Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Representations of dating violence in Chilean adolescents: A qualitative T

study
⁎
Tatiana Sanhuezaa, , Geneviève Lessardb,c
a
University of Concepción in Chile, Social Work Department, Victor Lamas 1290, casilla 160-C, Concepción, Región del Bío Bío, Chile
b
School of Social Work, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada
c
Interdisciplinary Research Center on Family Violence and Violence Against Women (CRI-VIFF), Pavillon Charles-De Koninck, Bureau 6417, Université Laval, Québec,
Québec G1V 0A6, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Chilean adolescents (n = 48) between 14 and 18 years old recruited from public and private schools were asked
Adolescents in focus groups about their social representations of dating violence. Data analysis shows convergences and
Dating violence divergences in the participants' social representations. The boys and the girls from the two types of schools
Social representations generally agreed about the definition and explanations of DV, as well as the differences in the violence used by
Gender
boys and girls, adolescents and adults, and different social classes. Two main divergences stand out: first, the
Generation
justification of DV differs by gender and type of school; and second, the experience of family violence is seen as a
Social class
risk factor for or a protective factor against DV. The study highlights how changes with respect to gender
relations in Chilean society have influenced violence in girls and boys. Recommendations for future research and
for potential prevention strategies are made.

1. Introduction
It is essential to know how adolescents conceive of violence if we
are to develop well-adapted prevention strategies and to involve young
people in the solutions (Wolfe & Feiring, 2000). Studies on dating
violence (DV) have explored different themes, namely: prevalence of
DV, gender-based differences in DV experiences, young people's atti-
tudes and beliefs concerning DV, as well as the motives for and con-
sequences of DV (Fernández-Fuertes & Fuertes, 2010; Foshee, Linder,
MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001; Mueller, Jouriles, McDonald, &
Rosenfield, 2013; Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017).
Exposure to family violence and mistreatment during childhood as
well as a low socioeconomic status have been recognized as precursors
to DV (Foshee, Ennett, Bauman, Benefield, & Suchindran, 2005; Moagi-
Gulubane, 2010). Nonetheless, our knowledge about the influence of
these factors on views of young people are modest and inconsistent.
This lack of knowledge about young people's perceptions of social and
environmental factors – which play a considerable role in the sociali-
zation process of adolescents (Collins, 2003) – is all the more important
given that it reduces our understanding of the roots of the problem and
DV prevention strategies to a simple change in attitude towards vio-
lence (Wubs, Aarø, Mathews, Onya, & Mbwambo, 2013).
Furthermore, the experiences and viewpoints of adolescents in
southern countries remain poorly documented, since most of the re-
search on DV has been carried out in North America. In the case of
Chile, studies have primarily focused on intimate partner violence (IPV)
between adults (Bacigalupe, 2000; Larrain, 1994) and between uni-
versity students (Lehrer, Lehrer, & Zhao, 2010; Vizcarra & Póo, 2011).
Some researchers have reported that DV affects adolescent couples
(Leal, Reinoso, Rojas, & Romero, 2011; Rey Anacona, González Cruz,
Sánchez-Jiménez, & Saavedra Guajardo, 2017). For example, in the
national youth survey (INJUV, 2015) and in the subsample of adoles-
cents between 15 and 19 years old (n = 2912), those that reported
having already experienced DV amounted to 10% for psychological
violence, 3% for physical violence, and 1% for sexual violence.
Several studies have reported on risk factors that make adolescents a
particularly vulnerable population, namely: a greater tendency towards
at-risk conduct such as consuming and trafficking drugs and alcohol,
being involved in school violence, and belonging to street gangs (Fries,
Grogan-Kaylor, Bares, Han, & Delva, 2013; Tijmes, 2012), as well as
having low self-esteem and high levels of sadness and isolation in
adolescence (Molina et al., 2012). Furthermore, the national youth
survey (INJUV, 2015) reported that, in a sample of 9393 young people,
7% of young people considered that, in certain occasions, violence
against women by their partners is justified. Despite this complex
portrait, Chile has no public policy aiming to prevent DV or to help

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: tsanhueza@udec.cl (T. Sanhueza), genevieve.lessard@svs.ulaval.ca (G. Lessard).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.004
Received 26 September 2017; Received in revised form 2 February 2018; Accepted 3 February 2018
Available online 05 February 2018
0190-7409/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
young people who are affected by it (Ministerio de Salud, 2013;
SERNAM, 2012) and there have been no studies published about social
representations of DV in Chilean adolescents.
This article presents the results of a qualitative study which aimed
to determine the divergences and convergences in the social re-
presentations of DV of Chilean adolescents, taking into account their
gender, social class, generation and personal experience with violence.
1.1. Gender, Latino-American culture and dating violence
Gender is often used to analyse differences between the violent
behavior of girls and boys. While some studies show that girls use
physical and psychological violence as much as boys (Cercone, Beach, &
Arias, 2005), other studies highlight some of the differences gender
when analyzing youth behaviors and the meanings that subjects give to
violence (Bagner, Storch, & Preston, 2007; Hamby & Jackson, 2010),
Indeed, studies document that the motivations for violent behavior and
associated emotions are gender-specific. For example, girls - as opposed
to boys - report fear as the most common feeling caused by physical or
sexual violence (Ross, 2012; Santiago-Menendez & Campbell, 2013).
However, it should also be noted that while male violence is associated
with greater physical strength, social power, and gender socialization
that reinforces this type of behavior (Hamby, Finkelhor, & Turner,
2013), gender stereotypes also reinforce boys' tendency to under-report
fear that they may experience in a context of dating violence (Hamby &
Turner, 2013).
Exploring the context is important for understanding behaviors as-
sociated with gender (Gressard, Swahn, & Tharp, 2015; Miller & White,
2003). Indeed, several studies have shown that societies are more likely
to tolerate violence by girls against boys (Reeves & Orpinas, 2012;
Sears, Byers, Whelan, & Saint-Pierre, 2006). Even though girls generally
qualify violence as unacceptable, it can sometimes be socially approved
and justified when employed for self-defense or vengeance (Black &
Weisz, 2004; Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011). Girls might then consider the
use of force as a benign act, thus contravening social norms (Foshee
et al., 2001). Concerning Latino-American societies, in most studies
published about Latin American youth, participants in the sample did
not live in their country of origin, thus tainting the results through
acculturation processes and influencing the young people's attitudes
and points of view about DV (DuPont-Reyes, Fry, Rickert, & Davidson,
2015; Hokoda, Galván, Malcarne, Castañeda, & Ulloa, 2007). According
to certain authors, the aggressive behavior of boys towards their ro-
mantic partners conforms to stereotypes founded on male domination
and to the traditional gender roles that pervade a culture and that en-
courage gender inequality (Ulloa, Jaycox, Marshall, & Collins, 2004).
Nonetheless, other authors have observed that the traditional aspects of
Latino-American culture could be considered as protective factors
against violence (Sanderson, Coker, Roberts, Tortolero, & Reininger,
2004).
In their study of Mexican adolescents (n = 204), Espinoza, Hokoda,
Ulloa, Ulibarri, and Castañeda (2012) noted that the boys adhered more
to patriarchal values than did the girls and that they believed them-
selves to be less at risk of being victims of physical violence or of using
physical violence. For these boys, “machismo” was associated with
domination, male authority, honor, and loyalty. In their eyes however,
this superiority did not justify the physical or sexual aggression of their
female partners. Consequently, adhering to traditional gender roles
does not automatically entail recourse to aggressive behavior. That
being said, if this behavior is influenced by normative beliefs about the
acceptance of violence, the risk of violence could increase. As stated by
Reyes, Foshee, Niolon, Reidy, and Hall (2016) in their study of Amer-
ican boys (n = 577), their prescriptive normative beliefs and traditional
gender attitudes function synergistically and might thereby allow them
to justify aggressiveness and the use of violence in order to dominate
girls.
In spite of the emphasis on patriarchal culture as an important
42
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
factor in explaining DV, few studies have conducted an in-depth ana-
lysis of such elements by taking into consideration the cultural transi-
tions and changes in male-female relationships as aspects that are re-
defining the limits of DV. These changes are calling into question
gender relationships (Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011). Recently, in their
study of Chilean adolescents (n = 202), Rey Anacona et al. (2017) ex-
amined the relationship between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism,
and between mild and severe verbal/psychological and physical ag-
gression that was perpetrated and suffered. The results indicate that
boys presented significantly higher scores in hostile sexism than girls.
On the other hand, in a study conducted by a government agency
(SERNAM, 2010), participants (n = 48) qualified their Chilean society
as “changing,” a society in which boys were having some difficulty in
adapting and in which girls sometimes used violence. However, in the
last two studies, there was no in-depth exploration to understand the
influence of context and gender-differentiated behaviors.
