MALE AND FEMALE LATINO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS'

PERCEPTIONS ABOUT DATING VIOLENCE:

A PRELIMINARY AND EXPLORATORY EXAMINATION

By: Alisa Smith, JD, Ph.D.

Joseph Palenski, Ph.D.

September 13, 1999

There are two developing bodies of literature on domestic violence that have failed to intersect. The first explores violence in dating relationships (Alvi and Selbee, 1997; Riggs and O’Leary, 1996; White and Koss, 1991; Stets and Pirog-Good, 1989; Follingstad, Rutledge, Polek, and McNeill-Hawkins, 1988), and the second investigates the influence of acculturation among immigrant Latinos on domestic violence (Jasinksi, 1998; Caetano, Schafer, Clark, Cunradi and Raspberry, 2000). Most studies, however, focus on dating and marital violence in adult or college populations. Although an increasing number of studies examine dating violence among junior high and high school students (Bergman, 1992; Gray and Foshee, 1997; Molidor and Tolman, 1998; O’Keefe and Treister, 1998; Simons, Lin, and Gordon, 1998; Vangie, Foshee, Bauman, and Fletcher, 1999), none investigate dating violence among a population of Latino high school students.[1]

Dating or courtship is the precursor for other significant, intimate relationships. These relationships are part of the socialization process for the marital role (Makepeace, 1981). A pattern of dating violence, and its socialized acceptance as a method of control or conflict resolution may have implications for violence in the marital relationship (Riggs and O’Leary, 1989). Researchers have found similarities between dating and marital violence (Flynn, 1987; Laner and Thompson, 1982), and others have suggested violence against an intimate may be "learned" (Riggs and O'Leary, 1989, 1996). Social learning theory has been applied to explain some aspects of intimate victimizing in adult and adolescent dating populations (Riggs and O'Leary 1989, 1996; Ronfeldt, Kimerling and Arias, 1998; Vangie et al 1999). Although the study of "learning" to be a victimizer is important, it is also important to examine the victimization experience (Bergman, 1992; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd and Sebastian, 1991; Molidor and Tolman, 1998; O’Keefe and Treister, 1998; Stets and Henderson, 1991). Much of the prior research on adolescent dating violence has focused on the direct link between situational and background factors and dating aggression and victimization (Molidor and Tolman, 1998; O’Keefe and Treister, 1998; Riggs and O’Leary, 1989, 1996). However, the situational and background factors do not tell the whole story. Not all individuals confronted with growing up in violent homes, conflictual relationships or violent neighborhoods receive or engage in violent behavior. There may be mediating factors that influence whether someone utilizes or accepts aggression in the intimate relationship. Although gender has been found to have some mediating effects on victimization (O’Keefe and Treister, 1998), it is important to go beyond gender to examine the links between prior experiences and “definitions” of violence, its seriousness and acceptance as a method of conflict resolution.

Sutherland (1947) made a significant contribution to our understanding of criminal offending by applying concepts of social learning to explain criminal behavior. These same ideas, particularly the idea that learning definitions from intimate groups impacts behaviors and beliefs, may readily be applied to our understanding of dating victimization and its persistence. Akers (1996) expanded on Sutherland’s notion of “definitions.” Akers (1996) definitions are the attitudes and meanings that one attaches to a given behavior. These include orientations, rationalizations, definitions of the situation, and other evaluative and moral attitudes that define an act (Akers 1996). Akers was not the first person to more specifically define Sutherland’s “defintions.” The neutralization of definitions to explain, rationalize, disclaim, justify or account for behavior have been discussed by a variety of theorists (Cressey 1953; Sykes and Matza 1957; Lyman and Scott (1970) and Hewitt and Stokes 1975). Sykes and Matza (1957) noted that it was important to understand how internal and external demands for conformity are neutralized to explain criminal offending. Similar to its application to criminal offending, neutralizing definitions may allow victims to avoid self-stigmatization by not defining themselves as victims or justifying their own victimization. Such a neutralization, rationalization, justification, accounting or disclaimer may be the link between a history of violence (familial, personal or peer) and the perpetuation of violence in the dating relationship. Violence may simply be understood as “normal.”

