INTRODUCTION
Dating violence refers to the emotional, physical, and sexual acts that individuals commit or are recognized as having the intention to harm another person in a romantic relationship [1]. According to statistics from the National Police Agency for 2020 [2], the number of criminal cases related to dating violence was 10,303 in 2017, 10,245 in 2018, and 9,858 in 2019. Assault was reported in 71%-73% of the cases, forced harassment or sexual assault in 0.8%-1.3%, and murder and attempted murder in 0.3%-0.6%. Dating violence most frequently occurs in early adulthood, ranging from the ages of 20 to 39 years, and affects one’s entire life afterward [3]. From 2014 to August 2019, of 42,629 perpetrators of dating violence, the largest number were those in their 20s (14,638, 34.3%), followed by those in their 30s (10,990, 25.8%).
Research on dating violence has been conducted using the model of Riggs and O’Leary, based on social learning theory, to verify the relationship between domestic violence, attachment, and parenting attitudes [4]. However, despite the importance of understanding an individual’s internal characteristics in dating relationships, there is insufficient research examining individual personality factors [5]. Control theory supposes that humans can commit crimes or misdeeds regardless of who they are and emphasizes an individual tendency [6].
In previous studies, anger, aggression, and impulsiveness have been suggested as internal characteristics of dating violence, and borderline and narcissistic personalities related to these characteristics have been identified as risk factors for dating violence [7,8]. Clinginess tendencies, such as stalking and excessive control, have recently attracted attention as characteristics of dating violence perpetrators [8-10].
Relationship clinginess is characterized by an inability to be properly recognized because dependence begins romantically while pursuing intimacy in the early stages of romantic relationships [11]. In a survey of 1,000 adult men and women aged 19-59 years across the Republic of Korea, 86.7% of the respondents pointed out that many people seem to confuse excessive clinginess with love [12]. Perpetrators of dating violence said they love their partner even though they commit violence, and victims reported the erroneous belief that “except for hitting, they are really good people.” [13]
Clinginess tends to occur when past experiences or future anticipations interfere with present experiences; therefore, the individual cannot be faithful to the present moment and insists on a fixed and rigid perspective, attitude, or behavior [14]. A person with clinginess experiences the present moment in a self-centered and defensive manner, distorting and reducing the experience, rather than perceiving and thinking about it as it is [15]. People who cling to their partners have been shown to be less satisfied with their relationships and exhibit inflexible thinking and behavior. Mauricio et al. [16] found that unstable attachment, including the tendency to cling to another person, was closely related to violence in close relationships. In addition, in studies involving college students, clinginess was positively related to the perpetration of dating violence [8,17].
According to control theory, despite deviant motives, friendships, family relationships, and other social connections that form social solidarity control individuals to defend themselves against delinquency or crime [6]. Elements of social cohesion include attachment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs. Belief is consistent with sympathy for universal norms and refers to the extent to which traditional values and norms are accepted [6]. In other words, if there is an effective belief in banning deviance, even if one has a deviant motive, deviant behavior does not occur.
As interest in dating violence has recently increased, efforts are being made to prevent it. In particular, public service advertisements to increase awareness of dating violence and dating violence awareness programs for youth have attracted attention [18]. Dating violence awareness is defined as identifying behaviors that constitute dating violence and judging their seriousness. Studies have shown that the perception of dating violence has a significantly negative effect on dating violence behaviors [19]. A study involving 989 college students found that the lower the perception of sexual violence in romantic relationships, the higher the perpetrator’s behavior [20].
Overseas studies on dating violence perception are largely divided into differences in dating violence perception and tolerance according to conflicting situations, and research has been conducted using vignettes [21]. A vignette is a short article and behavior that shows a specific person, situation, and so on; research using vignettes is considered suitable for investigating the perception of the relative seriousness of a violent situation by providing a virtual situation [22]. There are relatively few domestic studies investigating the perception of dating violence, and few studies using vignettes [23].
Research has found a significant moderating effect of violence justification in the relationship between borderline personality and dating violence [24]. In other words, dating violence decreased when a violent situation was recognized as violent and violence was not recognized as a legitimate means for no reason. In Seo’s study [25] on soldiers, the moderating effect of tolerance of violence in the relationship between economic stress and violence was significant. Further, Lee [26] identified a moderating effect of human rights sensitivity on the relationship between school stress and tolerance of violence.
