Data were collected between and Multilevel growth curve modeling was conducted in to test hypothesized synergistic effects of the family and neighborhood on trajectories of physical DVV from grade 8 to Low parental monitoring and rule setting were not DVV risks and their effects were not moderated by neighborhood characteristics. Findings demonstrate the importance of considering the family and neighborhood, and particularly their synergistic effects in efforts to prevent adolescent DVV.
Rural adolescents, 12 especially those living in the South, 3 are at particularly high risk of physical dating violence victimization DVVwhich in many negative physical, psychological, and developmental consequences. Hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear growth modeling with time nested within individuals nested within neighborhoods three-level model.
Associations among family and among neighborhood variables were generally as expected. Table 4 presents the final reduced neighborhood main effects model.
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on the neighborhood risk indicators, which are as high or higher than in other rural violence studies. However, ethnic heterogeneity continued to be associated with DVV when social disorganization was controlled, suggesting that other processes link ethnic heterogeneity and DVV risk. The conclusions of all models were the same with and without the demographic covariates. SDT was developed out of urban research, but SDT disadvantage indicators have also been associated with youth violence 2526 and intimate partner violence IPV 2728 in rural areas.
Neighborhood variables were time invariant from the first assessment with higher scores indicating greater risk. Data were from a multi-wave longitudinal study of 3, rural adolescents nested in 65 block groups, which defined neighborhoods.
However, characteristics of the family, the neighborhood, and their synergy were associated with DVV, suggesting that these contexts and their interplay need to be considered in DVV prevention efforts. All analyses were conducted in using SAS, version 9.
To decrease the likelihood of making a Type I error, multivariable Wald tests were used to determine if sets of interactions ificantly contributed to the models.
However, if they do, this would scenergy dating Ohio implications for developing and implementing interventions for preventing DVV among rural youth. S Census data. The study also examined whether the hypothesized synergy varied by sex of the adolescent; the preponderance of DVV studies find similar prevalence rates of DVV for boys and girls, 40 and sex differences have been found in family influences, 4142 neighborhood influences, 43 — 45 and their synergy, 4647 though little consistency has been found across studies in sex differences.
Low parental rule setting and low parental monitoring were not associated with DVV. Boldface indicates statistical ificance. Non-ificant sets were deleted from further consideration. Understanding more about the conditions that increase DVV risk for rural adolescents is needed to inform prevention efforts. According to the amplified disadvantages model, these family attributes should be ificantly stronger DVV risks when the family lives in a more disadvantaged neighborhood. All family variables were time varying and person-mean centered 55 and were scored such that higher scores indicated greater family risk.
Clearly, more research is needed to identify neighborhood DVV risks for rural adolescents. Lack of parental monitoring, rule setting, and closeness can increase adolescent exposure to violent neighborhood peers 35 and adult IPV. Additionally, living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, with the associated police presence and surveillance, 39 produces stress. In response to numerous calls for research examining the influence of upper levels of the social ecology on adolescent dating violence, 89 this study examined how the family and neighborhood, two important contexts in the lives of adolescents, work synergistically to influence DVV risk.
None of the effects varied by sex of the adolescent, across time gradeor by the combination of sex and time. The study has many strengths.
For example, economic disadvantage was protective against, rather than a risk for, violence in some rural studies. Adolescents answering yes were asked how many times certain abusive acts had been done to them, not in play or self-defense, during the past 3 months.
Residentially stable as compared with unstable neighborhoods have more long-term residents and homeowners, likely housing more established families. The study was conducted in two primarily rural counties in North Carolina. Synergistic effects of low parental closeness and neighborhood instability on the physical dating violence victimization trajectory. This hypothesis was tested with a trajectory of DVV from grade 8 to 12 as the outcome, which made it possible to determine whether the hypothesized synergistic effects varied across adolescence.
The only study to examine neighborhood effects scenergy dating Ohio DVV had an urban focus. Together, these findings suggest that the parent—adolescent relationship warmth and aggression may be more influential on DVV than actual parenting practices monitoring and rule settingan assertion that has direct relevance for informing family-based DVV prevention programs. Finally, the hypothesized interactions between the family and neighborhood variables were examined. Low parental closeness was associated with elevated DVV in residentially stable, but not unstable, neighborhoods. In response to calls for examining the influence of upper levels of the social ecology on adolescent dating violence, this study examined whether associations between the family context and physical DVV were conditioned by the characteristics of the neighborhoods in which the family resided.
Family aggression was strongly positively associated with elevated DVV, regardless of neighborhood characteristics. Next, analyses assessed the main effects of the family variables on DVV. Then the main effects of the neighborhood variables on DVV were assessed.
