Negative romantic relationships characterized by dating aggression (DA) may constitute a relevant risk for the developmental trajectory of adolescents (Capaldi et al.,
2005). Dating aggression is considered a specific type of intimate partner violence (Capaldi & Langhinrichsen-Rohling,
2012) and can be defined as those aggressive behaviors that occur in the context of a dating relationship or a romantic relationship, including physical, psychological, and sexual aggressive behaviors. According to studies conducted in the USA and in Europe, adolescents involved in different forms of partner violence are 20–30% (Haynie et al.,
2013; Nocentini et al.,
2013; Viejo et al.,
2014). In Spain, studies report prevalence rates near 70% (Graña & Cuenca,
2014; Muñoz-Fernández & Sánchez-Jiménez,
2020) for psychological aggression, whereas for physical aggression rates vary from 10.9% (Graña & Cuenca,
2014) to 21% (Viejo, et al.,
2014). Studies on sexual aggression are less frequent in Spain and the estimations depend on the specific behavior under study (Fernández-Fuertes et al.,
2018; Ortega et al.,
2008). The most frequent forms are pressures to engage in sexual relations without partner’s consent, with rates reaching 25%, whereas threats and the use of physical force to engage in non-consensual sexual relations are the less frequent, around 2% (Muñoz-Rivas et al.,
2017; Sánchez-Jiménez et al.,
2018). Overall, Spanish studies reveal prevalence rates similar to other countries (Lara,
2020) for psychological aggression but higher than international studies for physical and sexual aggression (Fernández-González et al.,
2014; Muñoz-Rivas et al.,
2017). Although the use of different measures and behaviors across studies might explain this finding, according to these studies, these elevated levels of DA stem from a higher tolerance of violence among Spanish adolescents than in other countries (Fernández-Fuertes et al.,
2018). This is supported by the widespread acceptance of sexist attitudes (Cava et al.,
2020) and the myths of romantic love (Nardi-Rodríguez et al.,
2018; Sánchez-Jiménez et al.,
2018), which are overrepresented in Spanish culture (Yela,
2003).
Dating Aggression: Risk Predictors
Dating aggression during adolescence can be understood within a developmental-contextual perspective (Capaldi et al.,
2005). This model focuses on an individual-contextual interaction framework where the presence and the persistence of individual behavior are the results of the combination of prior individual dispositions and the influences of various key proximal social systems (i.e., peer, couple) across developmental stages.
Individual characteristics related to emotion regulation, such as anger (dys)regulation, are associated with the quality of romantic relationships and the involvement in dating aggression (Nocentini et al.,
2013; Vagi et al.,
2013). Longitudinal studies reported that early adolescents who presented poor inhibitory control, reflecting (dis)regulation problems, presented higher dating aggression 7 years later (Farrel & Vaillancourt,
2019). Looking at the peer context, adolescents who are aggressive with their peers are likely to be aggressive in their romantic relationships compared to non-aggressive adolescents (Espelage et al.,
2018; Nocentini et al.,
2010). Peer bullying is considered a risk factor for peer sexual harassment and dating aggression during adolescence when youth become sensitive to sexual and intimate dimensions of relationships. Several studies reported that adolescents who bully others are more likely to sexually harass their peers and to be aggressive toward a dating partner (i.e., Cutbush et al.,
2016; Josephson & Pepler,
2012; McMaster et al.,
2002). In particular, direct physical bullying during late childhood predicted physical dating violence perpetration (Foshee et al.,
2014) and sexual dating violence perpetration in adolescence (Wincentak et al.,
2017). Finally, considering the couple context, adolescents involved in dating relationships with high levels of conflict, jealousy, and controlling behaviors show higher levels of dating aggression (Muñoz-Fernández & Sánchez-Jiménez,
2020; Nocentini et al.,
2013). Victims of dating aggression, particularly of psychological dating aggression, reported insecure dating relationships, with high levels of distrust and jealousy in their intimate relationships (Ellis et al.,
2009; Capaldi et al.,
2012; Sanchez-Jimenez et al.,
2014).
