Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Dating Violence in Emerging Adulthood: Assessment and Prevalence

Öz

fiziksel ve cinsel şiddet uygulama yaşantılarını ölçmek için kullanılabilecek, yapı geçerliği yüksek bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, ayrıca, şiddet uygulama ve şiddete maruz bırakılma yaşantılarının yaygınlığını, cinsiyetin cinsel şiddet için bir risk faktörü olduğunu, bir şiddet türü uygulamanın ya da bir şiddet türüne maruz bırakılmanın diğer şiddet türlerini uygulama ve şiddet türlerine maruz bırakılma riskini arttırdığını ve flört şiddetinin karşılıklı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, flört şiddetinin, üniversite öğrencilerinin flört ilişkilerinde önemli bir sorun olduğunu ve öğrencilerin flört şiddetine yönelik farkındalıklarının arttırılarak flört şiddeti yaşantılarının azaltılmasına yönelik koruyucu ve önleyici çalışmalara ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: kelime, kelime, kelime, kelime, kelime The purpose of the current study was first to investigate the factorial validity of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-R) adapted to measure psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence. Then, the prevalence of and gender differences in self-reported physical, sexual, and psychological violence perpetration and victimization were explored. The data was collected from 733 currently dating emerging adults in college (n = 378; 51.6%) aged between 18 and 25 (M = 21.02) via the CTS-R and a demographic information form. The exploratory factor analyses yielded three subscales of psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence, properly constructed to gauge psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and victimization in dating college students. Gender differences emerged in the prevalence of sexual (26.0% for women and 42.0% for men) and physical violence (44.0% for women and 36.0% for men), but not psychological violence perpetration (81.0% for women and 75.0% for men). For victimization, no gender differences emerged (sexual; 31.0% for women and 38.0% for men), (physical; 37.0% for women and 37.0% for men), and (psychological; 73.0% for women and 67.0% for men). The findings suggest that there is a need to develop and deliver preventive and protective programs particularly tailored to the needs of emerging adult college students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dating violence
• psychological dating violence
• sexual dating violence
• physical dating violence
• emerging adulthood
• contruct validity

Psikolojik, Fiziksel ve Cinsel Flört Şiddetini Ölçmek: Beliren Yetişkinlerin Flört Şiddeti Yaşantıları

Öz

Bu araştırmada, önce, psikolojik, fiziksel ve cinsel flört şiddetini ölçmek için geliştirilen Çatışma Yöntemleri Ölçeği-Gözden Geçirilmiş (ÇYÖ-G) formunun yapı geçerliği test edilmiştir. Daha sonra, psikolojik, fiziksel ve cinsel flört şiddetine maruz bırakılma ve psikolojik, fiziksel ve cinsel flört şiddeti uygulama sıklıkları ve bu sıklıkların cinsiyete göre farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı incelenmiştir. Araştırma verileri, süregelen bir flört ilişkisi olan ve yaşları 18 ile 25 arasında değişen (ort = 21.02) 378’i kadın (%51.6) toplam 733 beliren yetişkinden, ÇYÖ-G ve katılımcı bilgi formu kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, ÇYÖ-G’nin flört eden üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik, fiziksel ve cinsel şiddete maruz bırakılma ve psikolojik, fiziksel ve cinsel şiddet uygulama yaşantılarını ölçmek için kullanılabilecek, yapı geçerliği yüksek bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, ayrıca, şiddet uygulama ve şiddete maruz bırakılma yaşantılarının yaygınlığını, cinsiyetin cinsel şiddet için bir risk faktörü olduğunu, bir şiddet türü uygulamanın ya da bir şiddet türüne maruz bırakılmanın diğer şiddet türlerini uygulama ve şiddet türlerine maruz bırakılma riskini arttırdığını ve flört şiddetinin partnerler arasında karşılıklı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, flört şiddetinin, üniversite öğrencilerinin flört ilişkilerinde önemli bir sorun olduğunu ve öğrencilerin flört şiddetine yönelik farkındalıklarının arttırılarak flört şiddeti yaşantılarının azaltılmasına yönelik koruyucu ve önleyici çalışmalara ihtiyaç duyulduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• flört şiddeti
• psikolojik flört şiddeti
• cinsel flört şiddeti
• fiziksel flört şiddeti
• beliren yetişkinlik
• yapı geçerliği