Definitions, meaning, rationalizations and neutralizations may come before (to disclaim) or after an event (to account). In either instance, the acceptance of violence as a norm may be perpetuated, victims may not define their situation in those terms, and/or persons may remain in physically and psychologically battering relationships. Research by Ferraro and Johnson (1983) identified six rationalizations used by women to stay in a battering relationship. The rationalizations are: (1) appeal to the salvation of an ethic (2) denial of the victimizer (3) denial of injury (4) denial of victimization (5) denial of options and (6) appeal to higher loyalties. Each of these rationalizations will be described briefly here. A woman who “appeals to the salvation of an ethic” may identify being female with a role as a nurturer and believe it is her role to “save” the batterer from psychological or internal problems. A woman who expresses a “denial of victimizer” views the battering as the result of some external force outside her relationship (alcohol, stress). A woman who is in “denial of injury” believes that the pain associated with a battering is normal and tolerable. A woman who is in “denial of victimization” believes that she is the cause of her own victimization – self-blaming for not avoiding violence by being more conciliatory. A woman who expresses a “denial of options” does not believe that she could exist on her own. Finally, a woman who “appeals to higher loyalties” expresses that she is willing to endure violence because of a religious or traditional commitment. Ferraro and Johnson (1983) note that these rationalizations for staying in a battering relationship are not mutually exclusive. In two other studies, Loseke and Cahill (1984) and Woods (1999) attributed a woman’s ‘appeal to higher authorities’ or ‘denial of injury’ to normative beliefs about marriage and the importance of marital stability as accounting for women’s reluctance to leave or downplay the seriousness of domestic violence.

For this study, the “denial of injury” and “denial of victimization” are the rationalizations most likely to camaflouge or mask the reporting of dating violence, and to influence reports about definitions and the seriousness of dating violence. This idea that violence is perceived as “normal” may decrease the chance that a respondent reports dating violence, and it increases the chance that a victimized person remains in a battering relationship. It may be that only some violence is accepted as normative. In other words, acceptance of violence as a mode of conflict resolution may depend on the conflict or situation. Therefore, it is important to ask about the approval of violence in specifically defined situations.

Several studies have shown that the reasons given for violence vary by gender (Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997; Follingstad et al 199; Rasche 1993). Women report using violence in self-defense, whereas men use violence to control women or win an argument (Barnett et al 1997; DeKeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz, and Alvi 1997; Saunders 1996; Makepeace 1981). Jealousy has also been cited as a common reason or justification for dating violence among high school students as well as adults (Follingstad et al 1991; Makepeace 1981; Roscoe and Kelsey 1986). In a study of reasons given by adult defendants for murdering an intimate, Rasche (1993) found that that male murderers were more often motivated by posessiveness , and women were motivated by self-defense.

The Latino Culture and Dating Violence

Some researchers have argued that an examination of the Latino culture is important to a contextual understanding of dating and domestic violence within the Latino community (Perilla, 1999). In the Latino culture, the family is very important and gender-roles are specifically defined within the family. Loyalty, respect and solidarity are primary features of the Latino family. Traditional roles for the mother and father are generally adhered to in the family (Abalos, 1986). Children are socialized into very specific gender roles. Several of the gendered scripts that may influence the use of violence in dating or domestic relationships are machismo and marianismo.

[M]achismo is seen as an expression of the exaggeration of maleness to the detriment of the feminine constitution, personality, and essence; it is the exaltation of physical superiority and brute force, the legitimization of a stereotype that uses unjust power relations (Perilla, 1998: 116).

Researchers claim that machismo has both positive and negative traits (Mirande, 1997; Marin and Marin, 1991). On the one hand, machista values responsibility, loyalty and providing for one's family; on the other hand, it emphasizes physical strength, power and sexual prowess (Perilla, 1998). The negative aspects of machismo may result in the socialization of young boys they hold power and dominance over girls and women. These beliefs of legitimized oppression may be externalized as the violent victimization of women and girls.

The machismo counterpart, marianismo, reinforces these beliefs. Marianismo sets forth the expectations for Latin women and girls. Girls are socialized to believe that to be a "good woman" she must be passive, compliant and pure. Girls and women are expected in this culture to put the needs of others before her own. It is also expected that women may not be "too independent", loyalty means not discussing family problems publicly, and the preservation of familial standing and respect in the community is imperative (Abalos, 1986; Perilla, 1998). These inflexible beliefs are taught to children and influence as well as perpetuate violence against women and girls. It also reduces the chance that violence will be reported or that women and girls will seek help. Moreover, this socialization may result in Latinos defining such violence as "normal."

