Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 68–73

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The role of emotional intelligence in the maintenance of adolescent dating T

violence perpetration
⁎
Liria Fernández-González , Esther Calvete, Izaskun Orue, Ainara Echezarraga
Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Avenida de las Universidades 24, 48007 Bilbao, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Emotional intelligence (EI) has been proposed as a protective factor for dating violence perpetration (DVP) based
Dating violence on the findings of a few cross-sectional studies. Given the lack of previous longitudinal research, this study aimed
Emotional intelligence at studying the protective role of EI components against DVP one year later considering gender effects. The
Emotional regulation sample consisted of 542 adolescents (52.2% females) with a mean age of 16.36 years (SD = 0.86) at baseline.
Adolescence
Participants completed measures of EI (attention, clarity, and repair) at T1 and DVP at T1 and T2. Results of the
hierarchical regression analyses showed that the strongest predictor of DVP was previous level of aggression. EI
moderated the maintenance of DVP over time. Specifically, those adolescents with a higher competence of
clarity showed a lower perpetuation of DVP. The other two components of EI (attention and repair) displayed a
gender-specific effect. In particular, a lower perpetuation of DVP was found for girls with higher scores on
emotional attention, and for boys with higher scores on emotional repair. Since adolescents' EI predicts DVP,
preventive interventions should address the improvement of attention, clarity, and repair of their emotions,
considering EI gender specificities.

1. Introduction
Dating violence (DV) is a highly prevalent problem in adolescence
worldwide (Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017), which is associated
with severe negative consequences (Chiodo et al., 2012; Choi, Weston,
& Temple, 2017). It includes any act of physical, emotional, or sexual
violence that can take place in person or electronically (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Risk factor models of adolescent
DV include individual emotion-related variables, such as anger man-
agement, arousability and emotionality, impulsivity, and jealousy
(Jouriles, McDonald, Mueller, & Grych, 2012; Riggs & O'Leary, 1989).
Emotional dysregulation and negative affectivity may be the results of
adverse childhood experiences such as exposure to violence in the fa-
mily (Jouriles et al., 2012; Reyes et al., 2015; Shields & Cicchetti,
1998). All these emotion-related variables are subsumed within models
of trait emotional intelligence (EI), which tap self-perceptions of skill in
managing emotion in self/others as well as dispositional elements (e.g.,
impulse control). In this way, trait EI may be a useful framework for
understanding how emotion-related facets are linked to DV within risk
models.
More specifically, EI refers to the competencies of being able to
identify one's own feelings and those of others, regulate these feelings,
and use the information provided by feelings to motivate adaptive so-
cial behavior (Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995). EI is
conceptualized as a mental ability (the information-processing ap-
proach related to traditional intelligence), but also as a personality trait
(the tendency of a person to manage his/her emotions; Petrides &
Furnham, 2000). Trait EI has been found to be positively associated
with greater social and psychological well-being in adolescents
(Mavroveli, Petrides, Rieffe, & Bakker, 2007) and negatively associated
with internalizing and externalizing problems (e.g., Mavroveli et al.,
2007; Siu, 2009). The systematic review of García-Sancho, Salguero,
and Fernández-Berrocal (2014) on EI and aggressive behavior also
provided strong evidence for a negative association between these two
variables from childhood to adulthood, although none of the studies
involved a longitudinal design.
Regarding youth dating relationships, EI has been found to be ne-
gatively associated with physical, psychological, and sexual dating
violence perpetration (DVP) in a few cross-sectional studies (Howard,
2013; Ortiz, Shorey, & Cornelius, 2015; Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, &
Stuart, 2011; Stappenbeck, Davis, Cherf, Gulati, & Kajumulo, 2016). For
example, the study by Howard (2013) found a negative association
between three factors of the trait EI (emotionality, self-control, and
well-being) and physical and psychological DVP. Aggression may be