Additionally, associations could be different when considering types of DVV e. Ten data sets were imputed using multiple Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Rural adolescents are at high risk for dating violence victimization DVVwhich has serious negative consequences. Low parental rule setting, low parental closeness, and high family aggression were ificantly associated with more DVV.
Low parental monitoring was not associated with DVV. Neighborhood ethnic heterogeneity was the only neighborhood variable ificantly associated with DVV. Although statistically ificant, these correlations tended to be small. Also, the data are 9 years old, which could limit generalizability of the findings to present day.
Responses ranged from 0 for never to 3 for ten or more times. The proposed hypotheses were theoretically based. Table 3 presents the final reduced family main effects model. Learn More.
The current study used longitudinal data to test the hypothesis that the associations between family risk and DVV will be stronger in more-disadvantaged neighborhoods, defined by high poverty, residential instability, ethnic heterogeneity, social disorganization, and violence than in less-disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Therefore, all of these interactions were dropped from all models.
Adolescents were in grades 8—10 at Wave 1 and 10—12 at Wave 4; response rates ranged from Data were collected every 6 months for the first three waves, and there was a 1-year interval between Waves 3 and 4. Repeated measures of DVV were logged and models were estimated with robust SEs to adjust for non-normality.
The interaction found in the current study may also be explained by varying interpretations of family characteristics. Thus, adolescents living in stable as compared with unstable neighborhoods may have more opportunities to witness close parent—adolescent relationships among neighbors, and those without close parental relationships may be more negatively affected as a result of these comparisons.
Neighborhood was defined using U. The sample was nested within 65 block groups. Exposure to aggression between family members 2930 and lack of parental monitoring, 31 — 33 rule setting, 31 and closeness 34 have been found to increase DVV risk. Having a trajectory as the outcome allowed for examining associations and identifying the typical pattern of physical DVV across grades 8 to Sex differences were statistically examined and models adjusted for neighborhood clustering and individual-level variables that could confound neighborhood effects.
SDT purports that ethnic heterogeneity contributes to lack of communication between neighbors and formation of social ties, leading to the lack of social control 6566 that, as described earlier, scenergy dating Ohio create a higher-risk environment for DVV. As expected, ethnic heterogeneity and social disorganization were positively correlated. Low parental closeness and residential instability worked together to influence victimization, but not in the hypothesized direction.
Also, the study addressed an important gap in research on the interplay of family and neighborhood contexts by focusing on rural adolescents.
Decreasing family aggression should be a goal of family-based programs for preventing DVV. Although low parental closeness and family aggression played a role in risk for DVV, low parental monitoring and rule setting did not.
However, this assertion needs further examination given that, in comparison with studies of dating violence perpetration, few DVV studies have examined both the parent—adolescent relationship and specific parenting practices in the same study. Numerous studies finding that family effects depend on neighborhood characteristics support an amplified disadvantages model. This study had a of limitations.
The hypothesis that the associations between family risks and DVV would be stronger in more-disadvantaged neighborhoods was not supported. The percentages of participants who were black Four waves of data were collected between and in school from adolescents enrolled in the public school systems in the two counties. First, fit indices e. The six acts that followed ranged from slapped or scratched youto assaulted you with a knife or gun. Neighborhood boundaries were defined by U. S Census block groups, but other neighborhood boundaries may be more meaningful.
Each set of analyses further examined whether the effect of the focal variables i.
Ethnic heterogeneity was the only ificant neighborhood variable. Table 2 presents the correlations, averaged across waves, between study variables. Adolescents exposed to family aggression may adopt normative beliefs that are accepting of dating violence, 3463 have dysfunctional family relationships that lead to increased dependence on partners, and develop low self-worth, each of which could increase adolescent risk for becoming involved in and remaining in abusive relationships.
However, none of the other neighborhood variables were associated with DVV. Table 5 shows the from assessing the hypothesized synergy of the family and neighborhood variables on DVV. Figure 1 shows the nature of this interaction.
SDT suggests that disadvantaged neighborhoods are characterized by high economic disadvantage, residential instability, and ethnic heterogeneity. Adolescents without family support and closeness to buffer those stresses may come to rely on partners for support, decreasing the likelihood of leaving a partner who is depended on but abusive. Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Additional strengths are the large sample size and high response rates.
Neighborhood ethnic heterogeneity has frequently been associated with violence in rural studies 252664 ; however, it has not been examined in DVV studies. Because of the long-held misconception that rural areas are idyllic crime- and violence-free communities, little violence research has been conducted in rural communities.
The prevalence of experiencing any act in the prior 3 months ranged from 8.