Page 155 - GHES-2-4

Global Health Economics and
Sustainability
Impact of dating violence on mental health

victimization was greater for men with an opposite-sex violence victimization score was considered the dependent
partner compared to the other groups. The range of scores variable, the ANOVA results indicated that only the main
for perpetration of dating violence was greater for men effect of gender was statistically significant. As shown in
with an opposite-sex partner than for the other groups. Table 4, men reported being victimized by physical dating
The ranges of scores for total, psychological, and physical violence more than women.
violence perpetration were significantly lower than those Table 5 presents the main results of two-way factorial
for victimization, except for the group of men with an ANOVAs with partner type (opposite-sex partner, same-
opposite-sex partner. sex partner) and gender (women, men) as between-subjects
Table 4 presents the main results of two-way factorial factors and psychological, physical, and sexual violence
ANOVAs with participants’ type of partner (opposite- perpetration as dependent variables. The ANOVAs for
sex partner, same-sex partner) and gender (women, psychological and sexual violence perpetration revealed
men) as between-subjects factors and psychological, no statistically significant effects (Table 5). However, when
physical, and sexual dating violence victimization as physical violence was considered the dependent variable,
dependent variables. According to the ANOVAs in which the results showed a statistically significant interaction
psychological violence and sexual violence victimization between gender and partner type (Figure 1). Post hoc
were considered the dependent variables, no statistically analysis with Scheffé adjustment, conducted to identify
significant effects were found (Table 4). When the physical significant group differences, revealed a significant

Table 3. Dating violence victimization and perpetration range for the four groups

Men Women
Opposite‑sex partner Same‑sex partner Opposite‑sex partner Same‑sex partner
Total victimization 0 – 25 0 – 24 0 – 16 0 – 19
Psychological victimization 0 – 16 0 – 17 0 – 14 0 – 11
Physical victimization 0 – 12 0 – 7 0 – 6 0 – 7
Sexual victimization 0 – 3 0 – 3 0 – 2 0 – 2
Total perpetration 0 – 36 0 – 6 0 – 6 0 – 8
Psychological perpetration 0 – 12 0 – 5 0 – 5 0 – 8
Physical perpetration 0 – 20 0 – 4 0 – 2 0 – 3
Sexual perpetration 0 – 4 0 – 2 0 – 1 0 – 2

Table 4. M, SD, and two‑way factorial ANOVA for violence victimization
Opposite‑sex partner Same‑sex partner ANOVA
M SD M SD Effect F ratio ηp 2
Psychological violence
Women 1.40 2.42 1.58 2.31 Type of partner 0.02 0.000
Men 1.77 2.40 1.65 2.46 Gender 1.06 0.002
Interaction Type of partner×gender TP×G 0.50 0.001
Physical violence
Women 0.21 0.80 0.21 0.80 Type of partner 1.16 0.002
Men 0.64 1.69 0.43 1.16 Gender 10.65** 0.020
Interaction Type of Partner×Gender TP×G 1.02 0.002
Sexual violence
Women 0.08 0.34 0.15 0.51 Type of partner 2.43 0.005
Men 0.12 0.45 0.18 0.56 Gender 0.46 0.001
Interaction type of partner×Gender TP×G 0.02 0.000
Notes: TP×G: Interaction type of partner×gender. **p<0.01.
Abbreviations: M: Means; SD: Standard deviations; ANOVA: Analysis of variance.

Volume 2 Issue 4 (2024) 6 https://doi.org/10.36922/ghes.3300