Figure 2.
The model accounted for 24.7% and 51.4% of the vari-
ance in self and partner’s physical aggression at Time 1
and 58.7% and 50.1% of the variance in self and part-
ner’s physical aggression at follow-up. The hypothe-
sized cross-dyad model was also consistent with the
data for girls. All standard indexes suggested an excel-
lent fit of the model. The maximum likelihood χ2 =
38.52, df = 26, p > .05, Satorra–Bentler χ2 = 30.73, df =
26, p > .05, NFI = .96, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99, and ro-
bust CFI = .99. Moreover, the standardized root mean
square residuals were .05, the root mean square error of
approximation was .06, the average off-diagonal stan-
dardized residuals were small, and all but two hypothe-
sized paths (the same two as for boys) were statistically
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
significant. Self and partner’s psychological aggres-
sion latent factors were strongly associated (r = .93, p <
.001). Standardized indicator loadings and paths are
presented in Figure 2. The model accounted for 33.0%
and 37.1% of the variance in self and partner’s physical
aggression at Time 1 and 45.8% and 50.3% of the vari-
ance in self and partner’s physical aggression at fol-
low-up.
Discussion
Our results indicate substantial stability in physi-
cal dating aggression over a 3-month period in stable
Figure 2. Supported model. Results for males appear first; results for females appear below. As described in the text, residuals of like
variables across perpetrators were also free to vary, but were not included in this diagram for clarity.
322
relationships. This was true for boys and girls, and
for both self-reported aggression and victimization.
These stability coefficients are similar to those ob-
tained in samples of newly married couples (O’Leary
et al., 1989). The high stability of aggression in high
school dating relationships is perhaps surprising be-
cause of the less stable and more heterogeneous na-
ture of teen relationships. Further, the relatively low
frequency of aggressive acts might lead one to be-
lieve that a 14-week assessment interval would have
resulted in underestimates of the continuation of ag-
gression.
In a comprehensive review of personality traits
from childhood to old age, Roberts and Del Vecchio
(2000) used longitudinal studies to address the issue
of consistency of traits across the life span, using
rank-ordered consistency as their measure of stability.
They concluded that trait consistency is lowest in the
first 3 years of life but that it approaches .50 during
the years 18 to 21. Further, they reported that stability
increases somewhat until ages 50 to 59, when the sta-
bility reaches a plateau. The stability reported herein
on self-reported physical aggression is as high as the
stability of personality traits like extraversion, agree-
ableness, and neuroticism noted by Roberts and Del
Vecchio (2000). The conditional probabilities ob-
tained for boys and girls were also quite similar to
those we found for the stability of partner aggression
in newly married couples (O’Leary et al., 1994).
These stability data were obtained across a much
 DYADIC MODEL OF DATING AGGRESSION
shorter interval with the high school students (14
weeks) than with the newly married individuals (1
year), and the stability across a shorter time interval
suggests that physical aggression may be more con-
sistent in young couples who are steadily dating, es-
pecially for high school girls.
The stability and conditional probability results
suggest that prevention programs for dating aggression
should occur in high school or earlier and the programs
should address physical aggression of both boys and
girls. For those boys and girls who did engage in physi-
cal aggression against a partner at the initial assess-
ment, there was about a 50% chance that it would occur
again at the next assessment for boys and approxi-
mately a 75% chance that it would occur for girls.
Moreover, the percentage of boys and girls who re-
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
ported that they engaged in aggression at the initial as-
sessment against their partners was not small (17%
boys; 31% girls). Thus, about 8% of boys and 15% of
girls who dated the same partner across a 3½-month
period engaged in repeated aggression against their
partners. To prevent the occurrence of stable aggres-
sion in this sizeable proportion of high school students,
both universal interventions aimed at younger teens
(e.g., Foshee et al., 1996) and targeted interventions di-
rected at high-risk teens (e.g., Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999)
may be indicated. We will return to these possibilities
in the context of the implications from our other major
findings.
Regarding psychological aggression, the different
forms we assessed appeared moderately related at the
zero-order level, and the structural equation modeling
supported their aggregation into a latent construct for
psychological aggression for self and partner for both
boys and girls. All three observed variables had signifi-
cant and sizeable indicator loadings on the construct
psychological aggression. Across sex, the indicator
loadings ranged from .49 to .89 for one’s own psycho-
logical aggression, and they ranged from .56 to .88 for
partner’s psychological aggression.
