Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

DATING VIOLENCE AND FAMILY FUNCTIONALITY: A VIEW FROM VICTIMIZATION AND PERPETRATION

Edison Leonel Peñarreta Méndez1 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1080-9001, Diana Maricela Vuele Duma2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-

9188-0813

1Nursing student at the National University of Loja, Ecuador

2Professor of the Nursing Career at the National University of Loja, Ecuador

Received: August 2, 2023

Accepted: October 29, 2023

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Violence in dating relationships is considered a

problem of great impact on society and inadequate family

functioning can make its members vulnerable, thus turning them

into victims or perpetrators. Objective: To relate dating violence

and family functioning in university students, from victimization

and perpetration. Methods: A study with a quantitative approach,

non-experimental design, correlational and cross-sectional

scope. 47 nursing students participated using the following

instruments: perpetration and victimization in courtship and

family Apgar, both of which are valid and reliable. Results:

72.3% were between 18 and 22 years of age, 62.1% were

women, 19.1% belonged to the third cycle of studies, 78.6% lived

in the urban area, and 76.6% belonged to nuclear families. In

accordance to dating violence, the dimension that shows the

highest percentage of victimization was coercion with 51.1% in

the alternative "sometimes"; while from perpetration, 48% in

detachment, was the preferred dimension in the alternative

"sometimes". Conclusions: There is no significant relationship

between the dynamics of victimization and perpetration of dating

violence and family functionality in students.

Keywords: violence, students, family dynamics, couple, dating

violence.

Corresponding author:Diana Maricela Fly Duma. Email:diana.vuele@unl.edu.ec

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

INTRODUCTION

Violence is defined as the deliberate use of physical force or

power, which can be presented as a threat or as a completed act,

whether against oneself, another person, a group or community.

It also causes or is highly likely to cause injury, death,

psychological harm, developmental disorders and bullying (1).

Violence can occur in various areas, with the relationship being

one of the most common scenarios.

Some of the traits to identify a person that suffers from violence

in their romantic relationships are: their partners distance

themselves from the family group, cause them to have feelings

of guilt, do not promote a secure attachment, are subjected to

physical and emotional, verbal and/or sexual abuse, suffer from

excessive control by their partner, generally evidenced by

threats, tend to have immature or childish attitudes, and feel that

affection justifies abuse. Likewise, the affected person usually

develops low self-esteem and little self-confidence (2). On the

other hand, violence in relationships occurs with various

manifestations, such as: inadequate communication, negative

attitudes towards the other person, jealousy, insecurities or fears,

tendency to accept everything even when one does not agree,

as well as than the expression of destructive criticism between

the couple that arose during the relationship (3).

In this sense, dating violence has become a public health

problem of global interest due to its impact on a physical and

psychological level, both on adolescents and young adults.

According to Rey et al (4), violence in couples produces

repercussions such as: poor academic performance, problems in

social and school relationships, unwanted pregnancies, abuse of

psychoactive substances and alcohol, unhealthy weight control

strategies, sexual behaviors. risk and suicidal ideation.

This problem has been evident in different population groups.

However, it is adolescents and young adults who most frequently

experience situations of violence. Dating violence is associated

with increased guilt, anger, pain and anxiety and other negative

effects such as a decrease in psychosocial well-being (5).

Regarding this, the family as a basic and fundamental support of

society, constitutes a protective or risk factor; since its

inadequate functioning can make the members of the family unit

vulnerable and therefore turn them into victims or perpetrators,

depending on the perspective of the people involved in violent

situations.

In this context, in relation to the family, it could be mentioned that

the fact of having been abused in childhood has a negative

impact on the cognitive-social development of adolescents,

increasing aggression, behavioral problems and learning

difficulties. This results in the acceptance of the use of violence

in relationships, promoting dating violence (6).

