Prevalence of dating violence and victimization: regional and gender differences.

Marquart, Beverly S. ; Nannini, Dawn K. ; Edwards, Ruth W. 等

Over the past two decades, a substantial amount of research has been devoted to violence in partner relationships within various groups. While the violence that occurs in the relationships of college-aged men and women, cohabiters, or married couples may not be of the same nature as that which occurs in adolescent dating, it has been suggested that abuse in high school dating relationships can establish a pattern of violence that may carry over into later relationships, affect marriage, and have lifelong consequences (Roscoe & Callahan, 1985; Roscoe & Kelsey, 1986; Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001), including various eating disorders (Thompson, Wonderlich, Crosby, & Mitchell, 2001). Since the experience of partner violence begins, on average, around 15 (O'Keefe, Brockopp, & Chew, 1986) and affects 10- 35% of high school students either as victims or as perpetrators, this period of adolescence provides a window of opportunity to address violence and abuse in partner relationships as an important health issue (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001), and therefore, represents a critical time for fundamental prevention and intervention.

Examining reported prevalence rates of adolescent dating violence is important for quantifying the problem, but these areas have varied greatly in the literature, ranging from 10% to 50% (Archer & Ray, 1989; Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001; Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Silverman et al., 2001). As noted by Jackson (1999), there are a number of methodological explanations for these discrepancies. In many of the studies by social class, ethnicity or racial identity is confounded with urban or rural community residence which may lead to inconsistent results (Harway & Liss, 1999). Furthermore, comparisons between studies have been difficult because units of measurement often vary. In spite of these concerns, previous research has indicated that there is evidence that prevalence rates for violence in partner relationships may vary from one sample population to the next and, specifically, from one region of the country to the next (Laner & Thompson, 1982; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989). With the exception of the Halpern et al. (2001) study on adolescent partner violence, no published study to date has inclnded a sample base wide enough to allow comparisons on dating violence between one sub-population and another.

Additionally, within prevalence studies, the widespread use of Straus' (1979) Conflict Tactics (CT) scales had led many to conclude that dating violence, particularly in adoiescent relationships, is perpetrated by both men and women alike (Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, O'Leary, & Cano, 1997; Henton, Cate, Koval, Lloyd, & Christopher, 1983; Foshee, Linder, & Bauman, et al., 1996; Halpern et al., 2001). Reported violence in adult relationships is more frequently reported as perpetrated by males toward their female partners, while adolescent patterns of violence and abuse appear to be less differentiated by gender (Martin, 1990). However, violence perpetrated by males is generally more severe with females being approximately 10 times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than are males (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998). There is also evidence that females are more likely than males to describe their violent behavior as self-defense in nature, while males are more likely to describe their aggressive behavior as motivated by needs to intimidate, control, or coerce (Jasinski & Williams, 1998; Follingstad, Rutledge, McNeill-Harkins, & Polek, 1992).

While, historically, research has focused on individual-level variables to identify those most at risk for victimization or perpetration of dating violence, the acceptance of violence (Sigelman, Berry, & Wiles, 1984; Straus, 1980; Symonds, 1978) and the influence of institutional or regional themes are possible correlates (Bernard & Bernard, 1983; Brodbelt, 1983; Straus, 1977) worth exploring. Even when improved communication skills and attitude change toward interpersonal violence are affected, there does not seem to be any evidence that such change leads to a reduction in men's violence toward women in dating situations (Avery-Leaf & Cascardi, 2002). Not taking into account the socialized context of young men and women may render prevention efforts ineffective.

The emphasis of institution or region on dating violence focuses on identifying the origins of a system-based cause of violence. For example, in her anthropological review of 186 societies, Sanday (1981) identified cultural characteristics supporting violence against women, some of which included gender-based roles for men and women with little value placed on women's roles, the predominance of power held by men, and the view of women as property. Less than 30 years ago, in most regions of the country, husbands' assaults on their wives were considered misdemeanors, even when the same action would have been considered a felony if perpetrated against a stranger or an acquaintance (Browne, Williams, & Dutton, 1999; Bergen, 1996; Russell, 1990). As of 2005, as many as 30 states still maintained some exemptions from prosecuting husbands for rape (National Clearninghouse on Marital and Date Rape, 2005). With examples such as these, it is important to consider how culture may create a socialized tolerance and influence the way people assign meanings to situations, which can, in turn, have implications for how they act (Corzine, Huff-Corzine, & Whitt, 1999).