In a study that compared perceptions of Spanish and English males, Delgado, Prieto, and Bond (1997) found that Spanish men were more likely to identify jealousy as a motivivation for wife abuse. They also found that British men were more likely to perceive the abuser as opposed to the victim as “more guilty” in scenarios involving a wife’s infidelity. This cultural difference may impact the rate of reporting and not reporting violence among Latinos. In a culture where the victim is perceived as the “wrong-doer”, she may be less likely to report this violence to the authorities. In fact, she may not even perceive herself as victimized. In other research, Caetano et al (2000) found that men who were struggling with the acculturation process approved of male and female verbal or physical aggression in the intimate relationship more than those that lacked acculturation or who had greatly assimilated the American value system. Among women, however, there were not significant differences across acculturation levels and attitudes toward male and female initiated verbal or physical aggression.

Acculturation

There is some research that demonstrates the level of acculturation may influence or change adherence to cultural values (Garza and Gallegos, 1995; Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, Marin and Perez-Stable, 1987). Important to this research, gender-role expectations may be influenced by social conditions (Vega 1990). Conflict may emerge when adherence to cultural values are challenged by exposure to the American culture. In fact, some research has found that acculturation is related to intimate violence, but the findings are inconsistent (Kantor, Jasinski, and Aldarondo, 1994; Sorenson and Telles, 1988). Some research finds that greater levels of acculturation increase risks of intimate violence (Sorenson and Telles 1991), and other research has found that lack of acculturation increases this risk (Champion, 1996; Sabogal et al 1987). The latter research attributes this relationship to the stress placed on acculturated Latinos attempting to adapt to the American way, whereas the former research explains that unacculturated Latinos are unable to integrate into society increasing economic and social pressures. The limited number of studies on acculturation and domestic violence have focused on adult populations of married couples. One explanation for the lack of consensus on the effect of acculturation may be the different measures used for this conceptualization (Jasinski 1998). In two recent articles, based on a 1992 household survey, Jasinski (1998) and Caetano, Schafer, Clark, Cunradi and Raspberry (2000) examined the impact of acculturation on intimate violence in the marital relationship. In the first study, Jasinski (1998) found that greater acculturation of Hispanic Americans increased the likelihood of wife assault. In this research, Jasinski (1998) examined four measures for acculturation, and she suggests that a multi-dimensional measure is necessary to improve assessment of this factor and to establish the link between acculturation and intimate violence. Her four measures were: 1. language preference; 2. Country of birth for self, partner and parents; 3. Number of years in the United States; and 4. Language used by respondent to complete the survey. She specifically found the following relationships: 1. husbands born in the United States had higher rates of minor assaults against their wives; 2. generational status was associated with the rate of minor assaults against wives; 3. higher rates of minor assaults against wives were found among husbands who arrived in the United States at a younger age; 4. higher rates of wife assault were found among men who took the interview in English; and 5. language preference and wife assault were not significantly related.[4]

In the study by Caetano et al (2000), acculturation was examined by scaling responses to questions about the respondents ability to speak English in a number of settings, ease of social relationships, opinions about interethnic marriage, preference for Hispanic media and music, proportion of Hispanic friends, proportion of Hispanics in neighborhood, and proportion of Hispanics at parties and gatherings. Based on the responses, Caetano et al (2000) divided the respondents into three groups: low, medium and high acculturation levels. Caetano et al (2000) found that male to female partner violence was highest among those men in the medium acculturation group; and female to male partner violence was highest among women in the medium acculturation group. Caetano and his colleagues explained the higher degree of domestic violence among men in the medium acculturated group as a possible reflection the struggle between adherence to one's culture of origin and attempts to adapt to the American culture.

The higher degree of domestic violence among medium acculturated couples may reflect the inherent difficulties of the acculturation process, during which individuals may lack a strong identification with one culture and thus are forced to negotiate between two disparate cultures. This potential lack of ties with the culture of the old country and with that of the adopted county may lead to increased anxiety, stress, conflict, and partner violence (Caetano et al 2000: 43).

The pressures related to the acculturation process may be particularly relevant to young Hispanics teenagers. These teens may be faced daily with the struggle between their familial culture and attempting to adapt to an American value system. In light of this special circumstance, it is important to examine the perceptions of Latino high school students, victimization and degrees of acculturation. As suggested by Jasinski (1998) and Caetano et al (2000), several measures of acculturation will be utilized.

The Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this article is to explore dating violence among high school Latino students, to fill several gaps in the literature, and to improve our understanding of dating violence. First, this research explores dating violence victimization among a previously ignored population –Latino high school students (males and females).[5] In doing so, this article will examine variations in the definition of dating violence, perceptions about the seriousness of dating violence, perceptions about friends approval of violence in 7-situational circumstances -- disobedience, private insults, public insults, drunken behavior, refusal of sex, infidelity, and self-defense -- and the frequency of dating violence in this sample. This analysis is guided by social learning theory. Specifically it examines the relationship between definitions of dating violence, peer approval of violence to resolve disputes, and perceptions of seriousness of dating violence to dating violent victimization and experiences with childhood familial violence. Differences in definitions, perceptions about seriousness and acceptance of physical and verbal abuse to resolve conflict will be examined across several categories of persons – dating and non-dating respondents, male and female respondents, abusive and non-abusive discipline as a child, and victimized and non-victimized dating respondents. To examine the influence of acculturation, differences in Respondents definitions of dating violence, perceptions about its seriousness and beliefs about the acceptance of verbal or physical abuse in the dating relationship on four measures -- number of years living in the United States, intra-ethnic dating, language, and familial closeness.

It was expected, based on prior research and theory, that the following relationships would emerge:

Gendered Relationships

H1: Girls will report being victimized by dating violence more often than boys.

H2: Boys will hold more severe definitions of dating violence than girls.

H3: Girls will perceive dating violence as a more serious offense than boys.

H4: Boys will accept or justify verbal or physical abuse in the dating relationship more than girls.

Victimization Relationships

H5: Victims of dating violence will hold less severe definitions of dating violence than non-victims.

H6: Victims of dating violence will perceive dating violence as a more severe offense than non-victims.

H7: Victims of dating violence will be less accepting of dating violence than non-victims.

Childhood Victimization

H8: Respondents with a history of child victimization (witnessing inter-parental violence or experiencing child abuse) will hold less severe definitions of dating violence.

H9: Respondents with a history of child victimization will perceive dating violence as a less serious offense.

H10: Respondents with a history of child victimization will be more accepting of verbal or physical abuse in the dating relationship.

H11: Respondents with a history of child victimization will be more likely to be victims than those without such a history.

Peer Approval

H12: Respondents that believe their peers approve of dating violence are more likely to hold more severe definitions of dating violence.

H13: Respondents that believe their peers approve of dating violence are more likely to perceive dating violence as less serious.

H14: Respondents that believe their peers approve of dating violence will be more accepting of dating violence.

Definitions of Dating Violence

H15: Respondents with more severe definitions of dating violence are more likely to perceive dating violence as less serious.

H16: Respondents with more severe definitions of dating violence are more likely to accept verbal or physical abuse as a normative method of conflict resolution than those holding less severe definitions.

Acculturation

H17: Respondents with greater conflicts surrounding acculturation (number of years in the United States; language spoken at home; . . . ) will be more likely to hold more severe definitions of dating violence.

H18: Respondents with greater conflicts surrounding acculturation will be more likely to perceive dating violence as less serious.

H19: Respondents with greater conflicts surrounding acculturation will be more likely to accept or justify verbal or physical abuse in the dating relationship.

METHODS

Issues Research Setting and Demographic

The research site is one of the most densely populated northeastern cities in the country. The city has over 58,000 residents concentrated within 1.4 square miles, representing a population density of 41,437 persons per square mile. The city also has the second largest concentration of Hispanic residents (75.6%) in the nation, second only to Miami. The city was once a major destination for Cuban political refugees. Many of the original Cuban families, however, have relocated to suburban locations. Newly arrived immigrants from the Caribbean and South and Central America are lower income, less educated and represent the new inhabitants of the city. These new inhabitants often report serious economic and cultural adjustment problems. Citywide school statistics indicate that one third of the school population has limited English proficiency. Moreover, police report that one third of their calls are related to domestic violence or intimate interpersonal conflict.

To capture a cross section of students in our sample, students in mandatory physical education and health classes from a public school were asked to participate in the survey. Most of the students in these courses were juniors and seniors in high school. The sample of students closely resembled the entire citywide population of students based on age, gender, and country of origin. The sample consisted of 182 students. As expected a majority (85.2%) of the participants were junior or seniors in high school, six percent were sophomores and three percent were freshman. The mean age of the participants was 17. Almost (91%) the entire population reported being of Hispanic origin. Since the focus of this paper is on the response of Latino/Hispanic students, those reporting another ethnicity are excluded from study (n=14).^[1] An additional four surveys were excluded from the analysis due to missing information and suspect responses (e.g., in one survey a student listed his age as 27, but he lived in the United States over 30 years).

