Relationship Acceleration and Dating ViolenceRelationship Acceleration and Dating ViolenceAlan Rosenbaum, Mandy M. Rabenhorst, Madhavi K. Reddy, Nicolette L. Howells, & Matthew T. Fleming

Northern Illinois University Department of Psychology & Center for the Study of Family Violence & Sexual Assault

DISCUSSION

The results of this investigation provide partial support for the concept of relationship acceleration as well as for the hypothesis of a relationship between accelerated relationships and intimate partner aggression. Principal components analyses of both the DBQ-A and DBQ-I yielded three consistent, clean factors that were easily characterized and intuitively sensible. Of the three factors, only the sexual behaviors factor produced a relationship between relationship acceleration and relationship aggression. This relationship was only significant for men and was in the direction predicted by the model. Thus both the actual and the ideal latencies between the initiation of the relationship and the occurrence of sexual behaviors was shorter for aggressive males than it was for non-aggressive males. Consistent with the model, the sexual behaviors factor would be the one that would increase the likelihood of a pregnancy, facilitate the sense of a commitment, and/or reduce the probability of the female terminating the relationship, thus contributing to the permanence of the relationship. On the other hand since few, if any, of these relationships produced pregnancies or children, and since they were already characterized by violence, it remains a possibility that it is not relationship acceleration which leads to aggression, but rather some other factors that may be contributing to both the pace of relationship development and the occurrence of aggression. The findings are also limited by the use of a dating, college student sample. Studies employing adult batterers appear warranted. In any case, these results suggest that concept of relationship acceleration be explored further.

Contact Information:

Alan Rosenbaum

Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115

Email: arosenbaum@niu.edu

INTRODUCTION

There is scant empirical data regarding the temporal aspects of relationship development. An exception appears to be the timing of sexual intercourse which has received some attention (Cohen & Shotland, 1996) and shows, not surprisingly, that men generally expect sexual intercourse after fewer dates than do women. Despite the absence of norms regarding the appropriate interval between relationship events (e.g., between the first date and the second date, between the start of the relationship and the various forms of commitment), individuals apparently form important judgments regarding continuing in their relationships on the basis of these vague judgments. A man calling for a second date too soon after the first date might, for example, be seen as too needy, dependent, or possessive. On the other hand, waiting too long might be interpreted as disinterest. Violations of these ill-defined intervals might be viewed as “red flags” and lead to termination of a nascent relationship.

Poorly defined though they might be, these “red flag” reactions might have adaptive value, especially those indicating that the relationship is “moving too fast”. For some time, we have been using the term “relationship acceleration” to describe the phenomenon that male perpetrators of intimate partner aggression seem to become more deeply involved with their female partners more quickly than do non-aggressive men. There is anecdotal evidence that they become attached, date exclusively, cohabitate, establish possession, and have children sooner than might be expected. We have speculated that the normal development of a relationship is demarcated by a series of opportunities to terminate the relationship. These coincide with conflicts the couple is unable to resolve and/or the discovery of incompatibilities. Relationship acceleration may deprive the couple of the opportunity to utilize these potential exit points. Clinically, many batterers report that they have poor relationships with their partners, even aside from the aggression. When asked why they remain with women they describe as undesirable, many respond that they have children, can’t afford to live apart, can’t afford a divorce, etc. These and other impediments to relationship dissolution are termed “anchors”. Relationship acceleration may increase the probability of “anchors” which hamper the batterer’s willingness to exit the relationship, and contribute to feelings of being “trapped” with an incompatible partner. This may increase the use of coercion and aggression in order “to make her into the person he wants her to be”. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the relationship between the rate of relationship progression and the occurrence of intimate partner aggression in a non-clinic sample.

METHODParticipants

A total of 196 undergraduate students (48.5% male) at a large Midwestern university participated in the current study and were compensated with research points, which was one way of satisfying course requirements for the introductory psychology course. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years, with a mean age of 19.0 years (SD = 1.8). The following ethnicities were reported: 32.1% African American, 43.4% Caucasian, 12.2% Hispanic, 9.2% Asian American, 0.5% Pacific Islander, and 2.0% other.

MeasuresParticipants completed the Revised Conflicts Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus,

Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), a widely used self-report measure of intimate partner violence.

Participants also completed the Dating Behaviors Questionnaire (DBQ), a self-report measure created by the researchers to assess the progression of dating relationships. DBQ items assessed how soon after the first date participants engaged in various activities or experienced certain feelings associated with being in a relationship (e.g., call partner on the phone, touch partner on genitals, feel guilty about not seeing your partner on a weekend night). The response choices for the DBQ items were: On the first date, within 1-3 days, within a week, within 2 weeks, within a month, within six months, six months to a year, more than a year, and never. Participants completed the DBQ twice, once for the actual progression of their relationships (DBQ-A) and once for the ideal progression of their relationships (DBQ-I).