Overall, these studies indicate that DA is a complex phenomenon which needs to be addressed through the interplay of these factors. Shared and common risk factors between different forms of DA have been demonstrated by basic and translated research using this approach. Basic research demonstrated that poor conflict management skills, acceptance of TDV, low maternal responsiveness, association with antisocial peers, and poor mother-adolescent communication were the most important shared risk factors across bullying, sexual harassment, and physical TDV (Foshee et al.,
2016). The findings related to psychological DA and sexual DA are less evident (DeGue et al.,
2021; Mcnaughton-Reyes & Foshee,
2013; Muñoz-Fernández et al.,
2019; Ngo et al.,
2018). However, literature on DA predictors has usually used a variable-oriented approach where the unique, additive, or interactive role of the predictors was analyzed. What is missing in the literature is an examination of classes of youth based upon their individual and relational risk factors, and the evaluation of how allocation in these classes predicts dating abuse. Identifying specific risk profiles that differentially predict risk for physical, sexual, and psychological DA perpetration might offer insights into specific components to be considered within crossing intervention strategies where single programs can prevent multiple problem behaviors (Flay et al.,
2005).
Translational research showed that the effects of DA interventions are not the same for all the different forms of dating violence. In particular, there is more evidence for interventions in reducing severe forms of DA, such as physical DA and sexual DA (Foshee et al.,
2004,
2012; Muñoz-Fernández et al.,
2019; Taylor et al.,
2013; Wolfe et al.,
2003), whereas only few intervention programs reported a reduction in less severe forms such as psychological DA (Foshee et al.,
2004,
2005). Although cross-cutting strategies are an efficient approach to prevention, research has yet to demonstrate how multiple aggressive behaviors share risk factors that can be changed within the same program. This information is very relevant for interventions aimed at preventing DA. If physical and sexual DA share a common risk profile, close to severe forms of peer violence, program efforts should focus on the design of cross-cutting interventions (Vivolo-Kantor et al.,
2019). However, this approach may not be true for other types of DA, such as psychological DA, which is resistant to change in cross-cutting programs. A possible response to this demand may be to identify which specific risk profiles that characterize these types of aggression should be covered by the programs.
In Spain, there is a limited tradition on evidence-based dating violence prevention programs (Sánchez-Jiménez,
2019). Moreover, the majority of the programs have been focused on changing attitudes and beliefs about violence, and only recent programs are incorporating the assessment of the change in violent behavior. Regarding the specific outcomes, sexual dating aggression has been marginally addressed and studied. Although the National and Regional Policy stated that all the schools from preschool to secondary education must develop a school plan for equality (where topics related to sex education and gender violence should be included), there are many obstacles to develop these plans efficiently. Lack of school interest, lack of trained teachers, and standard models specifically focused on risk behaviors (such as risk sexual intercourses) are some of these barriers (Martínez et al.,
2012). Just in the last decade, few programs specifically focused on romantic relationship and dating violence in adolescence have been developed, and their efficacy seems to be in line with international programs. However, these results should be considered with caution not only because of the scarce number (Carrascosa et al.,
2019; Muñoz-Rivas et al.,
2019; Sánchez-Jiménez et al.,
2018) but also because only few of them focused on the different forms of DA, including sexual DA (Fuertes-Martin et al.,
2012; Muñoz-Fernández et al.,
2019). There is a need to deepen our knowledge of the nature of specific typologies of DA in order to advance the design of better and more accurate intervention programs that could be incorporated into the school plans for equality.
The aim of this study was to identify different risk profiles of DA in Spanish adolescents, considering individual characteristics, romantic relationship factors, peer relationships, and to investigate whether these groups can explain different forms of dating aggression over time. Starting from the available literature, we hypothesize that physical and sexual forms of DA should be predicted by the same typology of risk, centered on individual variables related to aggressiveness. Another risk combination could define the psychological DA form. Specifically, we expected that couple-related factors, such as couple quality, jealousy, and control, would account more for psychological DA than for physical or sexual DA.