These findings suggest that a variety of both mild
and more serious nonviolent tactics, from yelling to
trying to make a partner think he or she is crazy, are
perhaps as interrelated in normative teen samples as
in older, clinical samples. This is somewhat contrary
to conventional wisdom that power and control dy-
namics may depend, in part, on economic depend-
ence. Also of note is that these psychological tactics
do not appear to be differentially related for boys and
girls, either according to teens’ reports about their
own behaviors or their partners’. This may suggest
that the gender balance of power is more equal in
teens’ relationships. However, although male and fe-
male teens may have more equal power in relation-
ships than intimate adult partners, boys and girls are
exposed to societal messages that depict differential
roles. For example, males are expected to ask the
female to date, and they are expected to be the initia-
tor or aggressor of affectionate and sexual behavior.
Perhaps in teen relationships, both partners may have
equal opportunities for re-partnering, thereby contrib-
uting to more equal power and differing from older
couples, with whom economic dependence is more
salient. Our findings regarding the coherence among
measures of psychological aggression and rates of
psychological aggression for both boys and girls sug-
gest that prevention programs might be well served to
target such behaviors in both boys and girls. By tar-
geting these perhaps less severe behaviors for both
boys and girls, we may be able to capitalize on the
link between psychological aggression and physical
aggression and both within-person and cross-dyad ef-
fects to reduce dating violence.
Finally, the results of the model testing are striking
and, although consistent with the hypothesized model,
somewhat surprising in the context of our stability
findings. Our cross-dyad model hypothesized both a
significant influence of each person’s earlier aggres-
sion on later aggression (i.e., stability) and also a sig-
nificant influence of the other person’s earlier aggres-
sion on each person’s later aggression (i.e., cross-dyad
influence). This cross-dyad model fit the data for both
boys and girls. Notably, however, in the context of the
cross-dyad model, the strength of the stability paths
drops to nonsignificance. Although they were part of
the hypothesized model, these stability paths could
have been fixed to zero and not negatively affected the
fit of the model.
All of the other hypothesized paths in the
cross-dyad model were statistically significant for
both boys and girls. Further, approximately one
fourth of the variance in boys’ reports and one third
of the variance in girls’ reports of their Time 1 physi-
cal aggression were accounted for by their own psy-
chological aggression. Approximately half the vari-
ance in boys’ reports and one third the variance in
girls’ reports of their partners’ physical aggression
were accounted for by their partners’ psychological
aggression.
At the 3-month follow-up, the variance accounted
for by the model was even greater. For boys, we were
able to account for 58% of the variance in the partner’s
physical aggression and 50% of their own physical ag-
gression. For girls, we were able to account for 50% of
the variance in the partner’s physical aggression and
46% of their own physical aggression. Thus, the con-
structs of psychological aggression at the initial assess-
ment and the same partners’ physical aggression at the
initial assessment account for approximately half the
variance in the other partner’s physical aggression at
the 3-month follow-up.
The modeling analyses showed that including the
cross-dyad longitudinal influences was necessary to
account for our data. In addition, within the context
323
 O’LEARY AND SLEP
of the modeling, these cross-dyad influences were
more predictive of one’s own physical aggression
than stability. This finding held for both boys and
girls. These findings suggest that, even in the context
of substantial stability, dyadic or relationship process
over time may be an important prompt for one to be
physically aggressive. To some, these findings may
seem inconsistent with the results of our stability
analyses discussed earlier. How can stability both be
substantial and near zero in the same data? The key
lies in the nature of the analyses and the interrelations
among the variables. When only one person’s behav-
ior is considered, the relation between earlier behav-
ior and later behavior is substantial, indicating stabil-
ity. However, when both partners’ behaviors are
considered simultaneously, stability alone is not
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
enough to account for the interrelations among the
variables. When the necessary cross-dyad effects are
incorporated into the model, the best fitting coeffi-
cients indicate that stability is not necessary if the
cross-dyad effects are estimated. This is because of
the relations between the cross-dyad and stability ef-
fects, which are not independent. Thus, both stability
and cross-dyad effects are indicated by our results.
These cross-dyad effects, which in the case of our
modeling analyses consistently overshadow stability,
may have important implications for the next genera-
tion of dating violence research and prevention efforts.
First, dating violence research and prevention have
typically focused on the individual. This is true even in
this study. However, given that a partner’s prior physi-
cal aggression is the relatively best predictor of an indi-
vidual’s later aggression, perhaps a more dyadic focus
is warranted. It could be that the dyadic influence is
even greater as teens move in and out of relationships
and that our findings (for teens in stable relationships)
represent the lower bound of dyadic effects. One possi-
bility is that teens are less motivated or able to inhibit
their physical aggression when their partners have ag-
gressed against them. The bottom line is that, if one
wishes to reduce physical aggression in teenage dating
relationships, a dyadic focus may be crucial. We return
to the dyadic issue later when we address these rela-
tions of psychological and physical aggression.