1.2. Environmental factors associated with DV
Violent experiences and various forms of child maltreatment have
been the most extensively studied risk factors for DV victimization
(Vézina & Hébert, 2007). The methodologies are however inconsistent,
which complicates the overall comprehension of the phenomenon.
Recently, a meta-analysis conducted by Hébert et al. (2017) examined
the effect sizes of the association between various family and peer
correlates of DV victimization. Results suggest small, significant effect
sizes for all the family factors (i.e., various forms of child maltreatment,
parental support, and parental monitoring). These small effect sizes
suggest that not all youth experiencing child maltreatment will be
victimized in the context of their early romantic relationships.
On the other hand, the studies reviewed here have rarely examined
the influence of social class1 on adolescents' viewpoints of DV. To our
knowledge, the Chilean study conducted by SERNAM (2010) is the only
one to have identified different perceptions by adolescents on this
subject. Consequently, participants coming from the well-to-do class
judged that psychological violence was more common in their social
class than was physical violence, whereas participants from the middle-
class asserted that there was some aggressive behavior in their group
without associating it with DV. As for adolescents from the dis-
advantaged lower class, they stated that DV was common. According to
Spriggs, Halpern, Herring, and Schoenbach (2009), the influence of a
disadvantaged background may differ by gender: boys could feel more
vulnerable in the exercise of traditional masculinity than do girls re-
garding traditional femininity. Thus, the use of violence may be a more
obvious mechanism for asserting power in boys from disadvantaged
backgrounds.
In addition, the longitudinal study conducted by Foshee, Chang,
Reyes, Chen, and Ennett (2015) on the victimization of physical vio-
lence documented the synergy between the family context and one's
neighborhood. The studies analyzed by Johnson, Parker, Rinehart, Nail,
and Rothman (2015) revealed that some factors in local neighborhood
(social disorganization, poverty, racial heterogeneity, etc.) may be as-
sociated with DV. Finally, according to an ecological approach,
Connolly, Friedlander, Pepler, Craig, and Laporte (2010) reported a link
between tolerant attitudes towards violence, socio-cultural context, and
DV, where the socio-cultural context was limited to the analysis of the
influence of the media.
Despite an emerging literature that is exploring the socio-cultural
context and environmental factors in order to better understand the
meaning given by adolescents to DV, we do not know how young
1
Notion used to designate a position in a given social structure. According to the
constructivist approach, people construct this position in keeping with an ordered,
hierarchical classification that allows them to represent their social space and orient their
behavior and relationships with others (see work by Bazoret & Mac-Clure, 2014; Barozet
& Espinoza, 2011).
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51

people perceive these factors. In our opinion, we currently lack theo- Table 1
retical frameworks allowing us to understand the interactions between Descriptive information of study participants by sex.
people's actions and the social contexts in which they evolve.
Variables Focus groups (n = 48)

2. Theoretical framework Girls % (n) Boys % (n)

Gender 54.1 (26) 45.8 (22)

Social representations (SRs) amount to a kind of “common sense”
Age x̅ = 15.7 x̅ = 15.9
knowledge, whose specificity resides in the social nature of the pro- Standard deviation: Standard deviation:
cesses that produce them. They make up a set of knowledge, beliefs, and 0.7 0.9
opinions that a group shares about a given social object (Guimelli, Type of family
1994). The present study is based on a definition proposed by Abric Nuclear 29.1 (14) 22.9 (11)
Extended 20.8 (10) 14.5 (7)
(2011): 17), who conceived of social representations as “a system for
Single-parent 4.1 (2) 8.3 (4)
interpreting reality that governs people's relationships and their phy- Type of school
sical and social environment; it determines their behavior and practices Public 29.1 (14) 22.9 (11)
[…] [and] guides their actions […]” According to this definition, SRs Private 25 (12) 22.9 (11)
Perception of income
cannot be independent of the norms and values in which they are an-
Low 2.1 (1) 2.1 (1)
chored. Medium 45.8 (22) 41.6 (20)
The analysis presented in this article emphasizes the development High 4.1 (2) 2.1 (1)
process of SRs, in particular the concept of “anchoring”. This concept Missing data 2.1 (1)
explains the mechanism by which an object takes root in the social Perception of neighborhood
Very dangerous 2.1 (1)
environment so that people may make daily use of it (Seca, 2001). In
Dangerous 6.2 (3) 2.1 (1)
other words, it “makes it possible to incorporate […] a new object into Neither dangerous nor safe, just 18.7 (9) 16.6 (8)
a well-known reference framework in order to be able to interpret it” quiet
(Palmonari & Doise, 1986: 22). The study of the anchoring process Safe 18.7 (9) 16.6 (8)
Very safe 8.3 (4) 8.3 (4)
“supposes that we ask questions about the positions people adopt on the
Missing data 2.1 (1)
issues inherent in the social construction of a representation” Violent experiences in the school
(Clémence & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2004: 157). Adolescents do not make up a setting
homogeneous group and their SRs of DV can reveal positions that de- YES 39.5 (19) 33.3 (16)
pend on each person's social anchoring (Clémence, Doise, & Lorenzini- NO 14.5 (7) 12.5 (6)
Violent experiences in the family
Cioldi, 1994). A second concept used is “distance from the object.” This
setting
concept allows researchers to examine the links that individuals or a YES 20.8 (10) 8.3 (4)
group have with an object of representation in order to anticipate and NO 33.3 (16) 37.5(18)
explain people's behavior. A greater distance from the object would Romantic experiences
YES 43.7 (21) (*) 41.6 (20) (*)
favor the activation of a highly evaluative representation, more “ideo-
NO 10.4 (5) 4.1 (2)
logical” than descriptive. A “distant” group will argue for the normative Violent experiences in romantic (*) (n = 21) (*) (n = 20)
elements of representation. On the other hand, a group involved in an relationships
affective relationship with the object will favor descriptive and prag- YES 17.1 (7) 7.3 (3)
matic elements. A “close” group will value the functional elements of NO 34.1 (14) 41.4 (17)

representation (Abric, 2001; Morlot & Sales-Wuillemin, 2008).

(*) Only participants who responded positively to the question about being in a romantic
relationship in the past or at the time of the study answered the question about experi-
3. Methodology encing violence in their couple.

Since this study aims to identify differences and similarities in the
social representations of dating violence among Chilean adolescents, by
gender, socio-economic status, and experience of violence, and make up
for the lack of knowledge on Chilean adolescents' viewpoints, we have
chosen a qualitative methodology.
3.1.1. Recruitment strategy and sample
Data collection took place in Spring 2014 in three cities of the
Province of Concepción in Chile, following the approval of the research
ethics committee at Université Laval (Québec City, Canada).
Recruitment took place in three private schools and four public schools.
All the students from grades 9 and 10 in these schools were met
(n = 400 students from private schools and n = 600 students from
public schools) to explain the research, its objectives and the modalities
of participation. The adolescents who agreed to participate and their
parents signed a consent form.
The research was conducted in two phases: an individual phase and
a collective phase. Following their participation in first phase, 142
youth were invited to participate in a focus group. Of these, 83 students
agreed to participate in the second phase and, finally, 48 students were
able to attend the scheduled days. Participation rates (in the second
phase) varied from 4.2% in public schools to 5.8% in private schools.
We cannot compare the characteristics of young people who agreed to
participate with those of young people who refused, but the former
might have been more interested in the research theme.
While the purpose of the study was not to compare various elements
of the sample or to reveal significant differences, it is worthwhile to
make some observations drawn from Table 1 about the characteristics
of the participants. Girls made up 54.1% of the sample and boys, 45.8%,
their ages ranged from 14 to 18 (mean of 16 years), and 52% lived in a
nuclear family. Even though most of the respondents described them-
selves as being middle-class (87.4%), the socioeconomic differences
were more evident in their perception of their neighborhood. Indeed,
the five participants who saw their neighborhood as being “dangerous”
or “very dangerous” went to public schools, whereas none of the par-
ticipants from the private schools qualified their neighborhood as such.
Moreover, 16.6% of the participants from the public schools described
their neighborhood as being “safe” or “very safe,” as compared to 33%
of the participants in the private schools. Moreover, this perception is
consistent with the identification of existing problems in their neigh-
borhoods. Indeed, when compared to participants from private schools,
participants from public schools were more likely to perceive the pre-
sence of the following problems: “easy access to firearms,” “poverty,”
“delinquency,” “unemployment,” “alcohol” and “domestic violence.”
This is in keeping with the results of various authors who have

43
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
moreover noted that there is a high degree of social segregation in
Chilean schools; the more privileged students go to private schools
whereas the less privileged go to public schools (Madero, 2011;
Martinez, Cumsille, & Thibaut, 2006; Puga, 2011). Since the perception
of the social class and socioeconomic status differed according to the
participants, we used the notion of the type of school to indicate dif-
ferences noted in the focus groups.