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: liria.fernandez@deusto.es (L. Fernández-González), esther.calvete@deusto.es (E. Calvete), izaskun.orue@deusto.es (I. Orue),
a.echezarraga@deusto.es (A. Echezarraga).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.038
Received 30 September 2017; Received in revised form 13 January 2018; Accepted 27 January 2018
Available online 09 February 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Fernández-González et al.
used in an attempt to control negative emotions (Shorey et al., 2011).
Overall, previous studies have provided some empirical evidence for
the role of trait EI as a protective factor for the perpetration of DV,
although longitudinal research is needed (García-Sancho et al., 2014).
In addition, research on the developmental pattern of adolescent DV
has identified certain variables (for example, exposure to interparental
violence or delinquent behavior) that increase the maintenance of ag-
gression (Choi & Temple, 2016; Nocentini, Menesini, & Pastorelli,
2010). Thus, the development of adaptive ways to respond to emotions
might also act as a protective factor in preventing the perpetuation of
aggressive behaviors.
1.1. Gender differences on EI and its relationship with DVP
Previous studies have found similar scores on EI among both fe-
males and males (Howard, 2013; Shorey et al., 2011), although the
results vary regarding specific EI facets (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar,
2001; Shorey et al., 2011). In particular, female adolescents had higher
scores on perceiving emotions and managing others' emotions, but
gender differences were not found in emotional clarity or the man-
agement of their own emotions. Similar results were obtained among
adults, with a higher attention to emotions in women, but a higher
emotional regulation in men (Peláez-Fernández, Extremera, &
Fernández-Berrocal, 2015). Furthermore, the role of trait EI in the
perpetration of DV might differ depending on gender. A previous study
has shown a significant and negative relationship between ability EI
and behavioral problems for males but not for females (Brackett,
Mayer, & Warner, 2004). In the case of DV, Shorey et al. (2011) found
greater difficulties in emotion regulation for DV perpetrators compared
to non-perpetrators in both young males and females, although some
gender differences emerged depending on the type of aggression and
specific emotional regulation skills.
1.2. The current study
Although EI is considered a relatively stable individual trait, it de-
velops throughout life and can be improved with training (Zeidner,
Shani-Zinovich, Matthews, & Roberts, 2005). A few cross-sectional
studies indicate that EI can be negatively associated to DVP. Only two
studies, however, have explored specific EI facets; in addition, to the
best of our knowledge, no previous longitudinal studies have examined
the predictive role of EI on adolescent DVP and the moderating role of
EI in the maintenance of adolescent aggression toward the dating
partner. Therefore, the first objective of this one-year longitudinal study
was to explore whether the different components of EI according to the
theoretical model by Salovey et al. (1995; i.e., attention, clarity, and
repair) predict less DVP (global score and physical, psychological and
sexual subtypes) over time. Consistent with the theory and research
reviewed above, we expected that EI would predict lower frequency of
DVP one year later. The second objective was to examine whether the
different components of EI have a buffering role in the maintenance of
DVP. We expected that a higher EI act as a protective factor against the
maintenance of DVP. Finally, considering the above-mentioned gender
differences in EI, we included the participants' gender in the analyses.
However, we did not make any specific hypotheses due to the mixed
previous findings.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The dataset used in this study was extracted from a larger four-year
project that investigates risk factors for aggression during adolescence.
The sample was first stratified by school type (private vs. public). The
schools were then selected randomly by means of a cluster sampling
procedure. The initial sample was composed of 1256 adolescents from
69
Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 68–73
