Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma

ISSN: 1092-6771 (Print) 1545-083X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wamt20

Tolerance and Perception of Abuse in Youth Dating

Relationships

Vanesa Garca-Daz, Carolina Bringas, Ana Fernndez-Feito, M. ngeles

Antua, Alberto Lana, Luis Rodrguez-Franco & F. Javier Rodrguez-Daz

To cite this article: Vanesa Garca-Daz, Carolina Bringas, Ana Fernndez-Feito, M. ngeles
Antua, Alberto Lana, Luis Rodrguez-Franco & F. Javier Rodrguez-Daz (2017): Tolerance and
Perception of Abuse in Youth Dating Relationships, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2017.1304477

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1304477

Published online: 24 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wamt20

Download by: [Eastern Michigan University] Date: 26 April 2017, At: 07:32
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1304477

Tolerance and Perception of Abuse in Youth Dating

Relationships
Vanesa Garca-Daza, Carolina Bringasb, Ana Fernndez-Feitoa, M. ngeles Antuac,
Alberto Lanaa, Luis Rodrguez-Francoc, and F. Javier Rodrguez-Dazd
a
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, University of Oviedo, Oviedo,
Spain; bFaculty of Teacher Training, Department of Psychology and Anthropology, University of
Extremadura, Cceres, Spain; cFaculty of Psychology, Department of Personality, Evaluation and
Psychological Treatment, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain; dFaculty of Psychology, Department of
Psychology, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A cross-sectional study of pre-university and university stu- Received 31 August 2016
Revised 23 January 2017
dents of both genders was carried out in Spain (N = 4,919) to Accepted 27 February 2017
determine the levels of tolerance of partner violence per gen-
der and the perception of abuse. Of the students, 26.3% were KEYWORDS
in a situation of unperceived abuse, especially the males Adolescent; dating violence;
(29.6%), but the level of tolerance of abusive behavior was gender; intimate partner
significantly lower in females. The group of youths who did violence; tolerance
not perceive themselves as abused had higher levels of toler-
ance. In contrast, non-abused students presented low toler-
ance of violent behavior. Tolerance of dating violence is more
strongly determined by gender than by the perception of
abuse in young people.

Despite the fact that dating violence affects between 9% and 38% of young
couples (Gonzlez-Ortega, Echebura, & De Corral, 2008), it has received
less attention than adult dating violence (Lpez-Cepero, Lana, Rodrguez-
Franco, Pano, & Rodrguez-Daz, 2015; Rodrguez, Lpez-Cepero, &
Rodrguez, 2009; Rubio-Garay, Carrasco, Amor, & Lpez-Gonzlez,
2015). Dating violence should be studied both at a social and personal
level because it can lead to the development of adaptation problems in
early intimate relationships, as well as to conflictive models of interaction
throughout adulthood (Bringas et al., 2015; Goldman, Mulford, &
Blachman-Demner, 2015). Some characteristics of adolescence, such as
the ideal romantic classics, can also contribute to the development of
dysfunctional couple dynamics (Gonzlez-Ortega et al., 2008; Pazos,
Oliva, & Hernando, 2014). Intimate couples may have different attitudes
toward satisfaction during the relationship (Vedes et al., 2016) but these
attitudes may be sexist, leading them to tolerate violent attitudes
(Berke, Wilson, Mouilso, Speir, & Zeichner, 2015).

CONTACT Alberto Lana lanaalberto@uniovi.es Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Avda. Julin
Clavera s/n, Oviedo 33006, Espaa.
2017 Taylor & Francis
2 V. GARCA-DAZ ET AL.