In an attempt to identify regional differences in violence in dating relationships using meta-analysis, Sugarman and Hotaling (1989) found a pattern that mirrored the country's homicide rates. In a mostly college population, the highest rate of dating violence was found in the South (43.8%), which was followed by the West (27.5%), the Midwest (25.7%), and the East (22.8%). Hotaling and Sugarman's (1989) examination of dating violence is akin to research investigating the "subculture of violence" that is often said to exist in the South (Gastil, 1971; Hackney, 1969; Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). In order for a culture or subculture of violence to exist, there must be a perpetrator whose behavior is not constrained by self or society and a target whose role is also supported by the social dynamics (Sampselle, Bernhard, Kerr, Opie, Perley, & Pitzer, 1992). Due to its historically high rate of criminal violence, the Southern region of the United States is believed to be one such subculture.

Using an exclusively adolescent population, the present study sought to analyze dating violence victimization by region of the country in rural communities. Reuterman and Burcky (1989) found adolescents living in rural environments to be three times more likely to have experienced violence while dating. The geographic isolation and greater distances of rural communities to school and entertainment events creates an environment where youth frequently report "drinking while driving around" due to increased time spent in cars (Edwards, 1997). One of the most commonly identified risk factors of violence is alcohol use, which can lead to distorted perceptions that increase the likelihood of miscommunication, resentment, development of aggressive behavior, and other exacerbating factors (Jasinski & Williams, 1998; Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Rickert & Wiemann, 2002; Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & McAuslan, 2001). Furthermore, in a longitudinal study in the rural south by Foshee et al. (2001), males who had friends who were perpetrators of dating violence and used alcohol were significantly more likely to perpetrate dating violence than those without this peer influence. In the same study (Foshee et al.), females who had friends who were victims of dating violence and used alcohol were more likely also to be victims of dating violence victimization. However, significant predictors were attitudes and norms regarding dating violence (Foshee et al.).

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

The sample for this study was 20,807 white students in grades 10 through 12 who lived in 120 predominantly white rural communities of the U.S. Communities were stratified within four regions based on FBI crime report regional definitions (West, South, Midwest, Northeast) (NOTE 1). Communities within rurality categories were proportionately drawn to their representation in each region. Within each community, surveys were administered at a single high school. The sample is described in Table 1, in terms of region, rurality, and gender.

Students were administered the Community Drug and Alcohol Survey (CDAS) which uses items from The American Drug and Alcohol Survey[TM] (Oetting, Beauvais, & Edwards, 1985). (Note 2). The Community Drug and Alcohol Survey is derived from the American Drug & Alcohol Survey and The Prevention Planning Survey, which are the copyrighted property of Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute, Inc. ("RMBSI") (1-800-447-6354, www.rmbsi.com). This research project was granted permission to use and modify the survey through a special agreement between RMBSI and Colorado State University). It is a 99-item survey that asks a variety of questions related to substance use and other issues.

Surveys were conducted between the years of 1996 and 2000. Notification of the survey was sent to parents two weeks prior to its administration. Parents were informed that if they did not wish their child to participate, they could sign the notice and return it to the school. In addition, at the time the survey was given, students were told that their participation was voluntary, and they could leave any question blank. The surveys contained no identifying information, and the procedures ensured complete confidentiality.

Prior to using the survey data for analyses, 40 different internal consistency checks were made on each completed survey. If there were three or more inconsistencies, the student's survey was discarded. In addition, surveys with missing data on key items included in this analysis were deleted. Schools were replaced only if they had less than 80% of enrolled students taking the survey or if surveys from a school suggested evidence of poor administration.

Measures

Dating victimization survey questions asked whether the adolescent had ever had a girlfriend or boyfriend hit them, push them, or threaten them. Dating violence is measured as a dichotomous variable that is a 1 if the answer to any of these dating victimization questions was yes and a 0 otherwise.

Gender is a 1 if the respondent is female. Grade is equal to the grade of the student; it is centered at grade 10, making the 10th grade the base or comparison category.