Worldwide, one in three women (that is, 30%) has suffered

physical and/or sexual violence by their partner or by someone

outside their social connection. In most of these cases, the

partner is their direct aggressor. Furthermore, almost a third

(equivalent to 27%) of women between 15 and 49 years of age,

who have been in a complex relationship, report having suffered

some type of physical and/or sexual violence by their partner (7).

In Latin American, there are no data related to the number of

cases of violence and particularly dating violence.

In Ecuador, according to Chavez & Juarez (8), during 2011 it was

evident that 6 out of 10 women in the country have suffered some

type of gender violence by any person, where the type of violence

with the highest percentage is psychological at 53.9%, followed

by physical violence with 38%, patrimonial violence with 35.3%

and sexual violence with 25.7%. The same source indicates that

violence perpetrated by a partner or ex-partner is much greater

than that by other people, with the situation being more critical in

divorced (85.4%) and separated women 78%. However, at the

local level, there is no officially published data that demonstrates

the prevalence of violence in the dating stage.

From the above, it is evident that violence in relationships

continues to be an increasing social problem. Therefore, various

authors in their studies have tried to measure this problem. At a

global level, a study carried out in Mexico (9), aimed to establish

the prevalence of dating violence in university students. 219 men

and 315 women participated. They took the Dating Violence

Survey (DVS) and it showed that 27.7% of young people

experience sexual violence, 73% physical violence and 73%

emotional violence. Likewise, they managed to show that gender

violence in intimate relationships affects female students and

thereby reinforces the system of gender inequalities in society.

In Latin America, a study carried out in Bolivia (10), which had

the purpose of characterizing dating violence in 770 university

students, demonstrated among the results that the main cause

of violence is jealousy. Men are the most violent with 45.5%, be

it physical, psychological or sexual violence, with women being

the most affected. However, there is a significant percentage of

university students 40.6% who recognize that both men and

women exercise violence, a variable that is associated with sex

and age.

Another study carried out in Bolivia by Mendoza (11) determined

that that country ranks fourth in Latin America with the highest

rate of intimate partner violence in young people, 24.6%. The

intention of the study was to reveal the perception of young

university students regarding the causes and consequences of

violence in the dating stage to contribute to the generation of

prevention actions and tactics. 770 young university students

participated in this study, finding that the main cause of violence

is jealousy, where the man is the most violent and the woman the

most affected.

Similarly, a study carried out in Colombia by Rey et al (4), aimed

at reporting on abusive behaviors exercised and received in

dating using the Effectiveness in Family Functioning Scale

(EFFS). It had the participation of 548 high school students (294

women and 295 men) between 12 and 22 years of age, showing

as results that problems in family functionality could predispose

to psychological, emotional, and physical abuse and suffering

from it during courtship (4).

At the national level, a study carried out in Cuenca by Cabrera &

Pillacela (12), whose objective was to identify the incidence of

violence in adolescent dating using the CADRI scale to evaluate

the violence committed and suffered by both men and women,

had the participation of 242 students, of which 54% were men

and 46% were women. The results showed the existence of

different forms of dating violence, with verbal-emotional violence

being the one that has the highest incidence in both the violence

committed (45%) and the violence suffered (47%), both in men

and women.

As mentioned above, violence in the relationships of young

couples is considered one of the relevant social problems today

due to the impact it causes on the physical and mental health of

those involved. In addition, it must be understood as a risk of

imminent danger that becomes a model of behavior that

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

subsequently manifests itself in marital and family life, becoming

the worst scenario involving criminal acts, such as femicides or

suicides. Based on this background, the present research was

proposed, whose objective is to relate dating violence and family

functionality in university students, from victimization and

perpetration.

METHODS

Study approach and design: Study with a quantitative

approach, with a non-experimental design, correlational and

cross-sectional scope.