Tolerance of violent actions when dating may be conditioned by various

factors but two of them are essential: gender role and victimization. The
relationship between peoples tolerance and their concept of aggression and/
or violent behavior as a function of their gender has been sufficiently
documented (Ruiz, Expsito, & Bonache, 2010; Shorey et al., 2015).
Women seem to find it easier to recognize violent acts, mainly due to the
lower social tolerance of assaults when they are perpetrated by men (Pazos
et al., 2014; Rubio-Garay, Lpez-Gonzlez, Sal, & Snchez-Elvira-Paniagua,
2012). Moreover, societal expectations of male dominance can also contri-
bute to mens misidentification of violence (Hines & Douglas, 2009).
According to Arnocky and Vaillancourt (2014), a male victim of female
aggression has to face social stigma, so this is a potential reason for males
greater tolerance of intimate partner violence. Violence in intimate relation-
ships is not only perpetrated differently by men and women, it is also
perceived differently (Lpez-Cepero et al., 2015), confirming that males
suffer more psychological violence (Karakurt & Silver, 2013; Lpez-Cepero
et al., 2015; Williams, Ghandour, & Kub, 2008) and they engage in more
sexual violence towards their partners (Pazos et al., 2014; Rodrguez, 2015).
The existence of reciprocal aggressive behavior between the two members of
the couple is also reported (Fernndez-Fuertes & Fuertes, 2010; Rodrguez,
2015; Rubio-Garay et al., 2012; Snchez, Ortega, Ortega, & Viejo, 2008;
Sonego et al., 2013).Tolerance of violence may be associated with victimiza-
tion and the recognition of abuse but the direction of the association is
unclear. Violence tolerance in couple relationships has been identified as a
possible risk factor for increased frequency of abuse, either as perpetrator or
victim (Connolly, Friedlander, Pepler, Craig, & Laporte, 2010; Fincham, Cui,
Braithwaite, & Pasley, 2008; McDonell, Ott, & Mitchell, 2010). However,
some authors maintain that the hypothesis should be considered from the
opposite point of view, that is, the perpetration of violence could induce
changes in the acceptance of violent behavior, primarily due to the need to
justify such actions (Mueller, Jouriles, McDonald, & Rosenfield, 2013).
Bearing this in mind, an interesting and novel viewpoint proposes a
relationship between tolerance of violence and levels of recognition of
abuse. According to Rodrguez, Antua, Lpez-Cepero, Rodrguez, and
Bringas (2012), battered young females are less tolerant of violent behavior
but tolerance is greater if they do not perceive themselves as abused.
However, recognizing abuse may not be simple: many women deny they
are abused despite experiencing abusive behaviors in their relationships. The
prevalence of unperceived violence in youth is about 45% but it may be even
higher (Lpez-Cepero et al., 2015). Rodriguez-Franco et al. (2012) found that,
out of 71% of students who suffered violent behaviors, only 6.2% perceived
themselves as abused, similar to the data found in female university students
(Garca-Daz et al., 2013). Therefore, two groups must be distinguished
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 3

among women who claim they are nonabused: those who really are non-
abused and those who do not perceive themselves as abused but who suffer
potentially abusive situations. This leads to the goal of this study: to deter-
mine the levels of tolerance of violent behavior in dating adolescents and
youth living in Spain as a function of gender and their perception of abuse.

Method
Study design and participants
This is a multicenter cross-sectional study of a sample of young people of
both genders, residing in Spain (N = 4,967). Participants were recruited from
various secondary and university education centers, through non-probabil-
istic sampling. Selection criteria were being or having been in a relationship
for at least 1 month and giving informed consent to participate in the study.
Forty-eight students were excluded because they lacked data on some study
variables. The final sample was made up of 4,919 youths, of whom 2,030
(41.3%) were male and 2,889 (58.7%) were female. Mean age was 17.9 years
(SD = 2.02, range = 1526 years). Regarding educational level, 17.6%
(n = 868) were enrolled in university studies, 22.9% (n = 1,124) in vocational
training, and 59.5% (n = 2,927) were studying secondary education and high
school.

Data collection and variables

Participants responded anonymously to the Dating Violence Questionnaire
(DVQ, in Spanish, CUVINO), which has been validated for the assessment of
violent behavior during the most conflictive relationship maintained
(Rodrguez-Franco et al., 2010). The instrument presents 42 abusive situations
whose frequency of occurrence is rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0
(never) to 4 (almost always). These items are grouped into eight abusive factors:
Detachment, Humiliation, Sexual Abuse, Coercion, Physical Abuse, Gender
Violence, Emotional Punishment, and Instrumental Violence. This question-
naire has shown good reliability for the global test (Cronbach = .93) and its
respective scales, with Cronbachs alphas ranging between .62 for Emotional
Punishment and .82 for Humiliation (Rodrguez-Franco et al., 2010).
The questionnaire also asks about the level of tolerance of the 42 abusive
situations, also rated on a Likert scale: 0 (not at all tolerant), 1 (a little tolerant),
2 (somewhat tolerant), 3 (considerably tolerant), and 4 (very tolerant). If the
respondents had never experienced these abusive situations, they were asked to
say how tolerant they think they would be. Higher scores indicate a greater
level of tolerance. For our study, the scale showed good reliability, both for the
4 V. GARCA-DAZ ET AL.

global test (Cronbach = .98) and its respective scales (Cronbach alphas
ranged between .75 for Emotional Punishment and .93 for Physical Abuse).
Lastly, three dichotomous variables were used to assess self-perception of
abuse, fear, and the feeling of entrapment in the participants relationships.
These variables allowed us to classify the sample according to three levels of
perception: a group that comprised people who recognized themselves
abused (A); a second group that we called unperceived abuse (UPA), formed
by participants who, although not feeling abused, reported being afraid of
their partners or having felt trapped during their relationship; and a third
group made up of youths who claimed they had not been abused and did not
feel afraid or entrapped (NA).

