1. Abstract
The Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales (ATDVS), conceptualized and validated by Price, Byers, and the Dating Violence Research Team (1999), represent a comprehensive psychometric assessment system engineered to gauge adolescent and emerging adult cognitive evaluations, acceptance, and tolerance of interpersonal aggression within romantic contexts. Unlike unidimensional instruments that treat relationship aggression as an undifferentiated or purely male-perpetrated phenomenon, the ATDVS operationalizes dating violence across a fully crossed, six-dimensional matrix evaluating both the form of abuse (psychological, physical, and sexual) and the gender of the perpetrator (male-perpetrated and female-perpetrated). Comprising a total of 75 self-report items—distributed across six autonomous subscales: Male Psychological (15 items), Male Physical (12 items), Male Sexual (12 items), Female Psychological (13 items), Female Physical (12 items), and Female Sexual (12 items)—the instrument utilizes a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), incorporating balanced reverse-scored items to attenuate acquiescence response set bias.
Extensive psychometric investigations among junior high, high school, and undergraduate populations demonstrate robust internal consistency across subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .73 to .91 across diverse adolescent cohorts. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic studies confirm the structural distinctiveness of the six subscales while establishing robust convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity. ATDVS scores significantly predict self-reported perpetration and victimization of dating aggression, correlate predictably with traditional gender role beliefs, rape myth acceptance, and general hostility, and demonstrate sensitive responsiveness to school-based relationship violence psychoeducational interventions. Available in validated English and French language adaptations, the ATDVS remains a cornerstone assessment tool in developmental psychology, family violence research, and adolescent risk prevention programs.
2. Keywords
Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales, adolescent dating violence, intimate partner violence, psychological aggression, physical aggression, sexual coercion, gender-differentiated attitudes, psychometrics, scale validation, youth relationship abuse
3. Authors
The scale was developed by Eric L. Price, E. Sandra Byers, and colleagues collaborating within the Dating Violence Research Team based at the Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. Dr. E. Sandra Byers is an internationally recognized clinical psychologist, professor emerita, and researcher renowned for extensive scholarship in human sexuality, intimate partner aggression, adolescent sexual health, and relationship dynamics. Initial empirical conceptualization and normative psychometric validations were conducted in partnership with regional Canadian school districts and youth community health initiatives to address the critical public health challenge of teen dating violence.
4. Purpose
The fundamental purpose of the Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales is to systematically quantify the degree to which young people justify, tolerate, normalize, or excuse aggressive behaviors executed within adolescent courtship and dating relationships. During adolescence and emerging adulthood, foundational behavioral scripts and cognitive schemas regarding romantic intimacy, conflict negotiation, autonomy, and interpersonal power dynamics are established. Epidemiological studies routinely reveal alarming prevalence rates of relationship aggression among youth, characterized by high rates of verbal insults, coercive control, slapping, shoving, and non-consensual sexual pressure. In order to mitigate these trajectories before they solidify into entrenched patterns of adult intimate partner violence, clinicians and researchers require psychometrically sound tools capable of identifying cognitive precursors to violence.
Research across developmental psychopathology and cognitive behavioral paradigms demonstrates that cognitive acceptance of aggression serves as a critical proximal risk factor and mediator for actual aggressive behavioral perpetration. Adolescents who hold permissive, condoning, or minimizing attitudes toward relationship abuse are statistically far more likely to perpetrate dating violence and to remain in abusive relationships as victims due to the normalization of coercive behaviors. The ATDVS was specifically constructed to address critical empirical gaps in the literature by disaggregating attitudes along two distinct axes: the behavioral modality of the abuse (psychological, physical, or sexual) and the perceived gender of the actor (violence committed by boys toward girls versus violence committed by girls toward boys).