Study population: It was made up of 47 people who met the

following inclusion criteria: being enrolled from the first to ninth

cycle in the Nursing Career during the period October 2022 to

February 2023, being over 18 years old and under 39 years old

(young adults), of both sexes, have at the time of the study a

romantic relationship (heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual)

where they have experienced some type or indication of violence,

that the romantic relationship is dating and does not involve

marriage or cohabitation in a free union, and that they agree to

participate of the study voluntarily.

Study variable: The study presents two variables: dating

violence and family functionality.

Data collection technique and instruments: To collect the

data, the survey was used as a technique and two questionnaires

called “Perpetration and victimization of dating violence” and

“Family APGAR”. These were used as instruments and made it

possible to fulfill the objectives set and, to respond to the study

objective. A section related to the sociodemographic data of the

participants were added in the initial part of the instrument. The

instrument used is called victimization and perpetration of dating

violence DVQ-VP carried out by F. Rodríguez et al., in 2016. It

based on the original questionnaire through an adaptation of the

DVS questionnaire which consisted of 42 items and currently the

instrument adapted consists of 20 items. This instrument was

validated in young adults, with a Cronbach's alpha that ranged

between 0.64 and 0.74. So, it was considered a valid and reliable

measurement questionnaire for the evaluation of dating violence

in current members of couples. 5 different forms of violence are

measured: detachment, humiliation, sexual, coercion and

physical. The items are rated according to a Likert-type scale,

where: (0) never and (4) almost always (13).

As for the Family APGAR Questionnaire (for its meaning in

English: Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve)

research studies. It reflected, in the validation process

Cronbach's alpha, a ranged between 0, 71 and 0.83, which

shows acceptable psychometric properties. The “Family

APGAR” questionnaire evaluates five alternatives, each of which

is rated from 0 to 4 where: 0 = Never, 1 = Almost never, 2 =

Sometimes, 3 = Almost always and 4 = Always. The

Interpretation of the score is: - Normal: 17-20 points, - Mild

dysfunction: 16-13 points, - Moderate dysfunction: 12-10 points,

- Severe dysfunction: less than or equal to 9 (14).

As part of the ethical considerations, prior to data collection, the

proposal was made known to the participants and informed

consent was applied that guaranteed the reliability of the

information and its use for academic and research purposes.

Analysis of data: Data processing was carried out with the use

of the statistical package SPSS version 2.2. The information

analysis was carried out through descriptive statistics, using the

non-parametric Kendall B Tau test with a p value of 0.05.

RESULTS

In relation to the sociodemographic characteristics of the

participants, the majority are between 18 and 22 years of age,

corresponding to 72.30%. As for gender, 68.1% are women, with

the mestizo ethnicity predominating with 97.9%. All participants

were Ecuadorians. In reference to the academic cycle, the

majority of university students are going through the third cycle

of the Nursing Career, represented by 19.1%. In addition, 78.7%

lives in an urban area, with a socioeconomic level of 34.0. %

(most of the participants between the high and low strata). Finally

76.6% belong to the nuclear family type, as summarized in Table

1 below.

Considering the dynamics of dating violence from perpetration

and victimization shown in Table 2 below, one of the dimensions

with the highest rate of violence was detachment, seen from the

condition of victimization, where the most significant percentage

relative to 48 .9% is found in the alternative “sometimes” and a

lower percentage corresponding to 2.1% is found in the

alternative “almost always”; while, from the perpetration

condition, the highest percentage of 48.9% is found in the

alternative “sometimes” and the lowest percentage of 2.1% is

found in the alternative “usually”. Another dimension that

presented the highest index was coercion, where victimization

reflected the highest percentage at 51.1%, found in the

alternative “sometimes”, in a lower percentage of 2.1% in the

alternative “almost always”; while, in terms of perpetration, the

highest percentage of 38.3% was found in the alternative

“sometimes” and the lowest percentage of 2.1% was found in the

alternative “almost always”.

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

With respect to the level of family functionality of the respective variable presented in table 3 below, it is evident that the majority

indicate being immersed in the 76.6% that are within the level of normal functionality, 21.3% in the mild level of functionality and 2.1%

with moderate level of functionality.