Data analysis
Data were processed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 statistical package.
We calculated the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of the scale
measuring tolerance as a function of gender and the eight victimization
factors. We contrasted these mean scores using Students t-test for indepen-
dent samples. Effect size (ES) was also calculated for mean differences, and
the resulting coefficient was interpreted as proposed by Cohen (1988): small
effect size for values between .20 and .49, moderate effect size for values
between .50 and .79, and large effect size for values of .80 and higher. Then,
we conducted a unifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare
differences by gender according to self-perception of abuse (Groups A,
UPA, and NA).
We subsequently studied the differences in the mean tolerance score for
each of the eight factors of abuse, in males and females, according to their
self-perception of abuse. For this purpose, we performed unifactorial
ANOVA with Dunnetts T3-test for multiple comparisons.
Lastly, we calculated the weighted mean of the tolerance scale in each of the
eight factors of abuse, so they would be comparable to each other. For this
purpose, we divided the mean by the number of items that make up each factor.
We also obtained the percentage of people with extreme scores of tolerance
(not at all or a little tolerant vs. considerably or very tolerant) and we stratified
this percentage according to the factor and to self-perception of abuse.

Results
The distribution of the three levels of self-perception of abuse according to
gender is shown in Table 1. The overall prevalence of recognized abuse was
4.9%, and it was higher in females. Regarding unperceived abuse, 26.3% of
the sample was in a situation of UPA, in this case, higher in males.
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 5

Table 1. Prevalence of self-perception of abuse according to gender.

Total Males Females
Self-Perception of Abuse N (%) n (%) n (%)
A 240 (4.9) 66 (3.3) 174 (6.1)
UPA 1,280 (26.3) 596 (29.6) 684 (23.9)
NA 3,351 (68.8) 1,350 (67.1) 2,001 (70.0)
Note. A: abused, UPA: unperceived abuse, NA: nonabused.

According to the results in Table 2, the level of tolerance of abusive

behaviors was significantly lower in females than in males, with moderate
or large ESs in all factors of the DVQ, especially Sexual Abuse (1.23) and
Gender Violence (.99).
Differences by gender were maintained when the level of tolerance was
examined according to the three levels of self-perception of abuse. Again,
ESs were moderate and large. Females were generally less tolerant of all
the abusive factors assessed by the DVQ, mostly with moderate ESs, except
for a large ES for the factor of Humiliation in Group A (.86), and for the
factors Sexual Abuse and Gender Violence in all three categories
(see Table 3).
Table 4 presents the results of the ANOVA of the differences in the level of
tolerance in the three groups of self-perception of abuse (A, UPA, and NA),
independently for each gender and factor. Males showed differences in
tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Instrumental Violence and, in both cases,
these differences were between Groups NA and UPA. However, the ES was
small when considering the difference between Groups A and UPA in
tolerance of Sexual Abuse, whereas in tolerance of Instrumental Violence,
the observed difference was between Groups A and NA. In the females, we
found differences between the groups of self-perception of abuse in the level
of tolerance of Sexual and Physical Abuse, Gender Violence, Emotional
Punishment, and Instrumental Violence. The differences were mainly
found between Groups A and UPA. Differences in tolerance of Sexual and
Instrumental Abuse were found between Groups A and NA. The ES was
small when comparing Groups A and NA in Instrumental Violence and

Table 2. Differences in mean scores of tolerance according to gender in each factor of abuse.
Males Females
Factors M (SD) M (SD) t df P-Value ES
Detachment 10.82 (7.32) 5.58 (5.76) 26.18 3,476.14 <.001 .75
Humiliation 11.15 (8.25) 5.02 (6.54) 27.10 3,489.63 <.001 .77
Sexual abuse 14.32 (6.45) 4.70 (6.05) 51.27 3,948.36 <.001 1.23
Coercion 10.96 (5.83) 6.47 (5.21) 27.21 3,917.55 <.001 .75
Physical abuse 7.44 (6.46) 2.72 (5.11) 26.78 3,510.40 <.001 .76
Gender violence 10.66 (5.58) 4.77 (4.90) 37.56 3,836.10 <.001 .99
Emotional punishment 5.20 (3.27) 3.06 (2.97) 23.01 3,983.42 <.001 .65
Instrumental violence 4.77 (4.12) 2.51 (3.32) 20.19 3,641.31 <.001 .58
Note. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; ES: effect size.
6 V. GARCA-DAZ ET AL.