Clinically, the ATDVS serves as an essential baseline diagnostic and outcome monitoring instrument in universal, selective, and indicated prevention settings. In secondary schools and community youth programs, the inventory is widely deployed to evaluate the efficacy of violence prevention curricula (such as healthy relationship education, consent workshops, and bystander intervention programs). By measuring shifts in attitudes post-intervention across specific subscales, program evaluators can identify whether an educational curriculum successfully reduced physical aggression justifications while inadvertently leaving psychological controlling behaviors or female-perpetrated violence unaddressed. In research contexts, the scale facilitates sophisticated structural equation modeling examining how family-of-origin exposure to domestic violence, peer norms, peer delinquency, and media consumption cultivate specific cognitive justifications for relationship maltreatment.
5. Psychological Construct
The primary overarching construct measured by the ATDVS is dating violence acceptance, conceptualized as an individual’s cognitive endorsement, minimization, or normative validation of abusive behaviors directed toward a dating partner. Rather than treating this construct as a homogeneous psychological orientation, the scale decomposes dating violence attitudes into a 2 × 3 multidimensional construct structure reflecting six distinct theoretical domains:
Male Psychological Dating Violence
This dimension assesses attitudes regarding a male partner’s use of verbal degradation, coercive control, emotional intimidation, boundary surveillance, and relationship-based isolation directed at his female partner. Psychological aggression represents the most prevalent form of teen dating abuse and frequently acts as an antecedent to physical harm. Items capture adherence to patriarchal possessiveness, such as the belief that a young woman should isolate herself from friends, change her attire to appease her partner, or endure yelling and insults when the male partner experiences frustration (e.g., endorsing that “A girl should not see her friends if it bothers her boyfriend” or that “Sometimes guys just can’t help but swear at their girlfriends”).
Male Physical Dating Violence
This subscale captures normative acceptance, rationalization, and victim-blaming attributions surrounding male-to-female overt physical aggression, including slapping, pushing, punching, and battery. The items explicitly reflect cognitive scripts that excuse male violence as an uncontrollable consequence of intense emotional arousal, passion, or jealousy, alongside scripts asserting that certain female behaviors (such as perceived infidelity or defiance) legitimately warrant physical discipline (e.g., “Girls who cheat on their boyfriends should be slapped” and “Sometimes love makes a guy so crazy that he hits his girlfriend”).
Male Sexual Dating Violence
This dimension measures cognitive endorsement of male-perpetrated sexual coercion, sexual boundary violations, entitlement, and persistent pressuring behaviors. The construct encompasses classic rape myths transposed to adolescent dating contexts, token resistance assumptions, conditional entitlement (e.g., financial investment dictating sexual access), and alcohol-facilitated sexual exploitation (e.g., endorsing that “When a guy pays on a date, it is O.K. for him to pressure his girlfriend for sex” and “A girl who goes into a guy’s bedroom is agreeing to sex”).
Female Psychological Dating Violence
Mirroring the male subscale, this construct evaluates attitudes condoning a female partner’s utilization of verbal belittling, shouting, emotional manipulation, coercive control, and restrictions placed on male autonomy. Notably, adolescent socialization frequently trivializes female emotional and psychological abuse as benign or humorous, fostering an asymmetrical script wherein female controlling behavior is deemed acceptable (e.g., endorsing that “Girls have a right to tell their boyfriends what to do” and “If a girl yells and screams at her boyfriend it does not really hurt him seriously”).
Female Physical Dating Violence
This scale measures acceptance of female-to-male physical aggression, such as slapping, hitting, shoving, hair pulling, and punching. Because adolescent dating research highlights high rates of bidirectional physical aggression, evaluating the normalization of female-perpetrated physical acts is critical. The construct operationalizes attitudes that female physical assault is justifiable to command respect, resolve disputes, or express retaliation without considering the act genuine relationship violence (e.g., “Sometimes a girl must hit her boyfriend so that he will respect her” and “It is O.K. for a girl to slap her boyfriend if he deserves it”).