The respondents in this sample (n=164), then, are all Hispanic. ^[2] Seventy percent were born outside the United States, and on average, the respondents have only lived in the United States for 8.87 years. Years spent living in the United States ranged from 1 to 18. Forty-three percent of the sample reported living with both parents, 47% reported living with only their mother, and 4.3% reported living only with their father. Forty-two percent of the sample reported being employed, and of those employed only 11.6% were employed full-time. Most of the respondents (75.6%) expected to attend college or a technical school after graduation, 5.7% expected to join the military, 3.4% expected to work full time, and 10.2% did not know what they would do after graduation.

RESULTS^[3]

Descriptive Statistics and Qualitative Analyses: Total Population

Dating. Almost 80% of the sample reported that they “date” (n=125). To understand what “dating” meant to the students, they were asked to “define” dating. Below are the distributions of the their definitions: hanging out/having fun (14.8%), going to the movies (11.3%), going to dinner (8.7%), engaging in sexual activity (4.3%), having conversation (3.5%) and using drugs or alcohol (1.7%). Almost 50% of the respondents answered the question of what “dating” means to them based on an emotional feeling instead of giving a specific activity like the ones listed above. These responses included (but were not limited to):

· When a friend is more than a friend and is an influence in your life

· When you are building a relationship with someone

· When a guy and girl are together and they can trust each other

· Getting to know someone well in order to discover common interests

· Getting to know someone to be able to find the “right one”

· When two people are more than friends

· When two people can trust each other with their emotions

· When you are exclusive with someone

These students have mostly (64%) dated those within their same age group (within 1 to 2 years). Only seven percent dated a partner 3 or more years younger, and 29% dated a person 3 or more years older than themselves. Almost half dated a person with the same ethnicity. Fifty-one percent dated only one or two persons in 12-month period preceding the survey, and twenty-three percent dated three or four persons. Twenty-five percent reported dating four or more persons within this time frame.

Dating victimization. Ten percent (n=12) of the dating teens reported being the victims of “dating violence.” This rate is much lower than that reported in other studies of dating violence in high school (O’Keefe and Treister, 1998).^[4] Several explanations may exist for these findings. The low rate may be the result of mis-perceptions about victimizations in this or other research, Hispanic high school students may be unwilling to identify “violence” within a relationship, or Hispanic high school students may simply engage in less dating violence than other populations. The findings may also be different simply based on different methodologies or ways of asking questions about violent victimizations (O’Keefe and Treister, 1998; Sugarmen and Hotaling, 1989). Although, we are unable to distill the true basis for the disparity, the students’ perceptions about dating violence may shed some light on these differences. Due to small sample size and disparate n's (victims versus non-victims), analyses will not be conducted based on victimization status.

Seriousness, Acceptance and Definitions of Dating Violence

Most (93%) considered dating violence a serious offense, but almost 19% also believed that physical or verbal abuse was an acceptable means of conflict resolution in the dating relationship. Thus it is important to examine how the respondents, in their own words, defined “dating violence.” To determine what the teens meant by “dating violence,” they were asked to “define ‘dating violence’.” Interestingly, forty-five students did not answer this question in the survey. The lack of response to this question, as opposed to the other questions (yes/no), may be a reflection of the students’ lack of understanding of dating violence, their inability to define “dating violence” in their own words, or there may be some other reason for their non-response. One student refused to answer this question because she said it had happened to her and “she did not want to talk about it.”