21 high schools (9 public and 12 private) in Bizkaia (Spain). Of them,
809 adolescents also completed measures one year later (retention
rate = 61.41%). Only adolescents who reported having had a dating
relationship in the last year in at least one of the two waves of the study
were selected. With this criterion, the final sample of this study was
made up of 542 adolescents (52.2% girls), with a mean age of
16.36 years (SD = 0.86) at baseline. In terms of ethnicity, 95.9% of the
participants were Spanish, 3.9% were from South America, and 0.2%
were from other countries. The socio-economic class of the participants
was as follows: 15.4% low, 20.1% medium-low, 29.8% medium, 19.9%
medium-high, and 14.8% high (Spanish Society of Epidemiology,
2000).
2.2. Procedure and measures
The project was approved by the Committee of Ethics in Research of
the University of Deusto. First, we contacted the schools to explain the
objectives of our study. Passive informed (opt-out) consent from the
adolescents and their parents was required. The questionnaires were
anonymous and data were confidential. To match responses over time,
participants used a code that only they knew. After completing the
questionnaires, adolescents received written information about centers
and telephone services for adolescents in Spain in case they needed.
Participants completed the questionnaires in their classrooms (in ap-
proximately 50 min) on four occasions, with each wave spaced one year
apart. The measures used for the present study were taken from the last
two waves (years 3 and 4). Specifically, EI was measured at the third
year and DVP was measured at both the third and fourth year (Time 1
[T1] and Time 2 [T2] for this study).
The Spanish modified version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS-
24; Fernández-Berrocal, Extremera, & Ramos, 2004) was used to assess
the adolescents' perceived EI. The TMMS is a self-report questionnaire
designed to assess relatively stable individual differences in people's
tendency to attend, discriminate and regulate their moods and emo-
tions. The Spanish modified version consists of 24 items grouped in
three subscales: Attention, or the extent to what individuals tend to
observe and think about their feelings and moods (8 items; e.g., “I pay a
lot of attention to how I feel”); Clarity, or the understanding of one's
emotional states (8 items; e.g., “I am usually very clear about my
feelings”); and Repair, or the individuals' beliefs about ability to reg-
ulate their feelings (8 items; e.g., “Although I am sometimes sad, I have
a mostly optimistic outlook”). The response choices for each item were
defined according to a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (it does not describe
me well) to 4 (it describes me very well). The TMMS-24 has shown ap-
propriate reliability and significant relations with criterion variables
(depression, life satisfaction, and ruminations; Fernández-Berrocal
et al., 2004). Cronbach's alphas in this study were .90, .90 and .88 for
the subscales of attention, clarity, and repair, respectively.
The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI,
Wolfe et al., 2001) was used to detect the existence of aggressive acts in
adolescent dating relationships over the last year. The CADRI consists
of 25 bidirectional items (perpetrator/victim) that assess five different
forms of abusive behavior that may occur between adolescent dating
partners: Physical Abuse (e.g., “to slap or pull the hair”), Threatening
Behavior (e.g., “to threaten to hurt”), Sexual Abuse (e.g., “to force to
have sex when the other didn't want to”), Relational Abuse (e.g., “to try
to turn friends against”), and Verbal/Emotional abuse (e.g., “to insult
with put-downs”). The response choices for each item were defined
with a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (often). Participants
were asked to answer the questionnaire only if they had had a dating
partner in the last year. The Spanish version of the CADRI has shown
adequate psychometric properties and confirmation of its factor struc-
ture in a sample of Spanish high school students (Fernández-Fuertes,
Fuertes, & Pulido, 2006). In this study, Cronbach's alphas for perpe-
tration were .77 at T1 and .84 at T2, and for victimization they were .83
at T1 and .87 at T2.
L. Fernández-González et al. Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 68–73