Table 3. Unifactorial ANOVA for the level of tolerance by gender according to self-perception of
abuse and in each factor.
Self-Perception Males Females
Factors of Abuse M (SD) M (SD) F P-Value ES
Detachment A 10.74 (7.64) 5.84 (5.59) 27.97 <.001 .74
UPA 11.11 (7.36) 5.92 (5.70) 191.85 <.001 .74
NA 10.68 (7.27) 5.41 (5.78) 514.56 <.001 .76
Humiliation A 11.48 (7.41) 5.37 (6.21) 39.87 <.001 .86
UPA 11.57 (8.33) 5.44 (6.74) 199.37 <.001 .75
NA 10.94 (8.25) 4.84 (6.50) 540.31 <.001 .77
Sexual abuse A 13.54 (6.01) 6.07 (6.50) 63.55 <.001 1.04
UPA 14.88 (6.30) 5.38 (6.44) 669.11 <.001 1.19
NA 14.10 (6.52) 4.35 (5.84) 1,922.85 <.001 1.25
Coercion A 11.00 (4.80) 6.82 (5.25) 30.31 <.001 .76
UPA 10.69 (5.77) 6.66 (5.06) 170.34 <.001 .69
NA 11.08 (5.90) 6.39 (5.26) 559.41 <.001 .78
Physical abuse A 7.81 (6.29) 3.36 (5.36) 27.48 <.001 .74
UPA 7.88 (6.70) 3.30 (5.70) 165.47 <.001 .69
NA 7.20 (6.34) 2.46 (4.86) 575.57 <.001 .79
Gender violence A 11.04 (5.44) 5.23 (5.18) 56.54 <.001 .99
UPA 11.01 (5.70) 5.22 (5.08) 355.43 <.001 .94
NA 10.47 (5.53) 4.56 (4.79) 1,039.30 <.001 1.00
Emotional punishment A 5.15 (3.65) 3.14 (2.67) 21.23 <.001 .64
UPA 5.28 (3.27) 3.61 (3.20) 82.25 <.001 .50
NA 5.16 (3.25) 2.86 (2.89) 447.22 <.001 .70
Instrumental violence A 5.62 (4.25) 3.17 (3.82) 17.88 <.001 .60
UPA 5.11 (4.37) 2.82 (3.59) 101.60 <.001 .55
NA 4.57 (3.98) 2.33 (3.16) 317.63 <.001 .61
Note. A: abused; UPA: unperceived abuse; NA: nonabused; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; ES: effect size.

Sexual Abuse, as well as in the comparison of Groups NA and UPA in the

case of Emotional Punishment.
The weighted mean level of tolerance was generally lower in females.
Physical Abuse was the least tolerated both by males and females, followed
by Detachment in males and by Humiliation and Sexual Abuse in females
(see Table 5).
Group UPA included the largest proportion of high tolerance in both
genders. Conversely, the highest percentage of students with low tolerance
was found in Group NA, in both genders, but especially in females.

Discussion
According to the results of our study, the levels of tolerance of violence in
dating relationships depend more on the persons gender than on his or her
perception of abuse. A significant percentage of youths suffered UPA, and
this was higher in males. The difficulty to perceive oneself as a victim of
abuse is a common finding of other studies (Barber, 2008; Gonzlez-Ortega
et al., 2008). It could be motivated by a higher prevalence of verbal or
psychological violence in youngsters, which tends to be the norm (Bringas
et al., 2015), along with a lower frequency of physical abuse, which is more
Table 4. Unifactorial ANOVA for the level of tolerance according to self-perception of abuse in each sex and abuse factor.
Males Females
Factors Self-perception F(2) p M Dunnets T3 ES F(2) p M Dunnets T3 ES
Detachment A (1) (1:2) .67 .511 10.74 .37 .05 2.10 .123 5.84 .08 .01
UPA (2) (1:3) 11.11 .06 .01 5.92 .42 .08
NA (3) (2:3) 10.68 .43 .06 5.41 .51 .09
Humiliation A (1) (1:2) 1.16 .314 11.48 .09 .01 2.28 .103 5.37 .08 .01
UPA (2) (1:3) 11.57 .54 .07 5.44 .52 .08
NA (3) (2:3) 10.94 .62 .08 4.84 .60 .09
Sexual abuse A (1) (1:2) 3.36 .035 13.54 1.3 .21 11.49 <.001 6.07 .70 .10
UPA (2) (1:3) 14.88 .56 .09 5.38 1.72* .27
NA (3) (2:3) 14.10 .78* .12 4.35 1.02* .16
Coercion A (1) (1:2) .87 .418 11.00 .30 .06 1.03 .357 6.82 .16 .03
UPA (2) (1:3) 10.69 .08 .02 6.66 .43 .08
NA (3) (2:3) 11.08 .38 .07 6.39 .27 .05
Physical abuse A (1) (1:2) 2.27 .104 7.81 .07 .01 8.08 .001 3.36 .06 .01
UPA (2) (1:3) 7.88 .61 .10 3.30 .90 .17
NA (3) (2:3) 7.20 .68 .10 2.46 .84* .15
Gender violence A (1) (1:2) 1.99 .137 11.04 .03 .01 5.21 .006 5.23 .01 .001
UPA (2) (1:3) 11.01 .57 .10 5.22 .66 .13
NA (3) (2:3) 10.47 .54 .10 4.56 .65* .13
Emotional punishment A (1) (1:2) .28 .760 5.15 .13 .04 15.83 <.001 3.14 .46 .15
UPA (2) (1:3) 5.28 .01 .002 3.61 .28 .10
NA (3) (2:3) 5.16 .12 .04 2.86 .75* .24
Instrumental violence A (1) (1:2) 4.88 .008 5.62 .512 .11 9.04 <.001 3.17 .34 .09
UPA (2) (1:3) 5.11 1.05 .25 2.82 .83* .24
NA (3) (2:3) 4.57 .54* .12 2.33 .49* .14
Note. A: abused; UPA: unperceived abuse; NA: nonabused; M: mean; SD: standard deviation; ES: effect size.
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA

*Statistical difference: p < .05.