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

Regarding the relationship between dating violence and family functionality, from the dynamics of victimization, it can be seen that the

highest percentage of 34.04% is at a level of violence with moderate frequency compared to the level of mild functionality. In a lower

percentage of 2.12%, it reflects the level of violence with high frequency compared to the level of severe functionality. Likewise,

Kendall's Tau-b statistical test did not demonstrate a significant relationship, given the approximate assignment (.345) being higher

than the p value of 0.05 shown in Table 4 below.

In attention to the relationship of violence in dating and family functionality, from the dynamics of perpetration, it can be seen that the

highest percentage relative to 34.04% is found in the level of violence with low frequency regarding the mild functionality level; while

a lower percentage of 2.12% is found in the level of violence with high frequency compared to the level of severe functionality. Similarly,

Kendall's Tau-b statistical test did not show a significant relationship, given that the approximate assignment of (.345) was higher than

the p value (0.05) observed in Table 5.

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

DISCUSSION

Violence in dating relationships is considered a problem with

great impact on society, since as a consequence of its

manifestation in couples, it tends to cause physical and

emotional damage to those involved (15). In this sense,

regarding dating violence from the dynamics of victimization and

perpetration, the 5 constant dimensions of 4 items for each were

evaluated, and the results showed that:

a) Physical dimension: From victimization, the highest

percentage (31.9%) was located in the item “throw dangerous

objects” in the alternative “sometimes” and the lowest percentage

(2.1%) in the item “hit” in the alternative “frequently”; while, since

the perpetration, the highest percentage (25.5%) is found in the

item “slap” in the alternative “sometimes” and the lowest

percentage (2.1%) is found in the item “hit” in the alternative

“frequently”. These results are similar to those found in the study

carried out in Peru (16) where the 57.7% of the sample reported

psychological violence, while 7% mentioned being victims of

physical, psychological and sexual violence. 11.3% reported

receiving words suggestive of sex from their partner. Among

those who simultaneously received physical, psychological and

sexual violence, 80% were women.

From this, it is indicated that dating violence from the physical

dimension implies any intentional attack of a sexual, physical or

psychological nature, by one member of the couple against the

other, in a relationship where there is attraction and both parties

agree to be together (17). The manifestations of the physical side

are usually the most visible and easy to recognize due to their

most tangible characteristics. However, sometimes they do not

usually present themselves so easily and are hidden through

excuses or normalization of violence (18).

b) Sexual dimension: In victimization, the highest percentage

(29.8%) is found in the item “insistence on unpleasant touching”

in the alternative “sometimes” and a lower percentage (2.1%) in

the item “force to have sex” in the alternative “usually”. On the

other hand, as for the perpetration, the highest percentage

(23.4%) is found in the item “force to undress without consent” in

the alternative “sometimes” and the lowest percentage (2.1%) is

located in the item “force to undress without consent” in the

alternative “frequently”. Similar results are verified from the study

carried out by Flores et al. (19),with respect to the sexual

dimension, indicating having been victims of being forced to have

sex with their partner in 9.1% for men 9.1% and 13.6% for

women, evidencing in turn that this type aggression is always

present in love relationships.

In this regard, sexual violence in romantic relationships manifests

itself when one member of the couple tends to manipulate the

other in order to force them to carry out an unwanted sexual

activity without their consent. The most obvious expression of

this is rape, whose forms of coercion can range from physical

force to psychological blackmail (20).

c) Humiliation dimension: From victimization, the highest

percentage (43.6%) is found in the item “laughing because of the

way of expressing yourself” in the alternative “sometimes” and a

lower percentage (2.1%) in the item “ridicule for ideas, beliefs or

social class” in the alternative “usually”. On the contrary, as for

perpetration, the highest percentage (42.6%) is found in the item

“laughing because of the way of expressing yourself” with the

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

alternative “sometimes” and the lowest percentage (2.1%) is

located in the item “laugh because of the way of expressing

yourself” in the alternative “almost always”. These data are

similar to the study carried out by Flores et al..(21) who reveals

that 76% of young people of both sexes between 15 and 24 years

of age were in a dating relationship where they had suffered

emotional violence, highlighting insults, humiliation and threats.

On the other hand, 15% declared that they had suffered physical

violence, observing that both boys and girls minimize episodes

of aggression.

Regarding humiliation in dating, it is considered a pattern of

behavior used with the purpose of obtaining or maintaining

control over the partner, which is produced by the violation of the

victim's personal limits, using physical, psychological and/or

moral (22) aggression. Humiliation makes the victim feel

incapacitated and confused, perceiving herself to be unjustly

degraded, ridiculed, deeply wounded in her self-esteem and

identity (23).

d) Detachment dimension: In victimization, the most significant

percentage (48.9%) is found in the item “compliance with the

study but arrives late for couple appointments” in the alternative

“sometimes” and in less percentage (2.1%) in the item “ignore

feelings” in the alternative “almost always”. While, from

perpetration, the highest percentage (48.9%) is found in the item

“compliance with the study but arrives late for couple

appointments” in the alternative “sometimes” and the lowest

percentage (2 .1%) is located in the item “not recognizing

responsibility as a couple” in the alternative “usually”. Based on

these results, related to the detachment dimension, it is evident

that there are results similar to the study carried out by Warrior

(10) where 70.4% of students presented violence due to

detachment in their dating relationships, 47.5% being mild level

violence, 12.7% severe level and 10.2% moderate level.

In this regard, violence due to detachment in dating involves the

indifferent and distant treatment of one of the members of the

couple, without ending the relationship. For example, forgetting

the birthday or treating him or her like another acquaintance (24).

It manifests itself in the disappearance of some member of the

relationship for a few days, causing worry, anxiety and sadness

(25).

e) Coercion dimension: Regarding victimization, the highest

percentage (51.1%) is found in the item “hold so that he/she does

not leave” in the alternative “sometimes” and a lower percentage

(2.1%) in the item “test love” in the alternative “almost always”;

while, from perpetration, the highest percentage (38.3%) is found

in the item “hold so that he/she does not leave” in the alternative

“sometimes” and the lowest percentage (2.1%) is located in the

item “test love” in the alternative “almost always”.

These results are similar to those carried out by Montes &

Quiroga (26) where they characterized dating violence in young

university students as 55.3%, affirming the presence of violence

due to mild coercion in couple relationships. Furthermore, 7.4%

of the participants reported having experienced coercive violence

moderately and 6.4% indicated that the level of coercive dating

violence has been severe.

When analyzing the dynamics of violence by levels, the results

found allowed us to identify that from victimization. 46.80% are

victims of violence with a moderate frequency, 2.12% with a high

frequency, finding themselves with a level of severe functionality.

From perpetration, 42.55% have carried out some act of violence

with a moderate frequency, and 2.12% have perpetrated

violence with a high frequency, finding themselves with a severe

level of functionality.

Another of the variables analyzed corresponded to family

functionality, where the results allowed us to identify that, both in

victimization and perpetration, 76.59% of the study population

are at a level of mild functionality, and 2.12 % at a severe level

of functionality. With these data, the statistical analysis allowed

us to identify that, regarding dating violence (victimization) and

family functionality, there is no significant relationship, since the

p value was higher than 0.05 (.345). It was similar with dating

violence (perpetration) and family functionality, where a

significant relationship was not found with a p value of .345.

