Introduction

Dating violence is a form of intimate partner violence occurring between two people in a close relationship that can be physical, psychological/emotional, and/or sexual, including stalking (CDC, 2016). Dating violence prevalence is high among U.S. youth. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) data estimate prevalence at 10 % (Eaton, Davis, Barrios, 2007; Eaton et al., 2010), while community-based assessments report prevalence rates for perpetration and victimization as high as 18–67 % (Rothman, Johnson, Azrael, Hall, & Weinberg, 2010; West & Rose, 2000). Until very recently, efforts to assess dating violence among sexual minority youth have been minimal but reveal prevalence rates that exceed national estimates and those from most community-based assessments (Dank, Lachman, Zweig, & Yahner, 2014; Freedner, Freed, Yang, & Austin, 2002; Gillum & DiFulvio, 2014; Halpern, Young, Waller, Martin, & Kupper, 2004; Luo, Stone, & Tharp, 2014; Martin-Storey, 2015; Reuter, Sharp, & Temple, 2015).

In the 2005 Massachusetts YRBS, 6.4 % of public school enrolled youth (grades 9–12) identified themselves as belonging to a sexual minority and/or reported same-sex sexual contact (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006). These youth were significantly more likely than heterosexual youth to experience past year dating violence (35 vs. 8 %). This disparity has continued in subsequent Massachusetts YRBS data as females and males who reported gay, lesbian, bisexual, or unsure identities were significantly more likely than heterosexually identified youth to report experiencing dating violence (Martin-Storey, 2015). Data from the New York City YRBS revealed that youth (grades 9–12) who identified as having both same and opposite sex partners were more likely to have experienced past year dating violence and forced sex that those reporting only opposite sex partners (Pathela & Schillinger, 2010). Also using YRBS data from 9 urban locations, Luo et al. (2014) identified sexual minority youth (of all identifications) at increased risk for dating violence over heterosexual peers and those reporting both same and opposite sex partners at increased risk compared to those reporting same-sex only partners.

Using a national sample of adolescents (ages 12–21 years) reporting exclusively same-sex sexual or romantic relationships from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Halpern et al. (2004) reported that nearly 25 % identified as experiencing some form of abuse. A survey conducted by a sexual minority youth-serving organization revealed that 49 % of youth participants reported “feeling abused” and 25 % reported having been abusive in their intimate relationships (Letellier & Holt, 2000). In addition, results of a community-based assessment of sexual minority youth (n = 521) aged 13–22 years indicated that 45 % of the gay male youth, 57 % of bisexual male youth, 44 % of lesbian youth, and 38 % of bisexual female youth surveyed had experienced such abuse (Freedner et al., 2002). More recently, Dank et al. (2014) using a multi-site school-based survey also found sexual minority youth to be at increased risk compared to their heterosexual peers. One longitudinal study investigating teen dating violence among youth in Houston area schools found that sexual minority adolescents reported higher rates of dating violence victimization and perpetration than their heterosexually identified peers and that this trend persisted over two years for perpetration (Reuter et al., 2015). A qualitative study by Gillum and DiFulvio (2012) indicted sexual minority youth perceptions that dating violence occurs at least as much but likely more than among their heterosexual peers.

Studies have shown that youth who experience dating violence are at increased risk for adverse mental and physical health outcomes and engagement in high-risk behaviors. Research has linked teen dating violence to suicidal thoughts, higher levels of depression and poor educational outcomes (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Belshaw, Siddique, Tanner, & Osho, 2012; Ely, Nugent, Cerel, & Vimbba, 2011). In studies with adolescent girls, experiencing dating violence has been linked to eating disorders, sleep disturbances, substance abuse, sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancy, emotional distress, feelings of hopelessness, and thoughts of suicide (Howard, Wang, & Yan, 2007; Ismail, Berman, & Ward-Griffin, 2007).

Teen dating violence has been linked with increased engagement in risk behaviors such as early engagement in sexual activity, unprotected sex/inconsistent condom use, substance use, and greater number of lifetime sex partners (Alleyne-Green, Coleman-Cowger, & Henry, 2012; Eaton et al., 2007; Howard et al., 2007; Ismail et al., 2007; Rothman et al., 2011; Teitelman, Ratcliffe, Morales-Aleman, & Sullivan, 2008; Temple & Freeman, 2011). In addition, research findings indicate that individuals who are victimized as adolescents are at increased risk for victimization during young adulthood (Smith, White, & Holland, 2003; White & Smith, 2009). This is of even greater concern with a population already at increased risk for negative mental and physical health outcomes as a result of being victims of hate crimes and the negative impacts of societal homophobia and systemic heterosexism (Marrow, 2004; Meyer, 2003). Such experience is compounded even more for LGBTQ persons of color who also experience the negative effects of racism and deal with the additional challenges of accepting and integrating their sexual, racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and spiritual identities and finding acceptance in their families and communities (Carballo-Dieguez et al., 2005; Follins, 2011; Miller, 2007, 2011; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009; Sandfort, Melendez, & Diaz, 2007).