At the time our research was conducted, most of the respondents
(85.3%) had already had a romantic relationship. Moreover, the girls
were more likely than the boys to have declared that they had been
subjected or exposed to violence (physical or sexual violence and psy-
chological violence), particularly in the family environment (21%
versus 8%) or in their romantic relationships (17% versus 7%). In the
question about DV experience, the researchers measured violence as:
physical violence (e.g., a slap, scratches, blows) or sexual (e.g., kisses or
caresses without permission, sexual harassment, forced sexual contact).
Psychological abuse included: various forms of control, manipulation,
and degrading words.
3.1.2. Data collection method
The focus group method was selected because it seemed to be per-
fectly relevant for the study of SRs (Kalampalikis, 2004; Orvig &
Grossen, 2004). This method fosters a collective awareness of a situa-
tion, with the exchanges in a group making it possible to question the
social order and to share opinions and beliefs about the roots of a
problem (Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2008). Moreover, because of the
importance that peers have in adolescence, this method makes it easier
to reproduce young people's daily conversations (Letendre & Williams,
2014).
To facilitate exchanges and foster confidence, the meetings were
carried out in the school of each group after classes were over. We also
favored same-sex groups of participants from the same school. Groups
(n = 12) lasted from 90 to 120 min, were moderated by a principal
researcher (first author), and a male or female research assistant de-
pending on each group's make-up. According to Morgan (1997), the
number of groups needed to attain empirical saturation ranges from
three to five groups of six to eight participants each. Saturation was
reached after collecting two focus groups for each participant type. In
this study however, three groups of each type of participant were car-
ried out (three groups of girls and three groups of boys from public
schools; three groups of girls and three groups of boys from private
schools).2 Pizza, candy, and soda were provided during the focus group
sessions. The participants did not receive any financial compensation.
We used an interview guide to encourage exchanges between par-
ticipants. We do not have the space required in this text to detail all the
questions in the interview guide, but these were grouped into three
main themes. Each focus group began with a conversation about 1)
what adolescents considered a healthy romantic relationship, followed
by 2) what constitutes violent behavior, conduct, and attitudes. The
participants were also asked about 3) the similarities and differences
between girls and boys, between young people and adults, between
various social classes with respect to DV, and the influence of family
violence on DV.
3.1.3. Data analysis
The collected data were first recorded and then were transcribed
verbatim in their original language (Spanish) so as to preserve all of the
idiomatic expressions of the interviewees and ensure research cred-
ibility. Several preliminary readings were conducted so as to familiarize
2
The range of participants within each focus group was: Group 1: 5 girls from a public
school. Group 2: 2 girls from a private school. Group 3: 3 boys from a public school.
Group 4: 3 boys from a public school. Group 5: 3 girls from a public school. Group 6: 5
boys from a public school. Group 7: 5 boys from a private school. Group 8: 6 girls from a
public school. Group 9: 4 girls from a private school. Group 10: 4 boys from a private
school. Group 11: 2 boys from a private school. Group 12: 6 girls from a private school.
44
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
ourselves with the material and establish a list of themes that would
serve as a basis for the coding. N'Vivo 10 software (QSR, International,
2012) was used to categorize and classify the content into successive
groups of statements based on their semantic proximity. This open-
ended question analysis model (L'Écuyer, 1987) was chosen because of
the exploratory nature of this research. The discussion content was
analyzed using the thematic content analysis method. The researchers
identified themes by analyzing dialogue from within each focus group;
the group, rather than the individual, was the unit of analysis. Themes
did not emerge from a preexisting, conceptual framework, but rather
from group dialogue. The names of the participants and all their per-
sonal information were replaced to ensure confidentiality. It is note-
worthy that 80% of the materiel was translated into French allowing
the second researcher (second author) to make an inter-judge agree-
ment on the coding. The results were first written up in French and then
translated into English for this publication.
4. Results
The data analysis identified different themes showing the con-
vergences and divergences in the participants' opinions, as well as the
organizing principles on which they were based, namely gender, social
class, generation and experience with family violence. Before pre-
senting the divergences, we will examine the five main convergences
identified here. The boys and girls from the two types of schools gen-
erally agreed about the definition and explanations of DV, as well as the
severity and nature of the violence experienced by adolescents as
compared to adults, that experienced by different social classes, and the
various ways boys and girls exercised DV.
4.1. Convergences in the social representations of DV
4.1.1. The definition of DV
The participants distinguished between the concept of “violence,”
which was associated with the physical dimension, and the terms “ag-
gression” and “abuse,” which were more adequate expressions for de-
scribing psychological violence.
“Violence that involves manipulation, that is psychological [violence]…
We don't consider that as something bad in the long-term, even though it
can affect things […]. In my opinion, it's hard to call something violent if
it's not shocking…” (girl, 16 years old, private school, focus group 9)
“When it's psychological [violence], that's more like aggression… Yeah,
the word's “aggression.” I see violence as being punches and things like
that…” (girl, 16 years old, public school, focus group 1)
This distinction could affect the identification of some behavior as
DV.
“I think [that] what's happening is that adolescents don't even know
what violence is, so they don't know how to recognize it.” (girl, 15 years
old, private school, focus group 2)
4.1.2. Social explanations for dating violence
The participants agreed in their identification of the social and in-
dividual factors of DV. Due to the length of this paper, we have only
included social explanations because gender differences were particu-
larly evident in the proposed causes of aggression. For example, male
violence was associated with “macho societies” that reproduce the idea
of men's superiority over women. On the other hand, violent behavior
by women towards men would seem to be related to changes in gender
relationships that are fostering women's affirmations and the right to
express themselves in Chilean society. As the following quote from a
girl and dialogue between boys from a public school (focus group 3)
show:
“So now, I mean there was a time – I don't know if it still happens – that
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
women let themselves be roughed up because the society was so patri-
archal, that women were raised to accept being abused by men. And now,
women demand more respect… And it also leads to a lot of violence…
And now on the women's side, they often demand respect from the men.
And it's coming with this wave of feminism. And women are feeling, I
don't know, powerful, and they're demanding respect.” (girl, 16 years
old, private school, focus group 12)
- Who do you think has the most control, girls or boys? (Researcher)
- I think women, the most. (15-year-old)
- Now, women. (17-year-old)
- Now? (Researcher)
- Yes. (17-year-old)
- And before? (Researcher)
- Men. (15-year-old)
- But since when? (Researcher)
- Since women have started to have more confidence in themselves. Now,
women have more confidence to do things because they have permission
to vote, to work, all these things … they have more confidence in
themselves, they respect each other (…) as if women want to surpass
men, women want to be above them. (17-year-old)
4.1.3. Ways of exercising DV
The participants gave different explanations for the way in which
the boys and girls exercised violence. The verbal abilities of girls could
explain their greater use of psychological violence. Conversely, men use
physical violence because of their strength. As the following dialogue
between boys from a private school (focus group 7) and dialogue be-
tween girls from a private school (focus group 2) show:
- I think women use more psychological violence than men … (15-year-
old)
- Women, let's say, want to hurt you in a way they know works (for ex-
ample:) they don't talk to you (16-year-old)
- Yes, with attitudes … they give you one of those looks (16-year-old)
- They [girls] make you jealous (16-year-old)
- And they also tell secrets about you (16-year-old)
- And physical violence? (Researcher)
- I think men are the ones who hit (16-year-old)
- I think society … doesn't realize when a woman applies piola [un-
observed] psychological violence (15-year-old)
“Women [use] more [psychological] violence. Because women are
more, how can I say it? They're more developed this way, psychology
speaking, so they know how to hurt people. (16-year-old)
Yes, women have more skills, like vocabulary. Men on the other hand, I
realize they often hit … because of their strength” (15-year-old)
Some of them considered that – because girls tend to denounce the
violence of which they are victims more often than do boys, and the
latter are ashamed to file a complaint – girls now exercise physical
violence while boys now use more verbal violence out of fear of the
legal consequences if they are denounced.
“You see the verbal [violence] form used by men against women, I think
there is also physical [violence] but more verbal [violence] because
now you see women filing complaints against men. Women can put men
in prison… I think women can be physically aggressive with men because
men are ashamed to file complaints for these sorts of things.” (boy, 15
years old, public school, focus group 3).
Another position emerged from the participants' opinions: some con-
sidered that DV was exercised in the same way by both girls and boys,
whereas others suggested that girls used more violence on their boy-
friends. Still others thought that boys were more violent than the vast
majority of girls and that their behavior had more serious con-
sequences, especially on the physical plane.
45
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
“I think there are less differences because, in each case, they [men and
women] treat each other badly, in both cases, they can hit each other, in
both cases, they can say bad things to each other.” (girl, 16 years old,
public school, focus group 1)
“The violence that women use against men… doesn't compare with a
punch or a slap…. I think it's more men against women than women
against men because what women do to men isn't very much…” (girl, 16
years old, public school, focus group 8)
4.1.4. Social classes shape dating violence experiences
The participants agreed that DV can occur in any social class, but
also put forward the idea that the type of violence can vary from one
social class to another. For example, couples from the lower class would
use more physical violence because of a lack of communication skills,
whereas those from a higher class would use more psychological vio-
lence because of its subtlety.
“I believe that physical violence occurs more … in people from the lower
classes who have less education. Because they do not have enough edu-
cation, they don't know what to do, so they start hitting right away. Other
people, [from the upper social class], begin with the shouting because
they know what to turn to, they begin to psychologically mistreat the
person before the hitting begins …” (girl, 16 years old, private school,
focus group 2)
Similar to the above, another difference in the experience of vio-
lence according to social class was suggested by participants: unlike the
lower class, the control and the exercise of masculine power was as-
sociated mainly with the upper class, as in the following dialogue be-
tween boys from a public school (focus group 6):
- Are there differences in violent experiences according to social class?
(researcher)
- … [in] the lower class… the cases of violence that I know of have always
occurred there (15-year-old)
- Violence occurs [more in the lower class] but possession is much more
[common] in the upper class (15-year-old)
- What do you mean by “possession”? (researcher)
- …Well, normally in the lower class, both the father and mother work, but
in the upper class, usually only the father works and the mother stays at
home. [So] possession [means when the father says] “I do everything, I
work, I provide for this [family]”, [the man] tries to get more respect,
[say] that he is the one who has more rights [than the woman] (15-
year-old)
Some adolescents also evoked the idea that there was a possible
relation between social class and family instability. Values transmitted
by families in a more privileged social class, such as respect, would
make their adolescents less likely of being subjected to or exercising
DV.
“Generally speaking, families are more stable when they're in a little
higher social classes. There is a mother and a father, or a grandfather
who teach the children respect for the family. On the other hand, there is
also – I'm not generalizing – in lower [social] classes, it's not always the
same in [all] the families. Your parents have more respect for each other
in higher social classes because of their education, the teaching of values,
without wanting to discriminate against anybody that is.” (girl, 16 years
old, private school, focus group 12)
The participants from the public schools identified adolescents who
were flaites3 as being more at risk; likewise, those from the private
3
In Chile, the word flaite has a negative connotation. It designates people who are
characterized by vulgar language, expensive clothing, fashion, and public disputes and
fights. This term is associated with the criminal world, drug consumption, and
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
schools identified young people who went to public schools as being
more vulnerable. In both cases, the two groups identified were asso-
ciated with a lower socioeconomic level than the respondents. As the
following quote from a boy and dialogue between girls from a private
school (focus group 9) show:
“[What happens is that] they [flaites] want to show they're the boss
by using violence” (boy, 16 years old, public school, group 6)
- Well, in today's world, [there's not as much violence] because we are in
“high” school [Anglicism used to indicate upper class]. I believe that in
high schools and public schools [violence is occurs more often] (16-
year-old)
- Yeah, I think it's a matter of education, you know, because of the prin-
ciples that are taught [to young people] (16-year-old)
4.1.5. Generational differences in romantic relationships and in severity of
violence
The adolescents agreed that there was a difference in social char-
acteristics between the generations which were linked to transforma-
tions of relational models. For example, the formal nature of adults'
romantic relationships and the absence of technologies were seen – by
the participants – as protective factors which helped to develop couple
relationships where confidence reigns. The context in which adoles-
cents live would seem to undermine healthy romantic relationships.
Such aspects as respect, confidence, honesty, and faithfulness are en-
dangered by the current society.
“The older generations, like our parents [who] didn't have technology,
they had to trust each other because that was the only option. You had to
trust people, but now, it's as if no one trusts anybody. So now we check
[cell phones] and see everything he [the partner] has done. I think
we're more affected than older generations… I think the way it's going,
we could call our generation… the distrustful generation.” (girl, 16
years old, private school, focus group 1)
As concerns the participants' opinions about the severity of DV by
generation, some of them considered that violence in adult couples was
more serious because they had more problems (e.g., children, money)
than did adolescent couples, while the latter make more minor mis-
takes. In adults, men's violence towards women was seen as being more
common, whereas in adolescent couples, violence was often thought to
be exerted by both partners. The adolescents thought there was a re-
lation between time, confidence, and abuse. People in adult relation-
ships, which were generally longer, knew each other better, which fa-
cilitated DV.
“(…) there's probably more violence in adult relationships than in young
people's. Adults are more likely to have problems in their lives. They can
retaliate with their partners but not young people, young people can't do
that. They don't have as many problems in life as adults do” (boy, 15
years old, public school, focus group 3)
According to the participants, violence among adults was also more
severe because adult women were more isolated than adolescent girls
and thus were more inclined to hide the traces of violence as illustrated
in the following extract:
“In young people's relationships, friends… have a huge influence… For
example, if he [my boyfriend] hits me, I can always turn to one of my
girlfriends for comfort… But married people, women, mothers, people of
that age, it's like they have less friends and they have no one they can
count on.” (girl, 16 years old, public school, focus group 1)
(footnote continued)
marginality. According to Rojas (2015), the etymology of the term is associated with
aggressive behavior, since flaite comes from the Peruvian word faite which comes from
the English word fighter. The word makes no distinction between gender, since both girls
and boys can be identified as flaite.
46
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
Although other participants also considered that there were differ-
ences in violent experiences between adult couples and young couples,
they considered that violence was more frequent among adolescents,
since their emotional immaturity affected how they resolved problems,
and violence thus became a way of managing conflicts.
“Generally speaking, adults tend to be more rational… and tend to talk
to each other… Adults are usually more mature than teenagers, so they
don't act out their emotions… But if a teenager sees that his girlfriend has
been unfaithful, he'll react right away, he won't think twice, but adults
aren't like that.” (boy, 16 years old, private school, focus group 11)
4.2. Divergences in the social representations of DV
Two main divergences emerged from the analysis. The first involved
gender and the type of school in the justification of DV, while the
second divergence concerned the role that experience of family vio-
lence played on DV representations.
4.2.1. Justification of dating violence
The differences in the way that the participants justified DV were
grouped according to their gender and school type. Some of the parti-
cipants considered that violence could not be justified, that violent
reactions should never be considered as an acceptable way of solving a
problem in a romantic relationship. The following dialogue between
boys from a private school (focus group 10) illustrates this well:
- Nothing justifies violence in a romantic relationship. (15-year-old)
- It can't be justified, that's the whole point. (16-year-old)
In the opinion of the female participants from the two types of
schools, violence exercised by girls towards their boyfriends is justified
in certain situations, especially to defend oneself or to stop sexual
harassment or non-consensual fondling. This opinion would seem to be
linked to the idea that certain behavior by girls is not qualified as
violent by the society. The fact that girls are generally not as strong as
boys would seem to reinforce this belief.
“Using violence to defend myself is perfectly justified. If my boyfriend hits
me, I'd probably use my strength to defend myself… [It's] a way of
stopping the violence [laughter].” (girl, years old, private school,
focus group 12)
“It's the fruit of the society that we live in. Even [in] films and soap
operas, we see women slapping men. So, it's like something social…
People think it's normal.” (girl, 16 years old, public school, focus
group 8)
Furthermore, some boys we met with in the public schools felt that
DV was justified in cases of infidelity, whether it was committed by one
partner or the other. It was also justified when the romantic partner did
not know what to do and responded violently. These comments also
show that there was a lack of skills for handling emotions, particularly
among boys.
“So, if I'm in a relationship and she hits me, and it's for a good reason,
like I'm with another girl and my girlfriend shows up and she hits me,
well, I deserve it.” (boy, 16 years old, public school, focus group 6)
“I'm referring to the fact that the girl provokes jealousy in her romantic
partner and he gets to the point where he gets really angry and he hits
her. He doesn't want to do it, but he doesn't not know what else to do…
He wasn't planning on hitting her…but he had to let off some steam (…)
because when he works off [the jealousy] with something else, he
[rarely] uses violence, [it happens] almost never. But when you don't
find other ways to relieve the pressure, it can end in violence.” (boy, 17
years old, public school, focus group 3)
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
4.2.2. Experiencing violence in the family: a risk or protection factor?
As concerns family-related factors, while some participants saw the
experiencing of family violence as a DV risk factor, not everyone
agreed. Experiencing violence did not determine whether it would be
used in future relationships.
“I've never seen… my father shout at my mother or raise his hand to hit
her, so I wouldn't do it either… But in other families, there are parents
who yell at each other, treat each other really badly… It happens every
day, and then the children imitate this behavior because they've seen it
every day…” (girl, 16 years old, private school, focus group 12)
“Well, I mean, if he sees, right in front of him that it [violence] is okay,
then he'll do it. If he thinks about it and decides that it's not, that it's bad,
that ‘I shouldn't make the same mistakes as my father,’ then he'll
change.” (boy, 18 years old, public school, focus group 6)
On the other hand, violence between parents was seen as a pro-
tection factor by girls who witnessed it. They considered that these
experiences marked a difference between them and other girls who had
not been exposed to it because it prepared them to more easily re-
cognize the dynamics of violence. As the following quote from a girl
and dialogue between girls from a public school (focus group 8) show:
“[After an episode of violence between the parents] My mother was
able get away from him and to get out of the house, shouting for help. We
were just young girls. Seeing things like that makes you grow up really
quickly.” (girl, 16 years old, public school, focus group 8)
- Because unfortunately, girls [who haven't witnessed violence] aren't
really aware of what goes on. Now, the rest of us, we know what it
means, what's involved when there's violence in the family and all those
things. Those girls, they haven't seen it, they don't take it seriously. It
doesn't mean anything to them… When you see something like that
happen to your mother, you stop it. (16-year-old)
- When they've never experienced violence or anything like that when they
were young, if something happened to them now, I think the impact on
them would be stronger… Someone who's been through it [violence]
knows what's going to happen. (16-year-old)
5. Discussion
The focus group method was used in this research to obtain rich
content on a subject that has not been greatly studied. The social re-
presentations theory, particularly the concepts of ‘anchoring’ and
“distance from the object,” made it possible to identify the con-
vergences and divergences in the participants' opinions.
The convergences in the participants' opinions allowed us to make a
first observation: DV is an aspect of Chilean adolescents' lives. In the
eyes of the participants, it was seen as something common that is re-
produced in the media and that affects them in particular. This per-
ception also led us to another observation, namely that the SRs of DV
are part of a larger sociohistorical concept which includes social
transformations in gender relationships.
The role attributed by the participants to sociocultural factors in
their explanations of DV revealed a sociocognitive process that was
integrating new knowledge into older, more ancient knowledge
(Clémence & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2004). The participants agreed that ‘ma-
chismo’ explained masculine violence towards women (old knowledge).
Other studies have reported this same finding (Black & Weisz, 2004;
Lehrer et al., 2010; Ulloa, Jaycox, Skinner, & Orsburn, 2008). This
explanation – rooted in pre-existing systems of thought and interpretive
frameworks (Seca, 2001) that reflect a social order organized in terms
of domination of men over women – would seem to be associated with
occurrences of DV in adult couples. However, the justification of certain
behaviors proposed by the participants (e.g. jealousy) allowed us to
confirm the existence of modern machismo practices (new knowledge),
which Montecino (2007, quoted in PNUD, 2010) named neomachismo to
47
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
explain the new forms of machismo in response to the loss of masculine
privileges. This new approach to interpreting male violence revealed a
position adopted by the participants that was different from that of
other generations. It confirmed the point that various authors have
raised concerning the calling into question of the use of gender re-
lationship models (Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011; Reyes et al., 2016). The
boys interviewed espoused the changes in gender relationships in a
contradictory manner. Even though they expressed their agreement
with gender equality, they also demonstrated their perplexity and un-
ease with it.
The violence of girls towards boys, based on changes in gender re-
lationships, marks a distinction between the traditional behavior of
women and the modern behavior of adolescents. The positions adopted
were influenced by the girls' generation, which influenced their dis-
course. The gender perspective on female violence was strongly an-
chored in the ideological issue of norms and values. In our opinion, the
violence of girls towards boys: 1) exemplifies a contemporary norms
conflict regarding the social role of women, 2) is opposed to traditional
gender stereotypes (Levy, 2012), and 3) represents a break with the
subordinate gender position. Indeed, the positions occupied by men and
women result from the transmission of a cultural, social, and economic
capital, from a heritage that reinforces an advantageous position for
some and a disadvantageous one for others. If we consider that men and
women traditionally occupy distinct and hierarchical positions in the
social space (Deschamps & Moliner, 2012), the attitude of the girls can
be seen as a resistance to male domination (see Lopez, Chesney-Lind, &
Foley, 2012).
The participants' opinions indicated positions that were anchored in
a dynamic conception of gender that was influenced by changes in the
sociocultural environment. Even though some studies have mentioned
cultural changes as a factor to keep in mind in explanations of ado-
lescent DV (Sanderson et al., 2004; Ulloa et al., 2008), gender identity
transformation as a product of cultural transformation has not been
greatly pursued in studies examining the explanations of violence in
girls (see Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007; Saunders, 2002). Examining the
cultural context of female violence (Swan & Snow, 2006) by using an
intersectional approach that takes into account the structural factors in
which female violence occurs has been suggested by various authors
(Roy, Damant, Chbat, Johnson, & Gervais, 2015). Moreover, the social
acceptation of young women's violence has been shown to be a major
factor (Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011) worthy of exploration in light of
these gender identity changes.
The findings of this study agree with those of other studies re-
garding gender differences in the forms of violence used (Giordano,
Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Hamby, 2014; Sears et al., 2006).
Some participants felt that girls used more psychological violence and
boys, more physical violence. This would seem to reproduce stereo-
typical gender traits: girls were more delicate and had better verbal
skills than boys. Participants explained this difference by the fact that
women now have more advantages than men; women can more easily
denounce or hit a man without being penalized, whereas there would
be consequences for boys.
In our opinion, these differences shed light on the symbolic re-
sources and discourses that young people have and that influence their
behavior. We must determine which resources passed on to adolescents
lead to a change in perception in the traditional gender hierarchy and
explain both the use of physical violence by girls and an apparent de-
crease in violence used by boys. Both these differences revealed that the
various positions adopted were dependent on the social anchoring of
gender. They call into question the expressive function of female ag-
gressive behavior (such as the loss of self-control) and the instrumental
function of male aggressive behavior (to control the other) as docu-
mented by Campbell, Muncer, and Coyle (1992). According to the
present study's results, these two functions were present in both the
girls' and boys' behavior. For example, a warning, when given by girls,
was similar to the “ethic enforcement” documented by Foshee, Bauman,
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
Linder, Rice, and Wilcher (2007) and aimed to modify the other per-
son's behavior. When given by boys who did not know what else to do,
it was used to relieve anger. Both cases demonstrate its expressive
function. According to the participants, even though this behavior was
not identified as DV, it could nonetheless trigger DV.
While DV was common in all the social classes according to the
participants, their opinions diverged regarding the type of violence
associated with the socioeconomic conditions (also documented by
SERNAM, 2010). This dissimilarity indicates that the SRs of DV are
anchored in pre-existing systems of thought and interpretive frame-
works which are based on contingent factors such as social and ideo-
logical contexts. These positions rooted in social class were more ob-
vious when the participants identified more underprivileged groups,
whether economically or culturally, than themselves (the flaites and the
public school students) as being more vulnerable to exercising DV or
being subjected to it. The fact that they believed that the “others” – as
represented by the poorer, less educated – were more affected by DV
whereas they thought themselves to be less influenced by it reflected a
system of beliefs, according to SR theory, that allowed them to “an-
ticipate, legitimize, and explain their behavior using [certain] traits
that characterized themselves and [other] traits that characterized
members of other groups” (Deschamps & Moliner, 2012: 99). In our
opinion, believing oneself less vulnerable to DV is an optimistic bias
(Chapin & Coleman, 2012) anchored in one's social class which could
encourage people to try it out, especially young people from private
schools. This identity representation comprises an emotional dimension
in the SRs of DV that is worthy of further exploration in future research
and prevention programs.
Another idea that demonstrated the belief that others were more
likely to be subject to or to exercise DV was anchored in the generation
that they belonged to. This notion designates a group sharing a certain
number of practices and representations because they are roughly the
same age or from the same period (Leccardi & Feixa, 2011). As ado-
lescents, the participants compared themselves with adults and noted
various similarities and differences. According to the SR theory, qua-
lities considered by the participants to characterize adolescence al-
lowed them to justify and predict their behavior. They qualified their
generation as “distrustful” and more affected by the use of social net-
works to monitor the lover. According to the participants, their pro-
blems were not as serious as those of adults. They were learning about
romantic relationships and found it easy to put an end to them and
thereby avoid DV. Their emotional immaturity explained their impul-
siveness and violent reactions. The violence exercised was not, ac-
cording to them, that serious, and their friends played a fundamental
support role in situations like DV. These opinions illustrated how the
adolescents were anchored in their collective reality, a given genera-
tion, a developmental stage, marking a separation between the violence
of two generations. The participants' perception of themselves as ado-
lescents might explain why they downplayed their DV experiences and
believed that “others,” such as adults, experienced more severe acts of
violence. On the other hand, the findings about how the participants
view adult violence and the differences that they point to between
youth and adults should be analyzed in consideration of adolescent
development. Adolescents go through an important time of brain ma-
turation and neuro-functional organization that is also modified by the
experiences and interactions that they have with their environment
(Ansado, Chiasson, & Beauchamp, 2014). The interaction between the
individual, social, and cultural factors thus exerts a mediating role
between the processes of biological maturation and the psychosocial
results (Alsaker, 2014). Analyzing the young people's points of view in
parallel with cognitive development and generational identity would be
an avenue that would certainly open up new fields in the study of DV.
Two main divergences emerged from the discourse of the partici-
pants. The first involved gender and the type of school in the justifi-
cation of DV, while the second divergence concerned the role that ex-
perience with family violence played on the representations of DV. The
48
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
Private School Public School
“Lack
of “A way to
respect” relieve
pressure”
DV
“To defend
oneself," "to
stop DV," "to
be respected”
Fig. 1. Distance from DV by gender and school type.
notion “distance from the object” is useful to analyse the first diver-
gence. To our knowledge, no study has explored the distance from the
object in the DV domain. It is noteworthy that the present study is
exploratory and that the proposed lines of research emerged from the
analysis of the participants' comments concerning, in particular, the
justifications for DV. These avenues will certainly open up new fields of
DV study. The following figure shows how the three groups positioned
themselves in terms of distance from the object (Fig. 1).
Although the first representation (“lack of respect”) was observed in
the different subgroups, it was more evident in boys from private
schools. They had homogeneous representations and positioned them-
selves as a ‘distant’ group from DV; their discourse was more ideological
and normative than descriptive. They embodied a discourse denouncing
DV as being socially unacceptable and unjustifiable. Their position did
not mean that they could not be involved in a DV situation, but rather
that they proclaimed adherence to an ideological discourse rejecting
violence.
For the boys from the public schools, DV was viewed as “a way to
relieve pressure” DV was not justified, but it could occur, especially in
situations of jealousy and infidelity. This representation referred to an
affective discourse, a descriptive, pragmatic, and functional re-
presentation of DV. The use of DV seemed to have a particular function:
to ease anger or jealousy. In this subgroup, the function of violence was
not to hurt the other; it was a way of dealing with one's emotions. The
public school boys' comments embodied the attribution component of
the justification of violence, that is, they denied responsibility for vio-
lent behavior, or declared that they did not intend to hurt the other
when they were letting off steam (see Pascoal and Poeschl (2004), who
explored the SR of violence towards children).
In addition, the distance from the object of boys from private
schools illustrates the role of resources associated with economic and
cultural capital. Indeed, the two justificatory representations only serve
to better highlight the differences between the social positions.
Adherence to a normative DV discourse among these boys reflects a
heritage different from that of boys from public schools, that of a
dominant traditional position (male gender and advantaged social
class).
Three representations that justify DV emerged from the discourse of
the girls from the two types of schools: “to defend oneself”, “to stop
DV,” and “to be respected.” They symbolize an affective discourse,
strongly based on gender, and a descriptive, pragmatic, and functional
representation of DV. The representations of girls had a cognitive
component for the justification of DV, which reflects the belief that
certain behaviors were not violent, and which in turn refers to a narrow
conception of violence (Pascoal & Poeschl, 2004). For the participants
in this study, society was more tolerant of violence committed by girls
than by boys. This same finding has been documented by other authors
(Fernández-Fuertes & Fuertes, 2010; Reeves & Orpinas, 2012; Sears
et al., 2006; SERNAM, 2003). The violence is considered to be justifi-
able because girls have less strength than boys. Although girls generally
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
describe violence as unacceptable, other studies reveal that girls' vio-
lence may, in some cases, be justified and socially acceptable if it is used
in self-defense or to retaliate (Black & Weisz, 2004; Kernsmith &
Tolman, 2011; Lopez et al., 2012). Their SR of DV is not normative. On
the contrary, as mentioned by Foshee et al. (2001), girls would seem to
rationalize the use of force as a harmless act, thereby breaking social
norms.
As we have just explained, the first two SRs justifying DV on the part
of girls (“to defend themselves” and “to stop DV”) are documented in
the literature (Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007; Saunders, 2002). However, the
third SR (“to be respected”) has not been greatly discussed in previous
research. This SR is consistent with a statement of women's affirmation
related to social change, and marks the appropriation of a different
identity model of adult women. If women have been considered as the
main victims of intimate violence, by occupying a subordinate position
vis-a-vis men (Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Walker, 1979), the new generation
are increasingly opposing violence by using resistance strategies
(Chung, 2005; Lopez et al., 2012).
On the other hand, the present study highlighted differences be-
tween the participants as to the influence of family violence on the SRs
of DV. While participants who had not experienced family violence saw
it as a risk factor, it was seen a protection factor by participants who
had witnessed it. According to them, their experience distinguished
them from the others; having been witnesses to violence between the
parents helped them to anticipate similar situations and to be on the
“alert” to DV. This opinion was counter to the idea of intergenerational
transmission of DV. The participants' opinions were anchored in their
experience with family violence, which allowed them to adopt a posi-
tion regarding DV. This experience would make it possible to distin-
guish a position with regard to DV: the girl participants who had not
experienced family violence adopted a more distant position on and less
structured view of DV, whereas those who had witnessed family vio-
lence had a closer position on and more structured view of it (Abric,
2011). Descriptive studies will be necessary to better grasp how wit-
nessing violence can influence the SRs of DV and guide practices, par-
ticularly in boys. Indeed, during the focus groups, none of the boys
reported having witnessed episodes of family violence, even though
they declared having been exposed to this type of violence in ques-
tionnaires concerning the respondents' characteristics.
Finally, the discussion about the definition of DV, the participants'
difficulty in identifying more subtle manifestations of it, and violence
exercised by girls all took root in an SR of DV that was anchored in its
physical expression. This representation was supported by the socio-
cultural and family structure that reproduced tolerance for other forms
of violence.
6. Study limitations
Several procedures have been put in place to ensure the scientificity
of the results of this study. According to the criteria set out by Lincoln
and Guba (1985) for qualitative research (consistency, credibility,
transferability and authenticity), the main strengths of this study are:
sample size, triangulation of data, saturation, inter-judge agreement on
the coding, use of citations from focus groups to support the results, and
use of a logbook. However, there are some limitations to the present
study that should be mentioned. First, concerning the sampling
strategy, adolescents from ethnic or sexual minorities or from rural
areas were not explicitly targeted for recruitment. Second, the recruit-
ment method did not precisely target young people who were directly
affected by DV. Focusing on participants who were going to school
probably excluded a more marginalized adolescent population that
might have presented more risk factors influencing their SRs. Third, due
to the collective nature of the focus group, it is possible that the par-
ticipants' opinions were influenced by social desirability. According to
some students who participated in the focus groups, the use of concepts
such as “violence” and “romantic relationships” may have negatively
49
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
affected other students' interest in participating in the research. By re-
fraining from participating, they sought to avoid being seen as violent
or as victims of DV. The influence of friends, moreover, was probably a
factor favoring both participation and abstention. In addition, because
of the composition strategy for the focus groups, the analysis of the
links between the participants' experiences and their representations of
DV had certain limitations since the participants did not necessarily
address their experiences of violence in the group. Finally, the study
had limitations as to how to conceptualize social class. School and
neighborhood perception were obviously not the only criteria for de-
fining this category, even if they were relevant to the context of the
particular segregation noted in Chile (Madero, 2011; Martinez et al.,
2006; Puga, 2011). Despite these limitations, the present study provides
a new understanding of the representations of DV in Chilean adoles-
cents. It would be pertinent for preventive programs to take the com-
plexity of DV in adolescents into account by integrating their various
positions.
7. Conclusion and implications
The present study explored the SRs of DV in Chilean adolescents,
showing the convergences and divergences in the participants' opinions.
These results illustrate the various positions whose anchoring was in-
fluenced by gender, social class, experience with family violence, and
generational differences.
The study has raised several questions and draws our attention to
various avenues for DV research and prevention. First of all, in their
discourse, the participants highlighted social influences and the im-
portance of taking into account changes in gender relationships in
Chilean society. On this note, we might ask whether the integration of
new values fostering more egalitarian gender relationships was possibly
received with perplexity by Chilean adolescents, thereby leading to DV.
Studies further examining the discourse transmitted to these adoles-
cents will thus be necessary to better understand the role that social
context plays in the learning and justification of violent behavior in this
population.
The SRs of DV in the respondents were strongly anchored in ste-
reotypes and experiences. The girls and boys lived out their romantic
relationships differently; they seem to have had different motivations
regarding sexuality and different manifestations of DV. While their
discourse displayed gender asymmetry, it also revealed the emergence
of a new image of women which, according to the participants, mod-
ified the unequal gender relationships. Despite all this, is DV a subject
of gender inequality for adolescents? Studies of these changes will allow
us to better understand their explanations of female violence and the
aspects that maintain gender inequality. It is therefore important to
further document adolescent sexuality in research and to address this
issue directly in prevention programs.