7
8 V. GARCA-DAZ ET AL.

Table 5. Weighted mean tolerance according to factor of abuse and gender and percentage
distribution of the sample according to extreme categories.
Not at All/A Little Considerably/Very
Tolerant Tolerant
(%) (%)
Gender Factors Weighted M (SD) A UPA NA A UPA NA
Males Detachment 1.54 (1.04) 36.4 34.4 38.6 12.1 14.8 11.9
Humiliation 1.59 (1.17) 31.8 37.1 38.7 10.6 18.1 14.9
Sexual abuse 2.38 (1.07) 12.1 11.1 13.5 24.2 36.9 31.9
Coercion 1.82 (0.97) 16.7 26.2 23.2 7.6 14.1 15.0
Physical abuse 1.48 (1.29) 42.4 46.3 47.6 18.2 21.0 15.9
Gender violence 2.13 (1.11) 16.7 18.6 20.8 28.8 30.5 23.8
Emotional punishment 1.73 (1.09) 34.8 31.7 33.3 21.2 17.3 15.8
Instrumental violence 1.59 (1.37) 40.9 46.3 48.1 30.3 27.0 19.1
Females Detachment 0.79 (0.82) 68.4 72.2 75.1 4.6 4.7 4.5
Humiliation 0.71 (0.93) 71.8 75.0 76.8 4.6 6.3 5.3
Sexual abuse 0.78 (1.00) 66.1 70.6 75.8 10.3 8.8 5.9
Coercion 1.08 (0.87) 57.5 56.3 58.2 4.6 5.6 5.2
Physical abuse 0.54 (1.02) 76.4 81.0 86.2 7.5 9.4 6.1
Gender violence 0.95 (0.98) 62.1 64.2 67.2 8.6 8.9 5.8
Emotional punishment 1.02 (0.99) 58.0 58.5 68.8 5.7 9.8 6.2
Instrumental violence 0.84 (1.10) 67.8 71.6 76.1 13.2 10.7 7.0
Note. A: abused; UPA: unperceived abuse; NA: nonabused; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

easily identifiable as abuse. In addition, young people usually perceive that

violence in couple relationships is completely alien to their life stage. Males
tend to think that suffering dating violence is not typical of their gender due
to sociological issues rooted in culture. However, the percentage of toler-
ance was lower in females, which supports the existence of greater social
awareness of the phenomenon of abuse of women. It also shows that
violence in intimate relationships is not always recognized by females,
because a large proportion of them reported not being abused or only
feeling afraid or trapped at a certain moment of the relationship. We
considered this as UPA (Corts et al., 2014; Rodrguez-Franco et al., 2012).
Differences in the perception of abuse have been associated with indivi-
dual tolerance of violent behaviors, which in turn is affected by gender. In
our study, females were less tolerant. This might be due to the fact that
aggressive behavior perpetrated by males receives more punishment by the
population because the effects of male violence, particularly physical violence,
tend to be more severe (Fernndez-Fuertes & Fuertes, 2010). This reality may
be doubly related to the influence of society: on the one hand, violence is
more permissible in the masculine world as a way of resolving conflicts and,
on the other hand, it is consistent with the sexist attitudes and beliefs of
society (Calvete, 2008; Garaigordobil, Aliri, & Martnez-Valderrey, 2013).
We detected significant differences in tolerance of sexual abuse and gender
violence, and it was lower in females. Males and females different interpreta-
tions of these behaviors and of dating relationships may account for these
differences (Snapp, Lento, Ryu, & Rosen, 2014). Whereas for females, these
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 9