Adding to this vulnerability is the fact that the period of adolescence is a time in which individuals are engaged in the process of forming their unique identities, transitioning from childhood into adulthood (Ryan & Futterman, 1997). Part of this identity is developing and coming to terms with one’s sexual identity and the experience and negotiation of dating relationships. Research with young women has indicated this as a time in which peers and media exert pressure on female youth to develop committed relationships and have boyfriends (Ismail et al., 2007). The social pressure to fit in with peers is heightened during this period of development. For sexual minority youth, developing a positive sexual identity, often in the context of a homophobic/heterosexist environment, adds an additional challenge to this already fragile period of development. Not conforming to socially sanctioned dating practices may lead to teasing, ostracism and violence for LGBT youth (Marrow, 2004). Consequently, such an experience may lead to the development of internalized homophobia in sexual minority youth (Ryan & Futterman, 1997). Such development may have a direct impact on the ability of these youth to develop healthy relationships and the quality of their dating relationships, as internalized homophobia has been linked to both victimization and perpetration of same-sex intimate violence and less favorable perceptions of relationship quality (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013; Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamrin, 2006; Tigert, 2001). In addition, research has also found that the experience of “homophobic bullying” in school as a result of actual or perceived sexual orientation may result in experiencing PTSD well into adulthood of sexual minority individuals (Rivers, 2004).

The process of identity development in today’s youth also occurs within the context of socially prescribed gender roles of male dominance and female submissiveness and gendered dating norms which have also been linked to the perpetration of male intimate violence against women (Ismail et al., 2007; Schechter, 1982). Despite our temptation and desire to believe that such dated notions no longer impact formation of relationships, recent research indicates that today’s youth are still impacted by such notions and that they do indeed impact their thoughts regarding relationship dynamics (Ismail et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2005). Focus groups with urban adolescents indicated their beliefs that males use violence in their relationships as a means to maintain a sense of power over their partners and that females interpret such violence as a sign of their partner’s commitment to them (Johnson et al., 2005). Thus, it is safe to conclude that the identity development of sexual minority youth also occurs within such context and may shape their perspective of what their relationships should resemble. This may be especially true due to the lack of positive gay and lesbian role models and models of healthy lesbian and gay relationships represented in communities and in the media for youth to look to for guidance and failure of school-based sex-education classes to address LGBTQ sexuality (Marrow, 2004; Ryan & Futterman, 1997). Recent work of Hassouneh and Glass (2008) supports the contention that gender role stereotyping compounds the experience of intimate partner violence for lesbian women.

Of additional concern is evidence that many youth may not turn to adults or formal sources of help when experiencing dating violence or do not receive adequate assistance when they do (Ashley & Foshee, 2005; Black, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, & Weisz, 2008; Ismail et al., 2007; Ocampo, Shelley, & Jaycox, 2007; Weisz, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, & Black, 2007). Victims of dating violence have expressed encountering skeptical or dismissive attitudes when revealing their abusive experience, with avoidance and minimization among the responses (Ismail et al., 2007; Weisz et al., 2007). Fear of disapproval or rejection by family, peers, and school administrators on the basis of their sexual orientation (Marrow, 2004; Ryan & Futterman, 1997) may be an additional barrier for sexual minority youth seeking assistance in their experience of dating violence. These youth would not only have to reveal their experiences of dating violence, but in the process would have to “come out” to anyone from whom they sought assistance. This may be an additional burden that sexual minority youth may not wish to face (Gillum & DiFulvio, 2012). Consequently, sexual minority youth experiencing dating violence may be more likely to keep quiet and suffer in silence than their heterosexual counterparts.

The above demonstrates the importance of documenting dating violence among sexual minority youth and its relationship to future dating violence. Though literature supports this relationship for heterosexually identified youth (Smith et al., 2003; White & Smith, 2009), no research has made this connection among sexual minority youth. As part of a larger mixed-methods study we assessed whether experiences of dating violence as an adolescent were related to experiences of dating violence as a college student.

Methods

Recruitment

Participants were recruited via flyers posted at a large rural New England university campus and active recruiting at campus-based queer groups, activities and community events. A research assistant attended these events, distributed flyers, and answered questions regarding the research. The study was explained as one exploring dating experiences among sexual minority youth. Eligibility criteria included individuals between the ages of 18–24 years who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning or who indicate dating or being sexually intimate with a member of the same sex and spoke English. Interested participants contacted the project office and made an appointment to complete the questionnaire. Participants completed the questionnaire in the private on-campus project office. Depending on participant choice, questionnaires were either self-completed (on paper) or administered orally by a member of the research team (either the author or the project graduate assistant). University IRB approval was obtained prior to the commencement of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were paid $15 for survey completion.

Sample

This study included 109 youth enrolled in a 4-year college or university. Demographics are identified in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographics
Full size table

Measures

Data were collected through the use of a structured, close-ended questionnaire that included measures of demographics and experiences with dating violence.

Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic characteristics included age, racial/ethnic identity, sexual orientation, gender identification, level of schooling, and relationship status.

Victimization and Perpetration in Dating Relationships

These 18-items scales were used to assess frequency of youth’s current (during their college years) and adolescent (before entering college) physical dating violence victimization and perpetration (e.g. slapped me/them, slammed me/them or held me/them against a wall, forced me/them to have sex) (Foshee et al., 1996). Items were summed to create composite scores (ranges of 0–54). In this study, Cronbach’s alphas were .83 and .89 for current and adolescent victimization respectively and .74 and .86 for current and adolescent perpetration respectively.

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2)

This widely used 39-item scale is designed to measure physical and psychological aggression between partners. Only the psychological aggression sub-scale was used in this study to assess this specific dimension of abuse. Participants responded to questions that assessed their experience of a particular action (victimization) or their perpetration of a particular action. For example, questions included ‘I called my dating partner fat or ugly,’ ‘My dating partner called me fat or ugly,’ ‘I accused my dating partner of being a lousy lover,’ ‘My dating partner accused me of being a lousy lover,’ ‘I threatened to hit or throw something at my dating partner,’ ‘My dating partner threatened to hit or throw something at me.’ This sub-scale has a demonstrated internal consistency of 0.79 (Straus, Hambly, & Warren, 2003). Psychological aggression was measured for both victimization and perpetration for both current (past year) and adolescent abusive experience. Items were summed as instructed in the CTS Handbook to create composites scores (Straus et al., 2003). For this study, Cronbach’s alphas were .80 and .77 for current psychological aggression victimization and perpetration respectively. They were .85 and .80 for adolescent psychological aggression victimization and perpetration respectively. Each of these measures has been successfully used with youth in the target age range and the CTS has been used with sexual minorities.

Results

Analysis

Frequencies and means of demographic characteristics were calculated along with prevalence of different types of dating violence, both current and adolescent. Due to limited variability and sample size considerations, relative risk analyses were performed but weren’t stable. Consequently, variable relationships were explored using frequency cross tables in a descriptive approach.

Adolescent Dating Violence

Fifty-eight percent (58 %) of participants indicated experiencing physical victimization within the context of their adolescent dating relationships with 12 years old being the youngest reported age for this experience. Forty-one percent (41 %) of participants acknowledged perpetrating physical violence within the context of their adolescent dating relationships with youngest reported age of 13 years for this experience. Thirty-six percent (36 %) of the sample reported neither victimization nor perpetration while 40 % reported both. Regarding psychological aggression within the context of their adolescent dating relationships, 86 % of participants indicated experiencing psychological aggression while 88 % acknowledged perpetrating psychological aggression. The youngest reported age for both being the target of and perpetrator of psychological aggression was 12 years old. Further, 9 % of the sample reported experiencing neither psychological aggression victimization nor perpetration during adolescence while 86 % reported the co-occurrence of both (Table 2).

Current Dating Violence

Sixty percent (60 %) of participants reported experiencing physical victimization from a dating partner and 50 % of participants acknowledged perpetrating physical violence against a dating partner during their college years. Thirty-five percent (35 %) of the sample reported experiencing neither victimization nor perpetration while 46 % reported both. Eighty-one percent (81 %) of participants indicated experiencing psychological aggression from a dating partner while 83 % acknowledged perpetrating psychological aggression against a dating partner within the past year. Further, 13 % of the sample reported experiencing neither psychological aggression victimization nor perpetration while 78 % reported the co-occurrence of both (Table 2).

Table 2 Dating violence prevalence
Full size table

Associations Between Adolescent and Current Violence

Of those who identified as victims of psychological dating violence during adolescence, 85 % were victims of psychological abuse and 66 % were physically victimized during college. In addition, 89 and 56 % of these individuals went on to perpetrate psychological and physical abuse respectively. For those who were victims of physical dating violence as an adolescent, 75 % were further victimized physically and 88 % psychologically in college. Sixty-eight percent (68 %) and 90 % went on to perpetrate physical and psychological abuse respectively.

