Adolescent Dating Violence: Theory, Research, and Prevention [1 ed.] 0128117974, 9780128117972

Citation preview

Adolescent Dating Violence

This page intentionally left blank

Adolescent Dating Violence Theory, Research, and Prevention

Edited by

David A. Wolfe Centre for School Mental Health, Western University, London, ON, Canada

Jeff R. Temple Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, UTMB Health, Galveston, TX, United States

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier 125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom 525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom Copyright r 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-12-811797-2 For Information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Nikki Levy Acquisition Editor: Nikki Levy Editorial Project Manager: Barbara Makinster Production Project Manager: Anusha Sambamoorthy Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

Contents List of Contributors Preface

xvii xxi

Section I Theory and Consequences 1.

Changing Your Status in a Changing World: It Is Complicated! A Developmental Systems Framework for Understanding Dating Violence in Adolescents and Young Adults

3

Bonnie Leadbeater, Jennifer Connolly, and Jeff R. Temple

2.

4 5 6

Romantic Development: Ages and Stages Trajectories of Dating Violence Over Time Developmental Systems Perspective The Developmental Changes in Dating Relationships and Implications for Dating Violence Bullying, Dating Violence, and Spousal Violence—Converging Influences Across Childhood, Adolescence, and Young Adulthood The Effects of Social and Cultural Contexts on Dating Norms and Dating Violence Dating and Dating Violence in the Digital Age Conclusions and Implications for Research and Intervention References

13 13 16 17

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration

25

7

8

Emily F. Rothman Defining and Understanding the Importance of “Theory” to Dating Abuse Prevention Defining Dating Abuse, Understanding Typologies and Other Considerations Relevant to Theory Causal Explanations for Partner Abuse

25 27 30

v

vi

3.

Contents

Historical Theories: Early Psychoanalytic Theory and Frustration Aggression Hypothesis Intergenerational Transmission Theories Distal Proximal (or Background Situational) Factor Theories Sociocultural Theories Criminologic Theories Biological Theories Personality Traits Social Ecological Model Conclusion References

31 32 33 34 37 38 39 40 41 42

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence: A Public Health Perspective

53

Yunsoo Park, Carrie Mulford, and Dara Blachman-Demner

4.

54 64 64

Study Selection Sample Characteristics Types of Dating Abuse Timing Considerations in Measurement of Dating Abuse Exposure and Outcomes Outcomes Associated With Adolescent Dating Abuse Mental/Psychological Health Outcomes Physical Health Outcomes Substance Use/Abuse Outcomes Victimization/Perpetration Outcomes Discussion Implications Gaps in the Literature References

65 65 66 69 71 73 75 78 79 80

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying, Sexual Harassment, and Teen Dating Violence

85

Dorothy L. Espelage, Jun S. Hong, and Alberto Valido Introduction Definition and Prevalence of Bullying, Sexual Violence, and Teen Dating Violence Developmental Framework Linking Multiple Forms of Violence and Victimization Domestic Violence, Family Conflict, and Bullying Perpetration: Theoretical Explanations Family Violence Exposure and Bullying Perpetration Child Emotional Abuse and Later Violence Child Sexual Abuse and Teen Dating Violence Family Violence, Alcohol and Drug Use, Bullying, and Sexual Harassment

85 86 87 87 88 88 89 90

Contents

Linking Bullying, Sexual Harassment, and Teen Dating Violence Adolescent Dating Violence and Intimate Partner Violence Implications for Violence Prevention Implications for Future Research Conclusion References

vii 91 92 93 94 95 96

Section II Risk and Protective Factors 5.

Peers Over Parents? How Peer Relationships Influence Dating Violence

105

Wendy E. Ellis and Tara M. Dumas

6.

106 108 108 109 109 109 110

Types and Functions of Peer Relationships in Adolescence Parent Influence on Dating Abuse: Theory and Causes Attachment Theory Social Learning Theory Peer Influence on Dating Abuse: Theory and Causes Relationship Skills Peer Socialization Research on Bullying, Peer Aggression, and Dating Experiences and Abuse Research on Peer Influence and Dating Experiences and Abuse Research on Peer Deviancy and Dating Experiences and Abuse Research on Parental and Peer Influence and Dating Experiences and Abuse The Role of Peers in Prevention and Intervention Programming Timing of Prevention Supportive Relationships and Prevention Peer Knowledge and Prevention Limitations of Previous Research Methods and Future Priorities Assessing the Source of Peer Influence Typologies of Dating Violence Mixed-Methods Research Design Conclusions References

118 119 119 120 120 121 121 122 123 123 124

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence: How Strong is the Link?

135

113 116 117

Catherine V. Strauss, Ellen E.H. Johnson, Gregory L. Stuart, and Ryan C. Shorey Introduction Substance Use Among Adolescents Rates and Types of Substance Use

135 136 136

viii

7.

Contents

Theoretical Frameworks for Substance-Related Dating Violence Indirect and Spurious Effects Models Proximal Effects and Other Related Models Attention Allocation Model Bell and Naugle (2008) Model Theories of Substance Use and Dating Violence Victimization Substance Use and Dating Violence Alcohol and Dating Violence Perpetration Alcohol and Dating Violence Victimization Marijuana and Dating Violence Perpetration Marijuana and Dating Violence Victimization Other Drugs and Dating Violence Perpetration Other Drugs and Dating Violence Victimization Summary and Conclusions Directions for Future Research Prevention and Intervention Implications Summary References

137 138 138 139 139 140 141 141 143 145 147 148 149 149 149 151 152 152

Mechanisms Underlying the Association of Exposure to Family of Origin Violence and Adolescent Dating Violence

159

Michele Cascardi and Ernest N. Jouriles Introduction Dating and DV in Adolescent and Young Adult Relationships Definition of Specific Types of Violence in the Family of Origin Relation Between Exposure to Violence in the Family of Origin and DV Comparison of the Type or Number of Child Maltreatment Experiences and DV Timing and Continuity of Violence in the Family of Origin to DV Gender Differences in the Relation of Exposure to Violence in the Family of Origin to DV Mechanisms Linking Violence in the Family of Origin and DV Attitudes and Cognitive Biases in Social Information Processing Attitudes Accepting of Violence Attitudes Supporting Traditional Gender Roles Cognitive Biases in Information Processing Deviant Peer Affiliation Attachment Disruptions and Trouble With Emotional Regulation Attachment Disruptions Trouble with Emotion Regulation Combined Effects of Attachment Disruption and Trouble with Emotion Regulation PTSD and Related Comorbidities

159 160 161 162 163 164 164 165 166 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 173

Contents

Summary and Conclusions References

ix 176 177

Section III Social and Cultural Influences 8.

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide

191

Peter Jaffe, Jordan Fairbairn, and Kayla Sapardanis

9.

Youth Dating Homicides: Lessons Learned From Tragedies Defining Youth Youth Domestic Homicide Research Domestic Homicide in the Youth Population Case Studies Massachusetts, United States: The Case of Lauren Astley Toronto, Canada: The Case of Natalie Novak Dunedin, New Zealand: The Case of Sophie Elliot Brighton, England: The Case of Shana Grice Discussion Universal Prevention Role of Teachers Community Professionals and Collaboration Future Research Concluding Comments References References From Case Studies

191 193 195 195 198 198 200 203 205 207 208 209 209 210 210 211 213

Adolescent Dating Violence Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth

215

Tyson R. Reuter and Sarah W. Whitton Introduction Prevalence of DV Among LGBT Youth Differences in DV Among Subgroups of LGBT Youth Consequences of DV in LGBT Youth Case Study: Illustration of a Minority Stress Framework for DV Conclusion and Future Clinical and Research Directions References

10. Adolescent Dating Violence Among Ethnically Diverse Youth

215 216 219 221 221 223 226

233

Asia A. Eaton and Dionne P. Stephens ADV Risk Factors Among Adolescents of Color Risk Factors Specific to African American Adolescents Risk Factors Specific to Native American Adolescents Risk Factors Specific to Hispanic Adolescents

235 235 238 240

x

Contents

ADV Protective Factors Among Adolescents of Color Protective Factors Among African American Adolescents Protective Factors Among Native American Adolescents Protective Factors Among Hispanic Adolescents Culturally Relevant Prevention and Treatment Future Directions Qualitative Research The Use of Culturally Congruent Terms and Measures Intersectional and Within-Group Research References

11. Are Neighborhood Factors Associated with Teen Dating Violence? Let Us Examine the Evidence

243 244 245 246 248 249 249 250 251 251

261

Elizabeth M. Leiman Parker Problem Definition and Magnitude Definition of Neighborhood Neighborhoods and Health Theory and Causes Social Ecological Models Broken Windows Theory Social Disorganization Theory What We Know About Neighborhoods and TDV Neighborhood Physical Environment Summary Neighborhood Social Environment Summary Research Methods and Priorities Types of TDV Examined Methodological Advances Theoretical Framework Defining Neighborhood Geographic Diversity Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Implications and Conclusion References

261 262 263 264 264 264 267 267 268 268 269 271 271 271 272 272 273 273 273 274 275

Section IV Research Priorities 12. Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence: Extensions to Adolescent Dating Violence

283

Natasha E. Latzman, Ashley S. D’Inverno, Phyllis H. Niolon, and Dennis E. Reidy Definitions and Measurement: An Overview Gender Inequality

285 285

Contents

Gender-Role Attitudes Relationship Between Gender Inequality and Gender-Role Attitudes Why Study Gender Inequality? Societal Level Gender Inequality and GBV: Theoretical Approaches Extensions to ADV Gender-Role Attitudes and GBV Extensions to ADV Implications and Future Directions Implications for Research Implications for Practice Conclusion References

13. Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence

xi 286 288 289 290 293 294 295 298 298 301 304 304 315

Deinera Exner-Cortens Why Measurement Matters Current Measurement Approaches Measure Quality Limitations in Current Measurement Approaches Psychological Aggression Cyber Aggression Sexual Violence and Stalking Healthy Relationships Research Priorities for Measurement Emerging Innovations in Measurement Implications of Measurement Experiences of Diverse Youth Prevention and Intervention Conclusion References

315 316 318 318 321 323 325 326 326 327 333 333 334 335 335

14. Violence Begets Violence: Addressing the Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Adolescent and Young Adult 341 Relationships Deborah M. Capaldi, Joann W. Shortt, Stacey S. Tiberio, and Sabina Low Theoretical Issues Typological Approaches Dyadic Theoretical Approaches Prevalence of Bidirectional PV Physical PV Sexual PV

342 342 343 345 345 346

xii

Contents

Psychological PV Cyber or Computer-Mediated PV Emergence of PV Related to Bidirectionality Observed Physical PV Including Playful Jealousy and Negative Emotions Assortative Partnering by Antisocial Behavior PV Processes Related to Bidirectionality Initiation of PV Persistence and Desistance in PV High-Frequency PV Impact of Bidirectional PV Injury Risk Other Impacts Children Exposed to Interparent PV Prevention Implications Assessment Issues Conclusions and Future Directions References

15. Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones but Words Will Always Hurt Me

347 347 348 348 349 350 351 351 352 353 354 354 354 354 355 356 357 357

365

Rachel Jewkes, Andrew Gibbs, and Kristin Dunkle What Is Emotional Abuse? Emotional Abuse Among Adolescents Does the Measure Matter? Preventing Emotional Abuse Among Adolescents Conclusions References

367 369 372 374 376 376

Section V Treatment and Prevention 16. What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence? A Global Review of Best Practices

381

Mary Ellsberg, Chelsea Ullman, Alexandra Blackwell, Amber Hill, and Manuel Contreras Background Effective Interventions to Address Adolescent IP/SV School-based Interventions to Prevent and Respond to Adolescent IP/SV Campus-based Interventions to Prevent and Respond to IP/SV Group-based Targeted Interventions to Prevent and Respond to Adolescent IP/SV

381 384 385 393 400

Contents

Community Mobilization Discussion References

17. Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults

xiii 405 407 408

415

Katie M. Edwards and Victoria L. Banyard Overview Definition and Epidemiology Sexual Violence: Theory, Causes, and Prevention Sexual Violence Perpetration Sexual Violence Victimization Positive Actionists in Sexual Violence Situations Key Ingredients of Effective Prevention Research and Practice Priorities Final Thoughts References

18. College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies

415 416 416 417 421 423 426 426 428 429

437

Meagan J. Brem, Autumn R. Florimbio, Hannah Grigorian, Joanna Elmquist, Caitlin Wolford-Clevenger, and Gregory L. Stuart Definition and Epidemiology Definitions Epidemiology Theory and Causes Individual/Developmental Theories Microsystem Theories Exosystem Theories Macrosystem Theories Summary Treatment and Prevention Bystander Intervention Programs Brief Motivational Interventions Future Directions and Considerations Research Methods and Priorities Research Methods Limitations of Past Research and Directions for Future Research Conclusion Legal, Policy, and Health Implications Legal Implications Policy Implications Health Implications References

437 437 438 441 441 445 446 447 448 448 448 451 452 454 454 454 456 456 457 458 458 459

xiv

Contents

19. Using Intervention Mapping to Develop “Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships,” A Healthy Relationship Intervention for Early Middle School Students

467

Melissa F. Peskin, Christine M. Markham, Efrat K. Gabay, Ross Shegog, Paula M. Cuccaro, Jeff R. Temple, Belinda Hernandez, Melanie Thiel, and Susan T. Emery Introduction Step 1: Logic Model of the Problem Task 1: Establish and Work with a Planning Group Task 2: Conduct the Needs Assessment to Create a Logic Model of the Problem Task 3: Describe the Context for the Intervention Task 4: Specify Program Goals Step 2: Program Outcomes and Objectives Task 1: State Behavioral and Environmental Outcomes Task 2: Specify Performance Objectives Task 3: Select Personal Determinants of Behavioral and Environmental Outcomes Task 4: Create Matrix of Change Objectives Task 5: Create a Logic Model of Change Step 3: Program Design Task 1: Generate Program Themes, Components, Scope, and Sequence Task 2: Choose Theory and Evidence-Based Change Methods to Address Program Objectives and Task 3: Select Practical Applications Step 4: Program Production Task 1. Refine Program Structure and Organization Task 2: Prepare Plans for Program Materials Task 3: Draft Messages, Materials, and Protocol Task 4: Pilot Test, Refine, and Produce Materials Step 5: Program Implementation Task 1: Identify Program Adopters and Implementers Tasks 2 and 3: State Outcomes and Performance Objectives and Construct Matrices of Change Objectives for Adoption and Implementation Task 4: Design Implementation Intervention Step 6: Evaluation Plan Tasks 1 and 2: Write Outcome and Process Evaluation Questions and Select Measures Task 3: Specify Outcome Evaluation Design Task 4: Complete the Evaluation Plan Conclusion References

467 468 468 469 470 470 470 470 471 471 471 471 479 479

480 488 488 488 489 493 494 494

495 495 497 497 497 497 497 498

Contents

xv

20. Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention: Lessons Learned From the Alaska Fourth R 503 Initiative Claire V. Crooks, Deinera Exner-Cortens, Wendi Siebold, Mollie Rosier, and Jenny Baker Introduction The Alaska Fourth R Initiative Understanding Implementation: The QIF Phase 1: Initial Considerations Regarding the Host Setting Phase 2: Creating a Structure for Implementation Phase 3: Ongoing Structure Once Implementation Began Phase 4: Improving Future Applications Summary References Index

503 506 508 509 511 513 516 517 518 523

This page intentionally left blank

List of Contributors Jenny Baker State of Alaska Department of Health and Human Services, Juneau, AK, United States Victoria L. Banyard Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States Dara Blachman-Demner Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, United States Alexandra Blackwell Global Women’s Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States Meagan J. Brem Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States Deborah M. Capaldi Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR, United States Michele Cascardi Department of Psychology, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, United States Jennifer Connolly Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Manuel Contreras Global Women’s Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States Claire V. Crooks Centre for School Mental Health, Western University, London, ON, Canada Paula M. Cuccaro Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States Ashley S. D’Inverno Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States Tara M. Dumas Department of Psychology, Huron University College at Western University, London, ON, Canada Kristin Dunkle Gender and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Asia A. Eaton Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States Katie M. Edwards Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States

xvii

xviii

List of Contributors

Wendy E. Ellis Department of Psychology, King’s University College at Western University, London, ON, Canada Mary Ellsberg Global Women’s Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States Joanna Elmquist Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States Susan T. Emery Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States Dorothy L. Espelage University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States Deinera Exner-Cortens Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Jordan Fairbairn Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada Autumn R. Florimbio Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States Efrat K. Gabay Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States Andrew Gibbs Gender and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Hannah Grigorian Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States Belinda Hernandez Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States Amber Hill University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States Jun S. Hong Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States; Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea Peter Jaffe Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada Rachel Jewkes Gender and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa Ellen E.H. Johnson Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States Ernest N. Jouriles Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, United States Natasha E. Latzman RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States Bonnie Leadbeater Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

List of Contributors

xix

Sabina Low T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University Social Sciences, Tempe, AZ, United States Christine M. Markham Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States Carrie Mulford National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, United States Phyllis H. Niolon Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States Yunsoo Park National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, United States Elizabeth M. Leiman Parker Division of Public Behavioral Health & Justice Policy, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States Melissa F. Peskin Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States Dennis E. Reidy Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States Tyson R. Reuter Department of Ob/Gyn, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, United States Mollie Rosier State of Alaska Department of Health and Human Services, Juneau, AK, United States Emily F. Rothman Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States Kayla Sapardanis Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada Ross Shegog Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States Ryan C. Shorey Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States Joann W. Shortt Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR, United States Wendi Siebold Strategic Prevention Solutions, Seattle, WA, United States Dionne P. Stephens Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States Catherine V. Strauss Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States Gregory L. Stuart Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

xx

List of Contributors

Jeff R. Temple Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Health, Galveston, TX, United States Melanie Thiel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Health, Galveston, TX, United States Stacey S. Tiberio Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR, United States Chelsea Ullman Global Women’s Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States Alberto Valido University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States Sarah W. Whitton Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States Caitlin Wolford-Clevenger Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

Preface In bringing together an interdisciplinary and international group of scholars, our goal for this book is to provide an up-to-date and in-depth look at adolescent dating violence, with a particular focus on emerging issues in theory, research, and prevention. All areas of adolescent dating violence are covered, from prevalence to intervention, as well as the important role of multiple areas of social influence: the individual perpetrator/victim, peer and family unit, and cultural and community factors. While the intended audience of Adolescent Dating Violence: Theory, Research, and Prevention is primarily researchers, senior students, and youth-serving practitioners from a wide range of disciplines, we are also confident that school and community leaders and policymakers will find this book helpful. Adolescent dating violence (ADV) is a major public health concern affecting one in four teens. Those with a history of dating violence (compared to those without) exhibit higher rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance use, posttraumatic stress disorder, risky sexual behavior, teen pregnancy, and eating disorders. They are also more likely to perform poorly in school and to experience difficulties in future relationships. However, until recently, comprehensive theories and findings to explain this phenomenon and its connection to other issues facing youth were lacking. Over the past decade the field has been invigorated by longitudinal research that is disentangling the many predictors of dating violence from its consequences. Given the large increase in research knowledge pertaining to this topic, we felt a book was needed that would combine up-to-date research findings on the causes of dating violence, as well as profiling promising and effective prevention programs forming today’s best practices. This volume is organized into five sections: (1) Theory and Consequences, (2) Risk and Protective Factors, (3) Social and Cultural Influences, (4) Research Priorities, and (5) Treatment and Prevention. Chapters within each of these sections cover current knowledge of the course, risk/protective factors, consequences, and treatment/prevention of adolescent dating violence. Chapters also address the importance of research, and highlight critical developments in measurement and design. In addition to the proliferation of longitudinal studies and research on prevention and intervention initiatives, chapters address recent developments in theory and implementation science to bring these findings to the attention of educators

xxi

xxii

Preface

and policymakers. Because the advent of the smartphone and other technological advancements has resulted in new forms of ADV, the volume highlights these recent developments in a comprehensive format, including: sexting and social media; use/misuse of technology; and the relationship of dating violence to other forms of abuse. It is our hope that readers will obtain a thorough and well-informed understanding of the nature and impact of adolescent dating violence, and ways to prevent its occurrence. We further hope that many of our readers will be inspired to integrate this topic into their own interests in working with youth who face issues relating to dating violence, or wish to become part of the solution to change. The editors wish to thank many authors who contributed their time and expertise to this book, as well as teens and tweens throughout the world who are trying to navigate intimate relationships while simultaneously managing the storm and stress of adolescent development. David A. Wolfe and Jeff R. Temple

Section I

Theory and Consequences

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1

Changing Your Status in a Changing World: It Is Complicated! A Developmental Systems Framework for Understanding Dating Violence in Adolescents and Young Adults Bonnie Leadbeater1, Jennifer Connolly2, and Jeff R. Temple3 1

Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, 2Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada, 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Health, Galveston, TX, United States

Research on the romantic relationships of adolescents and young adults has burgeoned in the last decade (see reviews by; Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009; Fincham & Cui, 2011; Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017). The formation of healthy romantic relationships in adolescence and young adulthood can advance later family formation, parenting capacity, economic security, mental health, social support, and adaptive responses to stressful life events (Collins et al., 2009; Karney, Beckett, Collins, & Shaw, 2007). These relationships do not, however, emerge fully formed in adolescence. Rather the developmental bases of romantic relationships can be found much earlier in the relational contexts and ecological systems of young people as they grow and change over time. Healthy long-term relationships leading to family formation typically emerge from prior experiences of supportive relationships within adaptive contexts. Conversely, unhealthy relationships often follow from multiple early partnerships that are characterized by emotionally painful interactions including breakups and aggression that may echo prior aggressive parenting and peer relationships (Leadbeater, Sukhawathanakul, Holfeld, & Temple, 2017).

Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00001-3 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

3

4

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

ROMANTIC DEVELOPMENT: AGES AND STAGES There is considerable agreement that engagement in romantic relationships (Collins, et al., 2009) increases rapidly across adolescence, and is essentially normative by age 15 (Furman & Rose, 2015). National data from the United States indicate that 25% of 12-year olds, 50% of 15-year olds, and 70% of 18-year olds report having had a special romantic relationship in the past 18 months (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003). The forms, functions, and positive and negative consequences of romantic relationships shift with age (Collins et al., 2009; Connolly, Nguyen, Pepler, Craig, & Jiang, 2013; Golden, Furman, & Collibee, 2016; Rauer, Pettit, Lansford, Bates & Dodge, 2013). Typically, in early adolescence, romantic relationships are short term and based on romantic affiliations, common activities, and exploration of sexual interests and behaviors; whereas more enduring, intimate couples’ attachments tend to be begin in mid to late adolescence and early adulthood (Collins et al. 2009; Connolly et al., 2013). In fact, there are many developmental differences in characteristics of dating relationships from early adolescence to young adulthood—i.e., in age or timing, length, quality, risk and rewards, and in the meaning of breakups or dissolutions. However, these developmental differences are only rarely considered in studies of the frequency, quality, and consequences of dating aggression or violence. Further complicating this picture, developmental changes in dating relationships are also occurring in the context of rapid changes in the social context of adolescent sexuality including changes in acceptance of a variety of sexual behaviors (e.g., pornography and sexting; Harden, 2014), relationships with partners (e.g., “hooking up”; Kuperberg & Padgett, 2015; Rowley & Hertzog, 2016), as well as the increasing salience of Internet and cell phone technology on adolescent dating and sexual experiences (Underwood & Ehrenreich, 2017). From a developmental perspective it is likely that estimated rates of dating violence vary widely from adolescence into young adulthood, but age-based descriptions of rates of dating violence across this developmental transition are typically lacking. Focusing on the adolescent age group, a metaanalysis of dating violence suggests that physical aggression affects about 1 in 5 of adolescent dating relationships and sexual aggression affects 1 in 10 (Wincentak et al., 2017). However, substantial variation in rates across the studies included in the metaanalysis were also revealed, ranging from 1% to 61%. This variability is most likely due to differences in measurement of dating violence, types of dating violence included in the study, and the at-risk nature of the sample of adolescents. For example, the National Institutes of Justice, using a single-item index of dating violence, found that that 1 in 10 dating youths in grades 9 12 reported being a victim of physical violence (https://nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/ teen-dating-violence/Pages/prevalence.aspx). The National Youth Risk

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

5

Behavior Surveillance System (1999 2011) shows stability in a 12-year prevalence rate of physical violence in high school students with similar rates of 9.4% for males and 9.2% for females (Rothman & Xuan, 2014). In a more recent study that included physical, psychological, and sexual abuse (Ybarra, Espelage, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Korchmaros, & Boyd, 2016) the authors reported victimization and perpetration rates for youth aged 14 21 years. Specifically, 51% of females and 43% of males reported being victimized by at least one of the three types of dating abuse and 50% of females and 35% of males reported perpetrating at least one type of dating abuse. Finally, consistent with the idea that certain groups of youths are more prone to aggressive interactions than others, a recent metaanalysis of females with mental health problems, homelessness, or child welfare involvement, revealed dating violence rates of 34% for victimization and 45% for perpetration (Joly & Connolly, 2016). These prevalence rates likely represent a high water mark for youth dating violence with rates peaking around the age of 20 years and declining slowly thereafter (Johnson, Manning, Giordano, & Longmore, 2015). Developmentally the early adult years are thus a period in which rates of interpersonal violence are higher than at any other life stage (Statistics Canada, 2008; Taylor, Mumford, & Lui, 2016). Risk factors for dating violence are seen to converge at this stage of life and highlight the adolescent and young adult period may be critical for determining both vulnerability and resistance to aggressive patterns in romantic relationships (Goodnight et al., 2017).

TRAJECTORIES OF DATING VIOLENCE OVER TIME Longitudinal studies investigating the effects of individual, family, or peer aggression on romantic relationship violence in late adolescence tend to focus on physical violence (Dardis, Dixon, Edwards, & Turchik, 2015; Foshee et al., 2013; Reyes, Foshee, Bauer, & Ennett, 2012; Shortt et al., 2012). However, there is some evidence that there are complimentary pathways among the different types of dating violence, and more specifically, relational aggression may precede physical violence in adolescence (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007). Experiences as perpetrators or victims of these varying types of aggression are also typically correlated. Trajectories of physical aggression against peers typically declines in young adulthood (making occurrences of physical aggression in any relationship less likely and perhaps more aberrant), whereas relational aggression and victimization is stable or may increase across this age span, particularly for males (Leadbeater, Thompson, & Sukhawathanakul, 2014). Age-linked changes in physical versus nonphysical interpersonal violence suggest the need for a stronger research focus on nonphysical forms of aggression in romantic relationships. It is also possible that nonphysical forms of dating violence are precursors to physical violence and could be targets for preventive

6

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

interventions. Indeed, unhealthy romantic relationships can be characterized by a variety of negative behaviors targeting a partner including anger and emotional abuse, disrespect, isolation and exclusion from friends and family, threats and intimidation, blaming, humiliating, and forced sex. These behaviors can also compromise behaviors that sustain and enhance relationships including respect, safety, communication, autonomy, trust, and fun.

DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE In this chapter, we argue that a developmental systems perspective is essential for understanding dating violence during the adolescent and young adult years. This perspective is grounded in an ecological systems framework (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) that suggests that dating violence is the outcome of cumulating risk factors within and across multiple contexts of development (Connolly, Friedlander, Pepler, Craig, & Laporte, 2010; Novak & Furman, 2016). Individual characteristics, family and peer relationships, and societal influences all act in concert to either promote healthy relationships or, conversely, lead to relationships with conflict and violence. This picture is further complicated by the developmental changes that are taking place in relationships and across contexts. Thus predicting and explaining adolescent dating violence requires a consideration of different forms of dating aggression (physical, psychological, relational, controlling), at different developmental stages (early, mid, and late adolescence and young adulthood) across different phases of a given relationship (onset, maintenance, and dissolution). These developmental differences are also occurring in the societal context of rapidly evolving sexual behavioral norms and evolving social media technologies that can have marked effects on dating. Recent changes in “normative” dating behaviors (e.g., early sexual experimentation, oral sex, “hook ups,” sexting, combining sex, and alcohol use) can complicate even the definition of dating. Changes in cultural and communication contexts also affect both the private and public face of dating and dating violence (including social media; cell phones, instant messaging, image apps, access to pornography, and ready access to streaming video). Finally, a developmental systems framework considers how the predictors of dating violence might be sequenced across time and age (Capaldi & Shortt, 2003; Connolly et al, 2010; Johnson et al., 2017). This implies that distal influences occurring earlier in development, such as parenting practices, lead to influences that are more proximal in development, such as peer aggression, which may ultimately predict dating violence. Using this developmental systems perspective, we review recent research on the contributions of individual characteristics as well as experiences in peer and parenting relationships to dating violence in adolescence and young adulthood. We also review research that examines the cumulative impact of

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

7

multiple influences across contexts and levels of development. To set the stage for this we first highlight the need for a greatly expanded understanding of the changing features and contexts of adolescent dating as they may contribute to dating violence.

THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES IN DATING RELATIONSHIPS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DATING VIOLENCE Early adolescence is a time of dramatic growth in sexual identity formation and strivings, as well as the capacity for intimacy in relationships (Pepler, 2006). Sullivan (1953) described a shift in adolescents’ capacity for interpersonal intimacy as evolving from a focus on what one can do to enhance their own prestige and feelings of superiority compared with their friends, to a growing capacity in adolescence for collaboration. Collaboration involves adjusting ones’ behaviors to respond to the question “What should I do to contribute to the happiness or to support the prestige and feelings of worthwhileness of my chum” (Sullivan, 1953, p. 245). Self-disclosure increases and friends share personal concerns, desires, and beliefs and can affirm each other’s self-worth (Buhrmester, 1996; Hartup, 2005). Growing sensitivity to peer regard and emerging skills in perspective taking and self-disclosure can also fuel relationship problems such as jealousy, conflict, in-group and outgroup cliques, heightened awareness of rejection and neglect, and vulnerability to power and status imbalances (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2011). Consistent with developmental advances in early adolescent’s capacities for perspective taking, conflict resolution, and intimacy, the quality of romantic relationships appears to shift in mid-adolescence. In early adolescence, romantic partnerships focus mainly on shared activities, expectations of the peer network, and promised status, whereas concerns about intimacy and compatibility characterize relationships of older adolescents (Connolly et al., 2013). Negotiating romantic relationships—both healthy and unhealthy aspects—in the course of the developmental transitions of early adolescence may present different challenges than those incurred as strong emotional attachments and caring become the foundation for these relationships. These challenges change again in young adulthood as romantic attachments become interwoven with social networks, cohabitation, and economic interdependence. The consequences of these developmental differences in relationships for the occurrence, consequences, and responses to dating violence differ greatly. Romantic relationships themselves can begin with considerable idealization of one’s partner, followed by the gradual discovery of the realities of personal flaws and differences that each person brings to the relationship. In most cases adolescent relationships are short, lasting only a few months (Furman & Shomaker, 2008) and dissolutions are inevitable. While unwanted breakups may lie at the foundation of stalking and violence in adult

8

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

relationships, little research has assessed ways in which skills in managing breakups and dissolutions affect dating violence in adolescence. Reasons given for breakups may also change from early adolescences’ concerns related to affiliation (fun, boredom) and autonomy (too close too soon) to increasing concerns about intimacy (communication and closeness) and infidelity and jealousy in later adolescence (Bravo, Connolly, & McIsaac, 2017). Despite their inevitability, even breakups, albeit of short-term relationships can be humiliating, painful, and unexpected. Difficulties in accepting breakups can be enhanced when they occur in an idealization phase of a relationship, when the relationship coincides with sexual debut (particularly for girls), or when there is no consensus in ending the relationship. Internet and text message breakups allow for both abrupt endings and continued hopeful connections as relationships end (Underwood & Ehrenreich, 2017). The length of relationships is also positively associated with greater risk for violence in adolescence and young adulthood (Leadbeater et al., 2017; Roberts, Auinger, & Klein, 2006). This is particularly concerning given that emotional, practical, and economic costs of terminating a relationship increase over time. The developmental timing of relationships may also contribute to differences in dating violence. Research shows that, despite some benefits provided to early daters by increases in status with peers and well-being, early onset of dating relationships and sexual debut are implicated in a number of risks and negative outcomes (Furman & Collibee, 2014b). While the direction of these effects is rarely studied, these problems may also already be evident in early adolescence.

BULLYING, DATING VIOLENCE, AND SPOUSAL VIOLENCE—CONVERGING INFLUENCES ACROSS CHILDHOOD, ADOLESCENCE, AND YOUNG ADULTHOOD Current theory and research has illuminated many risk and protective factors located in proximal social context such as parent, peer, and community influences on dating violence associated with physical dating violence in adolescents’ romantic relationships (see Dardis et al., 2015; Smith, Greenman, Thornberry, Henry, & Ireland, 2015 and Chapter 2: Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration). Research that examines the cascading, converging, and interacting influences of individual, peer, and parent risk and protective factors is clearly needed to better understand the mechanisms linking these concerns over time and across generations to dating violence in adolescence and young adulthood. For example, Capaldi and colleagues (1998, 2003) theorized a model of dating violence that originates in unskilled parenting and parent antisocial behavior that can promote adolescent conduct problems. These behaviors, in turn, are hypothesized to increase associations with deviant peer networks from which dating partners

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

9

(with similarly poor relationship skills) are selected, which enhance the intergenerational transfer of partner violence. However, Theoretical models are needed to guide the specification and testing of pathways of cooccurring vulnerabilities and risk and protective factors that may precede dating violence, as well as moderating contextual factors that increase the likelihood of maladaptive behaviors and negative individual and interpersonal outcomes (Capaldi et al., 2003; Williams, Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Laporte, 2008). Similarly the converging influences of exposure to parent adolescent and peer aggression and lack of parent monitoring on the development of adolescent’s own aggression and participation in deviant behaviors could enhance the likelihood that adolescents may select dating partners from aggressive peer networks and hold beliefs that aggression is normative in close relationships (Leadbeater et al., 2017). Finally, it is likely that dispositional characteristics of the young person can shape their susceptibility to negative family and peer influences, as has been shown recently in a longitudinal study of youth with difficult childhood temperament (Johnson et al., 2017). Addressing the complexity of influences on adolescent dating may need a multipronged approach that, in particular, emphasizes what to expect from healthy, respectful relationships, and how to end relationships that deviate from these expectations. Individual risk factors. The cross-sectional associations between individuals’ own aggressive behaviors and beliefs and their aggression in their romantic relationships are well established (see review by Olsen, Parra & Bennett, 2010). However, correlates of adolescent aggression including internalizing symptoms and negative cognitive attributions or behaviors that may mediate this relationship are typically not controlled. Considerable research shows that qualities of adolescents’ romantic relationships are correlated with depressive symptoms in adolescence, (see review by Davila, 2011). While it is often thought that early romantic relationships may lead to increases in depression, longitudinal studies also give support for the opposite direction of this effect in older youth, especially for males (Furman & Collibee, 2014a). Vujeva and Furman (2011) followed a sample of 188 youth from middle adolescence to emerging adulthood and found that having more depressive symptoms at 15 years of age was associated with increases in relationship conflict and with less growth in positive problem solving. However, the effects of these relationship qualities (conflict and positive problem solving) on increases in depressive symptoms were not significant. Sex differences were also not found in this study. Similarly, Hankin, Mermelstein, and Roesch (2007) found that higher initial levels of depression contributed to increases in reports of romantic stressful events (assessed three times across a 7-day period) in adolescents aged 13 18 years. La Greca and Harrison (2005) found that relational victimization and negative qualities of best friendships and romantic relationships were associated with depressive symptoms in adolescents aged 14 19 years. Goldstein,

10

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Chesir-Teran, and McFaul (2008) found that young adults categorized as high in relational aggression or victimization in their romantic relationships were more likely to worry about losing the relationship and had higher levels of symptoms of anxiety and depression. Females reported more perpetration and males reported more victimization, however, sex differences in these associations were not significant. In a short-term longitudinal study of Grade 9 students, Ellis, Crooks, and Wolfe (2009) found that beyond peer relational aggression and victimization and dating relational aggression, dating relational victimization was associated with increases in depressive symptoms for girls but not boys. Distinctive mediators and moderators of aggression or victimization and increases in depressive symptoms have not been adequately studied. For example, given typically moderate correlations between depressive symptoms and externalizing problems like aggression in adolescence, it may also be necessary to control for the effects of externalizing problems on the association between partner violence and depressive symptoms. It is also possible that other mechanisms, such as stressful events, dysphoric fears of abandonment, or ruminations about a partner’s commitment, explain the association between depression and victimization in relationships (Hankin et al., 2007; Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt, & Hertzog, 1999). Peer risk factors. Consistent with past reviews (Collins, 2003; Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010), longitudinal research confirms the association of positive peer relationships and romantic relationships quality in young adulthood (Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000; Donnellan, LarsenRife, & Conger, 2005). After controlling for both family violence and parent adolescent interactions, Linder and Collins’ (2005) study showed that higher quality peer friendships at age 16 years predicted less physical aggression perpetration in romantic relationships at age 21, but not at age 23. Better friendship quality predicted less physical victimization at both ages. Longitudinal research also shows that adolescents’ experiences with bullying and aggressive peers are related to their use of physical aggression in romantic relationships (e.g., Foshee, et al., 2015; Niolon et al., 2015; Peters Hatzenbuehler, Davidson, 2015) and these findings held even after considering the effects of individual aggression and parent parent adolescent hostility (Leadbeater et al., 2017; Stocker & Richmond, 2007). Research also supports the association between relational aggression with peers and dating aggression (Jouriles, Garrido, Rosenfield, & McDonald, 2009; Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung, 2008; Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002; Schad, Szwedo, Antonishak, Hare, & Allen, 2008). Studies of the mechanism linking peer and dating aggression have also been undertaken. For example, a 1-year longitudinal study of Canadian adolescents in Grades 9 12 suggests that the socializing effects of aggressive peer contexts may operate by enhancing adolescents’ attitudes toward the acceptance of aggression, which then spills over into romantic relationships

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

11

(Williams et al., 2008). Peers may also be involved in dating as confidants or participants in conflict, which can play a role in increasing or reducing the abuse (Adelman & Kil, 2007). Cutbush and colleagues (2016) argue that bullying with peers may generalize to sexual harassment in middle school age youth as gender identity and orientation emerge as salient developmental concerns and that forms of interpersonal violence subsequently generalize to dating relationships as youth become more involved in mix-sexed groups. Findings of their 2-year study with seventh grade students showed that bullying and sexual harassment were each linked independently to subsequent dating violence. However, bullying did not predict sexual harassment and findings held for females but not males. In a study of youth ages 12 to 18 who were followed over 6 years, Woodin, Sukhawathanakul, Caldeira, Homel, and Leadbeater (2016) also found that victimization and bullying were linked to dating aggression through chronic and episodic substance use. Specifically, path analyses indicated that early peer relational and physical aggression each uniquely predicted later romantic relational aggression. Concurrent heavy episodic drinking fully mediated this effect for peer physical aggression only. Contextual factors linking bullying and dating violence have also been suggested (Connolly et al., 2010). For example, the transfer of peer aggression to dating relationships is more likely if youth select their romantic partners mainly from their immediate peer group. However, Kreager and colleagues (2016), with a sample of eighth and ninth graders, found that romantic partners were more likely to be selected from outside of peer friendship networks and suggest this could help to regulate jealousy within high school networks. The network influences of aggressive or delinquent groups may differ from those found in normative samples. For example, Casey and Beadnell (2010) found that males in small, dense, mostly male peer networks with higher levels of delinquent behavior reported higher rates of subsequent physical dating violence perpetration. Low and Espelage (2013) similarly found that physical aggression was most likely to occur in smaller, predominantly male networks. In cross-sectional research, college students who reported greater alienation from peers reported more relational victimization and aggression in their current romantic relationships (Linder et al., 2002). Finally, it is important to note that broader social influences can impact pathways to dating violence. Connolly and associates (2010, 2013) have shown that exposure to aggressive media influences dating violence by shaping the cultural context of peer and dating relationships. Parenting risk factors. Research also shows that positive parenting (e.g., communication and monitoring) are associated with reduced risk for dating violence (Leadbeater et al., 2008; Mumford, Liu, & Taylor, 2016). However, exposure to interparental aggression has been consistently linked to dating violence, and negative parent adolescent interactions are also salient mediators in the intergenerational transmission of violence (see review by Olsen

12

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

et al., 2010). Attachment and social learning theories are used to explain the intergenerational transmission of relationship disruption and violence; however, more research supporting these explanations is needed. A number of parenting behaviors have also been suggested as mediators that aggravate or ameliorate the association between interparental aggression and teen dating violence, including parental negativity about their teen’s dating (Giordano, Johnson, Manning, & Longmore, 2016), parental monitoring (Leadbeater et al., 2008), attitudes about violence (Temple, Shorey, Tortolero, Wolfe, & Stuart, 2013), and parent teen communication (Kast, Eisenberg, & Sieving, 2016). For example, research on relational victimization and aggression in romantic relationships also shows links to parental enmeshment, over involvement, and psychological control (Leadbeater et al., 2008; Linder et al., 2002). With a sample of 114 college students, Linder et al. (2002) found that higher perceived alienation from mothers was correlated with romantic relational aggression. Notably, higher levels of perceived communication (interpreted as over involvement) with fathers was also correlated with dating violence. With a community sample of 149 Canadian adolescents aged 12 19 years, Leadbeater et al. (2008) found that mothers’ (but not fathers’) psychological control was associated with more relational aggression in romantic relationships. Parental psychological control involves the manipulation of adolescents’ thoughts and feelings and restriction of their autonomy and independence through love withdrawal, ignoring, shaming, or guilt induction (Barber, 1996). The effects of negative parent adolescent relationships on later romantic relationships are also supported by longitudinal research. Controlling for early family violence, Linder and Collins (2005) found that intrusive or overly familiar (quasiseductive) behaviors, coded from videotapes of American parents’ interactions with their adolescents aged 13 years, predicted youths’ physical aggression and victimization in early adult romantic relationships. Using six waves of data from a sample of German youth aged 12 17 years, Seiffge-Krenke, Overbeek, and Vermulst (2010) found that distant father adolescent relationships (low in both positive and negative effect relative to a normative sample) predicted emotional extremes and jealousy in romantic relationships aged between 21 and 23 years. In addition to observed hostility in parents’ marital relationships the quality of parent adolescent relationships predicted hostility in adolescents’ romantic relationships 3 years later among a sample of adolescents aged 12 14 years (Stocker & Richmond, 2007). In addition, Cui, Durtschi, Donnellan, Lorenz, and Conger (2010) found that the influence of parent verbal and physical aggression on romantic relational aggression in young adulthood was partially mediated by parents’ aggression toward the adolescent. Although few gender differences have been found, one study by Kinsfogel and Grych (2004) reported that adolescent males who were exposed to parental conflict were more likely

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

13

than their female counterparts to perceive aggression as justifiable and to report higher levels of verbal and physical aggression in their romantic relationships.

THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXTS ON DATING NORMS AND DATING VIOLENCE The Internet and cell phones ironically provide new arenas for communication and privacy for dating relationships to unfold and at the same time provide avenues for unwanted distribution of intimate photos (sexting) and intimate partner cyberbullying. Similarly, text- and image-sharing apps can create expectations in romantic relationships that can enhance safety, connections, and intimacy; or can facilitate intrusive monitoring, confusing communications, and unwanted break ups (Underwood & Ehrenreich, 2017). The Internet also opens access to sexualized media and pornography that can influence unwelcomed sexual behaviors and violent sexual attitudes and behaviors (Greenfield, 2004). Our understanding of both the positive and negative impacts of these technologies on dating norms and violence lags behind other research on adolescent and young adult relationships. Consequently the field struggles with the creation of new methodologies to investigate these forms of communication in romantic relationships; however, as shown in the research reviewed next, research and new research questions are rapidly emerging that demonstrate the impact of technology on adolescent and young adult romantic relationships.

DATING AND DATING VIOLENCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE In fact, 10 years ago this would have been the end of this chapter. However, the advent and ubiquity of smartphones and social media outlets allowed for new forms of abuse (cyber dating violence), easy and ready access to pornography, as well as novel opportunities for sexual exploration, including “hooking up” through apps like Tinder and Grinder and sending or receiving naked pictures or videos (sexting). To be clear, dating violence, casual sexual partners, and pornography are not new; however, instant and constant access via smartphones and the Internet has changed dating and interactions with intimate partners. Indeed, some have argued that “hooking up” is more prevalent than dating on college campuses (Bradshaw, Kahn, & Saville, 2010), and accumulating research indicates that hook up apps may contribute to risky sexual behavior and increases in sexually transmitted infections (Sawyer, Smith, & Benotsch, 2017). Teens and young adults, more than any other age group, use technology to communicate (Jones & Fox, 2009). The typical adolescent uses the Internet daily (many constantly), owns or has access to a smartphone, sends 60 texts per day, and accesses multiple social media sites (e.g., SnapChat,

14

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Instagram) (Jones & Fox, 2009; Lenhart, 2015). Thus teens and young adults have access to various modes of seeking and sharing information with virtually constant access to peers. While benefits for communication, planning, and caring can accompany this access (Lee, 2009), the minimal privacy resulting from technological advances can also facilitate unhealthy relationship behaviors (King-Ries, 2011). Cyber Dating Abuse. Defined as “the control, harassment, stalking, and abuse of one’s dating partner via technology and social media” (Zweig, Lachman, Yahner, & Dank, 2014, p. 1306), cyber dating abuse is prevalent in teen and young adult dating relationships. Accumulating research suggests that approximately 25% and 15% of teens report being victims and perpetrators, respectively, of cyber dating abuse (Temple et al., 2016; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). Even higher rates were identified in a sample of more than 4200 ninth-grade students across 11 states, where 56% reported cyber dating abuse victimization and 29% endorsed perpetration (Cutbush, Ashley, Kan, Hampton, & Hall, 2010). Similar to in-person dating violence, the varying rates of perpetration and victimization are likely due to differences in samples and measures used. Specific cyber dating abuse acts may depend on the age of victims or perpetrators, and can include using mobile phones and text messaging to monitor a partner’s activities, going through a partner’s messages without their knowledge, leaving threatening voice and text messages for a partner, threatening to harm a partner if he or she did not respond to a message, sexual cyber abuse (e.g., receiving unwanted sexually explicit photos or text messages from a partner), or posting insulting or threatening content about a partner publicly online (Draucker & Martsolf, 2010; Zweig et al., 2013). Consequences of cyber dating abuse mirror those found for in-person dating violence. Indeed researchers have argued that it may be an extension of in-person behaviors with one longitudinal study finding that being a victim of physical dating abuse was predictive of becoming a victim of cyber dating abuse 1 year later (Temple et al., 2016). Despite the fact that they may cooccur, cyber dating abuse clearly differs from in-person dating violence in that perpetrators have constant access to their victims (even after the relationship ends), can humiliate or threaten their partner to an unlimited number of people, and the abuse (e.g., posting an insult or intimate picture) is more permanent, easily accessible, and shareable (Dick et al., 2014; Draucker & Martsolf, 2010). The effects of this on the mental health and future relationships of victims and perpetrators needs to be better understood. Moreover as reporting sexual harassment and abuse becomes more prevalent (e.g., as seen in the #MeToo Movement) and these behaviors become less acceptable in adult relationships, we may also see shifts away from willingness to document and share these kinds of actions online. Sexting. Sending naked or seminaked pictures via smartphones, through texting or apps like SnapChat, has become commonplace among teens and

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

15

young adults. From early adolescence through young adulthood, rates of sexting increase with age and dating experiences. Rice and colleagues (2012) found that 5% and 20% of middle school students sent or received a sext, respectively. A study of ethnically diverse high school students found that 28% of males and females sent a naked picture of themselves (Temple et al., 2012). Rates are substantially higher in college students with studies generally finding that about half of students have sexted (Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, & Bull, 2013). Gordon-Messer and colleagues (2013) found that sexting is generally reciprocal in nature among emerging adults, in that they report both sending and receiving sexts. Notably today’s emerging adults have “grown up” in the digital age, and their ready access to smartphones and the Internet has marked the advent of a new mechanism for intimate interpersonal exchanges. While studies consistently find that sexting is a reliable predictor of actual sexual behavior (Temple et al., 2013; Klettke, Hallford, & Mellor, 2014), there is little agreement on its relation to other health behaviors. In fact, when done willingly, sexting may be considered a modern day version of courting and dating. However, just like actual sexual behavior, when coerced or used as a vehicle for abuse, sexting appears to be related to negative health outcomes (Choi, Ouytsel, & Temple, 2016). Pornography. While access to explicit sexualized materials and pornography has long been possible for youth and, indeed, may serve as a source of much desired and sought after knowledge about sex and sexuality, the Internet now provides unbridled access to pornography. Research with adolescents has been conducted mainly in European countries—in part due to reluctance of gatekeepers (school, parents) on asking questions about sexual practices in North America (e.g., Bonino, Ciairano, Rabaglietti, & Cattelino, 2006). An Italian study of adolescents with a mean age of 18 years, found that for male students, 45% were exposed to nonviolent material and 45% were exposed to violent or degrading material and for female students, 20% were exposed to nonviolent material and 19% were exposed to violent or degrading material (Romito & Beltramini, 2015). This gender difference persists across studies. Summarizing the evidence for a Congressional Committee in 2004, Greenfield (p. 741) concluded that “pornography and related sexual media (file sharing) can influence sexual violence, sexual attitudes moral values, and sexual activity of children and youth.” With this increased and ready access to pornography, even when by accident (Rothman, in press), teens and emerging adults face a changing landscape of what may be perceived to be normative, and one that may be associated with unwanted demands for sexual behaviors and dating violence. Negotiating sexuality and consent is also likely increasingly complicated by these changes, which strengthens the need for greater education on sexual selfefficacy and agency in healthy dating relationships.

16

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND INTERVENTION Although dating behaviors typically emerge in early to mid-adolescence; early experiences with parents, siblings, peers, and the environment contribute to how and with whom youth interact with future intimate partners. Exposure to violence between parents or in the community has been consistently linked to both dating violence perpetration and victimization. Youth who experience bullying are also more likely to experience later dating violence. Developmentally, children may learn that violence is an acceptable means of resolving conflict and use this strategy in later relationships with peers and intimate partners. However, protective factors (e.g., prosocial role models, holding disapproving attitudes about violence) can support healthy relationships and attenuate the negative impact of this exposure. Considering that early and ongoing experiences are predictive of relationship behaviors, including dating violence, we stress the need for health- and relationship-promoting programs to begin in early childhood and continue to and through young adulthood. Programs targeting elementary school-aged children could focus on socio-emotional learning with a particular emphasis on addressing adverse childhood experiences. Programs for middle and high school-aged children could focus more specifically on promoting healthy interpersonal and sex positive partnerships (Harden, 2014), including teaching relationship skills (e.g., communication, respect, conflict resolution), sex positive behaviors (e.g., efficacy, agency, autonomy, and consent), and coping with the strong emotions engendered in the negotiation of intimate relationships (e.g., dissolution, stress, and jealousy). In young adulthood, these programs also need to focus on aspects critical in more serious relationships, including cohabitation, shared beliefs and values, and positive parenting skills. By focusing on the promotion of healthy relationships and enhancement of relationship skills, in addition to dating violence per se, programs such as Fourth R (Wolfe et al., 2009) and Respect Educating of the Canadian Red Cross (http://www.redcross.ca/how-we-help/violence--bullying-and-abuse-prevention) have the added benefit of addressing multiple problem behaviors, including bullying, risky sexual behavior, substance use, and dating violence. Given the ubiquity of and importance placed on smartphones and social media, any prevention or health promotion program must incorporate technology. Programs that have already been shown to be effective will likely benefit from augmenting or replacing components with text- or web-based applications to meet teens “where they are” and to extend the program’s reach to contexts outside of the school and community. As an example, It’s your game. . .Keep it Real (see Chapter 19: Using Intervention Mapping to Develop “Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships,” A Healthy Relationship Intervention for Early Middle School Students) includes both

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

17

classroom- and computer-based activities, in which the latter are set within a virtual world environment and includes interactive skills-training exercises, peer role-model videos, and animations. Ideally, efforts to prevent dating violence and promote healthy relationships should begin early and continue through young adulthood, be developmentally appropriate, be universally implemented, target multiple levels of social influence, and incorporate technology.

REFERENCES Adelman, M., & Kil, S. H. (2007). Dating conflicts: Rethinking dating violence and youth conflict. Violence Against Women, 13, 1296 1318. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296 3319. Benotsch, E. G., Snipes, D. J., Martin, A. M., & Bull, S. S. (2013). Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 307 313. Bonino, S., Ciairano, S., Rabaglietti, E., & Cattelino, E. (2006). Use of pornography and self-reported engagement in sexual violence among adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 265 288. Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62, 661 669. Bravo, V., Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2017). Why did it end? Breakup reasons of youth of different gender, dating stages, and ages. Emerging Adulthood, 5, 230 240. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993 1028). New York: Wiley. Buhrmester, D. (1996). Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental contexts of early adolescent friendship. In W. M. Bukowski, A. F. Newcomb, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Cambridge studies in social and emotional development. The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (pp. 158 185). New York: Cambridge University Press. Capaldi, D., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1175 1188. Capaldi, D. M., & Shortt, J. W. (2003). Understanding conduct problems in adolescence from a lifespan perspective. In G. R. Adams, & M. D. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology. Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 470 493). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim, & P. Florsheim (Eds.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23 56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Casey, E. A., & Beadnell, B. (2010). The structure of male adolescent peer networks and risk for intimate partner violence perpetration: Findings from a national sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(6), 620 633. Choi, H. J., Ouytsel, J. V., & Temple, J. R. (2016). Association between sexting and sexual coercion among female adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 164 168.

18

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(1), 1 24. Collins, W., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631 652. Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Development, 71, 1395 1408. Connolly, J., Friedlander, L., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2010). The ecology of adolescent dating aggression: Attitudes, relationships, media use, and socio-demographic risk factors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 469 491. Connolly, J., Nguyen, H. T., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Jiang, D. (2013). Developmental trajectories of romantic stages and associations with problem behaviours during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 1013 1024. Cornelius, T. L., & Resseguie, N. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 364 375. Cui, M., Durtschi, J. A., Donnellan, M. B., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 688. Cutbush, S., Ashley, O.S., Kan, M.L., Hampton, J., & Hall, D.M. (2010). Electronic aggression among adolescent dating partners: Demographic correlates and associations with other types of violence. Poster presented at the American Public Health Association annual meeting. Cutbush, S., Williams, J., & Miller, S. (2016). Teen dating violence, sexual harassment, and bullying among middle school students: Examining mediation and moderated mediation by gender. Prevention Science, 17, 1024 1033. Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2015). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 136 152. Davila, J. (2011). Romantic relationships and mental health in emerging adulthood. In F. D. Fincham, & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 275 292). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. Desjardins, T. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2011). Relational victimization and depressive symptoms in adolescence: Moderating effects of mother, father, and peer emotional support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 531 544. Dick, R. N., McCauley, H. L., Jones, K. A., Tancredi, D. J., Goldstein, S., Blackburn, S., & Miller, E. (2014). Cyber dating abuse among teens using school-based health centers. Pediatrics, 134, e1560 e1567. Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562. Draucker, C. B., & Martsolf, D. S. (2010). The role of electronic communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 133 142. Ellis, W. E., Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2009). Relational aggression in peer and dating relationships: Links to psychological and behavioral adjustment. Social Development, 18, 253 269. Fincham, F. D., & Cui, M. (2011). Emerging adulthood and romantic relationships: An introduction. In F. D. Fincham, & M. Cui (Eds.), Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood (pp. 3 12). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

19

Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Reyes, H., Ennett, S. T., Faris, R., Chang, L., & Suchindran, C. M. (2013). The peer context and the development of the perpetration of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 471 486. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, L. M., Tharp, A. T., Chang, L. Y., Ennett, S. T., Simon, T. R., & Suchindran, C. (2015). Shared longitudinal predictors of physical peer and dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 106 112. Furman, W., & Collibee, C. (2014a). A matter of timing: Developmental theories of romantic involvement and psychosocial adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 1149 1160. Furman, W., & Collibee, C. (2014b). Sexual activity with romantic and nonromantic partners and psychosocial adjustment in young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1327 1341. Furman, W., & Rose, A. J. (2015). Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships. In M. E. Lamb, R. M. Lerner, M. E. Lamb, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes, Vol. 3 (7th ed, pp. 932 974). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Furman, W., & Shomaker, L. B. (2008). Patterns of interaction in adolescent romantic relationships: Distinct features and links to other close relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 771 788. Giordano, P. C., Johnson, W. L., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2016). Parenting in adolescence and young adult intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 443 465. Giordano, P. C., Soto, D. A., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2010). The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research, 39, 863 874. Golden, R. L., Furman, W., & Collibee, C. (2016). The risks and rewards of sexual debut. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1913 1925. Goldstein, S. E., Chesir-Teran, D., & McFaul, A. (2008). Profiles and correlates of relational aggression in young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 251 265. Goodnight, J. A., Bates, J. E., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Pettit, G. S., Ballard, R. H., Iskander, J. M., & Lansford, J. E. (2017). Dispositional, demographic, and social predictors of trajectories of intimate partner aggression in early adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, 950. Gordon-Messer, D., Bauermeister, J. A., Grodzinski, A., & Zimmerman, M. (2013). Sexting among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 301 306. Greenfield, P. M. (2004). Inadvertent exposure to pornography on the Internet: Implications of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks for child development and families. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 741 750. Hankin, B. L., Mermelstein, R., & Roesch, L. (2007). Sex differences in adolescent depression: Stress exposure and reactivity models. Child Development, 78, 279 295. Harden, K. P. (2014). A sex-positive framework for research on adolescent sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 455 469. Hartup, W. W. (2005). Peer interaction: What causes what? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 387 394. Johnson, R. M., LaValley, M., Schneider, K. E., Musci, R. J., Pettoruto, K., & Rothman, E. F. (2017). Marijuana use and physical dating violence among adolescents and emerging adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 174, 47 57. Johnson, W. L., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2015). Relationship context and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57, 631 636.

