An increasing body of research has repeatedly proved the high prevalence of dating violence among adolescents regardless of type either as victims or perpetrators or both (Toplu & Sumer Hatipoglu, 2011; Smith, White, & Holland, 2008). The high prevalence has led the researchers to identify and grouped the risk markers of dating violence with respect to victimization and perpetration. For example, Lewis and Fremouw (2001) grouped these predictor variables /risk markers as demographics, historical, clinical, interpersonal, and contextual for both victim and perpetrator characteristics. In a similar vein, Pradubmook-Sherer (2009) took a multidimensional approach, and identified the variables under the groups of family attributes, individual attributes, peers’ effects and dating relationships. Likewise, Murray and Kardatzke (2007) inferred that “certain relationship dynamics may make it more likely for dating violence to occur within college students’ relationships” (p.82). Based on the Murray and Kardatzke’s way of thinking, Sumer Hatipoglu and Toplu (2011) used Rusbult’s (1983) Investment Model to investigate the role of relationship dynamics in understanding dating violence perpetration and victimization. The results revealed that the same constructs of Investment Model, which are Investment and Commitment, emerged as the risk factors for both victimization and perpetration regardless of gender which aroused new questions. Considering “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) as definition and the Investment Model (Rusbult, 1983) as a theoretical base, the aim of current study is to investigate the role of gender and relationships dynamics in predicting sexual, physical and psychological dating violence perpetration among Turkish university students. More specifically, the study tested the following research question;

“How well do gender, satisfaction, involvement, commitment, and quality of alternatives predict sexual, physical and psychological dating violence perpetration among university students?”

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. Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 105-127. Murray, C. E., & Kardatzke, K. N. (2007). Dating violence among college students: Key issues for college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 19-89. 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., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. Journal of American Public Health Association, 93, 1104–1109 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. Sumer Hatipoglu , Z., & Toplu, E. (2011, September). Relational Predictors of Dating Violence among UniversityStudents. The European Conference on Educational Research 2011, Berlin, Germany. Toplu, E., & Sumer Hatipoglu, Z. (2011, October). Flort Iliskisinde Siddetin Yayginliği ve Turleri (Prevelance and Types of Dating Violence). The XI. Ulusal Psikolojik Danisma ve Rehberlik Kongresi (XI. National Congress of Counseling and Guidance, 2011, Izmir, Turkey.