Region was dummy coded, with South as the reference group. Rurality classification was based on census data using a modification of the Metropolitan Proximity Index (Labao, 1990). A remote community (remote = 1) had a population less than 2,000 and was located more than 2 hours driving time from a metropolitan area. A medium-rural community (remote = 0) had a population between 2,000 and 20,000; this category also includes communities with a population less than 2,000 but located less than 2 hours driving time from a metropolitan area.

Analysis

Because the data gathered for this study have a nested data structure in that individual students are part of the community, a multilevel logistic model (Goldstein, 1995; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) was estimated, where gender and grade are student-level covariates and region and remote are community-level covariates. The model was estimated with HLM5 using Bernoulli's logistic regression (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Missing data comprised 2.6% of the sample and were deleted list-wise, leaving a final sample of 20,274.

RESULTS

Approximately 15.8% of respondents reported ever having a girlfriend or boyfriend hit them, push them, or threaten them. Results of the final multilevel logistic regression model are shown in Table 2. At the individual level, gender and grade are both significant in predicting the odds of dating violence. The odds of a female being hit, pushed, or threatened are about 3.5 times that of her male counterpart being hit, pushed, or threatened. In addition, as grade increases by one, the relative odds of dating violence increases by 1.14.

Turning to the community level, region was significant in explaining dating violence in that students living in the South had significantly greater odds of experiencing dating violence than similar students living in other regions. The expected odds of dating violence for a student living in regions other than the South are between .67 and .70 times the odds of similar students living in the South. Rurality, on the other hand, was not significant in predicting dating violence victimization.

Table 3 gives the estimated odds of dating violence broken down by region and gender. The odds of a 10th-grade male being the victim of dating violence range from a low of .065 if the male lives in the West to a high of 0.96 if he lives in the South. A 10th-grade female living in the South has the highest odds of dating violence, .336, while her counterpart in the West has the lowest odds at .230.

Discussion

This national sample shows that approximately one in six students in grades 10-12 have experienced dating violence. Further examination of dating violence by region of the U.S. revealed higher levels of violence for both males and females living in the South. Consistent with previous research in this area (Sampselle et al., 1992), females from all four regions reported being victims of dating violence more often than their male counterparts. These levels of violent behavior in dating relationships demand close examination as a critical adolescent health issue.

The findings in this study are in concert with general patterns of violence across the nation. The South has been characterized by several researchers as possessing a subculture of violence (Corzine et al., 1999; Gastil, 1971; Hackney, 1969; Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967) such that homicide rates tend to be higher there than in other regions of the country. It is possible that such a subculture of violence contributes similarly to higher rates of dating violence. For example, Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel (1997) noted that, in addition to family violence, there are carryover effects of community violence on dating violence with exposure to community violence being the best predictor of both perpetration and victimization.

While it is tempting to suggest that adolescent dating violence is just one more manifestation of violence in a culture, it is important to exercise caution in making such an interpretation. Corzine et al. (1999) warn that few, if any, cultures condone all expressions of violence. The specific type of violence that has been identified as characteristic of the South is known as defensive violence which is demonstrated to protect the honor of one's self and family (Corzine et al.). At least on the surface, dating violence does not seem to fit under the rubric of defensive violence for either men or women.

Alternatively, it is possible that higher rates of adolescent dating violence are related to gender roles. Gender is generally conceptualized along two separate dimensions--one along a continuum of masculinity and another along a continuum of femininity (Bem, 1974). This characterization of gender permits individuals to embody both masculine and feminine traits. It is still possible, however, for a male to adhere exclusively to a masculine gender role and for a female to adhere exclusively to a feminine role. Such individuals are labeled a hypermasculine and hyperfeminine, respectively.

Hypermasculinity is operationalized as the endorsement of attitudes associated with an exaggerated version of the traditional male gender role, such as callous sexual attitudes toward women, the belief that violence is manly, and that danger is a source of excitement (Mosher, 1991, Mosher & Tomkins, 1988). Hyperfemininity is defined by the endorsement of attitudes associated with an exaggerated traditional female gender role (Murnen & Byrne, 1991) that emphasizes relationships with men and is characterized by an attraction to macho men and a tendency to say "no" when the meaning is actually "yes."