20

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Joly, L. E., & Connolly, J. (2016). Dating violence among high-risk young women: a systematic review using quantitative and qualitative methods. Behavioral Sciences, 6, 7. Jones, S., & Fox, S. (2009). Generations online in 2009. Pew Internet and American Project. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Generations-Online-in-2009.aspx. Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009). Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 451 460. Karney, B. R., Beckett, M. K., Collins, R. L., & Shaw, R. (2007). Adolescent romantic relationships as precursors of health adult marriages: A review of theory, research, and programs. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 2007. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/ TR488.html. Kast, N. R., Eisenberg, M. E., & Sieving, R. E. (2016). The role of parent communication and connectedness in dating violence victimization among Latino adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1932 1955. King-Ries, A. (2011). Teens, technology, and cyberstalking: The domestic violence wave of the future? Texas Journal of Women and the Law, 20, 131 193. Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships: Integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 505. Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 44 53. Kreager, D. A., Molloy, L. E., Moody, J., & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Friends first? The peer network origins of adolescent dating. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 257 269. Kuperberg, A., & Padgett, J. E. (2015). Dating and hooking up in college: Meeting contexts, sex, and variation by gender, partner’s gender, and class standing. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 517 531. La Greca, A. M., & Harrison, H. M. (2005). Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 49 61. Leadbeater, B. J., Banister, E. M., Ellis, W. E., & Yeung, R. (2008). Victimization and relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of parental and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 359 372. Leadbeater, B. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1268. Leadbeater, B. J., Sukhawathanakul, P., Holfeld, B., & Temple, J. R. (2017). The effects of continuities in parent and peer aggression on relational intimate partner violence in the transition to young adulthood. Prevention Science, 18, 350 360. Leadbeater, B. J., Thompson, K., & Sukhawathanakul, P. (2014). It gets better or does it? Peer victimization and internalizing problems in the transition to young adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 26, 675 688. Lee, S. J. (2009). Online communication and adolescent social ties: Who benefits more from internet use? Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 14, 509 531. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center’s Teens Relationships Survey. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teenssocial-media-technology-2015/.

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

21

Linder, J. R., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 252. Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11, 69 86. Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2013). Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from non-physical bullying: Commonalities across race, individual, and family predictors. Psychology of Violence, 3, 39. Mumford, E. A., Liu, W., & Taylor, B. G. (2016). Parenting profiles and adolescent dating relationship abuse: Attitudes and experiences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 959 972. Niolon, P. H., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Latzman, N. E., Valle, L. A., Kuoh, H., Burton, T., & Tharp, A. T. (2015). Prevalence of teen dating violence and co-occurring risk factors among middle school youth in high-risk urban communities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, S5 S13. Novak, J., & Furman, W. (2016). Partner violence during adolescence and young adulthood: Individual and relationship level risk factors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1849 1861. Olsen, J. P., Parra, G. R., & Bennett, S. A. (2010). Predicting violence in romantic relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood: A critical review of the mechanisms by which familial and peer influences operate. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 411 422. Pepler, D. (2006). Bullying Interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 16 20. Peters, Z. J., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Davidson, L. L. (2015). Examining the intersection of bullying and physical relationship violence among New York city high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 49 75. Rauer, A. J., Pettit, G. S., Lansford, J. E., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2013). Romantic relationship patterns in young adulthood and their developmental antecedents. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2159 2171. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Bauer, D. J., & Ennett, S. T. (2012). Heavy alcohol use and dating violence perpetration during adolescence: Family, peer and neighborhood violence as moderators. Prevention Science, 13, 340 349. Rice, E., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., et al. (2012). Sexually explicit cell phone messaging associated with sexual risk among adolescents. Pediatrics, 130, 667 673. Roberts, T. A., Auinger, P., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Predictors of partner abuse in a nationally representative sample of adolescents involved in heterosexual dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 21, 81. Romito, P., & Beltramini, L. (2015). Factors associated with exposure to violent or degrading pornography among high school students. The Journal of School Nursing, 31, 280 290. Rothman, E.F., Paruk, J., Espensen, A., Temple, J.R., & Adams, K. (in press). A qualitative study of what U.S. parents say and do when their young children see pornography. Academic Pediatrics. Rothman, E. F., & Xuan, Z. (2014). Trends in physical dating violence victimization among US high school students, 1999 2011. Journal of School Violence, 13(3), 277 290. Rowley, R. L., & Hertzog, J. L. (2016). From holding hands to having a thing to hooking up: Framing heterosexual youth relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 52(6), 548 562.

22

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Sawyer, A.N., Smith, E.R. & Benotsch, E.G. (2017). Sexuality Research and Social Policy (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0297-6. Schad, M. M., Szwedo, D. E., Antonishak, J., Hare, A., & Allen, J. P. (2008). The broader context of relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Predictions from peer pressure and links to psychosocial functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 346 358. Seiffge-Krenke, I., Overbeek, G., & Vermulst, A. (2010). Parent child relationship trajectories during adolescence: Longitudinal associations with romantic outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 159 171. Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., Kerr, D. C., Owen, L. D., & Feingold, A. (2012). Stability of intimate partner violence by men across 12 years in young adulthood: Effects of relationship transitions. Prevention Science, 13(4), 360 369. Smith, C. A., Greenman, S. J., Thornberry, T. P., Henry, K. L., & Ireland, T. O. (2015). Adolescent risk for intimate partner violence perpetration. Prevention Science, 16(6), 862 872. Statistics Canada. (2008). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2008 (No. 85-224-X). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Stocker, C. M., & Richmond, M. K. (2007). Longitudinal associations between hostility in adolescents’ family relationships and friendships and hostility in their romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(3), 490. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). Interpersonal theory of personality. NY: Norton. Taylor, B.G., Mumford, E.A., & Lui, W. (August 20, 2016) Final summary overview. The National Survey of Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence (STRiV). Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250292.pdf. Temple, J. R., Choi, H., Brem, M., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Stuart, G. L., Peskin, M. F., & Elmquist, J. (2016). The temporal association between traditional and cyber dating abuse among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 340 349. Temple, J. R., Le, V. D., van den Berg, P., Ling, Y., Paul, J. A., & Temple, B. W. (2013). Teen sexting and psychosocial health. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 33 36. Temple, J. R., Paul, J., van den Berg, P., Le, V., McElhany, A., & Temple, B. W. (2012). Teen sexting and its association with sexual behaviors. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 166, 828 833. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Tortolero, S., Wolfe, D. A., & Stuart, G. L. (2013). Importance of gender and attitudes about violence in the relationship between exposure to interparental violence and the perpetration of teen dating violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 343 352. Underwood, M. K., & Ehrenreich, S. E. (2017). The power and the pain of adolescents’ digital communication: Cyber victimization and the perils of lurking. American Psychologist, 72(2), 144 158. Vujeva, H. M., & Furman, W. (2011). Depressive symptoms and romantic relationship qualities from adolescence through emerging adulthood: A longitudinal examination of influences. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(1), 123 135. Williams, T. S., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2008). Risk models of dating aggression across different adolescent relationships: A developmental psychopathology approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(4), 622. Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224.

Developmental Framework for Understanding ADV Chapter | 1

23

Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 163, 692 699. Woodin, E. M., Sukhawathanakul, P., Caldeira, V., Homel, J., & Leadbeater, B. (2016). Pathways to romantic relational aggression through adolescent peer aggression and heavy episodic drinking. Aggressive Behavior, 42(6), 563 576. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Korchmaros, J. D., & Boyd, D. (2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap of physical, psychological, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1083 1099. Zweig, J., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1063 1077. Zweig, J. M., Lachman, P., Yahner, J., & Dank, M. (2014). Correlates of cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(8), 1306 1321.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 2

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Emily F. Rothman Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States

What makes a person violent towards their dating partner? The key to effective prevention is knowing why dating abuse happens and choosing determinants from an empirically supported theoretical model to design the strategy to address it. Though that might sound straightforward, social scientists have written about more than 20 theories to explain why partner abuse happens, so selecting a theory can be a complicated endeavor (see Fig. 2.1). Fortunately, some of the theories are similar either because different teams of researchers arrived at similar ideas (e.g., proximal/distal theory and the background situational model) or because elements of one theory are incorporated into another in an attempt to improve upon the original (e.g., social cognitive theory and social learning theory). Occasionally, there are efforts to create one overarching “integrated theory” that pulls together multiple existing theories that are supported by evidence. Another reassuring fact for those tasked with choosing a theory for prevention work is that the array of theories are not inherently in competition with one another—many theorists propose that more than one theory may each reflect a different part of reality and can be simultaneously correct.

DEFINING AND UNDERSTANDING THE IMPORTANCE OF “THEORY” TO DATING ABUSE PREVENTION When people use the word “theory” in common parlance, they typically mean that they have a guess about something. In social science terms, a guess that has not yet been tested is called a hypothesis. A theory typically includes multiple ideas about why or how something occurs, unifies them with an overarching explanation, has been tested, and has accrued empirical support. A framework or model is a theory that has yet to be tested. To summarize, if a person has an idea about why dating abuse occurs, they might string together several hypotheses and draw a physical model that represents Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00002-5 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25

Typologies of IPV Johnson’s typology CDC definition

Definitional considerations

Selected typologies of IPV perpetrators

- Types of abuse included (physical, sexual, emotional, etc.) - Are types of abuse studied individually or grouped together? - Is ‘dating abuse’ defined by marital status or victim age? - Gender of perpetrator and victim - Severity of abusive acts - Consequences of abusive acts - Frequency of abusive acts

Holzworth-Monroe & Stuart Dutton Jacobson & Gottman Reactive–Proactive typology Foshee’s typologyof dating abuse perpetrators

Social ecological model Individual Biology Psychology Substance use

Proximal–distal factors theories Historical theories

Background/situational model Bell & Naugle’s integrated contextual framework

Biological theories Stress Head injury/cognition Nutritional deficit Sleep deficit Attention deficit Testosterone

Early psychoanalytic theory Frustration–aggression–displacement theory Symbolic–interactionist theory

Family Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) Parenting factors Sibling factors

Peer Peer characteristics Nature of friendships

Partner Partner characteristics Partner behavior

Institutional

Intergenerational transmission theories Bandura’s social learning theory Family systems theory Evolutionary psychology Epigenetics

Individual-level psychological theories Attachment theory Borderline personality organization Personality traits

Criminologic theories Routine activities theory Target congruence theory

FIGURE 2.1 Theories and typologies of partner abuse causation.

Neighborhood Disadvantage Collective efficacy

Societal

Sociocultural theories Feminist theory Structural inequality theory Resource/exchange theory

School bonding School regulations Workplace factors

Legal framework Status of women Conflict resolution norms Criminality Opportunity for prosocial engagement Intersectional forms of oppression

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

27

how those hypotheses should work together coherently. After testing the model and finding support for it, they have developed a theory. Subsequently, that theory might be considered with several other related theories, and the result is an integrated theory. It is important to use a theory to guide the creation of interventions or prevention strategies for two reasons: (1) in the absence of a theory, a strategy has lower odds of success (Nation et al., 2003) and (2) it may be a waste of time and resources to invent strategies based on nothing more than a gutinstinct or hunch that it will work. No matter how deeply a person believes that they know a priori why something happens and how to fix it—testing those assumptions is always a best practice.

DEFINING DATING ABUSE, UNDERSTANDING TYPOLOGIES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS RELEVANT TO THEORY The job of formulating or selecting a theory that predicts dating abuse perpetration is made challenging by the fact that there is no sole accepted definition of “dating abuse” in the field. What one person calls “dating abuse” might scarcely resemble the phenomenon that another person also calls “dating abuse,” depending upon their decisions about a number of fundamental definitional issues (Teten, Ball, Valle, Noonan, & Rosenbluth, 2009). The first question is which acts should count as dating abuse, and do all acts count no matter who perpetrates them and what happens as a result? According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), partner abuse includes physical, sexual, verbal, and emotional abuse directed at a present or former partner, may occur in same-sex or opposite-sex relationships, and may fall anywhere on the spectrum “ranging from one episode that might or might not have lasting impact to chronic and severe episodes over a period of years” (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016b). In other words, at this time, the CDC defines partner abuse in a way that does not distinguish between the type of abuse (e.g., physical vs psychological), severity of the abusive acts (e.g., a verbal insult vs an assault with a weapon), the consequences of those acts (e.g., injury and fear vs none), the frequency with which they occur in the relationship (e.g., once vs chronically), nor the gender of the perpetrator and victim. These are arguably fine choices, but the resulting phenomenon which the CDC labels “partner violence” is not the same phenomenon that is characterized by chronic, severe, injury-causing, physical, or sexual violence by a person with more social advantage against a person with less advantage (e.g., a man against a woman, a citizen against an undocumented immigrant, etc.). The idea that one hit with no victim impact qualifies as dating abuse is controversial; the grassroots advocacy movement tends to view partner abuse as involving one partner’s “power and control” over the other (Pence & Paymar, 1993). The “power and control” definition of partner abuse informed one of the most often-cited research papers about possible subtypes

28

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

of partner abuse, which was authored by Johnson: the subtype of partner abuse that he first called “patriarchal terrorism” and later called intimate terrorism (Johnson, 1995; Johnson & Leone, 2005). However, Johnson also argued that not all violence that occurs in a relationship should be labeled in the same way. In addition to intimate terrorism (also called “coercive controlling violence”), he proposed that we consider other subtypes of partner abuse, including situational couple violence, separation-instigated violence, and violent resistance, as separate phenomena (see Fig. 2.2) (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). It should be noted that Johnson’s typology of partner abuse is not the only one; there are many other alternatives, including those that question the very idea that there is one “victim” and one “perpetrator” in abusive couples (Ali, Dhingra, & McGarry, 2016; Eisikovits & Bailey, 2016; Emery, 2011; Mennicke & Kulkarni, 2016). One reason that partner abuse typologies are important is that for decades social science researchers perseverated about whether females perpetrate partner abuse, and if so whether they perpetrate it as often or as severely against male partners as male partners do against female partners (Archer, 2002; Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Dobash & Dobash, 2004; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Hamby, 2009; Johnson, 2015). The definition and typology of partner abuse is central to this debate—if partner abuse is defined as nonsevere, noninjurious, and mutual (i.e., situational couple violence), the rates of self-reported female perpetration are higher than if partner abuse is defined as severe physical or sexual aggression, which causes injury or fear, is not self-defensive, and used solely by one partner against another in a Coercive control or intimate terrorism

• Chronic • Tends to include more severe acts of physical and/or sexual abuse • More likely to result in injury • Involves isolation, intimidation, minimization of abusive behavior • Often escalates over time

Situational couple violence

• Arguments between partners escalate on occasion into physical violence • Low per-couple frequency of occurrence • Typically involves minor forms of violence • Does not tend to cause fear • More likely to be reciprocal • More likely to occur once, be sporadic, and does not escalate over time

Separation-instigated violence

• Violence that first occurs during separation or relationship end, not during the relationship

Violent resistance/self defense

• Violent reaction to the use of coercive control by the other partner

FIGURE 2.2 Johnson and colleagues’ typology of partner abuse.

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

29

relationship (i.e., coercive control) (Foshee, 1996; Ybarra, Espelage, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Korchmaros, & Boyd, 2016). The new generation of partner abuse researchers seem to be less preoccupied with the “gender debate” and more accepting of the fact that both males and females perpetrate some partner abuse; some scholars even argue that the concept of binary gender is outdated and an unhelpful paradigm for understanding partner abuse perpetration (Corbally, Hughes, & Delay, 2016; Otero, Fernandez, Fernandez, & Castro, 2015). No matter which definition or typology of partner abuse appeals to the reader, the point is that it is reasonable to expect that the causal explanation for one type may differ from another. Further complicating the idea that what we typically call “partner abuse” should perhaps more appropriately be referred to by one of Johnson’s more specific labels, and separate explanations sought for each, is the fact that no one causal explanation may describe all perpetrators’ behavior because there is variation in what drives any human behavior from person to person. By way of example, there are some people who drink alcohol to excess because they feel stressed and drink to cope and there are some people who drink alcohol to excess because they like to socialize and enjoy feeling disinhibited. Naturally, causal explanations for why these two groups of people drink alcohol differ (Cooper, Frone, Russell, & Mudar, 1995). The same is true for partner abuse: some people may use violence in relationships because they are generally violent and assault everyone who irritates them; other people may never use violence with anyone except their intimate partner. It’s illogical to expect that there would be only one explanation for all partner abuse perpetration—it is now widely accepted that different causal explanations are at play for different people. The idea that not all perpetrators of partner abuse perpetrate for the same reasons was established by Holtzworth-Monroe and Stuart (1994), who identified three subtypes of partner abuse perpetrators via the developmental model of batterer subtypes: perpetrators who are generally violent/antisocial, borderline/dysphoric, or family-only partner abuse perpetrators. The Holtzworth-Monroe and Stuart developmental model was subsequently empirically tested many times in different nations (Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000; Thijssen & de Ruiter, 2011; Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1996; Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, & Gottman, 2000). Hamberger et al. renamed the types of perpetrators nonpsychopathological, negativistic/dependent, and antisocial/narcissistic (Hamberger et al., 1996). Jacobson and Gottman also conducted their own typology study of male perpetrators of partner abuse and proposed that batterers were either quick-to-anger like Pit bulls or cold and calculating like cobras (1998), and that a perpetrator’s type could be identified by measuring autonomic reactivity (Jacobson & Gottman, 1998). The Gottman and Jacobson typology was never successfully replicated despite multiple attempts (Babcock, Green, Webb, &

30

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Graham, 2004; Meehan, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Herron, 2001). After reviewing various typologies that emerged over a period of roughly 20 years, Holzworth-Monroe and Meehan (2004) pointed out that all typologies face a problem with stability. Because people change over time, the type of perpetrator that an individual appears to be is not fixed and may vary over relatively short periods of time; so using typologies to match perpetrators to particular treatment approaches may be a flawed strategy for prevention (Holtzworth-Munroe & Meehan, 2004). There have been substantially fewer efforts to create typologies of adolescent perpetrators of dating abuse as compared to adult perpetrators of marital or partner violence. However, there have been at least three such attempts. Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher (2007) were the first to propose that adolescent dating abuse perpetrators may also fall into different types, and based on in-depth interviews with 116 youth she proposed that females classified as dating abuse perpetrators were responding to patriarchal terrorism (39%), experiencing anger problems (25%), enforcing an ethic (19%), or responding self-defensively to aggression directed at them (17%). Among males, Foshee’s team found that there were those who used violence to stop the escalation of females’ physical violence directed towards them (64%) and were unable to categorize the other forms of male-perpetrated dating abuse that were described. In Spain, Maria Jose and Rosario (2014) found that 14- to 18-year-old boys could be characterized as falling into one of the four categories: (1) nonviolent, (2) perpetrating isolation/control; (3) perpetrating medium-level emotional abuse; and (4) perpetrate all forms of dating abuse. Using a sample of male and female adolescents, Reidy et al. (2016) proposed that the majority of youth are nonviolent, that one-quarter perpetrate emotional abuse only and that 3% of youth perpetrated all forms of dating abuse and were more likely to be chronic offenders, use more severe forms of abuse, and to experience bidirectional dating abuse.

CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS FOR PARTNER ABUSE Putting aside the considerations described above about how varying definitions of dating abuse could influence the relative accuracy of causal explanations and putting aside the reasonable suggestion that different types of perpetrators’ behavior are likely explained by different causal mechanisms, this chapter now explores theories that have sought to explain why partner abuse perpetration occurs. Most of these were formulated to describe adult partner abuse perpetration, and only some have been tested with young adults or adolescents. This raises yet another complex aspect of explaining dating abuse perpetration; should we expect that causal explanations for adolescent dating abuse will differ from explanations of adult partner abuse perpetration? If so, is it because adolescents are different, developmentally,

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

31

from adults, or is it because the legal strictures of marital relationships are different from more casual dating relationships? As a field we lack clarity about whether “dating abuse” refers to partner violence that occurs in adolescent people as opposed to adult people or between any people who are dating instead of married and this too could be relevant to how we interpret the evidence to answer the question about why a person would abuse their dating partner.

HISTORICAL THEORIES: EARLY PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY AND FRUSTRATION AGGRESSION HYPOTHESIS The earliest theories about why partner abuse perpetration occurs are no longer used for offender treatment or prevention, but knowing about them is helpful for understanding the evolution of thought about partner abuse. In Europe and the United States, partner abuse perpetration was not considered an aberrant behavior that needed explanation until the early 20th century. In 1920, Freud proposed that all forms of aggression are instinctual and some people are unable to quench their destructive impulses by prioritizing moral rules (Freud, Strachey, & Freud, 2001). Subsequently, in 1923, a follower of Freud named Helene Deutsch expanded upon this idea by proposing that women stay with abusive men because they derived masochistic pleasure from being abused (Deutsch, 1958). Psychologists were taught that victims of partner abuse were attracted to violent partners well into the 1980s (Moss, 1991). In 1939, Dollard and colleagues developed a different explanation for why violence occurs: the frustration aggression hypothesis (Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). The theory was not developed to explain partner abuse, specifically, but was applied to it. According to this theory, people who get frustrated by being scolded, restrained, or shamed by someone against whom they cannot retaliate without facing serious consequences (i.e., scolded by the boss at work) behave aggressively towards a different person because of displaced anger. Although it was ultimately rejected as overly simplistic, this theory was studied throughout the 1970s and 1980s as a possible explanation for partner abuse perpetration (Zeegers, 1982). The idea that partner abuse could be the result of frustration also influenced practice. For example, a 1973 article in the Los Angeles Times providing guidance on the “rules for family fighting” suggested that couples should talk about “angers and frustrations as openly as possible [to prevent] gunnysacking hurts that can explode into violence later” (Los Angeles Times, October 18, 1973). Building on the idea that frustration in one area of a person’s life could cause them to be aggressive, and on identity control theory, sociologist Dr. Jan Stets developed the symbolic interactionist theory of domestic violence (Stets, 1987). On the basis of interview data that she collected from nine men from a Midwestern batterer intervention program and their partners, Stets proposed that partner abuse might be explained by situations

32

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

where an individual’s symbolic identity (e.g., as a masculine man) was countered in an interaction with a partner, and that maladaptive controlling and aggressive behavior was used to “coerce identity verification” (Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence, p. 379). The theory contends that a perpetrator of partner abuse may be both in control and out of control of their behavior. Stets continued to publish research into the mid-1990s that examined the idea that partner abuse perpetration was caused by men having low autonomy at work and compensating by becoming abusive at home, though the theory was renamed the “compensatory process of control” in the latter stage of exploration (Stets, 1995). A review of the literature suggests that this theory has not been used as the basis for partner abuse prevention programming.

INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION THEORIES The phrase “the intergenerational transmission of violence” has become popular as an increasing number of researchers have sought to explain why and how aggression might be passed down through generations. There are theories about social and biological processes that may lead to intergenerational transmission of partner abuse. In the early 1960s Bandura conducted a psychology experiment on 3- to 6-year-old children and discovered that they could be taught aggression if it was modeled for them (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). The social learning theory emerged from this work (Bandura, 1978). The theory posits that children are impressionable and will imitate behaviors that are modeled for them, and that positive and negative reinforcements (i.e., praise or punishments) influence the adoption of the behavior, as does watching what happens to other people who try the behavior. The implications of this theory for partner abuse were that psychologists and others began to consider the influence of one’s childhood home environment and the potential harm of witnessing interparental violence (Delsol & Margolin, 2004). This theory has had a tremendous influence in multiple fields of health behavior research and is still heavily utilized in integrated theories of partner abuse perpetration, in counseling psychology practice, and in some forms of partner abuse perpetration treatment (Taft et al., 2016). In the 1970s psychologists began to use family systems theory to attempt to explain partner abuse perpetration (Feldman, 1979). In brief, this theory proposes that the dynamics of multiple relationships within a family—such as parent child, spouses, and siblings—influence personality development (Ziegler & Musliner, 1977). In terms of partner abuse perpetration, evidence supports the idea that abusive parent child relationships, and witnessing interparental violence, can predict future partner abuse perpetration (Heyman & Slep, 2002). At times, the theory has been criticized for “victim-blaming,” or implying that partner abuse victims somehow share in the responsibility for the unhealthy family dynamic (Bograd, 1984).

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

33

However, evidence has accrued to support the idea that for many perpetrators of partner abuse, the origins of the aggression are childhood family experiences, and the field has moved on to attempt to explain how negative experiences in the family of origin translate into partner abusive behavior later in their life (Jouriles, McDonald, Mueller, & Grych, 2012). Although evolutionary psychology is a field that has inspired much controversy (Glenn, 2006), evolutionary psychologists have proposed that there are several reasons that aggression towards a mate could have led to ancestral reproductive success. Among these are the idea that male violence is a way to control female sexual fidelity because “mate guarding” females from potential sexual rivals had evolutionary advantages for males (Peters, Shackelford, & Buss, 2002; Thornhill, 2000), and that females with higher mate value than their male partners are at an increased risk for abuse because of their superior capacity to earn money, superior intelligence, or better physical attractiveness that puts them at higher risk of sexual infidelity and therefore it is to the male’s reproductive advantage to lower her self-esteem to prevent her from mating with rivals (Buss & Hackelford, 1997). Another evolutionary psychology theory is that generally violent men would have had better social standing in an ancestral society where the ability to murder and rob others meant amassing a larger fortune and more wives to bear children (Kanazawa, 2008). These theories are intriguing but have yet to prove useful for the development of prevention or intervention strategies. One final area of theoretical exploration related to the intergenerational transmission of violence is genetics and epigenetics (Hines & Saudino, 2004). Genetic explanations for partner abuse perpetration include the idea that it is possible that some people inherit a gene that causes aggression towards partners. There is some empirical support for that suggestion, though the evidence remains in a nascent stage (Hines & Saudino, 2004; SchwabReese, Parker, & Peek-Asa, 2017; Stuart, McGeary, Shorey, & Knopik, 2014; Stuart, McGeary, Shorey, Knopik, Beaucage, et al., 2014). An epigenetic explanation is that it may be possible for the environment, lifestyle, age, or disease state of a parent to influence the gene expression in a child such that the child becomes more reactive to stress or has worse emotional self-regulation, which in turn leads them to perpetrate more partner abuse (Cordero et al., 2012; Radtke et al., 2011). Our capacity to study heredity factors is expanding rapidly, so there may be additional contributions to the science on this topic in the near future.

DISTAL PROXIMAL (OR BACKGROUND SITUATIONAL) FACTOR THEORIES In 1989, Riggs and O’Leary developed a theory specific to dating abuse perpetration (Riggs & O’Leary, 1989). Drawing upon social learning and conflict theory, they developed the “background situational” model. This thinking was considered highly innovative when first put forward because it

34

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

proposed that partner abuse perpetration could be explained by a mixture of distal “background” factors and more proximal “situational” factors. Socalled background factors were ones that shaped individuals’ impulsive and aggressive behavior generally, including experiences of child abuse, exposure to interparental aggression, or using violence themselves towards peers. Situational factors were ones in the present moment that could influence or trigger aggression, such as alcohol consumption, jealousy, or conflicts with a dating partner. Empirical support for the model was found; however, at least one study found that the model explains female perpetration behavior with better precision than males’ perpetration (Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; Riggs & O’Leary, 1996). The background situational model continued to influence the development of new theories to explain partner abuse perpetration. Another model that reflects the idea that both distal and proximal (or background and situational) factors influence partner abuse perpetration was an integrated model created by Bell and Naugle (2008), who reviewed the extant theories of partner abuse perpetration through 2007 and drew on all of them to propose that partner abuse perpetration could be explained by what they called distal/ static and proximal antecedents, motivating factors, behavioral repertoire, discriminative stimuli (i.e., environmental cues/signals), verbal rules, and the legal and social consequences of perpetration (Bell & Naugle, 2008). Although no study has tested the full model, multiple studies have tested and found support for particular aspects of it. For example, in a college student sample, angry affect (i.e., feeling angry, hostile, and irritable on a given day) was a proximal antecedent of same-day psychological, sexual, and physical partner abuse perpetration (Elkins, Moore, McNulty, Kivisto, & Handsel, 2013). Similarly, a 6-week study of 43 college-attending women who perpetrated partner abuse found that a negative effect was a proximal antecedent of female-to-male partner abuse perpetration (Crane & Eckhardt, 2013). However, as Crane and Eckhardt pointed out, the majority of studies find that the strength of the association between anger or negative effect and partner abuse perpetration is moderate, and that “anger is neither a necessary or sufficient cause” of partner abuse (Crane & Eckhardt, p. 13).

SOCIOCULTURAL THEORIES There are numerous sociocultural and sociological models and theories about causes of partner abuse. Though this section’s review is not exhaustive of sociocultural theories, six of the most historically influential sociocultural models and theories are briefly described. One of the first sociocultural models to influence scholarship about partner abuse went through several iterations and was at first a combination of Goode’s “resource theory” and “exchange theory” (Goode, 1971), rearticulated by Dr. Richard Gelles as an “exchange/social control” approach in

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

35

1982 (Gelles, 1982), next referred to as “exchange/resource theory” by Makepeace in 1987 (Makepeace, 1987), and finally revisited as “interpersonal resource-exchange theory” by Teichman and Teichman (1989). The essence of these frameworks is that violence in the family can be understood by borrowing some concepts from economics; marriage can be viewed as akin to a financial market or exchange system where spouses are valued based on their earnings, physical attractiveness, skills, and social status. The theory suggests that marriages where one person has higher value than the other will lead the one with more value to attempt to control the other through the threat of force or the use of violence. These approaches to understanding partner abuse also rested upon the idea that it is human nature to behave violently unless the costs of doing so outweigh the rewards, that people will naturally use violence within the family unless they sense that society disapproves or condemns this behavior, and that even social controls that discourage violence in families may only discourage it by those with lesser status or perceived value and encourage violence by someone who has higher status or perceived “market” value (Teichman & Teichman, 1989). Despite interest in these theories in the 1980s—which, it should be noted, was a time when there was great interest in economics and economic theory in the United States and how these theories could be applied to all matter of subjects including why girls quit competitive gymnastics (Johns, Lindner, & Wolko, 1990) or why couples choose to divorce (Donovan & Jackson, 1990)—they have not been useful to the development of any partner abuserelated prevention or intervention strategies to date. Another model that considered social values and power structures was the structural inequality approach, which suggested that what causes one person in the home to behave abusively towards another reflects societal power structures that have to do with income, unemployment, culture, race, and gender (Anderson, 1997). According to this model, if the two members of a dyadic couple are dissimilar in terms of income, educational status, or according to other demographics that reflect societal power hierarchies, the individual with higher status is prone to perpetrate partner abuse against the one with lesser status (Anderson, 1997). This theory shares with feminist theory the idea of a societal power inequality influencing partner abuse in individual relationships but differs in that it does not take the position that patriarchal societal structures that privilege men outstrip all other societal inequalities that might influence a power dynamic in a relationship. For example, according to a structural inequality approach, a white, wealthy, employed, able-bodied, and nonimmigrant woman might have a greater risk of perpetrating partner abuse towards her non-white, poor, unemployed, disabled, and undocumented male partner than vice versa—though historically a classic feminist theorist might have predicted that the woman would be at a greater risk because of her gender. In fact, some feminist theorists posited that women who outearn male partners might be at an exacerbated risk for

36

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

partner abuse victimization because as breadwinners they are usurping their male partners’ conventional role (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang, 2005). The feminist theory of partner violence was and is one of the most utilized and criticized theories in the history of partner abuse research. There have been several iterations of feminist theory of partner abuse perpetration. Originally, feminist researchers proposed that the primary reason that partner violence occurred was that men had more power in society than did women and were able to capitalize on this inequity in private relationships by enforcing gender roles that privileged men (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Yllo & Bograd, 1988). The theory was challenged by many who pointed out that it did not explain partner abuse in same-sex relationships, failed to explain homicide perpetrated by women against their male partners, reflected possible biases related to self-reports of abuse victimization by gender, and was inconsistent with nationally representative data collecting using the Conflict Tactics Scale survey instrument, or other similar instruments called “acts scales” (Archer, 2000; Dutton, 2012; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Wenger, 2015). There were some adjustments to feminist theories of partner abuse perpetration to accommodate same-sex relationships and female-perpetrated partner homicide (Browne, 1989; Burke & Follingstad, 1999). Perhaps in part because most community-based domestic violence and sexual assault response organizations and coalitions were established by feminist-identified activists, the majority of local or grassroots US dating abuse prevention programs have reflected a feminist theory-based conceptualization of the phenomenon. Today many community-based dating abuse prevention programs operate on the assumption that adherence to traditional gender role norms is one of the primary drivers of dating abuse perpetration and victimization and are therefore either primarily or partially focused on addressing youths’ beliefs about these norms (Foshee et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2015, 2012; Reidy, Smith-Darden, Cortina, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2015; Taylor, Stein, Mumford, & Woods, 2013; Wolfe et al., 2003). Because dating abuse primary prevention programs tend to result in relatively small effects (De Koker, Mathews, Zuch, Bastien, & Mason-Jones, 2014; De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2016; Foshee et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2013; Whitaker et al., 2006; Wolfe et al., 2003), questions remain about whether addressing gender norms is one of the most important elements of effective primary prevention of dating abuse in the United States and if it will remain central in the decades ahead. Shifts in culture, definitions of gender, and the predictive validity of other determinants may require flexibility in prevention programming content. However, federal policy changes and budget cuts that signal a renewed tolerance for misogynistic violence, gender-based oppression, and limits on women’s reproductive and sexual freedom in the United States may underscore the importance of attempting to change public attitudes about patriarchal power in this setting.

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

37

CRIMINOLOGIC THEORIES There are a number of criminologic theories about why adolescents engage in delinquent behavior, why adolescents and adults engage in aggression towards any other person, and why rates of violent crime fluctuate in societies. They are not reviewed in this chapter because, although they may be applied to partner abuse perpetration, they are not specific to the phenomenon. However, there are at least two criminologic theories that have been used to explain partner abuse perpetration, specifically. In 1997, Mannon developed a hypothesis about “routine activities theory” and partner abuse perpetration (Mannon, 1997). Routine activity theory suggests that a determinant of interpersonal violent crime is the daily, routine activities of those who perpetrate it: the rhythm of individuals’ day in terms of where they go and at what time, in what settings, and in the case of adolescent perpetrators the absence or presence of watchful guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In addition, this theory suggests that crime is primarily deterred by informal social control, and that law enforcement plays a role only when social norms have failed (Mannon, 1997). Although Mannon did not test his ideas, he proposed that studying the routines and patterns of partner abuse perpetrators, and altering or circumventing their routines within their intimate relationships, could reduce partner abuse. Mannon also proposed that increasing sanctions for partner abuse perpetration, such as mandatory arrest policies, could be anticipated to inhibit partner abuse (Mannon, 1997). In the decades that followed, mandatory arrest did not prove to be effective and there is now opposition to it from some victim advocates (Broidy, Albright, & Denman, 2016; Messing, Ward-Lasher, Thaller, & Bagwell-Gray, 2015; Sherman & Harris, 2015). Another criminologic theory applied to partner abuse is target congruence (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Sween & Reyns, 2016). Target congruence posits that violence perpetration can be predicted by the target’s vulnerability, desirability or possession of desirable things (e.g., an expensive cell phone), and the perpetrator’s perception that the victim is provoking them. Data collected in 2009 from 1452 respondents to the Canadian General Social Survey supported the idea that partner abuse perpetration could be predicted by the victim’s apparent vulnerability, victim characteristics that made them attractive or desirable to the perpetrator, and victim attributes that the perpetrator perceived as antagonistic or argumentative (Sween & Reyns, 2016). The authors argued that their findings might not be a comprehensive or sufficient explanation for partner abuse, but that they could supplement other theoretical explanations for partner abuse perpetration, and suggested that prevention and intervention efforts could be informed by their results (Sween & Reyns, 2016). No descriptions of partner abuse interventions or prevention programs based on target congruence theory were identified in a review of the literature.

38

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

BIOLOGICAL THEORIES Genetic and epigenetic explanations for partner abuse perpetration, described in the section on Intergenerational Transmission Theories, have a basis in human biology. However, there are at least four additional theories of partner abuse perpetration that pertain to human biology and do not involve intergenerational transmission of violence. These are theories about partner abuse perpetration being caused by head or brain injury and subsequent cognitive deficits, stress, nutrition, and sleep problems. In the 1990s, Dr. Alan Rosenbaum championed the idea that frontal lobe injuries might cause partner aggression (Rosenbaum et al., 1994). His original study of 130 men found that head injuries were more common among the group of partner abuse perpetrators than either martially satisfied or martially unhappy but nonviolent men (Rosenbaum et al., 1994). Others soon replicated the results (Farrer, Frost, & Hedges, 2012; Westby & Ferraro, 1999). Relatedly, other teams of researchers began to study perpetrators’ cognition, irrespective of known head injury, and established that men who perpetrated partner abuse tended to have deficits in verbal ability, learning, social information processing, and executive problem-solving ability (Calvete, Orue, Gamez-Guadix, & Lo´pez de Arroyabe, 2014; Cohen et al., 2003). Approximately two decades after the first head injury study, researchers were able to demonstrate that brain abnormalities resulting from either injuries or brain lesions could result in difficulties with decision-making and affect regulation that increased risk for partner abuse perpetration (Bannon, Salis, & O’Leary, 2015). The evidence that poor executive functioning, an inability to recognize emotions from others’ facial cues, and hostile attribution bias are risk factors for partner abuse perpetration is accumulating rapidly (Babcock, Green, & Webb, 2008; Bueso-Izquierdo, Hidalgo-Ruzzante, Daugherty, Burneo-Garces, & Perez-Garcia, 2016; Calvete et al., 2014; Corvo & Johnson, 2013; Jouriles et al., 2012; Stanford, Conklin, Helfritz, & Kockler, 2007; Walling, Meehan, Marshall, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Taft, 2012). This is an exciting development because cognitive behavior therapy approaches to other types of problems, such as anxiety disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), have demonstrated effectiveness—inspiring hope that this form of intervention might achieve reductions in partner abuse perpetration. The Strength at Home group intervention for perpetrators of partner abuse is one example of a tertiary prevention strategy that was developed on the basis of the most recent psychological research on cognition, PTSD, and social information processing and partner abuse perpetration, and it uses a cognitive behavioral approach (Taft et al., 2016). There is now substantial evidence that stress, in the form of PTSD, sexual minority related stress, chronically elevated levels of cortisol, or cortisol dysregulation, is associated with partner abuse perpetration (Hahn, Aldarondo, Silverman, McCormick, & Koenen, 2015; Lewis, Mason,

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

39

Winstead, & Kelley, 2017; Linares, Shrout, Nucci-Sack, & Diaz, 2013). Evidence suggests that stress causes difficulty with emotion regulation, including anger regulation, which in turn increases risk for partner abuse perpetration (Chemtob, Novaco, Hamada, Gross, & Smith, 1997; Watkins, Schumacher, & Coffey, 2016). Testosterone levels and attention deficit may also be influenced by stress, and these have each been found to predict impaired emotional recognition and subsequently partner abuse perpetration as well (Romero-Martinez, Lila, & Moya-Albiol, 2016). There is an emerging body of literature examining the impact of nutrition on aggression and on partner abuse perpetration, specifically. One study in Ecuador found that providing men with cash and food vouchers reduced their partner abuse perpetration, suggesting that meeting basic needs could be an effective partner abuse reduction strategy, although replication is needed (Buller, Hidrobo, Peterman, & Heise, 2016; Hidrobo, Hoddinott, Peterman, Margolies, & Moreira, 2014). Studies have also found that sugar consumption is correlated with violence perpetration by adolescents (Solnick & Hemenway, 2014), mediated by nervousness and irritability (Holubcikova, Kolarcik, Geckova, Reijneveld, & van Dijk, 2015), and that low glucose levels can increase aggression in children (Benton, 2007). The potential that fish oils/omega-3 fatty acids may decrease aggression in general has also been investigated numerous times (Gajos & Beaver, 2016; Hamazaki & Hamazaki, 2008). One small study of 21 perpetrators of partner abuse found that lower levels of one type of fatty acid were correlated with higher levels of stress hormone, which may in turn have elevated propensity for abuse (Hibbeln, Bissette, Umhau, & George, 2004). In short, what people eat may affect their moods, executive functioning, stress, and energy—and these, in turn, may influence the likelihood of partner abuse perpetration. Similarly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, emerging research also suggests that sleep deficits and disruptions, operating through compromised affective, cognitive, and response control processes, may have a meaningful relationship to aggression perpetration generally (Cote, McCormick, Geniole, Renn, & MacAulay, 2013; Krizan & Herlache, 2016) and depression (Nowakowski, Choi, Meers, & Temple, 2016). Studies of sleep quality and partner abuse perpetration have yet to be conducted, but there is the potential that social science may uncover that both what people eat and how well they sleep are germane and potentially good targets for intervention and prevention strategies.

PERSONALITY TRAITS Although some theories about perpetrators of partner abuse resulting in batterer typologies have drawn on personality trait research to inform their models (Dutton, 1995; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), there is no singular personality trait theory about partner abuse perpetration. Numerous studies have assessed one or more personality traits and their relationship to partner

40

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

abuse perpetration, and there are now a number of personality traits and states that have been found to predict, longitudinally, partner abuse perpetration in adults, including social anxiety (Hanby, Fales, Nangle, Serwik, & Hedrich, 2012), rejection sensitivity (Purdie & Downey, 2000), state anger and anger reactivity (Taft, Street, Marshall, Dowdall, & Riggs, 2007), hostility (Eckhardt, Jamison, & Watts, 2002), and hostile attribution bias, which can be defined as the erroneous assumption that others have negative intentions (Holtzworth-Munroe & Hutchinson, 1993). Hostile attribution bias may be worsened when individuals are intoxicated or using alcohol (Clements & Schumacher, 2010), which could be one reason why alcohol use is consistently associated with partner abuse perpetration in both adults and adolescents (Leonard & Quigley, 2017; Rothman, Reyes, Johnson, & LaValley, 2012). A study of the “Big Five” personality factors and partner abuse found that openness, extraversion, and neuroticism were associated with perpetration (Ulloa, Hammett, O’Neal, Lydston, & Aramburo, 2016). One important caveat when considering the value of the trait-related research on partner abuse perpetration is that traits such as hostility, sociability, extraversion, and conscientiousness are measured differently in children and adults and do not necessarily remain stable over the course of a lifetime (Hampson, Andrews, Barckley, & Peterson, 2007). Therefore, what we know about adult partner abuse perpetration and adult personality may or may not apply to adolescents and adolescent dating abuse. The other caveat is that the value of trait-related research to prevention may be limited. Clinicians or educators working with individual perpetrators, or small groups of perpetrators, may find it helpful to know that particular personality traits put someone at more inherent risk for partner abuse perpetration than other traits—but the extent to which that knowledge would influence an individual treatment approach is unclear. In terms of population-level prevention, it is possible that sorting masses of people (e.g., all students at a university, all employees at one corporation) by personality type and then targeting them with specific type of prevention-oriented educational programs suited to their type may be more effective than addressing all people in the same way using the same materials. However, the relative benefit of assessing personality type, sorting people by type, and then targeting prevention efforts to personality types versus providing general primary prevention programming has yet to be established.

SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL MODEL In recent years, Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological model has become highly influential in the field of dating abuse prevention and intervention (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). The model is often used in public health research and program planning. Dr. Lori Heise was one of the first to array risk factors for partner abuse according to the model (Heise, 1998). The present

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

41

popularity of the model as the basis for understanding and responding to dating abuse is likely in part attributable to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s DELTA program, which began offering federal funds for the development of dating abuse perpetration prevention programs using the social ecological model in 2004 (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016a). In essence, the social ecological model is a way of organizing the multiple synergistic determinants of a health problem according to what are referred to as different nested “levels” (Ohri-Vachaspati et al., 2015). These nested levels include the individual, family, peer, community, institutional and societal (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988). Just as the background situational model posits that both distal and proximal factors might work together to influence a person’s likelihood of perpetrating partner abuse, the social ecological model posits that determinants for any health behavior are unlikely to be confined to just one level of the social ecology, and that the behavior is probably attributable to a wide mix of possible nested factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). For example, the social ecological model suggests that a thorough consideration of possible determinants of dating abuse perpetration might include individuals’ biological risk factors, psychology, experiences as a child in the family of origin, employment status, substance use, characteristics of their friends, dynamic aspects of the dating relationship, the culture of their workplaces or their level of attachment to their school, policies in their places of work or education, neighborhood disadvantage, community violence, availability of weapons, cultural norms related to aggression, the social status of women, and the intersectional nature of multiple forms of oppression. In 2013, Vagi et al. published a review of potentially etiologic factors for dating abuse perpetration (Vagi et al., 2013). The team identified 37 different variables that had been found to be associated, longitudinally, with adolescent dating abuse perpetration by at least one study. These variables were organized according to the levels of the social ecological model for presentation purposes. In general, there appear to be high hopes from the US CDC and the research community that prevention and intervention programs that address multiple levels of the social ecology will have more substantial impact than programming that addresses only one level (Rothman, Bair-Merritt, & Tharp, 2015).

CONCLUSION This chapter has surveyed theories of partner abuse perpetration put forth in the past century. Beginning with the caveat that causal explanations for partner abuse hinge on how partner abuse is defined, and may be predicated upon the type of partner abuse in question, the chapter explored the earliest psychological theories of aggression and partner abuse, theories on the intergenerational transmission of partner abuse, and theories from

42

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

evolutionary psychology, genetics, sociology, feminism, and biology. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the social ecological model which is now commonly used by partner abuse perpetration researchers and highly influential in public health approaches to social, criminal, and health-related problems.

REFERENCES Ali, P. A., Dhingra, K., & McGarry, J. (2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16 25. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.008. Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59(3), 655 669. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/353952. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651 680. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037// 0033-2909.126.5.651. Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners— A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313 351. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-1789(01)00061-1. Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1137 1148. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00206.x. Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Webb, S. A. (2008). Decoding deficits of different types of batterers during presentation of facial affect slides. Journal of Family Violence, 23(5), 295 302. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9151-1. Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., Webb, S. A., & Graham, K. H. (2004). A second failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology of men who abuse intimate partners . . . and possible reasons why. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(2), 396 400. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.396. Bair-Merritt, M. H., Crowne, S. S., Thompson, D. A., Sibinga, E., Trent, M., & Campbell, J. (2010). Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women’s motivations. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 11(4), 178 189. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1524838010379003. Bandura, A. (1978). Social-learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12 29. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x. Bandura, A., Ross, S. A., & Ross, D. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3). Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045925, 575-&. Bannon, S. M., Salis, K. L., & O’Leary, K. D. (2015). Structural brain abnormalities in aggression and violent behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25, 323 331. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.09.016. Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1096 1107. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.003. Benton, D. (2007). The impact of diet on anti-social, violent and criminal behaviour. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 31(5), 752 774. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.02.002.

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

43

Bograd, M. (1984). Family systems approaches to wife battering: A feminist critique. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(4), 558 568. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1939-0025.1984.tb01526.x. Broidy, L., Albright, D., & Denman, K. (2016). Deterring future incidents of intimate partner violence: Does type of formal intervention matter? Violence Against Women, 22(9), 1113 1133. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215617552. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 513 531. Browne, A. (1989). When battered women kill. New York: Free Press. Bueso-Izquierdo, N., Hidalgo-Ruzzante, N., Daugherty, J. C., Burneo-Garces, C., & PerezGarcia, M. (2016). Differences in executive function between batterers and other criminals. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16(5), 321 335. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15228932.2016.1219216. Buller, A. M., Hidrobo, M., Peterman, A., & Heise, L. (2016). The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach? A mixed methods study on causal mechanisms through which cash and in-kind food transfers decreased intimate partner violence. BMC Public Health, 16, 13. Available from https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3129-3. Burke, L. K., & Follingstad, D. R. (1999). Violence in lesbian and gay relationships: Theory, prevalence, and correlational factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(5), 487 512. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(98)00054-3. Buss, D. M., & Hackelford, T. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346 361. Calvete, E., Orue, I., Gamez-Guadix, M., & Lo´pez de Arroyabe, E. (2014). Social information processing in dating conflicts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(7), 1159 1183. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514564160. Chemtob, C. M., Novaco, R. W., Hamada, R. S., Gross, D. M., & Smith, G. (1997). Anger regulation deficits in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10(1), 17 36. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490100104. Clements, K., & Schumacher, J. A. (2010). Perceptual biases in social cognition as potential moderators of the relationship between alcohol and intimate partner violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 357 368. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.004. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: Routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588 608. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2094589. Cohen, R. A., Brumm, V., Zawacki, T. M., Paul, R., Sweet, L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2003). Impulsivity and verbal deficits associated with domestic violence. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9(5), 760 770. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1017/s1355617703950090. Cooper, M. L., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Mudar, P. (1995). Drinking to regulate positive and negative emotions: A motivational model of alcohol use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 990 1005. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.990. Corbally, M., Hughes, J., & Delay, D. (2016). Gender arguments and paradigmatic challenges within intimate partner violence research: A call for a more inclusive paradigm of understanding regarding physical partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 1009 1012. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9875-2. Cordero, M. I., Poirier, G. L., Marquez, C., Veenit, V., Fontana, X., Salehi, B., & Sandi, C. (2012). Evidence for biological roots in the transgenerational transmission of intimate partner violence. Translational Psychiatry, 2(4), e106. Available from https://doi.org/10.1038/ tp.2012.32.

44

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Corvo, K., & Johnson, P. (2013). Sharpening Ockham’s razor: The role of psychopathology and neuropsychopathology in the perpetration of domestic violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 175 182. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.017. Cote, K. A., McCormick, C. M., Geniole, S. N., Renn, R. P., & MacAulay, S. D. (2013). Sleep deprivation lowers reactive aggression and testosterone in men. Biological Psychology, 92(2), 249 256. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.09.011. Crane, C., & Eckhardt, C. (2013). Negative affect, alcohol consumption, and female-to-male intimate partner violence: A daily diary investigation. Partner Abuse, 4(3), 332 355. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.3.332. De Koker, P., Mathews, C., Zuch, M., Bastien, S., & Mason-Jones, A. J. (2014). A systematic review of interventions for preventing adolescent intimate partner violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(1), 3 13. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013. 08.008. De La Rue, L., Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2016). A meta-analysis of school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 7 34. Available from https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654316632061. Delsol, C., & Margolin, G. (2004). The role of family-of-origin violence in men’s marital violence perpetration. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(1), 99 122. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cpr.2003.12.001. Deutsch, H. (1958). The psychology of women. New York: Grune & Stratton. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships— Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324 349. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/crimin/azh026. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71 91. Available from https://doi.org/10.1525/ sp.1992.39.1.03x0064l. Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press. Donovan, R. L., & Jackson, B. L. (1990). Deciding to divorce: A process guided by socialexchange, attachment, and cognitive-dissonance theories. Journal of Divorce, 13(4), 23 35. Dutton, D. G. (1995). Intimate abusiveness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2(3), 207 224. Dutton, D. G. (2012). The case against the role of gender in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 99 104. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2011.09.002. Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680 714. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001. Eckhardt, C., Jamison, T. R., & Watts, K. (2002). Anger experience and expression among male dating violence perpetrators during anger arousal. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(10), 1102 1114. Eisikovits, Z., & Bailey, B. (2016). The social construction of roles in intimate partner violence: Is the victim/perpetrator model the only viable one? Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 995 998. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9879-y.

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

45

Elkins, S. R., Moore, T. M., McNulty, J. K., Kivisto, A. J., & Handsel, V. A. (2013). Electronic diary assessment of the temporal association between proximal anger and intimate partner violence perpetration. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 100 113. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/a0029927. Emery, C. R. (2011). Disorder or deviant order? Re-theorizing domestic violence in terms of order, power and legitimacy A typology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 525 540. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.07.001. Farrer, T. J., Frost, R. B., & Hedges, D. W. (2012). Prevalence of traumatic brain injury in intimate partner violence offenders compared to the general population: A meta-analysis. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 13(2), 77 82. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012440338. Feldman, L. B. (1979). Marital conflict and marital intimacy: An integrative psychodynamicbehavioral-systemic model. Family Process, 18(1), 69 78. Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11(1), 3 19. Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11(3), 275 286. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/ her/11.3.275-a. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “safe dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0007-0. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies of adolescent dating violence—Identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 498 519. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260506298829. Freud, S., Strachey, J., & Freud, A. (2001). Complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Instincts and their vicissitudes (Vol. 14). London: Vintage Classics. Gajos, J. M., & Beaver, K. M. (2016). The effect of omega-3 fatty acids on aggression: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 147 158. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.017. Gelles, R. J. (1982). An exchange/social control approach to understanding intrafamily violence. The Behavior Therapist, 5(1), 5 8. Glenn, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! (. . . and here’s why . . .). Psychological Topics, 15(2), 181 202. Goode, W. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 33, 624 636. Hahn, J. W., Aldarondo, E., Silverman, J. G., McCormick, M. C., & Koenen, K. C. (2015). Examining the association between posttraumatic stress disorder and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Violence, 30(6), 743 752. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-015-9710-1. Hamazaki, T., & Hamazaki, K. (2008). Fish oils and aggression or hostility. Progress in Lipid Research, 47(4), 221 232. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plipres.2008.02.001. Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1996). A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims, 11(4), 277 292. Hamby, S. (2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma: Theory Research Practice and Policy, 1(1), 24 34. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015066.

46

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Hampson, S. E., Andrews, J. A., Barckley, M., & Peterson, M. (2007). Trait stability and continuity in childhood: Relating sociability and hostility to the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 507 523. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrp.2006.06.003. Hanby, M. S. R., Fales, J., Nangle, D. W., Serwik, A. K., & Hedrich, U. J. (2012). Social anxiety as a predictor of dating aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(10), 1867 1888. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511431438. Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262 290. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002. Heyman, R. E., & Slep, A. M. S. (2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(4), 864 870. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00864.x. Hibbeln, J. R., Bissette, G., Umhau, J. C., & George, D. T. (2004). Omega-3 status and cerebrospinal fluid corticotrophin releasing hormone in perpetrators of domestic violence. Biological Psychiatry, 56(11), 895 897. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych. 2004.08.021. Hidrobo, M., Hoddinott, J., Peterman, A., Margolies, A., & Moreira, V. (2014). Cash, food, or vouchers? Evidence from a randomized experiment in northern Ecuador. Journal of Development Economics, 107, 144 156. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco. 2013.11.009. Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on intimate partner aggression: a preliminary study. Violence and Victims, 19(6), 701 718. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Hutchinson, G. (1993). Attributing negative intent to wife behavior: The attributions of maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(2), 206 211. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J. C. (2004). Typologies of men who are maritally violent: Scientific and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1369 1389. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269693. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(6), 1000 1019. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 476 497. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476. Holubcikova, J., Kolarcik, P., Geckova, A. M., Reijneveld, S. A., & van Dijk, J. P. (2015). The mediating effect of daily nervousness and irritability on the relationship between soft drink consumption and aggressive behaviour among adolescents. International Journal of Public Health, 60(6), 699 706. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038015-0707-6. Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (1998). When men batter women: New insights into ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster. Johns, D. P., Lindner, K. J., & Wolko, K. (1990). Understanding attrition in female competitive gymnastics: Apply social-exchange theory. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7(2), 154 171. Johnson, M. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 283 294. Available from https:// doi.org/10.2307/353683. Johnson, H. (2015). Degendering violence. Social Politics, 22(3), 390 410. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxv021.

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

47

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322 349. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X04270345. 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(1), 58 68. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10567-011-0102-7. Kanazawa, S. (2008). Battered women have more sons: A possible evolutionary reason why some battered women stay. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 129 139. Available from https://doi.org/10.1556/jep.2008.1007. Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476 499. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x. Krizan, Z., & Herlache, A. D. (2016). Sleep disruption and aggression: Implications for violence and its prevention. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 542 552. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/vio0000018. Leonard, K. E., & Quigley, B. M. (2017). Thirty years of research show alcohol to be a cause of intimate partner violence: Future research needs to identify who to treat and how to treat them. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36(1), 7 9. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/ dar.12434. Lewis, R. J., Mason, T. B., Winstead, B. A., & Kelley, M. L. (2017). Empirical investigation of a model of sexual minority specific and general risk factors for intimate partner violence among lesbian women. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 110 119. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/vio0000036. Linares, L. O., Shrout, P. E., Nucci-Sack, A., & Diaz, A. (2013). Child maltreatment, dating perpetration of physical assault, and cortisol reactivity among disadvantaged female adolescents. Neuroendocrinology, 97(3), 252 259. Available from https://doi.org/10.1159/000342958. Los Angeles Times. (October 18, 1973). Here are the rules for family fighting. Newspaper column. Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(6), 717 731. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506287312. Makepeace, J. M. (1987). Social factor and victim offender differences in courtship violence. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 36(1), 87 91. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/584654. Mannon, J. M. (1997). Domestic and intimate violence: An application of routine activities theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(1), 9 24. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/ s1359-1789(96)00023-7. Maria Jose, D.-A., & Rosario, M. (2014). Types of adolescent male dating violence against women, self-esteem, and justification of dominance and aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(15), 2636 2658. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553631. McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351 377. Meehan, J. C., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Herron, K. (2001). Maritally violent men’s heart rate reactivity to marital interactions: A failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(3), 394 408. Mennicke, A., & Kulkarni, S. (2016). Understanding gender symmetry within an expanded partner violence typology. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 1013 1018. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9867-2.