The role of psychological aggression in predicting
physical aggression is a major one, apparently even in
the relatively unstable world of teen dating relation-
ships. Indeed, in our own research as well as that of oth-
ers like White et al. (2001), psychological aggression
was one of the two best cross-sectional predictors of
physical aggression. In this research, we observed that
psychological aggression was both a cross-sectional
and a longitudinal predictor of partner aggression.
Given the predictive value of psychological aggression,
it seems that prevention and intervention programs
should place considerable emphasis on reducing psy-
chological aggression as a means of reducing partner
324
abuse. This is encouraging in that psychologists are of-
ten in a better position to implement changes that affect
individuals as compared to communities, and psycho-
logical aggression is a variable that can be changed
(O’Leary, Heyman, & Neidig, 1999).
Another factor of note is the high association of
self-reported physical aggression with self-reported
victimization for both boys and girls at both assess-
ments. In fact, the zero-order correlations of self-re-
ports of physical aggression and victimization were
.73 for boys and .78 for girls. At follow-up, the corre-
lations were slightly higher, indicating a great deal
covariance in partners’ aggression. Such mutuality is
similar to the reports that have been obtained in re-
search with college dating couples (Riggs & O’Leary,
1996), newly married couples (O’Leary et al., 1989),
a military sample (White et al., 2001), and maritally
discordant couples (Cascardi et al., 1992; O’Leary et
al., 1999). Also these data are quite consistent with
the mutuality of physical aggression in intimate rela-
tionships reported in representative samples by Stets
and Straus (1990), who found that, in about 50% of
the cases in which one partner engaged in physical
aggression, the other partner also was reported to
have engaged in physical aggression. In this study,
mutuality was also evident in psychological aggres-
sion arena. Self and partner’s psychological aggres-
sion latent factors were very strongly associated. In
addition, the zero-order correlations for each form of
psychological aggression and victimization were
moderately to strongly related for both boys and girls.
Some might suggest that our finding of dyadic in-
fluences on dating violence indicates that a great deal
of girls’ aggression is self-defensive, and it would
therefore be inadvisable to consider the dyadic con-
text in intervention. Data suggests, however, that es-
pecially at low levels of severity, aggression in dating
relationships (Hettrich, 2002) and in marriage
(Cascardi & Vivian, 1995) is not primarily in self-de-
fense. It is likely that both sexes consider male ag-
gression to be more of a threat than female aggres-
sion, however (Schumacher, Slep, & O’Leary, 1998).
Although women’s physical aggression more rarely
leads to injury, such acts of aggression, especially if
repeated, increase the probability of aggression by
men (Straus, 1993). Thus, efforts focused on both
boys and girls decreasing their own psychological ag-
gression and physical aggression, and on the interac-
tive nature of such aggression, seem warranted.
The overall fit of the longitudinal model, although
excellent for girls, was merely adequate for boys.
Thus, replicating our findings for boys will be impor-
tant. However, several factors contribute to our conclu-
sion that the fit is adequate. First, the hypothesized
model was tested as an a priori model, and thus modifi-
cation indexes were not used to improve fit. Second,
the supported model is identical for boys and girls with
 DYADIC MODEL OF DATING AGGRESSION
all parameters generally consistent for both samples.
Finally, boys’ data were more nonnormal, even after
transformation and from a slightly smaller sample that
may have contributed to the inconsistency across fit in-
dexes. Thus, evidence in support of the model is suffi-
cient to warrant interpretations, although these inter-
pretations must be considered more tentative than
those offered for girls.