Female Sexual Dating Violence
This subscale measures tolerance of female-perpetrated sexual boundary violations, persistent pressure, emotional manipulation to induce sexual compliance, and disregard for male sexual consent and bodily autonomy. It addresses prevailing cultural stereotypes asserting that young men always desire sexual activity and cannot experience sexual coercion, capturing cognitive tolerance for female pressuring tactics and refusal to respect male revocation of consent (e.g., “It is alright for a girl to force her boyfriend to kiss her” and “It is O.K. for a girl to say she loves a guy to get him to have sex”).
6. Theoretical Framework
The Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales are fundamentally grounded in Social Cognitive Theory formulated by Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, and Cognitive Neoassociation Models of Aggression. Bandura posited that aggressive behavior is acquired through observational learning, vicarious reinforcement, and the internal development of moral disengagement mechanisms and cognitive evaluative standards. When adolescents witness relationship violence within their families of origin, peer networks, or digital media landscapes, they abstract generalized behavioral schemas and normative beliefs about the appropriateness of coercive interpersonal tactics. The ATDVS captures the cognitive self-regulatory mechanisms through which aggression is justified via euphemistic labeling, displacement of responsibility, minimizing injurious consequences, and attribution of blame to the victim.
A second foundational pillar of the ATDVS is Sexual Script Theory, pioneered by John Gagnon and William Simon. Script theory posits that sexual and romantic behaviors are governed by culturally defined, socially reinforced cognitive roadmaps operating at cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic levels. In patriarchal and gender-polarized cultures, traditional scripts dictate that adolescent males should demonstrate dominant, assertive, and sexually relentless behaviors, while adolescent females are tasked with gatekeeping or, conversely, accommodating male desires to maintain relationship harmony. Concurrently, compensatory scripts often downplay female-perpetrated hostility under the assumption of female physical harmlessness. The ATDVS was architected to assess adherence to these internalized scripts, illuminating how young people cognitively frame gendered rights, obligations, and permissible boundary violations in dating scenarios.
Finally, the scale incorporates principles from the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which asserts that an individual’s subjective attitudes toward a specific behavior, alongside perceived subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, directly determine behavioral intentions and subsequent action. In dating violence epidemiology, empirical models consistently establish that attitudes toward violence act as a crucial cognitive conduit linking distal contextual vulnerabilities (e.g., child maltreatment history, community violence exposure) to proximal relationship dynamics. By assessing these attitudes with psychometric granularity across distinct behavioral topographies, the ATDVS operationalizes the exact attitudinal constructs hypothesized by planned behavior paradigms to drive behavioral enactment.
7. Validity
Psychometric validation of the ATDVS across multiple developmental cohorts provides rigorous evidence supporting its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.
Construct and Factorial Validity
Initial structural validation conducted by Price et al. (1999) using exploratory factor analyses demonstrated that items cleanly clustered into their hypothesized dimensions, demonstrating high factor loadings and clear structural bifurcation between male-perpetrated and female-perpetrated behaviors. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across adolescent samples (Sears, Byers, & Price, 2007; Sears & Byers, 2010) corroborated the superior fit of a six-factor model over alternative one-factor (undifferentiated violence acceptance) or two-factor (male violence vs. female violence) solutions. Goodness-of-fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .055) support the theoretical premise that adolescents psychologically categorize dating violence by both behavioral topography and perpetrator gender.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity is confirmed through statistically significant, moderate-to-strong correlations between ATDVS subscale scores and established psychometric measures of gender-role stereotyping, adversarial sexual beliefs, general aggression acceptance, and hostility toward women. For example, adolescent boys displaying elevated scores on the Male Physical and Male Sexual Dating Violence scales exhibit strong positive correlations with the Burt Rape Myth Acceptance Scale ($r = .48$ to $.62, p < .001$) and traditional patriarchal gender ideology measures ($r = .41$ to $.55, p < .001$). Importantly, discriminant validity is demonstrated by weak correlations with socially desirable responding (measured via the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, with $r$ values typically falling between $-.08$ and $-.16$), indicating that the ATDVS does not merely capture generalized social conformity or impression management.