48

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Messing, J. T., Ward-Lasher, A., Thaller, J., & Bagwell-Gray, M. E. (2015). The state of intimate partner violence intervention: Progress and continuing challenges. Social Work, 60(4), 305 313. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swv027. Miller, E., Das, M., Verma, R., O’Connor, B., Ghosh, S., Jaime, M. C. D., & McCauley, H. L. (2015). Exploring the potential for changing gender norms among cricket coaches and athletes in India. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 188 205. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1077801214564688. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., & Silverman, J. G. (2012). "Coaching boys into men": A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(5), 431 438. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.01.018. Moss, V. A. (1991). Battered women and the myth of masochism. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 29(7), 18 23. Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention. Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 449 456. Nowakowski, S., Choi, H., Meers, J., & Temple, J. R. (2016). Inadequate sleep as a mediating variable between exposure to interparental violence and depression severity in adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 9(2), 109 114. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40653-016-0091-2. Ohri-Vachaspati, P., Delia, D., DeWeese, R. S., Crespo, N. C., Todd, M., & Yedidia, M. J. (2015). The relative contribution of layers of the social ecological model to childhood obesity. Public Health Nutrition, 18(11), 2055 2066. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/ s1368980014002365. Otero, L. M. R., Fernandez, M. V. C., Fernandez, M. L., & Castro, Y. R. (2015). Violence in transsexual, transgender and intersex couples: A systematic review. Saude E Sociedade, 24(3), 914 935. Available from https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-12902015134224. Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer. Peters, J., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2002). Understanding domestic violence against women: Using evolutionary psychology to extend the feminist functional analysis. Violence and Victims, 17(2), 255 264. Purdie, V., & Downey, G. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent girls’ vulnerability to relationship-centered difficulties. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 338 349. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559500005004005. Radtke, K. M., Ruf, M., Gunter, H. M., Dohrmann, K., Schauer, M., Meyer, A., & Elbert, T. (2011). Transgenerational impact of intimate partner violence on methylation in the promoter of the glucocorticoid receptor. Translational Psychiatry, 1, e21. Available from https://doi.org/10.1038/tp.2011.21. Reidy, D. E., Ball, B., Houry, D., Holland, K. M., Valle, L. A., Kearns, M. C., & Rosenbluth, B. (2016). In search of teen dating violence typologies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(2), 202 207. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.028. Reidy, D. E., Smith-Darden, J. P., Cortina, K. S., Kernsmith, R. M., & Kernsmith, P. D. (2015). Masculine discrepancy stress, teen dating violence, and sexual violence perpetration among adolescent boys. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(6), 619 624. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.02.009. Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical model of courtship aggression. In M. A. Pirog-Good, J. E. Stets, M. A. Pirog-Good, & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 53 71). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

49

Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1996). Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4), 519 540. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011004005. Romero-Martinez, A., Lila, M., & Moya-Albiol, L. (2016). Testosterone and attention deficits as possible mechanisms underlying impaired emotion recognition in intimate partner violence perpetrators. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(2), 57 62. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.01.001. Rosenbaum, A., Hoge, S. K., Adelman, S. A., Warnken, W. J., Fletcher, K. E., & Kane, R. L. (1994). Head injury in partner-abusive men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(6), 1187 1193. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.62.6.1187. Rothman, E. F., Reyes, L. M., Johnson, R. M., & LaValley, M. (2012). Does the alcohol make them do it? Dating violence perpetration and drinking among youth. Epidemiologic Reviews, 34(1), 103 119. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxr027. Rothman, E. F., Bair-Merritt, M. H., & Tharp, A. T. (2015). Beyond the individual level: Novel approaches and considerations for multilevel adolescent dating violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 445 447. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.05.019. Schwab-Reese, L. M., Parker, E. A., & Peek-Asa, C. (2017). Interactions of adolescent social experiences and dopamine genes to predict physical intimate partner violence perpetration. PLoS One, 12(3), 12. Available from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172840. Sherman, L. W., & Harris, H. M. (2015). Increased death rates of domestic violence victims from arresting vs. warning suspects in the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment (MilDVE). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(1), 1 20. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/s11292-014-9203-x. Solnick, S. J., & Hemenway, D. (2014). Soft drinks, aggression and suicidal behaviour in US high school students. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 21(3), 266 273. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2013.815631. Stanford, M. S., Conklin, S. M., Helfritz, L. E., & Kockler, T. R. (2007). P3 amplitude reduction and executive function deficits in men convicted of spousal/partner abuse. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 365 375. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2006.12.011. Stets, J. (1987). Symbolic interactionist approach to domestic violence. Doctoral Dissertation. Stets, J. (1995). Job autonomy and control over one’s spouse: A compensatory process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36(3), 244 258. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2137341. Stuart, G., McGeary, J., Shorey, R., & Knopik, V. (2014). Further investigation of genetics and intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 20(4), 420 426. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214528586. Stuart, G., McGeary, J., Shorey, R., Knopik, V., Beaucage, K., & Temple, J. (2014). Genetic associations with intimate partner violence in a sample of hazardous drinking men in batterer intervention programs. Violence Against Women, 20(4), 385 400. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214528587. Sween, M., & Reyns, B. W. (2016). An empirical test of target congruence theory on intimate partner violence. Deviant Behavior, 1 13. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01639625.2016.1191914. Taft, C. T., Creech, S. K., Gallagher, M. W., Macdonald, A., Murphy, C. M., & Monson, C. M. (2016). Strength at home couples program to prevent military partner violence: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(11), 935 945. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000129.

50

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Taft, C. T., Street, A. E., Marshall, A. D., Dowdall, D. J., & Riggs, D. S. (2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder, anger, and partner abuse among Vietnam combat veterans. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 270 277. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/08933200.21.2.270. Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14(1), 64 76. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-0120293-2. Teichman, M., & Teichman, Y. (1989). Violence in the family: An analysis in terms of interpersonal resource-exchange. Journal of Family Violence, 4(2), 127 142. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01006625. Teten, A. L., Ball, B., Valle, L. A., Noonan, R., & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). Considerations for the definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Women’s Health (Larchmt), 18(7), 923 927. Available from https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1515. Thijssen, J., & de Ruiter, C. (2011). Identifying subtypes of spousal assaulters using the B-SAFER. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1307 1321. Available from https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260510369129. Thornhill, R. (2000). A natural history of rape: biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ulloa, E. C., Hammett, J. F., O’Neal, D. N., Lydston, E. E., & Aramburo, L. F. (2016). The big five personality traits and intimate partner violence: Findings from a large, nationally representative sample. Violence and Victims, 31(6), 1100 1115. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-15-00055. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016a). Domestic violence prevention enhancement and leadership through alliances (DELTA). Retrieved April 20, 2017, Available from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/delta/. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016b). Intimate partner violence: Definitions. Retrieved March 18, 2017, Available from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633 649. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7. Walling, S. M., Meehan, J. C., Marshall, A. D., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Taft, C. T. (2012). The relationship of intimate partner aggression to head injury, executive functioning, and intelligence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(3), 471 485. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00226.x. Waltz, J., Babcock, J. C., Jacobson, N. S., & Gottman, J. M. (2000). Testing a typology of batterers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(4), 658 669. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.68.4.658. Watkins, L. E., Schumacher, J. A., & Coffey, S. F. (2016). A preliminary investigation of the relationship between emotion dysregulation and partner violence perpetration among individuals with PTSD and alcohol dependence. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(3), 305 314. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1129657. Wenger, M. R. (2015). Patterns of misreporting intimate partner violence using matched pairs. Violence and Victims, 30(2), 179 193. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708. vv-d-13-00135.

Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration Chapter | 2

51

Westby, M. D., & Ferraro, F. R. (1999). Frontal lobe deficits in domestic violence offenders. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 125(1), 71 102. Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., & Reese, L. R. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(2), 151 166. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.07.007. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A. L., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 279 291. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Korchmaros, J. D., & Boyd, D. (2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap of physical, psychological, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1083 1099. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0748-9. Yllo, K., & Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park: Sage. Zeegers, M. (1982). Violence between intimate partners: Case-histories and commentary. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5(3-4), 431 438. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/0160-2527(82)90037-1. Ziegler, R. G., & Musliner, P. J. (1977). Persistent themes: A naturalistic study of personality development in the family. Family Process, 16(3), 293 305.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 3

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence: A Public Health Perspective Yunsoo Park1, Carrie Mulford1, and Dara Blachman-Demner2 1

National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, United States, 2Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, United States

Adolescent dating violence is a serious public health concern and typically does not occur in single, isolated instances; rather, it occurs in the context of a broader pattern of a range of abusive behaviors over time. Thus, adolescent dating violence likely contributes to prolonged impacts on various aspects of functioning for both victims and perpetrators. Research on adolescent dating violence has bourgeoned over the past decade. In particular, there have been many studies conducted regarding a range of negative risk behaviors associated with adolescent dating violence victimization. Our understanding regarding the short- and long-term consequences of adolescent dating abuse has expanded with the recent proliferation of longitudinal studies. Furthermore, whereas outcomes related to dating violence perpetration have been limited compared to outcomes related to victimization, within the past couple of years, there has also been an increase in studies examining effects of perpetration over time. Nonetheless, there is robust literature supporting the bidirectionality of victimization and perpetration in teen dating violence (e.g., Taylor & Mumford, 2016); that is, there is considerable evidence that adolescent relationships that are characterized by violence typically involve mutual violence, rather than one person being the sole victim and the other the sole perpetrator. Given this high degree of overlap, a more fine-grained

 Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00003-7 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

53

54

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

examination and comparison of the impact of dating victimization and perpetration, both separately and together, is warranted. Accordingly, this chapter synthesizes the short- and long-term consequences of adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration, focusing on studies that emphasize the temporal impact of adolescent dating violence to potentially allow for stronger implications regarding directionality and causation.

STUDY SELECTION Electronic literature searches were conducted using the following databases: Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Sage Premier, as well as Google Scholar, through February 4, 2017. A combination of keywords was used to identify studies, through an iterative process of search and refine. Specifically, the search terms included forms of the terms “adolescent,” (e.g., teen) “dating abuse,” (e.g., dating violence) and “impact” (e.g., consequence) in combination. To maximize search effectiveness, Boolean searching along with truncation of terms was used. The reference lists of included articles, as well as relevant review articles, were reviewed, and any additional studies missed in the initial database searches that appeared to satisfy criteria for inclusion were identified and assessed. In addition, researchers in the field were contacted for potentially relevant studies. The following inclusion criteria were used to select articles for review: (1) collection of original, quantitative empirical data, (2) examination of outcomes associated with dating abuse during adolescence, and (3) report of dating abuse occurring, at least partially, temporally before the specified outcome, including lifetime dating abuse. Thus, studies were included even if there was partial temporal overlap, as long as dating abuse reportedly occurred at least in part before the outcome (e.g., dating abuse measured for the past 12 months and outcome in the past 6 months). Studies were excluded if temporality could not be established (e.g., dating abuse and outcome were measured during the same time periods, dating abuse was measured during the past year, and outcome was measured for lifetime occurrence). One exception was a study by Button and Miller (2013), where dating violence was measured for the past 30 days and outcomes were measured for the past year, as this study specifically asked participants whether they perceived that the outcomes were experienced because of their dating relationship. There were no restrictions placed on publication dates. Utilization of the aforementioned inclusion criteria yielded a total of 33 articles.1 The summary of information regarding these articles is presented in Table 3.1.

1. There may be more than one article associated with a single study.

TABLE 3.1 Summary of Included Articles Article

Year

ADV

V/Pc

N

M/F (%)d

Race/Ethnicity

Typeb

(First Author)a

ADV

Time at ADV

Outcome

Time at

Mental

Physical

Substance

Victimization/

Occurred

Measurement

Occurred

Outcome

Health

Outcome

Outcome

Perpetration

When

Measurement

Outcome Binge eating

Cigarette use, marijuana use

When

Ackard

2007

Ph, S

V

1516

46/54

White (70.6%), Asian (14.8%), black (8.0%), Hispanic (3.6%), or other (3.1%) ethnicity

More than a year ago

Mean age 5 20.4 years

In the past year

Mean age 5 20.4 years

Suicide attempts, depressive symptoms

Brown

2009

Ph

V

98

46/54

Country of birth: Australia (n 5 86), overseas (n 5 12)

In the past 12 months

Mean age 5 17.7 years

Current

Mean age 5 17.7 years

Axis I disorders (mood, anxiety, substance abuse/ dependence disorder, and eating disorder), psychosocial functioning

Burton

2016

Ph, S, Ps

VP

100

0/100

33% AfricanAmerican, 60% Caucasian, 1% Asian, 2% Hispanic/Latina, 4% mixed

During one past adolescent relationship

Mean age 5 25.9 years

Current

Mean age 5 25.9 years

Depressive symptoms

Outcome

Substance dependence disorder

Health ratings

(Continued )

TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Article

Year

ADV

V/Pc

N

M/F (%)d

Race/Ethnicity

Typeb

(First Author)a

ADV

Time at ADV

Outcome

Time at

Mental

Physical

Substance

Victimization/

Occurred

Measurement

Occurred

Outcome

Health

Outcome

Outcome

Perpetration

When

Measurement

Outcome Well-being outcomes (i.e., depressed/lost interest, arguments/ fights with family/friends, feeling alone/ isolated, feeling very nervous/ anxious, difficulty thinking clearly, feeling irritable/upset, completing less work than usual, feeling suspicious/ distrustful, harder to handle problems)

When

Button

2013

Ph, Ps

V

12,203

48.5/51.5

51.8% white, 26.9% black, 11.0% Hispanic, 10.3% other/ mixed

In the past 30 days

Mean age 5 15 years

In the past year

Mean age 5 15 years

Choi

2016

S

V

450

0/100

33.4% Hispanic, 27.1% white, 27.3% AfricanAmerican, 12.2% other

Since age 14 years

Mean age 5 19.02 years

In the past year

Mean age 5 19.02 years

Outcome

Sexting behaviors

Choi

2017

Ph, S, Ps

VP

918

44/56

Hispanic (32%), white (30%), AfricanAmerican (29%), other (9%)

Lifetime

Wave 1, mean age 5 15.1 years at baseline

Current (acceptance of couple violence, anxiety, hostility), past week (depressive symptoms)

Wave 1 (acceptance of couple violence), Wave 2 (depressive symptoms, anxiety, hostility)

Clark

2014

Ph, S

V

9295

50.1/49.9

Non-Hispanic white (M: 67.6%, F: 68%), nonHispanic black (14.7% M, 15.7% F), Hispanic (12.2% M, 11.9% F), nonHispanic other (5.5% M, 4.4% F)

Wave 2: in up to 3 relationships occurring in the previous 18 months; Wave 3: occurring since the summer of 1995 and were considered important; Wave 4: occurring in a current relationship

Waves 2 4 (1996, 2001/ 2002, 2008/ 2009)  Baseline (wave 1: 1995) mean age 5 15 years

Current

Waves 2 4

BMI

Copp

2016

Ph

VP

3746

49.4/50.6

65.17% NonHispanic white, 24.45% NonHispanic black, 10.38% Hispanic

Lifetime

Waves 1 5 (2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2011)  Mean age 5 18.34 years (across all waves)

Current

Waves 1 5

Physical health rating

Depressive symptoms, anxiety, hostility, acceptance of couple violence

(Continued )

TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Article

Year

ADV

V/Pc

N

M/F (%)d

Race/Ethnicity

Typeb

(First Author)a

ADV

Time at ADV

Outcome

Time at

Mental

Physical

Substance

Victimization/

Occurred

Measurement

Occurred

Outcome

Health

Outcome

Outcome

Perpetration

When

Measurement

Outcome Depression, self-esteem, antisocial behaviors, suicidal ideation/ attempts

Sexual risk behaviors, extreme weight control behaviors

Cigarette, alcohol, illicit substances (marijuana and other [e.g., cocaine, injection drugs])

When

ExnerCortens

2013

Ph, Ps

V

5681

47.7/52.3

White, nonHispanic (69.3%), black, non-Hispanic (13.5%), Hispanic (10.8%), other (6.4%)

In up to 3 relationships occurring since Wave 1 interview (1994 95)

Wave 2 (1996), Mean age 5 16 years

Current

Wave 3 (2001 02), mean age 5 21.4 years

Fedina

2016

Ph, Ps

VP

513

47.6/ 52.44

47% Hispanic/ Latino, 41% black/AfricanAmerican, 9% non-Hispanic white, 3% nonHispanic other

Lifetime

Mean age 5 18.13 years

Past 12 months, lifetime diagnoses for STI, HIV, pregnancy

Mean age 5 18.13 years

Foshee

2013

Ph/S (c), Ps

V

3328

49/51

White (43%), black (50%), 7% (other race/ ethnicities)

In the past 3 months

Wave 1 (2003; Grades 8 10), 6-month time intervals separating waves 1 3, 1-year interval separating waves 3 4, Wave 4 (Grades 10 12)

Current to past 3 months

Wave 1 4

Outcome

Sexual risk behaviors (multiple sex partners, condom use, withdrawal) Internalizing symptoms, number of close friends, family conflict, academic aspirations/ grades

Adult IPV victimization, antisocial behaviors

Prostitution

Alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use

Gomez

2011

Ph, Ps

V

4191

52.2/47.8

White (65%), Latino (12.4%), black (15.7%), Asian (3.9%), Native American (2.1%), other (0.9%)

In up to 3 romantic and 3 sexual relationships

Wave 2 (1996) Wave 1 (1994 95): Grades 7 12

During past relationships in young adulthood (i.e., after age 18 years)

Wave 3 (2001 02): age 22 years and older



IPV victimization and perpetration

Haynie

2013

Ph, Ps

VP

2203

47/53

White (n 5 939), AfricanAmerican (n 5 441), Hispanic (n 5 706), other (n 5 105)

In the past 12 months

Mean age 5 16.2 years

Past 30 days 6 months

Mean age 5 16.2 years

Depressive symptoms, psychological complaints

Johnson

2014

Ph

VP

1273

48.2/51.8

64% white, 24.7% Black, 11.3% Hispanic

With current or most recent partner

Waves 1 4 (2001, 2002/ 2003, 2004/ 2005, 2006/ 2007); Corresponding mean ages 5 15.2, 16.4, 18.2, 23.3 years

In the past 7 days

Waves 1 4

Depressive symptoms

Jouriles

in press

Ph

V

843

43/57

Hispanic (32%), white (31%), AfricanAmerican (27%), other (10%)

In the past year

1-year followup, Mean age 5 16.09 years at baseline

In the past year (physical dating violence victimization), past month (PTSD symptoms)

Baseline and 2-year followup (PTSD symptoms), 5year follow-up (physical dating violence victimization)

Trauma symptoms

Physical complaints

Tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use

Physical dating violence victimization

(Continued )

TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Article

Year

(First

V/Pc

ADV Type

N

M/F (%)d

Race/Ethnicity

b

Author)a

ADV

Time at ADV

Outcome

Time at

Mental

Physical

Substance

Victimization/

Occurred

Measurement

Occurred

Outcome

Health

Outcome

Outcome

Perpetration

When

Measurement

Outcome

Outcome

Depressive symptoms

IPV Victimization

When

Lindhorst

2008

Ph, Ps

V

229

0/100

EuropeanAmerican (53%), AfricanAmerican (28%), Native American (6%), Asian-American (3%), and other (10%); 8% reported Hispanic ethnicity.

Since pregnancy

After age 18 years, 14 waves (6month intervals from 6 18 months postpartum and 3.5 6 years postpartum, and at 1-year intervals from 9.5 11.5 years postpartum)  participants were 17 years and younger and pregnant at baseline

In the past week

14 waves

Madkour

2014

Ph, Ps

V

558

0/100

Black (n 5 168), non-black (n 5 390)

In the last 18 months

Wave 2 (1996)  Wave 1 (1994 95): Grades 7 12

Following any pregnancies

Wave 4 (2007 08)

Orpinas

2012

Ps

VP

550

50.9/49.1

47% white, 38% AfricanAmerican, 11% Latino

In the past 3 months

Grades 6 12 every spring (mean age of sample in ninth grade was 14.8 years)

In the past 30 days

Grades 6 12 every spring

Birth outcomes

Non-physical peer aggression victimization and perpetration

Orpinas

2013

Ph

VP

588

52/48

49% White, 36% black, 12% Latino

In the past 3 months

Grades 6 12 every spring (mean age of sample in ninth grade was 14.8 years)

Current

Grades 6 12 every spring (Perception of care/support from partner was only measured from Grades 10 12)

Perception of care/support from partner, acceptance of dating aggression

Orpinas

2017

Ph

P

588

52/48

49% White, 36% black, 12% Latino

In the past 3 months

Grades 6 12 every spring (mean age of sample in ninth grade was 14.8 years)

Past 30 days, lifetime (for suicidal ideation/ attempts)

Grades 6 12 every spring (Suicidal ideation and attempts were only measured during high school)

Suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt

Ozer

2004

S

P

247

54.66/ 45.34

126 MexicanAmerican, 121 EuropeanAmerican

Lifetime

Mean age 5 17.8 years

In the past year

1-year followup

Rizzo

2010

Ps, Ph/S (c)

V

155

23.23/ 76.77

81% Caucasian/ EuropeanAmerican, 11% Hispanic, 3% AsianAmerican, 3% AfricanAmerican, and 2% mixed ethnicity-other

In the past year

Mean age 5 15 years

Current, within the past week (for frequency of anxious and depressive self-talk)

Mean age 5 15 years

Psychiatric diagnoses, self-perceived competencies and global self-worth, frequency of anxious and depressive self-talk

Substance use disorders

Roberts

2003

Ph, Ps

V

4443

50.35/ 49.65

69% White, 14% black, 13% Hispanic, 4% other

During the past 18 months

Mean age 5 16.4 years

Current to during the past year

Mean age 5 16.4 years

Suicidal ideation and attempts, depression, antisocial behavior

Tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use

Sabina

2014

Ph, S, Ps

V

1525

49.3/50.7

100% Latino

In the past year

Mean age 5 14.85 years

Following exposure to ADV

Mean age 5 14.85 years

Help-seeking behavior

Marijuana use, Alcohol use, being drunk

Weapon carrying, threats with a weapon

Dating violence perpetration

Antisocial behavior, violence

(Continued )

TABLE 3.1 (Continued) Article

Year

ADV

V/Pc

N

M/F (%)d

Race/Ethnicity

Typeb

(First Author)a

ADV

Time at ADV

Outcome

Time at

Mental

Physical

Substance

Victimization/

Occurred

Measurement

Occurred

Outcome

Health

Outcome

Outcome

Perpetration

When

Measurement

Outcome

When

Outcome

Sabina

2015

Ph, S, Ps

V

574

47/53

100% Latino

In the past year

Mean age 5 15.03 years

In the past year

Mean age 5 16.32 years

Shorey

2015

Ph, S, Ps

VP

882

44.22/ 55.78

293 Caucasian, 278 AfricanAmerican, 311 Hispanic

With current or most recent dating partner

Mean age 5 15.02 years (males), 15.01 years (females)

In the past year

1-year followup

Silverman

2001

Ph, S

V

1977 (in 1997 survey), 2186 (in 1999 survey)

0/100

1997 survey (73% White, 9.4% Hispanic, 6.3% black, 5.7% Asian, 5.7% other); 1999 survey (72.7% White, 11.0% Hispanic, 6.7% black, 6.1% Asian, 3.5% other)

Lifetime

Grades 9 12

Past 30 days to lifetime

Grades 9 12

Smith

2003

Ph, S

V

1569

0/100

70.9% White, 25.3% black, 3.8% other

During adolescence

Ages 18 19 years

Collegiate years

Ages 18 19 years

Physical and sexual dating violence victimization

Teitelman

2008

Ps, Ph

V

2058

0/100

58.9% White, 24.6% black, 8.3% Hispanic, 8.2% other

Past 18 months

Wave 2 (1996): ages 11 21 years

In the past year

Wave 3 (2001 02): ages 18 26 years

Physical and verbal intimate partner abuse victimization

Dating violence victimization Risky sexual behavior

Suicidal ideations and attempts

Unhealthy weight control behaviors, sexual risk behaviors, pregnancy

Substance use (heavy smoking, binge drinking, driving after drinking, cocaine use)

Temple

2011

Ph

V

1565

54/46

37% Hispanic, 31% black, 29% White

Past 12 months

Grades 9 12

In the past month

Grades 9 12

Temple

2016

Ps

P

1042

44/56

31% Hispanic, 29% White, 28% AfricanAmerican, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 8% other

With current or most recent dating partner

Wave 2 (2011)  Wave 1 (2010): mean age 5 15.1 years

Current to past week

Wave 3 (2012)

Internalizing (depression and anxiety) symptoms, hostility

van Dulmen

2012

Ph, Ps

V

4675

41.1/58.9

59% White, 16% black, 6% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 14% other

Past 18 months

Wave 2 (1995 96): mean age 5 16.41 years

In the past 12 months

Waves 2, 3 (2001 02; mean age 5 22.36 years) and 4 (2007 08; mean age 5 28.85 years)

Suicidal ideation and attempts

Yan

2009

Ph

V

322

46.3/51.8

100% Latino

Past 12 months

Mean age 5 12.4 years

Current

Mean age 5 12.4 years

Sense of self, familial factors

a

There may be more than one article associated with a single study. ADV 5 adolescent dating violence, Ph 5 physical, Ps 5 psychological, S 5 sexual (includes sexual aggression and coercion), (c) 5 combined. V/P 5 dating abuse victimization (V) or perpetration (P). d M/F 5 Males/Females. b c

Substance use (cigarettes, marijuana, alcohol, glue sniffing, ecstasy, Vicodin, Xanax)

64

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS The sample sizes for articles ranged widely from 98 to 12,203. The majority of studies included both male and female participants with relatively equal distributions. Seven studies recruited only female participants; there were no studies recruiting only male participants. There was a range of racial and ethnic groups represented across studies. The majority of studies recruited primarily white/Caucasian participants and three studies recruited only participants from specific racial or ethnic groups. These three studies (Sabina, Cuevas, & Cotignola-Pickens, 2015; Sabina, Cuevas, & Rodriguez, 2014; Yan, Howard, Beck, Shattuck, & Hallmark-Kerr, 2009) specifically focused on Latino adolescents, given that there is limited information regarding the experience of adolescent dating abuse among Latino youth and the subsequent lack of understanding regarding sociocultural patterns over time (e.g., Sabina et al., 2015). Data regarding sexual orientation and gender identity were not reported consistently across studies, which poses significant limitations on our ability to identify consequences of dating violence for certain groups (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and questioning; LGBTQ).

TYPES OF DATING ABUSE The three broad types of dating abuse examined across studies included physical, sexual, and psychological (including emotional and verbal) abuse. The most commonly studied form of abuse was physical dating abuse, followed by psychological, then sexual. The majority of studies examined different forms of dating abuse separately or in conjunction (e.g., physical and sexual dating abuse combined) within a given study, rather than asking about just one type of abuse. The different forms of abuse appeared to be combined either due to the format of the specific questionnaire used or too few endorsements of a specific form of abuse for separate data analyses (e.g., Ackard, Eisenberg, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2007; Foshee, Reyes, Gottfredson, Chang, & Ennett, 2013). In addition, there has been literature to support examinations of specific forms of dating violence as one category; for example, the study by Goncy, Farrell, Sullivan, and Taylor (2016) found that a two-factor model (perpetration and victimization) best conceptualized adolescent dating aggression, over models that differentiated between psychological and physical forms of aggression. However, as empirical studies are relatively limited regarding this issue, the exact ways in which specific forms of dating violence can most accurately be combined or differentiated are still unclear. In addition, the majority of studies examined the impact of dating abuse victimization alone, while only three studies examined the effects of perpetration alone. Of note, nine studies, which were conducted relatively recently (i.e., within the last 5 years), examined the effect of both victimization and

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

65

perpetration together within a given study. This indicates that while much literature on the topic has tended to focus on victimization, the field appears to be responding to the importance of investigating perpetration separately, and in conjunction with, victimization.

TIMING CONSIDERATIONS IN MEASUREMENT OF DATING ABUSE EXPOSURE AND OUTCOMES Studies vary widely regarding the age at which dating abuse is measured during adolescence, resulting in potential differences concerning developmental implications. The majority of studies utilized adolescent dating abuse data from middle- and high-school students as a part of a prospective longitudinal data collection, and in general, the majority of studies appeared to focus on ages 12 18 years. In addition to age, studies also varied regarding the length of exposure to dating abuse, ranging from exposure in the past 30 days (e.g., Button & Miller, 2013) to several months (e.g., Orpinas, Nahapetyan, Song, McNicholas, & Reeves, 2012), years (e.g., Madkour, Xie, & Harville, 2014), and lifetime exposure (e.g., Fedina, Howard, Wang, & Murray, 2016). Accordingly, this poses difficulties in specifying differences in short- versus long-term abuse victimization and perpetration. Finally, studies varied on the length of follow-up periods (i.e., time between adolescent dating abuse and outcome of interest), ranging from several months to many years, as well as outcomes related to lifetime exposure to adolescent dating abuse. Especially in the past few years, the proliferation of longitudinal studies has allowed for refined assessment of the long-term impact of adolescent dating abuse. However, recently there has been research supporting the utility of examining the dynamic, day-to-day impact of adolescent dating abuse, for example, using daily calendars (e.g., Epstein-Ngo et al., 2013), highlighting the potential value in also considering patterns of immediate consequences of dating abuse over time.

OUTCOMES ASSOCIATED WITH ADOLESCENT DATING ABUSE Overall, research suggests that adolescent dating abuse, both victimization and perpetration, is associated with a range of negative short- and long-term outcomes over time. Broadly, there are four main domains of outcomes across studies: (1) Mental/Psychological Health, (2) Physical Health, (3) Substance Use/Abuse, and (4) Victimization/Perpetration. Mental/psychological health outcomes consisted of a range of indicators of mental health/ psychological functioning, such as suicidal ideation and attempts, psychiatric conditions and symptoms, aspects of psychosocial functioning (e.g., number of close friends), and aspects of cognitive functioning (e.g., negative cognitive biases). Physical health outcomes examined across studies consisted of

66

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

indicators such as BMI, weight control behaviors (e.g., binge eating, vomiting), risky sexual behaviors (e.g., inconsistent condom use, multiple sex partners), and global ratings of physical health/complaints. In addition, one study (Madkour et al., 2014) examined the impact of verbal and physical abuse victimization on birth outcomes (e.g., birth weight, gestational age) in adolescent mothers. Substance use/abuse outcomes included the use or abuse for a range of substances, including nicotine, alcohol, various illicit substances (e.g., marijuana, cocaine), or prescription drugs. Victimization/perpetration outcomes consisted of violence (e.g., intimate partner violence, peer aggression), weapon carrying/threatening, prostitution, and sexting behaviors (e.g., sending and being asked for a naked image, receiving a naked image without giving permission). It is noted that several of these behaviors can fit into more than one domain (e.g., antisocial behaviors in both mental/psychological health outcome and victimization/perpetration).

Mental/Psychological Health Outcomes The most frequently examined domain across studies constituted mental/psychological health outcomes, which suggest that adolescent dating abuse impacts a range of potentially less severe (e.g., negative cognitive biases) to highly severe (e.g., suicidal attempt) outcomes. As such, this section will discuss outcomes related to internalizing disorders (i.e., depression, anxiety, trauma, and stressor-related symptoms), suicidality, psychological and/or social/relational functioning, and other related outcomes (e.g., academic performance). Fourteen studies (Ackard et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2009; Burton, HalpernFelsher, Rehm, Rankin, & Humphreys, 2016; Button & Miller, 2013; Choi, Weston, & Temple, 2017; Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013; Foshee et al., 2013; Haynie et al., 2013; Johnson, Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2014; Jouriles, Choi, Rancher, & Temple, 2017; Lindhorst & Oxford, 2008; Rizzo, Esposito-Smythers, Spirito, & Thompson, 2010; Roberts, Klein, & Fisher, 2003; Temple et al., 2016) examined some form of internalizing outcomes, with depressive symptoms being the most frequently studied. These studies overwhelmingly indicate that experiencing dating abuse during adolescence contributes to a range of internalizing symptoms, particularly those that are most relevant for depression. Of note, studies thus far suggest that dating abuse perpetration, separate from victimization, is also associated with depressive outcomes. As research concerning perpetration is recent compared to research on victimization, a better understanding of potentially overlapping and distinct negative outcomes associated with perpetration and victimization is needed. Relatedly, as depression has also been shown to be a risk factor for adolescent dating violence perpetration (Vagi et al., 2013), it will be important to conduct more comprehensive longitudinal studies to better elucidate the developmental pathways by which mental health functioning influences, and is influenced by, dating abuse.

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

67

The wide range of depressive, anxiety, and trauma-related outcomes related to adolescent dating violence indicates far-reaching consequences that extend beyond a set of symptoms that may be specific to a single disorder or diagnosis. Nonetheless, given the well-established overlap across the internalizing domains in terms of symptoms and etiology, this could suggest potential common underlying mechanisms that are impacted by the experience of dating abuse. Given that adolescence is a critical developmental period that is characterized by significant changes in neurobiological and environmental (e.g., psychosocial) pathways that are involved in the progression of various internalizing disorders and symptoms, it would be informative to engage in further investigations to better understand the impact of dating abuse within this context. Seven of the 14 studies examining internalizing outcomes addressed gender differences in findings. Several studies found significant differences across gender that appear to suggest that females report more negative internalizing outcomes in relation to dating abuse victimization during adolescence, particularly based on the nature of the dating abuse experienced. Ackard et al. (2007) found that for females, physical/sexual dating abuse victimization was significantly associated with increased depressive symptoms but not in males. Exner-Cortens et al. (2013) found that females experiencing psychological and psychological/ physical victimization reported increased depressive symptomatology but not males. Foshee et al. (2013) found that for girls, only psychological, but not physical, dating abuse victimization predicted increased internalizing symptoms, but that this effect was only marginally significant for boys. Lastly, Jouriles et al. (2017) found that trauma symptoms functioned as a mediator in the association between physical dating violence victimization during adolescence and later revictimization in early adulthood for females but not males. These gender differences have also been noted for dating abuse perpetration, in addition to victimization. Specifically, Haynie et al. (2013) found that while victims/perpetrators of verbal and physical dating violence were more likely to report depressive symptoms, female victims/perpetrators of both verbal and physical violence reported more depressive symptoms compared to female victims/perpetrators of “only” verbal abuse. Contrastingly, a couple of studies found no significant differences across gender. Roberts et al. (2003) found that the severity of the physical/psychological dating abuse experienced was significantly associated with increased levels of depression in both genders Johnson et al. (2014) also found that both physical dating abuse perpetration and victimization were associated with increases in depressive symptoms for both genders. Given the inconsistencies across studies, as well as the wide variations in study characteristics, there is clearly a need for additional research to replicate these existing findings and to identify the ways in which potential differences by gender emerge. Six studies (Ackard et al., 2007; Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Orpinas, Nahapetyan, & Truszczynski, 2017; Roberts et al., 2003, Silverman, Raj,

68

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001; van Dulmen et al., 2012) examined suicidal ideation/attempts outcomes. Overall, these studies suggest that adolescent dating abuse is associated with increased suicidal ideation and attempts across time. However, one study by van Dulmen et al. (2012) found that adolescent dating abuse victimization did not predict suicidality over time, but that adolescent suicidality predicted intimate partner violence in early adulthood. The authors discussed that when suicidality and dating abuse victimization are considered simultaneously in longitudinal models, suicidality appears to drive changes in victimization but that victimization does not appear to drive changes in suicidality. They also pointed out that this is consistent with the findings from the study by Ackard et al. (2007), which suggest that the effect of dating abuse victimization is diminished after accounting for previous levels of suicidality. Nonetheless, as the authors mentioned, it is possible that the ways in which constructs are defined and measured are contributing to diverse findings across studies. In addition, preexisting suicidality may also be indicative of a more general internalizing phenotype that may be driving certain associations more strongly in certain directions. Thus, similar to other risk behaviors associated with adolescent dating abuse, additional longitudinal research is needed to more clearly establish the temporal nature of how these associations progress over time. With regard to suicidality outcomes, there are also inconsistencies across studies in terms of gender differences. The study by Orpinas et al. (2017) did not examine gender differences, and the study by Silverman et al. (2001) recruited only female participants but found that dating violence was associated with suicidality (i.e., considering and attempting suicide). The study by van Dulmen et al. (2012) found no gender differences in suicidal thoughts/ attempts (i.e., physical/psychological adolescent dating abuse victimization did not predict suicidality for both genders), and the study by Exner-Cortens et al. (2013) found that physical and psychological teen dating violence victimization was associated with suicidal ideation for both males and females. In contrast to these studies, two studies found significant differences in suicidality outcomes across gender. Roberts et al. (2003) found that physical/ psychological dating abuse victimization was associated with increased suicidal ideation/attempts for females but not males. Ackard et al. (2007) also found that for females, physical/sexual dating abuse was marginally associated with suicide attempts, while for males, there was marginal association with suicidal ideation. Thus, whether there are gender differences, as well as the nature of these associations (or lack thereof), in suicidality outcomes are currently unclear. Eleven studies (Brown et al., 2009; Button & Miller, 2013; Choi et al., 2017; Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Foshee et al., 2013; Haynie et al., 2013; Orpinas, Hsieh, Song, Holland, & Nahapetyan, 2013; Rizzo et al., 2010; Sabina et al., 2014; Temple et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2009) found that adolescent dating abuse was associated with adverse outcomes related to various aspects of psychological and/or social/relational functioning. With regard to

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

69

psychological functioning, outcomes examined include negative well-being (e.g., feeling alone/isolated, difficulty thinking clearly, feeling irritable/upset) (Button & Miller, 2013), self-esteem (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013), psychological complaints (e.g., bad temper, difficulty sleeping) (Haynie et al., 2013), self-perceived competencies and global self-worth (Rizzo et al., 2010), and sense of self (Yan et al., 2009). With regarding to social/relational functioning, outcomes examined include psychosocial functioning (Brown et al., 2009), arguments/fights with family and friends (Button & Miller, 2013), hostility (Choi et al., 2017; Temple et al., 2016), acceptance of couple violence (Choi et al., 2017) and dating aggression (Orpinas et al., 2013), number of close friends and family conflict (Foshee et al., 2013), perception of care/ support from partner (Orpinas et al., 2013), help-seeking behavior (Sabina et al., 2014), and familial factors (e.g., connectedness) (Yan et al., 2009). These findings are crucial, as they may represent risk pathways by which perpetrators and victims of adolescent dating abuse develop more severe negative behaviors (e.g., suicidality) or potential diagnoses of a range of psychiatric disturbances. Some other mental/psychological health outcomes examined in relation to adolescent dating abuse include antisocial behaviors (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2003), other psychiatric diagnoses (Brown et al., 2009; Rizzo et al., 2010), and academic performance (Foshee et al., 2013). Studies by Brown et al. (2009) and Rizzo et al. (2010) indicated that adolescent dating abuse is associated with generally increased levels of psychopathology, such as increased co-occurrence of externalizing and internalizing disorders, and Axis I disorder diagnoses. With regard to other specific forms of psychopathology, the couple of studies examining antisocial behavior outcomes indicated somewhat conflicting results pertaining to gender. The study by Exner-Cortens et al. (2013) found that psychological/physical dating violence victimization was associated with increased antisocial behaviors in males but not females. However, the study by Roberts et al. (2003) found that physical/ psychological dating abuse victimization was associated with higher rates of antisocial behavior in both males and females, but that after adjusting for various demographic factors, more severe abuse was associated with increased involvement in antisocial behavior for females only. Lastly, with regard to academic outcomes, the study by Foshee et al. (2013) suggested that while dating abuse victimization during adolescence did not predict academic aspirations or grades, the authors note that it is possible that other indicators of academic functioning, such as school attendance, could be impacted by victimization.

Physical Health Outcomes With regard to physical health outcomes, studies generally examined three main categories: general physical health, indicators related to weight and

70

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

weight control, and risky sexual behaviors. Overall these studies suggest that dating abuse during adolescence negatively impacts important aspects of physical health that also has strong negative implications for other aspects of functioning. Three studies (Burton et al., 2016; Copp, Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2016; Haynie et al., 2013) found support for the link between adolescent dating abuse and subsequent declines in components of general physical health (e.g., health ratings, physical complaints). The study by Burton et al. (2016) only recruited female participants, which showed that self-ratings of health were associated with the nature (e.g., behaviors perpetrated by the partner) and severity (e.g., the use of valued relationships with others against an individual) of abusive experiences. Whereas the study by Copp et al. (2016) found no differences across gender regarding the negative impact of physical dating violence victimization/perpetration on self-rated health, the study by Haynie et al. (2013) suggested that compared to males, female victims/perpetrators of verbal and physical dating violence were more likely to report physical complaints; furthermore, Haynie et al. (2013) found that female victims/perpetrators of both verbal and physical dating violence, compared to female victims/perpetrators of “only” verbal dating violence, reported more physical complaints. Notably, whereas the study by Copp et al. (2016) spanned over the course of 11 years, the study by Haynie et al. (2013) examined more recent outcomes (i.e., physical complaints over the past 6 months). This may suggest that gender differences in self-ratings of health may be more pronounced in more recent experiences of dating abuse. Four studies (Ackard et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2014; Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Silverman et al., 2001) examined the association between adolescent dating abuse and a range of negative weight control behaviors and indicators (e.g., BMI, binge eating). While Exner-Cortens et al. (2013) found no link between physical and psychological dating violence victimization and extreme weight control behaviors, the other three studies found genderspecific associations. Specifically, in the study by Ackard et al. (2007), physical/sexual adolescent dating violence victimization was associated with binge eating in males but not females. In the study by Clark et al. (2014), in stratified models, physical and sexual dating violence victimization was associated with BMI increase over time in women but not men. Lastly, Silverman et al. (2001) recruited only female participants and found that physical and sexual dating violence was associated with increased risk of unhealthy weight control behaviors (e.g., use of laxatives and/or vomiting). Overall, studies thus far seem to suggest that experiencing dating abuse victimization may impact males and females differently with regard to weight control behaviors, but the nature of these associations are inconsistent across studies. Four studies (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Fedina et al., 2016; Shorey et al., 2015; Silverman et al., 2001) examined various sexual risk behavior outcomes (e.g., multiple partners, condom use). While the study by ExnerCortens et al. (2013) found no evidence of association between physical and

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

71

psychological dating violence victimization and sexual risk behaviors, the other three studies found significant links. The study by Silverman et al. (2001), which recruited only female participants, found an association between physical/sexual dating violence and sexual risk behaviors (e.g., first intercourse before age 15 years). The study by Fedina et al. (2016) found that youth from low-income, urban, and predominantly African-American and Latino backgrounds who experienced dating violence victimization and perpetration were more likely to report increased sexual risk behaviors; specifically, victims were more likely to report inconsistent condom use and pregnancy compared to nonvictimized youth, and perpetrators were more likely to report multiple sex partners and inconsistent condom use. Lastly, the study by Shorey et al. (2015) found that physical dating violence victimization significantly predicted risky sexual behaviors (i.e., number of sexual partners, use of contraception methods). These findings indicate that adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration are linked to later risky sexual behaviors, which has important implications for other important areas of health and well-being. For example, for adolescents in abusive relationships where negotiating safe sex is not possible, thus increasing the risk of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, the long-range consequences of dating abuse include increased health care costs, lower educational attainment, and diminished earning potential (e.g., Hoffman, 2008). In addition, engaging in risky sexual behaviors often co-occurs with other highrisk behaviors (e.g., substance use), which in turn increases the risk of future victimization and perpetration of dating violence (e.g., Shorey et al., 2015). The study by Madkour et al. (2014) was unique in that it examined birth outcomes. Specifically, the study found support for the link between prepregnancy physical dating abuse victimization and negative birth outcomes (e.g., lower birth weight and gestational age) among black mothers, but not among non-black mothers. In addition to highlighting the intergenerational impact of dating abuse that extends beyond just the victim and perpetrator, this study also brings attention to racial and ethnic differences in the longterm impact of abuse. These differences may be indicative of a wide range of mechanisms, such as differences in continuation rates of adolescent dating abuse across race (Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001). In addition, the study showed that as time between the report of the abuse and pregnancy increased, the abuse was associated with worse birth outcomes. This provides support for the especially persistent impact of extended and more severe dating violence over time, as dating violence tends to continue throughout adolescence into early adulthood (Halpern et al., 2001).

Substance Use/Abuse Outcomes Ten studies (Ackard et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2009; Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Foshee et al., 2013; Haynie et al., 2013; Orpinas et al., 2017;

72

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Rizzo et al., 2010; Roberts et al., 2003; Silverman et al., 2001; Temple & Freeman, 2011) examined the impact of dating abuse during adolescence on substance use/abuse outcomes. These studies overwhelmingly indicate that adolescent dating abuse is associated with the use and abuse of a range of substances. Studies generally tended to focus on cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use, with a few studies also examining other specific illicit substances (e.g., cocaine). Notably, Temple and Freeman (2011) found that while youth who experienced physical dating violence victimization were more likely to use a range of substances (i.e., cigarettes, marijuana, alcohol, glue sniffing, ecstasy, Vicodin, and Xanax) in bivariate analyses, in multivariate analyses that took into account the influence of all substances, alcohol and cigarette uses were the only substances that remained associated with dating violence. As the authors noted, this may be indicative of the fact that the use of different drugs are highly correlated, and indeed, when analyses were run to combine all substances to form one single variable, it showed association with dating violence. Nonetheless, many studies also found differential effects for specific types of substances, indicating potentially distinct pathways for involvement with certain substances. As with other outcomes examined in relation to adolescent dating abuse, these studies suggest that there are important issues to consider regarding potential differences due to a range of sample and study characteristics. For instance, Rizzo et al. (2010) found that physical and/or sexual violence victims, but not psychological abuse victims, tended to endorse higher rates of alcohol use disorders, compared to non-victims, in a sample of acute psychiatric inpatients. This could potentially suggest the unique influence that experiencing physical and sexual violence may have on alcohol use and additionally that perhaps for adolescents with a high degree of existing psychopathology, the link between physical/sexual abuse and the development of alcohol use disorders may be especially important to consider in the context of their psychiatric conditions. Gender differences in the link between dating abuse and substance use/ abuse outcomes have also been highlighted across studies. Exner-Cortens et al. (2013) found that females who experienced physical/psychological dating violence victimization reported increased heavy episodic drinking and smoking cigarettes when they became young adults, but that male victims reported increased marijuana use. Meanwhile, Ackard et al. (2007) found that physical/sexual dating abuse was associated with cigarette and marijuana use in females but only cigarette use in males. In addition, the studies by Foshee et al. (2013), Haynie et al. (2013), and Roberts et al. (2003) considered both gender and the nature of dating abuse in relation to differences in substance abuse outcomes. Foshee et al. (2013) found that for both males and females, psychological victimization predicted increased alcohol use, while physical victimization predicted increased cigarette use. For girls in particular, physical victimization also predicted

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

73

increased marijuana use. Haynie et al. (2013) found that while overall individuals experiencing verbal or verbal/physical victimization and perpetration were more likely to report alcohol use, female victims/perpetrators in particular were also more likely to report cigarette and marijuana use. Furthermore, female victims/perpetrators of both verbal and physical abuse, compared to those who experienced only verbal abuse, reported more cigarette and marijuana use. The two aforementioned studies both appear to suggest that physical victimization may impact cigarette and marijuana use specifically, especially for girls. In addition, the study by Roberts et al. (2003) found that the severity of dating abuse was significantly associated with increased involvement in illicit substance use in female participants only. Taken together, these studies suggest that there are likely notable gender differences in the types of substance use outcomes, as well as differential effects based on the nature of dating abuse experienced and other sample characteristics (e.g., psychiatric inpatients). There is emerging evidence that physical victimization may be especially influential for cigarette and marijuana use, particularly for females, and that for at-risk populations experiencing a high level of psychopathology, physical/sexual abuse may be especially predictive of future alcohol use.

Victimization/Perpetration Outcomes Thirteen studies (Choi, Van Ouytsel, & Temple, 2016; Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Fedina et al., 2016; Gomez, 2011; Jouriles et al., 2017; Lindhorst & Oxford, 2008; Orpinas et al., 2012; Orpinas et al., 2017; Ozer, Tschann, Pasch, & Flores, 2004; Roberts et al., 2003; Sabina et al., 2015; Smith, White, & Holland, 2003; Teitelman, Ratcliffe, Dichter, & Sullivan, 2008) examined outcomes related to victimization and perpetration. The majority of studies, seven total, focused on some form of subsequent victimization by a romantic partner, and to a lesser extent, perpetration. In general, results suggest that experiencing dating abuse in adolescence contributes to later revictimization and perpetration by a romantic partner. Exner-Cortens et al. (2013) found that physical and psychological dating violence victimization was associated with intimate partner victimization 5 years later in young adulthood for both males and females. The study by Sabina et al. (2015) examined more nuanced victimization outcomes in later adolescence/young adulthood years. Specifically, they found that sexual dating violence victimization experienced during adolescence (ages 12 18 years) significantly increased the risk of any (physical, sexual, psychological, and stalking dating violence victimization), dating violence victimization at Wave 2 (about 1 2 years later), while psychological dating violence victimization significantly increased the risk of any and stalking dating violence victimization at Wave 2. As noted by the authors, these findings may suggest that certain types of dating abuse potentially lead to increased risk for experiencing specific kinds of victimization at a later time.

74

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

A couple of studies addressed gender differences in the nature of victimization and perpetration outcomes. The study by Gomez (2011) found that psychological and physical victimization significantly predicted intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood for both males and females, but that the magnitude of these associations differed by gender. Specifically, they found that less severe adolescent dating violence victimization (defined as endorsement of one to three psychological and physical abuse victimization items of five total items) contributed to a slightly greater risk of intimate violence perpetration for men in adulthood, but for women, more severe victimization (endorsement of four to five psychological and physical abuse victimization items of five total items) contributed to intimate violence perpetration in adulthood. The authors also found that while for men, both less and more severe adolescent dating violence significantly increased intimate partner violence victimization in adulthood, only more severe adolescent dating violence had a significant influence on later victimization for women. In addition, the study by Jouriles et al. (2017) found that trauma symptoms mediated the association between physical dating abuse victimization in adolescence and later re-victimization in young adulthood for females but not for males. As discussed by the authors of these studies, the findings suggest that there may be different underlying developmental pathways to dating violence victimization for male versus female adolescents, pointing to notable gender differences in the experience and response to dating violence (Gomez, 2011; Jouriles et al., 2017). The remaining three of these seven studies examining intimate partner victimization and perpetration outcomes recruited only female participants. The study by Smith et al. (2003) found that physical dating victimization during adolescence significantly increased the risk of physical victimization in college, and that experiencing both physical and sexual victimization during adolescence increased the risk of physical victimization in college. Interestingly, sexual dating abuse victimization during adolescence, in the absence of physical victimization, did not increase the risk of physical intimate partner victimization in college. The study by Teitelman et al. (2008) found that physical and psychological dating victimization experienced in adolescence was associated with physical/verbal intimate partner victimization in young adulthood. Lastly, the study by Lindhorst and Oxford (2008) found that physical and psychological dating violence victimization in a sample of adolescent mothers was associated with experiencing greater levels of intimate partner violence in adulthood. Other outcomes related to victimization/perpetration include sexting behaviors (Choi et al., 2016), prostitution (Fedina et al., 2016), antisocial (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2003), and related perpetrating behaviors, specifically peer aggression victimization and perpetration (Orpinas et al., 2012) and weapon carrying/threats (Orpinas et al., 2017). Choi et al. (2016) found that experiencing sexual coercion victimization

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

75

since the age of 14 years was associated with engagement in sexting behaviors, specifically sending and being asked for a naked image, as well as receiving a naked image without giving permission, in a sample of female adolescents. Given the recent advances in technology and adolescents’ extensive use of a range of online communication methods, sexting is a relatively new area of concerning risk behaviors that may function as a continuation and extension of in-person sexual coercion, and accordingly, another method by which individuals can be victimized. The study by Fedina et al. (2016) found that both perpetration and victimization of physical and psychological dating violence was associated with prostitution. It is noted that the sample in this study consisted of low-income, urban, and predominantly AfricanAmerican and Latino youth that represent economically disadvantaged racial and ethnic minority groups who are at risk for a range of negative outcomes. Thus, this link highlights the need to address these risks through early prevention and intervention efforts in such vulnerable populations. Antisocial behavior outcomes have been addressed above in Mental/ Psychological Health Outcomes, noting conflicting results regarding gender differences. With regard to other negative risk behaviors related to antisocial behaviors, Orpinas et al. (2012) found that youth who were categorized in the high psychological dating violence victimization and perpetration group across 6th through 12th grade reported the highest levels of psychological peer aggression victimization and perpetration. In addition, Orpinas et al. (2017) found that youth who were classified to be in the increasing physical dating violence perpetration trajectory, compared to those in the low trajectory, tended to report carrying and threatening with a weapon. These studies appear to indicate that the experience of violence in the context of dating during adolescence contributes to subsequent engagement in violence and aggression in other settings.

DISCUSSION The literature reviewed here suggests that experiencing dating abuse during adolescence, as either a perpetrator or a victim, has extended short- and long-term consequences on a range of indicators of well-being. The rapid progress on this issue has been impressive and is largely attributable to the proliferation of longitudinal research, conducted over the past decade or so, that has examined a wide range of adolescent dating violence outcomes. One domain that seems to have received less empirical attention is academic outcomes, including grades, school disciplinary actions, absences, and dropping out of school. However, across the range of other outcomes covered in this chapter, perhaps a sufficient body of research now exists to warrant a metaanalysis to systematically review the data. One of the most robust findings that has emerged across all four outcome domains is that girls and boys both suffer from short- and long-term

76

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

consequences of dating violence. Although it seems that girls are more likely to experience negative outcomes, this may be because some of the studies reviewed only had girls in the sample or focused on outcomes that may be more salient for girls (e.g., depression). It also seems to be that boys and girls experience different negative outcomes and that their experiences are sometimes moderated by the type of dating violence or whether the associated outcome was for victimization or perpetration. This is particularly important given the well-established finding that girls perpetrate most forms of dating violence at rates that are comparable to, or even higher than, boys (e.g., Taylor & Mumford, 2016). So, despite the similar rates of victimization and perpetration for boys and girls, it appears that they attach different salience and meaning to these interactions. Despite how much we have learned about the differences in consequences for boys and girls, we still know little about how dating violence consequences differ across racial and ethnic groups. Most of what we have learned about outcomes for Latino and African-American youth comes from studies that focus exclusively on those populations, making it difficult to make comparisons across racial and ethnic groups. We know even less about other groups that are particularly vulnerable to dating violence, such as LGBTQ individuals, American-Indian and Alaska Native youth, homeless youth, pregnant and parenting teens, adolescents with disabilities, foster care youth, justice-involved youth, adolescents with significantly older dating partners, and individuals who drop out of school. Many of these adolescents may be particularly vulnerable because of their intersecting identities in two or more of these high-risk groups. Longitudinal studies of groups at high risk for dating violence are needed to fill this gap in the literature to allow us to begin to tease apart the relationship between these often intersecting risk groups. It is also worth noting that across the studies reviewed for this chapter, there was no consensus about the type or combination of dating abuse types that resulted in more negative outcomes. Negative consequences were found whether studies assessed outcomes for psychological, physical, or sexual dating violence or any combination of the abuse types. This is not surprising and is consistent with Goncy and colleagues’ (2016) measurement study that found support for including psychological and physical forms of dating violence into a single construct. Additional research is still needed to better understand how the severity, frequency, and longevity of dating violence affect the extent to which adolescents and young adults experience negative consequences. Relatedly, how do dating violence outcomes vary for youth who have experienced a range of other types of victimization in their lives? And, how do the consequences of dating abuse differ for adolescents who move from one violent relationship to another compared to those who experience violence in a single relationship? Similar to the lack of consensus around forms of dating abuse, there was not a clear indication that either dating violence perpetration or victimization

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

77

resulted in more frequent or severe negative outcomes. Negative consequences were found whether the adolescent was engaged in perpetrating dating violence or was the victim of dating violence. Continuing to examine outcomes related to victimization versus those related to perpetration may not be a very meaningful distinction due to the high overlap between victimization experiences and perpetration behaviors within adolescent relationships. It may be more fruitful to examine the differences in outcomes between youth who are perpetrators only, victims only, perpetrator/ victims, and adolescents with no relationship violence experiences. As noted earlier, despite the significant progress that has been made in our understanding, there are still important key questions that need to be answered with respect to the role that dating abuse plays in these outcomes. For example, given some evidence of reciprocal relationships between dating violence experiences and a range of the documented outcomes (e.g., depression is a both a risk factor for and an outcome of dating violence perpetration), it will be important to continue to conduct longitudinal studies that can help to tease apart the complexity of these bidirectional interactions. Similarly, we need to better understand the impact that developmental stage has on the impact of dating abuse. In these endeavors, it may be especially informative to conduct studies that examine the influence of a range of developmentally appropriate neurobiological and environmental factors involved in the progression of adolescent dating relationships, which would allow for a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of the impact of dating abuse over time. There are a number of limitations to what was reviewed in this chapter. First, despite including only studies where it could be determined that the measurement of dating violence preceded (at least in part) the measurement of the outcome variable, clear causality cannot be derived from this review. In the future, longitudinal research in the field will progress to a point where baseline data on the outcomes of interest can provide enough statistical control to get closer to determining causality. However, even with statistical controls, the effects of dating violence will be difficult to disentangle from the myriad other events and rapid change that characterize adolescents’ lives. Second, this review focused on longitudinal studies with large gaps between points of measurement, so immediate outcomes of teen dating violence (e.g., fear) that would be captured by short interval methods like daily diary studies were not included. Likewise, we did not review potential mediators that might serve as protective factors to buffer those who have experienced relationship abuse against negative consequences. We recognize the importance of protective factors in understanding the relationship between victimization and perpetration of dating violence and ameliorating the risk of negative outcomes. This link is critical for developing effective interventions for youth who have been involved in abusive dating relationships. Despite the fact that there is much to learn about the consequences of dating violence, the field

78

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

has progressed to a point where we understand that dating violence has long-term, serious consequences for victims and perpetrators, highlighting the need for both prevention and intervention.