abuses can be considered a real problem, and females experience them

intensely and personally, males may underestimate them, perhaps deeming
them completely improbable, and even going so far as to regard them as not
being abusive behaviors (Jackson, 1999; Timmerman, 2003). Also, given that
males exert more sexual violence than females (Ortega, Ortega-Rivera, &
Snchez, 2008), they may be more tolerant of violent behavior perpetrated by
their own gender.
The behaviors that were more tolerated in both genders were those related
to emotional punishment and instrumental violence. These results support
other studies showing that the problem is more severe when violence is
expressed in the form of emotional abuse (threats of ending the relationship,
emotional blackmail, insults, controlling behaviors and/or excessive jealousy)
because, as there is no physical aggression, adolescents may deny the impor-
tance of such behaviors and not perceive them as violent (Gonzlez-Ortega
et al., 2008). Many girls even think that jealousy or control are symptoms of
love and concern for the partner and do not consider them a serious problem
(Gonzlez & Santana, 2001). In fact, at these ages, erroneous ideas about love
and intimate relationships, with excessive idealization, are frequently
observed (Comisin para la Investigacin de Malos Tratos a Mujeres
[Commission for the Investigation of Womens Abuse], 2005; Gonzlez-
Ortega et al., 2008).
This interpretation of dating relationships, coupled with greater tolerance
of violent behavior, could influence the continuity of these abuses at this
stage. Moreno-Marimn, Sastre, and Hernndez (2003) found that most
young people, when faced with violent partner actions, try to find a solution
to the problem, but without breaking up. This was corroborated in girls and
in older age groups, suggesting a gradual tolerance of this behavior in the
partner. Along this line, intransigence towards violent behaviors can prevent
its appearance or promote the breakup if they occur (Gonzlez & Santana,
2001; Gracia, Garca, & Lila, 2011).
In our sample, according to the weighted mean the least tolerated beha-
viors were those related to physical abuse and detachment among males and
physical abuse and humiliation among females. In the latter, the large ES of
the differences obtained in both genders in Group A is reasonable, due to the
females personal and negative feelings of humiliation when they recognize
that they are victims.
The differences as a function of gender detected in tolerance of most of the
factors studied were maintained when analyzing according to the category of
perception of abuse (A, UPA, NA). According to our findings, the lowest level
of tolerance was recorded in the NA group in both genders. This suggests that
these young people belong to a group that is protected against abuses.
In males, there was no clear pattern in the degree of tolerance as a function
of the self-perception of abuse analyzed by the DVQ. However, significantly
10 V. GARCA-DAZ ET AL.

lower tolerance was detected in five of the eight items in the female NA
group, which may be explained by this groups ability to better identify
violent behavior and to refuse to tolerate it.
However, when considering the abuse scores and selecting the youngsters
with extreme levels of tolerance (high and low) and ignoring the intermediate
level, we obtained a large number of students of both genders from Group
UPA, who showed greater tolerance. These data again confirm the importance
of studying abusive behaviors because adolescents and youth have great
difficulty recognizing themselves as victims (Garca-Daz et al., 2013;
Vizcarra, Poo, & Donoso, 2013). At the opposite extreme, those who report
a low degree of tolerance are in Group NA, and this includes the entire female
population of this group. In addition, our findings reaffirm that physical abuse
is the easiest to identify regardless of self-perception of abuse, as it was the least
tolerated factor by both genders in the whole sample.
These data reflect the need to implement strategies of prevention, detec-
tion, and intervention, especially of subtle forms of violence (gender violence,
emotional punishment, and instrumental violence) in order to modify
youngsters beliefs about ideal love, and it is essential to consider the
influence of gender in labeling violent experience (Edwards, Jones,
Mitchell, Hagler, & Roberts, 2016).
Our study presents some limitations that should be taken into account. It is
a cross-sectional design, which does not allow contrasting causal relationships.
Another limitation is the way we obtained the data, because questionnaires can
produce acquiescence even when they are anonymous, which could lead to
underestimating the prevalence of violent behavior.
Summing up, tolerance of violence in dating relationships is determined more
by gender than by young peoples perception of abuse, which may be condi-
tioned by the development of a social and cultural model that differs according
to gender (Moreno-Marimn et al., 2003). This may be very important because,
at these ages, the interpretation of partner roles is likely to be influenced more by
societys prevailing values than by prior experience (Gonzlez-Ortega et al.,
2008). Therefore, new studies on adolescent dating violence involving both
genders are needed because scientific research focuses more on women
(Lpez-Cepero, Rodrguez, Rodrguez, & Bringas, 2014), and, according to our
results, three out of every 10 males undergo unperceived abusive situations. This
can be explained by the social environment, because violence is still considered a
problem mainly affecting the female gender.

Funding
The study was supported by grants from the Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e
Igualdad of Spain (Project SUBINMU012/009) and from the Universidad de Oviedo/
Consejera de Educacin, Cultura y Deporte del Principado de Asturias (Project UO-15-
INVES-32).
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 11