Concurrent, Criterion, and Predictive Validity
The scale possesses robust concurrent and predictive criterion validity with respect to actual relationship behaviors. In longitudinal and cross-sectional adolescent investigations, scores on the ATDVS account for significant unique variance in self-reported perpetration of dating abuse, beyond the effects of demographic variables and generalized antisocial behavior. Adolescents who endorse higher tolerance of psychological abuse report elevated rates of subsequent verbal degradation, jealousy manipulation, and coercive surveillance toward their dating partners. Furthermore, ATDVS subscales display robust known-groups validity: male adolescents consistently report higher tolerance for male-perpetrated sexual and physical aggression than female adolescents, whereas female adolescents occasionally report higher tolerance for female-perpetrated psychological aggression and slap-justifications, reflecting nuanced sociocultural double standards.
8. Reliability
The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales have been extensively documented across clinical, educational, and epidemiological contexts.
Internal Consistency
In the original validation study by Price et al. (1999) involving junior high and high school students, internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) across all six subscales met or exceeded standard psychometric benchmarks for behavioral research ($lpha ge .70$):
- Male Psychological Dating Violence Scale (15 items): $lpha = .79 – .85$
- Male Physical Dating Violence Scale (12 items): $lpha = .84 – .89$
- Male Sexual Dating Violence Scale (12 items): $lpha = .81 – .88$
- Female Psychological Dating Violence Scale (13 items): $lpha = .73 – .81$
- Female Physical Dating Violence Scale (12 items): $lpha = .82 – .87$
- Female Sexual Dating Violence Scale (12 items): $lpha = .76 – .84$
Subsequent investigations by Sears, Byers, and Price (2007) and Sears and Byers (2010) across diverse cohorts of youth reaffirmed these high reliability indices, demonstrating that internal consistency remains stable across gender subgroups (boys and girls) and developmental stages (early adolescence versus late adolescence/emerging adulthood). Corrected item-total correlations across the majority of items consistently exceed .40, demonstrating high item homogeneity within respective subconstructs.
Test-Retest Reliability
Temporal stability evaluations conducted over two-week to four-week test-retest intervals in control groups of non-intervened high school students reveal Pearson stability coefficients ranging from $r = .72$ to $r = .85$ across subscales ($p < .001$). These metrics confirm that the ATDVS captures stable cognitive-affective evaluative structures rather than fleeting emotional states, while maintaining the necessary psychometric sensitivity to register authentic attitudinal change following targeted psychoeducational interventions.
9. Factor Analysis
The internal latent structure of the ATDVS was initially evaluated through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) employing principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax/Oblimin) rotations to accommodate the theoretical expectation that attitudes toward different modalities of relationship violence are correlated yet empirically distinct.
EFA Findings and Item Loadings
In the developmental phases, item pools were subjected to factor extraction utilizing Kaiser-Guttman retention criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) and visual inspection of Cattell’s scree plot. Across repeated factor extractions, items loaded strongly onto their designated factors (factor loadings predominantly $ge .45$, with prominent primary loadings exceeding .70) and demonstrated minimal cross-loadings (< .25 on non-target factors). For instance, items reflecting physical violence against women (e.g., “Girls who cheat on their boyfriends should be slapped”) exhibited high specific loadings on the Male Physical factor without confounding cross-loadings onto the Male Sexual or Female Physical dimensions.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results
To establish structural stability, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on large adolescent cohorts. Competing structural models were formally tested:
- Model 1: A single-factor unidimensional model where all 75 items loaded onto a single latent “Violence Acceptance” construct. This model exhibited exceptionally poor fit ($\chi^2/df > 4.8$, $ ext{CFI} < .65$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .095$).
- Model 2: A three-factor model organized exclusively by violence typology (Psychological, Physical, Sexual), collapsing across gender. This model also failed to achieve acceptable fit thresholds ($ ext{CFI} < .78$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .078$).