According to the remaining teens, “dating violence” definitions ranged from verbal abuse and yelling to rape and murder. Most, however, defined dating violence, in terms of some physical or forced contact. It meant beating or striking a date (22%), forcing a date to do something (20%), engaging in mental, physical or verbal abuse (17%), rape (13%) or something else (26%). Three categories of responses emerged in examining the definitions formulated by the teens – an identification of specific acts; an emotional description of events; or violence in terms of forced sexual activity. Many of the respondents simply listed acts that they believed amounted to dating violence, for example – “rape,” “yelling,” “fighting.” These respondents listed acts of verbal as well as physical violence to define “dating violence.” Those in the second category described the event as a situation or with an internal emotional context, and most reflected upon dating violence in terms of “disrespect.” For example, these respondents stated that dating violence meant: “when you date somebody and you really hate that person and you do dating violence;” “somebody that doesn’t have respect for themselves and that don’t appreciate what they have also disrespect others;” “someone who does not respect you” and “that’s bad because your going out to meet someone and you think is good, but when you get there is bad to see a horrible person.” Finally, many of the respondents defined dating violence by “forced” activity, mostly sexual. This forced activity may or may not have been rape. For example, respondents reported dating violence occurred when “my date trying to touch me and I don’t wanted;” and “you go out with someone and he try to do something that you don’t want to do.” These latter responses may be a reflection of a more heightened awareness of “date rape.” This may be particularly true for girls, since it was mostly girls who utilized these definitions of dating violence. If this is the case, education about other forms of dating violence, in addition to date rape, could result in a broader range of definitions and a better understanding of what constitutes dating violence.

Situational Acceptance of Dating Violence

To distill the circumstances that “violence” may be deemed acceptable, participants were given seven scenarios (disobedience, private insults, public insults, being drunk, refusal of sex, infidelity, and self-defense) and asked whether they believed their male and female friends approved of violence. Interestingly, respondents reported a great deal of “approved violence” under some circumstances. This is particularly true in instances of “infidelity.” Similar to Delgado et al (1997), the results seem to suggest that many teenagers like adults believe violence is justified in situations of “infidelity.” Boys particularly hold this perception about their male (42.4%) and female (43.9%) friends. Boys (44.6%) and girls (48.1%) also believed their friends approved of a girl hitting her boyfriend in self-defense, whereas only 35.4% of boys and 38.2% of girls believed their friends would approve of a boy hitting a girl in self-defense. Table 1 displays the percentage of boys and girls who perceived their friends approve of violence under these seven circumstances.

Childhood victimization. Respondents were asked how often an adult male and adult female family member hit them when they were 12 and younger. They were also asked whether they witnessed interparental violence in terms of a female mother-figure hitting a father-figure and vice versa. Few respondents reported being hit by an adult female often (6.4%, n=9) and an adult male often (4.3%, n=6). Forty-two percent (n=59) reported that they were hit “sometimes” by an adult female, and 31.4% reported that they were hit “sometimes” by an adult male. Most respondents reported never being hit by an adult female (51.8%, n=73) or an adult male (64.3%, n=90). In terms of witnessing a parental-figure hit another, more respondents witnessed a male parent hit a female parent than a female hit a male. Almost 15% (n=24) of respondents witnessed a female adult hit by a male adult when they were 12 or younger, whereas 28% (n=40) witnessed a male parent hit a female parent when they were 12 or younger.

Acculturation. In this population of Latino high school students, on average, they had lived in the United States approximately 9 years. Forty-three percent reported dating partners with the same ethnic background. The native language for every parent of the Respondents was Spanish. Respondents were also asked about their relationship and the importance of their family. One characteristic of the Latino culture is closeness among family members. Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following: It's best to seek help from family; Relatives can help with problems; Living or working with family is important; Family life is important; Family loyalty is important; and Living on one's own is a hardship. A scale of family closeness was created by coding Agree = 1 and Disagree = 0. Respondents who scored 0 to 3 were considered to be very assimilated or acculturated to the American value system (thus family is less important); Respondents who scored 4 to 6 were considered to be lacking acculturation (thus family remained very important). In this sample, 17.8 percent of the Respondents ranked "very acculturated" and 82.2 percent ranked "not acculturated" on this scale. Finally, respondents were asked about their use of English and Spanish languages in several situations. Specifically, respondents were asked how often they spoke Spanish with their parents, siblings, partners, friends, neighbors and people they hand out with. The possible responses were "all the time," "some of the time" and "never." These responses were coded as follows: all the time = 2; some of the time = 1; and never = 0. On average, respondents reported speaking Spanish half of the time. The maximum total for the use of the Spanish language is 12 (speaks Spanish all the time in every situation), and the minimum total for the use of the Spanish language is 0 (never speaks Spanish in every situation). To examine the level of acculturation using "language", each of was categorized as follows: respondents scoring 0 to 3 were considered to be acculturated (great use of the English language); respondents scoring 4 to 7 were considered to be medium acculturated (used English and Spanish equally); and respondents scoring 8 to 12 were considered not to be acculturated (relied mostly on the Spanish language). Based on this categorization, only 12.7 percent spoke mostly English (0 to 3), 61.2 percent spoke half in English and half in Spanish (4 to 7), and 26.1 percent spoke mostly Spanish (8 to 12).