Of those who identified as perpetrators of psychological dating violence during adolescence, 89 and 56 % went on to perpetrate psychological and physical abuse respectively during college. In addition, 83 % were victims of psychological abuse and 64 % victims of and physical abuse during college. For those who identified as perpetrators of physical dating violence during adolescence, 76 % went on to perpetrate physical abuse and 90 % psychological abuse during college. Seventy-three percent (73 %) and 90 % were later victims of physical and psychological abuse respectively (Table 3).

Table 3 Associations between adolescent and college victimization/perpetration
Full size table

Discussion

This study makes an important contribution to the literature by providing enhanced understanding of dating violence in this understudied population. To date, literature is sparse on dating violence among sexual minority youth and no studies have investigated the relationship between adolescent and college dating violence among this population. The data tell a compelling story worthy of consideration in social work with sexual minority youth.

These results are consistent with literature revealing a high prevalence of dating violence among U.S. youth (Dank et al., 2014; Eaton et al., 2007, 2010; Gillum & DiFulvio, 2014; Halpern et al., 2004; Reuter et al., 2015; Rothman et al., 2010; West & Rose, 2000) and the limited literature indicating higher prevalence among sexual minority youth (Dank et al., 2014; Freedner et al., 2002; Gillum & DiFulvio, 2014; Halpern et al., 2004; Luo et al., 2014; Martin-Storey, 2015; Reuter et al., 2015). The finding that adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration was associated with college victimization and perpetration is also consistent with other studies of heterosexually identified youth (Smith et al., 2003; White & Smith, 2009).

Such high rates of perpetration and victimization is reason for concern and likely due to the multiple stressors that sexual minority youth face. As indicated above, the impact of homophobia and heterosexism may be especially challenging for adolescents and young adults to navigate during these formative years. The concept of “minority stress” is relevant here and helps inform these findings. The impact of an oppressive culture has been referred to in the literature as minority stress (DiPlacido, 1998; Meyer, 2003) and has been linked to such negative outcomes as increased isolation, shame, depression, substance abuse and suicide (Allen & Oleson, 1999; Herek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1997; Lock & Kleis, 1998; Shidlo, 1994). As operationalized by Balsam and Szymanski (2005) in their study of intimate partner violence in women’s same-sex relationships, minority stress includes both experiences of heterosexist discrimination (societal homophobia) and internalized homophobia. Research has identified that sexual minorities experience multiple stressors, including stigma, prejudice, and discrimination (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Edwards & Sylaska, 2013; Gillum & DiFulvio, 2012 Marrow, 2004; Meyer, 2003). The stress of living a heterosexist society contributes to the use of violence in relationships (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005).

Studies of college age sexual minority youth have identified experiencing minority stress as related dating violence. Edwards and Sylaska (2013) found perpetration of physical, sexual, and psychological dating violence to be related to identity concealment, internalized homonegativity, and sexual orientation related victimization, all components of minority stress. In Gillum and DiFulvio’s (2012) qualitative study, youth identified homophobia (internalized and societal) as contributing to dating violence in youth same-sex relationships. Balsam and Szymanski (2005) also found an association between experiences of discrimination (one aspect of minority stress) and perpetration of psychological and physical/sexual aggression against a partner. These findings are supported by other prior research that has found stress to negatively impact intimate relationships (Murry, Brown, Brody, Cutrona, & Simons, 2001) including the use of violence in these relationships (Cano & Vivian, 2001). What this research tells us is that experiencing societal homophobia and heterosexism creates additional stress for sexual minorities. Consequently, this stress may result in the use of violence in one’s intimate relationship.

Another possible explanation for some of the dating violence inflicted and experienced by these youth may be youth’s lack of comfort and/or satisfaction with the dating relationships they were having and/or feeling unable to express their true identities. As indicated above, sexual minority youth are influenced by socially sanctioned gender roles and pressured to pursue heterosexual dating relationships (Ismail et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2005). Consequently, research has demonstrated that it is not uncommon for youth who identify as sexual minority to have engaged in opposite sex dating (Bauermeister et al., 2010; Elze, 2002; Glover, Galliher, & Lamere, 2009). This may subsequently impact the psychological well-being of these youth and possibly result in dating violence. For example, in her study of dating behaviors of lesbian and bisexual identified female youth, Elze (2002) found, those who had dated males had lower self-esteem than those who had not. In their longitudinal study involving an ethnically diverse sample of sexual minority youth (n = 350), Bauermeister et al. (2010) found that males who reported being in an opposite sex relationship at Time 1 reported higher levels of internalized homophobia at follow-up. Internalized homophobia has been linked to poorer perception of relationship quality in same-sex relationships (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005) and attempts to fit into this heterosexist norm via participation in opposite sex dating by sexual minority youth has been identified as directly influencing dating violence perpetration (Gillum & DiFulvio, 2012). Likewise, attempting to fit into heterosexual dating norms may also foster gender role conflicts within same-sex dating relationships and also foster dating violence (Gillum & DiFulvio, 2012; Hassouneh and Glass, 2008).