Implications The existing literature thus far strongly indicated that adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration have negative short- and long-term impacts on a wide range of indicators of functioning. However, there are likely factors (e.g., gender) that may impact the nature (e.g., specificity, severity) of these links. In addition, there are likely other influences (e.g., demographic factors) that also contribute to individual differences in outcome that have yet to be examined in the literature. The overall compelling finding that dating abuse has a profound impact on a range of serious public health concerns, not only acutely but even extending to adulthood, suggests that prevention and intervention strategies to promote healthy relationships in adolescence are crucially important. The overwhelming majority of research thus far showed that adolescent dating abuse has a negative influence on a range of mental health and psychological issues, particularly with regard to depression. Furthermore, it appeared that both victimization and perpetration separately are associated with depressive outcomes across the board. In addition to potentially more severe mental health outcomes (e.g., depression, suicidal behaviors), dating abuse was also related to “everyday” aspects of psychological and social functioning that are not necessarily diagnoses in and of themselves (e.g., difficulty sleeping, hostility). Nonetheless, these may reflect intermediate mechanisms by which more serious issues develop in the future. In addition to mental health, studies indicated that dating violence also significantly impacts aspects of physical health, including engaging in risky sexual behaviors that may particularly be associated with co-occurrence of other high-risk health behaviors (e.g., substance use) that further increase risk for ongoing violence victimization and perpetration. According to one study (Madkour et al., 2014), dating abuse may even have negative effects throughout pregnancy to result in negative birth outcomes. This suggests that experiencing dating abuse may have extended biological effects of an intergenerational nature. Dating abuse was also shown to be associated with the use and abuse of a wide range of illicit substances, although there are mixed results regarding whether there may be differential effects for specific types of substances. Given that substance use and abuse, especially in adolescents, are associated with myriad serious and chronic negative outcomes, it will be important to clarify how certain substances play a role in the cycle of dating abuse (e.g., at what points does using a specific substance constitute a coping mechanism and what is the role of specific substances in exacerbation of abuse?).

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

79

Lastly, experiencing dating abuse in adolescence was associated with subsequent re-victimization and perpetration involving romantic partners as well as peers (e.g., weapon carrying, peer aggression). Further research will be especially important to understand the far-reaching nature and context of violence in general (e.g., across peer, family, and romantic settings), including the maintenance and dynamic course of ongoing cycles of abuse.

Gaps in the Literature While research generally shows that dating violence contributes to negative outcomes, the potential specific and general effects of distinct types of abuse (i.e., physical, sexual, and psychological) are still unclear. There are differences across studies regarding whether and how different forms of abuse were combined across studies. Some studies indicate that specific forms of dating abuse may have more detrimental effects later on for males versus females, but results are currently quite mixed to be able to draw strong conclusions. Studies thus far have varied widely on aspects of temporal considerations, such as the age at which dating abuse is measured, the length of exposure to abuse, and the length of time between abuse and outcome. More longitudinal studies, in addition to cross-sectional studies that allow for distinct and clear temporal associations, are needed to gain a more fine-grained and precise understanding of the severity, frequency, and chronicity of both the abuse and outcome of interest. Relatedly, while research regarding more immediate, day-to-day impact of abuse has recently begun to be conducted, findings are preliminary and additional support is needed to better understand patterns of immediate consequences of abuse. In general, there are still significantly more studies focusing on victimization compared to perpetration. While more studies examining perpetration are needed, given the high degree of overlap in adolescent dating victimization and perpetration (i.e., many youth are both victims and perpetrators of abuse), it may be especially important to compare differences in outcomes among sole perpetrators, sole victims, perpetrator/victims, and youth with no dating abuse experiences to draw clearer conclusions. While the majority of studies have focused on aspects of mental health and psychological outcomes, with most examining depression, the current literature is severely lacking in certain psychopathological outcomes/diagnoses, such as externalizing and personality disorders. Given the distinct nature of certain classes of psychological disorders (e.g., internalizing versus externalizing), exposure to dating violence during adolescence may represent a potential common pathway (e.g., perhaps due to trauma) by which a wide range of psychopathological symptoms and conditions develop. Further examination of potential factors that contribute to individual differences or that may mediate or moderate the pathway between abuse and

80

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

outcomes (e.g., gender, socioeconomic status) is needed, as findings are currently mixed. Relatedly, given that there is particularly a significant lack of information regarding participants’ sexual orientation and gender identity, future studies need to examine this issue closely. For instance, the ways in which specific LGBTQ populations tend to engage in or react to dating abuse may be characteristically different and subsequently contribute to identifiable differences in short- and long-term outcomes.

REFERENCES Ackard, D. M., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Long-term impact of adolescent dating violence on the behavioral and psychological health of male and female youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 151(5), 476 481. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jpeds.2007.04.034. Brown, A., Cosgrave, E., Killackey, E., Purcell, R., Buckby, J., & Yung, A. R. (2009). The longitudinal association of adolescent dating violence with psychiatric disorders and functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(12), 1964 1979. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260508327700. Burton, C. W., Halpern-Felsher, B., Rehm, R. S., Rankin, S. H., & Humphreys, J. C. (2016). Depression and self-rated health among rural women who experienced adolescent dating abuse: A mixed methods study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(5), 920 941. Button, D. M., & Miller, S. L. (2013). Teen dating relationships and outcomes of well-being: Examining gender differences in nonviolent and violent dating relationships. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(3), 247 265. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08974454.2013.806839. Choi, H., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J. R. (2016). Association between sexting and sexual coercion among female adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 164 168. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.005. 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 influence mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(4), 854 866. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-016-0570-7. Clark, C. J., Spencer, R. A., Everson-Rose, S. A., Brady, S. S., Mason, S. M., Connett, J. E., & Suglia, S. F. (2014). Dating violence, childhood maltreatment, and BMI from adolescence to young adulthood. Pediatrics, 134(4), 678 685. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2014-1179. Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2016). Dating violence and physical health: A longitudinal lens on the significance of relationship dynamics and antisocial lifestyle characteristics. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26(4), 251 262. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2016. Epstein-Ngo, Q. M., Cunningham, R. M., Whiteside, L. K., Chermack, S. T., Booth, B. M., Zimmerman, M. A., & Walton, M. A. (2013). A daily calendar analysis of substance use and dating violence among high risk urban youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 130(0), 194 200. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.11.006. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71 78.

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

81

Fedina, L., Howard, D. E., Wang, M. Q., & Murray, K. (2016). Teen dating violence victimization, perpetration, and sexual health correlates among urban, low-income, ethnic, and racial minority youth. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, ePub(ePub), ePubePub. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Gottfredson, N. C., Chang, L.-Y., & Ennett, S. T. (2013). A longitudinal examination of psychological, behavioral, academic, and relationship consequences of dating abuse victimization among a primarily rural sample of adolescents. The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication Of The Society For Adolescent Medicine, 53(6), 723 729. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.06.016. Gomez, A. M. (2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth & Society, 43(1), 171 192. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x09358313. Goncy, E. A., Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T. N., & Taylor, K. A. (2016). Measurement of dating aggression during middle school: Structure, measurement invariance, and distinction from general aggression. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(3), 509 523. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12208. Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(10), 1679 1685. Available from https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.10.1679. Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B., & Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among U.S. adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associations with health complaints and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(2), 194 201. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.008. Hoffman, S. D. (2008). Kids having kids: Economic and social consequences of teen pregnancy. Washington: The Urban Institute Press. Johnson, W. L., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2014). Intimate partner violence and depressive symptoms during adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(1), 39 55. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022146513520430. Jouriles, E. N., Choi, H. J., Rancher, C., & Temple, J. R. (2017). Teen dating violence victimization, trauma symptoms and re-victimization in early adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(1), 115 119. Lindhorst, T., & Oxford, M. (2008). The long-term effects of intimate partner violence on adolescent mothers’ depressive symptoms. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 66(6), 1322 1333. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.045. Madkour, A. S., Xie, Y., & Harville, E. W. (2014). Pre-pregnancy dating violence and birth outcomes among adolescent mothers in a national sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(10), 1894 1913. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511699. Orpinas, P., Hsieh, H.-L., Song, X., Holland, K., & Nahapetyan, L. (2013). Trajectories of physical dating violence from middle to high school: Association with relationship quality and acceptability of aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 551 565. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9881-5. Orpinas, P., Nahapetyan, L., Song, X., McNicholas, C., & Reeves, P. M. (2012). Psychological dating violence perpetration and victimization: Trajectories from middle to high school. Aggressive Behavior, 38(6), 510 520. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ab.21441.

82

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Orpinas, P., Nahapetyan, L., & Truszczynski, N. (2017). Low and increasing trajectories of perpetration of physical dating violence: 7-year associations with suicidal ideation, weapons, and substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1 12. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-017-0630-7. Ozer, E. J., Tschann, J. M., Pasch, L. A., & Flores, E. (2004). Violence perpetration across peer and partner relationships: Co-occurrence and longitudinal patterns among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34(1), 64 71. Rizzo, C. J., Esposito-Smythers, C., Spirito, A., & Thompson, A. (2010). Psychiatric and cognitive functioning in adolescent inpatients with histories of dating violence victimization. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(5), 565 583. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495034. Roberts, T. A., Klein, J. D., & Fisher, S. (2003). Longitudinal effect of intimate partner abuse on high-risk behavior among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(9), 875 881. Available from https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.157.9.875. Sabina, C., Cuevas, C. A., & Cotignola-Pickens, H. M. (2015). Longitudinal dating violence victimization among Latino teens: Rates, risk factors, and cultural influences. Journal of Adolescence, 47, 5 15. Sabina, C., Cuevas, C. A., & Rodriguez, R. M. (2014). Who to turn to? Help-seeking in response to teen dating violence among Latinos. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 348. Shorey, R. C., Fite, P. J., Choi, H., Cohen, J. R., Stuart, G. L., & Temple, J. R. (2015). Dating violence and substance use as longitudinal predictors of adolescents’ risky sexual behavior. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 16(6), 853 861. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0556-9. Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L. A., & Hathaway, J. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA, 286(5), 572 579. Available from https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.286.5.572. Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1104 1109. Taylor, B. G., & Mumford, E. A. (2016). A national descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: Results from the National Survey on Teen Relationships and Intimate Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(6), 963 988. Teitelman, A. M., Ratcliffe, S. J., Dichter, M. E., & Sullivan, C. M. (2008). Recent and past intimate partner abuse and HIV risk among young women. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing: JOGNN/NAACOG, 37(2), 219 227. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2008.00231.x. Temple, J. R., Choi, H. J., Elmquist, J., Hecht, M., Miller-Day, M., Stuart, G. L., & WolfordClevenger, C. (2016). Psychological abuse, mental health, and acceptance of dating violence among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(2), 197 202. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.034. Temple, J. R., & Freeman, D. H. (2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 701 718. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633 649. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7.

The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 3

83

van Dulmen, M. H., Klipfel, K. M., Mata, A. D., Schinka, K. C., Claxton, S. E., Swahn, M. H., & Bossarte, R. M. (2012). Cross-lagged effects between intimate partner violence victimization and suicidality from adolescence into adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(5), 510 516. Yan, F. A., Howard, D. E., Beck, K. H., Shattuck, T., & Hallmark-Kerr, M. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of physical dating violence victimization among Latino early adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(5), 808 831. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260509336958.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 4

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying, Sexual Harassment, and Teen Dating Violence Dorothy L. Espelage1, Jun S. Hong2,3, and Alberto Valido1 1

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, 2Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States, 3Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea

INTRODUCTION All too often, children and adolescents are exposed to violence and abuse in multiple settings (e.g., home, school, and communities), which may take the form of sexual abuse, physical assault, maltreatment, and bullying. Research over the years has made a significant contribution to enhancing our understanding of children’s lifetime exposure to emotional and physical violence. Indeed, the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence found a large proportion of children reported experiencing more than one type of direct victimization (64.5%) and about 10.9% reported five or more exposures to different types of victimization (Finkelhor, Turner, Hamby, & Ormrod, 2011). It also well known that children who were exposed to one type of violence are at a significant risk of experiencing other types of violence (Finkelhor et al., 2011). Researchers have shown that similar risk and protective factors are associated with different forms of victimization and other type of problem behaviors that youth experience (Arthur, Hawkins, Pollard, Catalano, & Baglioni, 2002; Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; Donovan, Jessor, & Costa, 1991; Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013; Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995). Significant advances in research on multiple abusive behaviors (bullying, teen dating violence, sexual abuse) have contributed to the development of school and community-based prevention programs. However, a bulk of research and programming considers or addresses only one type of violence, while ignoring or briefly noting other forms of violence that the same child Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00004-9 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

85

86

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

might be confronted with (Finkelhor et al., 2011). More attention needs to be paid to children who are exposed to or experience multiple types of violence. Scholars have proposed conceptual frameworks linking bullying and other forms of violence (e.g., Basile, Espelage, Rivers, McMahon, & Simon, 2009). For example, both longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have reported that youth who are involved in bullying are at a heightened risk of sexual harassment and teen dating violence (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012; Foshee et al., 2014; Fredland, 2008). The aim of this chapter is to review the literature on the associations between family violence and abuse as it relates to bullying, sexual violence, and dating violence among children and adolescents. First, we define bullying, sexual violence/harassment, and teen dating violence and present prevalence rates among children and adolescents. Second, we review the association between family violence and other forms of violence/abuse children experience and their association with bullying and later interpersonal violence. Finally, we provide directions for future research and implications for prevention.

DEFINITION AND PREVALENCE OF BULLYING, SEXUAL VIOLENCE, AND TEEN DATING VIOLENCE Bullying is defined by researchers as recurring acts of aggression that include abuse of power, which can be physical (e.g., hitting, pushing), verbal (e.g., intimidation, name-calling), relational (e.g., excluding an individual from the social circle), and can happen through online media (e.g., text messaging, e-mail, chats; Olweus, Limber, & Mahalic, 1999; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2014). More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defined bullying as unwanted aggressive behavior perpetuated by youth or a group of youth who are not family members or romantic partners (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014, p. 7). Bullying involves a power imbalance and is often repetitive (Gladden et al., 2014). Bullying can result in social, physical, psychological, or academic impairment. The global rates of bullying range from 10% to 30%, with rates peaking during the middle school years (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010). Sexual violence involves unsolicited behaviors to obtain sexual gratification through force or intimidation. Basile and Saltzman (2002) define sexual violence as completed or attempted vaginal, oral or anal intercourse, unwelcomed touching, groping or fondling, as well as acts of indecent exposure, and verbal harassment by any offender. Sexual harassment includes unsolicited sexual behavior and can be either verbal or physical (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 2011). Sexual harassment is prevalent among youth: 56% of girls and 40% of boys reported experiencing

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

87

sexual harassment between 7th and 12th grade within a time frame of 1 year (AAUW, 2011). Dating violence is conceptualized as a form of intimate partner violence (IPV) that occurs within the context of a dating relationship (CDC, 2014), violence can manifest as sexual, emotional, or physical violence. Physical forms of dating violence include punching, slapping, or attacking a partner, which is often accompanied by name-calling and humiliating remarks (CDC, 2014). Emotionally abusive forms of dating violence occur through manipulation, denigration, swearing, and other forms of verbal battering (CDC, 2014). According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, approximately 13% reported dating violence in 2010 (Black et al., 2011). The prevalence of dating violence in regional and high risk samples is substantially higher (Holt & Espelage, 2005; Howard & Wang, 2003).

DEVELOPMENTAL FRAMEWORK LINKING MULTIPLE FORMS OF VIOLENCE AND VICTIMIZATION A significant body of research suggests that exposure to community and family violence (e.g., domestic violence, family conflict, sibling aggression, and child abuse) is linked to externalizing behaviors, anger, unsafe sexual behaviors, deviant peer associations, and alcohol and drug use, which are further linked to bullying perpetration in early adolescence. Bullying perpetration in middle school is subsequently related to sexual harassment, which may subsequently lead to teen dating violence perpetration in mid- to lateadolescence.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FAMILY CONFLICT, AND BULLYING PERPETRATION: THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS Children who are exposed to interparental violence experience a range of negative outcomes, including being more prone to bullying behavior in their school (Baldry, 2003; Espelage, Low, & De La Rue, 2012; Holt, Kantor, & Finkelhor, 2009; Mustanoja et al., 2011; Tippett & Wolke, 2015). The association between exposure to violence between parents and bullying is also noted in several longitudinal studies (Bauer et al., 2006; Bolger & Patterson, 2001; Bowes et al., 2009). Also, as posited by several theories, children who observe or experience violence and ongoing conflicts in the home might be predisposed to act out aggressively when interacting with their peers. Attachment theorists, e.g., postulate that children may develop an insecure attachment with their caregivers when conflicts and violence are prevalent in the home, which may explain subsequent bullying behavior (see Eliot & Cornell, 2009). Social learning theorists, conversely, argue that children’s social environment (e.g., home) can contribute, in large part, to acquiring

88

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

and maintaining bullying behavior. Children may learn from role models to use aggressive means to socialize or resolve peer conflicts (Bandura, 1973, 1986). In addition, feminist theorists may assert that in a patriarchal society, violence against women is the end result of socially sanctioned control and domination of women by men (Corvo & Johnson, 2003), and children who witness interparental violence within the home may learn to act aggressively against their peers and their romantic partners outside the home. And finally, social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) posits that connection and commitment to prosocial adults and institutions are essential in promoting positive youth behaviors. As such, adolescents who consistently witnessed violence at home during childhood are likely to feel disconnected from conventional institutions, such as school and maybe involved in antisocial behaviors such as bullying.

FAMILY VIOLENCE EXPOSURE AND BULLYING PERPETRATION Youth exposed to maltreatment in the home are at heightened risk of negative outcomes, such as symptoms of depression and anxiety, and externalizing behaviors in childhood and in adulthood (Bernet & Stein, 1999; Moylan, Herrenkohl, Sousa, & Tajima, 2010; Simon et al., 2009). Child physical abuse within the family is defined as multiple types of abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, and neglect) perpetrated against a child under the age 18 by a parent, caregiver, or another person in a custodial role (CDC, 2017). In a study of 670 young adults, childhood physical abuse and family violence exposure were associated with anger-related dysregulation (Iverson, McLaughlin, Adair, & Monson, 2014). In addition, significant associations between anger/ hostility and bullying and sexual violence perpetration have been reported. For example, anger and hostility are strongly associated with bullying, namecalling, mocking, and intimidating behaviors in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies (Basile et al., 2009; Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000; Low & Espelage, 2014). Experiences in negative emotional reactions (e.g., state of anger) can increase adolescents’ risk of acting out aggressively and engaging in bullying behavior. Moreover, the link between bullying behavior and anger appears to be bidirectional: Anger is a negative emotional outcome related to bullying behavior (Rigby, 2003; Stockdale, Hangaduambo, Duys, Larson, & Sarvela, 2002).

CHILD EMOTIONAL ABUSE AND LATER VIOLENCE Child emotional abuse (CEA) occurs when an adult knowingly maltreats a child and includes instances of humiliation, shaming, isolation, and emotional neglect (Crawford & Wright, 2007). CEA victims often report feeling

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

89

flawed, worthless, and unloved by their caregivers (Leeb, Paulozzzi, Melanson, Simon, & Arias, 2008). CEA can have a negative impact on both interpersonal and intrapersonal skills that are necessary for effective social development. Indeed, insecure family bonds can affect the formation of healthy interpersonal boundaries within intimate relationships (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998). Internalized symptoms of depression, suicidal ideation, and other forms of mental illness are associated with sustained emotional abuse during childhood (Vezina & Hebert, 2007). CEA distorts the development of healthy beliefs about intimacy and partnership, which can create tendency toward jealousy, obsession, and emotional blame (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998). Similarly, children who witness parental violence are more likely to become violent in dating relationships (Vezina & Hebert, 2007). In a study of undergraduate romantic relationships, the extent of CEA and witnessing of father-to-mother physical violence predicted males’ dating aggression and victimization (Milletich, Kelley, Doane, & Pearson, 2010). CEA victims may only value themselves in relation to their ability to fulfill someone else’s needs; they may feel undeserving of any better treatment, and often wrongfully assume responsibility for the shaming and degrading attacks of a partner. Being constantly accused and neglected by an unsympathetic romantic partner unearths hidden feelings of responsibility the child felt for his/her failure procuring love from a caregiver. The unbalanced relationship preserves the CEA victim’s maladaptive behaviors who will go to disproportionate lengths to secure the needed affection (Crawford & Wright, 2007).

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND TEEN DATING VIOLENCE Child sexual abuse (CSA) is defined as “any completed or attempted sexual act, sexual contact, or non-contact sexual interaction with a child by a caregiver” (Leeb et al., 2008). CSA victims, relative to nonvictims, are more likely to have a host of short- and long-term consequences. In the immediate context, victims may experience guilt, anger, self-loathing, disengaged contact with family members, higher risk of homelessness, and traumatic encounters with child protective services and law enforcement (Tyler, Hoyt, Whitbeck, & Cauce, 2001). During their lifetime, CSA victims are also more likely to be at risk of PTSD, dissociation, depression, suicidality, sexual promiscuity, self-destructive behaviors, and developmentally inappropriate sexual interactions (Manchikanti Gomez, 2011; Maniglio, 2009; Paolucci, Genuis, & Violato, 2001). Taking into consideration previous study findings, it is not surprising that CSA victims are also at substantial risk of involvement in adolescent dating violence (ADV) (Banyard, Arnold, & Smith, 2000; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986; Cyr, McDuff, & Wright, 2006). For example, CSA survivors are likely

90

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

to feel powerless to stop their abuser and may frequently feel betrayed by their caregivers, which impairs their ability to establish trust in intimate romantic relationships (Fleming, Mullen, Sibthorpe, & Bammer, 1999). Additionally, a study on adolescent female victims of CSA found that the duration of the sexual abuse, the violence associated with the event, and whether the victim was forced to have complete intercourse were highly correlated with physical dating violence (both victimization and perpetration) (Cyr et al., 2006). Further, sexual abusers often use emotional coercion and social isolation to hinder the ability of the child to seek help from other adults (Gilbert et al., 2009). These predatory tactics can have a harmful cumulative effect in the development of the child’s sexuality and the ability to find sources of emotional support to cope with trauma later in life (Fleming et al., 1999). Additionally, risky behaviors and negative mental health outcomes are often associated with CSA victimization. For example, compared to non-CSA victims, CSA victims were more likely to report substance abuse and to establish deviant peer relationships, both of which are risk factors for teen dating violence (Tyler et al., 2001; Vagi et al., 2013). Alternatively, some studies show that resilience, social support, and prosocial emotional assets during development can have a protective effect in ADV (Vezina & Hebert, 2007).

FAMILY VIOLENCE, ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE, BULLYING, AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT There is also sufficient research evidence that indicates that youth who experience family conflict and violence are at elevated risk of early alcohol and drug use. Early experiences with family violence can impede the development of positive peer relationships in school, as studies have shown (Ehrensaft, 2008; Herrenkohl, Huang, Tajima, & Whitney, 2003; Tyler et al., 2001). As previously mentioned, children who have experienced or have been exposed to family violence have deficits forming secure attachments with caregivers (Cicchetti, Lynch, Shonk, & Manly, 1992). As a result, these children may be drawn toward peers who engage in deviant and risk behaviors, such as alcohol and drug use. Not surprisingly, youth who use alcohol and drugs are also at an elevated risk of engaging in other forms of delinquent behaviors, such as bullying (Swahn et al., 2011; Vaughn et al., 2010) and sexual harassment (Fineran & Bolen, 2006). Alcohol and drugs emerges during adolescents and increases with age (Volk, Craig, Boyce, & King, 2006). Alcohol and drugs can impair an adolescent’s thoughts and behaviors, which can subsequently increase the risk of violence (e.g., bullying perpetration; Radliff, Wheaton, Robinson, & Morris, 2012; Swahn et al., 2011; Volk et al., 2006).

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

91

LINKING BULLYING, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND TEEN DATING VIOLENCE Researchers have shown that youth problem behaviors share similar risk and protective factors (Arthur et al., 2002; Donovan et al., 1991; Jessor et al., 1995). One of the risk factors associated with dating violence is a belief that violence is an acceptable response (Orpinas, Hsieh, Song, Holland, & Nahapetyan, 2013). Youth who engage in one form of violence (e.g., bullying, homophobic teasing) are likely to be involved in other forms of violence (e.g., sexual harassment, dating violence; Espelage et al., 2012; Espelage & Holt, 2007). Studies have also shown that aggressive boys who get involved in fights or carry a weapon are likely to participate in sexual harassment (Howard, Wang, & Yan, 2007; Pellegrini, 2001). Two longitudinal studies found that childhood antisocial behaviors can also predict violence against romantic partners (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Lavoie et al., 2002). Moreover, Brendgen and colleagues (2001) found that aggressive behavior during early adolescence was positively linked to dating violence at ages 16 or 17. Also, there is growing body of literature that has implicated longitudinal associations between substance use and teen dating violence involvement (Espelage, Davis, Basile, Rostad, & Leemis, under review; Temple, Shorey, Fite, Stuart, & Le, 2013). Research on prevention strategies indicate that dating violence prevention may benefit from the commonalities between sexual harassment, bullying perpetration, and dating violence (Espelage & Holt, 2007; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). Yet, many questions remain with respect to similarities and differences in early risk factors and dating violence trajectories. Here, we review the literature on the emergence of bullying perpetration during early adolescence, with a focus on links between family violence, anger, and alcohol and drug use, which can lead to teen dating violence. Bullying and sexual harassment are prevalent in middle schools where adolescents begin seeking social status in their peer groups and interacting with their opposite-sex peers. Bullying also sets the stage for the development of sexual harassment in middle schools, as indicated in empirical findings. Pellegrini (2001) found that aggressive boys were more likely to engage in sexual harassment. In a cross-sectional study of 961 middle school students and 935 high school students, Pepler and colleagues (2006) also found that students who bullied were more likely to report sexual harassment perpetration than those who did not. Another study (DeSouza & Ribeiro, 2005) conducted using a sample of students in 400 Brazilian high schools reported that bullying predicted sexual harassment for boys and girls. A more recent study (Espelage et al., 2012) found that homophobic teasing perpetration and bullying in a sample of middle school students was associated with sexual harassment perpetration 6 months later.

92

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Adolescents who reported having experienced sexual harassment are also likely to report dating violence victimization (Connolly, McMaster, Craig, & Pepler, 1997) and dating violence is positively associated with bullying perpetration (Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Taradash, 2000). These findings seemingly indicate that sexual harassment, dating violence, and bullying are linked. To understand the associations among these behaviors, Miller and colleagues (2013) performed a latent class analysis with approximately 800 seventh-grade students and the intersections between dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment. Five classes emerged with fairly stable longitudinal class memberships. The groups formed by high levels of dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment had higher class concentrations of boys than other classes (Miller et al., 2013). Conversely, girls were more likely to be in classes with less problematic behaviors (Miller et al., 2013). Miller and colleagues’ manuscript is a significant contribution to the field of aggression research because it is the first article to examine multiple forms of interpersonal aggression within a longitudinal framework.

ADOLESCENT DATING VIOLENCE AND INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Although the research is scarce, several longitudinal studies of ADV and IPV have found associations between these phenomena (Capaldi et al., 2012; Mulford & Giordano, 2008; Straus & Yodanis, 1996). IPV can involve varying degrees of emotional manipulation, sexual coercion, rape, and battering perpetrated by a spouse or intimate sexual partner (Campbell, 2002; Capaldi et al., 2012). In a meta-analysis of predictors of IPV among adolescents and adults, Capaldi et al. (2012) utilized a dynamic developmental systems conceptual framework to identify contextual (e.g., age, gender), developmental (e.g., family relationships), and interpersonal characteristics (e.g., satisfaction with family) that are associated with IPV. Results of the study indicated that the risk factors associated with IPV were similar to those found for other forms of problem behaviors, including criminal activities and substance use. Further, both risk and protective family-level factors were noted as significant predictors, including a history of childhood maltreatment, parental monitoring, and parental social support. Psychopathology and antisocial developmental behaviors were also found to be associated with IPV. Also, other psychological factors, such as experiences in psychological abuse and beliefs supportive of violence have shown to be significantly linked to IPV. For instance, Lichter and McCloskey (2004) found that traditional genderrole beliefs were associated with higher acceptance of dating violence and a tendency to justify partner’s aggressive behaviors. Moreover, Murphy and O’Leary (1989) and O’Leary, Malone, and Tyree (1994) found longitudinal

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

93

associations between child psychological abuse and physical marital aggression. Mulford and Giordano (2008) highlighted the conceptual differences between adult IPV and ADV in matters of “power dynamics, social skill development, and peer influence.” In other words, within adult relationships the tools for emotional manipulation have reached a higher level of development, there is a marked imbalance of power, and the abuse is more manifest, making IPV significantly more complex that violence perpetrated during adolescent relationships (Mulford & Giordano, 2008). Therefore, prevention programs targeting the less severe manifestations of dating violence during adolescence would be preferred to interventions targeting adult populations (Whitaker et al., 2006). A growing body of literature has focused on an integrated and developmental approach to the study of interpersonal violence that takes into account lifetime and contextual risk factors, including adolescent and adult forms of violence. For example, Exner-Cortens and colleagues (2013) investigated dating violence victimization in a nationally representative sample of adolescence (ages 12 18 years) and how it is associated with dating violence in early adulthood (ages 18 25 years). The study found that adolescent females with dating violence victimization histories reported heavier episodic drinking, symptoms of depression, suicidal ideation, and smoking in early adulthood than their peers without past dating violence victimization. Similar patterns emerged for males, whereby dating violence victimization in adolescence was related to more suicidal ideation, marijuana use, and antisocial behavior in early adulthood. This finding, along with other longitudinal research, highlights the need for primary prevention during early adolescence that is aimed to modify attitudes, behavioral patterns, and risk factors that increase the likelihood of dating violence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION Bullying (Nansel et al., 2001; Robers, Kemp, & Truman, 2013) and sexual harassment (Espelage, Hong, Rinehart, & Doshi, 2016) are prevalent in U.S. middle schools. In the aftermath of several school shootings, many educators have embraced zero tolerance policies to reduce school violence (Stein, 2003). The focus on these policies has contributed to the creation of numerous bullying prevention programs, which consequently diminished attention to the prevalence of sexual harassment in middle schools (Gruber & Fineran, 2008). Considering the over-emphasis on bullying, sexual harassment has largely been overlooked, as some researchers have viewed it as a subset of bullying (Gruber & Fineran, 2008). Further, it is also imperative for practitioners to help find opportunities for youth to acquire nonaggressive strategies to manage peer conflicts effectively.

94

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Schools should also address gender-based language (e.g., homophobic epithets) early in middle school to prevent sexual harassment before students begin dating in middle school (Miller et al., 2012). Further, family interventions should address the underlying family conflicts that contribute to adolescents’ aggression and violent behavior. Strategies to manage anger needs to be taught to students to replace bullying and aggressive behaviors. In addition, Tharp (2012) advises prevention efforts to target the individual level and the relationship-level factors. Although some programs do incorporate multiple domains (Wolfe et al., 2003), few (if any) dating violence prevention programs focus on family experiences specifically to understand how they affect current behaviors with peers and partners. Lastly, Moore, Elkins, McNulty, Kivisto, and Handsel’s (2011) study suggests an association among alcohol and drug use and sexual harassment and dating violence perpetration during high school, in agreement with studies with dating college students. Alcohol and drug prevention programs may weaken the link between bullying and successive forms of gender-based and relationship-based aggression, such as sexual harassment and dating violence. Such programs require comprehensive assessment tools that can better inform practice. Also, given that alcohol and drug use can co-occur with bullying, aggression, and sexual violence, effectively identifying adolescents who are likely to engage in these multiple behaviors is necessary (Luk, Wang, & Simons-Morton, 2012). However, it is also important to note that despite the strong association between violence and alcohol and drug use, substance use is often more difficult to detect and thus, prompt effective intervention may be limited (Vieno, Gini, & Santinello, 2011). Thus, primary prevention and detection of risks for substance use, such as bullying and dating violence are warranted. It is also important for interventionists to fully recognize and understand how adolescents’ experiences in bullying and dating violence are significant precursors to risk behaviors, such as illicit drug use.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Research in recent years have embraced the notion of observing connections between bullying and sexual violence, including sexual harassment and teen dating violence. By contrast, school violence interventions rarely embrace the value of identifying and targeting other forms of violence that either cooccurs with or subsequently follows bullying perpetration. Although research on multiple forms of violence and victimization has emerged over the years, the proposed developmental framework has implications for future research. In conjunction with domestic violence (i.e., interparental violence), future research might consider various forms of maltreatment in the home—in particular, neglect and CSA—and how they are related to bullying, sexual harassment, and teen dating violence. To date, numerous studies have established a link between harsh parenting, physical abuse in the home, and

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

95

bullying in school (Shields & Cicchetti, 2001; Wolfe, Crooks, Chiodo, & Jaffe, 2009). Although studies have rarely examined whether CSA or neglect in the home is associated with bullying behavior in schools, victims of CSA are at considerable higher risks of involvement in ADV (Banyard et al., 2000; Cyr et al., 2006). Future studies should also explore whether other risk factors, such as internalizing problems (e.g., depression, anxiety) or externalizing problems (e.g., aggressive behavior) are associated with bullying, which can subsequently be linked to sexual harassment and teen dating violence. Although internalizing and externalizing problems have been frequently identified as psychosocial outcomes of bullying (e.g., Farrington, Loeber, Stallings, & Ttofi, 2011), it is also possible that they may be associated with bullying, sexual harassment, and teen dating violence. Further, recent research has indicated that lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual youth report greater experiences with teen dating violence than their straight-identified peers (Espelage, Merrin, & Hatchel, 2016; Reuter, Sharp, & Temple, 2015). Thus, it is critical to continue to do research in this area. It is also imperative that future studies consider various forms of bullying perpetration, including relational aggression and cyberbullying, and how they might be linked to sexual harassment and teen dating violence, both online and offline. Considering that violence can occur both face-to-face and electronically, it is possible that adolescents who engage in cyberbullying are prone to engage in sexual harassment and teen dating violence.

CONCLUSION Although the growth in prevention programming have accelerated during the last few years, we still lack the ability to have a meaningful impact on bullying and sexual and teen dating violence (for review, see De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2016; Espelage & Horne, 2008; Yeager, Fong, Lee, & Espelage, 2015). This chapter suggests that bullying prevention programs should take place before and through middle school. Additionally, genderbased resources and relationship skills should be integrated before high school. More efficacious programs should focus on multiple forms of aggression and violence, rather than continuing the inefficient use of single prevention approaches for each form of aggression or violence (Hamby & Grych, 2013). An examination of the literature reveals that an integrated approach to the study of interpersonal violence that takes into account lifetime and contextual risk factors, including adolescent and adult forms of violence is virtually missing from the literature. More research is needed to elucidate why ADV resurface during adult relationships and what can be done in matters of prevention.

96

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

REFERENCES American Association of University Women. (2011). Crossing the line: Sexual harassment at school. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/resource/crossingthe-line-sexual-harassment-at-school-executive-summary/. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J., Jr. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575 601. Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(7), 713 732. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Banyard, V. L., Arnold, S., & Smith, J. (2000). Childhood sexual abuse and dating experiences of undergraduate women. Child Maltreatment, 5(1), 39 48. Basile, K. C., Espelage, D. L., Rivers, I., McMahon, P. M., & Simon, T. R. (2009). The theoretical and empirical links between bullying behavior and male sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(5), 336 347. Basile, K. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2002). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv_surveillance_definitionsl-2009-a.pdf. Bauer, N. S., Herrenkohl, T. I., Lozano, P., Rivara, F. P., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2006). Childhood bullying involvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics, 118, e235 e242. Bernet, C. Z., & Stein, M. B. (1999). Relationship of childhood maltreatment to the onset and course of major depression in adulthood. Depression and Anxiety, 9(4), 169 174. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf. Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Developmental pathways from child maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development, 72, 549 568. Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 545 553. Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Lavoie, F. (2001). Reactive and proactive aggression: Predictions to physical violence in different contexts and moderating effects of parental monitoring and caregiving behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(4), 293 304. Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 66. Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359(9314), 1331 1336. Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1175 1188.

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

97

Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231 280. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Understanding teen dating violence [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-factsheet-a.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Child abuse and neglect prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childmaltreatment/index.html. Cicchetti, D., Lynch, M., Shonk, S., & Manly, J. T. (1992). An organizational perspective on peer relations in maltreated children. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 345 383). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Connolly, J. A., McMaster, L., Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (1997). Dating, puberty, & sexualized aggression in early adolescence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Miami, FL. Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Taradash, A. (2000). Dating experiences of bullies in early adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 299 310. Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65 83. Corvo, K., & Johnson, P. J. (2003). Vilification of the “batterer”: How blame shapes domestic violence policy and interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(3), 259 281. Crawford, E., & Wright, M. O. D. (2007). The impact of childhood psychological maltreatment on interpersonal schemas and subsequent experiences of relationship aggression. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7(2), 93 116. Cyr, M., McDuff, P., & Wright, J. (2006). Prevalence and predictors of dating violence among adolescent female victims of child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(8), 1000 1017. De La Rue, L., Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2016). Meta-analysis of schoolbased interventions aimed to prevent or reduce teen dating and sexual violence. Review of Educational Research, 87, 7 24. Available from https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316632061. DeSouza, E. R., & Ribeiro, J. A. (2005). Bullying and sexual harassment among Brazilian high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(9), 1018 1038. Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1991). Adolescent health behavior and conventionality-unconventionality: An extension of problem-behavior therapy. Health Psychology, 10(1), 52 61. Ehrensaft, M. K. (2008). Intimate partner violence: Persistence of myths and implications for intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 276 286. Eliot, M., & Cornell, D. G. (2009). Bullying in middle school as a function of insecure attachment and aggressive attitudes. School Psychology International, 30(2), 201 214. Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., & Hamburger, M. E. (2012). Bullying perpetration and subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(1), 60 65. Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social context of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 326 333. Espelage, D. L., Davis, J., Basile, K. C., Rostad, W. L., & Leemis, R. W. (under review). Alcohol, prescription drug misuse, sexual violence, and dating violence among high school youth. Pediatrics.

98

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2007). Dating violence & sexual harassment across the bullyvictim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 799 811. Espelage, D. L., Hong, J. S., Rinehart, S., & Doshi, N. (2016). Understanding types, locations, & perpetrators of peer-to-peer sexual harassment in US middle schools: A focus on sex, racial, and grade differences. Children and Youth Services Review, 71, 174 183. Espelage, D. L., & Horne, A. (2008). School violence and bullying prevention: From research based explanations to empirically based solutions. In S. Brown, & R. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 588 598). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Espelage, D. L., Low, S., & De La Rue, L. (2012). Relations between peer victimization subtypes, family violence, and psychological outcomes during early adolescence. Psychology of Violence, 2(4), 313 324. Espelage, D. L., Merrin, G. J., & Hatchel, T. (2016). Peer victimization & dating violence among LGBTQ youth: The impact of school violence & crime on mental health outcomes. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1541204016680408, Online First. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71 78. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1029. Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stallings, R., & Ttofi, M. M. (2011). Bullying perpetration and victimization as predictors of delinquency and depression in the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(2), 74 81. Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. M. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1169 1190. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Hamby, S. L., & Ormrod, R. (2011). Polyvictimization: Children’s Exposure to Multiple Types of Violence, Crime, and Abuse. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Fleming, J., Mullen, P. E., Sibthorpe, B., & Bammer, G. (1999). The long-term impact of childhood sexual abuse in Australian women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 145 159. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00118-5. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Basile, K. C., Chang, L. Y., Faris, R., & Ennett, S. T. (2014). Bullying as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 439 444. Fredland, N. M. (2008). Sexual bullying: Addressing the gap between bullying and dating violence. Advances in Nursing Science, 31(2), 95 105. Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet, 373, 68 81. Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullyingdefinitions-final-a.pdf. Gruber, J. E., & Fineran, S. (2008). Comparing the impact of bullying and sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of adolescents. Sex Roles, 59(1 2), 1. Hamby, S. L., & Grych, J. H. (2013). The web of violence: Exploring connections among different forms of interpersonal violence and abuse. New York: Springer. Herrenkohl, T. I., Huang, B., Tajima, E. A., & Whitney, S. D. (2003). Examining the link between child abuse and youth violence: An analysis of mediating mechanisms. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(10), 1189 1208.

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

99

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Peer victimization among adolescents: A preliminary perspective on the co-occurrence of sexual harassment, dating violence, and bullying victimization. In K. A. Kendall-Tackett, & M. Giacomoni (Eds.), Child victimization: Maltreatment, bullying and dating violence, prevention and intervention (pp. 13 16). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. Holt, M. K., Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8(1), 42 63. Howard, D. E., & Wang, M. Q. (2003). Risk profiles of U.S. adolescent girls who were victims of dating violence. Adolescence, 38, 1 14. Howard, D. E., Wang, M. Q., & Yan, F. (2007). Psychosocial factors associated with reports of physical dating violence among US adolescent females. Adolescence, 42(166), 311. Iverson, K. M., McLaughlin, K. A., Adair, K. C., & Monson, C. M. (2014). Anger-related dysregulation as a factor linking childhood physical abuse and interparental violence to intimate partner violence experiences. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 564. Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., & Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 923. Lavoie, F., Hebert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vezina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 375 383. Leeb, R. T., Paulozzzi, L., Melanson, C., Simon, T., & Arias, I. (2008). Child maltreatment surveillance. Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cm_surveillance-a.pdf. Lichter, E. L., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 344 357. Low, S., & Espelage, D. (2014). Conduits from community violence exposure to peer aggression and victimization: Contributions of parental monitoring, impulsivity, and deviancy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(2), 221. Luk, J. W., Wang, J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2012). The co-occurrence of substance use and bullying behaviors among U.S. adolescents. Understanding demographic characteristics and social influences. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1351 1360. Manchikanti Go´mez, A. (2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth & Society, 43(1), 171 192. Maniglio, R. (2009). The impact of child sexual abuse on health: A systematic review of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(7), 647 657. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., & Silverman, J. G. (2012). “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(5), 431 438. Miller, S., Williams, J., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 607 618.

100

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R. (2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 627 637. Moore, T. M., Elkins, S. R., McNulty, J. K., Kivisto, A. J., & Handsel, V. A. (2011). Alcohol use and intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: Assessing the temporal association using electronic diary technology. Psychology of Violence, 1, 315 328. Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., & Tajima, E. A. (2010). The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 53 63. Mulford, C., & Giordano, P. C. (2008). Teen dating violence: A closer look at adolescent romantic relationships. National Institute of Justice Journal, 261, 34 40. Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(5), 579. Mustanoja, S., Luukkonen, A. H., Hakko, H., Rasanen, P., Saavala, H., Riala, K., & The STUDY-70 Workgroup. (2011). Is exposure to domestic violence and violent crime associated with bullying behaviour among underage adolescent psychiatric inpatients? Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 42(4), 495 506. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simmons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behavior among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285, 2094 2100. O’Leary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage: Pre relationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 594. Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mahalic, S. F. (1999). Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. Orpinas, P., Hsieh, H. L., Song, X., Holland, K., & Nahapetyan, L. (2013). Trajectories of physical dating violence from middle to high school: Association with relationship quality and acceptability of aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 551 565. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9881-5. Paolucci, E. O., Genuis, M. L., & Violato, C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of child sexual abuse. The Journal of Psychology, 135(1), 17 36. Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). A longitudinal study of heterosexual relationships, aggression, and sexual harassment during the transition from primary school through middle school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 119 133. Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 376 384. Radliff, K. M., Wheaton, J. E., Robinson, K., & Morris, J. (2012). Illuminating the relationship between bullying and substance use among middle and high school youth. Addictive Behaviors, 37(4), 569 572. Reuter, T. R., Sharp, C., & Temple, J. R. (2015). An exploratory study of teen dating violence in sexual minority youth. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 8 28. Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9), 583 590. Robers, S., Kemp, J., & Truman, J. (2013). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2012 (NCES 2013-036/NCJ 241446). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice.

Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying Chapter | 4

101

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(3), 349 363. Simon, N. M., Herlands, N. N., Marks, E. H., Mancini, C., Letamendi, A., Li, Z., & Stein, M. B. (2009). Childhood maltreatment linked to greater symptom severity and poorer quality of life and function in social anxiety disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 26(11), 1027 1032. Stein, N. (2003). Bullying or sexual harassment—The missing discourse of rights in an era of zero tolerance. Arizona Law Review, 45, 783. Stockdale, M. S., Hangaduambo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(4), 266 277. Straus, M. A., & Yodanis, C. L. (1996). Corporal punishment in adolescence and physical assaults on spouses in later life: What accounts for the link? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 825 841. Swahn, M. H., Topalli, V., Ali, B., Strasser, S. M., Ashby, J. S., & Meyers, J. (2011). Pre-teen alcohol use as a risk factor for victimization and perpetration of bullying among middle and high school students in Georgia. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 12(3), 305. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Fite, P., Stuart, G. L., & Le, V. D. (2013). Substance use as a longitudinal predictors of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 596 606. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1. Tharp, A. (2012). Dating matters: The next generation of teen dating violence prevention. Prevention Science, 13, 398 401. Tippett, N., & Wolke, D. (2015). Aggression between siblings: Associations with the home environment and peer bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 41(1), 14 24. Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B., & Cauce, A. M. (2001). The impact of childhood sexual abuse on later sexual victimization among runaway youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(2), 151 176. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633 649. Vaughn, M. G., Fu, Q., Bender, K., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Perron, B. E., & Howard, M. O. (2010). Psychiatric correlates of bullying in the United States: Findings from a national sample. Psychiatric Quarterly, 81(3), 183 195. Vezina, J., & Hebert, M. (2007). Risk factors for victimization in romantic relationships of young women a review of empirical studies and implications for prevention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(1), 33 66. Vieno, A., Gini, G., & Santinello, M. (2011). Different forms of bullying and their association to smoking and drinking behavior in Italian adolescents. Journal of School Violence, 81(7), 393 399. Volk, A., Craig, W., Boyce, W., & King, M. (2006). Adolescent risk correlates of bullying and different types of victimization. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 18(4), 575 586. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1998). The role of child maltreatment and attachment style in adolescent relationship violence. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3), 571 586. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4), 435 456.

102

SECTION | I Theory and Consequences

Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., & Reese, L. R. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(2), 151 166. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. C., Chiodo, D., & Jaffe, P. (2009). Child maltreatment, bullying, gender-based harassment, and adolescent dating violence: Making the connections. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(1), 21 24. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 279 291. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(2), 293 300. Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. L. (2015). Declines in efficacy of antibullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36 51.

Section II

Risk and Protective Factors

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 5

Peers Over Parents? How Peer Relationships Influence Dating Violence Wendy E. Ellis1 and Tara M. Dumas2 1

Department of Psychology, King’s University College at Western University, London, ON, Canada, 2Department of Psychology, Huron University College at Western University, London, ON, Canada

Romantic relationships are a central part of adolescents’ social worlds. These emerging relationships represent an entirely new dynamic for youth, challenging them to deal with intense feelings involving sexuality, love, and intimacy. By the end of high school, the vast majority of teens will have experienced at least one intimate relationship. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health states that 25% of 12 year olds, almost 50% of 15 year olds, and 70% of 18 year olds report involvement in romantic relationships (Carver, Joyner & Udry, 2003). Furthermore, many relationships are long-lasting, with most 16 year olds reporting stable relationships of 6 months or longer (Carver et al., 2003). Dating is considered a normative task that provides opportunities for intimacy and support and lays the foundation for intimate adult relationships (Furman, Brown, & Feiring, 1999). Adolescence is a time of rapid social, physical, cognitive, and emotional change during which teens’ primary task involves constructing a mature and integrated identity (Erikson, 1968). While romantic relationships afford important opportunities for adjustment during adolescence, these relationships may sometimes be detrimental to well-being. Dating brings new emotions, some of which can be extremely stressful (e.g., rejection, disappointment, conflict, and break-ups). Many teens are not developmentally ready for these experiences, and early onset of dating is related to deviant behavior (Friedlander, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2007) and depression (Davila et al., 2009). Even if teens delay dating, experiences in romantic relationships generally lead to increased emotionality, including fear and distress (Feiring, 1996). One outcome of such intensity in dating relationships might be displayed as violence or aggression toward one’s dating partner. Dating violence is a Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00005-0 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

105

106

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

pervasive problem for youth in our society. Abusive, aggressive, or violent behavior in adolescent dating relationships typically encompasses acts of physical aggression, intimidation, or coercion, which range from threats, pushes, and slaps to beatings and forced sex (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001), but can also include acts of relational or cyber dating violence (Patchin & Hinduja, 2010). Estimates suggest that between 11% and 41% of adolescents report perpetrating some type of physical dating abuse (Foshee & Reyes, 2009). Other types of dating violence are also common, with 59% of girls and 51% of boys reporting relational aggression victimization by a dating partner (Ellis, Crooks, & Wolfe, 2008). Although prevalence rates widely vary depending on how violence is defined, a significant number of youth report having experienced some form of abuse in their dating relationships. Dating violence not only has immediate consequences for physical safety but also profoundly affects mental health and predicts engagement in antisocial behavior (Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992; Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013). Other forms of aggression such as psychological, verbal, and relational assaults can be equally detrimental (Ellis et al., 2008; Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002). A major focus in the literature on adolescent dating violence involves examining its etiology and implicates two related categories of predictors: individual (e.g., internalizing disorders, attitudes) and interpersonal (e.g., family and peer relationships) characteristics. Ultimately many factors interact to contribute to aggressive behavior, but relational risk factors are consistent predictors of dating aggression (Capaldi, Knoble, Schortt, & Kim, 2012; Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung, 2008). Early theoretical work strongly supports the interplay between peer relationships and dating experiences, and there is considerable empirical research documenting the association between experiences in peer and dating contexts. It is the goal of the current chapter to integrate theoretical and empirical research to clearly delineate the role of peers in the development of adolescent dating abuse. First, we review the types and features of peer relationships in adolescence and explain probable processes of peer influence on romantic relationship using relevant theory. Next, we examine literature demonstrating the role of peers in the prediction of dating experiences, including violence. We also consider the relative role of familial relationships throughout this review because peers often mediate these trajectories. Finally, we conclude with suggestions for future research and practical applications of extant findings.

TYPES AND FUNCTIONS OF PEER RELATIONSHIPS IN ADOLESCENCE The intimate nature of adolescent dating violence requires a close examination of the qualities of other key social relationships. At any given time, adolescents are embedded in numerous complex networks including parent child,

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

107

sibling, friend, and peer group relationships. Each of these systems can make valuable contributions to emerging dating relationships. For instance, it is well documented that early interactions between infants and their caregivers predict long-term relationship dynamics (Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001). Parenting styles and the overall quality of the parent child relationship also forecasts greater social success throughout adolescence (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). However, the nature of peer relationships is undoubtedly critical during the period of adolescent individuation. As children transition into adolescence, they spend significantly more time interacting with their peers and less time interacting with their parents (e.g., Crockett, Losoff, & Petersen, 1984; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Teens become less dependent on parents and more focused on exploring their own autonomy and personal identity, and often increase their reliance on peers for support, and comparison (Crockett et al., 1984; McNelles & Connolly, 1999). As such, adolescence, especially early to mid-adolescence, is marked by a heightened desire for peer belonging and social comparison and is a peak time for peer influence (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). Within the adolescent peer context, there exists a variety of relationships that differ in terms of function, structure, and complexity (Rubin et al., 2006). Friendships are defined as voluntary dyadic relationships characterized by reciprocity and mutual liking (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). They exist typically among same-sex peers in the early teen years, with the frequency of mixed-sex friendships increasing into later adolescence (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011; Connolly, Furman, & Konarski, 2000). Friendships in adolescence are based on intimacy, characterized by behaviors such as shared disclosure, support, and advice, particularly among females (Crockett et al., 1984). Moreover, best friends, in particular, have a strong impact on teens’ attitudes and behaviors in a variety of different domains, including dating relationships (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). Thus, friendships are a highly relevant relationship in adolescence, not only for the development of dating relationships but also in determining teens’ attitudes, behaviors, and their overall psychosocial adjustment and well-being. Typically, in middle childhood to early adolescence, peer cliques begin to form. Cliques are groups of three or more peers who “hang out” together (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). These groups comprised friends, although not every individual in the same peer clique is necessarily friends with one another (Urberg, De˘girmencio˘glu, & Pilgrim, 1997). Peer cliques come together based on shared interests and activities and develop a set of group norms or expectations for how group members should think and act. There is a shift from small same-sex cliques to larger mixed-sex groups or crowds as interest in romantic and dating relationships begins. From Grades 9 through 11, groups generally change in composition to include more opposite sex members (Connolly, Furman, et al., 2000; Connolly & Johnson, 1996). The emergence of larger groups is essential for dating given that opposite-sex

108

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

friends are unlikely to evolve into dating relationships (Kreager, Molloy, Moody, & Feinberg, 2016). Peer crowds are large, reputation-based groups that tend to develop in adolescence (Brown, 1990). These groups consist of multiple peer cliques and may contain friends, as well as peers that have never interacted with or even know of each other. Teens are most often assigned to a peer crowd, such as the “jocks,” “populars,” or “nerds,” by their peers based on behavior, personal characteristics, and appearance. In early adolescence, when identity development is just beginning, crowd affiliation can serve as an important part of teens’ self-definition, becoming less salient across adolescence as identity develops more earnestly (Brown, 1990). Furthermore, crowd affiliation can also serve as basis for new friendships and romantic relationships, with research demonstrating that the majority of teens’ peer interactions occur among those from the same or similar peer crowds (Urberg, De˘girmencio˘glu, Tolson, & Halliday-Scher, 2000). The overall size of adolescents’ peer crowds predicts having a romantic partner 1 year later; similarly, the number of opposite-sex crowd members, which increases across adolescence, predicts the emergence of dating partners (Connolly, Furman, et al., 2000; Connolly & Johnson, 1996). Thus, adolescent crowds appear to facilitate teen dating relationships partly by providing access to and interaction with a network of peers that may have been previously unknown. The varying peer relations in adolescence, including dyadic friendship, peer cliques, and crowds, contribute to the emergence and quality of romantic relationships in important ways. In the following section, we explore the theoretical foundations for understanding both parent and peer influence in adolescence and explore the mechanisms by which peers have their effects.

PARENT INFLUENCE ON DATING ABUSE: THEORY AND CAUSES Attachment Theory The dynamics of close relationships among friends and dating partners has often been examined through the lens of attachment theory. Attachment theory is based on the quality of interactions between infants and their caregivers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and has long-lasting implications for all intimate relationships. These early experiences are believed to shape children’s perceptions and beliefs about themselves and those around them through mental representations or working models of relationships. A secure bond during the infancy period predicts stronger peer relationships in childhood and adolescence (Schneider et al., 2001). Secure caregiver ties also lead to secure and positive romantic relationships, while insecure relationships predict lower levels of romantic trust and intimacy (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). For example, an anxious attachment pattern may

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

109

develop from a caregiver being unpredictable or inconsistently responsive (Ainsworth et al., 1978). In later dating relationships, anxiously attached individuals may be controlling, intrusive, and clingy to ensure proximity, care, and attention (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Adolescents’ attachment quality with their parents also predicts expectations about the success and satisfaction of their future marital relationship (Steinberg, Davila, & Fincham, 2006). Furman, Simon, Shaffer and Bouchey (2002) studied the role of parental and friendship attachment in attachment states in adolescent romantic partners. Adolescents’ views of their relationship styles were similar between friends and romantic partners, as well as between friends and parent adolescent relationships. The authors concluded that friendship quality may mediate the links between family and romantic experiences.

Social Learning Theory According to Social Learning Theory (e.g., Bandura & Walters, 1963), parents act as important role models for intimate relationships, shaping expectations and relationships skills. Social Learning Theory identifies three major processes that subserve social influence: modeling, indirect reinforcement (i.e., observational learning), and direct reinforcement (i.e., rewards and punishment). Modeling and observational learning may be most salient when children witness verbal or physical aggression between parents, because such exposure increases the likelihood of violence in adolescents’ own relationships (Wolfe, Wekerle, Reitzel-Jaffe, & Lefebvre, 1998). Parenting styles also involve modeling and direct reinforcement, and consistently predict romantic relationships experiences. Authoritative parenting styles, which involve a balance between warmth/responsiveness and supervision/monitoring, are predictive of healthy romantic relationships during the adolescent years (Auslander, Short, Succop, & Rosenthal, 2009). On the other hand, a lack of parental warmth, poor monitoring, and psychological control have been associated with aggression with dating partners (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998; Leadbeater et al., 2008). However, the nature of adolescent peer relationships has the potential to moderate the overall contribution of parental modeling and instruction (Bolger et al., 1998; Ellis & Wolfe, 2009; Gauze, Bukowski, Aquan-Assee, & Sippola, 1996).

PEER INFLUENCE ON DATING ABUSE: THEORY AND CAUSES Relationship Skills Adolescents’ experiences with peers can set the stage for romantic relationships in numerous ways, including opportunities for initiation in cliques and crowds (as discussed above), relationship skills development, and

110

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

socialization of relevant behaviors and attitudes. In the following pages, we review relevant theory to illuminate these probable mechanisms. Intimate same-sex friendships are the hallmark of adolescent life and provide an important context for learning the necessary skills to develop healthy and functional romantic relationships. Theoretical work has long maintained that friendships are a training ground for social and relationships skills. Piaget (1932) suggested that children’s peer relationships are unique because of their relative equality, unlike the relations between children and their parents or siblings. Children’s peer relationships provide social competencies needed for adolescent and adult relations. Within their friendships, children learn to express ideas and to cooperate and coordinate one another’s viewpoints, generating skills essential for cognitive and social development (Piaget, 1932). Sullivan (1953) also discussed the significance of peers in children’s development and socialization. Sullivan believed that interpersonal intimacy developed in close friendships was essential for self-esteem and personal validation. Close friendships may also support the exploration of romantic interests. Furthermore, Sullivan considered romantic relations an indicator of adaptive functioning and an extension of close friendships. The underlying premise of these theoretical orientations is that peer interactions during childhood lay the foundation for successful social and relational development throughout the adolescent years. Adolescent friendships are similar to romantic relationships in that they are intimate, dyadic, and voluntary. Thus, the relationship skills that teens learn in these friendships about how intimate relationships function are transitioned into their romantic relationships (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011). In one study of physical dating abuse, children were followed from infancy to age 23 years (Linder & Collins, 2005). The quality of teens’ dyadic friendships at age 16 years predicted their romantic relationship quality over and above parental variables. Intimate same-sex friendships and broader peer groups represent prototypes for romantic relationship as children learn the necessary skills to develop functional romantic relationships such as conflict resolution, communication, trust, affection, and other relationship-enabling skills (Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009). In fact, identification of problematic peer networks might present an opportunity for skills training prior to the onset of dating (see Chapter 10: Adolescent Dating Violence Among Ethnically Diverse Youth, for discussion).