Comparing Responses: Demographic and Situational Characteristics

To determine whether particular demographic or situational characteristics influence respondent responses, comparisons on gender (male/female), victimization (yes/no), dating status (yes/no), physical discipline as a child (never hit or sometimes hit/hit often: mother and father), and witnessing interparental violence (yes/no: father-figure hit mother-figure and vice versa) were conducted.

An index had to be created to examine two of the factors – definition of dating violence and peer approval of violence in situational contexts (see Table 1). As noted earlier, the following percent of teens reported these definitions of dating violence: beating or striking a date (22%), forcing a date to do something (20%), engaging in mental, physical or verbal abuse (17%), rape (13%) or something else (26%). These responses were collapsed into three categories: less severe definition, severe definition and very severe definition. Less severe definition included respondents who stated that dating violence consisted of mental abuse, verbal abuse, harassment, or screaming. The severe definition responses included those where physical touching occurred, e.g., beating, striking, forcing a date to do something. The very severe definition of dating violence included murder, rape and other serious bodily injuries.

The responses to peer approval of violence within the seven circumstances (Table 1) were collapsed into an index. Disapproval was re-coded “O,” and approval was re-coded “1.” The responses were added together to create an index of peer approval ranging from 0 - no approval of violence under any circumstance to 14 - approval of violence under every circumstance. To compare the responses, three categories were created: scoring 0 to 3 was labeled “low approval among friends,” scoring 4 to 8 was labeled “some approval of among friends,” and scoring 9 to 14 was labeled “a great deal of approval among friends.”

Comparisons between male and female students. In the total population (n=164), 9.2% of the respondents reported an experience with dating violence. Among the boys (n=75), 9.3 percent reported experiencing dating violence, and among the girls (n=88), 9.1 percent reported experiencing dating violence. More girls (36.4%) than boys (24.3%) reported knowing a friend who had been victimized by a dating partner. As reflected in the Makepeace (1981) study, more teens reported knowing a friend who was victimized by a dating partner than reported a self-victimization.

When asked about their definitions of violence, girls and boys held some different views. Girls appear to define “dating violence” in less severe terms than boys. Many more girls (31.3%, n=15) defined dating violence in terms of mental abuse, verbal abuse, harassment or screaming than boys (12.8%, n=5). To determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in boys’ and girls’ definitions of dating violence, the responses were collapsed into three categories: less severe definitions, severe definitions and very severe definitions. Chi square tests yield statistical significance across boys’ and girls’ definitions at the .10 level.

Also, although the total group overwhelmingly (90.7%) perceived dating violence as a serious offense, twice as many boys (23.9%) as girls (11.6%) believed that physical or verbal abuse in a dating relationship was acceptable. Chi-square tests yield statistical significance at the .05 level. Table 2 shows the differences in the definitions of boys and girls on “dating violence” and differences in “acceptance” of physical or verbal abuse.

Comparisons between victimized and non-victimized students. In a comparison of victimized and non-victimized teens, statistically significant differences in the seriousness of domestic violence as an offense, acceptance of verbal or physical abuse against a dating partner, and definitions of dating violence did not emerge. However, 73% (n-11) of victimized respondents reported that they knew a friend who had been victimized as well, whereas 26% (n=39) of non-victimized teens knew a victimized friend. Although chi-square tests yield statistical significance at the .001 level, these results should be viewed with caution due to the disparity in the n’s.

Comparisons Between Dating and Non-Dating Respondents. To assess whether the responses of dating and non-dating Hispanic teens were significantly different, comparisons across (1) definitions of dating violence, (2) the acceptability of dating verbal or physical abuse, (3) the perceived seriousness of dating violence, (4) peer approval of dating violence, and (5) friendships with those victimized by a dating partner were conducted. No statistically significant differences emerged when comparing dating and non-dating respondent answers.