- Model 3: The hypothesized six-factor correlated model (Male Psychological, Male Physical, Male Sexual, Female Psychological, Female Physical, Female Sexual). This model yielded superior psychometric fit indices ($\chi^2/df = 1.82$, $ ext{CFI} = .92$,$ ext{TLI} = .91$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .044$ [$90%\text{ CI: } .041 – .048$], $ ext{SRMR} = .051$).
Inter-factor correlations among the six latent constructs ranged from moderate ($r = .35$ between Female Psychological and Male Sexual) to high ($r = .68$ between Male Physical and Male Sexual), confirming that while attitudes toward various manifestations of violence share common ideological roots, collapsing them obscures vital construct variance regarding perpetrator gender and specific abusive behaviors.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Scale Name: The Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales (ATDVS)
- Alternate Name (French): Échelles d’Attitudes sur la Violence dans les Fréquentations
- Authors: Eric L. Price, E. Sandra Byers, and the Dating Violence Research Team (1999)
- Target Population: Adolescents (grades 7 through 12, ages 12–19) and emerging adults (college/university cohorts)
- Administration Format: Self-report paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized/online survey administration
- Estimated Completion Time: 15 to 25 minutes for the full 75-item battery; 3 to 5 minutes per individual subscale
- Total Number of Items: 75 items organized into 6 distinct subscales:
- Attitudes Towards Male Psychological Dating Violence: 15 items
- Attitudes Towards Male Physical Dating Violence: 12 items
- Attitudes Towards Male Sexual Dating Violence: 12 items
- Attitudes Towards Female Psychological Dating Violence: 13 items
- Attitudes Towards Female Physical Dating Violence: 12 items
- Attitudes Towards Female Sexual Dating Violence: 12 items
- Response Format: 5-point Likert-type scale:
- 1 = Strongly Disagree
- 2 = Mildly Disagree
- 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree
- 4 = Mildly Agree
- 5 = Strongly Agree
- Scoring and Directionality:
- Negatively worded items (indicated with an asterisk *) must be reverse-scored prior to aggregation: $1 \rightarrow 5$, $2 \rightarrow 4$, $3 \rightarrow 3$, $4 \rightarrow 2$, $5 \rightarrow 1$.
- Subscale scores are calculated either by summing the item values (producing raw totals) or by averaging the items (yielding a mean score on the 1 to 5 metric).
- Score Interpretation: Higher numerical scores consistently indicate greater acceptance, justification, tolerance, and cognitive normalization of dating violence. Lower scores reflect rejection of dating violence and endorsement of non-violent relationship norms. Subscales should be examined independently rather than collapsed into a single undifferentiated composite.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Attitudes Toward Dating Violence Scales were formally published in 1999 by Price, Byers, and the Dating Violence Research Team in the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Family Violence. The instrument is considered an open-access psychometric instrument for non-commercial academic research, public health tracking, and educational evaluation purposes. Clinicians, school counselors, and independent investigators may utilize the scale in its published English or French iterations without payment of licensing royalties, provided that full scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors in all subsequent publications and reports. Utilization within proprietary commercial diagnostic platforms or for-profit intervention packaging requires explicit formal authorization from Dr. E. Sandra Byers and the Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick.
12. References
- Price, E. L., Byers, E. S., & the Dating Violence Research Team. (1999). The Attitudes Towards Dating Violence Scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family Violence, 14(4), 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022849405625
- Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., & Price, E. L. (2007). The co-occurrence of adolescent boys’ and girls’ use of psychologically, physically, and sexually abusive behaviors in their dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.11.006
- Sears, H. A., & Byers, E. S. (2010). Adolescent girls’ and boys’ experiences of psychologically, physically, and sexually aggressive behaviors in their dating relationships: Co-occurrence and emotional reaction. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(5), 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495035
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
- Gagnon, J. H., & Simon, W. (2005). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality (2nd ed.). Aldine Transaction. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315126425