Dating violence is widely defined as “the threat or actual use of physical, sexual or verbal abuse by one member of an unmarried couple on the other member within the context of a dating relationship” (Andersen & Danis, 2007, p. 88). A growing body of research repeatedly confirms that prevalence of dating violence is pretty high among college population (Amar & Gennaro, 2005; Makepeace, 1981). Along with the prevalence rates, researchers have significantly advanced our knowledge of variables and risk factors associated with dating violence. Murray and Kardatzke (2007) claimed that certain relationship dynamic variables may make it more likely for dating violence to occur within college students’ relationships (p.82). Rusbult’s Investment Model (1983), which is an extension of Interdependence Theory developed by Kelley and Thibaut (1978), provides a basis for previous findings regarding the interplay between relationship dynamic variables and dating violence. This model suggests that a person’s level of commitment to his/her partner is influenced by level of satisfaction with the relationship, quality of available alternatives, and the size of investment that the person has in the relationship. In the literature, there are studies showing that relationship satisfaction (Choice & Lamke, 1997; Rusbult & Martz, 1995), relationship commitment (Katz, Kuffel, & Coblentz, 2002; Rusbult & Martz, 1995), investment into a relationship (Marcus & Sweet, 2002; Stets, 1991) and the lack of alternatives among dating couples (Shorey, Cornelius; & Bell, 2008) may increase and/or decrease the risk of dating violence perpetration and victimization. In addition, Ronfeldt, Kimerling, and Arias (1998) found that the dissatisfaction partners felt about their level of power in the relationship was the most powerful predictor of relationship violence. Kaura and Allen (2004) also found that relationship power dissatisfaction is associated with the use of violence in dating relationships for both men and women.

 Although the risk factors of dating violence have been identified in the US, Canada and in some of Western countries, there has been no empirical study conducted in Turkey, yet.  Moreover, it has been stated in the literature that when the victims of dating violence are willing to seek help, it may be difficult for them to verbalize. Therefore, it seems essential for college counselors to be aware of common presenting problems that co-occur with dating violence and to know how to develop intervention and prevention programs (Murray & Kardatzske, 2007). It is also worth noting that culture is another factor in the investigation of dating violence. A closer look at dating violence and factors contributing to that phenomenon in a different culture seems valuable.

Considering the Investment Model as a theoretical base, the current study aims to investigate the role of relationship dynamic variables in predicting dating violence perpetration and victimization among Turkish university students. More specifically, the following research question was tested in this study:  

“How well do gender, age, length of the relationship, satisfaction, involvement, commitment, quality of alternatives, and relationship power dissatisfaction predict dating violence perpetration and victimization among university students?”

Amar, A. F., & Gennaro, S. (2005). Dating violence in college women: Associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nursing Research, 54, 235-242. 24(9), 1518-1535. Anderson, K. M., & Danis, F. (2007). Collegiate sororities and dating violence: An exploratory study of informal and formal helping strategies. Violence Against Women, 13(1),1-14. Katz, J., Kuffel, S.W., & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 247-271. Kaura, S. A., & Allen, C. M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 576–588. Makepeace, J. M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97-102. Murray, C. E., & Kardatzke, K. N. (2007). Dating violence among college students: Key issues for college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 19-89. Ronfeldt, H. M., Kimerling, R., & Arias, I. (1998). Satisfaction with relationship power and the perpetration of dating violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 70–78. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitments in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 45, 101-117. Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis on nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558-571. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.