With these results, it is important to mention that, although in the

present study there is no relationship between dating violence,

victimization and perpetration with family functionality, some

studies have found that such a relationship exists, although not

with the same instrument. (DVS). Such is the case of the study

carried out by Limo & Vásquez (27) in which they used the

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI)

and the Family APGAR. The results reflected that, between

family functionality and violence of committed and suffered

partner, there is a moderate inverse relationship with rho= -0.593

and rho= -0.543 (Pearson test) respectively. It is concluded that

family functionality is inversely correlated with the violence

committed and suffered by the couple respectively. That is, the

less family functionality, the greater the violence committed and

suffered. Therefore, the greater the violence in the couple.

In this regard, there are many factors that can trigger dating

violence, one of them being inadequate family functionality,

understood asset of interactions between the members of the

family group, a bond that allows them to face the different crises

that originate within the home. This represents a space of

tranquility and a protective factor against environmental risks that

can complicate the health of its members (28).

Likewise, the identification of risk factors, whether individual or

social, is a key aspect in the prevention of dating violence, which

affects the risk of suffering or perpetrating this type of violence.

Therefore, it is of interest to know them as an essential key to

early recognition of their incidence in those adolescents and/or

young people who are within risk groups (29).

The consequences that can arise from being a victim of violence

in a dating relationship are diverse and are related to the

decrease in psychosocial well-being and quality of life, with

homicide (death of the victim) being the most worrying, since

after a long process of suffering, those that include mistreatment,

abuse and threats, are the most frequent to occur (30).

CONCLUSION

It was evident that there is no significant statistical association of

dating violence from the perspective of perpetration and

victimization in relation to family functionality, since the p value is

higher than 0.05.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

None declared by the authors.

THANKS

The support of the Faculty of Human Health, the Nursing

program of the National University of Loja and the students who

participated in carrying out the work and made it possible to

obtain the data. They are appreciated.

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

REFERENCES

1. World Health Organization, Pan American Health Organization. Violence prevention. 2022. Available at:

https://acortar.link/XcWEW8

2. González N, Suarez A, Hernández L, Rodríguez L. Agreement in the perception of violent behavior in adolescent couples.

Psychological ter. 2019;37(2):154–165. Available at: https://bitly.ws/36Xc2

3. Gracia M, Puente A, Ubillos S and Páez D. Dating violence (DV): a meta-analysis review. An Psychol. 2019; 35 (2): 300–

313.Available at: http://bitly.ws/A3Bw

4. Rey C, Bolívar Y and Martínez J. Family functionality, number of relationships and dating abuse in high school students.Psicol

from the Caribbean. 2017;34. Available at: http://bitly.ws/vL3f

5. Gracia M, Puente A, Ubillos S, Páez D. Dating violence (DV): a meta-analysis review. An Psychol. 2019;35(2):300–313.

Available at: https://onx.la/48726

6. Morillo J, Guerron S, Narváez M. Influence of domestic violence on academic performance in adolescents. ACC CIETNA Rev

la Esc Enfermería. 2018;3(2):68–79.Available at: https://bitly.ws/36WRd

7. World Health Organization (WHO). World report on violence and health. Synopsis. 2021. Available at: http://bitly.ws/xbUv

8. Chavez M and Juárez A. Bulletin of Gender Violence in Ecuador. 2016;Available at: http://bitly.ws/xbYa

9. Flores-Garrido N, Barreto-Ávila M. Dating violence among students of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Ibero-

American Journal of Higher Education (ries). 2018;9 (26): 42-63. Available at: http://bitly.ws/vLgn

10. Mendoza L, Salgado R, Limachi D, Castillo T, Zamora A, Montes F. Causes and consequences of dating violence. Ajayu.

2019;17(2):283–316. Available at: http://bitly.ws/xdv9

eleven. Mendoza L, Salgado R, Limachi D, Castillo T, Zamora A and Montes F. Causes and consequences of dating violence. Ajayu.