Comparison by childhood familial violence experiences. Many of the respondents reported witnessing their parents hitting one another and being hit by an adult male or female as a child. Twenty-eight percent reported witnessing a father (stepfather/boyfriend) hit their mother, and 15% reported witnessing a mother (stepmother/girlfriend) hit their father. Many reported being hit by a male adult often or sometimes (35.7%) and a female adult often or sometimes (48.2%) prior to the age of 12. A comparison of the groups reporting the witnessing of violence by a parent against the other or against the respondent as a child on perceptions of the seriousness of dating violence, perceptions of physical or verbal abuse as acceptable, definitions of violence and victimization by a date were conducted. Statistically significant differences did not emerge for respondents’ beliefs about seriousness of dating violence, perceptions of acceptability of dating violence, and respondents’ definitions of dating violence. However, being hit by an adult male as a child and witnessing a father-figure hit a mother-figure were significantly related to dating violence victimization. Sixty-four percent (n=7) of respondents who reported being victims of dating violence also reported being hit by an adult male sometimes or often, whereas only 36% (n=4) of dating violence victims reported never being hit by an adult male. Chi square tests yield significance at the .05 level. Also, a higher percentage of victims of dating violence (58.3%, n=7) reported witnessing a male-parent figure hit a female-parent figure than those who did not. Chi square tests yield significance at the .05 level. Although these comparisons yield significance, these results should be viewed with caution due to small n’s.

Comparison Based on Acculturation

Comparing Responses: Mediating Factors "Perceptions" and "Definition"

To determine whether peer approval and respondent definitions influence each other as well as respondent perceptions about seriousness and acceptance of physical or verbal abuse, cross tab comparisons on thee factors were conducted.

Comparison Based Peer Approval of Dating Violence. Approval of violence among peers has been found to increase the risk of aggression between dating partners (Riggs and O’Leary, 1996). Many have argued that peer approval or acceptance may be more influential than parental ideas on young adult perspectives. Using the collapsed categories discussed previously, a comparison of approval among peers and respondent perceptions about the seriousness of dating violence and acceptability of physical or verbal abuse were examined. Differences across “seriousness of offense” were not significantly different for those with low, some and a great deal of approval of violence by friends. This is not surprising since most (93%) of students reported that dating violence was a serious offense.

Differences in the acceptability of verbal and physical abuse in the dating relationship by respondent and low, some and a great deal of approval among friends were significant. These results are shown in Table 3. Those respondents who accepted physical or verbal abuse in a dating relationship as normal were more likely to have friends that approved of either some (62.5%, n=15) or a great deal of violence (12.5%, n=3) in the dating relationship. Whereas, respondents that did not accept physical or verbal abuse as normal have friends that were more likely to hold low rates of approval (51%, n=75) of violence as opposed to some approval (34.7%, n=51) or a great deal of approval (14.3%, n=21) Chi square tests revealed significance at the .05 level.

Comparison based on definition of dating violence. The respondents’ definitions of dating violence are important in assessing perceptions about victimization. It is hypothesized that respondents that hold very severe definitions of “what is dating violence” may not deem dating violence in general (hitting or verbal) as serious, and in fact may believe that anything less than homicide or rape is acceptable. To asses this hypothesis, a comparison across the three definitional levels and respondents’ perceptions about seriousness of dating violence and the acceptance of physical or verbal abuse in the dating relationship were compared.

Differences across seriousness were not significantly different across respondents with less severe, severe, and very severe definitions of dating violence. The differences across acceptance of verbal and physical abuse by definition of dating violence were statistically significant. Chi square tests revealed significance at the .10 level. These findings are shown in Table 3. Respondents who accepted physical and verbal abuse as normative were more likely to hold severe (33.3%, n=5) and very severe (66.7%, n=10) definitions of dating violence. There was not a single respondent that reported accepting physical or verbal abuse in a dating relationship as normal that defined dating violence in less severe terms (mental abuse, verbal abuse, screaming or harassment).

Place Table 3 About Here

^[1] The total sample size is 182 respondents. However, for purposes of this analysis, only those respondents identifying themselves as “Hispanic” are included (n=164). The excluded respondents reported the following race/ethnicity: 1-African American; 3-Caucasian; 1-Asian; 9-Other.

^[2] Some of the respondents did not answer every question on the survey. Therefore, in the analyses, there is some variation in sample size.

^[3] This is a preliminary and exploratory analysis. Descriptive information and comparisons across groups (when appropriate) will be discussed. Chi square analyses were conducted to compare across grouping to examine whether differences were statistically significant (or approached significance). These findings should be viewed with caution. This was not a randomly selected sample of Latino students and some of the group comparisons rely on very small (and in some instances disproportionate) n’s. Based on these limitations, associational analyses were not conducted.

^[4] Three purported “non-dating” teens reported they had also been the victims of dating violence. These two teens are not included in this analysis because they answered “no” to the questions: “Do you date?”