The Interplay of Perceptions and Conflict Behaviors during Disagreements: A Daily Study of Physical Teen Dating Violence Perpetration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical dating violence (DV) is a widespread problem among adolescents. A growing body of literature demonstrates that physical DV often occurs during disagreements when partners use destructive conflict management strategies, such as conflict engagement (e.g., losing control, criticizing) or withdrawal (e.g., acting cold, being distant). However, little is known regarding how the individual daily variability on the use of destructive conflict management strategies can influence the probability of perpetrating day-to-day physical DV, especially if the other partner is also perceived as using destructive behaviors. Using an intensive longitudinal approach, the current study first aimed to examine the daily associations between the use of various conflict management strategies and physical DV perpetration in adolescent dating relationships. A second objective was to investigate if perceived partner’s conflict behaviors moderated the relation between self-reported conflict management strategies and day-to-day physical DV perpetration. A sample of 216 adolescents ( M age = 17.03, SD = 1.49) involved in a dating relationship, completed a baseline assessment followed by 14 daily diaries. Results of multilevel logistic analyses revealed that using conflict engagement strategies significantly increased the probability of day-to-day physical DV perpetration. Furthermore, the probability of perpetrating physical DV was significantly higher on days in which teens reported using high levels of conflict engagement while also perceiving their partner as using high levels of conflict engagement or withdrawal. These findings yield new insights on the daily context in which disagreements might escalate into aggression. Evidence from this study further supports the conflict escalation pattern and the demand/withdraw communication pattern in the context of adolescent dating relationships. Preventive initiatives should address the interplay of perceptions and conflict behaviors concerning physical DV perpetration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".