2019; 17 (2): 283–316.Available at: http://bitly.ws/xdv9

12. Cabrera S and Pillacela M. Violence in adolescent dating in the Cuenca canton. Degree thesis, University of Cuenca;

2018.Available at: http://bitly.ws/vUdx

13. Rodríguez F. Validation of Dating Violence Questionnaire-R (DVQ-R). Int J Clin Heal Psychol.2016; 16:77–84. Available at:

http://bitly.ws/xvrH

14. Suarez Cuba Miguel A., Alcalá Espinoza Matilde. Family APGAR: a tool to detect family dysfunction. Rev. Med. Peace. 2014;

20(1): 53-57. Available at: http://www.scielo.org.bo/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1726-89582014000100010&lng=es.

fifteen. Ramos Y, López L, Pompa M, García D. Dating Violence in Medical Students from an Inclusive View. Number. 2022;18:1–

10.Available at: https://bitly.ws/SVWB

16. Zeña S, Morocho N, Valladares M. Violence during falling in love in university students.Rev Cuba Med Mil. 2022;51(1):1–16.

Available at: https://bitly.ws/36Q6X

Peñarreta E/ Enfermería Investiga, Research, Engagement, Teaching and Management Vol. 9 No. 1 2024 (January - March)

17. Pérez N, Fontalvo R and Acosta J. Violence in adolescent dating.AVFT. 2016; 483–488. Available at: http://bitly.ws/zpIh

18. Spencer K and Haffejee M. Intimate partner violence at a tertiary institution.South African Med J. 2016; 106 (11): 1129–1133.

Available at: http://bitly.ws/M5Dh

19. Flores M, Bringas C, Rodríguez L, López J and Rodríguez J. Relationship abuse in the dating of young Mexicans. Ter Psicol.

2015; 33 (1): 5–12. Available at: http://bitly.ws/zpKI

twenty. Sánchez I and Menkes C. Loving you hurts. Sexual rape in dating relationships. an analysis of its social determinants.

Population Papers. 2016; 22 (87): 43–62.Available at: http://bitly.ws/zpMR

twenty-one. Flores M, Bringas C, Rodríguez L, López J, Rodríguez J. Relationship abuse in the dating of young Mexicans. Ter

Psicol. 2015;33(1):5–12.Available at: http://bitly.ws/zpKI

22. Ariza M. Shame, pride and humiliation: emotional counterpoints in the experience of female labor migration. Sociological

Studies El Col México. 2017;35(103):65–89.Available at: https://bitly.ws/36QvE

23. Rodríguez R, Riosvelasco L and Castillo N. Dating violence, gender and social support in young university students.Psychol

Writings / Psychol Writings. 2018; 11 (1): 1–9. Available at: https://bit.ly/3zb8jk8

24. Sotelo D, Rojas A, Molina H and Igreda A. Dating violence and experiential avoidance in psychology interns. Socialium. 2022;

6 (2): 1–15.Available at: http://bitly.ws/zpSy

25. Rubio J, Martinez P, Arense J. Violent relationships in university students and their association with gender training.

2020;14(2):14208.Available at: https://bitly.ws/36QxA%0A

26. Montes A and Quiroga N. Characterization of dating violence in university students. Unisangil. 2022; (8.5.2017): 2003–2005.

Available at: http://bitly.ws/zpTm

27. Limo M and Vásquez T. Family functionality and intimate partner violence in students belonging to a state educational institution

in Chiclayo, 2021. Degree thesis, Pedro Ruiz Gallo National University; 2019.Available at: http://bitly.ws/A3ou

28. Reyes S and Oyola M. Family functionality and risk behaviors in health sciences university students. Rev Investig in Common

and Development. 2022; 13 (2): 127–137. Available at: http://bitly.ws/wNEk

29. Cienfuegos Y. Measurement of violence in couple relationships in psychology. Rev Cult. 2021;9:1–37.Available at:

https://bitly.ws/36Qza

30. Rojas Y. Violence in dating. Rev Strategies for Fulfilling the Mission. 2015; 9 (2): 102–116. Available at: http://bitly.ws/xbUR