These findings highlight the need for dating violence prevention programs at younger ages for all adolescents with an acknowledgement of same-sex dating and a need to be inclusive of these relationships in such programs. This programming has the potential to reduce dating violence among this population and consequently reduce associated detrimental mental and physical health outcomes and risk behaviors (Eaton et al., 2007) and improve future relationship quality.

Limitations

As with all research, this study has limitations. First, it was a retrospective study, not prospective, which may have impacted accuracy of reporting. Second, social desirability may have been a factor. However, given high rates of reported victimization and perpetration, it is unlikely this inhibited reporting for most participants. As the sample reflects the demographics of the predominantly White campus community in which recruitment took place, it consequently lacks significant racial/ethnic diversity. Fourth, this is a specific sample of college enrolled sexual minority youth. In addition, the geographic area is known to be progressive and liberal in a state that was one of the first to legally allow and recognizes same-sex marriage. College campuses in this area include programming and supports for sexual minority students. Therefore, students may have been more willing to participate and be forthcoming about their experiences than individuals in different geographic locations, especially those that may be more conservative and less supportive of LGBTQ rights. Lastly, this is a relatively small sample (N = 109), precluding the use of more advanced statistical analyses and limiting the generalizeability of the findings. Relatedly, the sample is not population-based and individuals were self-selected on the basis of sexual minority identification.

Implications for Future Research

Further research is needed with community-based samples to identify the extent of violence experienced by youth who may not go on to higher education. It would be particularly informative to conduct such research in urban areas where violence in general tends to be higher. In addition, research that includes a more racial/ethnically diverse sample is warranted.

This field would also benefit from research that further explores, both qualitatively and quantitatively, those unique factors that contribute to dating violence among this underrepresented population given the multiple stressors that sexual minority youth encounter. Research similar to that of Gillum and DiFulvio (2012) that facilitates our understanding of some of these unique dynamics may help to inform services for this population.

Implications for Practice

This research supports other studies that highlight the problem of dating violence among sexual minority youth and identifies its potential impact on future relationship quality and dating violence experiences. This information demonstrates the need for services targeting this uniquely vulnerable population.

Middle and high school curricula that address relationships and/or dating violence should acknowledge same-sex dating among this population and how to identify unhealthy relationships whether the dating partner is the same or opposite sex. This includes identifying the unique needs of and challenges faced by same-sex dating couples. Increasing the number and quality of gay-straight alliances established in middle and high schools would also contribute to awareness and education efforts.

In addition, youth need educational programs that teach them how to have healthy relationships, something youth are missing in their formal education. This is especially true for sexual minority youth whose relationships are often unacknowledged and/or ridiculed due to continuing societal heterosexism and homophobia. Such programming would be especially beneficial given these findings that unhealthy relationship dynamics are prevalent and are carrying into adulthood.

Lastly, community-based agencies that work with sexual minority youth should include dating violence awareness efforts within their agencies. Such agencies have the potential to be a valuable resource for sexual minority youth as they engage in the processes of identity development and dating. They may educate youth about the existence of dating violence, warning signs of abuse, and resources from which they could seek assistance. Agency staff could be trained to hold dating violence workshops or programs at the agency and serve as a resource for youth who are experiencing dating violence. Dating violence awareness materials (posters, pamphlets, etc.), especially those that depict sexual minorities, may also be placed within these agencies to foster education about this problem. It is indeed encouraging that some such agencies do provide dating violence and healthy relationship education on their websites (i.e. www.timeoutyouth.org) but more focused, direct, comprehensive programming is warranted by these agencies, which are often the first line of support for sexual minority youth. Online resources (e.g. www.loveisrespect.org, www.safeandproud.org) and same sex domestic violence agencies (The Network/La Red and Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project) are also available to facilitate this process. These agencies may also partner with local domestic violence service agencies, working to build the capacity of these agencies to address the unique needs of same-sex couples. Likewise, community-based domestic and sexual violence agencies should also begin to make their services more inclusive of sexual minority populations and their needs.