Peer Socialization Peers have a profound impact on teens’ attitudes and behaviors. When examining friends or members of the same peer clique, researchers consistently find notable similarity among peers. This similarity has been attributed to selection and socialization (Kandel, 1978). Through selection, teens tend to be attracted to and from friendships with peers who are similar across a host of different

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

111

characteristics including appearance, demographics, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Burk, Van Der Vorst, Kerr, & Stattin, 2012; Knecht, Snijders, Baerveldt, Steglich, & Raub, 2010). Through socialization, teens become more similar to their friends and peer clique members over time. Peer socialization has an impact on teens’ attitudes and behaviors in a variety of different areas including deviancy, prosocial behavior, academic performance, and internalizing symptoms (e.g., de la Haye, Green, Kennedy, Pollard, & Tucker, 2013; Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007; Kiesner, Cadinu, Poulin, & Bucci, 2002; Kindermann, 2007; Van Zalk, Kerr, Barnjie, Stattin, & Meeus, 2010). Peer socialization effects also extend beyond individual behavior to predict dynamics of romantic relationships (e.g., Ellis, Chung-Hall, & Dumas, 2013). Socialization in adolescence is a bilateral process that involves a complex interplay of influence by peers, communicated in direct and indirect ways, and the willingness of teens to act in line with peer norms. Furthermore, peer socialization in adolescence is not a singular process. Instead, different peer relationships (dyadic friendships, peer cliques) have unique socialization effects on teens’ behavior (Urberg et al., 1997). Below, we use relevant theory to explore potential processes through which peer socialization in adolescence occurs and then use this theory to extend our understanding of the role of peers in influencing teen dating violence. As with the parenting literature, Social Learning Theory has also played a salient role in illuminating the processes that underlie peer socialization. For example, social learning theorists propose that adolescents observe and imitate valued peers and, due to this modeling, receive positive and reinforcing attention from peers. Similarly, Social Identity Perspective (Hogg, 2005) states that members of groups who act most in line with group norms (e.g., attitudinal and behavioral expectations for aggression) confer social rewards, such as increased trust and admiration from peers and a more influential social status. For example, children benefit socially (with higher peer-nominated social preference scores) when they engage in aggressive behavior that is consistent with classroom norms (Jackson, Cappella, & Neal, 2015). Similarly, youths who act most in line with peer norms tend to have the highest status positions within their peer cliques (e.g., Dumas, Wells, Flynn, Lange, & Graham, 2014). Thus, youths may be rewarded for conforming to peer norms, which then serves to influence the likelihood that they will engage in norm-consistent behaviors in the future. In addition to many other domains, peers likely have clear norms for appropriate behavior and expectations for romantic relationships. For instance, friends may reinforce many relationship features, such as jealousy and displays of affection (Suleiman & Deardorff, 2015). Alternatively, teens who fail to act in line with peer norms are at risk of punishment from their peers, including victimization, rejection, or ostracism (e.g., Juvonen & Galvan, 2008). Given adolescents’ strong desire for peer connection and belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), this is a devastating outcome for many teens. Relatedly, some research suggests that even

112

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

observing the outcomes of other adolescents who do not act in line with peer norms (i.e., observational learning) is a strong motivator for teens to conform to the attitudinal and behavioral expectations of their peers (e.g., Salmivalli, 2010). Adolescents may also face direct pressure and threats from friends to engage approved behaviors, especially those involving sexual behavior (Suleiman & Deardorff, 2015). A notable application of Social Learning Theory to our understanding of peer socialization in adolescence comes from the work of Thomas Dishion on deviancy training. Dishion examined interaction patterns within the friendship pairs of adolescent boys. He noted a specific interaction pattern during discussions of rule-breaking activities, specifically among pairs of deviant boys (those that had previously been arrested). These boys engaged in repetitive reinforcement of each other’s rule-breaking talk through laughing, nodding in agreement, and even giving high-fives (Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1996; Patterson, Dishion, & Yoerger, 2000). Moreover, observations of deviancy training predicts increases in deviant and violent behaviors over time (Dishion, Eddy, Haas, Li, & Spracklen, 1997; Dishion et al., 1996). Since this seminal research, the power of deviancy training in adolescent peer relations has been demonstrated in a variety of different behavioral domains including dating violence and abuse (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001; Ha, Kim, Christopher, Caruthers, & Dishion, 2016). Therefore, positive reinforcement of norm-consistent behavior appears to be a powerful mechanism underlying the socialization of adolescent risk behavior. It is important to note that peer influence is not universally received nor exerted. Differential peer effects may be clarified by the Theory of Normative Social Behavior developed by Rimal and Real (2005) to explain peer influence on substance use. These researchers postulate that the strength of descriptive peer norms on young people’s behavior is affected by three cognitive mechanisms: injunctive norms, outcome expectations, and group identity. First, youth who believe more strongly that their peers expect them to act a certain way (i.e., injunctive norms) will be more likely to model normative peer behavior. Second, youth who believe that they will obtain more positive benefits from modeling normative peer behavior will be more likely to do so. These beliefs may come from witnessing the positive social benefits that their peers derive from engaging in a particular behavior (e.g., seeming tough after engaging in aggression or violence) or by experiencing or witnessing the positive reinforcement that their peers provide when one engages in a norm-consistent behavior (e.g., “deviancy training”). Research supports the claim that peer expectations (injunctive norms) strengthen the relationship between descriptive norms and behavior (Lee, Geisner, Lewis, Neighbors, & Larimer, 2007, for alcohol use). Third, youth who identify more strongly with (i.e., perceive greater similarity with and affinity towards) a given peer or peer group will be more likely to model this peer(s) behavior.

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

113

There is also variability in the extent to which teens have power to exert influence over others. One construct that has proved key in determining teens’ influence within the peer context is their social status or popularity— the extent that they occupy a central, prestigious, and desirable position within the larger peer hierarchy. According to Cohen and Prinstein’s (2006) peer contagion framework, youths are motivated to act in ways that emulate their high-status peers, due to the social benefits that may occur. Consequently, youths’ readiness to conform to their higher status peers equates to higher status peers wielding more social power and influence over others (Cohen & Prinstein, 2006; Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007; Shi & Xie, 2012). Higher status peers have a key role in dictating and enforcing peer norms both inside their group and to the broader context. This finding is worrisome because popularity is often linked in increases in aggressive behavior (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004). Also, popular youth are among the first in their age groups to start dating (Miller et al., 2009) and are more likely to be sexually active than their same age counterparts (Prinstein, Meade, & Cohen, 2003). Experimentation with sexuality may occur because of peer expectations (i.e., to date specific people) or because youths who engage in these behaviors generally enjoy high status among their peers (i.e., being sexually active make them “cool” or visible). Engaging in high-risk (including deviancy and substance use) or adult privilege behaviors may also be seen as a sign of maturity, helping teens to gain attention and prestige among peers. As such, popular children may face certain expectations for pushing the limit of acceptable behavior. Although we still have more to learn about the underpinnings of peer socialization effects, social and developmental theories and accompanying research have helped to highlight mechanisms that underlie the development of relationship skills and peer socialization in adolescence (See Ellis & Zarbatany, 2017). We have come to learn that peer influence is a nuanced and multidirectional process that involves multiple players and contributing factors. These conclusions have important implications for the field of adolescent dating violence. They serve as a framework from which we can begin to understand the important role of peers in adolescents’ dating and romantic relationships, and more specifically, the role of peer socialization of teens’ dating-related attitudes and behaviors. In the following section, we review literature that supports the assumption that peer relationships guide experiences in adolescent dating relationships.

RESEARCH ON BULLYING, PEER AGGRESSION, AND DATING EXPERIENCES AND ABUSE The documented connections between bullying, peer aggression, and dating violence highlight the necessity of studying these interrelated behaviors together (e.g., Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Taradash, 2000). Peer bullying is

114

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

defined as any aggressive behavior repeated over time with hostile intent. Bullying communicates a power hierarchy, with one child dominating others (Olweus, 1991). Although bullying has often been viewed as a behavior related to poor social skills or peer rejection, most adolescents who bully others receive support from their peers (Salmivalli, 2010). In fact, bullying is often rewarded and predicts increases in popularity among teens (Rose et al., 2004), which serves to normalize and reinforce the use of aggression in relationships via positive outcome expectancies. The belief that violence can be used to gain acceptance and wield control can be particularly detrimental for emerging dating relationships. As such, several investigations have studied the connection between bullying and dating violence and noted significant associations between behaviors across contexts (Connolly, Pepler, et al., 2000; Ellis & Wolfe, 2015; Foshee et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2013). Connolly and colleagues (2009) identified bullies in a large sample of early adolescents (Grades 5 through 8) and asked about a range of dating experiences. Reported bullying predicted greater involvement in dating relationships and dating aggression. Furthermore, younger adolescents who engaged in bullying also indicated that they would be more willing than their less aggressive peers to engage in unacceptable actions to maintain their romantic relationships. Over time, teens who rely on bullying to achieve social goals may have few opportunities to develop positive conflict resolution skills needed for healthy relationships. Importantly, youths who bully others often have poor quality friendships (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005) despite frequent popularity nominations (Rose et al., 2004). Given that positive same-sex friendship quality is generally predictive of romantic relationship quality (Linder & Collins, 2005), it is understandable that the dating relationships of youths who bully are low in intimacy (Connolly, Furman, et al., 2000). To further examine predictions of romantic relationship quality, self-reported peer bullying and dating violence were assessed among nearly 600 teens; a subset of the sample was also observed with their dating partners during discussions of relationship conflict (Ellis & Wolfe, 2015). In line with previous research, bullying correlated with reported dating violence perpetration and victimization. Interestingly, bullying also predicted dating relationships with fewer observed positive features and more indictors of poor relationship quality. The dating relationships of youth with greater bullying involvement were characterized by less positive affect, fewer sensitive and supportive comments, and higher withdrawal during their discussions, compared to the dating relationships of those with less bullying involvement. Together with earlier research, these results support a connection between peer bullying, dating aggression, and lower relationship quality. However, the precise relationship between type of aggression used in each context and the role of adolescents in dyadic conflicts remains unclear.

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

115

The typical categories of bullying (e.g., physical, verbal, relational, and sexual) correspond with similar classifications of dating abuse, yet most studies have not attempted to untangle these connections, perhaps in part due to the overlapping nature of violence (O’Leary & Slep, 2003). Studies that have examined specific classifications of bullying and dating abuse have noted the importance of these nuanced behaviors. Foshee et al. (2014) measured reports of relational and physical bulling perpetration in Grade 6 and physical dating violence perpetration in Grade 8. Physical bullying predicted physical dating violence perpetration. Relational bullying was correlated with physical dating violence, but it did not emerge as a significant predictor when physical bullying was considered. Other findings demonstrate an association between the use of relational aggression against peers and the experience of relational aggression in dating relationships (Leadbeater et al., 2008; Schad, Szwedo, Antonishak, Hare, & Allen, 2008). Similarly, when measuring clique norms for relational aggression, adolescents who were members of peer cliques characterized by high rates of relational aggression were more likely to experience poor quality dating relationships and violence (aggregated across types) 6 months later, as both victims and perpetrators (Ellis et al., 2013). Links between bullying and cyber dating abuse have also been shown (Peskin et al., 2017; Yahner, Dank, Zweig, & Lachman, 2015), underscoring the need to investigate specific bullying subtypes with corresponding classifications of dating abuse. Studying the transfer of relationship violence is also complicated by the cyclical and interconnected roles of partners in aggressive interactions. Categories of perpetrator and victim are likely to shift over time and individuals often occupy both roles (Gray & Foshee, 1997). The distinction between the role of “bully” and “victim” among peers is also complex; few individuals can be placed exclusively in one or the other of these positions (Espelage & Holt, 2007). Furthermore, youths who have experienced bullying both as a perpetrator and a victim (i.e., “bully-victims”) report the highest level of physical and emotional dating victimization, compared to the other clusters (Espelage & Holt, 2007). In contrast, some findings suggest that it is primarily bullying victimization that is associated with dating violence victimization (Brooks-Russell, Foshee, & Ennett, 2013). Others findings support the lack of consistent boundaries between aggressive behaviors and show that peer perpetration and victimization are both confounded with dating perpetration and victimization (Swahn et al., 2008). Finally, there also remain unanswered questions about the role of gender in the transmission of peer aggression to dating aggression. Several studies have found that links between contexts is consistent for both girls and boys (Connolly, Pepler, et al., 2000; Foshee et al., 2014). In contrast, aggression perpetrated toward peers predicted dating violence perpetration only for girls in one study (Foshee, Reyes, & Ennett, 2010) but only for boys in another (Ellis & Wolfe, 2015). Gender differences were also noted in the association

116

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

between peer group relational aggression and dating violence perpetration, with significant predictions only for girls (Ellis et al., 2013). Given these mixed findings, it is not possible to make any firm conclusions about the involvement of gender in the relationship between bullying and dating abuse. One consideration that further complicates these results involves the effects of mixed gender friendships and/or same-sex romantic relationships and the complex dyadic patterns therein. In sum, despite many unanswered questions, current findings support the conclusion that bullying and aggression among peers is detrimental to the formation of healthy interpersonal skills and emerging romantic relationships.

RESEARCH ON PEER INFLUENCE AND DATING EXPERIENCES AND ABUSE In addition to the possible transfer of aggression directed at peers to the expression of violence in dating relationships, the behavior of friends in their own romantic relationships also predicts teens’ behaviors (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Prinstein et al., 2003). Having sexually active friends predicted more positive attitudes about sexual behavior and a higher number of sexual partners among teens (Ali & Dwyer, 2011). Furthermore, research based on selfreports of friends’ behavior demonstrates that having a close friend perpetrate dating aggression predicts adolescents’ own levels of dating conflict and aggression (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004). Similarly, adolescents with friends who have experienced dating violence are more likely to perpetrate (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004) or experience dating violence themselves (Gagne´, Lavoie, & He´bert, 2005). Even when friends simply condone the use of aggressive behaviors in social interactions, teens are more likely to perpetrate dating violence (Ellis et al., 2013; Lavoie, Robitaille, & He´bert, 2000). Importantly, the strength of these presumed socialization effects may be qualified by relationship characteristics as explained by the Theory of Normative Social Behavior (Rimal & Real, 2005), for example, having violent friends predicted dating violence longitudinally but only in large friendship networks (Ramirez, Paik, Sanchagrin, & Heimer, 2012). Larger networks might have stronger norms for behavior because there are more sources of modeling and reinforcement. In line with Social Learning Theory, the similarities between friends’ romantic behaviors may occur because violence and aggression are modeled, tolerated, and reinforced within some peer groups. Information about appropriate actions with dating partners likely comes from adolescents’ friends both indirectly (e.g., through observing and modeling friends’ interactions with their own dating partners) and directly (e.g., through advice, gossiping, and joking about their romantic experiences; Harper, Gannon, Watson, Catania, & Dolcini, 2004). When friends condone the use of violence, teens may believe that using aggression with dating partners is normative and

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

117

permissible. Favorable attitudes towards violence strongly predict both perpetration and victimization (Foshee, Benefield, Ennett, Bauman, & Suchindran, 2004; McDonell, Ott, & Mitchell, 2010). Observational studies of friends’ interactions show that discussions and positive reinforcement (e.g., deviancy training; Dishion et al., 1996) may directly impact aggressive and violent behaviors in dating relationships. Boys’ discussions with friends that included hostile and derogatory comments about women predicted their aggression towards dating partners 4 years later, suggesting that peers were at least partly responsible for shaping abusive behavior in romantic relationships (Capaldi et al., 2001). Furthermore, there is added evidence for the role of deviancy training on developmental trajectories over 10 years, leading to sexual abuse in early adulthood (Ha et al., 2016). These findings were based on brief 5-minute observations with friends and show the power and stability of the peer group for shaping behavior into adulthood.

RESEARCH ON PEER DEVIANCY AND DATING EXPERIENCES AND ABUSE The involvement of peers in broader risky behaviors including peer violence, antisocial behavior, and delinquency may also contribute to dating abuse. Violent dating behaviors, including victimization, may be a part of a “risky lifestyle” (Howard & Wang, 2003; Jessor, 1991). Youths who associate with deviant peers are also more likely to perpetrate and experience dating abuse (Capaldi et al., 2001; Ha et al., 2016). In a sample of adolescent boys, associations with violent peers predicted acceptance and perpetration of dating aggression against a partner (Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Wanner, 2002). Similarly, peer deviance was a significant predictor of dating violence perpetration for a large sample of preadolescent boys and girls (Miller et al., 2009). In a study of girls’ behaviors, those with more deviant peers were more likely to be involved in numerous indices of risky behavior and report higher rates of dating violence victimization (Ve´zina et al., 2011). Substance use by teens and friends has also been recognized as an indicator of violent relationships. Alcohol use among girls (Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001), and alcohol and drug use among boys predicts dating violence (Chase, O’Farrell, Murphy, Fals-Stewart, & Murphy, 2003). Adolescents who reported having friends who drank were two to four times more likely to be a victim of dating violence, suggesting that peers’ engagement in risky behaviors alone is a key element in trajectories of dating abuse among youth (Howard, Qiu, & Boekeloo, 2003). A constellation of unhealthy or maladaptive relationship experiences likely contribute to the development of these risk profiles. In many cases, rejected or marginalized teens may seek solace in deviant peer groups (or gangs) where risk behaviors are the norm, and there are few positive interpersonal relationships to model (Ha et al., 2016).

118

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

RESEARCH ON PARENTAL AND PEER INFLUENCE AND DATING EXPERIENCES AND ABUSE Notwithstanding growing evidence on the role of peers in dating experiences, researchers have often studied the capacity of early family relationships to predict the course of intimate relationships. In accordance with Social Learning and Attachment theories, children’s attitudes concerning the appropriateness of aggression in any intimate relationship likely stem from early family dynamics. For example, child maltreatment has been associated with relationship difficulties and poor quality, unsatisfactory friendships (Parker & Herrera, 1996). Maltreated children often attribute hostile intentions to their peers (Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995) and generally display aggressive (Bolger et al., 1998) and withdrawn behavior in peer networks (Mueller & Silverman, 1989). If adolescents with maltreatment histories have been caught in a cycle of poor relationships, it is unlikely that they will have the foundation needed for positive dating relationships. Exposure to a violent family environment is associated with violent dating relationships in adolescence (Wolfe et al., 1998; Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott, Straatman, & Grasley, 2004). Moreover, nonviolent discord, such as verbal aggression and poor conflict resolution between parents, also predicts greater involvement in dating violence, both as perpetrator and victims (Tschann et al., 2009). However, these pathways should also be considered in light of adolescents’ peer relationships. In one study, exposure to family violence predicted conflict with best friends, and, in turn, dating abuse (Narayan, Englund, Carlson, & Egeland, 2013). Investigations that simultaneously examine contributions of parental history and peer relationships have established differential outcomes depending on features of the peer context. For instance, when children do create positive peer relations, these beneficial interactions can buffer family risk factors. Having high-quality friendships can weaken links between maltreatment or negative parenting and adjustment difficulties (Bolger et al. 1998; Gauze et al., 1996). Having supportive, high-quality friendships is related to positive conflict resolution with dating partners, beyond the contribution of early family violence (Linder & Collins, 2005). In the same study, teens with higher quality friendships were less likely to report violence in their subsequent romantic relationships, which was true beyond any familial contributions. Thus, friends may impact dating relationships by compensating for lack of satisfactory family relationships and by promoting necessary skill development. When examining detrimental links from both family and friend relationships, friends’ involvement in violent relationships is often a more powerful predictor of adolescents’ relationship experiences than childhood experiences (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Foshee et al., 2004). The relative strength of friend dating violence and interparental violence in the prediction of individual dating violence was assessed over a 6-month period among 500

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

119

adolescents in eight and ninth grades. Although both parent and friend violence were significant predictors in Grade 8, only friend dating violence predicted the onset of dating violence perpetration over time (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004). Further evidence of an indirect link between parenting behavior and dating abuse was also noted in a 10-year study with five assessment points. Childhood maltreatment had no direct effect on sexual abuse; instead, gang formation and coercive relationship talk emerged as significant predictors (Ha et al., 2016). Together, these studies demonstrate that parental contributions to the development of dating violence are intricately linked to experiences with peers and friends. Friendships may buffer negative effects of maltreatment, exacerbate violent parenting, and in some cases outweigh early familial experiences in the prediction of romantic behaviors. Despite our growing understanding of friends’ role in the development of dating violence, the connections between multiple contexts remain vital to our understanding of the etiology of adolescent dating abuse.

THE ROLE OF PEERS IN PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMMING Timing of Prevention The scope and timing of prevention programming is a common topic of consideration among prevention researchers. Some experts feel that parents and educators should initiate a discussion of dating related topics around age 13 years, while others suggest that general relationship skills be taught much earlier (Foshee & Reyes, 2009). Given the overlapping nature of violent and deviant behavior, prevention initiatives that address more than one area of risk might be most efficient. One exemplary program was developed by Wolfe and colleagues (2009) to simultaneously target a triad of adolescent risk behaviors (violence among peers and dating partners, sexual behavior, and substance use). Based on the theoretical understanding of adolescent risk behavior, relationship skills should be integrated into curriculum to teach adolescents skills to manage difficult interactions (Wolfe, Jaffe, & Crooks, 2006). Results from their Fourth R: Skills for Healthy Youth Relationships randomized trial show positive outcomes including reductions in dating violence and unsafe sexual behavior, and heightened resistance skills to difficult situations involving peer pressure (Wolfe, Crooks, Chiodo, Hughes, & Ellis, 2012; Wolfe et al., 2009). Based on the evidence reviewed herein, efforts to develop relationship skills even earlier and reduce childhood bullying and aggression might also be beneficial. Traditionally, bullying programs have not been well integrated into programs aimed at the prevention of dating violence, and it is unknown if bullying programs predict reductions in dating violence longitudinally (Foshee & Reyes,

120

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

2009). If healthy relationship skills can indeed be taught in the context of peer relationships and friendships first, these skills may be used to initiate healthy dating relationships.

SUPPORTIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND PREVENTION Building resilience among youth is essential for lessening the harmful psychological effects of dating abuse. Close, supportive relationships are critical for well-being and the developmental tasks faced by adolescents (e.g., Erikson, 1968). Social support has also been linked to fewer experiences of dating abuse (Richards, Branch, & Ray, 2014). In a 1-year longitudinal design, social support from friends was related to lower physical and emotional dating violence perpetration, and lower emotional victimization among females (Richards et al., 2014). Notably, supportive friendships may also buffer negative effects of dating violence as it does between maltreatment and adjustment (Bolger et al., 1998) In the bullying literature, it well known that having positive friendships can mitigate negative effects of victimization by peers (Hodges, Boivin, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999). Positive peer relationships generally build strong coping mechanisms among youths. Having supportive friendships might also empower individuals to terminate abusive relationships (Edwards, Gidycz, & Mruphy, 2011). In addition, teens tend to be influenced more so by peers with whom they feel connected. According to Social Control Perspective, high-quality relationships increase our bond with and commitment to our relationship partners and thus increase the likelihood that we will be influenced by them (Poulin, Dishion, & Haas, 1999). As mentioned previously, teens in low-quality friendships are more likely to experience dating violence (Linder & Collins, 2005); however, the minority of teens who possess high-quality friendships with peers and who promote positive attitudes towards dating violence also merits attention. Even though deviant friendship pairs demonstrate less quality interactions than nondeviant pairs, deviancy training is more powerful when these pairs possess higher quality friendship interactions (Piehler & Dishion, 2007). Parents and educators are well advised to recognize the importance of building supportive friendships in the adolescent years with peers who possess good social skills and healthy attitudes towards dating relationships.

Peer Knowledge and Prevention As children enter early adolescence, interest in dating and sexuality quickly emerges and there may be a lack of information about what constitutes acceptable dating behavior. Only about half of parents talks to youth about dating violence (Rothman, Miller, Terpeluk, Glauber, & Randel, 2011), leaving peers as the major source of information. Ensuring that peer groups are

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

121

equipped with accurate and helpful information about dating is essential. Often programming is done with select populations only (such as health classes or those with highest risk profiles; Foshee & Reyes, 2009). While it is important that all members of a peer group receive information pertaining to safe dating relationships, programming can also be used to capitalize on the power of peer group norms. Whenever possible, teachers should be aware of the interpersonal dynamics of students in the classroom, so that activities can be designed with peer networks and relationship dynamics in mind (e.g., in role plays or designing anti-violence posters/videos). The focus of these strategies may be to shift collective group norms, rather than individual attitudes given the fundamental role of peer groups for adolescent decision making. High-status children are among the most influential in their networks (Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007), and aggressive behaviors among peers is related to increasing popularity (Rose et al., 2004). Thus, programming that places high-status youth in visible roles associated with positive and prosocial interactions might be particularly effective to reduce coercive behavior at school (Ellis, Volk, Gonzalez, & Embry, 2016). Ideally prevention programing should be intertwined in the peer context, and relationships could be utilized to promote optimal efficacy.

LIMITATIONS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH METHODS AND FUTURE PRIORITIES Assessing the Source of Peer Influence Researchers studying links between peer norms and dating violence have used a variety of assessments to measure peer influence, and some of these methods may drastically overrepresent the degree to which friends share similar dating experiences. One approach to quantifying group behavior involves having youths report their own, as well as their friends’ behavior and attitudes. This approach is widely critiqued because the perceptions of only one person are likely an overestimate of peer similarity (Aboud & Doyle, 1996). Another technique involves asking teens directly about their own experiences and matching up friendship or group nominations (e.g., Ellis et al., 2013). Using this approach necessitates making decisions about the strongest, or most likely, source of peer influence among youth. Best friends, peer groups, teammates, and classmates may provide relevant information about dating relationships (Harper et al., 2004). It is also possible these relationships make independent and significant predictions to emerging behaviors in romantic relationship (Urberg et al., 1997). Despite the concerns of collecting accurate and precise information about peer group effects, it is possible that perceptions of peers’ behaviors and attitudes might be the strongest predictor of behavior. As with most risk

122

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

behaviors, youths appear to overestimate peer attitudes and behaviors related to aggression and dating violence (Perkins, Craig, & Perkins, 2011). In university student samples, overestimates of supportive attitudes towards dating abuse (Bartholomew, Schmitt, Yang, & Regan, 2013) and rape (Dardis, Murphy, Bill, & Gidycz, 2016) are reported. However inaccurate these beliefs may be, perceived peer norms are a strong predictor of behavior including intimate partner violence (Witte, Mulla, & Weaver, 2015), rape proclivity (Bohner, Siebler, & Schmelcher, 2006), and sexual coercion (Edwards & Vogel, 2015, among young men). Furthermore, perpetrators of intimate partner violence are at an even greater risk of overestimating peer norms, which then guides their subsequent behavior (Dardis et al., 2016; Neighbors et al., 2010). These findings suggest that interventions that consider normative feedback may be an effective way of reducing dating violence among youth (Neighbors et al., 2010). These interventions, which replace overestimations of peer norms with more accurate information, have been successful for a number of different risk behaviors, particularly substance use. In many cases, they reduce inflated perceptions of norms and subsequent behavior (e.g., LaBrie, Hummer, Neighbors, & Pedersen, 2008; Lewis, Neighbors, Oster-Aaland, Kirkeby, & Larimer, 2007). Furthermore, normative feedback is brief, can be conducted in person or online, and can be added to preexisting programming. Thus, while it remains important to collect accurate peer information, it is equally important to communicate accurate realities about peer behavior.

Typologies of Dating Violence Despite overlap among types of dating violence and peer aggression (O’Leary & Slep, 2003; Yahner et al., 2015), a closer examination of peer effects on dating violence subtypes would make a significant contribution to existing literature. Traditional definitions of dating abuse have included physical, psychological/emotional, or sexual harm occurring between two people in a romantic relationship. Relational violence has also been considered in several studies (Ellis et al., 2013; Schad et al., 2008). Yet, not all types of abuse predict the same outcomes. For instance, psychological aggression may be more harmful for well-being than experiences of physical violence (Jouriles, Garrido, Rosenfield, & McDonald, 2009). The pervasive use of technology among youth has added another facet to abusive behaviors. In one sample, 41% of youth who had perpetrated dating abuse had used technology as their primary or secondary medium of perpetration (Korchmaros, Ybarra, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Boyd, & Lenhart, 2013). Cyber dating abuse overlaps with traditional forms of dating violence, particularly psychological and emotional abuse, but has some unique characteristics that may make it particularly harmful (e.g., allowance of constant communication, easier monitoring of partner’s whereabouts, and added

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

123

methods of privacy invasion; Patchin & Hinduja, 2010) (see Chapter 8: Youth Dating Violence and Homicide, this volume). In one of the few studies to consider cyber aggression in both peer and dating relationships, Yahner et al. (2015) measured four types of dating violence perpetration and victimization and three types of bullying perpetration and victimization with a sample of over 5000 youths. Although rates of cyber bullying and cyber dating violence perpetration were lower than psychological and physical rates, the strongest associations between peer and dating contexts were found for cyber abuse; over half of cyber bullies perpetrated dating violence. Further research on the role of cyber bullying and cyber dating abuse is essential to determine if such behaviors are indeed more vulnerable to peer influence.

Mixed-Methods Research Design A final research priority is to augment current assessments of dating violence by using a greater range of settings and measures. Detailed information on relationships skills and interactions might highlight key directions for prevention or intervention (e.g., Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007). A clear strength of many previous studies on prevalence and predictors of dating violence are the large samples gathered using general adolescent health surveys (e.g., Foshee et al., 2016). However, broad assessments do not typically allow for matching of friends or partners’ responses or the heterogeneity of experienced abuse. Precise details about timing, severity, and context of abuse could yield information on the early formation of violent relationships. More data are also needed on the development of relationships skills including conflict resolution, intimacy, and social support in friendships and corresponding dating relationships. Assessment might include qualitative and/or observational assessments. Observational methods have proven highly beneficial in understanding the emergence of violence in relationships (e.g., Cordova, Jacobson, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993; Ellis & Wolfe, 2015). The utility of observations is most striking in Dishion’s work, showing the incredible capacity to predict long-term outcomes of dating violence based on brief interactions between friends (Dishion et al., 1996). Furthermore, observational research might be useful to test the effectiveness of intervention programming (Wolfe et al., 2012). In conjunction with more detailed assessments, longitudinal research remains critical to the study of developmental trajectories of dating abuse that include early family and peer experiences.

CONCLUSIONS Romantic relationships play a vital role in adolescent development, but for many teens, dating relationships are rife with violence and conflict. Theories

124

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

proposed to explain the etiology of dating violence include cultural and societal norms, individual traits and adjustment, and social interactions between family members and peers. Although we have focused on peer relations in this chapter, these relationships exist within a larger sociocultural context and undoubtedly interact with other predictors in a complex manner. The relative risk of unhealthy peer relationships cannot be fully understood without consideration of both broader values and individual differences. Nevertheless, we have reviewed evidence here that emphasizes the central role of peers in emerging dating relationships. First, peer group interactions provide opportunities for dating, and friendships act a training ground for social skill development including conflict resolution, intimacy, and support. Second, during adolescence, peers are a major source of information for appropriate and acceptable behaviors in the context of their intimate romantic relationships. The identity of friends and peers significantly predicts dating outcomes. Although early familial relationships have long-term consequences for adolescent development, peers have the potential to exacerbate or buffer these early beginnings. We propose that prevention efforts should be designed to both optimize the positive power of peer influence and mitigate the risk associated with maladaptive friendships.

REFERENCES Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A. (1996). Parental and peer influences on children’s racial attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4), 371 383. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00024-7. Ali, M. M., & Dwyer, D. S. (2011). Estimating peer effects in sexual behavior among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 34(1), 183 190. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2009.12.008. Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/52.2.411-a. Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescents follow in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2), 162 184. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503260247. Auslander, B. A., Short, M. B., Succop, P. A., & Rosenthal, S. L. (2009). Associations between parenting behaviours and adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Health, 14, 98 101. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.12.014. Bagwell, C. L., & Schmidt, M. E. (2011). Friendships in childhood and adolescence. New York: Guilford Press. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Bartholomew, K., Schmitt, M. T., Yang, L., & Regan, K. V. (2013). Norms regarding the acceptability of abuse in heterosexual dating relationships. Partner Abuse, 4(4), 463 481. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.4.463.

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

125

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497 529. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497. Bohner, G., Siebler, F., & Schmelcher, J. (2006). Social norms and the likelihood of raping: Perceived rape myth acceptance of others affects men’s rape proclivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 286 297. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167205280912. Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and Self-Esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69(4), 1171 1197. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06166.x. Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, M. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 701 712. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260504272897. Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Wanner, B. (2002). Parent and peer effects on delinquency-related violence and dating violence: A test of two mediational models. Social Development, 11(2), 225 244. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00196. Brooks-Russell, A., Foshee, V. A., & Ennett, S. T. (2013). Predictors of latent trajectory classes of physical dating violence victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 566 580. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9876-2. Brown, B. B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171 196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burk, W. J., Van Der Vorst, H., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2012). Alcohol use and friendship dynamics: Selection and socialization in early-, middle-, and late-adolescent peer networks. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(1), 89 98. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.89. Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 61 73. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.37.1.61. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N., Schortt, J., & Kim, M. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 2, 231 280. Available from https://doi. org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231. Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23 56). New York: Erlbaum. Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K. (1992). Depressive symptomatology, self-esteem, and self-blame in battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 249 259. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00994617. Chase, A., O’Farrell, T., Murphy, C., Fals-Stewart, W., & Murphy, M. (2003). Factors associated with partner violence among female alcoholic patients and their males partners. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(1), 137 149. Available from https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2003. 64.137. Cohen, G. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2006). Peer contagion of aggression and health risk behavior among adolescent males: An experimental investigation of effects on public conduct and private attitudes. Child Development, 77(4), 967 983. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467-8624.2006.00913.x.

126

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Collins, A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631 652. Available from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. psych.60.110707.163459. Connolly, J., Furman, W., & Konarski, R. (2000). The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Development, 71(5), 1395 1408. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00235. Connolly, J. A., & Johnson, A. M. (1996). Adolescents’ romantic relationships and the structure and quality of their close interpersonal ties. Personal Relationships, 3(2), 185 195. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00111.x. Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Taradash, A. (2000). Dating experiences of bullies in early adolescence. Child Maltreatment, 5(4), 299 310. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077559500005004002. Cordova, J. V., Jacobson, N. S., Gottman, J. M., Rushe, R., & Cox, G. (1993). Negative reciprocity and communication in couples with a violent husband. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(4), 559 564. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.102.4.559. Crockett, L., Losoff, M., & Petersen, A. C. (1984). Perceptions of the peer group and friendship in early adolescence. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 4(2), 155 181. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431684042004. de la Haye, K., Green, H., Kennedy, D., Pollard, M., & Tucker, S. (2013). Selection and influence mechanisms associated with marijuana initiation and use in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 474 486. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jora.12018. Dardis, C. M., Murphy, M. J., Bill, A. C., & Gidycz, C. A. (2016). An investigation of the tenets of social norms theory as they relate to sexually aggressive attitudes and sexual assault perpetration: A comparison of men and their friends. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 163 171. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039443. Davila, J., Stroud, C., Starr, L., Miller, M., Yoneda, A., & Hershenberg, R. (2009). Romantic and sexual activities, parent-adolescent stress, and depressive symptoms among early adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 909 924. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2008.10.004. Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklen, K. (1997). Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6(2), 207 223. Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27(3), 373 390. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80023-2. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(4), 632 643. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037//0021843X.104.4.632. Dumas, T. M., Wells, S., Flynn, A., Lange, J. E., & Graham, K. (2014). The influence of status on group drinking by young adults: A survey of natural drinking groups on their way to and from bars. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(4), 1100 1107. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.12314. Edwards, K. M., Gidycz, C. A., & Murphy, M. J. (2011). College women’s stay/leave decisions in abusive dating relationships: A prospective analysis of an expanded investment model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1446 1462. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260510369131.

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

127

Edwards, S. R., & Vogel, D. L. (2015). Young men’s likelihood ratings to be sexually aggressive as a function of norms and perceived sexual interest. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16 (1), 88. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510369131. Ellis, W. E., Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Relational aggression in peer and dating relationships: Links to psychological and behavioral adjustment. Social Development, 18, 223 269. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00468.x. Ellis, W. E., Chung-Hall, J., & Dumas, T. M. (2013). The role of peer group aggression in predicting adolescent dating violence and relationship quality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 487 499. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9797-0. Ellis, B. J., Volk, A. A., Gonzalez, J., & Embry, D. D. (2016). The meaningful roles intervention: An evolutionary approach to reducing bullying and increasing prosocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(4), 622 637. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1111/jora.12243. Ellis, W. E., & Wolfe, D. A. (2009). Understanding the association between maltreatment history and adolescent risk behavior by examining popularity motivations and peer group control. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(9), 1253 1263. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-008-9318-3. Ellis, W. E., & Wolfe, D. A. (2015). Bullying predicts reported dating violence and observed qualities in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(17), 3043 3064. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554428. Ellis, W., & Zarbatany, L. (2017). Understanding processes of peer clique influence in late childhood and early adolescence. Child Development Perspectives. Available from https://doi. org/10.1111/cdep.12248. Ellis, W. E., & Zarbatany, L. (2007). Peer group stats as a moderator for group influence on children’s deviant, aggressive, and prosocial behavior. Child Development, 78(4), 1240 1254. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Oxford: Norton & Co. Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2007). Dating violence and sexual harassment across the bullyvictim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(6), 799 811. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9109-7. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71 78. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1029. Feiring, C. (1996). Concept of romance in 15-year-old adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6, 181 200. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies of adolescent dating violence: Identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 498 519. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260506298829. Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 39(5), 1007 1016. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.014. Foshee, V. A., Gottfredson, N. C., Reyes, H. L., Chen, M. S., David-Ferdon, C., Latzman, N. E., & Ennett, S. T. (2016). Developmental outcomes of using physical violence against dates and peers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58(6), 665 671. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.002. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine: An

128

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 32(2), 128 141. Available from https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000.0793. Foshee, V. A., & Reyes, H. L. M. (2009). Primary prevention of adolescent dating abuse perpetration: When to begin, whom to target, and how to do itIn D. J. Whitaker, & J. R. Lutzker (Eds.), Preventing partner violence: Research and evidence-based intervention strategies (pp. 141 168). Washington: American Psychological Association, Chapter viii . Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/11873-007. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., & Ennett, S. T. (2010). Examination of sex and race differences in longitudinal predictors of the initiation of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(5), 492 516. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495032. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Basile, K. C., Chang, L., Faris, R., & Ennett, S. T. (2014). Bullying as a longitudinal predictor of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(3), 439 444. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2014.03.004. Friedlander, L. J., Connolly, J. A., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2007). Biological, familial and peer influence on dating in early adolescence. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 821 830. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9130-7. Furman, W., Brown, B. B., & Feiring, C. (Eds.), (1999). The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73(1), 241 255. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00403. Gagne´, M., Lavoie, F., & He´bert, M. (2005). Victimization during childhood and revictimization in dating relationships in adolescent girls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 1155 1172. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.11.009. Gauze, C., Bukowski, W. M., Aquan-Assee, J., & Sippola, L. K. (1996). Interactions between family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during adolescence. Child Development, 67(5), 2201 2216. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1131618. Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence: Differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(1), 126 141. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012001008. Ha, T., Kim, H., Christopher, C., Caruthers, A., & Dishion, T. J. (2016). Predicting sexual coercion in early adulthood: The transaction among maltreatment, gang affiliation, and adolescent socialization of coercive relationship norms. Development and Psychopathology, 28(3), 707 720. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579416000262. Harper, G. W., Gannon, C., Watson, S. E., Catania, J. A., & Dolcini, M. M. (2004). The role of close friends in African American adolescents’ dating and sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 41(4), 351 362. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552242. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511 524. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511. Hodges, E. V. E., Boivin, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 94 101. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.94. Hogg, M. A. (2005). Social identity and leadership. In D. M. Messick, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of leadership: New perspectives and research; the psychology of leadership (pp. 53 80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

129

Howard, D., Qiu, Y., & Boekeloo, B. (2003). Personal and social contextual correlates of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(1), 9 17. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00061-2. Howard, D. E., & Qi Wang, M. (2003). Risk procedures of adolescent girls who were victims of dating violence. Adolescence, 38(149), 1 14. Jackson, D. R., Cappella, E., & Neal, J. W. (2015). Aggression norms in the classroom social network: contexts of aggressive behavior and social preference in middle childhood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3-4), 293 306. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/s10464-015-9757-4. Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12(8), 597 605. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/1054-139X(91)90007-K. Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009). Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(7), 451 460. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2008.11.005. Juvonen, J., & Galvan, A. (2008). Peer Influence in Involuntary Social Groups: Lessons from Research on Bullying. In M. J. Prinstein, & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (p. 225). New York: Guilford Press. Kandel, D. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306 312. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.36.3.306. Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in early adolescence: Its relation with peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peer influence. Child Development, 73(1), 196 208. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00400. Kindermann, T. A. (2007). Effects of naturally existing peer groups on changes in academic engagement in a cohort of sixth graders. Child Development, 78(4), 1186 1203. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01060.x. Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships: Integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), 505 515. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.505. Knecht, A., Snijders, T. A., Baerveldt, C., Steglich, C. E., & Raub, W. (2010). Friendship and delinquency: Selection and influence processes in early adolescence. Social Development, 19(3), 494 514. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00564.x. Korchmaros, J. D., Ybarra, M. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Boyd, D., & Lenhart, A. (2013). Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(8), 561 567. Available from https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0627. Kreager, D. A., Molloy, L. E., Moody, J., & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Friends first? the peer network origins of adolescent dating. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(2), 257 269. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12189. LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., Neighbors, C., & Pedersen, E. R. (2008). Live interactive groupspecific normative feedback reduces misperceptions and drinking in college students: a randomized cluster trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22(1), 141 148. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.22.1.141. Lamborn, S., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049 1065. Available from https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1131151.

130

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Lavoie, F., Robitaille, L., & He´bert, M. (2000). Teen dating relationships and aggression. Violence Against Women, 6(1), 6 36. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10778010022181688. Leadbeater, B. J., Banister, E. M., Ellis, W. E., & Yeung, R. (2008). Victimization and relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of parental and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(3), 359 372. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9269-0. Lee, C. M., Geisner, I. M., Lewis, M. A., Neighbors, C., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Social motives and the interaction between descriptive and injunctive norms in college student drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 714 721. Available from https:// doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2007.68.714. Lewis, S., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(1), 105 127. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358 (99)00042-2. Lewis, M. A., Neighbors, C., Oster-Aaland, L., Kirkeby, B. S., & Larimer, M. E. (2007). Indicated prevention for incoming freshmen: Personalized normative feedback and high-risk drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 32(11), 2495 2508. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. addbeh.2007.06.019. Linder, J. R., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 252 262. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.252. Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11, 69 86. Available from https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-9507.00187. McDonell, J., Ott, J., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Predicting dating violence victimization and perpetration among middle and high school students in a rural southern community. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1458 1463. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. childyouth.2010.07.001. McNelles, L. R., & Connolly, J. A. (1999). Intimacy between adolescent friends: Age and gender differences in intimate affect and intimate behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9 (2), 143 159. Available from https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0902_2. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77. Available from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024515519160. Miller, S., Lansford, J. E., Costanzo, P., Malone, P. S., Golonka, M., & Killeya-Jones, L. A. (2009). Early adolescent romantic partner status, peer standing, and problem behaviors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(6), 839 861. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0272431609332665. Miller, S., Williams, J., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 607 618. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-013-9914-8. Mueller, E., & Silverman, N. (1989). Peer relations in maltreated children. In D. Cicchetti, & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 529 578). New York: Cambridge University Press. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665707.018.

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

131

Narayan, A. J., Englund, M. M., Carlson, E. A., & Egeland, B. (2013). Adolescent conflict as a developmental process in the prospective pathway from exposure to interparental violence to dating violence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 239 250. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9782-4. Neighbors, C., Walker, D. D., Mbilinyi, L. F., O’Rourke, A., Edleson, J. L., Zegree, J., & Roffman, R. A. (2010). Normative misperceptions of abuse among perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16(4), 370 386. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1077801210363608. O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(3), 314 327. Available from https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01. Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler, & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411 448). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Chapter xvii. Parker, J. G., & Herrera, C. (1996). Interpersonal processes in friendship: A comparison of abused and nonabused children’s experiences. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1025 1038. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1025. Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80(12), 614 621. Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Yoerger, K. (2000). Adolescent growth in new forms of problem behavior: Macro- and micro-peer dynamics. Prevention Science, 1(1), 3 13. Available from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010019915400. Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Temple, J. R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., Hernandez, B., Cuccaro, P., Gabay, E., Thiel, M., & Emery, S. T. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 358 375. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964016-0568-1. Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 703 722. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1368430210398004. Piehler, T. F., & Dishion, T. J. (2007). Interpersonal dynamics within adolescent friendships: Dyadic mutuality, deviant talk, and patterns of antisocial behavior. Child Development, 78 (5), 1611 1624. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01086.x. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgement of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Poulin, F., Dishion, T. J., & Haas, E. (1999). The peer influence paradox: Friendship quality and deviancy training within male adolescent friendships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45(1), 42 61. Prinstein, M. J., Meade, C. S., & Cohen, G. L. (2003). Adolescent oral sex, peer popularity, and perceptions of best friends’ sexual behavior. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 28(4), 243 249. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsg012. Ramirez, M., Paik, A., Sanchagrin, K., & Heimer, K. (2012). Violent peers, network centrality, and intimate partner violence perpetration by young men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51 (5), 503 509. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.02.016. Richards, T. N., Branch, K. A., & Ray, K. (2014). The impact of parental and peer social support on dating violence perpetration and victimization among female adolescents: A longitudinal

132

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

study. Violence and Victims, 29(2), 317 331. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/08866708.VV-D-12-00141R1. Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms a test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389 414. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275385. Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: Developmental differences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40(3), 378 387. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.40.3.378. Rothman, E. F., Miller, E., Terpeluk, A., Glauber, A., & Randel, J. (2011). The proportion of U. S. parents who talk with their adolescent children about dating abuse. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(2), 216 218. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.05.005. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 3(6), 571 645. Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(2), 112 120. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007. Schad, M. M., Szwedo, D. E., Antonishak, J., Hare, A., & Allen, J. P. (2008). The broader context of relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Predictions from peer pressure and links to psychosocial functioning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(3), 346 358. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9226-y. Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 1, 86 100. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.1.86. Shi, B., & Xie, H. (2012). Socialization of physical and social aggression in early adolescents’ peer groups: High-status peers, individual status, and gender. Social Development, 21(1), 170 194. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00621.x. Steinberg, S. J., Davila, J., & Fincham, F. (2006). Adolescent marital expectations and romantic experiences: Associations with perceptions about parental conflict and adolescent attachment security. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 333 348. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-006-9042-9. Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531 1543. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.43.6.1531. Suleiman, A. B., & Deardorff, J. (2015). Multiple dimensions of peer influence in adolescent romantic and sexual relationships: A descriptive, qualitative perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(3), 765 775. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0394-z. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Swahn, M. H., Simon, T. R., Hertz, M. F., Arias, I., Bossarte, R. M., Ross, J. G., & Hamburger, M. E. (2008). Linking dating violence, peer violence, and suicidal behaviors among highrisk youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(1), 30 38. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.020. Tschann, J. M., Pasch, L. A., Flores, E., Marin, B., Baisch, E. M., & Wibbelsman, C. (2009). Nonviolent aspects of interparental conflict and dating violence among adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 30(3), 295 319. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08325010. Urberg, K. A., De˘girmencio˘glu, S. M., & Pilgrim, C. (1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33(5), 834 844. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.5.834.

Peers Over Parents Chapter | 5

133

Urberg, K. A., De˘girmencio˘glu, S. M., Tolson, J. M., & Halliday-Scher, K. (2000). Adolescent social crowds measurement and relationship to friendships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(4), 427 445. Van Zalk, M. H., Kerr, M., Barnjie, S. J., Stattin, H., & Meeus, W. H. (2010). Peer contagion and adolescent depression: The role of failure anticipation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39, 837 848. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2010.517164. Ve´zina, J., He´bert, M., Poulin, F., Lavoie, F., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2011). Risky lifestyle as a mediator of the relationship between deviant peer affiliation and dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(7), 814 824. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9602-x. Witte, T. H., Mulla, M. M., & Weaver, A. A. (2015). Perceived social norms of intimate partner violence in proximal and distal groups. Violence and Victims, 30, 691 698. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00136. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., & Ellis, W. (2012). Observations of adolescent peer resistance skills following a classroom-based healthy relationship program: A post-intervention comparison. Prevention Science, 13(2), 196 205. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0256-z. Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., & Crooks, C. (2006). Adolescent risk behaviors: Why teens experiment and strategies to keep them safe. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., & Lefebvre, L. (1998). Factors associated with abusive relationships among maltreated and nonmaltreated youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10(1), 61 85. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001345. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., & Grasley, C. (2004). Predicting abuse in adolescent dating relationships over 1 year: The role of child maltreatment and trauma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 406 415. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-843X.113.3.406. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 692 699. Yahner, J., Dank, M., Zweig, J. M., & Lachman, P. (2015). The co-occurrence of physical and cyber dating violence and bullying among teens. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(7), 1079 1089. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540324.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 6

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence: How Strong is the Link? Catherine V. Strauss1, Ellen E.H. Johnson1, Gregory L. Stuart2, and Ryan C. Shorey1 1

Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH, United States, 2Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

INTRODUCTION Dating violence among adolescents (i.e., individuals under the age of 18) is a prevalent public health problem. For the purposes of this chapter, dating violence will be conceptualized as including physical, psychological, or sexual aggression against a dating partner. Examples of physical dating violence can include kicking, hitting, burning, or using a weapon against one’s partner (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Psychological aggression encompasses behaviors such as shouting, defamation or name-calling, and making verbal threats against one’s partner (Follingstad, 2007; Lawrence, Yoon, Langer, & Ro, 2009; Straus et al., 1996). Sexual aggression can include forcing one’s partner to have sex or forcing sex without a condom (Straus et al., 1996). Research shows that the annual prevalence of dating violence is approximately 80% for any act of psychological aggression, 20% for physical aggression, and 10% 20% for sexual aggression among adolescents (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). When more severe forms of psychological aggression are considered, prevalence rates range from 20% to 50% for psychological aggression (Mun˜oz-Rivas, Gran˜a, O’Leary, & Gonza´lez, 2007). Research suggests that, with the exception of sexual aggression, which is most frequently perpetrated by men, the prevalence of psychological and physical aggression is similar for males and females (Shorey et al., 2008; Temple, Shorey, Fite, Stuart, & Le, 2013). The consequences of dating violence can be severe, particularly for male-to-female violence. Dating violence victimization among adolescents has been shown to be associated with an array of negative outcomes, including higher levels of depression and suicidal Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00006-2 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

135

136

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

thoughts, worse educational outcomes, unhealthy eating behaviors, and anxiety (Ackard, Eisenberg, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2007; Banyard & Cross, 2008; Callahan, Tolman, & Saunders, 2003). Both males and females experience the negative consequences of dating violence victimization, and research suggests that females are more likely to experience serious physical injury as a result of victimization (Archer, 2000). Dating violence victimization and perpetration have also been shown to be positively related to substance use (Foshee, Reyes, Gottfredson, Chang, & Ennett, 2013; Shorey, Stuart, & Cornelius, 2011; Temple et al., 2013). The purpose of the present chapter is to review the literature on adolescent substance use (i.e., alcohol and drug use) and dating violence (perpetration and victimization). To accomplish this, we first provide a brief overview of adolescent substance use followed by a review of theoretical models for substance-related violence. We then review the literature on substance use and dating violence perpetration and victimization separately. We conclude by discussing areas for future research and implications of this review for prevention and intervention programs for adolescent dating violence.

SUBSTANCE USE AMONG ADOLESCENTS Rates and Types of Substance Use According to the 2016 Monitoring the Future National Survey on drug use in a nationally representative sample of adolescents (Johnston, O’Malley, Miech, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2017), 26.3% of adolescents in Grades 8 12 used illicit drugs in the past year (i.e., any illicit drug not prescribed by a physician, including but not limited to marijuana, hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, and tranquilizers), and 34.9% of adolescents used any illicit drug over their lifetime. In addition, 36.7% of adolescents reported using alcohol in the past year, with 41.9% reporting ever using alcohol in their lifetime. The next most commonly used drug was marijuana, which 22.6% of adolescents reported using in the past year and 28.6% reporting using in their lifetime. Adolescents also reported in the past year and lifetime nonmedical use of the following drugs: 5.4% used amphetamines and other stimulants (8.1% used in lifetime); 2.6% used inhalants (6.5% used in lifetime); 3.5% used tranquilizers (such as Xanax, Valium, Ativan, and Klonopin; 5.5% used in lifetime); 2.8% used hallucinogens (4.3% used in lifetime); 1.4% used cocaine (2.3% used in lifetime); and 0.3% used heroin (0.6% used in lifetime). Although valid data was only collected from students in the 12th grade, 4.8% of these students also reported using narcotics other than heroin (e.g., OxyContin and Vicodin) in the past year and 7.8% reported use of these drugs in their lifetimes. Demographic variables, including gender and ethnicity, may impact substance use in adolescence. In one study of Canadian high school students,

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

137

males were more likely to report current marijuana and tobacco use, though males and females were equally as likely to report illicit drug use other than marijuana (Leatherdale & Burkhalter, 2012). In a longitudinal study, it was found that females used more substances in early adolescence (i.e., higher levels of alcohol use, heavy drinking, smoking, and marijuana use overall), but males reported greater changes in substance use, with increasing use from mid-to-late adolescence (Chen & Jacobson, 2012). According to the Monitoring the Future National Survey, males had slightly higher levels of drug use and a steeper increase in substance use with age, with the exception of prescription drug misuse, which females in earlier grades tended to use more than males (Johnston et al., 2017). Thus, there is mixed evidence regarding sex differences in adolescent drug use, although the general trend of past research suggests that there appear to be some nuanced, though not consistent, differences between adolescent males and females. Similarly, drug use may vary based on an adolescent’s race or ethnicity. For example, adolescents who identify as Hispanic show the highest rates of substance use in early adolescence, but those who identify as Caucasian show greater changes throughout adolescence and higher levels of substance use starting in mid-adolescence (Chen & Jacobson, 2012). Additionally, Johnston and colleagues (2017) found that African-American adolescents had lower rates of use for alcohol, cigarettes, hallucinogens, and nonprescribed prescription drugs relative to White or Hispanic adolescents. Moreover, African-American and Hispanic adolescents reported higher marijuana use than Caucasian adolescents, and Hispanic adolescents in the 12th grade reported the highest use of marijuana (including synthetic marijuana), inhalants, hallucinogens, Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD), cocaine, crack, and methamphetamines (including crystal methamphetamines) relative to African-American or White adolescents (Johnston et al., 2017). Once again, these findings point to a complex and nuanced relationship between race/ethnicity and substance use, with no distinct patterns emerging from prior research. In all, substance use is a prevalent and serious problem among adolescents.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR SUBSTANCE-RELATED DATING VIOLENCE Prior to reviewing the literature on the association between substance use and adolescent dating violence, we will provide a brief overview of the most influential theories of this association. It is important to understand the theoretical underpinnings of this relationship in order to have a frame of reference from which to view and interpret prior research, and infuse directions for future research with theoretically relevant factors and mechanisms. In addition to considering theoretical models that propose how substance use could increase the risk of perpetrating dating violence, we will also review the limited theoretical literature on the association between substance use

138

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

and dating violence victimization. It is important to note that the majority of the theoretical literature on substance use and violence has focused on violence between adult partners and not adolescents. Thus, theoretical models for substance-related violence among adolescents specifically are an underdeveloped area. Our review will therefore focus on the most common theoretical models for substance-related violence, which we believe may also be applicable to adolescent dating violence.

Indirect and Spurious Effects Models The indirect and spurious effects models are two separate, broad theories, on the relationship between substance use and violence. These models suggest that there is no direct, causal relationship between substance use and violence. Indirect models argue that there are mediating variables that account for the association between substance use and violence perpetration, with prior studies focusing specifically on relationship factors as possible mediators. As noted by Klostermann and Fals-Stewart (2006), it is possible that the long-term negative impacts of substance use on a relationship may increase the likelihood of violence occurring. That is, alcohol use is postulated to be corrosive to relationship quality over time, and this reduced relationship quality would then be associated with increased likelihood of violence. However, the authors also state that when indicators of relationship quality are controlled for (e.g., relationship discord), the relationship between substance use and violence remains. Thus, this model does not wholly account for the association between substance use and violence. Relatedly, spurious effects models conceptualize violence and substance use as related only to a third variable, such as age or personality traits (e.g., antisocial personality). In other words, this model proposes that the only reason there is a relationship between substance use and violence is due to a third variable, and thus there is no direct relationship between substance use and violence. For example, individuals with antisocial tendencies may use more substances and commit more violence, though substance use and violence may not be directly related. Generally, there is not good research support for this model (Foran & O’Leary, 2008; Shorey et al., 2011). That is, even when accounting for variables that would be consistent with spurious effects models (e.g., antisocial personality traits, age), the relationship between substance use and violence remains. Thus, the spurious effect model does not fully account for the link between substance use and violence.

