Longitudinal Risk Profiles for Physical, Psychological, and Sexual Dating Aggression

A Latent Profile Analysis with Spanish Adolescents

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12802450
AutoresAnnalaura Nocentini (0000-0001-6145-5584, University of Florence, autor de correspondencia), Noelia Muñoz‐fernández (0000-0002-1435-8404, Universidad Loyola Andalucía), Ersilia Menesini (0000-0003-2302-3048, University of Florence), Virginia Sánchez-Jiménez (0000-0001-7394-9311, Universidad de Sevilla)
Año2021
Volumen20
Número2
Páginas426-437
Fecha de publicación2021-08-17
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSexuality Research and Social Policy (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1553-6610 • E-ISSN: 1868-9884
EditorialSpringer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1007/s13178-021-00623-5
OpenAlexW3195015969
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas8
Referencias citadas57

Introduction Understanding the specific risk profile for distinct forms of dating aggression (DA) is very informative to define cross-cutting interventions. The study aims to evaluate whether specific profiles of risk defined using a person-oriented approach predicted physical, sexual, and psychological DA after 6 months. Methods Eight hundred sixty-six Spanish adolescents were interviewed at two time points (50.5% male; average age = 15.04). Latent profile analysis at T1 was used to delineate profiles of individual and relational risk. Results A three-class model best represents the data: a “normative” class ( N = 768; 88%); a “highly aggressive” class characterized by acceptance of violent norms, bullying behaviors, and anger dysregulation ( N = 13, 1.5%); a “jealous-conflictual” class characterized by cognitive and emotional jealousy, negative couple quality, and anger dysregulation ( N = 85, 10%). Controlling for age, sex, and longitudinal stability, physical DA was predicted significantly by the “highly aggressive” profile ( β = .11; p < .05), psychological DA by the “jealous-conflictual” profile ( β = .16; p < .01), and sexual DA by the “jealous-conflictual” ( β = .20; p < .001) and “highly aggressive” profile as a trend ( β = .08; p = .071). Conclusions Specific risk profiles differentially predict risk for physical, sexual, and psychological DA perpetration. A general aggressive pattern predicts physical DA and sexual DA weakly, whereas psychological and sexual DA are associated with a couple of risks, where the dimension of jealousy, control, and conflict characterizes the dynamic between partners. Policy Implications Findings suggested that physical DA, and at a lower level sexual DA, should be prevented using cross-cutting strategies on general aggression. Psychological and sexual DA might require more contextually based interventions

Aggression · Anger · Developmental psychology · Jealousy · Latent class model · Longitudinal study · Normative · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Clinical Psychology · Intimate Partner and Family Violence · Medicine · Psychology · Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies · Social Psychology · Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment