INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE RISK AMONG VICTIMS OF YOUTH VIOLENCE: ARE EARLY UNIONS BAD, BENEFICIAL, OR BENIGN?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12075
• Author: TARA D. WARNER,DANIELLE C. KUHL,DAVID F. WARNER
• Published date: 01 August 2015
• Date: 01 August 2015

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE RISK AMONG

VICTIMS OF YOUTH VIOLENCE: ARE EARLY UNIONS

BAD, BENEFICIAL, OR BENIGN?∗

DANIELLE C. KUHL,1DAVID F. WARNER,2

and TARA D. WARNER2

1Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University

2Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska—Lincoln

KEYWORDS: youth violent victimization, intimate partner violence, union timing

Youth violent victimization (YVV) is a risk factor for precocious exits from ado-

lescence via early coresidential union formation. It remains unclear, however, whether

these early unions 1) are associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization,

2) interrupt victim continuity or victim–offender overlap through protective and proso-

cial bonds, or 3) are inconsequential. By using data from the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N=11,928; 18–34 years of age), we examine

competing hypotheses for the effect of early union timing among victims of youth vi-

olence (n=2,479)—differentiating across victimization only, perpetration only, and

mutually combative relationships and considering variation by gender. The results

from multinomial logistic regression models indicate that YVV increases the risk of

IPV victimization in first unions, regardless of union timing; the null effect of timing

indicates that delaying union formation would not reduce youth victims’ increased risk

of continued victimization. Gender-stratified analyses reveal that earlier unions can

protect women against IPV perpetration, but this is partly the result of an increased

risk of IPV victimization. The findings suggest that YVV has significant transformative

consequences, leading to subsequent victimization by coresidential partners, and this

∗This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris

and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy

Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding

from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rind-

fuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the

Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth).

No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

The authors made equal contributions and are listed alphabetically. We thank the editor and four

anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article. An earlier version

was presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology (November 13,

2012). This research was supported in part by the Center for Family and Demographic Research,

Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Na-

tional Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959- 07). The opinions and

conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s) and should not be construed as rep-

resenting the opinions or policy of any agency of the federal government. Direct correspondence

to Danielle C. Kuhl, Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University, Williams Hall,

Bowling Green, OH 43403 (e-mail: dckuhl@bgsu.edu).

C2015 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12075

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 53 Number 3 427–456 2015 427

428 KUHL, WARNER, & WARNER

association might be exacerbated among female victims who form early unions. We

conclude by discussing directions for future research.

Violent victimization is concentrated disproportionately among youth (Snyder and

Sickmund, 2006); for example, youth 12–17 years of age experience twice the risk

of being a victim of robbery or aggravated assault and three times the risk of be-

ing a victim of simple assault compared with adults (Truman, Langton, and Planty,

2013). Youth violent victimization (YVV) increases the risk of subsequent victimization

(Lauritsen and Davis Quinet, 1995) and is associated with role transitions that mark

a precocious exit from adolescence and premature entry into adulthood (Hagan and

Foster, 2001; Haynie et al., 2009). Such precocious role exits have largely been consid-

ered hallmarks of continued disadvantage (e.g., high-school dropout, teen pregnancy,

and running away); yet a recent study by Kuhl, Warner, and Wilczak (2012) found that

YVV also leads to early intimate union formation. Whether such early unions are in-

dicative of continued disadvantage remains unclear. Although some studies have shown

that marriage is a prosocial transition (Sampson and Laub, 1990), other studies have

shown that early union formation is linked to disadvantages such as unemployment, fi-

nancial difficulties, relationship conflict, and divorce (Booth and Edwards, 1985; DeMaris

et al., 2003).

Given life-course continuity in victimization and the risk of early union formation,

which sets up further disadvantages, the need to understand whether early union for-

mation among victims of youth violence represents a context perpetuating subsequent

violence or a positive turning point in the lives of victims is critical. To address this need,

we use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add

Health) to examine the effect of YVV on intimate partner violence (IPV) in coresidential

first unions with attention to union timing.

We motivate the focus of our article as follows. First, we discuss the life-course con-

sequences of YVV with respect to precocious exits from adolescence, focusing on early

entry into coresidential unions. Second, we derive three competing hypotheses for

the consequences of early union formation among victims of YVV—that is, early

coresidential union formation could increase, decrease, or be inconsequential for the

risk of subsequent IPV in early adult unions. Third, given gender differences in YVV

(Snyder and Sickmund, 2006) and the ongoing debate over gender differences in the

context and prevalence of IPV (Archer, 2000; Johnson and Ferraro, 2000), we consider

whether gender differences exist in the effect of YVV and coresidential union timing on

subsequent IPV risk.

BACKGROUND

Youth violent victimization is a potentially developmentally disruptive force during

adolescence (Hagan and Foster, 2001). Prior research has identified YVV as a risk fac-

tor for suicidal thoughts and actions (Cleary, 2000), depressive symptoms (Latzman and

Swisher, 2005), anger and aggression (Turner, Finkelhor, and Ormrod, 2006), and sub-

stance abuse (DeMaris and Kaukinen, 2005). Victims of violence are also at risk of expe-

riencing subsequent victimization (Lauritsen and Davis Quinet, 1995; Schreck, Stewart,

and Osgood, 2008). Furthermore, victims are at risk of becoming offenders (Lauritsen,