Kaynakça

1. Aba, Y. A., & Kulakaç, Ö. (2016). Çatışmaların çözümüne yaklaşım ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Medical Journal of Bakırköy, 12(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/0.5350/BTDMJB201612106
2. Anderson, K. M., & Danis, F. (2007). Collegiate sororities and dating violence: An exploratory study of informal and formal helping strategies. Violence against Women, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206294808
3. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4. Ayhan-Balik, C. H., & Bilgin, H. (2019). Experiences of minority stress and intimate partner violence among homosexual women in Turkey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519864371
5. Braithwaite, S. R., Delevi, R., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). Romantic relationships and the physical and mental health of college students. Personal Relationships, 17, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01248.x
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Pegem A Yayıncılık.
7. Chan, K. L., Straus, M. A., Brownridge, D. A., Tiwari, A., & Leung, W. C. (2008). Prevalence of dating partner violence and suicidal ideation among male and female university students worldwide. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 53, 529-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.04.016
8. Chapman, H., & Gillespie, S. M. (2019). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): A review of the properties, reliability, and validity of the CTS2 as a measure of partner abuse in community and clinical samples, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 44, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.10.006

9. Cornelius, T. L., Shorey, R. C., & Beebe, S. M. (2010). Self-reported communication variables and dating abuse: Using Gottman’s marital communication conceptualization. Journal of Family Abuse, 25, 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9305-9
10. Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2015). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(2), 136–152.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517559
11. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.
12. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
14. Halperin, S. (2001). Today’s forgotten half: Still losing ground. In S. Halperin (Ed.), The forgotten half revisited: American youth and young families, 1998–2008 (pp. 1-26). Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.
15. Hammock, G. S., Richardson, D. S., Williams, C., & Janit, A. S. (2015). Perceptions of psychological and physical aggression between heterosexual partners. Journal of Family Violence, 30(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9645-y
16. Harned, M.S. (2001). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for dating violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1179-1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626002237401
17. Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scale. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197
18. Jenkins, S. S., & Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender-related constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28, 1106-1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022811009
19. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283–294. https://doi.org/10.2307/353683
20. Johnson, W. L., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W.D. (2014). Intimate partner abuse on trajectories of depressive symptoms from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55 (1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513520430
21. Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., … White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x
22. Krahé, B., & Berger, A. (2005). Sex differences in relationship aggression among young adults in Germany. Sex Roles, 52(11), 829–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199- 005-4202-z
23. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Misra, T. A. (2012). Motivations for men and women's intimate partner violence perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 429–468.  https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429
24. Leisring, P. A. (2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships: Motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1437–1454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468236
25. Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/584242
26. Mardia, K. V. (1975). Assessment of multinormality and the robustness of Hotelling's T2 test. Applied Statistics, 24(2), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2346563
27. Murray, C. E., & Kardatzke, K. N. (2007). Dating violence among college students: Key issues for college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 19-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2007.tb00008.x
28. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
29. Schuster, I., Krahé, B., & Toplu Demirtaş, E. (2016). Prevalence of sexual aggression victimization and perpetration in a sample of female and male college students in Turkey. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(9), 1139-1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1207057
30. Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J., & Segrist, A. E. (2000). Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007532718917
31. Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence dating against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204265552
32. Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004
33. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
34. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001
35. Toplu-Demirtaş, E. (2015). Psychological aggression perpetration among dating college students: The interplay of societal, parental, and personal factors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
36. Toplu-Demirtaş, E., & Fincham, F. (2020). I don't have power, and I want more: Psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520951319
37. Toplu-Demirtaş, E., Hatipoğlu-Sümer, Z., & White, J. W. (2013). The relation between dating violence victimization and commitment among Turkish college women: Does the Investment Model matter? International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 7(2), 203-215. https://doi.org/10.4119/UNIBI/IJCV.321
38. Toplu-Demirtaş, E., Öztemur, G., & Fincham, F. (2020). Perceptions of dating violence: Assessment and antecedents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520914558
39. Torres, J. G., Schumm, J. A., Weatherill, R. P., Taft, C. T., Cunningham, K. C., & Murphy, C. M. (2012). Attitudinal correlates of physical and psychological aggression perpetration and victimization in dating relationships. Partner Abuse, 3, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.1.76
40. Turhan, E., Guraksin, A., & Inandi, T. (2006). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Turkish Journal of Public Health, 4(1), 1-13.
41. Ummak, E., Toplu-Demirtaş, E., & Jessen, R. S. (2021). Untangling the relationship between internalized heterosexism and psychological intimate partner violence perpetration: A comparative study of lesbian and bisexual women in Turkey and Denmark. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211004108
42. White, J, W. (2009). A gendered approach to adolescent dating violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01467.x
43. Whitton, S.W., Weitbrecht, E. M., Kuryluk, A.D., & Bruner, M.R. (2013). Committed dating relationships and mental health among college students. Journal of American College Health, 61(3), 176-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.773903