Research on prevention of partner violence with ad-
olescents and young adults is in its infancy. However,
controlled research documents that attitudes support-
ing the use of physical aggression can be reduced in
large-scale prevention programs targeting all partici-
pants in a school (see O’Leary et al., 2002). There is
less evidence that physically aggressive behavior can
be changed, but significant reductions have been
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
shown in prevention programs that are rather intensive
(i.e., ten 45-min sessions for all students [Foshee et al.,
2000]; or eighteen 2-hr sessions for targeted individu-
als at high risk for such aggression [Wekerle & Wolfe,
1999]). As documented in the introduction of this arti-
cle, physical aggression appears to occur in approxi-
mately one third of high school dating relationships,
and this physical aggression appears (a) quite stable
and (b) dyadically influenced. Further, psychologi-
cally aggressive tactics, including controlling behav-
iors previously thought more typical in battering rela-
tionships, seem to be part of dating violence among
high school students. Our data do not suggest substan-
tially different relations among forms of psychological
aggression between psychological and physical ag-
gression for boys as compared to girls. Thus, it seems
most prudent to have prevention programs that are uni-
versal (for all students), potentially at younger ages, as
well as for individuals targeted because they are at high
risk for partner aggression (O’Leary et al., 2002). The
former may have an impact on students with little or no
physical aggression, whereas with the latter, more in-
tensive programs may reduce physical aggression in
individuals who are already physically aggressive or
who are at risk for such aggression because of other
problems (truancy, school suspensions because of ag-
gression). Finally, to support the development of in-
creasingly effective prevention initiatives, we must
continue to refine our theories of dating violence,
which have largely been borrowed from the marital vi-
olence area, to reflect the developmental issues that
may distinguish dating violence among teens from bat-
tering in older, married samples.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statisti-
cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Au-
thor.
Andrews, J. A., Foster, S. L., Capaldi, D., & Hops, H. (2000). Ado-
lescent and female predictors of physical aggression, communi-
cation, and satisfaction in young couples: A prospective analy-
sis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
195–208.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). Studying the mind in the
middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research.
In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in
social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, O. W., & Fagan, R. W. (1993). Alcohol use in male spouse
abusers and their female partners. Journal of Family Violence,
8, 1–25.
Bentler, P. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual.
Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Cano, A., Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1998).
Dating violence in two high school samples: Discriminating
variables. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 431–446.
Cantos, A. L., Neidig, P. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Injuries of
women and men in a treatment program for domestic violence.
Journal of Family Violence, 9, 113–124.
Capaldi, D. (2002, May). Understanding aggression in young cou-
ples: A focus on development, the dyad, and design. Paper pre-
sented at Family Psychology Conference, Northwestern Uni-
versity, Evanston, IL.
Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001).
Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The
contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 61–73.
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital ag-
gression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and
wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178–1184.
Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of
marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences.
Journal of Family Violence, 10, 265–293.
Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S. A., O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S.
(1999). Factor structure and convergent validity of the Conflict
Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychological Assess-
ment, 11, 546–555.
Chase, K. A., Treboux, D., O’Leary, K. D., & Strasberg, Z. (1998).
Specificity of dating aggression and its justification among high
risk adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26,
467–473.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test
statistics to normality and specification error in CFA. Psycho-
logical Methods, 1, 16–29.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New
York: Free Press.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1984). The nature and antecedents
of violent events. British Journal of Criminology, 24, 269–288.
Foshee, V. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse
prevalence, types, and injuries. Health Education Research, 11,
275–286.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F., Koch, G. G., Linder, G.
F., & MacDougall, J. E. (2000). The safe dates program: 1-year
follow-up results. American Journal of Public Health, 90,
1619–1622.
Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A.,
Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., et al. (1996). The Safe Dates Pro-
ject: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected base-
line findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12,
39–47.
Henton, J. M., Cate, R. M., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S.
(1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal
of Family Issues, 4, 467–482.
325
 O’LEARY AND SLEP
Hettrich, E. (2002, May). Attributions by 125 females for their use of
physical aggression in a dating relationship. Paper presented to
the Honors Program, Stony Brook, NY.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.
Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Gortner, E., Berns, S., & Shortt, J.
W. (1996). Psychological factors in the longitudinal course of
battering: When do the couples split up? When does the abuse
decrease? Violence and Victims, 11, 371–392.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchical terrorism and common couple
violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.
Jones, L. E. (1987). School curriculum project evaluation report.
Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women.
Kasian, M., & Painter, S. L. (1992). Frequency and severity of psy-
chological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 7, 350–364.
Kaufman, G. K., & Jasinksi, J. L. (1995, July). Prevention of teen
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
dating violence: Evaluation of a multidimensional model. Pa-
per presented at the Fourth International Family Violence Re-
search Conference, Durham, NH.
Maiuro, R. D. (2001). Sticks and stones will break my bones, but
names will also hurt me: Psychological abuse in domestically
violent relationships. In K. D. O’Leary & R. D. Maiuro (Eds.),
Psychological abuse in violent relationships (pp. ix–xx). New
York: Springer.
Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence
victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383–388.
Makepeace, J. M. (1989). Dating, living together, and courtship vio-
lence. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dat-
ing relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 94–107).
Praeger: New York.
Malik, S., Sorensen, S., & Aneshensel, C. (1997). Community and
dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimiza-
tion. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291–302.
Marshall, L. L. (1996). Psychological abuse of women: Six distinct
clusters. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 369–399.