References
Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2014). Sex differences in response to victimization by an
intimate partner: More stigmatization and less help-seeking among males. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23, 705724. doi:10.1080/10926771.2014.933465
Barber, C. F. (2008). Domestic violence against men. Nursing Standard, 22, 3539.
doi:10.7748/ns2008.08.22.51.35.c6644
Berke, D., Wilson, L., Mouilso, E., Speir, Z., & Zeichner, A. (2015). Isolating the gendered
component of mens physical aggression. Sex Roles, 72, 509520. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0488-7
Bringas, C., Corts, L., Flres-Galaz, M., Antua, M. A., Lpez-Cepero, J., & Rodrguez, F. J.
(2015). Anlisis diferencial de la percepcin de maltrato en la relacin de noviazgo de
jvenes mexicanos [Differential analysis of the perception of abuse in Mexican youth
dating relationships]. Revista Latinoamericana De Ciencias Sociales, Niez Y Juventud,
13, 477488. doi:10.11600/1692715x.13213160315
Calvete, E. (2008). Justification of violence and grandiosity schemas as predictors of antisocial
behavior in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 10831095. doi:10.1007/
s10802-008-9229-5
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Comisin para la Investigacin de Malos Tratos a Mujeres. (2005). Informe de violencia de
gnero en mujeres jvenes [Commission for the Investigation of Womens Abuse. Report of
gender violence among young women]. Retrieved from http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?
blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=
MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1220373748652&ssbinary=true
Connolly, J., Friedlander, L., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2010). The ecology of
adolescent dating aggression: Attitudes, relationships, media use, and socio-demographic
risk factors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 469491. doi:10.1080/
10926771.2010.495028
Corts, L., Bringas, C., Rodrguez-Franco, L., Flres-Galaz, M., Ramiro, T., & Rodrguez, F. J.
(2014). Unperceived dating violence among Mexican students. International Journal of
Clinical and Health Psychology, 14, 3947. doi:10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70035-3
Edwards, K. M., Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., Hagler, M. A., & Roberts, L. T. (2016). Building
on youths strengths: A call to include adolescents in developing, implementing, and
evaluating violence prevention programs. Psychology of Violence, 6, 1521. doi:10.1037/
vio0000022
Fernndez-Fuertes, A. A., & Fuertes, A. (2010). Physical and psychological aggression in
dating relationships of Spanish adolescents: Motives and consequences. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 34, 183191. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.01.002
Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Braithwaite, S., & Pasley, K. (2008). Attitudes towards intimate
partner violence in dating relationships. Psychological Assessment, 20, 260269.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.260
Garaigordobil, M., Aliri, J., & Martnez-Valderrey, V. (2013). Justificacin de la violencia
durante la adolescencia: Diferencias en funcin de variables sociodemogrficas
[Justification of violence during adolescence: Differences as a function of sociodemo-
graphic variables]. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 6, 8389.
Garca-Daz, V., Fernndez-Feito, A., Rodrguez-Daz, F. J., Lpez-Gonzlez, M. L., Mosteiro,
M. P., & Lana, A. (2013). Violencia de gnero en estudiantes de enfermera durante sus
relaciones de noviazgo [Gender violence in Nursing students dating relationships].
Atencin Primaria, 45, 290296. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2012.11.013
12 V. GARCA-DAZ ET AL.

Goldman, A. W., Mulford, C. F., & Blachman-Demner, D. R. (2015). Advancing our

approach to teen dating violence: A youth and professional defined framework of teen
dating relationships. Psychology of Violence, 6, 497508. doi:10.1037/a0039849
Gonzlez, R., & Santana, J. D. (2001). La violencia en parejas jvenes [Violence in young
couples]. Psicothema, 13, 127131.
Gonzlez-Ortega, I., Echebura, E., & De Corral, P. (2008). Variables significativas en las
relaciones violentas en parejas jvenes: Una revisin [Significant variables in violent dating
relationships in young couples: A review]. Psicologa Conductual, 16, 207222.
Gracia, E., Garca, F., & Lila, M. (2011). Police attitudes toward policing partner violence
against women: Do they correspond to different psychosocial profiles?. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 26, 189207. doi:10.1177/0886260510362892
Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2009). Womens use of intimate partner violence against
men: Prevalence, implications, and consequences. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and
Trauma, 18, 572586. doi:10.1080/10926770903103099
Jackson, S. M. (1999). Issues in the dating violence research: A review of the literature.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 233247. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(97)00049-9
Karakurt, G., & Silver, K. E. (2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of
gender and age. Violence and Victims, 28, 804821. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00041
Lpez-Cepero, J., Lana, A., Rodrguez-Franco, L., Pano, S. G., & Rodrguez-Daz, F. J. (2015).
Percepcin y etiquetado de la experiencia violenta en las relaciones de noviazgo juvenil
[Perception and labeling of violent experience in youth dating relationships]. Gaceta
Sanitaria, 29, 2126. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.07.006
Lpez-Cepero, J., Rodrguez, L., Rodrguez, F. J., & Bringas, C. (2014). Violencia en el
noviazgo: Revisin bibliogrfica y bibliomtrica [Dating violence: A bibliographic and
bibliometric review]. Arquivos Brasileiros De Psicologa, 66, 117.
McDonell, J., Ott, J., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Predicting dating violence victimization and
perpetration among middle school students in a rural southern community. Children and
Youth Services Review, 32, 14581463. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.001
Moreno-Marimn, M., Sastre, G., & Hernndez, J. (2003). Sumisin aprendida: Un estudio
sobre la violencia de gnero [Learned submission: A study of gender violence]. Anuario De
Psicologa, 34, 235251.
Mueller, V., Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Rosenfield, D. (2013). Adolescent beliefs about
the acceptability of dating violence. Does Violent Behavior Change Them? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 28, 436450. doi:10.1177/0886260512454716
Ortega, R., Ortega-Rivera, F. J., & Snchez, V. (2008). Violencia sexual entre compaeros y
violencia en parejas adolescentes [Sexual peer violence and violence in adolescent couples].
International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8, 6372.
Pazos, M., Oliva, A., & Hernando, A. (2014). Violencia en relaciones de pareja jvenes y
adolescentes [Violence in youth and adolescent couple relationships]. Revista
Latinoamericana De Psicologa, 46, 148159. doi:10.1016/S0120-0534(14)70018-4
Rodrguez, L., Antua, M. A., Lpez-Cepero, J., Rodrguez, F. J., & Bringas, C. (2012).
Tolerance towards dating violence in Spanish adolescents. Psicothema, 24, 236242.
Rodrguez, L., Lpez-Cepero, J., & Rodrguez, F. J. (2009). Violencia domstica: Una revisin
bibliogrfica y bibliomtrica [Domestic violence: A bibliographic and bibliometric review].
Psicothema, 21, 248254.
Rodrguez, S. (2015). Violencia en parejas jvenes: Estudio preliminar sobre su prevalen-
cia y motivos [Violence in young couples: Preliminary study of its prevalence and
motives]. Pedagoga Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 25, 251275. doi:10.7179/
PSRI_2015.25.11
 JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, MALTREATMENT & TRAUMA 13