Proximal Effects and Other Related Models The proximal effects model also seeks to account for the relationship between substance use and dating violence. This model maintains that the actual physiological state of substance use intoxication, and in turn lowered

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

139

inhibitions and poor social cue recognition, can facilitate the perpetration of violence. For example, a person may have limited information processing abilities while intoxicated, and thus certain environmental factors may become more salient (i.e., negative affect). This, in combination with a reduction of inhibitions, may lead to the perpetration of violent behavior (Shorey et al., 2011). This model has gained moderate support from previous studies (Foran & O’Leary, 2008). Leonard (1993) created a model similar to the proximal effects model that posits that substances facilitate violence via the various consequences of intoxication, but that this only occurs under certain circumstances. The model postulates that interactions between both partners’ substance use, distal factors (e.g., past relationship discord), and proximal factors (e.g., state negative affect) will increase the risk for violence. For example, adolescents who are higher in impulsivity or have poor emotion regulation abilities would be more likely to perpetrate dating violence while under the influence of substances according to Leonard’s theoretical model. Leonard’s model has received support in the empirical literature (e.g., Stuart et al., 2008), although his model has not been directly examined among adolescents.

Attention Allocation Model The attention allocation model (AAM; Giancola & Corman, 2007) is related to the proximal effects and Leonard’s model in that it focuses on the physiological impact of alcohol and how that might lead to violence. In this model, there is a specific emphasis on the effects of alcohol myopia. Alcohol myopia is a phenomenon that occurs with acute intoxication, wherein an individual experiences a reduction of attention that they can allocate to their surroundings, such that they tend to focus on only the most salient thoughts, feelings, or cues in their environment (Steele & Josephs, 1990). This myopic effect increases as the level of intoxication increases. Myopic effects of substances, most notably alcohol, can become important in understanding violence perpetration. Myopia amplifies negative emotional responses while simultaneously lowering inhibitions due to intoxication, which may then lead to violence (Giancola & Corman, 2007). Overall, there has been ample research to support the AAM as an explanation for dating violence perpetration among adults (Shorey et al., 2011). However, the AAM has mostly been studied as related to alcohol use, and research is needed to determine whether the AAM applies to other substances (e.g., cocaine) and adolescent dating violence.

Bell and Naugle (2008) Model Bell and Naugle’s (2008) functional analytic framework for violence perpetration is another lens through which to view the link between substance use

140

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

and dating violence. They argue that substance use may operate as a motivating factor, an antecedent that changes the salience or power of reinforcers or punishers of a target behavior (i.e., violence perpetration), which can temporarily make the target behavior more or less likely to occur. For example, if someone is under the influence of alcohol and becomes angry with their partner, the reward of ending an argument with violence, thereby resolving their anger, could be momentarily reinforced. Overall, this model needs more research as there is currently no empirical evidence that has directly tested the suppositions of this model (Shorey et al., 2011).

Theories of Substance Use and Dating Violence Victimization Currently, research shows that there is a link between dating violence victimization and substance use (discussed below), though the direction of this relationship remains unclear. It is important to clarify that the responsibility of violence always rests solely with the perpetrator, and not the victim (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2005; Shorey, Moore, McNulty, Stuart, 2016). Nonetheless, it is important to understand the theoretical relationship between substance use and violence victimization, which may provide important information for victim services and risk reduction programming. It is possible, e.g., that victims of dating violence use substances to cope with or avoid negative emotions related to experiences with dating violence, also known as the self-medication hypothesis (Khantzian, 1997). Indeed, research has shown that substance use increases following violence victimization (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013). However, there is a paucity of research on the self-medication hypothesis among adolescent victims of dating violence. Another potential mechanism for the relationship between substance use and victimization is reduced risk perception. That is, substances alter one’s cognitive and physical abilities, which lowers risk perception and engagement in complex planning and safety behaviors. In turn, one’s ability to escape a violent situation may be compromised. For example, in a study of female victims of intimate partner violence, Cattaneo, Bell, Goodman, and Dutton (2007) found that women underestimated risk of revictimization at higher levels of substance use. Again, it is important to note that even with reduced risk perception due to substance use, the responsibility for violence is with the perpetrator. Finally, as Shorey and colleagues (2016) note, it is also plausible that partners may use substances together, which may create an environment that facilitates violence. That is, the relationship between substance use and victimization may be due to the fact that both partners were using substances together, and substance use increases the risk for a partner perpetrating violence. In general, more research is needed on the theoretical reasons for the association between substance use and victimization.

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

141

SUBSTANCE USE AND DATING VIOLENCE The following review of the link between dating violence and substance use has been restricted to studies of primarily adolescent populations with a limited number of studies in age ranges that border on emerging adulthood (i.e., ages 18 21). First, the relationship between alcohol use and dating violence perpetration and victimization are reviewed, and then the literature on marijuana use and other drug use with dating violence is reviewed. Gender differences in these relationships are described when examined in prior research. It should also be noted that studies in which drug and alcohol use were combined into a single factor (i.e., overall substance use) are not included in this review due to difficulty interpreting and synthesizing the results of these studies.

Alcohol and Dating Violence Perpetration Due to the large literature on adolescent dating violence perpetration and alcohol use, we did not provide an exhaustive review of these studies. Rather, we review select studies below that exemplify the overall literature on alcohol use and dating violence perpetration. For example, in a two-wave longitudinal study of adolescents in Grades 8 10, Foshee and colleagues (2015) showed that heavy alcohol use (defined using a four-item scale that included items such as “Gotten drunk or very high from drinking alcohol beverages”) at the first assessment was associated with physical dating violence slightly more than 1 year later for males, but not females. However, in a different longitudinal sample of adolescents in eighth and ninth grade, alcohol use (i.e., number of days that student had at least one alcoholic drink in the past 30 days) predicted a combined measure of physical and sexual dating violence perpetration for females but not males (Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001). Given the low base rate of sexual dating violence perpetration among females, it is likely that this finding reflects the association between alcohol use and physical dating violence. Moreover, one cross-sectional study of high school boys and girls found that alcohol use (frequency of use in past 30 days) was associated with physical dating violence perpetration for both males and females (Rothman, Johnson, & Azrael, 2010). Similarly, in a diverse sample of 9th and 10th grade male and female adolescents, alcohol use (defined as any use in one’s lifetime) assessed at baseline predicted physical dating violence perpetration 1 year later, even after accounting for hard drug use and marijuana use (Temple et al., 2013). The authors also reported that there were no gender differences present in the results. Moreover, in a 2-year longitudinal study of male and female students in 8th through 12th grades, alcohol use was associated with physical dating violence perpetration when analyzing associations between heavy alcohol use and dating violence in each grade (Reyes,

142

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Foshee, Bauer, & Ennett, 2012). However, findings showed alcohol use was not associated with physical dating violence perpetration over time. Similar to the aforementioned studies, these authors found no differences in males and females. Also of note, the authors in this study measured heavy alcohol use by asking how many times respondents had gotten drunk or very drunk, had five or more drinks in a row, three or four drinks in a row, or been hungover. In a study with the same design, age range, and measurement tools, Reyes, Foshee, Tharp, Ennett, and Bauer (2015) found that physical dating violence perpetration increased during periods of increased alcohol use. The authors also examined environmental factors that might moderate this relationship, and found that this association was weaker when neighborhood social control (i.e., measure of neighborhood social cohesion, adult supervision, and neighborhood willingness to intervene to prevent violence) was high and students reported more prosocial peer influences. Once again, these authors found no gender differences. Finally, Reyes and colleagues (2015) also found that the link between alcohol use and physical violence perpetration was stronger when teens’ peers reported more dating violence and when there was a greater presence of family violence, and no gender differences in these associations were found. There have also been studies that have begun to help researchers understand the trajectory and time effects of alcohol use on dating violence. For instance, Reyes, Foshee, Bauer, and Ennett (2014) addressed the ways in which alcohol use might predict physical aggression perpetration in a proximal (i.e., between-subjects) and time-varying (i.e., within-subjects) manner. Their sample included students who reported on their own dating violence perpetration in 8th through 10th grade over four waves of data collection. General alcohol use was assessed by ascertaining frequency of consumption on a scale from never to 10 or more times in their lifetimes. As in other studies presented previously, heavy alcohol use was assessed with questions related to number of drinking occasions where students had three or four drinks, or five or more drinks, as well as number of times being drunk or hungover. Risk for dating violence increased during times when adolescents engaged in heavy alcohol use (i.e., time-varying effects on dating violence) even after controlling for other types of substance use. Furthermore, in a study of youth aged 17 21 presenting in urban emergency departments, participants completed a Timeline Follow-back interview and reported on how many and what kinds of drinks they had each day for the past 6 months. Dating violence was also more comprehensively measured and included physical, sexual, psychological, and harassment behaviors. The authors found that the perpetration of overall dating violence was more likely to occur on drinking days than nondrinking days (Rothman et al., 2012). Moreover, Reyes, Foshee, Bauer, and Ennett (2011) found that though effects of alcohol use on violence perpetration was strong in early

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

143

adolescence, this relationship weakened as respondents aged. Additionally, Choi and colleagues (2017) used data from a four-wave longitudinal study to identify five different latent group statuses of alcohol and violence and their trajectories. These groups included females who reported no violence and no alcohol use, psychological aggression and no alcohol use, psychological aggression and alcohol use, and physical and psychological aggression and alcohol use. The authors noted that these groups were generally stable across time. These authors did not, however, examine male perpetrated dating violence. Overall, research indicates that there is a positive relationship between alcohol use and physical dating violence perpetration among both male and female adolescents. This finding has been demonstrated in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, although evidence for the stability of this relationship over time is mixed. However, the research in this area is generally limited by a focus on physical and not other forms of dating violence (i.e., psychological and sexual) and a lack of thoroughness and consistency in the measurement of alcohol use. That is, alcohol use has been assessed in varied ways in prior research (e.g., past 30 days, lifetime use, heavy drinking), making interpretations across studies difficult. Additional research is needed to clarify the patterns of alcohol use that are related to dating violence perpetration. Additionally, few studies examined the temporal relationship between alcohol use and dating violence perpetration despite theory suggesting acute alcohol use would influence the risk for violence. Thus, although research with adult populations has caused some to draw the conclusion that alcohol is a contributing cause of intimate partner violence (Leonard, 2005), there is a need for additional, rigorous research on this relationship among adolescent populations before firm conclusions can be made regarding alcohol as a contributing cause of dating violence in this age group.

Alcohol and Dating Violence Victimization As with dating violence perpetration, there has been a plethora of research on the relationship between alcohol use and dating violence victimization in adolescents. Thus, the following review is intended to be representative, and not exhaustive, of the larger literature on dating violence victimization and alcohol use among adolescents. In one study, Foshee, Benefield, et al. (2004) collected longitudinal data annually for 4 years for ninth graders and 5 years for eighth graders. They investigated physical violence victimization and measured alcohol use by assessing the number of drinks respondents reported drinking in the past 30 days. The authors found that alcohol use predicted serious, chronic physical dating violence victimization in adolescent males even after controlling for other factors (e.g., childhood physical violence victimization, low self-esteem, having been in a physical fight with a peer). However, this relationship was not significant for females.

144

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

In a separate study with similar findings, Exner-Cortens and colleagues (2013) found that alcohol use and victimization varied by gender. In this study, three waves of data were collected, starting when respondents were 12 18 years old and extending into adulthood when they were 18 25 years old. In the second wave of data collection, combined physical and psychological dating violence was assessed and converted into a dichotomous variable. In the third wave, alcohol was assessed by asking respondents how often they drank five or more drinks in the past year. A dichotomous “heavy drinking” variable was created and those who endorsed at least two to three occasions during which they drank five drinks or more were coded as heavy drinkers. The data indicated that women who reported experiencing dating violence victimization at Time 2 also reported increased heavy drinking episodes at Time 3; however, this relationship was not present for men. Howard and Wang (2003) also studied the relationship between victimization and alcohol use in a strictly female sample of 9th through 12th graders. The researchers focused on physical dating violence in this cross-sectional study, and measured drinking by asking respondents how many times they had five or more drinks within a couple of hours. The authors found that female physical dating violence victimization in 9th and 10th graders was associated with alcohol use. Other cross-sectional research has replicated these findings. In a study by Haynie and colleagues (2013), male and female students in Grade 10 were asked to report on the frequency of their alcohol use in the past 30 days. Results showed that those who reported physical and verbal dating violence victimization in the last 12 months were more likely to report alcohol use than those who endorsed no physical or verbal dating violence. Similarly, adolescents in Grades 9 12 were asked to report on physical and psychological dating violence victimization in the past year, and alcohol use frequency in the past 30 days in a cross-sectional study by Parker, Dabnam, Pas, and Bradshaw (2016). Alcohol use days were split into seven categories: 0 days, 1 2 days, 3 5 days, 6 9 days, 10 19 days, 20 29 days, or all 30 days. Findings suggested that alcohol use was significantly and positively related to physical and verbal dating violence victimization, though it was not specifically tested whether this relationship differed in males and females. While some of the research findings above indicate that the link between alcohol use and victimization may vary by gender, or have not specifically tested this relationship, other studies have shown that there are no gender differences. For example, in one cross-sectional analysis of middle and high school student victimization, McDonnell, Ott, and Mitchell (2010) examined differences in male and female dating violence victimization and alcohol use. Specifically, female and male victimization were related to frequency of alcohol use in the past 6 months, though the authors did not specify how alcohol and victimization were measured. Temple and Freeman (2011) also

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

145

sampled male and female students in Grades 9 12 utilizing a cross-sectional design. The researchers examined physical victimization and the number of days in the past month adolescents had at least one drink of alcohol and had five or more alcoholic drinks in one sitting. Controlling for other drug use, there was a positive association between both indicators of alcohol use and physical dating violence victimization. A previously mentioned longitudinal study conducted by Rothman and colleagues (2012) showed similar relationships between alcohol and male and female victimization. In this study, youth aged 17 21 years old who presented in urban emergency departments completed a Timeline Followback interview on their daily alcohol use, including how many and what kinds of drinks they had. Dating violence also was assessed by the frequency of a variety of different aggressive behaviors, such as physical violence, stalking behaviors, and threats. Results indicated that combined dating violence victimization was more likely on a day during which participants used alcohol than on days they did not. This finding held true for both males and females. Though the sample was generally older and included emerging adults, it is plausible that these results would replicate in a younger population. Taken together, it appears that the research on the relationship between alcohol use and dating violence victimization shows a fairly consistent positive relationship, though gender differences remain unclear. More data should be collected temporally to better understand the causal relationship between these two variables. Furthermore, while the studies presented are promising and multifaceted investigations of alcohol use, dating violence was measured differently in all of the studies, and most assessed only physical violence. Because research with adult populations show psychological and sexual victimization from a partner to be associated with alcohol use (Shorey et al., 2011), it will be important for future research with adolescents to examine these relations.

Marijuana and Dating Violence Perpetration Though there has been fairly extensive research examining alcohol use and dating violence, fewer studies have examined the relationship between marijuana use and dating violence in adolescents. Given the aforementioned rates of marijuana use in adolescents, it is important to review its association with adolescent dating violence perpetration, as research with adults have demonstrated positive associations between marijuana use and violence perpetration against intimate partners (Moore et al., 2008; Shorey, Haynes, Strauss, Temple, & Stuart, 2017). In recent years, there have been a few studies that have examined marijuana use and dating violence perpetration, and the results thus far have been largely mixed.

146

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

One study demonstrated null findings for the association between marijuana use and dating violence perpetration. In their longitudinal study, Temple and colleagues (2013) found that marijuana use (i.e., use in lifetime at baseline) did not predict physical dating aggression 1 year later for. Follow-up analyses demonstrated that marijuana use at baseline was negatively related to physical dating violence perpetration 1 year later for African-American adolescents only. Likewise, in a study investigating common longitudinal predictors of physical dating violence, marijuana use (i.e., number of times marijuana was used in the past 3 months) at baseline was not a significant predictor of physical dating violence for males or females slightly over a year later (Foshee et al., 2015). In contrast to these findings, other research has found a positive relationship between marijuana use and dating violence perpetration. Data from the previously mentioned cross-sectional study by Rothman and colleagues (2010) indicated that marijuana use was positively associated with physical dating violence perpetration in males and females. Marijuana use was assessed by the number of days used in the past 30 days. Moreover, in a particularly rigorous study, male and female adolescents with a mean age of approximately 15 years were administered surveys in four waves: 1994 95, 1995 96, 2001 02, and 2007 08 (Reingle, Staras, Jennings, Brachini, & Maldonado-Molina, 2012). Participants were also divided into four groups according to their marijuana use: (1) “nonusers” (those who denied use in each wave), (2) “desistors” (those who reported using marijuana in their lifetimes in Wave 1, using since the last interview in Wave 2, and not using since last interview in Wave 3), (3) “initiators” (those who reported no use in Waves 1 or 2 but use in Wave 3), and (4) “consistent users” (those who reported use at all-time points). Results indicated that consistent marijuana use was predictive of physical dating violence perpetration, and adolescent marijuana use was associated with perpetration of intimate partner violence in early adulthood in this combined male and female sample (Reingle et al., 2012). Reyes and colleagues (2014), described previously, also investigated proximal (between-subjects) and time-varying (within-subjects) effects of marijuana use in 8th through 10th grade adolescents. Marijuana use was assessed by asking how many times participants used the drug in the past 3 months. Results revealed proximal effects of marijuana use on physical dating violence perpetration in girls, but not in boys. Time-varying effects were not found in either gender. Overall, there is still more research that needs to be done in order to conclude whether a relationship between marijuana use and dating violence perpetration exists. Moreover, much of the existing research has a variety of methodological flaws. Specifically, these studies are limited only to the relationship between physical dating violence perpetration and marijuana use, and thus future research should examine psychological and sexual

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

147

perpetration. Furthermore, though some studies examined marijuana use longitudinally, this association was not explored temporally. Thus, there may be some more nuanced associations between marijuana use and dating violence perpetration that have yet to be discovered.

Marijuana and Dating Violence Victimization Research on the association between dating violence victimization and marijuana use among adolescents is limited. In the previously mentioned threewave longitudinal study by Exner-Cortens and colleagues (2013), 12 18year-old males experiencing physical and psychological dating violence in the second wave reported increased marijuana use at the third wave as compared to males experiencing no dating violence. This relationship was not present for females. In this study, respondents reported on whether or not they used marijuana in the past year to create a dichotomous variable of use. In a cross-sectional sample of female adolescents, females who experienced physical dating violence were more likely to report marijuana use (i.e., frequency of marijuana use in the past 12 months) than those who did not endorse any dating violence (Haynie et al., 2013). Additionally, females who experienced both verbal and physical as opposed to “just” verbal dating aggression reported more marijuana use. Likewise, in a cross-sectional study assessing both male and female victimization, adolescents in Grades 9 12 were asked to report on their physical and psychological dating violence victimization in the past year and marijuana use frequency in the past 30 days (Parker et al., 2016). Marijuana use was coded as no use, moderate use, and frequent use. Using hierarchical linear modeling, the authors found that frequent and moderate marijuana use was associated with increased odds of physical and verbal dating aggression victimization as compared to students who did not report using marijuana. The authors did not investigate whether this relationship varied by gender. In another longitudinal study, Ackard et al. (2007) investigated the association between dating violence victimization and marijuana use. Male and female adolescents were surveyed in 1999 and 2004, with a mean age at the second assessment of 20 years. Using a measure of frequency of marijuana use in the past 12 months (i.e., monthly or more vs a few times or less), physical and sexual dating violence victimization at the first assessment was associated with marijuana use at the second assessment among females, though this relationship was not replicated with men. As can be surmised from the extant literature, there appears to be a positive association between adolescent dating violence victimization and marijuana use. While studies with victimization have individually studied a broad range of types of dating violence victimization experiences (i.e., physical, sexual, and psychological/verbal), these studies have not considered whether

148

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

findings vary for individuals who are victimized by multiple types of dating violence. Additionally, similar to literature on perpetration and marijuana use, future studies should seek to understand the temporal association and potential mechanisms underlying the association between victimization and marijuana use.

Other Drugs and Dating Violence Perpetration To date, there have been few studies on drugs other than marijuana and their association with dating violence perpetration. This may be due, in part, to the relatively low base rate of use of other drugs in adolescence. In fact, many studies that examined drug use other than marijuana and their influence on adolescent dating violence perpetration created a composite “drug use” variable that sums different classes of drugs into a single variable due to the low base rate of specific drug classes. For example, Reyes and colleagues (2015) examined hard drug use (cocaine, LSD, heroin, ecstasy, or other, dichotomized into used or not used in the past 3 months) in their longitudinal sample of 8th through 10th grade adolescents. Within-person differences across four waves of data collection were analyzed to understand whether increases in drug use at one time point would be related to increases in physical dating violence at each given time point. For females, hard drug use was only significantly related to physical dating violence when neighborhood control was low and when family violence was high. For boys, the association between drug use and physical dating violence was weaker, although still significant, when neighborhood control was high. Also for boys, the association between drug use and physical dating violence was stronger when family violence was high relative to when it was low. Similarly, in the study by Reyes and colleagues (2014) discussed previously, they also examined proximal and time-varying effects of hard drug use on physical dating aggression. Hard drug use (i.e., cocaine, LSD, heroin, ecstasy, or other) was assessed by asking how many times participants used the drug in the past 3 months and participants were dichotomized into users or nonusers. Proximal and time-varying effects for drug use were found for boys but not girls, such that perpetration was associated with physical perpetration. In the longitudinal study by Temple and colleagues (2013) discussed earlier, hard drug use (combined measure of cocaine, inhalant, ecstasy, or amphetamine use) at baseline predicted physical dating violence 1 year later and this relationship did not vary for males and females. Overall, there is limited research on drug use and dating violence perpetration in adolescents. Only physical dating violence victimization was assessed, and drug use has not been examined as temporally related to dating violence. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the method of having to combine

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

149

and dichotomize different types of drug use may hinder the accuracy and precision of findings. Thus, there are clear methodological limitations to the current research that can be improved upon in future studies.

Other Drugs and Dating Violence Victimization Though there is scant research on the link between dating violence perpetration and hard drug use, there is even less research on the link between dating violence victimization and drug use. Briefly, in a cross-sectional sample of adolescent females, physical dating violence victimization in 9th and 10th grade was associated with greater risk of cocaine and inhalant use (Howard & Wang, 2003). In other previously mentioned studies, correlational data indicated a positive, cross-sectional relationship between drug use (i.e., cocaine, inhalants, ecstasy, and amphetamines) and sexual (Shorey et al., 2015), physical (Shorey et al., 2015; Temple et al., 2013), and psychological victimization (Shorey et al., 2015). Gender differences in the association between hard drug use and victimization were not examined in these studies. In the previously described three-wave longitudinal study by Exner-Cortens and colleagues (2013), there was no association between drug use (i.e., cocaine, injection drugs, but not marijuana in the past 12 months) and dating violence victimization in either gender. Based on these studies, it difficult to discern the nature or significance of the relationship between drug use other than marijuana use and dating violence victimization. Future research should seek to fill this gap by assessing for gender differences among males and females and using longitudinal designs. Additionally, it would be helpful to obtain a sample of adolescents who endorse use of drugs other than marijuana and alcohol to increase power to investigate the relationships between specific classes of drugs and dating violence victimization.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Directions for Future Research The current review suggests that there is a consistent, positive association between dating violence perpetration and victimization and alcohol use. Generally, there is also evidence of some association between dating violence and marijuana and other drug use, though these relationships are much less clear and consistent. Indeed, there are ways in which future studies on the relationship between substance use and adolescent dating violence can be improved. First, most investigations included in this review only assessed physical dating violence, and not psychological or sexual aggression. While physical dating violence is important to examine, additional research is needed that examines psychological and sexual dating violence and

150

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

substance use. This is particularly important given the high prevalence of these forms of aggression in adolescent dating relationships, research demonstrating that psychological aggression precedes and increases the risk for physical aggression (e.g., Murphy & O’Leary, 1989), and research with adult samples demonstrating psychological and sexual violence perpetration and victimization are associated with substance use (Shorey et al., 2011). Additionally, research is needed to understand the direction of the association between dating violence victimization and substance use. That is, although theory suggests that substances are used in response to victimization to cope with the traumatic nature of these experiences (Khantzian, 1997), limited research has been conducted that allows for the examination of this hypothesis. Thus, continued longitudinal research that addresses the direction between victimization and substance use is needed. Moreover, studies should continue to examine the association between substance use and victimization among males. While studies have begun to shift from femalevictimization focused research to less gendered approaches to victimization, there is considerably less research on this association among male victims of dating violence. Although research has shown that females often have more severe negative consequences of victimization (Archer, 2000), male victimization is associated with a wealth of negative outcomes (Prospero, 2007; Shorey, Febres, Brasfield, & Stuart, 2012; Simonelli & Ingram, 1998). Thus, it is important to examine the victimization experiences of both men and women and whether victimization is associated with substance use. The assessment of substance use has been limited in prior research and is an area for improvement in future studies. For example, many studies utilized single items to assess for drug use (i.e., use vs no use), although fewer studies utilized single items to assess for alcohol use. Future research should employ measures of drug and alcohol use that ask not only about the prevalence of use, but also the frequency of use, problems associated with use, and amount used on each occasion to provide a thorough assessment of substance use and its relations to dating violence. Moreover, few studies have examined the impact of comorbid substance use, and instead focused on one substance in isolation. As Temple and Freeman (2011) showed in their study that examined simultaneous use, associations between certain substances and dating violence may not hold when controlling for other substances. Furthermore, rates of comorbid substance use among adolescents are substantial, with 20% of adolescents reporting trying three or more substances in their lifetime (Young et al., 2002). Therefore, continued research is needed on comorbid substance use and dating violence. Finally, studies are needed that elucidate the temporal association between substance use and dating violence perpetration. Daily diary studies conducted in college samples have demonstrated that alcohol use precedes and increases the odds of dating violence perpetration for men and women (Moore, Elkins, McNulty, Kivisto, & Handsel, 2011; Shorey, Stuart,

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

151

McNulty, & Moore, 2014a, 2014b), but this type of design is rarely implemented for adolescent dating violence. Additionally, following the example of Rothman and colleagues (2012) in conducting calendar-based Timeline Follow-back interviews, interview-based assessments may also help researchers better understand the acute ways in which substances may impact dating violence. Overall, these or other methods (e.g., interactive voice response; Rothman et al., 2016) should be employed in future work in order to better understand the associations of interest.

Prevention and Intervention Implications Given the wealth of research that has demonstrated links between substance use and adolescent dating violence perpetration and victimization, we believe that targeting substance use is important for dating violence prevention and intervention programs. Indeed, research with adult populations demonstrates that substance use treatment is associated with reductions in intimate partner violence (e.g., O’Farrell & Clements, 2012; O’Farrell & Fals-Stewart, 2006; Stuart et al., 2002, 2003, 2013; Stuart, Temple, & Moore, 2007; Stuart, O’Farrell, & Temple, 2009). It is plausible, then, that reducing substance use among adolescents may also reduce the risk for dating violence. Currently, two dating violence interventions have been well researched and implemented with adolescents: Fourth R (Crooks, Wolfe, Hughes, Jaffe, & Chiodo, 2008; Wolfe, Crooks, & Jaffe, 2009) and Safe Dates (Foshee et al., 1998, 2014; Foshee, Bauman, et al., 2004). Fourth R is a program designed to prevent adolescent dating violence and is meant to be implemented in schools. It utilizes a three-part curriculum, which includes personal safety and injury prevention, healthy growth and sexuality, and substance use and abuse (Wolfe et al., 2009). Overall, the program includes 21 sessions delivered over 28 hours. The substance use and abuse section consists of 7, 75-minute classroom sessions, which consists of psychoeducation about substances as well as cognitive-behavioral techniques, such as substance use refusal skills. Students are given the opportunity to explore their own opinions and values as they relate to substance use. Findings have shown that adolescents who receive Fourth R report lower levels of physical dating violence, relative to a control group, 2.5 years after the intervention. However, treatment groups did not differ on substance use at follow-up. Safe Dates is a program that also aims to reduce adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration, and consists of both school- and communitybased activities. School activities include “(1) a theater production performed by peers, (2) a 10-session curriculum, and (3) a poster contest,” while community activities include “connecting with special services for teens in abusive relationships and training for those who provide services for adolescents” (Foshee et al., 1998, p. 45). Although substance use may be indirectly addressed in this program, it is not explicitly explored and emphasized, and

152

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

we are unaware of any research that shows a decrease in substance use as a result of participating in the Safe Dates program. However, it should be noted that Safe Dates has been shown to reduce physical, serious physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and victimization (Foshee, Bauman, et al., 2004). Therefore, in order to improve outcomes even further, it may be helpful to include a supplemental piece of the program related to substance use. The basis for such a supplement is explored below. We believe that existing programs could be supplemented by targeting substance use (i.e., Safe Dates) and modifying the existing substance use component (i.e., Fourth R). Specifically, we believe that substance use interventions based on the principles of Motivational Interviewing (MI; Miller & Rollnick, 2013) may be particularly helpful for decreasing adolescent substance use and, in turn, reducing the risk for dating violence. MI is “a collaborative conversation style for strengthening a person’s own motivation and commitment to change” (Miller & Rollnick, 2013, p. 12) and research has shown that MI reduces substance use in adolescents (see Jensen et al., 2011 for review). Moreover, because MI interventions are relatively brief, easily transported to different settings and populations, and can be utilized in individual or group settings, researchers have argued for their use among adolescents (D’Amico et al., 2015). In future intervention and prevention programs, students could be screened for drug and alcohol use, and adolescents who endorse substance use could receive a supplemental MI-based session designed to reduce alcohol and drug use.

Summary In recent years, there has been a burgeoning body of research on the association between adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration and substance use. Research thus far has shown some robust associations between alcohol use and dating violence victimization and perpetration in adolescents. Less is known about the nature of the relationship between marijuana and dating violence, although some evidence of a relationship has been found. Similarly, there is limited research on drug use other than marijuana and dating violence, though there is some evidence to suggest there is a relationship. Thus, there are multiple avenues for future research on adolescent dating violence and substance use. In addition, there is room to improve current prevention and intervention programs for adolescent dating violence by utilizing empirically supported interventions for adolescent substance use.

REFERENCES Ackard, D. M., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2007). Long-term impact of adolescent dating violence on the behavioral and psychological health of male and female youth. Journal of Pediatrics, 151, 476 481. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jpeds.2007.04.034.

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

153

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651 680. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.126.5.651. Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14, 998 1013. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208322058. Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1096 1107. Available from https://doi.org/j.cpr.2008.03.003. Callahan, M. R., Tolman, R. M., & Saunder, D. G. (2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 664 681. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558403254784. Cattaneo, L. B., Bell, M. E., Goodman, L. A., & Dutton, M. A. (2007). Intimate partner violence victims’ accuracy in assessing their risk of re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 429 440. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9097-8. Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence: A cross-disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 141 175. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005275088. Chen, P., & Jacobson, K. C. (2012). Developmental trajectories of substance use from early adolescence to young adulthood: Gender and racial/ethnic differences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 154 163. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adohelth.2011.05.013. Choi, H. J., Elmquist, J., Shorey, R. C., Rothman, E. F., Stuart, G. L., & Temple, J. R. (2017). Stability of alcohol use and teen dating violence for female youth: A latent transition analysis. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36, 80 87. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12462. Crooks, C. V., Wolfe, D. A., Hughes, R., Jaffe, P. G., & Chiodo, D. (2008). Development, evaluation, and national implementation of a school-based program to reduce violence and related risk behaviors: Lessons from the Fourth R. IPC Review, 2(2), 109 135. D’Amico, E. J., Houck, J. M., Hunter, S. B., Miles, J. N., Osilla, K. C., & Ewing, B. A. (2015). Group motivational interviewing for adolescents: Change talk and alcohol and marijuana outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 68 80. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038155. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71 78. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1029. Follingstad, D. R. (2007). Rethinking current approaches to psychological abuse: Conceptual and methodological issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 439 458. Available from https://doi.org/10.106/j.abv.2006.07.004. Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1222 1234. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45 50. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates Program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619 624.

154

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventative Medicine, 39, 1007 1016. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.014. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventative Medicine, 32, 128 141. Available from https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000.0793. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Agnew-Brune, C. B., Simon, T. R., Vagi, K. J., Lee, R. D., & Suchindran, C. (2014). The effects of evidence-based Safe Dates dating abuse prevention program on other youth violence outcomes. Prevention Science, 15, 907 916. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0472-4. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Gottfredson, N. C., Chang, L., & Ennett, S. T. (2013). A longitudinal examination of psychological, behavioral, academic, and relationship consequences of dating abuse victimization among a primarily rural sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 723 729. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adohealth.2013.06.016. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Tharp, A. T., Chang, L., Ennett, S. T., Simon, T. R., . . . Suchindran, C. (2015). Shared longitudinal predictors of physical peer and dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 106 112. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adohealth.2014.08.003. Giancola, P. R., & Corman, M. D. (2007). Alcohol and aggression: A test of the attentionallocation model. Psychological Science, 18(7), 649 655. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01953. Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B., & Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among U.S. adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associations with health complaints and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 194 201. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adohealth.2013.02.008. Howard, D. E., & Wang, M. Q. (2003). Risk profiles of adolescent dating girls who were victims of dating violence. Adolescence, 38(149), 1 14. Jensen, C. D., Cushing, C. C., Aylward, B. S., Craig, J. T., Sorell, D. M., & Steele, R. G. (2011). Effectiveness of motivational interviewing interventions for adolescent substance use behavior change: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 433 440. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023992. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2017). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2016: Overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Khantzian, E. J. (1997). Self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: A reconsideration and recent applications. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 4(5), 231 244. Klostermann, K. C., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2006). Intimate partner violence and alcohol use: Exploring the role of drinking in partner violence and its implications for intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 587 597. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2005.08.08. Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental that physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24, 20 35. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1891/0886-6708.24.1.20.

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

155

Leatherdale, S. T., & Burkhalter, R. (2012). The substance use profile of Canadian youth: Exploring the prevalence of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use by gender and grade. Addictive Behaviors, 37, 318 322. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.10.007. Leonard, K. E. (1993). Drinking patterns and intoxication in marital violence: Review, critique, and future directions for research. In S. E. Martin (Ed.), Alcohol and interpersonal violence: Fostering multidisciplinary perspectives (Vol. 24, pp. 253 280). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Leonard, K. E. (2005). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: When can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence? Addiction, 100(4), 422 425. McDonnell, J., Ott, J., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Predicting dating violence victimization and perpetration among middle and high school students in a rural southern community. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1458 1463. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. childyouth.2010.07.001. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. New York: Guilford Press. Moore, T. M., Elkins, S. R., McNulty, J. K., Kivisto, A. J., & Handsel, V. A. (2011). Alcohol use and intimate partner violence perpetration among college students: Assessing the temporal association using electronic diary technology. Psychology of Violence, 1, 315. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025077. Moore, T. M., Stuart, G. L., Meehan, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., Hellmuth, J. C., & Keen, S. M. (2008). Drug abuse and aggression between intimate partners: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 247 274. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.05.003. Mun˜oz-Rivas, M. J., Gran˜a, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & Gonza´lez, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 298 304. Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579 582. O’Farrell, T. J., & Clements, K. (2012). Review of outcome research on marital and family therapy in treatment for alcoholism. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 122 144. O’Farrell, T. J., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2006). Behavioral couples therapy for alcoholism and drug abuse. New York: Guilford Press. Parker, E. M., Dabnam, K., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016). Exploring the link between alcohol and marijuana use and teen dating violence victimization among high school students: The influence of social context. Health, Education, and Behavior, 43, 528 536. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198115605308. Prospero, M. (2007). Mental health symptoms among male victims of partner violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 1, 269 277. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1557988306297794. Reingle, J. M., Staras, S. A. S., Jennings, W. G., Brachini, J., & Moldando-Molina, M. M. (2012). The relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence in a nationally representative, longitudinal sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1562 1578. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511425787. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Bauer, D. J., & Ennett, S. T. (2011). The role of heavy alcohol use in the developmental process of desistance in dating aggression during adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 239 250. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10802-010-9456-4.

156

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Bauer, D. J., & Ennett, S. T. (2012). Heavy alcohol use and dating violence perpetration during adolescence: Family, peer and neighborhood violence as moderators. Prevention Science, 13(4), 340 349. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11121-011-0215-8. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Bauer, D. J., & Ennett, S. T. (2014). Proximal and time-varying effects of cigarette, alcohol, marijuana, and other hard drug use on adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 281 289. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2014.02.002. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Tharp, A. T., Ennett, S. T., & Bauer, D. J. (2015). Substance use and physical dating violence: The role of contextual moderators. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 49, 467 475. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. amepre.2015.02.018. Rothman, E.F., Heeren, T., Winter, M., Dorfman, D., Baughman, A., & Stuart, G.L. (2016). Collecting self-reported data on dating abuse perpetration from a sample of primarily Black and Hispanic, urban-residing, young adults: A comparison of timeline followback and interactive voice response methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Online First Publication. Rothman, E. F., Johnson, R. M., Azrael, D., Hall, D. M., & Weinberg, J. (2010). Perpetration of physical assault against dating partners, peers, and siblings among a locally representative sample of high school students in Boston, Massachusetts. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164, 1118 1124. Available from https://doi.org/10.1001/ archpediatrics.2010.229. Rothman, E. F., Stuart, G. L., Winter, M., Wang, N., Bowen, D., Bernstein, J., & Vinci, R. (2012). Youth alcohol use and dating abuse victimization and perpetration: A test of the relationships at the daily level in a sample of pediatric emergency department patients who use alcohol. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2959 2979. Available from https://doi. org/10.1177/0886260512441076. Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Bell, K. M. (2008). A critical review if theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent, 16(6). Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.08.003. Shorey, R. C., Febres, J., Brasfield, H., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). The prevalence of mental health problems in men arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 741 748. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9463-z. Shorey, R. C., Fite, P. J., Choi, H., Cohen, J. R., Stuart, G. L., & Temple, J. R. (2015). Dating violence and substance use as longitudinal predictors of adolescents’ risky sexual behavior. Prevention Science, 16, 853 861. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11121-015-0556-9. Shorey, R. C., Haynes, E. E., Strauss, C. V., Temple, J. R., & Stuart, G. L. (2017). Cannabis use and dating violence among college students: A call for research. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36, 17 19. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12457. Shorey, R. C., Moore, T. M., McNulty, J. K., & Stuart, G. L. (2016). Does alcohol and marijuana increase the risk for female dating violence victimization? A prospective daily diary investigation. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 509 518. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0039943. Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., & Cornelius, T. L. (2011). Dating violence and substance use in college students: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 16, 541 550. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.08.003. Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., & McNulty, J. K. (2014a). Acute alcohol use temporally increase the odds of male perpetrated dating violence: A 90-day diary analysis.

Substance Use and Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 6

157

Addictive Behaviors, 39, 365 368. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. addbeh.2013.10.025. Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., & McNulty, J. K. (2014b). The temporal relationship between alcohol, marijuana, angry affect, and dating violence perpetration: A daily diary study with female college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28, 516. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034648. Simonelli, C. J., & Ingram, K. M. (1998). Psychological distress among men experiencing physical and emotional abuse in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(6), 667 681. Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45(8), 921 933. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283 316. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001. Stuart, G. L., O’Farrell, T. J., & Temple, J. R. (2009). Review of the association between treatment for substance misuse and reductions in intimate partner violence. Substance Use and Misuse, 44(9 10), 1298 1317. Stuart, G. L., Ramsey, S. E., Moore, T. M., Kahler, C. W., Farrell, L. E., Recupero, P. R., & Brown, R. A. (2002). Marital violence victimization and perpetration among women substance abusers: A descriptive study. Violence Against Women, 8, 934 952. Stuart, G. L., Ramsey, S. E., Moore, T. M., Kahler, C. W., Farrell, L. E., Recupero, P. R., & Brown, R. A. (2003). Reductions in marital violence following treatment for alcohol dependence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1113 1131. Stuart, G. L., Shorey, R. C., Moore, T. M., Ramsey, S. E., Kahler, C. W., O’Farrell, T. J., . . . Monti, P. M. (2013). Randomized clinical trial examining the incremental efficacy of a 90minute motivational alcohol intervention as an adjunct to standard batterer intervention for men. Addiction, 108, 1376 1384. Stuart, G. L., Temple, J. R., Follansbee, K. W., Bucossi, M. M., Hellmuth, J. C., & Moore, T. M. (2008). The role of drug use in a conceptual model of intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic violence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 12 24. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.22.1.12. Stuart, G. L., Temple, J. R., & Moore, T. M. (2007). Improving batterer intervention programs through theory-based research. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 298 (5), 560 562. Temple, J. R., & Freeman, D. H. (2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 701 718. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365858. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Fite, P., Stuart, G. L., & Le, V. D. (2013). Substance use as a longitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 596 606. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., & Jaffe, P. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163, 629 699. Available from https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.69. Young, S. E., Corley, R. P., Stallings, M. C., Rhee, S. H., Crowley, T. J., & Hewitt, J. K. (2002). Substance use, abuse and dependence in adolescence: Prevalence, symptom profiles and correlates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68, 309 332. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00225-9.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 7

Mechanisms Underlying the Association of Exposure to Family of Origin Violence and Adolescent Dating Violence Michele Cascardi1 and Ernest N. Jouriles2 1 2

Department of Psychology, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ, United States, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, United States

INTRODUCTION Estimates from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence, the most comprehensive nationwide survey on this topic, indicate that 24.9% of children experienced physical, emotional, or sexual child maltreatment, or neglect in their lifetimes (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2015), and 25.6% of children were exposed to other forms of family violence, including interparental verbal threats, physical aggression, or parental assault of a sibling (Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, 2011). The overlap between direct and indirect forms of family violence is considerable, as more than one-half (56.8%) of those witnessing family violence also reported child maltreatment (Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2010). Both experiencing and witnessing family violence (referred to collectively in this chapter as exposure to family of origin violence) have immediate and pervasive, long-lasting effects on child development. Specifically, they are linked to increased risk for deviant and criminal behavior, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcoholism, and drug abuse, among other things (Ireland, Smith, & Thornberry, 2002; Lansford et al., 2007). Most germane to this chapter, children who are exposed to family of origin violence are more likely to be involved in romantic relationships during adolescence where violence occurs. In this chapter, we describe several advancements in our understanding of the intergenerational transmission of violence, from exposure to family of origin violence during childhood and adolescence into dating relationships in Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00007-4 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

159

160

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

adolescence and emerging adulthood,1 with particular emphasis on the significance of the type of violence exposure, timing and continuity of violence exposure, and gender of child victim and adult perpetrator. We also address interruptions in this intergenerational transmission. That is, even though there is a connection between exposure to family of origin violence and violence in dating relationships, the intergenerational transmission of violence is not universal. Some youth who are exposed to violence in the family of origin establish healthy, nonviolent romantic partnerships. In the second part of this chapter we review three of the most well-studied and supported mechanisms linking violence in the family of origin to dating violence (DV) perpetration and victimization: (1) attitudes and cognitive biases in information processing, (2) deviant peer affiliations, and (3) attachment disruptions and trouble with emotional regulation, including symptoms of PTSD and related psychiatric comorbidity, which are defined in part by problems with emotion regulation.

DATING AND DV IN ADOLESCENT AND YOUNG ADULT RELATIONSHIPS The attainment of successful romantic relationships is generally considered to be one of the central developmental tasks of adolescence and the transition to adulthood (Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000). Although romantic relationships are commonly viewed as sources of positive emotion and social support, contributing to the development of identity, self-confidence, and overall well-being, a sizable number of these relationships are marked by DV (Haynie et al., 2013; Niolon et al., 2015; O’Leary, Slep, Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008). In the most recent national Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey of high-school youth, 20.9 % of females and 10.4% of males reported that they were victimized by physical and/or sexual DV (e.g., physically hurt by a partner on purpose, including behaviors such as being hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or weapon, forced into sex) (Vagi, O’Mally Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015). When the definition of DV is expanded to include a larger assortment of aggressive behaviors (e.g., pushing, shoving, grabbing, hurtful and disparaging remarks), the estimates are considerably higher, often exceeding 40% for physical DV (see Dardis, Dixon, Edwards, & Turchik, 2015; Hickman, Jaycox, & Aronoff, 2004; for reviews). Although both males and females report comparable rates of psychological and physical DV victimization, 1. A heteronormative perspective is evident throughout much of this chapter. While we acknowledge that this view is not inclusive of all gender identities and romantic relationship experiences, much of the wording and concepts utilized in the research we review has a heteronormative focus and we would mischaracterize the literature if we altered the terms and concepts to be more inclusive.

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

161

females are more likely than males to perceive it as frightening or hurtful (Hamby & Turner, 2013), and to sustain physical (Carroll, Raj, Noel, & Bauchner, 2011) and psychological injury (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013; Vagi et al., 2015). Despite the more serious consequences of DV victimization experienced by females compared to males, research also demonstrates that adolescents and young adults tend to reciprocate acts of DV, meaning both males and females occupy roles as perpetrator and victim (Cascardi & Muzyczyn, 2016; O’Leary et al., 2008). Reciprocal acts of DV are associated with greater dysfunction and relationship distress, specifically, child maltreatment, depressive symptoms, and suicide attempts (Renner & Whitney, 2012), as well as relationship conflict, mistrust, jealousy, and more frequent aggression (Seiffge-Krenke & Burk, 2015) than nonreciprocal DV. These findings suggest that there may be distinct causal mechanisms that explain how exposure to family violence leads to reciprocal compared to nonreciprocal DV. There is also substantial overlap between DV perpetration and victimization; rates of bidirectional DV in representative surveys of adolescents range from 64% to 69% (Straus, 2008; Ybarra, Espelage, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Korchmaros, & Boyd, 2016). However, this overlap is rarely taken into account in studies in the existing literature and makes it difficult to isolate variables uniquely related to DV victimization and perpetration, limiting the ability to characterize each one differently (Cascardi & Jouriles, 2016). In the context of this chapter, DV perpetration and victimization are generally considered to emanate from similar family of origin experiences and mediation influences, except when there is compelling theoretical or empirical evidence to do otherwise.

DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY OF ORIGIN Child maltreatment is typically believed to involve the intentional infliction of physical harm; however, definitions of exposure to violence in one’s family of origin are often broader and include a wide number of acts with the potential for emotional or physical harm to a child. G

G

Emotional child maltreatment is generally characterized as caregiver behavior that communicates to children that they are unloved, flawed, or endangered; specific caregiver behaviors include belittling or rejecting children (English, Thompson, White, & Wilson, 2015; Hart, Brassard, & Karlson, 1996; Myers, 2002). This form of maltreatment can also include verbal forms of discipline where a parent conveys disapproval or anger with scolding, yelling, or hurtful words (Berlin et al., 2009). Physical child maltreatment spans from harsh physical discipline to severe physical aggression that results in visible injuries. Sometimes this

162

G

G

G

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

form of maltreatment is defined to include behaviors where a caregiver strikes a child’s buttocks, arms, or legs without causing injury to correct a child’s behavior (Baumrind, 2001). Other times, it refers to more severe use of physical force to cause pain or discomfort and punish a child’s misbehavior (Gershoff, 2008). Sometimes physical child maltreatment conforms to the legal definitions of physical child abuse, which include the nonaccidental injury or obvious harm to a child by a caregiver by hitting with a hand, stick, strap, or other object; punching; kicking; shaking; throwing; burning; stabbing; or choking to the extent that demonstrable harm results (Sedlak et al., 2010). Sexual child maltreatment commonly refers to unwanted touching, sexual contact (touching, fondling, or kissing), or forced intercourse (oral, vaginal, anal; completed or attempted) between a child and caregiver/adult. It also includes noncontact maltreatment, such as showing a child material with sexual content or forcing a child to witness an adult masturbate (Barth, Bermetz, Heim, Trelle, & Tonia, 2013). Neglect consists of caregiver’s failure to provide children with adequate supervision or to meet children’s basic emotional, physical, medical, and educational needs (Bernstein et al., 1994). Witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV) typically consists of knowing about, seeing, or hearing violence between parents or other adults in the home. Sometimes this violence is restricted to physical violence, but other times it includes acts of emotional or psychological violence (Hamby et al., 2011). Additionally, sometimes exposure to IPV is measured, as opposed to witnessing IPV, with children living in a household in which IPV occurs, whether or not the child knows about it (Wathen & MacMillan, 2013).

RELATION BETWEEN EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY OF ORIGIN AND DV There is a consistently documented association between exposure to family of origin violence and DV (e.g., Chiodo, et al., 2012; Milletich, Kelley, Doane, & Pearson, 2010; Narayan, Englund, Carlson, & Egeland, 2014). Youth with histories of any child maltreatment (emotional, physical, sexual, neglect, and witnessing IPV) are more likely to report engaging in and being a victim of DV (Foshee & Matthew, 2007; Jouriles, Mueller, Rosenfield, McDonald, & Dodson, 2012a; Narayan et al., 2014). A recent meta-analysis on the relation between experiencing child maltreatment in the family of origin and DV found that all forms of child maltreatment increased the likelihood of DV (odds ratio for any child maltreatment: 1.55 DV perpetration and 1.72 DV victimization; Dee, 2012). In the past two decades, research has advanced to refine the understanding of the relation of violence in the

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

163

family of origin and DV. Although different forms of child maltreatment increase the risk for DV, research has attempted to pinpoint whether the effects of child maltreatment on DV are unique to one particular form of child maltreatment, overlapping, or cumulative, particularly because different forms of child maltreatment often co-occur in families (Slep & O’Leary, 2005). Below, we describe the findings from some of these research efforts.

Comparison of the Type or Number of Child Maltreatment Experiences and DV It is difficult to draw conclusions about whether distinct forms of child maltreatment relate differentially to DV for a variety of reasons. It is perhaps most challenging to isolate the discrete influence of any one form of child maltreatment, because multiple forms of child maltreatment tend to cooccur. From a methodological perspective, the methods for assessing child maltreatment vary considerably across studies (Cascardi & Jouriles, 2016), with some measuring only one or two forms of child maltreatment (e.g., Cui, Durtschi, Donnellan, Lorenz, & Conger, 2010) and others completing a more comprehensive assessment, at times extending to childhood victimizations in schools and communities (Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010; Hamby, Finkelhor, & Turner, 2012). Studies also vary in how they combine measures of child maltreatment, with some creating a single composite of child maltreatment (Chiodo, et al., 2012) and others tallying the number of distinct forms of child maltreatment (Duke et al., 2010), making it difficult to compare the unique influences of distinct forms of child maltreatment across studies. These conceptual and methodological challenges notwithstanding, research generally converges on a couple of conclusions. First, child physical maltreatment, child emotional maltreatment, child sexual maltreatment, neglect, and witnessing IPV each appear to be important individually (e.g., Crawford & Wright, 2007) and in combination in predicting DV (e.g., Cui et al., 2010; Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Hamby et al., 2012; Jouriles, et al., 2012a). Of course, there are exceptions (e.g., Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2006; Lavoie et al., 2002; Maas, Fleming, Herrenkohl, & Catalano, 2010), but each of these forms of family of origin violence appear to be important, with some empirical evidence suggesting that child emotional maltreatment may be especially important (e.g., Berzenski & Yates, 2010; Gay, Harding, Jackson, Burns, & Baker, 2013; Wekerle et al., 2009). Second, as the number of victimization experiences increases, the likelihood of DV increases as well (Duke et al., 2010; Hamby et al., 2012). In other words, there appears to be an additive or cumulative effect of different types of violence in the family of origin on DV in adolescence and young adulthood (Ve´zina et al., 2015).

164

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Timing and Continuity of Violence in the Family of Origin to DV Research on the timing and continuity of violence in the family of origin and DV is limited but offers some important insights. For example, in one study that examined both timing and continuity, witnessing IPV before age 5 years, but not in later years, was directly related to physical DV in early adulthood, suggesting timing of exposure may be more important than continuity (Narayan, Englund, & Egeland, 2013). Meanwhile, the influence of harsh parenting appears to be stronger during adolescence compared to early childhood. For instance, Makin-Byrd and Bierman (2013) found that harsh physical punishment during adolescence but not early childhood (ages 5 8 years) predicted physical DV in later adolescence. In other work, harsh parenting in middle childhood (ages 10 12 years) predicted psychological and physical DV in adolescence (Lavoie et al., 2002). Similarly, Morris, Mrug, and Windle (2015) found that harsh physical punishment at age 12 years related to a composite of psychological, physical, and sexual DV. Thus, while early exposure to IPV may have a particularly strong negative effect on youths’ development of nonviolent strategies for managing romantic relationships, the timing of exposure to child physical maltreatment appears to be especially salient during adolescence.

Gender Differences in the Relation of Exposure to Violence in the Family of Origin to DV Research on gender differences regarding the association of exposure to family of origin violence and DV has produced mixed results. In a number of studies, psychological, physical, and/or sexual maltreatment alone or in combination with witnessing IPV have been associated with DV perpetration (Cascardi, Jouriles, & Temple, 2017; Shook, Gerrity, Jurich, & Segrist, 2000), victimization (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998; Wekerle et al., 2001), or both (Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Laporte, Jiang, Pepler, & Chamberland, 2011; Wolfe, Wekerle, Reitzel-Jaffe, & Lefebvre, 1998) for males and females. Studies that specifically examine the relation between DV perpetration and witnessing IPV show that this association is more consistently observed for males (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Shook et al., 2000; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998; Wolfe, Scott, Wekerle, & Pittman, 2001) compared to females (Wekerle et al., 2001; Wolf & Foshee, 2003). Thus, while both direct and indirect exposure to violence in the family increase the likelihood of DV, males may be particularly at risk for repeating aggression that occurs between their parents in their own romantic relationships. In high-risk samples of youth involved with child welfare or juvenile justice, support appears to be more consistent for the relation of physical child maltreatment (Laporte, Paris, Guttman, & Russell, 2011), witnessing IPV

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

165

(Jouriles et al., 2012a), and a composite of direct and indirect forms of violence in the family (Wekerle et al., 2001) with DV perpetration compared to victimization for males and females. However, there is some evidence to suggest that the influence of emotional child maltreatment may be particularly detrimental. In one study that isolated the influence of emotional child maltreatment, this form of child maltreatment related to DV perpetration (males only) and victimization (males and females) (Wekerle et al., 2009). It has been argued that youth may be more likely to model caregiver behavior in a gender-specific fashion. According to this view, females would be at greater risk for DV perpetration if they witnessed mother-to-father IPV, whereas witnessing father-to-mother IPV would increase males’ risk for DV perpetration. Studies comparing the differential impact of physical child maltreatment by mothers or fathers are sparser but suggest that maltreatment by fathers is more strongly related to psychological and physical DV perpetration for males, whereas physical maltreatment by mothers and fathers both relate to DV perpetration for females (Laporte et al., 2011). Results from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies provide some support for this idea for females, although results are mixed. Specifically, some research suggests that witnessing mother-to-father IPV, and not father-to-mother IPV, relates to physical DV perpetration for female adolescents (Al-Modallal, 2016; Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2011; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997; Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006; Milletich, et al., 2010). For males, with limited exception (e.g., Milletich et al., 2010), results generally fail to support a gender-specific modeling effect. The bulk of research demonstrates that witnessing any IPV is associated with physical and/or psychological DV perpetration for males (Gover et al., 2011; Temple, Shorey, Tortolero, Wolfe, & Stuart, 2013; Karlsson, Temple, Weston, & Le, 2016).

MECHANISMS LINKING VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY OR ORIGIN AND DV In this part of the chapter we review theoretical justification and empirical support for mechanisms linking violence in the family of origin and DV. The mechanisms reviewed are divided into three sections: (1) cognitive mediators, emphasizing attitudes supportive of violence, traditional gender roles, and cognitive biases in social information processing that provoke or prime aggressive behavior (e.g., Jouriles, McDonald, Mueller, & Grych, 2012b); (2) deviant peer affiliations as sources of role modeling and positive reinforcement for aggressive behavior in romantic relationships (Dishion, 2000); and (3) trauma-related theories of attachment, emotion regulation, and traumatic symptoms of emotional distress, most notably PTSD, to illuminate the pathway from child maltreatment to DV (Cascardi & Jouriles, 2016; Wolfe, Wekerle, Scott, Straatman, & Grasley, 2004).

166

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

ATTITUDES AND COGNITIVE BIASES IN SOCIAL INFORMATION PROCESSING Attitudes Accepting of Violence Social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989) has commonly been applied to explain how repeatedly witnessing IPV or experiencing child maltreatment shape attitudes and beliefs about the acceptability of violence within relationships. According to this theory, children learn to view violence as normative and justifiable, and may accept it as a means to resolve conflicts or express emotions, particularly if the caregiver is respected, perceived as competent, or has substantial power (Bandura, 1977) and effectively uses aggression to obtain a positive and desired outcome or goal (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Morris et al., 2015). Examples of such attitudes and beliefs include whether violence against a partner is justifiable as a means to resolve conflicts, acceptance of violence for males and females separately, and justification or acceptance of violence in response to certain provocations or emotions (e.g., jealousy, humiliation, anger) (Connolly, Friedlander, Pepler, Craig, & Laporte, 2010; Slep, Cascardi, AveryLeaf, & O’Leary, 2001). Consistent with social cognitive theory, a substantial body of research suggests that exposure to violence in the family of origin is positively associated with attitudes accepting of DV (e.g., Clarey, Hokoda, & Ulloa, 2010; Riggs & O’Leary, 1996; Temple, et al., 2013). In general, cross-sectional research has also shown that attitudes justifying DV are associated with males’ more than females’ use of DV (e.g., Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992; Wolfe, et al., 2004). Results of longitudinal research on the role of attitudes in the prediction of DV are mixed. For example, in one longitudinal study over a period of 18 months, attitudes supportive of DV mediated the relation of physical child maltreatment and physical DV perpetration for males and females (Reyes, Foshee, Niolon, Reidy, & Hall, 2016). In prospective research of the time-varying relation between attitudes accepting of DV and perpetration of psychological, physical, and/or sexual DV found that changes in attitudes predicted changes in DV perpetration (Jouriles Rosenfield, McDonald, Kleinsasser, & Dodson, 2013). However, in another prospective study, attitudes regarding gender-based violence mediated the relation of witnessing IPV, neglect, physical, emotional, and sexual child maltreatment and psychological and physical DV perpetration for males, but not females, when attitudes and DV behaviors were measured at the same time (Wolfe et al., 2004). Importantly, however, attitudes did not predict psychological and physical DV perpetration 1 year later, raising questions about the direction of the relation between attitudes and DV behaviors. Thus, it is plausible that attitudes may be transient beliefs that are reactive to specific circumstances. Taken together, available evidence suggests that exposure to violence in the family shapes attitudes accepting of

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

167

DV, but that influence of these attitudes on DV perpetration may diminish or change over time.

