Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Year of publication
- 2017 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Adolescence (2) (remove)
Institute
Although research on dating violence has increased in the last decades, little is known about the role of romantic attachment and conflict resolution in understanding victimization by an intimate partner among adolescents. This study examined the relationships between insecure attachment styles, destructive conflict resolution strategies, self-reported and perceived in the partner, and psychological and physical victimization by a dating partner in 1298 adolescents (49% girls). Anxious attachment was related to both forms of victimization via self-reported conflict engagement and conflict engagement attributed to the partner among boys and girls. Moreover, both insecure attachment styles were also indirectly linked to victimization via self-reported withdrawal and conflict engagement perceived in the partner, but only among boys. The implications of the findings for promoting constructive communication patterns among adolescents for handling their relationship conflicts are discussed.
This longitudinal study investigated patterns of developmental problems across depression, aggression, and academic achievement during adolescence, using two measurement points two years apart (N = 1665; age T1: M = 13.14; female = 49.6%). Latent Profile Analyses and Latent Transition Analyses yielded four main findings: A three-type solution provided the best fit to the data: an asymptomatic type (i.e., low problem scores in all three domains), a depressed type (i.e., high scores in depression), an aggressive type (i.e., high scores in aggression). Profile types were invariant over the two data waves but differed between girls and boys, revealing gender specific patterns of comorbidity. Stabilities over time were high for the asymptomatic type and for types that represented problems in one domain, but moderate for comorbid types. Differences in demographic variables (i.e., age, socio-economic status) and individual characteristics (i.e., self-esteem, dysfunctional cognitions, cognitive capabilities) predicted profile type memberships and longitudinal transitions between types.