While several researchers have documented an egalitarian shift in gender role attitudes over the past quarter century (Cherlin & Walters, 1981; McBroom, 1986; Wilkie, 1993), the South maintains more traditional views of women (Good, 1989), particularly when it comes to employment and their role in politics (Rice & Coates, 1995). An overall tendency of southern men and women to adhere to exaggerated characterizations of gender may contribute to the greater disparity in the rate of dating violence victimization for both.

Whether increased prevalence of adolescent dating violence victimization is related to an overall pattern of violence or to exaggerated gender roles, it is important to recognize society's role in this public health issue. The focus of most research to date in this area has been on individual-level variables. While such variables are important in identifying those most at risk, planning for prevention and intervention should go beyond individual risk and protective factors and examine community and regional characteristics that may contribute to dating violence and victimization. The purpose of this study was not to isolate one region of the country from others. However, when values exist in one region more than another and the corresponding rates of dating violence are greater, cultural factors should be included in an attempt to understand and prevent dating violence.

REFERENCES

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2001). Alcohol and sexual assault. Alcohol Research and Health, 25, 43-51.

Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: A preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343.

Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., O'Leary, K. D., & Cano, A. (1997). Efficacy of a dating violence prevention program on attitudes justifying aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 11-17.

Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2002). Dating violence education: Prevention and early intervention strategies. In P. A. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in dating relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 79-105). Washington, DC: APA.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Bergen, R. K. (1996). Wife rape: Understanding the response of survivors and service providers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286.

Brodbelt, S. (1983). College dating and aggression. College Student Journal, 19, 273-277.

Browne, A., Williams, K. R., & Dutton, D. G. (1999). Homicide between intimate partners: A 20-year review. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 149-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. London: Sage.

Cherlin, A., & Waiters, P. B. (1981). Trends in United States men's and women's sex-role attitudes: 1972 to 1978. American Sociological Review, 46, 453-460.

Corzine, J., Huff-Corzine, L., & Whitt, H. P. (1999). Cultural and subcultural theories of homicide. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 42-57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edwards, R. W. (1997). Drug and alcohol use among youth in rural communities. In E. Robertson, Z. Sloboda, G. Boyd, L. Beatty, & N. Kozel (Eds.), Rural substance abuse: State of knowledge and issues (NIDA Research Monograph No. 168). Reckville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., McNeill-Harkins, K., & Polek, D. S. (1992). Factors related to physical violence in dating relationships. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 121-135). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Foshee, V. A.,. Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventative Medicine, 32, 128-141.

Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The safe dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 12, 39-47.

Gastil, R. D. (1971). Homicide and a regional culture of violence. American Sociological Review, 36, 412-427.

Geldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Arnold.

Good, C. (1989). Southern lady, or the art of dissembling. Journal of American Studies, 23, 72-77.

Hackney, S. (1969). Southern violence. American Historical Review, 74, 906-925.

Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1679-1685.

Harway, M., & Liss, M. (1999). Dating violence and teen prostitution: Adolescent girls in the justice system. In N. G. Johnson, M. C. Roberts, & J. Worell (Eds.), Beyond appearance: A new look at adolescent girls (pp. 277-300). Washington, DC: APA.

Henton, J., Cate, R. Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 467-481.

Jackson, S. M. (1999). Issues in the dating violence research: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 233-247.

Jasinski, J., & Williams, L. M. (1998). Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Labao, L. (1990). Locality and inequality: Farm and industry structure and socioeconomic conditions. Albany, NY: The State University Press of New York.

Laner, M. R., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Deviant Behavior, 3, 229-244.

Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 105-127.

Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291-302.

Martin, B. (1990). The transmission of relationship difficulties from one generation to the next. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 181-199.

McBroom, W. H. (1986). Changes in role orientations of women: A study of sex role traditionalism over a five-year period. Journal of Family Issues, 7, 149-159.

Mosher, D. L. (1991). Macho men, machismo, and sexuality. Annual Review of Sex, Research, 2, 199-247.

Mosher, D. L., & Tomkins, S. (1988). Scripting the macho man: Hypermasculine socialization and enculturation. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 60-84.

Murnen, S. K., & Byrne, D. (1991). Hyperfemininity: Measurement and initial validation of the construct. The Journal of Sex Research, 28, 479-489.

National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape. (2005). State Law Chart. Berkley, (www.ncmdr.org) CA: Author.

Oetting, E. R., Edwards, R., & Beauvais, F. (1985). Reliability and discriminant validity of the Children's Drug-Use Survey. Psychological Reports, 56(3), 751-756.