Results

Separate principal components analyses of both the DBQ-A and the DBQ-I each resulted in three distinct factors (i.e., Sex, Relationship, and Ownership). The three factors of the DBQ-A accounted for 65.21% of the total variance in DBQ-A scores and the three factors of the DBQ-I accounted for 67.34% of the variance in DBQ-I scores. The items and factor loadings for the DBQ-A are presented in Table 1. The DBQ-I factor loadings were similar except where noted in Table 1; engaging in hugging and kissing loaded more on the relationship factor than the sex factor in the ideal situation. A one-way ANOVA for gender revealed significant gender differences on both the DBQ-A Sex factor [F (1, 179) = 18.87, p < .001] and the DBQ-I Sex factor [F (1, 187) = 33.72, p < .001], revealing that males reported actually engaging in sexual behaviors and ideally wanting to engage in sexual behaviors sooner after the first date as compared to females. Significant gender differences were also found on the DBQ-A Relationship factor [F (1, 181) = 4.47, p < .05], again indicating that males reported actually engaging in relationship behaviors (e.g., considering partner to be your boyfriend/girlfriend) sooner than females. A trend for gender differences was found on the DBQ-I Relationship factor [F (1, 182) = 3.76, p = .05] and the DBQ-I Ownership factor [F (1, 194) = 3.30, p = .07], suggesting that the reported ideal timetable for engaging in relationship behaviors and ownership behaviors (e.g., feel you have a right to know where your partner is and who he/she is with) for males was faster than the reported ideal timetable for females.

Participants’ responses on the CTS2 were used to dichotomize their perpetration of physical violence such that participants who reported any perpetration of physical violence were classified as perpetrators. Because gender differences were found among the reported timetables for engaging in, and wanting to engage in, various dating behaviors, the following analyses were conducted separately for males and females. Among male participants, a one-way ANOVA for perpetration of physical violence and DBQ-A factors revealed significant differences on the Sex factor [F (1, 86) = 7.53, p < .01], indicating that males who perpetrate physical violence in their relationships reported engaging in sexual behaviors sooner after the first date as compared to males who had not perpetrated violence. No significant differences were found for the Relationship [F (1, 86) = .02, p = .89] and Ownership factors [F (1, 88) = 1.97, p = .16]. When examining the relationships between perpetration of physical violence and DBQ-A factors among the female participants, the results were not significant.

Again, among male participants, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine whether males who reported perpetrating physical violence in their relationships obtained DBQ-I factor scores consistent with ideally wanting their relationship to progress faster than males who did not report perpetrating physical violence. Significant differences were found on the DBQ-I Sex factor [F (1, 74) = 5.46, p < .05], indicating that males who reported perpetrating physical violence in their relationships reported their ideal timetable for engaging in sexual behaviors as significantly faster than the ideal timetable for males who did not report perpetrating physical violence. No significant differences were found for the other two DBQ-I factors. In addition, for the female participants, no significant differences were found among any of the DBQ-I factors based on whether or not she reported perpetrating physical violence in her relationship.

REFERENCES

Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D.B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

Cohen, L.L. & Shotland, R.L. (1996). Timing of first sexual intercourse in a relationship: Expectations, experiences, and perceptions of others. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 291-299.

DBQ-A Sex Factor DBQ-A Relationship Factor

DBQ-A Ownership Factor

Touched by partner on genitals (skin to skin)

.942

Touched by partner on genitals (on top of clothing)

.936

Touch partner on genitals (skin to skin)

.908

Touch partner on genitals (on top of clothing)

.908

Touch partner on chest/breasts (skin to skin)

.907

Touched by partner on chest/breasts (skin to skin)

.874

Touch partner on chest/breasts (on top of clothing)

.800

Engage in sexual intercourse

.793

Touched by partner on chest/breasts (on top of clothing)

.780

Spend night at partners room/home

.682

Engage in kissing and hugging *

.680 (.545) .400 (.552)

Receive a gift from your partner

.751

Spend an entire day together

.737

Consider partner to be boyfriend/girlfriend

.723

Go out on a second date

.708

Agree to date your partner exclusively

.665

Receive a phone call from partner

.662

Buy a gift for your partner

.633

Call partner on phone .590 Feel guilty about not seeing your partner on a weekend night

.825

Feel guilty about flirting with someone else

.805

Feel you have a right to be angry if he/she dates someone else

.754

Feel you have a right to know where your partner is and who he/she is with

.626

Table 1. DBQ-A Factors

Note: * DBQ-I factor loadings in parentheses

ProcedureParticipants completed the questionnaires in groups of 5-25. Once informed

consent was obtained from the participants, questionnaire packets were distributed. Participants were assured that all of the data would be anonymous and confidential, and no identifying information was requested. Participants then completed the DBQ and the CTS2 and received information about the study and local counseling agencies when they turned in their completed questionnaires.