McMahon, M., & Pence, E. (1996). Replying to Dan O’Leary. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 452–455.
Murphy, C. M., & Hoover, S. A. (2001). Measuring emotional abuse
in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. In K. D.
O’Leary & R. D. Maiuro (Eds.), Psychological abuse in violent
relationships (pp. 29–46). New York: Springer.
O’Brien, M. K., Cascardi, M., & Avery-Leaf, S. (1999, July). Dis-
criminating variables of dating violence in a middle school
sample. Paper presented in symposium at the Sixth Interna-
tional Family Violence Conference, Durham, NH.
O’Keeffe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high
school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12,
546–568.
O’Keeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating vio-
lence. Social Work, 31, 465–468.
O’Leary, K. D. (1993). Through a psychological lens: Personality
traits, personality disorders, and levels of violence. In R. J.
Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family vio-
lence (pp. 7–29). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Leary, K. D. (1996). Physical aggression in intimate relationships
can be treated within a marital context under certain circum-
stances. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 450–453.
O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Developmental and affective issues in assess-
ing and treating partner aggression. Clinical Psychology: Sci-
ence and Practice, 6, 400–414.
O’Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., &
Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggres-
sion between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263–268.
326
O’Leary, K. D., & Jacobson, N. S. (1997). Partner relational prob-
lems with physical abuse. In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
sourcebook (4th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 673–692). Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Association.
O’Leary, K. D., Heyman, R. E., & Neidig, P. N. (1999). Treatment of
wife abuse: A comparison of gender-specific and conjoint ap-
proaches. Behavior Therapy, 30, 475–505.
O’Leary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression
in early marriage: Prerelationship and relationship effects.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 594–602.
O’Leary, K. D., Woodin, E., & Fritz, P. (2002, May). Preventing
partner aggression during adolescence and young adulthood:
Lessons from smoking and alcohol prevention programs. Paper
presented at the Department of Defense Conference, Alexan-
dria, VA.
Pan, H., Neidig, P. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Male–female and
aggressor–victim differences in the factor structure of the Mod-
ified Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
9, 336–382.
Quigley, B. M., & Leonard, K. E. (1996). Desistance of husband ag-
gression in the early years of marriage. Violence and Victims,
11, 355–370.
Reitzel-Jaffee, D., & Wolfe, D. A. (2001). Predictors of relationship
violence among young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
16, 99–115.
Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical model of court-
ship aggression. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Vio-
lence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp.
53–70). New York: Praeger.
Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1996). Aggression between hetero-
sexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of
courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11,
519–540.
Roberts, B. W., & Del Vecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank order consis-
tency of traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review
of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25.
Roscoe, B., & Kelsey, T. (1986). Dating violence among high school
students. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 23,
53–59.
Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and
struggles of the battered women’s movement. Boston: South
End.
Schumacher, J. A., Slep, A. M. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1998, Novem-
ber). The context and consequences of female to male dating
aggression. Poster presented at the 32nd annual convention of
the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
Washington, DC.
Schwartz, M., O’Leary, S. G., & Kendziora, K. (1996). Dating ag-
gression among high school students. Violence and Victims, 12,
295–305.
Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathway, J. E. (2001).
Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated sub-
stance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior,
pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 286, 572–579.
Slep, A. M. S., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary, K. D.
(2001). Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability
of teen dating aggression. Psychological Assessment, 13,
306–318.
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting
marital violence and its medical and psychological conse-
quences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical vio-
lence in American families (pp. 151–165). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Press.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence:
The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 41, 75–86.
 DYADIC MODEL OF DATING AGGRESSION
Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social
problem. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current contro-
versies on family violence (pp. 67–87). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds). (1990). Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in
8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychologi-
cal maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and
Victims, 4, 159–177.
Tolman, R. M. (1999). The validation of the psychological maltreat-
ment of women inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25–37.
Vuchinich, S., Bank, L., & Patterson, G. R. (1992). Parenting, peers,
and the stability of antisocial behavior in preadolescent boys.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 510–521.
Watson, J., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary, K. D. (2001).
High school responses to dating aggression. Violence and Vic-
tims, 16, 339–348.
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:32 22 August 2014
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adoles-
cence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initia-
tives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 435–456.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation
models with nonnormal variables. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Struc-
tural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications
(pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
White, J. W., Merrill, L. L., & Koss, M. P. (2001). Prediction of
premilitary courtship violence in a Navy recruit sample. Vio-
lence and Victims, 16, 910–927.
Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical re-
view of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3–28.
Received June 19, 2002
Accepted February 7, 2003
327