2.3. Data analyses Table 2

Hierarchical regression analysis for the prediction of T2 dating violence perpetration.
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test the hy-
ΔR2 β
potheses of the study. Continuous variables were previously trans-
formed to z-scores and gender was coded as −1 (girls) and 1 (boys). In Step 1 0.43⁎⁎⁎
the first step, gender, EI components and DVP at T1 were introduced as T1 DVP 0.58⁎⁎⁎
T1 attention 0.01
predictors of T2 DVP. In the second step, the two-way interaction terms
T1 clarity −0.06
were introduced: DVP × EI components, DVP × Gender, and EI T1 repair −0.06
components × Gender. Finally, in the third step, the three-way inter- Gender 0.01⁎
action terms (DVP × EI components × Gender) were entered. We Step 2 0.06⁎⁎⁎
plotted the 3-way interactions and tested the statistical significance of T1 DVP × attention −0.07a
T1 DVP × clarity −0.14⁎⁎
slope differences using the procedures suggested by Aiken and West
T1 DVP × repair 0.05
(1991). The analyses were conducted for the global DVP score, but we T1 DVP × gender −0.18⁎⁎⁎
also tested whether the results were similar for specific subtypes of T1 Attention × gender 0.05
aggression (physical, psychological, and sexual). The statistical analyses T1 Clarity × gender 0.03
T1 Repair × gender −0.05
were conducted with IBM SPSS 23.0, and missing values were imputed
Step 3 0.01⁎⁎
using the expectation-maximization (EM) imputation algorithm. T1 DVP × attention × gender 0.10⁎⁎
T1 DVP × clarity × gender −0.01
3. Results T1 DVP × repair × gender −0.10⁎⁎
Total R2 0.50⁎⁎⁎
n 542
3.1. Descriptive statistics
Note. DVP = Dating violence perpetration.
⁎
Means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients among all p < .05, ⁎⁎p < .01, ⁎⁎⁎p < .001, ap < .10.
the variables of the study are depicted in Table 1. As can be seen, the
strongest correlations were found between the different types of ag- higher for girls (β = 0.79, p < .001) than for boys (β = 0.40,
gression within and across time and for the stability coefficients of DVP. p < .001). With regard to the moderator role of clarity in the main-
There were some small but significant associations between EI and tenance of DVP, the predictive association between T1 DVP and T2 DVP
DVP. Attention was the only facet that showed a positive significant was higher for those adolescents with low clarity (β = 0.76, p < .001)
cross-sectional correlation, while clarity and repair were prospectively than for those with high clarity (β = 0.49, p < .001).
and negatively associated with DVP. With respect to gender differences, The inclusion of the three-way interaction terms also significantly
girls scored higher than boys on attention (M = 2.06 and M = 1.63, increased the determination coefficient, with the interaction for T1
respectively; t(540) = 5.76, p < .001, d = 0.49), T1 physical DVP DVP × attention × gender and the interaction for T1
(M = 0.05 and M = 0.01, respectively; t(348) = 2.23, p < .05, DVP × repair × gender proving to be significant. The post hoc analyses
d = 0.21, and T1 psychological DVP (M = 0.17 and M = 0.13, respec- evidenced that the predictive association between T1 DVP and T2 DVP
tively; t(540) = 2.32, p < .05, d = 0.19). Boys scored higher than girls varied depending on the levels of EI and gender (see Figs. 1 and 2). The
on sexual DVP at T1 (M = 0.11 and M = 0.04, respectively; t interaction between T1 DVP and attention to predict T2 DVP was sta-
(425) = −4.77, p < .001, d = 0.43) and T2 (M = 0.14 and M = 0.06, tistically significant in girls (t = −3.58, p < .001), but not in boys.
respectively; t(457) = −4.53, p < .001, d = 0.40). No significant dif- More specifically, the association between T1 DVP and T2 DVP was
ferences were found for the rest of the variables. stronger in girls with low attention (β = 0.95, p < .001) than it was in
girls with high attention to emotions (β = 0.69, p < .001). In contrast,
3.2. Prediction of DVP based on EI and gender in the case of repair, the interaction between T1 DVP and repair to
predict T2 DVP was significant in boys (t = −2.12, p < .05). Con-
Results for the hierarchical regression analysis for the prediction of cretely, the association between T1 DVP and T2 DVP was higher in boys
DVP are depicted in Table 2. As can be seen, T1 DVP was a significant who were low in repair (β = 0.50, p < .001) than it was in boys high
predictor of DVP one year later. No direct predictive associations of EI in repair (β = 0.26, p < .01). The interaction between T1 DVP and
facets with T2 DVP were found. The determination coefficient sig- repair to predict T2 DVP was not significant in girls.
nificantly increased with the inclusion of the two-way interaction The analysis considering the type of aggression revealed similar
terms. Specifically, T1 DVP × Gender and T1 DVP × clarity were sig- results for physical and psychological DVP to those obtained for the
nificant. The predictive association between T1 DVP and T2 DVP was total DVP score. Moreover, a significant predictive association between

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M SD MV S K

1. T1 attention 1.85 0.90 0 0.11 −0.70

2. T1 clarity 0.32⁎⁎⁎ 2.04 0.88 0 −0.06 −0.50
3. T1 repair 0.27⁎⁎⁎ 0.50 ⁎⁎⁎
2.47 0.87 0 −0.38 −0.37
4. T1 DVP-T 0.11⁎⁎ −0.05 −0.05 0.12 0.16 80 2.89 14.04
5.T1 DVP-Ph −0.02 −0.06 −0.01 0.56⁎⁎⁎ 0.03 0.18 81 10.53 145.34
6. T1 DVP-Psy 0.14⁎⁎ −0.02 −0.06 0.97⁎⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎⁎ 0.15 0.20 80 2.38 8.05
7. T1 DVP-S 0.01 −0.04 −0.01 0.38⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 0.18 80 3.39 14.03
8. T2 DVP-T 0.02 −0.09⁎ −0.11⁎ 0.65⁎⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎⁎ 0.60⁎⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎⁎ 0.15 0.20 75 3.65 21.77
9. T2 DVP-Ph −0.04 −0.07 −0.09⁎ 0.44⁎⁎⁎ 0.65⁎⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎⁎ 0.07 0.70⁎⁎⁎ 0.04 0.20 75 6.98 54.98
10. T2 DVP-Psy 0.03 −0.09⁎ −0.10⁎ 0.65⁎⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎⁎ 0.62⁎⁎⁎ 0.11⁎ 0.97⁎⁎⁎ 0.59⁎⁎⁎ 0.18 0.24 75 3.41 19.15
11. T2 DVP-S −0.01 −0.07 −0.06 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.09⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.48⁎⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.10 0.22 75 3.05 11.06