Taken together, individuals with high clinginess distort and reduce their experiences and feel anxious and tense owing to disharmony with their experiences, which can lead to inappropriate words or actions in romantic relationships; as a result, they are more likely to engage in dating violence. In particular, the relationship between perception of violence and perpetration of dating violence has been confirmed, but the moderating effect of dating violence awareness on the relationship between clinginess and perpetration of dating violence is not clear. Therefore, this study aimed to verify the moderating effect of dating violence awareness on the relationship between clinginess and dating violence.
METHODS
Participants
This study involved males and females in their 20s and 30s living in South Korea. The survey was conducted online (Google Questionnaire Form) and included 456 participants. The study included only those with experience in dating (more than 3 months); data from 450 participants were used for analysis. The survey comprised a total of 120 self-reported questions and took approximately 15 minutes to complete. A coffee gift icon was given as a reward to all participants who answered all the questions faithfully. A total of 450 participants (47.1% male, 52.9% female; mean age=27.96 years, standard deviation [SD]=5.04) were included. Participants were mostly in their 20s and 30s, with 60.4% currently dating. Only those with at least three months of dating experience were included. All research procedures, including data collection for this study, were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of Dankook University (approval number: 2021-05-041-002). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Measures
Clinginess
A scale revised and modified by Kim14 from the existing scale [15] was used in this study. This scale consists of 36 questions, encompassing 6 factors with 6 questions each: past fixation, lack of nowness, future fixation, fixed opinion, situational inflexibility, and desire obsession, evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 point=not at all to 5 points=very much so). The higher the total score on the scale, the higher the tendency toward clinginess. Representative items on this scale are as follows: “I cannot stand it if I do not get what I want,” “I cannot focus on what I am doing now, things from the past still bother me,” “I am worried about something that has not even happened yet,” and “I cannot flexibly cope with sudden changes.” An exploratory factor analysis was performed to confirm construct validity. The total explanation of the scale through factor analysis was 60.20%. The reliability of the original scale was 0.94; in this study, Cronbach’s α was 0.95.
Dating violence
The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS-2), developed and modified by Straus et al. [27] and revised and modified by Kim28 to suit domestic college students, was used to measure the experience of dating violence. This scale consists of 22 questions, with 7 questions on physical violence, 11 on psychological violence, and 4 on sexual violence, rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 point: none at all to 5 points: very often). The higher the score on the scale, the greater the experience of dating violence. The representative questions are as follows: “I have been angry with an annoying voice, hit my lover with something that could hurt, and even though the lover did not want to, I have been nagging or strongly demanding sexual behavior.” In this study, Cronbach’s α for the scale was 0.96.
Self-reported dating violence awareness
The self-reported dating violence awareness scale, reconstructed by Jung [29], is based on the dating sexual violence awareness tool of Nam, the dating experience survey questionnaire of Korean women’s Hotline, and Community Overcoming Relationship Abuses (as cited in Jung [29]). This scale was first evaluated by 8 experts, including counselors and health teachers; 8 of the 40 questions with an average content validity index of less than 0.75 points were deleted and 3 questions were added according to the experts’ opinion to complete a total of 35 questions. The scale consists of five subfactors: 8 questions on emotional violence, 9 on verbal violence, 4 on sexual violence, 7 on physical violence, and 7 on cyberviolence. Each question is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1=no dating violence to 5=very serious dating violence). The higher the score, the higher the awareness of dating violence. The reliability coefficient of each subscale was 0.81, 0.82, 0.88, 0.80, 0.83, and 0.94, respectively.