Rodrguez-Franco, L., Lpez-Cepero, J., Rodrguez, F. J., Bringas, C., Antua, M. A., &
Estrada, C. (2010). Validacin del cuestionario de violencia entre novios (CUVINO) en
jvenes hispanohablantes: Anlisis de resultados en Espaa, Mxico y Argentina
[Validation of the Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ) in Spanish-speaking youth:
Analysis of results in Spain, Mexico and Argentina]. Anuario De Psicologa Clnica Y De
La Salud, 6, 4553.
Rodrguez-Franco, L., Lpez-Cepero, J., Rodrguez-Daz, F. J., Bringas, C., Estrada, C.,
Antua, M. A., & Quevedo-Blasco, R. (2012). Labeling dating abuse: Undetected abuse
among Spanish adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Clinical Health
Psychology, 12, 5567.
Rubio-Garay, F., Carrasco, M. A., Amor, P. J., & Lpez-Gonzlez, M. A. (2015). Factores
asociados a la violencia en el noviazgo entre adolescentes: Una revisin crtica [Adolescent
dating violence related factors: A critical review]. Anuario De Psicologa Jurdica, 25, 4756.
doi:10.1016/j.apj.2015.01.001
Rubio-Garay, F., Lpez-Gonzlez, M. A., Sal, L. A., & Snchez-Elvira-Paniagua, A. (2012).
Direccionalidad y expresin de la violencia en las relaciones de noviazgo de los jvenes
[Directionality and expression of violence in youth dating relationships]. Revista De Accin
Psicolgica, 9, 6170. doi:10.5944/ap.9.1.437
Ruiz, J., Expsito, F., & Bonache, H. (2010). Adolescent witnesses in cases of teen dating
violence: Analysis of peer responses. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal
Context, 2, 3753.
Snchez, V., Ortega, F. J., Ortega, R., & Viejo, C. (2008). Las relaciones sentimentales en la
adolescencia: Satisfaccin, conflictos y violencia [Romantic relationships in adolescence:
Satisfaction, conflict and violence]. Escritos De Psicologa, 2, 97109.
Shorey, R., Seavey, A., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., File, P., & Stuart, G. (2015). The moderating
effect of social support from a dating partner on the association between dating violence
victimization and adjustment. Violence against Women, 21, 460477. doi:10.1177/
1077801215570482
Snapp, S., Lento, R., Ryu, E., & Rosen, K. S. (2014). Why do they hook up? Attachment style
and motives of college students. Personal Relationships, 21, 468481. doi:10.1111/
pere.12043
Sonego, M., Gandarillas, A., Zorrilla, B., Lasheras, L., Pires, M., Anes, A., & Ordobs, M.
(2013). Unperceived intimate partner violence and womens health. Gaceta Sanitaria, 27,
440446. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2012.11.009
Timmerman, G. (2003). Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetrated by teachers and by
peers: An exploration of the dynamics of power, culture, and gender in secondary schools.
Sex Roles, 48, 231244. doi:10.1023/A:1022821320739
Vedes, A., Hilpert, P., Nussbeck, F. W., Randall, A. K., Bodenmann, G., & Lind, W. R. (2016).
Love styles, coping, and relationship satisfaction: A dyadic approach. Personal
Relationships, 23, 8497. doi:10.1111/pere.12112
Vizcarra, M. B., Poo, A. M., & Donoso, T. (2013). Programa educativo para la prevencin de
la violencia en el noviazgo [Educational program for the prevention of dating violence].
Revista De Psicologa, 22, 4861. doi:10.5354/0719-0581.2013.27719
Williams, J. R., Ghandour, R. M., & Kub, J. E. (2008). Female perpetration of violence in
heterosexual intimate relationships: Adolescence through adulthood. Trauma Violence
Abuse, 9, 227249. doi:10.1177/1524838008324418