Attitudes Supporting Traditional Gender Roles The family also serves as a training ground for the development of attitudes and beliefs about traditional gender roles. Feminist theorists have argued that “male dominance within the family is part of a wider system of male power” (Ferree, 1990; 866). Through this lens, violence within the family reflects males’ desire to gain or maintain control, and violence may erupt when that control is challenged (Yllo, 2005). In addition, children who are exposed to family violence may internalize rigid stereotyped gender role beliefs (i.e., females are soft spoken and gentle, males are dominant and competitive; Flynn, 1999), where males hold greater power in interpersonal relationships relative to females, and females accept and submit to this power imbalance. Additional examples of gender role attitudes and beliefs include, “a woman’s place is in the home,” “a woman should not expect to go to exactly the same places or to have quite the same freedom of action as a man,” and “the father should have greater authority than the mother in bringing up of children” (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004). A recent prospective study of male adolescents demonstrates that the relation of these gender role stereotypes to DV may be particularly important when accompanied by attitudes accepting of DV (Reyes, Foshee, Niolon, Reidy, & Hall, 2016). However, this study did not examine whether exposure to family of origin violence related to attitudes accepting of DV, leaving unanswered whether gender role beliefs stem from the family context. Adherence to traditional gender beliefs may be the strongest during adolescence. These gender role norms guide males toward aggressive competition, toughness, and sexual prowess, and females toward norms of subservience, attractiveness, and romance without being “too sexy” (Ka˚gesten et al., 2016). Although there is a strong conceptual foundation for the importance of traditional gender roles as a mechanism by which exposure to family of origin violence increases the risk for DV, the empirical evidence is sparse and inconsistent. In two cross-sectional tests of mediation, a wide range of negative attitudes about women, including a less egalitarian attitude toward women, endorsement of rape myths, and adversarial sexual beliefs were significantly related to witnessing IPV and/or physical child maltreatment (Karakurt, Keiley, & Posada, 2013; Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe, 2001). However, in only one of these studies did traditional beliefs about gender roles partially mediate the relation of violence in the family of origin and psychological, physical, and sexual DV perpetration (Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe, 2001). One prospective study of mother child pairs conducted over a 9-year period provides a more nuanced view. Witnessing persistent father-to-mother IPV throughout childhood was unrelated to traditional beliefs about gender roles

168

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

(i.e., “husbands should be dominant over their wives”) but did predict gender-specific dating norms (e.g., “girls should let their boyfriends win arguments”) (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004). Moreover, both traditional beliefs about gender roles along with gender-specific dating norms predicted physical DV. These results suggest that developmentally salient attitudes relevant to adolescents’ stage-relevant tasks (e.g., dating) may be most influenced by experiences in the home, which in turn, affect DV. The lack of consistency across studies reflects not only methodological differences but also the complexity of evaluating attitudes that may be related to DV. Acceptance of DV, rigid stereotyped beliefs about gender roles or dating scripts, and antagonistic, hostile views toward women each tap distinct, albeit related, beliefs. As Jouriles et al. (2012b) have suggested, disparate attitudes may represent one overarching belief. It seems plausible that collectively, these attitudes may reflect expectations about relationship roles that incorporate gender and violence. Alternatively, attitudes may be additive, interactive, or there may be one most proviolent, gender role, or otherwise harmful belief that is most important for each individual (p. 61).

Cognitive Biases in Information Processing Social information processing models have been extensively studied in relation to aggressive behavior, in general (Dodge, 1986), and to a lesser extent, in relation to DV perpetration (Jouriles et al., 2012b; Fite et al., 2008). This theory emphasizes a series of four cognitive steps in processing and interpreting cues from the social environment. In the first step, a child attends to and encodes social cues of the specific situation. In the second step, a child interprets these social cues and attributes motive and intent to the behavior of others. Then, the child considers as many behavioral responses as possible in the third step. In the fourth step, the child evaluates these responses based on desired goals, anticipated outcomes, and the ability to respond, and then, finally, selects and acts on a response (Dodge, 1986). This model has been extensively studied in maltreated youth, who have been found to attend selectively to hostile social cues (Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995), to selectively recall hostile cues (Milich & Dodge, 1984), and to disregard relevant non-hostile cues (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990). As a result, maltreated youth are more likely to make hostile attributions for the intentions of others (Dodge et al., 1995). Over time, repetition of this process may create an enduring hostile cognitive style such that others are viewed as malicious, motivated by self-interest, and not trustworthy (Buss & Perry, 1992). With regard to DV perpetration, exposure to family of origin violence is hypothesized to prime youth to interpret ambiguous relationship cues with hostility, think about aggressive responses in response to these cues, and favorably evaluate the outcome of an aggressive response (Fite et al., 2008; Jouriles et al., 2012b).

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

169

In one prospective study, hostile attributions for interpersonally provocative situations collected during several developmental epochs were unrelated to both childhood exposure to IPV and physical DV perpetration (Fite et al., 2008). Although not a direct test of the social information processing model, in another prospective study that followed youth from ages 10 to 23 years, the relation between harsh parenting in childhood and psychological DV perpetration in young adulthood was partially mediated by hostile attribution bias (Simons, Simons, Landor, Bryant, & Beach, 2014). The idea that exposure to violence in the family of origin shapes an overall tendency to relate to others with a hostile interpersonal style was supported in a study by Edwards, Dixon, Gidycz, and Desai (2014). A hostile interpersonal style mediated the relation of child sexual and emotional maltreatment, but not witnessing IPV and child physical maltreatment, on physical DV perpetration in college males. In sum, attitudes toward DV appear to mediate the relation of exposure to family of origin violence and DV; however, its influence may fluctuate over time. The importance of beliefs in traditional gender roles as mediator is less clear. That is, even though these latter attitudes are related to DV, it is not clear whether exposure to violence in the family of origin shapes them. Finally, there appears to be support for the idea that a hostile outlook or tendency to interpret social interactions as intentionally malicious mediates the relation between direct experience of child maltreatment and DV. Overall, however, research on social cognitive mediators is promising but sparse and in need of additional investigation with longitudinal designs.

DEVIANT PEER AFFILIATION It is well established that peers are a powerful socializing influence on adolescents’ behavior, shaping norms and values about what is acceptable in social interactions (Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001). These influences can be positive, encouraging prosocial and helping behavior (Choukas-Bradley, Giletta, Cohen, & Prinstein, 2015) or negative, reinforcing hostile talk about women, aggression, and deviance (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Capaldi et al., 2001). Affiliation with deviant peers has been defined as friendships with peers who engage in delinquent acts, such as skipping school, drinking, stealing, or aggression (Morris et al., 2015) as well as friends who have experienced DV, as a perpetrator or victim (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004). These affiliations may be a byproduct of exposure to family of origin violence as this exposure may encourage oppositional behavior in early childhood, which may impair the development of cooperative and prosocial strategies in childhood, leading to harsh and rejecting responses from peers (Shields, Ryan, & Cicchetti, 2001). Youths who display oppositional behavior and aggression are more likely to be rejected by and affiliate with deviant peers (Dodge & Pettit, 2003).

170

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Interactions with deviant peers may provide opportunities to practice and be reinforced for aggressive behavior, further reducing the opportunity for friendship with prosocial peers (Dishion, 2000). As these youth transition into adolescence, they may transfer the lessons learned from their peer group onto their romantic relationships (Connolly & Goldberg, 1999). There has been general support for the idea that associating with deviant peers (e.g., Capaldi et al., 2001; Foshee et al., 2011; Schnurr & Lohman, 2008; Ve´zina et al., 2011) or having friends who experience DV (Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004) increases the risk for one’s own DV perpetration. It is also well established that exposure to violence in the family increases affiliation with peers who engage in deviant and delinquent acts (Fergusson & Horwood, 1999; Zhu et al., 2017). However, there has been less research on deviant peer affiliations as a mediator of the link between exposure to violence in the family and DV. Adolescent females who reported psychological DV victimization were more likely to affiliate with aggressive and/or victimized peers and report exposure to violence in the family (Gagne´, Lavoie, & He´bert, 2005). However, when peer and family variables were simultaneously examined, only peer influences contributed to DV victimization, suggesting that peer influences either overshadow or mediate the relation of exposure to violence in the family and DV victimization. DV perpetration was not examined in this study. Arriaga and Foshee (2004) examined the influences of witnessing IPV and friends who experienced DV on selfreported DV perpetration and victimization. In cross-sectional analyses, both family and peer variables related to DV perpetration and victimization; mediation effects were not tested. Prospective investigations testing deviant peer affiliation as a mediator of the link between exposure to violence in the family and DV perpetration are especially limited. However, in one prospective study spanning a 7-year period, deviant peer affiliation at age 13 years mediated the relation between harsh parenting (but not witnessing IPV) at age 11 years, and psychological and physical DV perpetration and victimization at age 13 years, but only DV perpetration at age 18 years (Morris et al., 2015). This path through deviant peers was also stronger for males than females.

ATTACHMENT DISRUPTIONS AND TROUBLE WITH EMOTIONAL REGULATION Exposure to family of origin violence can produce a wide range of traumarelated sequelae that affects physiological, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral functioning. Examples include significant disruptions in attachment security and the achievement of effective behavioral and emotion regulation (Cloitre, Stovall-McClough, Zorbas, & Charuvastra, 2008), as well as symptoms of PTSD and other mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety, and features of borderline personality (Hodges et al., 2013; Spinazzola et al., 2014). Each of these factors, alone or in combination, has been investigated as

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

171

a mediator of the relation between violence in the family of origin and DV in cross-sectional and prospective research. However, there has been limited testing of a comprehensive mediation model linking family of origin violence, trauma-related sequelae, and DV (see Cascardi & Jouriles, 2016 for review).

Attachment Disruptions According to attachment theory, children develop beliefs and expectations about future relationships based on the quality of their interactions with primary caregivers (Bowlby, 1982). In this context, individuals with secure attachments form relationships characterized by emotional closeness, trust, and dependability. In contrast, insecure/anxious attachments are characterized by a strong desire for closeness, with corresponding worries about desertion and abandonment, need for reassurance, and feelings of jealousy, whereas those with avoidant attachments experience discomfort with closeness and withdrawal from intimate relationships. A loving, supportive caregiver encourages a trusting view of others and fosters secure attachments, whereas a hostile, rejecting, or unavailable caregiver erodes trust and safety and fosters insecure/anxious or avoidant attachments (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989). Maltreated youth are more likely to develop insecure/anxious or avoidant attachment styles compared to their nonmaltreated peers (Cyr, Euser, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Van Ijzendoorn, 2010). These maladaptive attachment styles can persist into early adulthood and affect the bond that develops between romantic partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). More specifically, attachment insecurities may prompt maltreated youth to be hypervigilant to signs of disapproval, rejection, or abandonment in their relationships and escalate to DV perpetration if needs for reassurance are not met or respected by partners (e.g., Clift & Dutton, 2011; Jouriles et al., 2012b). Maladaptive attachment mediates the relation between child maltreatment and DV in cross-sectional studies, although there is some variation in the specific results. Insecure attachment and related beliefs that others will not fulfill one’s emotional needs for safety, security, acceptance, and respect have been found to mediate the relation of emotional child maltreatment to DV perpetration and victimization for females (Gay et al. 2013), as well as physical child maltreatment to DV perpetration for females (Lee, Reese-Weber, & Kahn, 2014). Among males, however, insecure attachment and physical child maltreatment contributed independently to physical DV perpetration; there was no mediation effect (Lee et al., 2014). Other work has found insecure attachment as a mediator between harsh parenting and DV perpetration and victimization for males and females (Sutton, Simons, Wickrama, & Futris, 2014). Although, Riggs and Kaminski (2010) found that insecure attachment was related to both emotional child maltreatment and psychological DV perpetration and victimization, mediation effects were not examined. Avoidant attachment as a mediator of the relation between child maltreatment and DV has not

172

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

been directly evaluated, although research provides support for it as a correlate of child maltreatment and DV perpetration and victimization among highschool students (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1998) and maltreated youth (Weiss, MacMullin, Waechter, & Wekerle, 2011).

Trouble with Emotion Regulation Emotion regulation is a multifaceted construct, including the awareness, understanding, and acceptance of one’s emotions; the ability to control impulsive behaviors when experiencing negative emotions; and the ability to modify strategies for managing emotions according to situational demands and goals (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Adult caregivers serve as important models in shaping children’s ability to process and manage emotions (Maughan & Cicchetti, 2002). Maltreated youth may lack appropriate role models for learning emotion regulation; consequently, they tend to show deficits in many aspects of emotion processing and regulating, such as bias toward perceiving anger in the facial expressions of others (Pollak & Sinha, 2002), fewer words for describing emotional states (Beeghly & Cicchetti, 1994), and trouble managing intense negative emotions (e.g., Kim & Cicchetti, 2010). These deficits in regulating emotions may also influence interactions with romantic partners during adolescence and early adulthood (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Emotion regulation theories of DV perpetration posit that aggressive behavior is a dysfunctional response resulting from deficits in the ability to recognize, process, and manage negative emotions (Gratz & Roemer, 2004). Research has found that DV perpetration is associated with general as well as specific deficits in emotion regulation, such as the inability to control impulses related to negative emotion and to generate adaptive strategies to manage negative emotion (e.g., Gratz, Paulson, Jakupcak, & Tull, 2009; Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011). However, the regulation of emotions in general (as opposed to the regulation of anger specifically) has rarely been investigated in the context of child maltreatment and DV, and results have been inconsistent. For instance, Gratz et al. (2009) found that emotion regulation mediated the relation of child maltreatment and physical DV perpetration for males only; however, Berzenski and Yates (2010) found that impulsivity, one specific difficulty with emotion regulation, mediated the relation of child maltreatment and DV perpetration and victimization for females only. In contrast with these results, studies that operationally defined emotion regulation as controlling the emotion of anger have shown support for this variable as a risk factor for DV perpetration (e.g., Baker & Stith, 2008) or a mediator (e.g., Clarey et al. 2010). In general, the regulation of anger has been found to mediate the relation of physical child maltreatment and DV perpetration (Reyes et al., 2015; Wolf & Foshee, 2003) as well as exposure to IPV and DV perpetration (Clarey et al., 2010; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004 (for males and females); Wolf

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

173

& Foshee, 2003 (for females only)). Although most research has focused on DV perpetration, the regulation of anger also mediated the relation of exposure to family of origin violence and psychological, physical, and sexual DV victimization (Iverson, McLaughlin, Adair, & Monson, 2014).

Combined Effects of Attachment Disruption and Trouble with Emotion Regulation Attachment insecurity and deficits in emotion regulation have been hypothesized to work in tandem as mediators of the relation between exposure to family of origin violence and DV. Simons et al. (2014) conducted an exemplary prospective study collecting six waves of data from a cohort of African-American youth from fifth grade through 23 years of age. Both insecure attachment and emotion regulation were examined along with hostile attribution bias. In this work, results supported sequential mediation such that the relation between harsh parenting in childhood and DV perpetration was partially mediated by insecure attachment and hostile attribution bias in late adolescence. Additionally, deficits in emotion regulation, defined as low ability to regulate anger, in young adulthood further mediated these relations, such that anger regulation was the most proximate correlate of DV perpetration. These findings suggest a cascade of effects, with insecure attachment and cognitive processes fostering hostile interpretations of interpersonal situations, creating a vulnerability for DV perpetration, which was then expressed in specific dating contexts that aroused anger beyond the individual’s capacity to inhibit an aggressive response.

PTSD and Related Comorbidities An accumulating body of research demonstrates that family of origin violence can produce a complicated symptom presentation that includes symptoms of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and dissociation (Hodges et al., 2013; Moylan et al., 2010; Spinazzola et al., 2014). An important finding from the literature is that psychological distress related to family of origin violence peaks in early- to mid-adolescence (Flynn, Cicchetti, & Rogosch, 2014; Thornberry, Ireland, & Smith, 2001) and persists into adulthood (Cloitre et al., 2009), coinciding with the developmental period when adolescents explore romantic interests (Connolly, Nguyen, Pepler, Craig, & Jiang, 2013). Thus, PTSD and related comorbidities in adolescence may be important in understanding the link from child maltreatment and witnessing violence to DV victimization. In an information-processing model of PTSD, PTSD symptoms are hypothesized to activate cognitive and emotional processes that stimulate appraisal of situational cues as threatening. These cues activate and intensify anger arousal, which in turn increase risk for aggressive behavior (Chemtob,

174

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Novaco, Hamada, Gross, & Smith, 1997). Extending this model to DV perpetration, PTSD symptoms are posited to mediate the relation between exposure to family of origin violence and DV. Specifically, PTSD symptoms have been hypothesized to increase attention to signals of threat within the relationship and to increase the appraisal of relationship events as threatening, which in turn activate anger arousal. Difficulty regulating this PTSDrelated anger arousal increases the likelihood of DV perpetration (Taft, Schumm, Orazem, Meis, & Pinto, 2010). Emerging evidence also suggests that certain PTSD symptoms, such as emotional numbing, diminish one’s ability to detect and respond appropriately to cues of threat and danger (Krause, Kaltman, Goodman, & Dutton, 2006), thereby increasing the risk of repeated DV victimization (e.g., Perez & Johnson, 2008). It has also been suggested that PTSD along with symptoms of dissociation, and internalizing symptoms, such as depression and anxiety, may diminish a victim’s ability or willingness to notice warning signs of relationship harm because of their collective negative impact on self-worth, helplessness, and difficulty recognizing danger (Cascardi, 2016). That is, feelings of inferiority, helplessness, and low self-worth associated with internalizing symptoms, such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety, have been hypothesized to lead an individual to believe victimization cannot be avoided or may make an individual appear to be a weak and thus an easy target for DV victimization (Brooks-Russell, Foshee, & Ennett, 2013). There have been numerous studies supporting PTSD and related symptoms, which typically included symptoms of depression, anxiety, PTSD, dissociation, and anger, as a mediator. Cross-sectional research provides support for PTSD and related symptoms as a mediator of the association between child maltreatment and both DV perpetration and victimization in normative and maltreated samples (Harding, 2012; Wekerle et al., 2009; Wekerle et al., 2001); however mediation effects have been observed more consistently for females than males (Wekerle et al. 2001; 2009). Prospective research has shown that among emerging adults who experienced child emotional and physical maltreatment and witnessing IPV during early adolescence, PTSD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms in mid-adolescence, mediated the relation of exposure to family violence with DV victimization in later adolescence (Cascardi, 2016). Similar results were observed among pregnant adolescents (Lindhorst, Beadnell, Jackson, Fieland, & Lee, 2009). In other prospective research, child physical maltreatment, witnessing IPV, and symptoms of depression and anxiety predicted chronic DV victimization among high-school students (Brooks-Russell, et al., 2013; Foshee, Benefield, Ennett, Bauman, & Suchindran, 2004). Specific symptoms of emotional distress, i.e., depression and anxiety, also appear to be important for understanding DV perpetration. In a community sample of emerging adults, emotional child maltreatment and emotional distress predicted a composite of DV perpetration and victimization (Lohman, Neppl, Senia, & Schofield, 2013).

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

175

In one cross-sectional study, both anger symptoms and other symptoms of emotional distress were associated with DV perpetration in a sample of maltreated youth (Wolfe et al., 2003), while in another study they were joint mediators of the relation of child maltreatment and DV perpetration and victimization among high-school students (Grasley, 2002). Child maltreatment and anger symptoms each related to DV perpetration among college students, and their effect was synergistic in the presence of alcohol use, but mediation effects were not tested in this study (Maldonado, Watkins, & DiLillo, 2015). When anger symptoms are examined in conjunction with PTSD and related comorbid symptoms, anger symptoms tend to emerge as the more consistent mediator. Specifically, in a juvenile justice sample, only anger symptoms mediated the relation between child maltreatment and physical DV perpetration (Jouriles et al., 2012a). Similarly, only anger symptoms mediated the relation between child maltreatment and a composite of psychological, physical, and sexual DV perpetration in a sample of maltreated adolescents (Faulkner, Goldstein, & Wekerle, 2014). Among high-school students, only anger symptoms mediated the relation of child maltreatment and DV perpetration for females; however, PTSD symptoms (i.e., not specific to anger) mediated the relation of child maltreatment and psychological DV perpetration over a 1-year period for males (Wolfe et al., 2004). However, there has also been evidence for sequential mediation such that PTSD mediated the association between child maltreatment and emotion regulation of anger, and anger regulation then mediated the relation of PTSD and physical and psychological DV perpetration (Kendra, Bell, & Guimond, 2012). Taft et al. (2010) found similar mediation effects for psychological DV perpetration but not physical DV perpetration. In their study, PTSD, but not emotion regulation of anger, mediated the relation between child maltreatment and physical DV perpetration. Other research has found that the mediation effect varies by gender, such that anger regulation mediated the association of child maltreatment and DV perpetration for females; however, symptoms of anxiety and depression, but not anger regulation, mediated this association for males (Boivin, Lavoie, He´bert, & Gagne´, 2012). PTSD along with symptoms of anxiety and depression may also explain how exposure to violence in the family of origin increases risk for DV victimization, particularly for females. Females with a history of depression have been found to select romantic partners who show antisocial and aggressive behavioral tendencies (Kim & Capaldi, 2004), which puts them at greater risk for being a victim of DV (Keenan-Miller, Hammen, & Brennan, 2007). In other work, symptoms of PTSD, depression, and anxiety partially mediated the relation of witnessing violence in the home and child maltreatment and DV victimization in early adulthood (Cascardi, 2016). Collectively, these symptoms may diminish a victim’s ability or willingness to notice warning signs of relationship harm because of their negative impact on self-worth, helplessness, and difficulty recognizing danger. Child

176

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

maltreatment also directly related to DV victimization even after the effects of psychological distress were taken into consideration, suggesting that maltreated youth who are raised with insults, rejection, and physical child maltreatment carry forward a victim role in their dating relationships.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Exposure to violence in the family of origin is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes, including DV. Existing research indicates that child physical, sexual, and emotional maltreatment, neglect and witnessing IPV each contribute in some way to DV. However, the risk for DV increases as the number of distinct forms of violence to which a child is exposed increases. Although the research is sparse and inconclusive at the present time, witnessing IPV during early childhood, compared to adolescence, appears to have a stronger influence on DV, whereas the influence of harsh parenting on DV seems to be the strongest during adolescence. A better understanding of the mechanisms by which child maltreatment leads to DV can help to develop a more comprehensive scientific understanding of the causes of DV as well as inform intervention and prevention. From a public health perspective, it might be argued that a key goal should be to prevent child maltreatment. Yet, despite such prevention efforts, maltreatment is still likely to happen, and service providers will need to be informed about how best to help those who experience it. In this chapter, we reviewed three of the most well-studied and supported mechanisms linking violence in the family of origin to DV: (1) attitudes and cognitive biases in information processing, (2) deviant peer affiliations, and (3) attachment disruptions and trouble with emotional regulation, including symptoms of PTSD and related psychiatric comorbidity. In general, attitudes supporting DV are associated with both exposure to violence in the family and DV. However, there is limited longitudinal research demonstrating whether these attitudes mediate this link. In addition, it seems that attitudes are not fixed, stable characteristics because they fluctuate over time, changing response to certain relationship triggers and in the aftermath of DV. The importance of gender role attitudes has a strong theoretical foundation, but empirical evidence suggests that while exposure to violence in the family may shape gender norms, these norms do not mediate the relation of exposure to violence in the family and DV. One cognitive mediator that has received scant attention but may hold promise as an explanatory mechanism of the link between violence in the family and DV is a hostile outlook or hostile attribution bias. There is a strong evidence that maltreated youths view their world as a more hostile place, and this hostile outlook may relate to a wide array of attitudes supportive of DV and may also explain how disrupted attachment, problems with emotion regulation, PTSD, and related psychiatric comorbidities (e.g., depression) increase risk for DV.

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

177

One neglected area of research is how mediators operate in tandem to influence DV; it is likely that some of these hypothesized mediators potentiate the effects of each other in predicting DV. It is also possible that the effects of some of these hypothesized mediators may be redundant with one another. For instance, anger and PTSD symptoms have shown considerable covariation (e.g., Faulkner, et al., 2014). The relations among the mediators themselves, and their joint and unique effects on DV should become clearer as more studies are conducted that examine multiple mediators simultaneously. A conceptual challenge for investigators in this area will be to consider models by which different mediators work together to create risk for DV. Development of an integrated model that fully considers the traumatic influence of exposure to violence in the family may be an important step toward overcoming this conceptual challenge.

REFERENCES Al-Modallal, H. (2016). Childhood maltreatment in college women: Effect on severe physical partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31(5), 607 615. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/s10896-016-9797-z. Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescents follow in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2), 162 184. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503260247. Baker, C. R., & Stith, S. M. (2008). Factors predicting dating violence perpetration among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17(2), 227 244. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770802344836. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191 215. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175 1184. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175. Barth, J., Bermetz, L., Heim, E., Trelle, S., & Tonia, T. (2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health, 58(3), 469 483. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0426-1. Baumrind, D. (2001). Does causally relevant research support a blanket injunction against disciplinary spanking by parents. In Invited Address at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Beeghly, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1994). Child maltreatment, attachment, and the self system: Emergence of an internal state lexicon in toddlers at high social risk. Development and Psychopathology, 6(01), 5 30. Berlin, L. J., Ispa, J. M., Fine, M. A., Malone, P. S., Brooks-Gunn, J., Brady-Smith, C., . . . Bai, Y. (2009). Correlates and consequences of spanking and verbal punishment for low-income White, African American, and Mexican American toddlers. Child Development, 80(5), 1403 1420. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01341.x. Bernstein, D. P., Fink, L., Handelsman, L., Foote, J., Lovejoy, M., Wenzel, K., . . . Ruggiero, J. (1994). Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 151(8), 1132 1136. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.8.1132.

178

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Berzenski, S. R., & Yates, T. M. (2010). Research on intimate partner violence: A developmental process analysis of the contribution of childhood emotional abuse to relationship violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(2), 180 203. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10926770903539474. Boivin, S., Lavoie, F., He´bert, M., & Gagne´, M. (2012). Past victimizations and dating violence perpetration in adolescence: The mediating role of emotional distress and hostility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(4), 662 684. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260511423245. Brechwald, W. A., & Prinstein, M. J. (2011). Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 166 179. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721.x. Brooks-Russell, A., Foshee, V. A., & Ennett, S. T. (2013). Predictors of latent trajectory classes of physical dating violence victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 566 580. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9876-2. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664 678. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982. tb01456.x. Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452 459. Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 1175 1188. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1175. Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 61 73. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.37.1.61. Carroll, B. C., Raj, A., Noel, S. E., & Bauchner, H. (2011). Dating violence among adolescents presenting to a pediatric emergency department. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 165(12), 1101 1106. Cascardi, M. (2016). From violence in the home to physical dating violence victimization: The mediating role of psychological distress in a prospective study of female adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(4), 777 792. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-016-0434-1. Cascardi, M., & Jouriles, E. N. (2016). A study space analysis and narrative review of traumainformed mediators of dating violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/ 10.1524838016659485. Cascardi, M., & Muzyczyn, B. (2016). Concordant responding on the physical assault/abuse subscales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales 2 and Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychology of Violence, 6(2), 303 312. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/a0039128. Cascardi., Jouriles., & Temple. (2017). Distinct and overlapping correlates of psychological and physical partner violence Perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517702492. Chemtob, C. M., Novaco, R. W., Hamada, R. S., Gross, D. M., & Smith, G. (1997). Anger regulation deficits in combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 10(1), 17 36. Available from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024852228908. 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

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

179

various profiles of dating violence and victimization. Prevention Science, 13(4), 350 359. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0236-3. Choukas-Bradley, S., Giletta, M., Cohen, G. L., & Prinstein, M. J. (2015). Peer influence, peer status, and prosocial behavior: An experimental investigation of peer socialization of adolescents’ intentions to volunteer. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2197 2210. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0373-2. Clarey, A., Hokoda, A., & Ulloa, E. C. (2010). Anger control and acceptance of violence as mediators in the relationship between exposure to interparental conflict and dating violence perpetration in Mexican adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 619 625. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9315-7. Clift, R. W., & Dutton, D. G. (2011). The abusive personality in women in dating relationships. Partner Abuse, 2(2), 166 188. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.2.2.166. Cloitre, M., Stolbach, B. C., Herman, J. L., van der Kolk, B., Pynoos, R., Wang, J., & Petkova, E. (2009). A developmental approach to complex PTSD: Childhood and adult cumulative trauma as predictors of symptom complexity. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(5), 399 408. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20444. Cloitre, M., Stovall-McClough, C., Zorbas, P., & Charuvastra, A. (2008). Attachment organization, emotion regulation, and expectations of support in a clinical sample of women with childhood abuse histories. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(3), 282 289. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20339. Coates, A. A., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2014). A structural model of mechanisms predicting depressive symptoms in women following childhood psychological maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(1), 103 113. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.005. Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. J. (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 224 237. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.79.2.224. Connolly, J., Friedlander, L., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2010). The ecology of adolescent dating aggression: Attitudes, relationships, media use, and socio-demographic risk factors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(5), 469 491. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2010.495028. Connolly, J., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Romantic relationships in adolescence: The role of friends and peers in their emergence and development. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, C. Feiring, W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The Development of Romantic Relationships in Adolescence (pp. 266 290). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316182185.012. Connolly, J., Nguyen, H. T., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Jiang, D. (2013). Developmental trajectories of romantic stages and associations with problem behaviors during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1013 1024. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2013.08.006. Crawford, E., & Wright, M. O. (2007). The impact of childhood psychological maltreatment on interpersonal schemas and subsequent experiences of relationship aggression. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7(2), 93 116. Available from https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v07n02_06. Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In D. Cicchetti, V. Carlson, D. Cicchetti, & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 432 463). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511665707.015.

180

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Cui, M., Durtschi, J. A., Donnellan, M. B., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 688 697. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0021675. Cyr, C., Euser, E. M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2010). Attachment security and disorganization in maltreating and high-risk families: A series of meta-analyses. Development and Psychopathology, 22(1), 87 108. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990289. Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2015). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(2), 136 152. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517559. Dee, T. C. (2012). A meta-analysis on the relationship between child maltreatment and dating violence in adolescence and young adulthood. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Dishion, T. J. (2000). Cross-setting consistency in early adolescent psychopathology: Deviant friendships and problem behavior sequelae. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 1109 1126. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00128. Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children, . Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77 125). University of Michigan, East Sussex, Minnesota: Erlbaum Associates Inc. Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 349 371. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.349. Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of early physical abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(4), 632 643. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0021843X.104.4.632. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250(4988), 1678 1684. Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W. (2010). Adolescent violence perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences. Pediatrics, 125(4), e778 e786. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0597. Edwards, K. M., Dixon, K. J., Gidycz, C. A., & Desai, A. D. (2014). Family-of-origin violence and college men’s reports of intimate partner violence perpetration in adolescence and young adulthood: The role of maladaptive interpersonal patterns. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(2), 234 240. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033031. Edwards, K. M., Desai, A. D., Gidycz, C. A., & VanWynsberghe, A. (2009). College women’s aggression in relationships: The role of childhood and adolescent victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 255 265. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14716402.2009.01498.x. Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741 753. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741. English, D., Thompson, R., White, C. R., & Wilson, D. (2015). Why should child welfare pay more attention to emotional maltreatment? Children and Youth Services Review, 5053 5063. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.01.010.

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

181

Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71 78. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1029. Faulkner, B., Goldstein, A. L., & Wekerle, C. (2014). Pathways from childhood maltreatment to emerging adulthood: Investigating trauma-mediated substance use and dating violence outcomes among child protective services involved youth. Child Maltreatment, 19(3-4), 219 232. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559514551944. Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1999). Prospective childhood predictors of deviant peer affiliations in adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(4), 581 592. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00475. Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2006). Cannabis use and other illicit drug use: Testing the cannabis gateway hypothesis. Addiction, 101(4), 556 569. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01322.x. Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(4), 866 884. Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 746 754. Fite, J. E., Bates, J. E., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Dodge, K. A., Nay, S. Y., & Pettit, G. S. (2008). Social information processing mediates the intergenerational transmission of aggressiveness in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 367 376. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.367. Flynn, P. (1999). Contributions feminist economics can make to the quality of life movement. Feminist Economics, 5(2), 133 137. Flynn, M., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. (2014). The prospective contribution of childhood maltreatment to low self-worth, low relationship quality, and symptomatology across adolescence: A developmental-organizational perspective. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2165 2175. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037162. Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice And Theory, 39(5), 1007 1016. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.014. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 32(2), 128 141. Available from https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.2000.0793. Foshee, V. A., & Matthew, R. A. (2007). Adolescent dating abuse perpetration: A review of findings, methodological limitations, and suggestions for future research. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, I. D. Waldman, D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 431 449). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816840.022. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Mathias, J. P., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., . . . Benefield, T. S. (2011). Risk and protective factors distinguishing profiles of adolescent peer and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 344 350. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.030. Gagne´, M., Lavoie, F., & He´bert, M. (2005). Victimization during childhood and revictimization in dating relationships in adolescent girls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(10), 1155 1172. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.11.009.

182

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Gay, L. E., Harding, H. G., Jackson, J. L., Burns, E. E., & Baker, B. D. (2013). Attachment style and early maladaptive schemas as mediators of the relationship between childhood emotional abuse and intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22(4), 408 424. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2013.775982. Gershoff, E. T. (2008). Report on physical punishment in the United States: What research tells us about its effects on children. Columbus, OH: Center for Effective Discipline. Giordano, P. C., Copp, J. E., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2015). Contested domains, verbal “amplifiers,” and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Social Forces, 94(2), 923 951. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667 1693. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314330. Gover, A. R., Park, M., Tomsich, E. A., & Jennings, W. G. (2011). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1232 1263. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510368161. Grasley, C. (2002). Abuse in teen dating: A multi factorial analysis of the association between child maltreatment and abuse in subsequent intimate relationships (PhD). Dissertation Abstracts International. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario. Gratz, K. L., Paulson, A., Jakupcak, M., & Tull, M. T. (2009). Exploring the relationship between childhood maltreatment and intimate partner abuse: Gender differences in the mediating role of emotion dysregulation. Violence and Victims, 24(1), 68 82. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.1.68. Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41 54. Available from https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94. Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., & Turner, H. (2012). Teen dating violence: Co-occurrence with other victimizations in the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV). Psychology of Violence, 2(2), 111 124. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027191. Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2010). The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(10), 734 741. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.03.001. Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2011). Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence and other family violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin (pp. 1 12). Washington: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, United States Department of Justice. Hamby, S., & Turner, H. (2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. Psychology of Violence, 3(4), 323 339. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029706. Harding, H. G. (2012). Exposure to violence in family of origin: An investigation of exposure to maternal versus paternal intimate partner violence perpetration. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Hart, S. N., Brassard, M. R., & Karlson, H. C. (1996). Psychological maltreatment. In J. Briere, L. Berliner, J. A. Bulkley, C. Jenny, T. Reid, J. Briere, & T. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (pp. 72 89). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B., & Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among U.S. adolescents: Prevalence, patterns,

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

183

and associations with health complaints and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 (2), 194 201. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.008. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511 524. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511. Hickman, L. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Aronoff, J. (2004). Dating violence among adolescents: Prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention program effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 123 142. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262332. Hill, J. P., & Lynch, M. E. (1983). The intensification of gender-related role expectations during early adolescence. Girls at puberty (pp. 201 228). Boston: Springer. Hodges, M., Godbout, N., Briere, J., Lanktree, C., Gilbert, A., & Kletzka, N. T. (2013). Cumulative trauma and symptom complexity in children: A path analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(11), 891 898. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.04.001. Ireland, T. O., & Smith, C. A. (2009). Living in partner-violent families: Developmental links to antisocial behavior and relationship violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(3), 323 339. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9347-y. Ireland, T. O., Smith, C. A., & Thornberry, T. P. (2002). Developmental issues in the impact of child maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use. Criminology, 40(2), 359 400. Iverson, K. M., McLaughlin, K. A., Adair, K. C., & Monson, C. M. (2014). Anger-related dysregulation as a factor linking childhood physical abuse and interparental violence to intimate partner violence experiences. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 564 578. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00125. Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., McDonald, R., Kleinsasser, A. L., & Dodson, M. C. (2013). Explicit beliefs about aggression, implicit knowledge structures, and teen dating violence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(5), 789 799. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10802-013-9717-0. Jouriles, E. N., Mueller, V., Rosenfield, D., McDonald, R., & Dodson, M. C. (2012a). Teens’ experiences of harsh parenting and exposure to severe intimate partner violence: Adding insult to injury in predicting teen dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 2(2), 125 138. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027264. Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Mueller, V., & Grych, J. H. (2012b). Youth experiences of family violence and teen dating violence perpetration: Cognitive and emotional mediators. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(1), 58 68. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10567-011-0102-7. Ka˚gesten, A., Gibbs, S., Blum, R. W., Moreau, C., Chandra-Mouli, V., Herbert, A., & Amin, A. (2016). Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS One, 11(6), e0157805. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157805. Karakurt, G., Keiley, M., & Posada, G. (2013). Intimate relationship aggression in college couples: Family-of-origin violence, egalitarian attitude, attachment security. Journal of Family Violence, 28(6), 561 575. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9526-9. Karlsson, M. E., Temple, J. R., Weston, R., & Le, V. D. (2016). Witnessing interparental violence and acceptance of dating violence as predictors for teen dating violence victimization. Violence Against Women, 22(5), 625 646. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077801215605920. Kaukinen, C. (2014). Dating violence among college students: The risk and protective factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 283 296. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1524838014521321.

184

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Keenan-Miller, D., Hammen, C. L., & Brennan, P. A. (2007). Health outcomes related to early adolescent depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3), 256 262. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.03.015. Kendra, R., Bell, K. M., & Guimond, J. M. (2012). The impact of child abuse history, PTSD symptoms, and anger arousal on dating violence perpetration among college women. Journal of Family Violence, 27(3), 165 175. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10896-012-9415-7. Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). The association of antisocial behavior and depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 82 96. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.82. Kim, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(6), 706 716. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02202.x. Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships: Integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), 505 515. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.505. Krause, E. D., Kaltman, S., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M. A. (2006). Role of distinct PTSD symptoms in intimate partner reabuse: A prospective study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(4), 507 516. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20136. Lansford, J. E., Miller-Johnson, S., Berlin, L. J., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2007). Early physical abuse and later violent delinquency: A prospective longitudinal study. Child Maltreatment, 12(3), 233 245. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077559507301841. Laporte, L., Jiang, D., Pepler, D. J., & Chamberland, C. (2011). The relationship between adolescents’ experience of family violence and dating violence. Youth & Society, 43(1), 3 27. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09336631. Laporte, L., Paris, J., Guttman, H., & Russell, J. (2011). Psychopathology, childhood trauma, and personality traits in patients with borderline personality disorder and their sisters. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(4), 448 462. Available from https://doi.org/10.1521/ pedi.2011.25.4.448. Lavoie, F., He´bert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Ve´zina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5), 375 383. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00347-6. Lee, M. S., Begun, S., DePrince, A. P., & Chu, A. T. (2016). Acceptability of dating violence and expectations of relationship harm among adolescent girls exposed to intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 8(4), 487 494. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000130. Lee, M., Reese-Weber, M., & Kahn, J. H. (2014). Exposure to family violence and attachment styles as predictors of dating violence perpetration among men and women: A mediational model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(1), 20 43. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260513504644. Lichter, E. L., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4), 344 357. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00151.x. Lindhorst, T., Beadnell, B., Jackson, L. J., Fieland, K., & Lee, A. (2009). Mediating pathways explaining psychosocial functioning and revictimization as sequelae of parental violence among adolescent mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79(2), 181 190. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015516.

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

185

Lohman, B. J., Neppl, T. K., Senia, J. M., & Schofield, T. J. (2013). Understanding adolescent and family influences on intimate partner psychological violence during emerging adulthood and adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 500 517. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9923-7. Maas, C. D., Fleming, C. B., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Catalano, R. F. (2010). Childhood predictors of teen dating violence victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(2), 131 149. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.2.131. Maldonado, R. C., Watkins, L. E., & DiLillo, D. (2015). The interplay of trait anger, childhood physical abuse, and alcohol consumption in predicting intimate partner aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(7), 1112 1127. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260514539850. Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21(5), 291 302. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00143-2. Makin-Byrd, K., & Bierman, K. L. (2013). Individual and family predictors of the perpetration of dating violence and victimization in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 536 550. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9810-7. Maughan, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Impact of child maltreatment and interadult violence on children’s emotion regulation abilities and socioemotional adjustment. Child Development, 73(5), 1525 1542. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00488. Milich, R., & Dodge, K. A. (1984). Social information processing in child psychiatric populations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 12(3), 471 489. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00910660. Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R. (2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 627 637. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9319-3. Moretti, M. M., Obsuth, I., Odgers, C. L., & Reebye, P. (2006). Exposure to maternal vs. paternal partner violence, PTSD, and aggression in adolescent girls and boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 385 395. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20137. Morris, A. M., Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2015). From family violence to dating violence: Testing a dual pathway model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1819 1835. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0328-7. Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2010). The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 53 63. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9269-9. Myers, J. E. (2002). The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Narayan, A. J., Englund, M. M., Carlson, E. A., & Egeland, B. (2014). Adolescent conflict as a developmental process in the prospective pathway from exposure to interparental violence to dating violence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(2), 239 250. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9782-4. Narayan, A. J., Englund, M. M., & Egeland, B. (2013). Developmental timing and continuity of exposure to interparental violence and externalizing behavior as prospective predictors of dating violence. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4), 973 990. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941300031X. Niolon, P. H., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Latzman, N. E., Valle, L. A., Kuoh, H., Burton, T., . . . Tharp, A. T. (2015). Prevalence of teen dating violence and co-occurring risk factors among

186

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

middle school youth in high-risk urban communities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2, Suppl 2), S5 S13. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.019. O’Leary, K. D., Slep, A. S., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(5), 473 479. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.012. Perez, S., & Johnson, D. M. (2008). PTSD compromises battered women’s future safety. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 635 651. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260507313528. Pollak, S. D., & Sinha, P. (2002). Effects of early experience on children’s recognition of facial displays of emotion. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 784 791. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.784. Reitzel-Jaffe, D., & Wolfe, D. A. (2001). Predictors of relationship abuse among young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(2), 99 115. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 088626001016002001. Renner, L. M., & Whitney, S. D. (2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(1), 40 52. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.007. Reyes, H. M., Foshee, V. A., Niolon, P. H., Reidy, D. E., & Hall, J. E. (2016). Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(2), 350 360. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-015-0278-0. Riggs, S. A., & Kaminski, P. (2010). Childhood emotional abuse, adult attachment, and depression as predictors of relational adjustment and psychological aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(1), 75 104. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10926770903475976. Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1996). Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4), 519 540. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011004005. Schnurr, M. P., & Lohman, B. J. (2008). How much does school matter? An examination of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(3), 266 283. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9246-7. Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS 4): Report to Congress. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Seiffge-Krenke, I., & Burk, W. J. (2015). The dark side of romantic relationships: Aggression in adolescent couples and links to attachment. Mental Health and Prevention, 3(4), 135 142. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2015.05.004. Shields, A., Ryan, R. M., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Narrative representations of caregivers and emotion dysregulation as predictors of maltreated children’s rejection by peers. Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 321 337. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.37.3.321. Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J., & Segrist, A. E. (2000). Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15(1), 1 22. Available from https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007532718917. Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal

Exposure to Family of Origin Violence Chapter | 7

187

of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(8), 870 885. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10926771.2011.629342. Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., Landor, A. M., Bryant, C. M., & Beach, S. H. (2014). Factors linking childhood experiences to adult romantic relationships among African Americans. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 368 379. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0036393. Slep, A. S., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary, K. D. (2001). Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability of teen dating aggression. Psychological Assessment, 13(3), 306 318. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.3.306. Slep, A. S., & O’Leary, S. G. (2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns, and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73 (3), 435 444. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.435. Spinazzola, J., Hodgdon, H., Liang, L., Ford, J. D., Layne, C. M., Pynoos, R., . . . Kisiel, C. (2014). Unseen wounds: The contribution of psychological maltreatment to child and adolescent mental health and risk outcomes. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 6(Suppl 1), S18 S28. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037766. Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252 275. Sutton, T. E., Simons, L. G., Wickrama, K. S., & Futris, T. (2014). The intergenerational transmission of violence: Examining the mediating roles of insecure attachment and destructive disagreement beliefs. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 670 687. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00007. Taft, C. T., Schumm, J., Orazem, R. J., Meis, L., & Pinto, L. A. (2010). Examining the link between posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and dating aggression perpetration. Violence and Victims, 25(4), 456 469. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/08866708.25.4.456. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Tortolero, S. R., Wolfe, D. A., & Stuart, G. L. (2013). Importance of gender and attitudes about violence in the relationship between exposure to interparental violence and the perpetration of teen dating violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(5), 343 352. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.02.001. Thornberry, T. P., Ireland, T. O., & Smith, C. A. (2001). The importance of timing: The varying impact of childhood and adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13(4), 957 979. Tontodonato, P., & Crew, B. K. (1992). Dating violence, social learning theory, and gender: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7(1), 3 14. Vagi, K. J., O’Mally Olsen, E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo-Kantor, A. M. (2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among US high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(5), 474 482. Ve´zina, J., He´bert, M., Poulin, F., Lavoie, F., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2011). Risky lifestyle as a mediator of the relationship between deviant peer affiliation and dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(7), 814 824. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9602-x. Ve´zina, J., He´bert, M., Poulin, F., Lavoie, F., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2015). History of family violence, childhood behavior problems, and adolescent high-risk behaviors as predictors of girls’ repeated patterns of dating victimization in two developmental periods. Violence Against Women, 21(4), 435 459. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1077801215570481.

188

SECTION | II Risk and Protective Factors

Wathen, C. N., & MacMillan, H. L. (2013). Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: Impacts and interventions. Pediatrics & Child Health (1205-7088), 18(8), 419 422. Weiss, J. A., MacMullin, J., Waechter, R., & Wekerle, C. (2011). Child maltreatment, adolescent attachment style, and dating violence: Considerations in youths with borderline-to-mild intellectual disability. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9(5), 555 576. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-011-9321-x. Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M., Trocme, N., & Waechter, R. (2009). The contribution of childhood emotional abuse to teen dating violence among child protective services-involved youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(1), 45 58. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.006. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1998). The role of child maltreatment and attachment style in adolescent relationship violence. Development and Psychopathology, 10(3), 571 586. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579498001758. Wekerle, C., Wolfe, D. A., Hawkins, D. L., Pittman, A., Glickman, A., & Lovald, B. E. (2001). Childhood maltreatment, posttraumatic stress symptomatology, and adolescent dating violence: Considering the value of adolescent perceptions of abuse and a trauma mediational model. Development and Psychopathology, 13(4), 847 871. Wolf, K. A., & Foshee, V. A. (2003). Family violence, anger expression styles, and adolescent dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18(6), 309 316. Available from https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1026237914406. Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Wekerle, C., & Pittman, A. (2001). Child maltreatment: Risk of adjustment problems and dating violence in adolescence. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(3), 282 289. Available from https://doi.org/10.1097/ 00004583-200103000-00007. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 279 291. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.279. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., & Grasley, C. (2004). Predicting abuse in adolescent dating relationships over 1 year: The role of child maltreatment and trauma. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 406 415. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-843X.113.3.406. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Reitzel Jaffe, D., & Lefebvre, L. (1998). Factors associated with abusive relationships among maltreated and nonmaltreated youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10(01), 61 85. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Korchmaros, J. D., & Boyd, D. (2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap of physical, psychological, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1083 1099. Yllo, K. A. (2005). Through a feminist lens. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence (19 34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zhu, J., Yu, C., Bao, Z., Jiang, Y., Zhang, W., Chen, Y., . . . Zhang, J. (2017). Deviant peer affiliation as an explanatory mechanism in the association between corporal punishment and physical aggression: A longitudinal study among Chinese adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0259-01-15. Published online first January 9, 2017.

Section III

Social and Cultural Influences

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 8

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Peter Jaffe, Jordan Fairbairn, and Kayla Sapardanis Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, Faculty of Education, Western University, London, ON, Canada

YOUTH DATING HOMICIDES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM TRAGEDIES Dating violence is increasingly recognized as a public health problem causing serious psychological and physical harm to victims. According to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2013), approximately 10% of highschool students have experienced physical violence in their dating relationships, and 10% also reported sexual violence (Vagi, Olsen, Basile, & VivoloKantor, 2013). Among female Canadian college students, 79% report psychological violence from a dating partner, 27% have experienced sexual violence, and 22% report physical violence (Learning Network, 2013). In extreme cases, dating violence turns lethal in the form of a homicide or homicide suicide. The overlapping groups of adolescents (13 18 years) and emerging adults (15 24 years) are at the highest risk for these outcomes. Yet there is not a great deal of literature that specifically considers dating violence and its links to homicide. This chapter reviews existing research on homicides in the context of dating, which has been informed by the emergence of domestic violence fatality review teams in the United States, Canada, the New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom. These reviews provide valuable insights into the prevention of these tragedies through professional and public awareness as well as enhanced risk assessment, safety planning, and risk management. We begin by reviewing youth dating violence definitions and discussing current studies on the incidence of dating violence and its links to homicide. We then consider youth dating homicides based on the work of domestic violence death review committees (DVDRCs) and identify recommendations from individual cases and overall patterns of findings from these deaths. The meaning of dating has evolved over generations and varies between individuals of different ages and cultures. The term is often used to describe Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00008-6 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

191

192

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

romantic relationships among youth (adolescents and emerging adults) although is not limited to these relationships. In prior generations, dating might have been regarded as courtship that would often lead to marriage. In recent times, dating may be considered part of looking for longer term relationships or a trial period that may include multiple partners at one time and could be casual and informal (loveisrespect.org, 2016). Some individuals may associate dating with greater commitment or exclusivity. For most people, the key ideas of dating involve romantic feelings, intimacy (sexual or nonsexual), and an ongoing relationship where two people spend time individually or in groups with friends (loveisrespect.org, 2016; Rowley & Hertzog, 2016). Dating relationships can share similar characteristics with couples who are married or cohabitating such as the intimate nature of the relationship, interpersonal conflict, sexual jealousy, and power and control, as a few examples. Therefore, dating violence can be understood as a subcategory of domestic violence and intimate partner violence. Specifically, dating violence is a violence committed by a current or former boyfriend or girlfriend, or by a person with whom the victim had a sexual relationship but who was not considered the victim’s boyfriend or girlfriend (Beaupre´, 2014). The nature of dating violence includes instances of physical, psychological, or sexual aggression perpetrated by an intimate partner. More recently, acts that constitute dating violence have expanded to include stalking and electronic or cyber dating abuse (Borrajo, Ga´mez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). Young females between the ages of 15 and 24 years are at the highest risk of experiencing dating violence in their relationships (Beaupre´, 2014; Brown, 2013; Johnson & Colpitts, n.d.; Learning Network, 2013). This is additionally concerning because dating violence has been linked to a multitude of pervasive, lasting physical and mental health effects for youth including increased rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, suicide ideations, eating disorders, early pregnancy, risky sexual behaviors, serious injuries, and revictimization in college and adult relationships (Barter, McCarry, Berridge, & Evans, 2009; Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013; Lutwak, Dill, & Saliba, 2013; Vagi, Olsen et al., 2013). The most serious outcome of dating violence is homicide. Dating homicide is a subcategory of domestic homicide and can be defined as the killing of one’s current or former dating partner. Domestic homicide more broadly is the killing of a current or former intimate partner, including a spouse or common-law partner (Carcach & James, 1998). Globally, 38% of female homicides are committed by male intimate partners (World Health Organization, 2016), and in Canada there were 960 domestic homicides reported between the years 2003 and 2013. Of these, 747 were committed against a female victim, representing more than three quarters of homicides against a dating partner (Beaupre´, 2014). According to Sinha (2013a, 2013b), young women ages 15 24 years are most at risk for this type of

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

193

homicide. The rate for domestic homicides drops with age, from 18.8 domestic homicides per one million women aged 15 24 years, to 10.3 homicides per million women aged 25 34 years, to 7.5 homicides per million women aged 35 44 years (Sinha, 2013a, 2013b), thus highlighting the increased vulnerability faced by young women. Literature on this issue further underscores young women’s risk for domestic homicide, noting that dating violence between youth couples may lead to murder (Jouriles, Grych, Rosenfield, McDonald, & Dodson, 2011; Niolon, et al., 2015; Smith & Donnelly, 2001). Furthermore, romantic relationships formed in youth offer a place to learn relationship dynamics and patterns that will likely be internalized beyond the youth stage of life (Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2016). This dynamic suggests that violence perpetrated and experienced earlier in life has the potential to escalate as youth mature into adulthood (Williams, Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Laporte, 2008). It is important to gain an understanding of relationships that may be at risk for experiencing youth dating violence to improve prevention efforts in this area.

Defining Youth The term “youth” has a range of definitions and often includes teenagers and young adults. The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC, 2015) recognizes that young adults are in a transitional stage to adulthood characterized by an increase in responsibilities and independence. Due to the continuous development young adults undergo during this life phase, it can be difficult to define when the stage of youth begins and ends. The MHCC uses the term emerging adults to describe individuals aged 16 25 years old to demonstrate that youth is a dynamic process of growth and change, and not a fixed span of time categorized by age (Arnett, 2000; Carver et al., 2015). While adolescence can be thought of as the point in development when individuals are approximately between the ages of 12 and 17 years old (Arnett, 2000), emerging adulthood is the period that occurs between adolescence and adulthood when individuals may remain financially dependent on adults for support due to their ongoing education or lack of gainful employment. During the emerging adulthood phase, developmental competencies that started forming in adolescence continue as individuals explore various roles and life possibilities (Arnett, 2000; Carver et al., 2015). Although emerging adulthood includes youths between the ages of 16 and 25 years, there are many different age categories that are used throughout the literature to conceptualize youth. Some researchers use a starting point of 11 years old (Coyne-Beasley, Moracco, & Casteel, 2003), while others begin their mark of youth at the older age of 18 years (Glass, Laughon, Rutto, Bevacqua, & Campbell, 2008). However, the majority of the research has used the 15 24 years of age bracket to report findings on

194

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

the youth population (Sinha, 2013a, 2013b; Beaupre´, 2014; Carver et al., 2015). Therefore, this chapter has selected the 15 24 years age category to represent youth. Although other terms have been used throughout the literature to complement the term youth (e.g., young adult, teen(ager), adolescent, and emerging adult), for purposes of clarity and simplicity we use the term “youth” throughout this chapter. The development of multidisciplinary death review committees around the world has been a significant advance in the field of dating and domestic violence research and prevention efforts. Various forms of DVDRCs can be found in the United States, Canada, Australia, the New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Committees vary in membership, investigative processes, and mandate (e.g., to explore all family violence deaths or more narrowly focus on intimate partner homicides). They share common goals of identifying the number of homicides and common risk factors of these cases, and making recommendations on how to prevent such deaths in similar circumstances in the future. Many of the committees include a focus on youth dating violence statistics and case studies, discussed later in this chapter. The DVDRC concept developed in the United States in 1991 as part of a review of a well-publicized homicide in San Francisco that highlighted the need for multiple agencies and systems to better coordinate their efforts on behalf of victims of domestic violence (Websdale, Town & Johnson, 1999). There are now close to 100 DVDRCs across the majority of US states. The DVDRCs operate on a state-wide basis (e.g., Washington) or representing multiple cities and counties across the state (e.g., California). There is a national initiative and website to share information on recent findings, training, and emerging practice issues across the DVDRCs in the United States (see http://ndvfri.org/). In Canada, there are five provinces with DVDRCs and a national project to share findings from the committees and emerging research on vulnerable populations such as Indigenous and immigrant victims of domestic homicide (see http://cdhpi.ca/). Domestic homicide reviews involve multiple community partners. There may be interviews with professionals and/or friends and family as well as access to agency records depending on the committee mandate and legislation in that jurisdiction. Cases are heterogeneous and may range from a murder suicide of an elderly couple facing physical and mental health problems to a homicide of a high-school student by a former boyfriend. The goal is always the same—to gather relevant information to understand the context of the homicide. The review is not a blaming exercise but rather looks for missed opportunities that could better inform future training and collaboration. As such, the reviews provide detailed information about the context of dating and domestic homicides. DVDRCs may vary in the size and scope of the membership and the number of cases reviewed. Some DVDRCs review every death (e.g., Ontario; DVDRC, 2015) and others may do more in-depth analyses of representative

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

195

cases (e.g., Alberta; FVDRC, 2015) or periodic reviews (e.g., British Columbia; CSDRP, 2016). Some jurisdictions review a few cases in detail when the case is thought to be most representative of relevant issues, such as an increase in elder abuse homicides or problems accessing services in rural communities (e.g., Montana; DVFRC, 2015). A consistent finding across all committees’ annual reports is that domestic homicides for the most part appear predictable and preventable with the benefit of hindsight. In Ontario, for example, over 70% of cases reviewed had seven or more risk factors known to family, friends, coworkers, and/or community agencies (Ontario; DVDRC, 2015). These findings usually lead to recommendations to address public and professional education, improve risk assessment and safety planning strategies, and enhance collaboration among service providers. The DVDRC reports repeatedly point to the fact that domestic homicide prevention should involve multiple disciplines and service coordination (Websdale et al., 1999). There is limited research on the outcome of DVDRCs other than the high rate of implementation of recommendations and perceived system improvements (Wilson & Websdale, 2006). Although there is no blaming exercise in reviews, there is collective accountability for the safety of victims and a commitment to enhance services and information sharing among agencies. There may be specific recommendations to schools (e.g., prevention programs) or broader policy and legislation reform to address issues like dating violence. DVDRC annual reports are shared with the community, agencies, and government departments responsible to address changes. The findings are widely shared on websites and are the common subject of publications and conference presentations. For example, the Ontario DVDRC report was presented to all domestic violence coordinators from each police service in the province with a focus on unique issues on youth dating homicides (DVDRC, 2015).