Note. DVP = Dating violence perpetration; T = Total; Ph = Physical; Psy = Psychological; S=Sexual; MV = missing values (n); S = skewness; K = kurtosis.
⁎
p < .05, ⁎⁎p < .01, ⁎⁎⁎p < .001.

70
L. Fernández-González et al. Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 68–73

Fig. 1. Three-way interaction between T1 dating violence perpetration, attention and gender to predict T2 dating violence perpetration.

repair and T2 physical DVP was found. With regard to sexual DVP, impulsivity, self-regulation, conflict resolution skills; Fernández-
aggression at T2 was predicted by previous aggression at T1 and gender González, O'Leary, & Muñoz-Rivas, 2014). Our findings suggest that
(being a boy was associated with a higher risk of perpetrate sexual lesser EI competencies may be one of the factors that prevents the
violence). In the same way that for the other types of aggression, an normative decrease of DV. Those adolescents with limited EI compe-
interaction between T1 DVP and clarity was found, but there were not tencies could have lesser resources to solve relationship conflicts, so
significant three-way interaction terms. that they would continue to resort to aggression instead of employing
more adaptive strategies.
Interestingly, the EI component of emotional clarity influenced both
4. Discussion
girls and boys, meaning that the ability of identifying and under-
standing one's emotional states favors the desistance of behaving ag-
This one-year longitudinal study explored the role of EI as a pre-
gressively toward the partner for both genders. Nevertheless, the role of
dictor of adolescent DVP and its moderating role in the maintenance of
attention and repair varied as a function gender. In particular, perpe-
adolescent aggression toward the dating partner. Specifically, the first
tuation of DVP was higher for girls with a lower tendency to attend to
objective was to explore whether three different components of EI (i.e.,
their moods and emotions. These findings suggest that attention to
attention, clarity, and repair) predicted less DVP over time. The results
emotions is more beneficial for girls, who also scored significantly
of the bivariate analysis showed a small but significant negative long-
higher than boys on this EI component, which is consistent with the
itudinal association between clarity and repair and perpetration of DV,
results of previous research (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Peláez-Fernández
which is consistent with the results of previous cross-sectional studies
et al., 2015; Shorey et al., 2011). This protective role of attention seems
(e.g., Howard, 2013; Shorey et al., 2011; Stappenbeck et al., 2016).
to be contradictory with the positive cross-sectional correlation found
However, with the exception of repair in the case of physical aggres-
between attention and DVP, which was also reported by Peláez-
sion, none of the EI components directly predicted changes in DVP over
Fernández et al. (2015) in a sample of adult women. These authors
time when controlling for T1 DVP in the multivariate analysis. These
discussed that the women tendency to attend emotions, especially in
results indicate that previous perpetration is a better predictor of sub-
the absence of clarity and repair, maximize the emotional experience
sequent aggression, although consistently with the second hypothesis of
and favor rumination which in turn may increase aggressiveness.
this study, EI interacted with previous levels of aggression. Those
However, our findings suggest that, in adolescent girls, a higher ten-
adolescents with low rates of T1 DVP did not differ in T2 DVP de-
dency to attend emotions may play a protective role, probably when
pending on their levels of EI, but for those adolescents with high rates of
accompanied by the ability to understand and regulate one's own
T1 DVP a lower EI predicted significantly higher scores on T2 DVP. In
emotions, none of which showed significant gender differences.
other words, EI reduced the maintenance of DVP over time, indicating
The repair EI component showed a moderator role for boys.
that for adolescents with a lower EI, DVP can be perpetuated. It has
Specifically, perpetuation of DVP was higher for boys with a lower
been suggested that the normative trajectory of adolescent DV (with a
tendency to regulate their emotions. Mean scores of repair have been
peak in middle adolescence and subsequent desistance) may be related
showed to be significantly higher in men than women in adult samples
to specific characteristics of this developmental stage and normative
(Peláez-Fernández et al., 2015), but previous studies with adolescent
changes in key dimensions of personality during adolescence (e.g.,

Fig. 2. Three-way interaction between T1 dating violence perpetration, repair and gender to predict T2 dating violence perpetration.

71
L. Fernández-González et al.
samples have not found gender differences in the management of one's
own emotions (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Shorey et al., 2011). Our findings
did not find significant gender differences in repair mean scores either,
but this EI facet protected boys (not girls) in the maintenance of DVP.
One possible explanation may be related to the fact that physical and
psychological maturation of boys tend to be later than for girls (Papalia,
Wendkos, & Duskin, 2005), which could result in higher interindividual
differences in emotional regulation skills in middle adolescence for
boys. In fact, variance in repair scores was higher for boys (0.83) than
for girls (0.70). This may have facilitated finding individual differences
in the maintenance of DVP based on the repair EI facet for boys.
Interpretation of the findings should be considered in light of certain
limitations. The main one is related to the fact that all the measures
were based on self-report questionnaires, and this could have increased
shared variance among the variables. Moreover, EI was only assessed at
the first wave of the study, according to the objective of exploring its
longitudinal influence on dating aggression. However, the influence
may be reciprocal. That is, being immersed in a violent relationship
might worsen the adolescents' skills and perceived self-efficacy to un-
derstand and manage their emotions.
4.1. Conclusions and implications
The findings of this study point to the role of the adolescents' EI on
their aggressive behaviors toward dating partners. To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study to have explored the
moderating role of EI (specifically the TMMS facets of attention, clarity,
and repair) on the maintenance of adolescent DVP, and the results re-
veal that EI buffers the trajectory of dating aggression throughout
adolescence. Given that adolescence is a relevant life period for the
development of socio-emotional skills and the fact that EI can be im-
proved by training (Zeidner et al., 2005), DV preventive interventions
should include components aimed at improving skills in adolescents,
enabling them to better attend, discriminate and regulate their emo-
tions. According to the model and scale (i.e., the TMMS) by Salovey
et al. (1995), this study explored different components of the adoles-
cents' EI (attention, clarity, and repair), but without identifying specific
types of emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, excitement). However, dysre-
gulation of some emotions (for instance, anger or jealousy) may have a
stronger influence on aggressive behavior than others (for instance,
sadness). Future studies should clarify which emotions have a greater
impact on adolescent partner violence in order to better focus the
emotional training of preventive interventions. Finally, DV prevention
programs need to consider gender specificities for EI. The findings of
the current study suggest that, in the desistance of DVP throughout
adolescence, training in attention to one's own feelings and emotions
could be useful, particularly for girls, in order to reduce the stability of
DVP, whereas boys could reduce the stability of perpetration through a
better regulation of their emotions. This suggestion is consistent with
the recommendation of attending emotional regulation impairment in
interventions for male batterers (Hesser et al., 2017; Siegel, 2013). In
sum, in the desistance of DVP throughout adolescence, girls will pri-
marily benefit from training in awareness and understanding of emo-
tions, and boys in understanding and regulation of emotions.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of the
Economy and Competitiveness (Spanish Government, Ref. PSI2015-
68426-R).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
London: Sage.
Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its
72
Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 68–73
relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387–1402.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00236-8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2016) (2016). Understanding teen
dating violence. Fact sheet. Retrieved February 1, 2018, from http://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-factsheet-a.pdf.
Chiodo, D., Crooks, C. V., Wolfe, D. A., McIsaac, C., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. G. (2012).
Longitudinal prediction and concurrent functioning of adolescent girls demonstrating
various profiles of dating violence and victimization. Prevention Science, 13, 350–359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0236-3.
Choi, H. J., & Temple, J. R. (2016). Do gender and exposure to interparental violence
moderate the stability of teen dating violence?: Latent transition analysis. Prevention
Science, 17, 367–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0621-4.
Choi, H. J., Weston, R., & Temple, J. R. (2017). A three-step latent class analysis to
identify how different patterns of teen dating violence and psychosocial factors in-
fluence mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 854–866. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-016-0570-7.
Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y. C., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1105–1119. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00207-5.
Fernández-Berrocal, P., Extremera, N., & Ramos, N. (2004). Validity and reliability of the
Spanish modified version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychological Reports, 94,
751–755. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/PR0.94.3.751-755.
Fernández-Fuertes, A. A., Fuertes, A., & Pulido, R. F. (2006). Assessment of violence in
adolescent couples. Validation of the conflict in adolescent dating relationships in-