O'Keefe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31, 465-468.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hiearchical linear molds: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reuterman, N. A., & Burcky, W. D. (1989). Dating violence in high school: A profile of the victims. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 26, 1-9.

Rice, T. W., & Coates, D. L. (1995).Gender role attitudes in the Southern United States. Gender and Society, 9, 744-756.

Rickert, V. I., Vaughan, R. D., & Wiemann, C. M. (2002). Adolescent dating violence and date rape. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 14, 495-500.

Roscoe, B., & Callahan, J. E. (1985). Adolescents' self-report of violence in families and dating relationships. Adolescence, 20, 545-553.

Roscoe, B., & Kelsey, T. (1986). Dating violence among high school students. Psychology, 23, 52-59.

Russell, D. E. H. (1990). Rape in marriage. New York: Macmillan.

Sampselle, C. M., Bernhard, L., Kerr, R. B., Opie, N., Perley, M. J., & Pitzer, M. (1992). Violence against women: The scope and significance of the problem. In C. M. Sampselle (Ed.), Violence against women: Nursing research, education, and practice issues (pp. 3-16). New York: Hemisphere.

Sanday, P. R. (1981). The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 5-27.

Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence in college students' dating relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 530--548.

Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572-579.

Straus, M. A. (1977). Societal morphogenesis and intrafamily violence in cross-cultural perspective. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 285, 717-730.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Straus, M. A. (1980). Social stress and marital violence in a national sample of American families. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 347, 229-250.

Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 1-32). New York: Praeger.

Symonds, M. (1978). The psychodynamics of violence-prone marriages. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 38, 213-222.

Thompson, K. M., Wonderlich, S. A., Crosby, R. D.,. & Mitchell, J. E. (2001). Sexual violence and weight control techniques among adolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29, 166-176.

Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1998). Prevention of physical abuse and neglect: Windows of opportunity. In P. K. Trickett & C. Schellenbach (Eds.), Violence against children in the family and the community (pp. 339-370). New York: APA Books.

Wilkie, J. R. (1993). Changes in U.S. men's attitudes toward the family role provider, 1972-1989. Gender and Society, 7, 261-279.

Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated theory in criminology. London: Tavistock.

U.S. Department of Justice. (1998). Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook. (NCJ Publication No. 167237). Washington, DC: Author

(1.) The following regional breakdowns are based on regions used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in its report on crime in the United States (FBI, 1992): West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. This study did not include sampling in Alaska and Hawaii. Sampling was also not done in California due to inability to survey using the protocol specified by the project goals, i.e., consent without documentation.

(2.) The American Drug and Alcohol Survey (Oetting, Beauvais & Edwards, 1984-2001) is a commercially available survey for youth in grades 4-12. It is published by RMBSI, Inc., Ft. Collins, CO and is revised annually. The database is used by the Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research at Colorado State University for analyses and publication with permission.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Federal Grants RO1 DA09349 and P50 DA07074.

Dawn K. Nannini, TEAM Fort Collins, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Ruth W. Edwards, Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Linda R. Stanley, Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Jeffrey C. Wayman, Department of Educational Administration, College of Education, University of Texas, Austin.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Beverly S. Marquart, Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research, Department of Psychology, Sage Hall, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1876. E-mail: Beverly. Marquart@colostate.edu

Table 1--Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

 Rural Rural Remote Remote
 male female male female Totals

Northeast 201 197 52 34 484
Midwest 2394 2480 1444 1375 7693
South 3171 3406 1135 1086 8798
West 1353 1324 555 600 3832

TOTALS 7119 7407 3186 3095 20807

Table 2--Results of Multilevel Logistic Model
for Dating Violence Victimization by Gender,
Region, and Rurality

 Odds
 Coefficient Coefficients

Intercept -2.34 ** 0.10
 Midwest -0.40 ** 0.67
 West -0.38 ** 0.68
 Northeast -0.36 * 0.70
 Remote -0.09 0.91

Gender 1.25 ** 3.49

Grade .13 ** 1.14

Table 3--Estimated Gender Odds
by Region for Dating Violence Victimization

 Male Female
 Odds Odds

South 0.096 0.336
Midwest 0.065 0.225
West 0.066 0.230
Northeast 0.067 0.235