According to the participants, violence is incompatible with a
healthy romantic relationship (characterized by love, respect, and
confidence, among other elements). Nonetheless, some respondents
thought it was justifiable to have recourse to violence. Since physical
aggression represented a sort of violence barometer, it would be ad-
visable to focus the adolescents' awareness on more subtle violence and
promote strategies concentrating on peaceful solutions to couple con-
flict and tools for managing anger and jealousy. Furthermore, it would
be important to demystify the adolescents' belief that “the other” – the
poorer, less educated adolescents and adults – are subjected to more
DV. Future studies should examine prejudices that are anchored in
social classes and people's generations so as to shed light on the ex-
planations given for violent behavior in adolescents.
Due to the importance accorded to families in Latino-American so-
cieties (Martinez et al., 2006; Sanderson et al., 2004) in general and by
the participants interviewed here in particular, it would be important to
further explore family dynamics and DV with prescriptive studies and
to develop DV prevention strategies intended for parents, since the way
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
in which parents conduct their romantic relationship, and how parents
respond to situations of violence might well influence SRs and the
conflict management strategies used by adolescents. The present study
has helped to outline the field of the SRs of DV and to identify the
organizing principles. Even though other studies have pointed to gender
as a differentiating factor in the practices and experiences of girls and
boys, the present study revealed the importance of the context in which
gender relationships were constructed by describing, from the adoles-
cents' viewpoint, a social context that threatened their healthy romantic
relationships. Participants also touched upon certain changes related to
modern and traditional societies, like Latino-American societies. These
results might also clarify some of the SRs of DV in adolescents living in
heterogeneous societies whose populations are increasingly multi-
cultural.
This research has also helped to shed light on the diverse positions
adopted as a function of social class and generation, two categories that
have received little attention in other studies on the subject. This dis-
covery provides new avenues for research and ideas for prevention
programs regarding which strategies and educational content to em-
phasize. Positions adopted based on one's experience of family violence
would suggest that this element should be taken into account when
developing prevention programs so as to avoid the “re-victimization” of
young people who have already been exposed to family violence.
Finally, the present study highlights the considerable role played by
environmental factors and social changes in adolescents' social re-
presentations of DV. Given that representations guide actions, taking
these factors and changes into account will allow us to better under-
stand the behavior of girls and boys and improve DV prevention stra-
tegies.
Conflicts of interest
None.
References
Abric, J.-C. (2001). L'approche structurale des représentations sociales : développements
récents. Psychologie et société, 4, 81–106.
Abric, J.-C. (2011). Les représentations sociales: Aspects théoriques. In J.-C. Abric (Ed.).
Pratiques sociales et représentations (pp. 15–46). Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
Alsaker, F. (2014). La puberté: étapes du développement pubertaire et incidence psy-
chologique. In M. Claes, & L. Lannegrand-Willems (Eds.). La psychologie de l'adoles-
cence (pp. 17–43). Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.
Ansado, J., Chiasson, V., & Beauchamp, M. H. (2014). Croissance cérébrale et
neurodéveloppement à l'adolescence. In M. Claes, & L. Lannegrand-Willems (Eds.). La
psychologie de l'adolescence (pp. 45–71). Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.
Bacigalupe, G. (2000). Family violence in Chile. Exploring prevalence and clinical di-
mensions. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11(2), 39–57.
Bagner, D. M., Storch, E. A., & Preston, A. S. (2007). Romantic relational aggression: What
about gender. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
510896-006-9055-x.
Barozet, E., & Espinoza, V. (2011). Que sont les classes sociales devenues? stratification,
inégalité et mobilité sociale au Chili. Cahiers des Amériques latines, 68, 69–88. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4000/cal.89 [Online].
Bazoret, E., & Mac-Clure, O. (2014). Nombrar y clasificar: Aproximación a una
epistemología de las clases sociales (Naming and classifying: an approach to the
epistemology of social classes). Cinta moebio, 51, 197–215.
Black, B. M., & Weisz, A. N. (2004). Dating violence: A qualitative analysis of Mexican
American youths' views. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural diversity in social work, 13(3),
69–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j051v13n03_04.
Campbell, A., Muncer, S., & Coyle, E. (1992). Social representation of aggression as an
explanation of gender differences: A preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 18,
95–108.
Cercone, J., Beach, S., & Arias, L. (2005). Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner
violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims, 20(2),
207–218.
Chapin, J. R., & Coleman, G. (2012). Optimistic bias about dating/relationship violence
among teens. Journal of Youth Studies, 15(5), 645–655.
Chung, D. (2005). Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and
heterosexual relationships. Women's Studies International Forum, 28(6), 445–455.
Clémence, A., Doise, W., & Lorenzini-Cioldi, F. (1994). Prises de position et principes
organisateurs des représentations sociales. In C. Guimelli (Ed.). Structures et trans-
formations des représentations sociales (pp. 119–152). Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé.
Clémence, A., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2004). Un modèle d'analyse ancrages. Nouvelle Revue de
50
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
psychologie sociale. 3, Athènes: Panteion Univ. Press, Hellenic Society of Social
Psychology157–166.
Collins, W. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic re-
lationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 1–24.
Connolly, J., Friedlander, L., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2010). The ecology of
adolescent dating aggression: Attitudes, relationships, media use, and socio-demo-
graphic risk factors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 469–491.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495028.
Deschamps, J.-C., & Moliner, P. (2012). L'identité en psychologie sociale des processus
identitaires aux représentations sociales (2dn ed.). Paris: Armand Colin.
DuPont-Reyes, M., Fry, D., Rickert, V., & Davidson, L. (2015). Adolescent relationship
violence and acculturation among NYC Latinos. Maternal and Child Health Journal,
19(7), 1543–1552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-014-1659-9.
Espinoza, G., Hokoda, A., Ulloa, E. C., Ulibarri, M., & Castañeda, D. (2012). Gender
differences in the relations among patriarchal beliefs, parenting, and teen relation-
ship violence in Mexican adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
21(7), 721–738.
Fernández-Fuertes, A. A., & Fuertes, A. (2010). Physical and psychological aggression in
dating relationships of Spanish adolescents: Motives and consequences. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 34, 183–191.
Foshee, V., Bauman, K., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies of adolescent
dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 498–519.
Foshee, V., Chang, L.-Y., Reyes, L., Chen, M., & Ennett, S. (2015). The synergy of family
and neighborhood on rural dating violence victimization. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 483–491.
Foshee, V. A., Ennett, S., Bauman, K., Benefield, T. S., & Suchindran, C. (2005). The
association between family violence and adolescent dating violence onset. Does it
vary by race, socioeconomic, status, and family structure? The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 25(3), 317–344.
Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences
in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32,
128–141.
Fries, L., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Bares, C., Han, Y., & Delva, J. (2013). Gender differences in
predictors of self-reported physical aggression: Exploring theoretically relevant di-
mensions among adolescents from Santiago, Chile. International Perspectives in
Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 2(4), 255–269.
Giordano, P., Soto, D., Manning, W., & Longmore, M. (2010). The characteristics of ro-
mantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. National Institutes of Health,
39(6), 863–874.
Gressard, L. A., Swahn, M. H., & Tharp, A. (2015). A first look at gender inequality as a
societal risk factor for dating violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3),
448–457.
Guimelli, C. (1994). Introduction. In C. Guimelli (Ed.). Structures et transformations des
représentations sociales (pp. 11–24). Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé.
Hamby, S. (2014). Self-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate
partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Psychology of Violence, 1–13. Advance
online publication https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038207.
Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., & Turner, H. (2013). Perpetrator and victim gender patterns for
21 forms of youth victimization in the national survey of children's exposure to
violence. Violence and Victims, 28(6), 915–939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-
6708.VV-D-12-00067.
Hamby, S., & Jackson, A. (2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of
dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-
9816-0.
Hamby, S., & Turner, H. (2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females:
Insights from the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence. Psychology of
Violence, 3(4), 323–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029706.
Hébert, M., Daspe, M.-E., Lapierre, A., Godbout, N., Blais, M., Fernet, M., & Lavoie, F.
(2017). A Meta-Analysis of Risk and Protective factors for dating violence victimi-
zation: The role of family and peer interpersonal context. Trauma, Violence & Abuse,
1–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838017725336.
Hettrich, E., & O'Leary, K. (2007). Females' reasons for their physical aggression in dating
relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(9), 1131–1143.
Hokoda, A., Galván, D., Malcarne, V., Castañeda, D., & Ulloa, E. (2007). An exploratory
study examining teen dating violence, acculturation and acculturative stress in
Mexican-American adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 14(3),
33–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j146v14n03_03.
Instituto Nacional de la Juventud (INJUV) (2015). Octava Encuesta de juventud. Santiago,
Chile.
Johnson, R. M., Parker, E. M., Rinehart, J., Nail, J., & Rothman, E. F. (2015).
Neighborhood factors and dating violence among youth. A systematic review.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 458–466.
Kalampalikis, N. (2004). Les focus groups, lieux d'ancrages. Bulletin de psychologie, 57(3),
281–289.
Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2008). Focus groups. Strategic articulations of peda-
gogy, politics and inquiry. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Collecting and interpreting
qualitative materials (pp. 375–402). (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kernsmith, P. D., & Tolman, R. M. (2011). Attitudinal correlates of girls' use of violence in
teen dating relationships. Violence Against Women, 17(4), 500–516.
Larrain, S. (1994). Violencia puertas adentro. La mujer golpeada. Chile: Editorial uni-
versitaria.
Leal, F., Reinoso, L., Rojas, K., & Romero, R. (2011). Violencia en las relaciones de pareja
en adolescentes escolares de Arica. Revista Infancia y Educación, 1(1), 18–35.
Leccardi, C., & Feixa, C. (2011). El concepto de generación en las teorías sobre la ju-
ventud. Última Década, (34), 11–31.
L'Écuyer, R. (1987). L'analyse de contenu: notion et étapes. In J.-P. Deslauriers (Ed.). Les
T. Sanhueza, G. Lessard
méthodes de la recherche qualitative (pp. 49–64). Québec: Presses de l'Université
Québec.
Lehrer, J. A., Lehrer, E. L., & Zhao, Z. (2010). Physical dating violence victimization in
college women in Chile. Journal of Women's Health, 19(5), 893–902.
Letendre, J., & Williams, L. (2014). “I hear you”: Using focus groups to give voice to
adolescent girls' experiences with violence. Social Work With Groups, 37(1), 114–128.
Levy, M. (2012). “Boys fight, girls fight”. Adolescent girls speak about girls' aggression.
Girlhood Studies, 5(2), 45–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2012.050204.
Lincoln, I., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications
(Chapter 5, 6).
Lopez, V., Chesney-Lind, M., & Foley, J. (2012). Relationship power, control, and dating
violence among Latina girls. Violence Against Women, 18(6), 681–690.
Loseke, D., & Kurz, D. (2005). Men's violence toward women is the serious social problem.
In D. Loseke, R. Gelles, & M. Cavanaugh (Eds.). Current controversies of family violence
(pp. 79–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Madero, I. (2011). Inclusión y exclusión de género y clase al interior de la escuela chilena
en 4 comunas del sur de Chile. Estudios Pedagógicos XXXVII, (2), 135–145.
Martinez, M. L., Cumsille, P., & Thibaut, C. (2006). Chile. In J. Arnett (Ed.). Routledge
International Encyclopedia of adolescence 2 (pp. 167–178). Routledge.
Miller, J., & White, N. (2003). Gender and adolescent relationship violence: A contextual
examination. Criminology, 41(4), 1207–1248.
Ministerio de Salud (2013). Programa nacional de salud integral de adolescentes y
jóvenes. Plan de acción 2012–2020. Santiago de Chile.
Moagi-Gulubane, S. (2010). Prevalence of dating violence and socioeconomic status.
Journal of Psychology in Africa, 20(2), 179–184.
Molina, R., George, M., González, E., Martínez, V., Molina, T., Montero, et al. (2012).
Estudio Nacional de calidad de vida relacionado con la salud en adolescentes chilenos:
Informe final. Santiago: Ediciones Radio Universidad de Chile.
Montecino, S. (2007). Alegorías del mestizaje chileno, cuarta edición ampliada y actua-
lizada. Madres y Huachos Santiago, Catalonia.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Qualitative research methods
series(2nd ed.). Vol. 16. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage University Paper.
Morlot, R., & Sales-Wuillemin, E. (2008). Effet des pratiques et des connaissances sur la
représentation sociale d'un objet: application à l'hygiène hospitalière. Revue
Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 4(21), 89–114. http://www.cairn.info/revue-
internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2008-4-page-89.htm.
Mueller, V., Jouriles, E., McDonald, R., & Rosenfield, D. (2013). Adolescent beliefs about
the acceptability of dating violence: Does violent behavior change them? Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 436–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260512454716.
N'Vivo 10 (2012). Qualitative data analysis software. QSR International Pty Ltd.
Orvig, A., & Grossen, M. (2004). Représentations sociales et analyse de discours produit
dans des focus groups: un point de vue dialogique. Bulletin de psychologie, 57(3),
263–274.
Palmonari, A., & Doise, W. (1986). L'étude des représentations sociales. Neuchâtel:
Delachaux & Niestlé.
Pascoal, S., & Poeschl, G. (2004). Représentations sociales de la violence envers les en-
fants. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 4(64), 21–34. http://dx.doi.
org/10.3917/cips.064.0021.
Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (PNUD) (2010). Desarrollo humano en
Chile. Género: los desafíos de la igualdad. Santiago de Chile.
Puga, I. (2011). Escuela y estratificación social en Chile: ¿cuál es el rol de la
municipalización y la educación particular subvencionada en la reproducción de la
desigualdad social? Estudios Pedagógicos, 27(2), 213–232.
Reeves, P., & Orpinas, P. M. (2012). Dating norms and dating violence among ninth
graders in Northeast Georgia: Reports from student surveys and focus groups. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 27(9), 1677–1698.
Rey Anacona, C., González Cruz, Y., Sánchez-Jiménez, V., & Saavedra Guajardo, E.
(2017). Sexismo y agresiones en el noviazgo en adolescents españoles, chilenos y
colombianos. Behavioral Psychology/Psicologia conductual. 25(2), 297–314.
51
Children and Youth Services Review 87 (2018) 41–51
Reyes, H. L., Foshee, V. A., Niolon, P., Reidy, D. E., & Hall, J. E. (2016). Gender role
attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as
moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 350–360.
Rojas, D. (2015). Flaite: Algunos apuntes etimológicos. ALPHA, 40, 193–200.
Ross, J. (2012). Self-reported fear in partner violent relationships: Findings on gender
differences from two samples. Psychology of Violence, 2(1), 58–74. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0026285.
Roy, V., Damant, D., Chbat, M., Johnson, H., & Gervais, L. (2015). Points de vue des
participantes et des intervenantes sur le développement d'un devis d'évaluation d'un
programme pour les femmes exerçant de la violence. Recherches Qualitatives, 35(1),
101–124.
Sanderson, M., Coker, A., Roberts, R., Tortolero, S., & Reininger, B. (2004). Acculturation,
ethnic identity, and dating violence among Latino ninth-grade students. Preventive
Medicine, 39, 373–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.034.
Santiago-Menendez, M., & Campbell, A. (2013). Sadness and anger: Boys, girls, and
crying in adolescence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 400–410. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/a0030661.
Saunders, D. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social pro-
blem? A review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 142–1448.
Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., Whelan, J. J., & Saint-Pierre, M. (2006). “If it hurts you, then it is
not a joke”: Adolescents' ideas about girls' and boys' Use and Experience of Abusive
Behavior in Dating Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1191–1207.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260506290423.
Seca, J. M. (2001). Les représentations sociales. Paris: Armand Colin.
Servicio Nacional de la Mujer (SERNAM) (2003). Análisis de la violencia en las relaciones de
pareja entre jóvenes. Santiago. Chile.
Servicio Nacional de la Mujer (SERNAM) (2010). Investigación exploratoria respecto a la
violencia ocurrida durante las relaciones adolescentes. Santiago. Chile.
Servicio Nacional de la Mujer (SERNAM) (2012). Plan Nacional de Violencia Intrafamiliar
en Chile (noviembre 2012-diciembre 2013). Santiago. Chile.
Spriggs, A., Halpern, C., Herring, A., & Schoenbach, V. (2009). Family and school so-
cioeconomic disadvantage: Interactive influences on adolescent dating violence vic-
timization. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1956–1965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2009.03.015.
Swan, S., & Snow, D. (2006). The development of a theory of women's use of violence in
intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1026–1045. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1077801206293330.
Tijmes, C. (2012). School violence and school climate in schools of Santiago, Chile, in
high vulnerability contexts. Psykhe, 21, 105–117.
Ulloa, E., Jaycox, L., Marshall, G., & Collins, R. (2004). Acculturation, gender stereotypes,
and attitudes about dating violence among Latino youth. Violence and Victims, 19(31),
273–287.
Ulloa, E., Jaycox, L., Skinner, S., & Orsburn, M. (2008). Attitudes about violence and
dating among Latino/a boys and girls. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social
Work, 17(2), 157–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15313200801941721.
Vézina, J., & Hébert, M. (2007). Risk factors for victimization in romantic relationships of
young women. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(1), 33–66.
Vizcarra, B., & Póo, A. M. (2011). Violencia de Pareja en estudiantes universitarios del sur
de Chile. Universitas Psychologica, 10(1), 89–98.
Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic
review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224–241. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0040194.
Wolfe, D., & Feiring, C. (2000). Dating violence through the lens of adolescent romantic
relationships. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 360–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077559500005004007.
Wubs, A., Aarø, L., Mathews, C., Onya, H., & Mbwambo, J. (2013). Associations between
attitudes toward violence and intimate partner violence in South Africa and
Tanzania. Violence and Victims, 28, 324–340.