ventory (CADRI)-Spanish version. International Journal of Clinical and Health
Psychology, 6, 339–358.
Fernández-González, L., O'Leary, K. D., & Muñoz-Rivas, M. J. (2014). Age-related changes
in dating aggression in Spanish high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
29, 1132–1152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513506057.
García-Sancho, E., Salguero, J. M., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2014). Relationship be-
tween emotional intelligence and aggression: A systematic review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 19, 584–591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.007.
Hesser, H., Axelsson, S., Bäcke, V., Engstrand, J., Gustafsson, T., Holmgren, E., ...
Andersson, G. (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence via the Internet: A ran-
domized controlled trial of emotion-regulation and conflict-management training for
individuals with aggression problems. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2082.
Howard, J. J. (2013). Emotional intelligence and adolescent perpetration of emotional
and physical abuse: Examining peer violence and alcohol use as moderators.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 75 (1-B(E)).
Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Mueller, V., & Grych, J. H. (2012). Youth experiences of
family violence and teen dating violence perpetration: Cognitive and emotional
mediators. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15, 58–68. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10567-011-0102-7.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker, F. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence,
psychological well-being and peer-rated social competence in adolescence. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 263–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
026151006X118577.
Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Pastorelli, C. (2010). Physical dating aggression growth
during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 353–365. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s10802-009-9371-8.
Ortiz, E., Shorey, R. C., & Cornelius, T. L. (2015). An examination of emotion regulation
and alcohol use as risk factors for female-perpetrated dating violence. Violence and
Victims, 30, 417–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00173.
Papalia, D., Wendkos, S., & Duskin, R. (2005). Desarrollo humano [Human Development]
(9ª ed.). México, D.F.: McGraw Hill Interamericana.
Peláez-Fernández, M. A., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2015). Perceived
emotional intelligence and aggression among adults: The moderating role of gender.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 67, 140–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.
12076.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional in-
telligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0191-8869(99)00195-6.
Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Fortson, B. L., Valle, L. A., Breiding, M. J., & Merrick, M. T.
(2015). Longitudinal mediators of relations between family violence and adolescent
dating aggression perpetration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 1016–1030.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12200.
Riggs, D. S., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical model of courtship aggression. In M. A.
Pirog-Good, & J. E. Stets (Eds.). Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues
(pp. 53–71). New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional
attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-
Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.). Emotion, disclosure, & health (pp. 125–154).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The
contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 27, 381–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2704_2.
Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). An examination of the
association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpe-
tration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20, 870–885. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10926771.2011.629342.
Siegel, J. P. (2013). Breaking the links in intergenerational violence: An emotional reg-
ulation perspective. Family Process, 52, 163–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp.
12023.
Siu, A. F. Y. (2009). Trait emotional intelligence and its relationships with problem be-
havior in Hong Kong adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 553–557.
L. Fernández-González et al.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.004.
Spanish Society of Epidemiology and Family and Community Medicine (2000). A pro-
posed measure of social class. Atencion Primaria, 25, 350–363.
Stappenbeck, C. A., Davis, K. C., Cherf, N., Gulati, N. K., & Kajumulo, K. F. (2016).
Emotion regulation difficulties moderate the association between heavy episodic
drinking and dating violence perpetration among college men. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 25, 921–935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2016.
1232328.
Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic
review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7, 224–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.
73
Personality and Individual Differences 127 (2018) 68–73
1037/a0040194.
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L.
(2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating
Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/1040-3590.13.2.277.
Zeidner, M., Shani-Zinovich, I., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2005). Assessing emo-
tional intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school students: Outcomes depend on
the measure. Intelligence, 33, 369–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.03.
001.