Dating violence awareness (vignette)
The vignette provided a specific virtual situation in the form of writing. Participants read and responded to one of three types of vignettes, and the vignettes were randomly assigned. The vignette of physical and psychological dating violence referred to the study by Stewart et al. [30], and the vignette of sexual dating violence referred to the study by Hoyt and Yeater [31]. Each vignette differed only in violent behavior for the types of dating violence, while all had the same age, name, gender, and duration. The severity of dating violence was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not serious at all to 5=very serious) to determine how seriously the three types of violent situations were perceived. The higher the score, the more serious it was, which indicated a higher awareness of dating violence. In this study, the Justification of Violence Scale of Foo and Margolin [32] was revised and modified to suit Korean settings and constructed based on the questions used in Yoo [10] (2020) and Park [33]. Each question was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 point: It can never happen to 5 points: Very likely). Higher scores indicate higher perceptions of dating violence. The Cronbach’s for the scale was 0.93.
Analysis
Data analysis was performed using the PROCESS macro for SPSS version 2.16. First, SPSS (version 21.0, IBM Corp.) was used to conduct a frequency analysis of the demographic characteristics, and a descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to identify the mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis of the major variables. Second, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to verify the factor structure. Third, a correlation analysis was conducted using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Fourth, a hierarchical regression analysis was performed to verify the effect of clinginess and each subfactor on dating violence. Finally, PROCESS Macro Model 1 was used to verify the moderating effect of dating violence awareness on the relationship between clinginess and dating violence. In addition, a simple regression was conducted under the condition of a moderator variable (mean-1SD, mean, mean+1SD).
RESULTS
Correlation
Descriptive statistics, including the means and SDs of the major variables and the correlation between each variable, are presented in Table 1.
Multiple regression analysis
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the independent influence of each subfactor of clinginess (past fixation, lack of nowness, future fixation, fixed opinion, situational inflexibility, and desire obsession) on dating violence perpetration. In Step 1, demographic variables (e.g., age, sex) were entered as control variables, and in Step 2, psychological predictors (e.g., clinginess, justification of violence) were added. The results are presented in Table 2. Sex (β=0.115, p<0.05) and age (β=0.149, p<0.01) had a significant influence on dating violence perpetration. Furthermore, desire obsession (β=0.257, p<0.001), past fixation (β=0.311, p< 0.001), and lack of nowness (β=0.151, p<0.05) had a significant effect on dating violence perpetration. However, fixed opinion (β=0.003, p>0.05), situational inflexibility (β= 0.073, p>0.05), and future fixation (β=0.010, p>0.05) had no significant effect. The regression model explained 22.6% of the variation in dating violence perpetration (F=16.122, p<0.001).
The moderating effect of dating violence awareness
The results are summarized in Table 3. First, clinginess had a significantly positive effect on dating violence (B=0.264, t=9.685, p<0.001). Dating violence awareness had a significant negative effect on dating violence perpetration (B=-0.198, t=-5.191, p<0.001). The interaction effect of the two variables on dating violence perpetration was also significant (B=-0.003, t=-3.351, p<0.001). These results indicate that the influence of clinginess on the perpetration of dating violence varies depending on the level of awareness. The simple regression analysis for the effect of clinginess on the perpetration of dating violence was significant (Table 4). The positive association between clinginess and perpetration of dating violence was stronger in the group with low awareness of dating violence (B=0.346, t=9.165, p<0.001) than in the group with high awareness (B=0.183, t=5.215, p<0.001).
The moderating effect of dating violence awareness (vignette)
The results of the moderating effect analyses are presented in Table 5. First, clinginess had a significantly positive effect on dating violence (B=0.241, t=8.525, p<0.001). Dating violence awareness had a significant negative effect on dating violence perpetration (B=-0.300, t=-4.946, p<0.001). The interaction effect of the two variables on dating violence perpetration was also significant (B=-0.005, t=-2.535, p<0.05). The simple regression analysis for the effect of clinginess on the perpetration of dating violence was significant (Table 6). The positive association between clinginess and the perpetration of dating violence was stronger in the group with low awareness of dating violence (B=0.303, t=7.350, p<0.001) than in the group with high awareness (B=0.179, t=5.478, p<0.001).
DISCUSSION
This study verified the moderating effect of dating violence awareness on the relationship between clinginess and dating violence among adults in their 20s and 30s, using a self-report questionnaire and a vignette method. The comprehensive results of the study and discussion are as follows.
First, clinginess positively affected dating violence. This finding supports the control theory that emphasizes individual internal characteristics in deviant behavior, and previous studies that suggested that clinginess may be a risk factor for dating violence [6,9]. People with clinginess are likely to easily feel angry at potential cues that may threaten relationships and use violence to control such threats [34]. In addition, they tend to think rigidly, making it easy to justify their clinginess with intense love, and transfer responsibility for excessive interference and control to the victim [35].
Second, among the subfactors of clinginess, past fixation, lack of nowness, and desire obsession were found to have positive effects on dating violence. People with clinginess tend to have high neurotic tendencies and use many cognitive rumination and destruction strategies [14]. In addition, they have many worries and low levels of psychological well-being, and use fewer cognitive strategies to find positive aspects or give positive meaning to negative situations [36]. Furthermore, past fixation showed a higher positive correlation with anxiety, rumination, and catastrophic and neurotic tendencies than the other factors. Lack of nowness showed a strong positive correlation with catastrophic and neurotic tendencies and a strong negative correlation with positive reassessment and psychological well-being. These clinginess characteristics are likely to lead to psychological and mental problems or maladjustment. Particularly, individuals with these characteristics feel more afraid of being alone than of the pain they experience in their relationships [37]. Due to these characteristics, they easily become angry and anxious about threatening romantic relationships, and tend to be hypersensitive and inappropriate in the fear that their partner will leave [34]. Fixed opinion, situational inflexibility, and future fixation did not affect dating violence. These results contradict those of previous studies [8]. In this study, clinginess was subdivided into 6 factors, and the difference in the results may be attributed to this.
Third, dating violence awareness moderated the relationship between clinginess and dating violence. These results support previous studies showing that awareness of violence can be a protective factor against violence [18,19]. In this study, we measured dating violence awareness using vignettes and self-report scales to verify its moderating effect. Awareness includes beliefs, thoughts, judgments, and the way an individual perceives causes of specific behaviors, and influences coping behaviors [38]. Therefore, recognizing dating violence is an important factor in decreasing dating violence in situations of conflicts between lovers. However, dating violence perpetrators tend to think of the danger signals of violence in romantic relationships as part of dating behavior [39]. Boxer et al. [40] emphasized that cognitive bias or irrational beliefs are important variables in explaining violent behavior in dating relationships, and social cognitive intervention is important to reduce violent behavior.
This study underscores the necessity of enhancing awareness and reducing dating violence among adults exhibiting clingy behaviors. While dating violence prevention education is mandatory in the United States, such educational initiatives are insufficiently implemented in schools and communities in Korea [41].
This study deepens understanding of the association between clinginess and dating violence by delivering critical insights and practical implications, while recognizing key limitations to guide future research.
First, by subdividing clinginess into 6 distinct factors, this study offers a more specific understanding of its role in early adulthood and its impact on dating violence. This multidimensional conceptualization captures clinginess as a complex personality construct that goes beyond mere relational dependence, framing it instead as a combination of diverse personality traits. Nonetheless, given the conceptual overlap with psychological factors such as mood disturbances, impulsivity, and attachment insecurity, caution is warranted in interpreting clinginess as an isolated risk factor. Future research should incorporate broader assessments of mood, general personality characteristics, and relationship satisfaction to more clearly disentangle these effects.
Second, dating violence awareness has attracted attention as a protective factor against dating violence. However, its specific role has not yet been clarified. This study provides basic data for developing programs to prevent dating violence by confirming the moderating effect of dating violence awareness on the relationship between clinginess and dating violence. However, as this study did not include dating violence perpetrators, it is necessary to confirm these results in subsequent studies involving dating violence perpetrators.
Third, dating violence awareness was measured using a vignette and self-report scale. In Korea, there is little research on dating violence using vignettes; this study measured not only the severity of the perception of dating violence, but also tolerance of violence according to conflict attribution type using vignettes. Future studies could include qualitative research exploring individuals’ subjective experiences of clinginess in romantic relationships to better contextualize how these tendencies manifest in daily interactions, under what conditions they may escalate into maladaptive behaviors, and how protective factors—such as social awareness or supportive social networks—might buffer these processes. Such work would provide a richer and less pathologizing perspective of clinginess and its nuanced role in relationship dynamics.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
XML Download
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
Print