YOUTH DOMESTIC HOMICIDE RESEARCH Domestic Homicide in the Youth Population As previously noted, women between the ages of 15 and 24 years are at the greatest risk for domestic homicide. Research and DVDRC reviews have noted that the youth of the couple is a risk factor for domestic homicide (DVDRC, 2015; Smith & Donnelly, 2001). It is vital to obtain a greater understanding of the risk factors associated with youth domestic homicide cases; however, current research on this topic is limited. One major study uses the term “femicide,” the killing of girls and women, to refer to this form of homicide. Coyne-Beasley et al. (2003) examined all records of femicide victims aged 11 18 years for deaths that occurred between 1990 and 1995 in North Carolina (90 cases total). Cases that occurred between 1993 and 1995 (n 5 37) were accompanied with police

196

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

interviews that examined the context and criminal history of the victim and the perpetrator. The purpose of the interviews was to determine the relationship between the individuals involved, as the cases within this study contained instances of females who had been killed by family members as well as intimate partners. The researchers separated the cases into two groups according to age; younger adolescents were considered ages 11 14 years (n 5 27), and older adolescents were considered ages 15 18 years (n 5 63). The younger adolescents were more likely to be killed by a family member, while older adolescents were more likely to be killed by an intimate partner (Coyne-Beasley et al., 2003). The perpetrators in the femicide cases varied in their relationship with the victims (i.e., family member, relative, or stranger); however, current and former intimate partners made up the largest category of perpetrators. The results of this study highlight several risk factors. Most of the adolescent femicide cases occurred in the victim’s residence, and most of these cases were committed with a firearm. The most common reason for homicide among the older adolescents was a desired or broken relationship. Eight of the homicides occurred when the female victim had separated from her male perpetrator or when the victim would not participate in a desired relationship. The researchers termed these “broken relationships,” possibly because the youth couples were not legally married or common law. Of these eight cases, three of the perpetrators killed themselves after they killed the victim. The study notes that many of the victims were engaged in high-risk behaviors that included dropping out of school, using drugs, dating much older men with criminal records, and high-risk sexual behaviors. These findings are not intended to “blame the victim” but rather identify more vulnerable young women based on these risk factors. Glass et al. (2008) sought to identify risk factors for youth femicide by comparing cases of femicide to cases of abused female youth. Cases of femicide with younger women were also compared to cases of older adult femicide. The researchers examined records of closed femicide cases that occurred in 11 American cities between 1994 and 2000. The researchers contacted proxies, or individuals who were close to the femicide victim and who were knowledgeable about the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. Of the 310 cases collected, 23 proxies were established for femicide victims that had been between the ages of 18 and 20 years old. Five cases that contained victims between the ages of 16 17 years were examined separately. The proxies participated in in-person or telephone interviews with the researchers. The authors compared femicide victims to 53 abused women also between the ages of 18 and 20 years old. A woman was considered abused if she had been physically assaulted (e.g., punched, choked, hit, kicked) or if she was sexually assaulted within the past 2 years. The Danger Assessment (DA) (Campbell, 1986) was used with proxy participants and abused women

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

197

participants to analyze risk factors for each of the groups. Women in the femicide cases scored higher than the abused women on almost every DA risk factor. The only risk factor that was more evident among abused women was abuse during pregnancy. Examples of the DA risk factors include age difference between perpetrator and victims, perpetrator threatened to kill victim, and victim abused while pregnant. Victims in the femicide cases had significantly older male intimate partners, and these male partners were also more likely to be a current partner, compared to the women in the abused group. Glass et al. (2008) also compared their sample to cases of femicide in the older adult population (21 years and older). No significant differences were found among DA risk factors between femicide victims aged 18 20 years and older femicide victims. However, when the five cases of victims between 16 17 years were compared with victims aged 21 years and older, there were several findings of interest. Younger female victims of homicide were more likely to experience controlling behavior from their partner (e.g., extreme jealousy) than older victims. According to the authors, female youth may normalize such behavior from their partners, viewing it instead as acts of true love and commitment. Their findings revealed that jealous and controlling behaviors by a male partner approximately doubled the risk of femicide for female youth when compared to older adult females. Glass et al. (2008) also found that young women were more likely to be killed by an ex-partner, and this partner was more likely to be unemployed, leading them to surmise that these specific risk factors may be more important predictors for lethal violence for younger women than for older adult women. Thus, jealous and controlling behaviors, perpetrator unemployment, and the perpetrator being an ex-partner may be salient risk factors for youth. Finally, in all five of the cases with younger victims between 16 and 17 years of age, the perpetrator was older than the victim, an issue that warrants further study. While the studies by Coyne-Beasley et al. (2003) and Glass et al. (2008) are important contributions to the area of domestic homicide research, understanding of homicide in the context of youth couples is in its infancy. Several American review teams have devoted special attention to youth cases of domestic homicide. Even when the couple is no longer classified as youth, the review team acknowledges that in many cases the relationship violence began in youth. For example, according to the Georgia Domestic Violence Fatality Review Annual Report (2014), although many of the homicides actually occurred when the victim was between the 35 and 44 years old, half of victims began their relationship with their perpetrators when they were between the ages of 13 and 24 years of age, and one in four victims began their relationships when they were between the ages of 13 and 19 years of age. These findings highlight the importance of early youth dating violence prevention.

198

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

The Washington review team addressed the increasing number of youth domestic homicide across multiple reports and factsheets published from 2000 to 2012. Their 2010 report noted that, of the youth victims killed since 1997, 12 were less than 18 years of age and 18 were between the ages of 18 and 20 years old (Fawcett, 2010). In 2012, this increased to 38 victims who were under the age of 21 years when they were killed by their husbands or boyfriends (WSDVFR, 2012). From these 38 cases, the Washington review team highlighted several risk factors associated with the youth homicides: all the victims were female, 37% of the victims were living with the perpetrator at the time of the homicide, and 45% had ended their relationship or were attempting to end their relationship (WSDVFR, 2012). Youth victims of domestic homicide in Washington were also often in relationships with older partners. Homicide perpetrators were, on average, 5.8 years older than their female partners (WSDVFR, 2012). This finding echoes the results from the two research studies that have investigated risk factors for youth femicide among intimate partners (Coyne-Beasley et al., 2003; Glass et al., 2008), and could indicate that age disparity between youth in intimate relationships is a significant risk factor for domestic homicide.

CASE STUDIES Statistics collected on dating violence and homicide do not capture the individual realities of these deaths and the suffering of surviving family members and friends. In this section, we highlight some of the details of four such tragedies. Although the following four cases come from different countries, there are important overlapping themes. These homicides have all received public review through media accounts, trials, and/or published death reviews. Each case highlights valuable lessons learned that needed to be shared with the public as well as professionals from various legal, social service, health, and education systems on how to prevent similar deaths in the future.

Massachusetts, United States: The Case of Lauren Astley Many of the details outlined in this case can be retrieved from: http://www. cbsnews.com/news/lauren-astley-murder-draws-attention-to-teen-breakupviolence/. For additional references, please see the References for Case Studies section. Lauren Astley was an 18-year-old high-school student killed by her exboyfriend, Nathaniel Fujita, also aged 18 years. On July 3, 2011, Lauren left her job at the mall at approximately 6:45 p.m. to meet Fujita at his parents’ home in Wayland, Massachusetts. Lauren did not tell any friends or family members where she was going. Footage from mall cameras shows Lauren talking on the phone with Fujita as she was leaving her shift. When she arrived, Fujita met Lauren in the garage and slit her throat and strangled her

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

199

with a bungee cord. Lauren’s body was found the next day on July 4, 2011, in a nearby swamp. Fujita and Lauren dated throughout high school and were described as a perfect, happy, and attractive couple by their friends and other students. She was an aspiring fashion designer and was involved in singing and tennis clubs, and he was a high-school football and track star. The couple had both been accepted into colleges and was scheduled to attend for the fall start of that year. Fujita and Lauren dated for 3 years before she decided to end their relationship in April 2011. Friends of Fujita and Lauren reported that his behavior changed after the breakup and that he had difficulty accepting that Lauren was no longer his girlfriend. He began seeing a psychiatrist for the social emotional issues he was experiencing. On the night of the murder, Fujita’s mother secretly visited Lauren at her job in the mall. She explained to Lauren that she was concerned for her son’s well-being and asked if Lauren would be willing to check on Fujita to ensure he was ok. Lauren sent a text message to Fujita that evening asking him if they could get together to talk and the two decided to meet when she was done her shift. Fujita’s friends viewed him as a kind person who did not display any evidence of controlling or aggressive behavior that is typically present in cases of teenage dating violence. The term “breakup violence” (Spencer, 2013) has been associated with Lauren’s case due to the warning signs Fujita began to exhibit after Lauren broke up with him. Breakup violence refers to “an emotional surge of uncontrollable anger that occurs when a relationship is terminated that can be verbal, physical, or fatal” (Spencer, 2013). Many friends of the couple report they were shocked when they heard that Fujita had killed Lauren. However, Lauren’s mother acknowledges that after reflecting on her daughter’s relationship, there were several warning signs. She states, “the signs, although I think they were there, were very, very soft. And I construed them as teenage, you know, behaviour” (Quigley, 2013). Lauren’s mother notes that her daughter spent almost all her time at Fujita’s house. In contrast, he rarely came over to her home. She also recalls that Lauren attempted to end her relationship with Fujita several times before finally breaking up with him in April of that year, because Fujita would not allow it. Those who were close to Fujita echoed Lauren’s mother’s comments. In retrospect, they can now identify problematic behavior that was dismissed as a typical teenage response to a breakup. It was evident that Fujita was upset when Lauren ended their relationship; family members and friends noticed a shift in both his attitude and his behavior. Fujita was an outgoing, active, and social teenager who became withdrawn and apathetic after his breakup with Lauren. Fujita also stopped hanging out with his friends and began drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana regularly. He attempted to contact Lauren numerous times and on one occasion Fujita wrote a letter to Lauren that stated, “I truly think there’s a part of you that still loves me, you just have to let me find it.”

200

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Fujita was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Members of Fujita’s family felt that his sentence was too harsh and did not reflect what they viewed as extenuating circumstances related to the depression he was suffering from at the time of his breakup with Lauren. Lauren’s friends, mother, and prosecutor, however, highlighted that Lauren Astley was murdered during an act of friendship and support that she extended to her ex-boyfriend.

Themes and Recommendations There are several themes and areas for recommendations from this tragedy. First and foremost, a heightened awareness is needed about dating violence. Beyond awareness, there needs to be a focus on risk factors or warning signs related to separation as a high-risk period in the relationship together with depression and controlling behavior by the perpetrator. These warning signs are essential for both peers and parents to consider in these circumstances because they were visible but minimized due to the age of the couple. An important aspect of awareness and prevention programs is how to deal with the breakup of a relationship. Part of learning about healthy relationships is be prepared for separation. Young men and women need to learn how to support themselves and their peers in managing a breakup. Finally, a victim in similar circumstances needs to be freed from the responsibility of being the one to help her boyfriend accept the separation; instead, he should be seeking counseling and support from others. The commitment to share lessons from this tragedy is reflected in Lauren’s family developing a special fund for teen violence prevention through the “Lauren Dunne Astley Memorial Fund” (see https://laurendunneastleymemorialfund.org/). In recent years, this fund has supported many initiatives in promoting healthy teen relationships such as production of a media feature about Lauren’s story, collaboration with many universities, schools, and corrections, police, and governmental organizations, as well as joining with other foundations to sponsor a statewide program for highschool students about the warning signs of abuse and how to intervene, as well as how to make community referrals.

Toronto, Canada: The Case of Natalie Novak Many of the details outlined in this case can be retrieved from: http://www. vawlearningnetwork.ca/natalie-novak-learning-her-parents. For additional references, please see the References for Case Studies section. Natalie Novak was a 20-year-old university student who was killed by her ex-boyfriend in Toronto, Ontario on May 15, 2006. That evening, 32-year-old Arssei Hindessa entered Natalie’s Toronto apartment and went into her kitchen where he obtained a butcher knife. He carried the knife into Natalie’s

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

201

bedroom and stabbed her nine times in the chest, then slit her throat. Neighbors reported hearing screams and loud arguing coming from the room; several claimed that they tried to enter the apartment but were unable to gain access. Although her roommates were home during the time of the incident, they were unable to reach Natalie in time. After stabbing Natalie, Hindessa jumped from her two-story apartment and was arrested shortly thereafter. Natalie left her home in Muskoka when she was 18 years old to pursue a degree in hospitality and tourism management at Ryerson University in Toronto. Her father, Ed Novak, described Natalie as a kind and bubbly young woman who enjoyed skiing, ballet, animals, and being outdoors. Natalie was also described as a genuine caregiver, sometimes assisting homeless people by taking them into restaurants and buying them meals. She attended university for 2 years before she met Hindessa, an immigrant from Ethiopia, and the two began dating. Their relationship was good for the first few months, but then Hindessa became controlling and violent towards Natalie. He began to hurt Natalie regularly, leaving cuts and bruises on her from his violent outbursts. Natalie went to the police and Hindessa was arrested and convicted of assault on multiple occasions. She also obtained a protection order and Hindessa was instructed to stay away from her; however, Hindessa ignored the warnings from authorities and began to stalk Natalie. Her father commented, “he breached his bail conditions at least 10 times. She could not get away from him. Natalie was left to look out for herself and there was no one in any system to serve and protect her” (Warmington, 2009). Natalie’s parents were unaware of the violence their daughter was experiencing in her relationship. Her mother, Dawn Novak, reflected that Natalie often came home for visits with bruises that she claimed she incurred from volleyball or other sports. On one occasion her mother recalls researching stress and hair loss with her daughter, and Natalie told her mother that it was common for university students to experience hair loss during stressful points of the semester. In retrospect, Dawn realizes the signs were present but her daughter skillfully hid them from her parents and from most of her friends as well. Natalie’s parents learned that she endured 18 months of abuse before she was murdered, as well as 18 months of desperately trying to escape from her ex-boyfriend with little assistance from the legal system. On the day of his sentencing, Hindessa remained calm and collected as he had been throughout his trial. Natalie’s parents expressed their frustration at the lack of remorse shown by their daughter’s killer. Their frustration turned to anger when Hindessa received a lesser charge of second-degree murder. This verdict meant that he could be eligible for parole as early as 10 years compared to the 25-year minimum associated with the charge of firstdegree murder. Crown prosecutors argued that Hindessa killed Natalie because he was not happy that she had left him and had moved on with her life. Hindessa’s defense lawyer claimed he was in a state of psychosis when he killed Natalie and said that he believed Natalie and her friends were part

202

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

of a secret association that was trying to hurt him. The jury concluded that Hindessa meant to kill Natalie but without any premeditation. Natalie’s parents were hurt and angry with the results of Hindessa’s trial but they wanted to turn a devastating situation into something good. They focused their efforts on changing the system’s response to domestic violence. Her father believed there should be more communication and collaboration between systems, so that important requests such as protection orders and serious offenses like breaching one’s bail conditions are handled appropriately for victims of dating violence. He argued that “if a woman is abused, it should be automatic. She should be given immediate help, support. All the money is spent at the back end, after the daughters are dead” (CBC News, 2012). Natalie’s mother works to educate parents and young adults about the dangers of dating violence and points out that both of her children went through school without learning about the signs and impacts of dating violence. Natalie’s parents continue to advocate on behalf of their daughter and want other young teenagers to know their rights in dating relationships and feel empowered to seek help.

Themes and Recommendations Natalie’s case illustrates how community and system efforts should be improved for women and young girls experiencing violence in their relationships. For example, her father recognized that the legal system failed his daughter and believes that resources should be better coordinated to assist victims like Natalie. He points out that multiple police officers were aware of Hindessa’s assault charges against Natalie, as were the courts (judges and parole officers). In her father’s opinion, the professionals involved in Natalie’s case failed to treat the risks as potentially lethal and demonstrated poor communication among one another. Hindessa had a history of violence throughout his relationship with Natalie and was arrested several times for this violence. However, the Novaks do not believe this history was regarded as seriously as it should have been by the legal system. Hindessa breached his bail conditions many times but continued to be released by judges. Days before Natalie’s murder he was released by a judge who determined he did not have any intent of kidnapping Natalie. Hindessa was also under the care of two psychiatric doctors in the hospital weeks before Natalie’s death who failed to recognize domestic homicide warnings signs perpetrator (e.g., recent separation, history of making threats, large age difference between the couple). Her father noted that community members such as friends, neighbors, and even strangers who witnessed Natalie being assaulted were also involved in her case, but none of them intervened for his daughter. He encourages everyone, regardless of their role in the community, to be aware of the signs of dating violence and domestic homicide, so that they are able to recognize when it is necessary to intervene themselves or call the police.

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

203

Dawn Novak believes in the importance of educating young people and community members about dating violence. She advocates for changes within the curriculum and the education system to address youth dating violence and teach students about healthy relationships. Natalie’s parents also promote more immediate support for women in violent relationships, including greater recognition of the need for emotional support from professionals. They explain that Natalie was scared and ashamed to disclose the abuse she was experiencing to anyone in her life, particularly after she was shown minimal support from authorities and court officials. Victims of dating violence should be able to easily access resources and these services should be encouraged by health and legal professionals as options for help seeking. Natalie’s parents believe more people should be learning from Natalie’s story from sources other than sensationalized media accounts. They have shared their story in video clips with the Learning Network of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women & Children at Western University together with other resources to assist the community (see www.learningtoendabuse.ca). Their insights have been shared with high-school and university students throughout Ontario.

Dunedin, New Zealand: The Case of Sophie Elliot Many of the details outlined in this case can be retrieved from: http://www. stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2866308/Clayton-Weatherston-jailed-for-minimum-18-years. For additional references, please see the References for Case Studies section. Sophie Elliott was a 22-year-old university student in the New Zealand who was killed by her ex-boyfriend Clayton Weatherston, 33 years of age. On January 8, 2008, Weatherston drove to Sophie’s parents’ home with a knife concealed in his computer bag. Sophie was in her bedroom packing for a new job that she had been offered in a different city. Her mother opened the door for Weatherston when he arrived and he told her that he had something to give to Sophie. He entered Sophie’s room and closed her bedroom door. Sophie’s mother heard pleas from her daughter including, “don’t Clayton” and “stop Clayton.” She went upstairs to Sophie’s room and saw Weatherston standing over her daughter’s body, repeatedly stabbing her. Autopsy reports would later reveal that Sophie had been stabbed over 200 times and sustained more than 40 stab wounds to her throat. Weatherston continued to stab Sophie long after she had died. Her mother immediately called the police. When authorities arrived, they asked Weatherston what had happened and he told them that he had killed Sophie because of the emotional pain she had caused him over the last year. Sophie attended Otago University where she studied economics. Weatherston was a tutor for the university and met Sophie after he delivered a talk in one of her economics classes. Their relationship began in June of

204

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

2007 and appeared to be unstable throughout the 5 months they dated. The couple was described by friends as “up and down” and “on and off.” Weatherston was both verbally and physically abusive toward Sophie. During his murder trial, a friend of Sophie testified that on one occasion he made Sophie stand in front of the mirror while he insulted her and listed every feature that he thought was ugly about her. He had also previously told Sophie that he hoped she would die and that he wished her flight home from a holiday in Australia would have crashed. Sophie’s diary contained multiple entries outlining instances of physical violence she had endured from Weatherston. His ex-girlfriend also testified at his trial and described several incidents where Weatherston had been violent towards her during their relationship. An unusual aspect to Weatherston’s trial was that he took the stand. During this portion of the trial, Weatherston’s behavior was unsettling to many who witnessed it. He was nonchalant, arrogant, remorseless, and at some points even laughed when answering questions from the prosecutor. Two psychiatrists evaluated his behavior and called it “grossly narcissistic” (Hartevelt, 2009). However, Heather Henare from the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refugees commented that, “Weatherston’s tactics and refusal to take responsibility for his actions were not unusual, but were a classic example of the justifications used by perpetrators of violence every day” (Meecham, 2009). Weatherston denied murder but did admit to manslaughter. He claimed that on the night of the murder, Sophie attacked him with a pair of scissors and provoked him to kill her. He also believed that he was provoked by the emotional pain that she forced him to endure throughout their relationship. Sophie’s mother recalled multiple incidents where the couple had gotten into arguments that became violent. On one occasion, Sophie had gone to Weatherston’s house to give him a photo album she made. He asked if she wanted to spend the night and she replied, “No Clayton you’re not getting the message. It’s over” (Hartevelt, 2009). Sophie’s mother also recounted an incident that occurred at the university the couple attended where Sophie pushed Weatherston, exclaiming, “That’s what you did to me, and my Mom and my friends have told me I should go to the police” (Hartevelt, 2009). Although physical violence was present in Sophie and Weatherston’s relationship, her mother acknowledges that she missed the signs of other forms of abuse that were also evident: “We missed the psychological abuse, and I didn’t recognise she had been an abused woman until after she died.” (Maitland, 2016). Weatherston was sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 18 years.

Themes and Recommendations There are several themes embedded in this tragedy. As with the other cases, there was a significant age difference in the couple, a consistent risk factor

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

205

in dating homicides. Furthermore, there was a perpetrator history of antisocial behavior and violence. The victim was also reluctant to report the dating violence to authorities, a move that could have led to a safety plan and protection order, particularly given the history of violence and prior abusive relationship. Another important challenge this case highlights is understanding psychological abuse and recognizing the need for intervention. Psychological abuse is often minimized because of the lack of visible evidence, but nonetheless has a profound impact on victims, and is part of an overall pattern of perpetrator power and control that may trap victims in abusive relationships. In Sophie’s case, she may not have recognized the potential danger early in the relationship and/or may have been at a loss in finding a safe way to breakup with Weatherston. Sophie’s mother has been dedicated to ensuring that the New Zealanders learn important lessons from this tragedy. She created a foundation in her daughter’s name (www.The Sophie Elliott foundation.org) with a mission to educate young women about the warning signs of dating violence and abusive relationships. Ms. Elliot does public speaking at high schools about healthy relationships and the warning signs she missed in retrospect in her daughter’s abusive relationship. Through her outreach to students and Loves Me Not, a program to educate students and provide resources for teachers (O’Brien & Elliott, 2014), she has been spreading an essential message to every high school in the New Zealand.

Brighton, England: The Case of Shana Grice Many of the details outlined in this case can be retrieved from: https://www. sussex.police.uk/about-us/the-full-story/the-murder-of-shana-grice/. Additional references, please see the References for Case Studies section. Shana Grice was a 19-year-old young woman killed on August 25, 2016, in Brighton, England, by her former boyfriend, Michael Lane (age 27 years). They had been dating on and off for approximately a year when she terminated their relationship to go back to a former boyfriend. Lane had been stalking her and had placed an electronic tracking device on her car’s undercarriage. Lane broke into Shana’s residence that she shared with two roommates after they had gone to work and Shana was alone, slit her throat, and then set a fire to try to cover up the crime scene. When Shana failed to show up at her workplace, friends sent someone to check on her and discovered her body. Initially Lane denied any involvement when interviewed by police. He admitted that they were in an “on/off” dating relationship the previous year when they both worked at the same fire alarm company. Eventually, after the police discovered several lies about his whereabouts the morning of the homicide, Lane said he found her body and was afraid to call the police in case he would be a suspect. He said he had panicked and left without telling

206

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

anyone. However, police found various evidence against Lane, including security footage of him in the area, evidence that he had used Shana’s bankcard, and evidence of her blood on his running shoes. He was also seen buying gasoline to set the fire. Lane was found guilty of murder by a jury in less than 2 hours of deliberation and sentenced to 25 years in jail. There was an extensive history of stalking prior to the homicide. Shana had reached out to the police on several occasions due to her concerns about Lane’s stalking and a prior break-in at her house. He had stolen a key to the back door and left a note on her current boyfriend’s car warning him that “Shana will always cheat on you.” Shana initially reported she was being stalked by Lane in February 2016 after her and her boyfriend’s cars were damaged by Lane. Police warned him to keep away from her. In March, Lane went to Shana’s home with her two roommates after meeting them at pub. Shana was at home and upset that he came to her residence. She left but Lane followed her, pulling her phone away from her ear as well as pulling her hair. In July, he broke into the house one morning when Shana was in bed. She had heard footsteps approaching her bedroom and hid under her covers. She also heard her bedroom door open and breathing in her room. Once the intruder left, she looked outside and saw Lane walking away outside her window. Lane admitted in a police interview that he went to talk to Shana but realized it was wrong and left. He received a formal police caution. Later that month Shana reported receiving calls from a withheld number with heavy breathing and no speech, as well as being followed by Lane in his car. He had also hidden outside her house and left flowers. The police minimized the reports they received. When she told police that Lane was following her, the incident was classed as “low risk.” During the trial, crown prosecutors described Lane as “obsessed” with Shana. Yet, 6 months before the homicide she was accused of wasting police time with a complaint about her ex-boyfriend. She had been charged with “having caused wasteful employment of police by making a false report” (Fruen & Mullin, 2017) after she accused Lane of assaulting her but failed to tell officers that they had a prior dating relationship. After the homicide, the police apologized to Shana’s family and launched an independent inquiry. In an understatement, a spokesperson for the police said: “we felt we may not have done the very best we could.” The trial judge used stronger language in saying that Shana was “treated as the wrongdoer and having committed a criminal offence, Lane was treated as the victim.” The judge went on to say that, “There was seemingly no appreciation on the part of those investigating that a young woman in a sexual relationship with a man could at one and the same time be vulnerable and at risk of serious harm. The police jumped to conclusions and Shana was stereotyped” (Sussex Police U.K.). The judge felt that the police treated complaints by Shana with skepticism which made her feel she would not be taken seriously by the police. She likely believed that the police would not deal with the “obsessive stalking” (https://www.

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

207

theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/shana-grice-trial-judge-criticisessussex-police-for-failing-her). Shana was described by her family as a “beautiful girl, a kind thoughtful, caring daughter who always thought of others” (Sussex Police U.K.). Lane was described as jealous and possessive. The trial heard that Lane was upset that Shana had reconciled with an ex-boyfriend and told a friend she would “pay for what she’s done.” During the 2-week trial, the evidence indicated that Lane could not accept the end of the relationship. The jury heard a recording that Shana kept of her phone call to Lane after his break-in to her house in which she confronted him about his behavior being “just weird”. Lane responded by telling her that “Obviously, something’s not right in my head and I don’t know what it is but I know I need to find out or be locked up or something.” (BBC News, 2017). Shana’s parents have made several public statements indicating that they feel that their daughter would still be alive if the police had properly assessed and acted on her complaints.

Themes and Recommendations Shana’s murder reflects some common themes in dating homicide. Similar to the cases described above, risk factors of separation, repeated break-ups, and an older boyfriend are present. There is also the significant risk factor of repeated stalking over an extended period of time, including leaving unwanted flowers, breaking into her home, phone calls, and damage to her car. There is the use of technology by placing a tracking device on Shana’s car, so her ex-boyfriend could always know where she was. Stalking is increasingly recognized as a form of abuse and a risk factor associated with lethal violence in the homicide research and development of risk assessment tools in dealing with domestic violence (https://ncadv.org/files/Domestic% 20Violence%20and%20Stalking%20NCADV.pdf). The police considered Shana’s response to be “low risk” and eventually charged her for “wasting their time,” which reflects several issues. First and the foremost, the police did not take the dating violence allegations seriously, likely because of Shana’s age. Secondly, there is no structured approach to risk assessment by the police. A risk assessment would have indicated that Shana was in danger from her ex-boyfriend. The police or victim services should have designed a safety plan for her as well as a risk management strategy with the perpetrator who continued his stalking, even after a police warning. Comments made by the trial judge and her parents suggest that Shana’s death may have been prevented with a better-informed police response. Shana felt that the police did not view her concerns as legitimate, which may have undermined her sense of support and emboldened the perpetrator to continue his conduct.

208

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

DISCUSSION The research on homicides in the context of youth dating violence raises important themes regarding prevention, early intervention, and management of high-risk cases. The conclusion from this research together with the analysis of fatality reviews and high-profile cases suggest that there are many lessons to be learned from tragedies. In the concluding section of this section, we summarize the major lessons from this research and case studies that should better inform a community and justice response to youth dating violence. We summarize these themes below and link them to emerging studies and practices in the field from prevention to intervention and systems collaboration.

Universal Prevention There is a consistent theme in death review reports as well as the case studies that there should be universal prevention programs for all youth to address dating violence through a focus on the attitudes and behaviors that underlie this problem. The goals of these universal programs are to promote nonviolent and respectful relationships. The programs should be universal because there is a need to do more than target victims and perpetrators. The targets should also include the broader peer group and their potential role in observing signs of dating violence and intervening or supporting help seeking. The research and case studies both point to youths disclosing to their friends rather than adults such as parents or community professionals. Peers need to be prepared to handle these disclosures. These universal programs may be located in schools and colleges, as well as some workplaces in jurisdictions where domestic violence is considered a health and safety issue in legislation and policy. Although boys and young men can be victims of dating violence, they are most likely to be involved in being perpetrators of severe violence and homicides. Therefore, programs have to address gender-based violence as a significant aspect of this issue. Boys and young men have to consider their role as potential perpetrators and bystanders in the context of their socialization including media violence exposure. Dating violence prevention programs are widely available and have strong empirical evidence to support their effectiveness. The missing piece in many jurisdictions is the commitment by schools to make these programs a priority and find ways to integrate them into their curriculum. Consistent with youth being at risk in their adolescence, high school is an ideal time and place to prevent dating violence. Among the many programs that are available, The Fourth R and Safe Dates have the most evidence to support their utilization in schools (Foshee et al., 2004; Wolfe et al., 2009). These programs are discussed in greater detail in other chapters in this volume (see Chapter 20: Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

209

Prevention: Lessons Learned From the Alaska Fourth R Initiative). What is ideal about the programs is that they can become a regular part of the school day, address attitudes about healthy relationships, and allow students to practice relationship skills that can be helpful for victims, perpetrator, or peers (Wolfe, Jaffe, & Crooks, 2006). Aside from being an effective universal prevention program, The Fourth R has been shown to be of particular help to the more vulnerable youth with a history of family violence (Crooks, Scott, Wolfe, Chiodo, & Killip, 2007). Programs in colleges and universities tend to deal more with sexual violence as a major concern on campus. However, there is overlap with dating because sexual violence happens in the context of existing relationships that include short- and long-term dating relationships. Programs often focus on the role of peers and bystanders as well as the meaning of consent (Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl, 2016). Similar to high-school programs, these postsecondary interventions help youths to identify and intervene in abusive relationships. Evaluations of these programs stress the importance of youth developing skills to actually intervene and say or do something rather than just knowing an abusive relationship is harmful (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007). (Editor’s note: these prevention programs are discussed in Chapter 18: College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies).

Role of Teachers Teachers are on the frontline of identifying youth dating violence. However, they often lack the training, time, or perceived mandate to address healthy relationship and dating violence prevention (Chiodo, 2017). Teachers require professional development and a clear policy and practice mandate from school districts to see dating violence as a critical issue and an overall approach to creating a safe and accepting school (Wolfe et al., 2006). Curriculum on the topic of dating violence requires teachers to be prepared to deal with disclosures when they arise. Teachers need to be comfortable handling disclosures and know appropriate resources for referrals within their school district (e.g., school social workers or psychologists), as well as community agencies (e.g., victim support services). DVDRCs have repeatedly pointed to the role of the school system to be better prepared to deal with dating violence and intervene to prevent youth dating homicides.

Community Professionals and Collaboration Aside from schools, there are multiple community services that may encounter youth dating relationships. Family and emergency doctors and/or nurses may identify youth at risk because of injuries or psychological distress related to dating violence. They have a unique opportunity to provide support and referral to other agencies. Mental health and social services agencies

210

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

may see youth in crisis with presenting problems such as anxiety, depression, or addiction issues that are related to dating violence. These agencies and professionals need to be able to address abusive relationships. In other cases, the disclosure may come directly to police and requires involvement of the criminal justice system. Because youth dating violence may not be taken seriously (as in the Grice case discussed above where the victim was charged for wasting police time), there is a need for training. Some jurisdictions have even suggested specialized courts for youth intimate violence, but this idea has had only limited implementation beyond pilot projects (Buel, 2002). In addition to strengthening the role of each professional who may be a position to respond to dating violence, the ability to collaborate with other systems must be in place. In the DVDRCs and case studies, often different professionals had crucial information but failed to share that information or coordinate their efforts. Part of these efforts lacking in the cases reviewed was any attempt to do a proper risk assessment. There are many risk assessment tools that could be utilized (e.g., DA scale—see Campbell, 1986; Campbell, Webster, & Glass, 2009) and might highlight factors that may be most applicable to young women such as an older boyfriend with a criminal record. These assessments are not an end in themselves but have to lead to safety planning for the victim and risk management strategies for the perpetrator.

Future Research Preventing deaths in youth dating relationships requires evidence informed practices. Although this book is dedicated to emerging studies and practice in the field, more research is needed on the risk factors associated with severe dating violence. With the advent of death review committees, there is a need to assemble a larger database from the work of individual jurisdictions to help understand lethality within the youth population. There is also a need to evaluate effective ways to promote and respond to disclosures of dating violence, effective intervention strategies with perpetrators, and effective interventions with youth.

Concluding Comments The research on domestic homicides in the context of dating relationships highlights that these crimes rarely happen without some warning signs. The work of fatality review committees demonstrates that there are many signs known by friends and family prior to the homicide. The idea of teens killed in a dating relationship seems so unlikely to the public that these warning signs are often ignored or minimized. In the cases we have reviewed, surviving parents and friends often look back over the dating relationship and clearly see in hindsight that a tragic outcome was not a surprise. These parents have shown courage in speaking publicly about the importance of broader awareness and

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

211

professional training to understand the lethal aspects of dating violence. They have started foundations and programs to spread the word to other teens, family members, friends, and helping systems. Their efforts and words should hold prominence in our efforts to prevent future tragedies.

REFERENCES Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469 480. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463 481. Barter, C., McCarry, M., Berridge, D., & Evans, K. (2009). Partner exploitation and violence in teenage intimate relationships: executive summary. London: NSPCC. Beaupre´, P. (2014). Section 2: Intimate Partner Violence. Juristat, Statistics Canada: Catalogue Number 85-002-x. Borrajo, E., Ga´mez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports, 116(2), 565 585. Brown, V. (2013). Gang member perpetrated domestic violence: A new conversation. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 2(7), 1 21. Buel, S. M. (2002). Why juvenile courts should address family violence: Promising practices to improve intervention outcomes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 53(2), 1 16. Campbell, J. C. (1986). Assessment of risk of homicide for battered women. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(4), 36 51. Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009). The danger assessment validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of interpersonal violence, 24(4), 653 674. Carcach, C., & James, M. (1998). Homicide between intimate partners in Australia. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (90). Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Carver, J., Cappelli, M., Davidson, S., Caldwell, W., Be´lair, M., & Vloe, M. (2015). Taking the next step forward: Building a responsive mental health and addictions system for emerging adults. Ottawa: Mental Health Commission of Canada. Chiodo, D.G. (2017). A qualitative study of the fidelity of implementation of an evidence-based healthy relationships program. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Western Ontario, Canada. Coroners Service Death Review Panel. (2016). Report to the Chief Coroner of British Columbia, 2010-2015. British Columbia, Canada. Coyne-Beasley, T., Moracco, K. E., & Casteel, M. J. (2003). Adolescent femicide: A population-based study. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(4), 355 360. Crooks, C. V., Scott, K. L., Wolfe, D. A., Chiodo, D., & Killip, S. (2007). Understanding the link between childhood maltreatment and violent delinquency: What do schools have to add? Child Maltreatment, 12(3), 269 280. Domestic Violence Death Review Committee. (2015). 2013-14 Annual Report to the Chief Coroner. Toronto, Canada. Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commissions. (2015). Montana Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Protection and Victim Services: Report to the Legislator. Montana, United States.

212

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71 78. Family Violence Death Review Committee (2015). Annual Report to the Minister of Human Services. Alberta, Canada. Fawcett, J. (2010). Washington state domestic violence fatality review: Up to us! Lessons learned and goals for change after thirteen years of the Washington state domestic violence fatality review. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619 624. Georgia domestic violence fatality review annual report. (2014). An in-depth review of the circumstances and consequences of domestic violence fatalities. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Commission on Family Violence and Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Glass, N., Laughon, K., Rutto, C., Bevacqua, J., & Campbell, J. (2008). Young adult intimate partner femicide: An exploratory study. Homicide Studies: An Interdisciplinary and International Journal, 12(2), 177 187. Johnson, H., Colpitts, E. (n.d). Fact sheet: Violence against women in Canada. Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from: http://www.cwhn.ca/sites/default/files/CRIAW%20 FACTSHEET%20 Violence%20against%20women%20-%20long%20version.pdf. Jouriles, E. N., Grych, J. H., Rosenfield, D., McDonald, R., & Dodson, M. C. (2011). Automatic cognitions and teen dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 1(4), 302 314. Learning Network, (2013). Issue Based Newsletters. Issue 6: Violence against young women. Center for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children. Retrieved from: http://www.vawlearningnetwork.ca/issue-6-violence-against-young-women. LoveIsRespect.org. (2016). Dating basics: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from: http:// www.loveisrespect.org/dating-basics/dating-faq/. Lutwak, N., Dill, C., & Saliba, A. (2013). Dating violence must be addressed in the public health forum. Journal of Women’s Health, 22(4), 393 394. Niolon, P. H., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Latzman, N. E., Valle, L. A., Kuoh, H., Burton, T., & Tharp, A. T. (2015). Prevalence of teen dating violence and co-occurring risk factors among middle school youth in high-risk urban communities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2), S5 S13. O’Brien, W., & Elliott, L. (2014). Loves me not: How to keep relationships safe. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Books. Rowley, R. L., & Hertzog, J. L. (2016). From holding hands to having a thing to hooking up: Framing heterosexual youth relationships. Marriage & Family Review, 52(6), 548 562. Sinha, M. (2013a). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2011. Juristat. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Sinha, M. (2013b). Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends. Catalogue no. 85-002-X. Smith, D. M., & Donnelly, J. (2001). Adolescent dating violence: A multi-systemic approach of enhancing awareness in educators, parents, and society. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 21(1), 53 56. Statistics Canada. (2015). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2013. Catalogue no.85-002-X. Storer, H. L., Casey, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2016). Efficacy of bystander programs to prevent dating abuse among youth and young adults: a review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(3), 256 269.

Youth Dating Violence and Homicide Chapter | 8

213

Vagi, K. J., Olsen, E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo-Kantor, A. M. (2013). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among U.S. high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatrics 2015, 169(5), 474 482. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., & Hall, D. M. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633 649. Washington State Domestic Violence Fatality Review (2012). Teen victims of domestic violence homicide in Washington state. Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Websdale, N. (2003). Reviewing domestic violence deaths. National Institute of Justice Journal, 250, 26 31. Websdale, N., Town, J. M., & Johnson, B. (1999). Domestic violence fatality reviews: From a culture of blame to a culture of safety. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50(2), 61 74. Williams, T. S., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte, L. (2008). Risk models of dating aggression across different adolescent relationships: A developmental psychopathology approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 622 632. Wilson, J. S., & Websdale, N. (2006). Domestic violence fatality review teams: An interprofessional model to reduce deaths. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(5), 535 544. Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2016). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224 241. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0040194. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., Stitt, L., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692 699. Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P. G., & Crooks, C. V. (2006). Adolescent risk behaviors: Why teens experiment and strategies to keep them safe. Yale University Press. World Health Organization (2016). Violence against women: Intimate partner and sexual violence against women facts sheet. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1063 1077.

REFERENCES FROM CASE STUDIES Alfonsi, S., & Hagan, K. (2011). Chilling details emerge in Lauren Astley’s killing. New York: ABC News. Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/US/chilling-details-emerge-lauren-astleys-killing/story?id 5 14377421. BBC News (2017). Shana Grice murder: Stalker ex-boyfriend jailed for life. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-39363003. Booker, J. (2009). Gruesome details of Sophie Elliott killing revealed in court. Auckland: New Zealand: NZ Herald. Retrieved from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm? c_id 5 1&objectid 5 10580426. CBC News, (2012). Couple aims to empower teens after daughter’s murder. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/couple-aims-to-empower-teens-after-daughter-smurder-1.1230417. CTV Toronto, (2009). Man gets heavy sentence for girlfriend’s murder. Retrieved from: http:// toronto.ctvnews.ca/man-gets-heavy-sentence-for-girlfriend-s-murder-1.420390. Fruen, L., & Mullin, G. (2017). ‘She’ll pay for what she’s done’ Jilted ex-boyfriend is found guilty of slashing Shana Grice’s throat and torching her bedroom after refusing to accept

214

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

break-up. The Sun. Retrieved from: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3151643/shana-gricemurder-ex-boyfriend-michael-lane-guilty/. Hartevelt, J. (2009). Weatherston continued stabbing Sophie’s dead body. Stuff.Co.Nz. Retrieved from: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2534491/Weatherston-continued-stabbingSophies-dead-body. Khomami, N. (2017). Shana Grice: Murder trial judge criticizes Sussex police for failing her. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/23/shanagrice-trial-judge-criticises-sussex-police-for-failing-her. Learning Network (2017). Natalie Novak: Learning from her parents. Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children. Retrieved from: http://www.vawlearningnetwork.ca/natalie-novak-learning-her-parents. Maitland, T. (2016). Sophie Elliott’s mum addresses psychological abuse in relationships. Stuff. Co.Nz. Retrieved from: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/80431773/Sophie-Elliottsmum-addresses-psychological-abuse-in-relationships. Meecham, P. (2009). Clayton Weatherston jailed for minimum 18 years. Stuff.Co.Nz. Retrieved from: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2866308/Clayton-Weatherston-jailed-for-minimum-18-years. Small, P. (2009). Ryerson student’s killer convicted. TheStar.com. Retrieved from: https://www. thestar.com/news/gta/2009/03/31/ryerson_students_killer_convicted.html. Spencer, M. (2013). Loved to Death. 48 Hours, episode October 28, 2013. Retrieved from: http:// www.cbsnews.com/news/lauren-astley-murder-draws-attention-to-teen-breakup-violence/. Sussex Police UK. (n.d.) The murder of Shana Grice. Retrieved from: https://www.sussex.police. uk/about-us/the-full-story/the-murder-of-shana-grice/. Tribune Media Wire (2017). British teen fined for wasting police time with complaint against ex-boyfriend dies after he allegedly slits her throat. KTLA News5. Retrieved from: http:// ktla.com/2017/03/20/teen-murdered-after-being-fined-for-wasting-police-time/. Quigley, R. (2013). Murdered teen Lauren Astley went to see her ex-boyfriend on the night he killed her because his worried mom asked her to reach out to him. Mail Online News. Retrieved from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477763/Murdered-teen-LaurenAstley-went-ex-boyfriend-night-killed-mom-asked-reach-him.html#ixzz4drc3OuXc. Warmington, J. (2009). Murder verdict outrages family. Canoe News. Retrieved from: http:// cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Crime/2009/04/03/8992256-sun.html.

Chapter 9

Adolescent Dating Violence Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth Tyson R. Reuter1 and Sarah W. Whitton2 1 2

Department of Ob/Gyn, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, United States, Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

INTRODUCTION Decades of empirical literature demonstrate that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals are disproportionally affected by a variety of physical and mental health issues. LGBT adults experience higher rates of disability, cardiovascular disease, poorer general health, psychological distress, depression, anxiety, substance use, suicidal ideation, nonsuicidal self-injury, and completed suicide compared to heterosexual and cisgender1 persons (Case et al., 2004; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012; Cochran, 2001; Cochran, Mays, & Sullivan, 2003; Conron, Mimiaga, & Landers, 2010; Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 1999; Fredriksen-Goldsen, Kim, & Barkan, 2012; Gilman et al., 2001; Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2008; Hatzenbuehler, McLaughlin, & Slopen, 2013; Jenness, Maxson, Matsuda, & Sumner, 2007; Marshal et al., 2013; Meyer, 2003; Mustanski, Garofalo, & Emerson, 2010; Remafedi, French, Story, Resnick, & Blum, 1998; Sandfort, de Graaf, Bijl, & Schnabel, 2001). Though less research has examined health disparities in LGBT youth (i.e., adolescents and young adults), many of these findings can be downwardly extended. Hatzenbuehler et al. (2008), for example, demonstrated that adolescents who endorsed same-sex attraction were at higher risk for internalizing disorders and showed greater deficits in emotional regulation compared to their heterosexual counterparts.

1. Persons whose gender identity corresponds to or matches their sex assigned at birth. Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00009-8 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

215

216

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Garofalo, Wolf, Wissow, Woods, and Goodman (1999) found that LGB youth were also three times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual youth. Given that the health disparities experienced by LGBT persons are prevalent across an array of physical and psychological issues, it is not surprising that this population also experiences higher rates of dating violence [DV; commonly referred to as intimate partner violence (IPV) in adults]. In this chapter, we review the literature documenting the higher risk for DV compared to heterosexual and cisgender youth, describe differences in risk among subgroups of LGBT youth, and detail the negative consequences of DV in this population. Throughout, we use a minority stress informed theory to explain the elevated risk for DV among LGBT youth and among particular subgroups of this population. We present a case study to illustrate DV in a young LGBT individual, including some unique risk factors arising from their sexual minority status. Finally we offer suggestions for future work that might help us better understand DV among LGBT youth and develop services to prevent it. Throughout the chapter, we will use the term sexual minorities to refer to individuals who endorse same-sex attraction, engage in same-sex sexual behavior, and/or identify as nonheterosexual (Cohler & Hammack, 2007). Transgender refers to individuals whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex; cisgender individuals’ gender identity does match their birth sex.

PREVALENCE OF DV AMONG LGBT YOUTH Because research on LGBT youth is fairly limited, we first will briefly review the more substantial literature on rates of DV (or IPV) in LGBT adults. While there are exceptions (e.g., Burke, Jordan, & Owen, 2002; McClennen, 2005), findings from the adult literature typically find that sexual minorities are at greater risk of DV compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Buller, Devries, Howard, & Bacchus, 2014; Davis, Kaighobadi, Stephenson, Rael, & Sandfort, 2016; Finneran & Stephenson, 2013; Krahe & Berger, 2013; Siemieniuk et al., 2013; Stall et al., 2003; Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 1999; Waldner-Haugrud & Gratch, 1997). A recent review (Messinger, 2014) found that 20% 80% of LGBT adults have experienced psychological DV, around 33% have experienced physical DV, and 5% have experienced sexual victimization by a romantic or sexual partner during their lifetime (with rates of sexual DV considerably higher among women than men). Past-year estimated rates of DV among men who have sex with men (MSM) are 55% for victimization and 49% for perpetration (Davis et al., 2016). According to recent data from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, lifetime prevalence of DV victimization was 61.1% for bisexual women, 43.8% for lesbian women, 37.3% for bisexual men, and 26.0% for gay men, compared to 35.0% for heterosexual women and 29.0% for heterosexual men (Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013). Psychological

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

217

violence was not assessed. The high rates of DV experienced by LGBT adults are particularly concerning in light of their negative health and mental health consequences, some of which are unique to sexual minorities (Burke & Follingstad, 1999). For example, in a systematic review, Buller and colleagues (2014) examined 13,797 participants across 19 studies and found that MSM victimized by DV were from 1.46 to 1.88 times more likely than MSM who had not been victimized to report substance use, an HIV-positive status, depressive symptoms, and engagement in unprotected anal sex. Research on DV in LGBT youth is less common, with the bulk of empirical research and media attention focusing instead on victimization in the schools and community (D’augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998; King, 2013; Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, & Greytak, 2012; Williams, Connolly, Pepler, Craig, 2005). Nevertheless, a growing number of recent studies suggest that sexual minority adolescents and young adults experience high rates of DV. Using a nationally representative subset of 117 youth who reported exclusively same-sex romantic relationships in the past 18 months, Halpern and colleagues (2004) found that 25% had experienced any psychological or physical DV, while about 10% had experienced physical victimization. More recent probability samples from the United States suggest that, in the past year, an estimated 59% of LGB youth and 59% of transgender youth experienced psychological DV victimization (e.g., Dank, Lachman, Zweig, & Yahner, 2014; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013), 17% 43% of LGB youth and 89% of transgender youth experienced physical DV victimization (Dank et al., 2014; Kann, 2011; McLaughlin, Hatzenbuehler, Xuan, & Conron, 2012; Zweig et al., 2013), and 23% of LGB youth and 61% of transgender youth experienced sexual DV victimization (Dank et al., 2014; Zweig et al., 2013). Mirroring findings from adults, LGBT youth’s prevalence rates of DV appear to be disproportionately high compared to other youth. In one of the first empirical studies on the topic, Freedner, Freed, Yang, and Austin (2002) administered self-report surveys to a convenience sample of 521 adolescents measuring five types of DV (control, emotional, scared for safety, physical, and sexual). These authors found that, compared to heterosexuals, bisexual males were three times more likely to report any form of DV and lesbians were two times more likely to report fearing for their safety. Gender identity was not assessed. Using data from the Pittsburgh Girls Study, Hipwell et al. (2013) assessed physical DV in an ethnically diverse sample of 1647 female youth and found that those who identified as lesbian or bisexual reported higher rates of DV victimization than heterosexuals (31% vs 18%, respectively). No differences in DV perpetration were found, and gender identity was not assessed. Using data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (MAYRBS), Martin-Storey (2015) measured physical and sexual DV in 863 adolescents who reported a nonheterosexual identity and found these youth reported higher rates of DV compared to their heterosexual counterparts,

218

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

even after controlling for peer victimization, number of sexual partners, and binge drinking. Luo, Stone, and Tharp (2014) analyzed 10 years of geographically diverse data from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) and showed that LGB adolescents were more than twice as likely to report physical DV. Similar results were demonstrated by Porter and Williams (2011), who found that sexual minority college students were three to five times more likely to report physical abuse, sexual abuse, and rape. Overall, the US probability samples indicate that, compared to their heterosexual peers, sexual minority youth are twice as likely to experience psychological DV, up to three times more likely to experience physical DV, and up to five times more likely to experience sexual DV (Dank et al., 2014; Zweig et al., 2013). The only study of which we are aware on transgender youth indicated that they are at greater risk than both male and female cisgender youth for psychological, physical, and sexual IPV victimization in the past year (Dank et al., 2014). Although the underlying mechanisms for LGBT youth’s increased risk for DV are not entirely understood, a useful framework can be found in minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003). In short, this theory posits that the interaction between minority status and majority values results in conflict and increased stress within a broader social context, which for sexual minorities may take the form of self-stigmatization, overt and covert hostility, violence, expectations of rejection, and/or actual rejection from primary social supports. In turn, this increased burden of stressors leads to deleterious mental and physical outcomes (Dohrenwend et al., 1992; Meyer, 2003). Indeed, LGBT persons often experience a range of interpersonal, structural, and health stressors including invalidation, violence, and lower earning wages (Badgett, Lau, Sears, & Ho, 2007; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012; D’augelli et al., 1998; Halkitis, Green, & Carragher, 2006; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997; Meyer, 2003). In support of this model, the association between sexual minority status and poorer broad health outcomes is strongly attenuated when controlling for experiences of discrimination (Mays & Cochran, 2001). With respect to DV, a minority stress framework suggests that LGBT youth are at increased risk for victimization at least partly because of the multitude of stigma-related stressors they face. Because of their disadvantaged social status, they may be more likely than heterosexual youth to experience some common risk factors for DV (e.g., child abuse, parental rejection, social isolation) as well as additional unique risks (e.g., a history of victimization due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, internalized homophobia, concealment of partnerships from unaccepting adults who might otherwise serve as protective resources), which together heighten their risk for DV. To date, only one study has explicitly examined a minority stress model with regard to DV. Using a convenience sample of 1075 gay and bisexual men, Stephenson and Finneran (2016) measured three forms of

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

219

minority stress (internalized homophobia, sexuality-based discrimination, and racism) and found that each was linked to increased odds of DV victimization, while internalized homophobia was most strongly associated with DV perpetration. To our knowledge, no studies have downwardly extended this work to adolescents. Nevertheless, given its utility in explaining many disparities faced by sexual and gender minorities, we will use this framework to guide interpretation of existing findings and suggestions for future research.

DIFFERENCES IN DV AMONG SUBGROUPS OF LGBT YOUTH As we seek to understand DV in LGBT youth, it is important to consider the significant heterogeneity that exists within sexual and gender minorities. Early literature on sexual minorities primarily examined gay, mostly Caucasian, men and many studies collapse the numerous intersections of sexual, gender, and racial identities into one “LGBT” category. However, studies comparing minority sexual orientations to each other indicate important differences, which often suggest that bisexuals face greater challenges than do gay and lesbian individuals. For example, compared to gay/lesbian persons, those who identify as bisexual tend to report higher rates of mental health problems, including anxiety and depression (Jorm, Korten, Rodgers, Jacomb, & Christensen, 2002) and self-injurious behaviors (Whitlock, Eckenrode, & Silverman, 2006). Regarding DV, some studies indicate that bisexual adults, particularly women, experience physical and sexual DV more often than gay or lesbian adults (Walters et al., 2013). Among youth, there is evidence to suggest that bisexuality raises risk for certain types of DV, though findings are not always consistent. Bisexual college students have shown higher rates of any IPV victimization than their gay and lesbian counterparts (Blosnich & Bosarte, 2012). Studies of adolescents have found that, compared to other sexual minority teens, those who are bisexual report more DV perpetration (but not victimization; Reuter, Sharp, & Temple, 2015) and are four to five times more likely to have been threatened with “outing” by a partner (Freedner et al., 2002). In an ethnically diverse sample of LGBT youth aged 16 20 years, Whitton, Newcomb, Messinger, Byck, and Mustanski (2016) found that those who identified as bisexual were more likely to experience sexual, but not physical, DV victimization than those who identified as gay or lesbian. Greater risk for DV among bisexual than other sexual minorities may reflect that they experience “dual marginalization,” or discrimination from both the minority (i.e., LGBT) and dominant, majority (i.e., heterosexual) cultures (Burrill, 2009; Eliason, 1997; Ochs, 1996). Indeed, bisexuals often face additional stressors not experienced by gays/lesbians, such as more pronounced invalidation of their identity as legitimate or “bi-invisibility” (Bronn, 2001) and pressure to dichotomize their sexuality into either heterosexual or homosexual (Oswalt, 2009). Research has demonstrated that

220

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

heterosexuals’ attitudes towards bisexuals are largely unfavorable, even more so than various racial and religious groups (Herek, 2002). Within the LGBT community, gays and lesbians may stereotype bisexuals as simply confused or unsure of their sexual identity, uncommitted or untrustworthy in romantic relationships, or remaining closeted in order to claim heterosexual privilege (Israel & Mohr, 2004). The simultaneous stigma from both heterosexuals and gays/lesbians may lead to an increase in minority stressors, which may in part explain poorer health outcomes as demonstrated by a host of studies (Balsam, Beauchaine, Mickey, & Rothblum, 2005; Bostwick, Boyd, Hughes, & McCabe, 2010; Marshal et al., 2013; Persson, Pfaus, & Ryder, 2014). In addition to sexual orientation, researchers have begun examining differences in DV by race and gender identity. There is some evidence that LGBT youth of color are at higher risk than those who are white. For example, Reuter, Newcomb, Whitton, and Mustanski (2017) measured verbal, physical, and sexual abuse in 172 LGBT young adults at two time points over 1 year and found that black participants were at greater risk than other racial groups. Whitton and colleagues (2016), who examined DV victimization at six time points across 5 years in 248 LGBT youth (age 16 20 years at baseline), found that odds of physical victimization were two to four times higher for racial minorities than for whites, and that while the prevalence of physical IPV declined with age for white youth, it remained stable for racialethnic minorities. Regarding gender, some research on probability samples of sexual minority youth in the United States indicate that females are more likely than males to report having ever experienced either physical or sexual IPV (Martin-Storey, 2015), psychological and physical IPV in the past 18 months (Halpern et al., 2004), and psychological and sexual IPV but not physical IPV in the past year (Dank et al., 2014; Zweig et al., 2013). Reuter, Newcomb, Whitton, and Mustanski (2017) found that female cisgender and male-to-female transgender young adults were at greatest risk for both physical and verbal DV victimization compared to male cisgender and female-tomale transgender young adults. Whitton and colleagues (2016) found that the odds of physical victimization were 76% higher for female than for male LGBT youth and 2.46 times higher for transgender than for cisgender youth. It should be noted, however, that some studies do not find evidence of gender differences in rates of DV perpetration or victimization experienced by sexual minority adolescents (Reuter et al., 2015). One study even found slightly higher rates of physical DV victimization in male adolescents across both LGB and heterosexual youth (Luo et al., 2014). Overall, the evidence that having a minority racial or gender (i.e., female or transgender) status may increase risk for IPV among LGBT youth highlights the potential vulnerabilities associated with having multiple minority social identities that each are associated with minority stressors (Cole, 2009; IOM, 2011). The higher rates of DV among LGBT youth of color may, for

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

221

example, represent a downstream effect of the prejudice and discrimination they face based in both their race/ethnicity and their LGBT status (Meyer, Dietrich, & Schwartz, 2008). Similarly, transgender youth often experience social isolation, discrimination, and other types of victimization (American Psychological Association, 2009), which may help explain their greater vulnerability to IPV.

CONSEQUENCES OF DV IN LGBT YOUTH DV has serious negative health and social consequences for all adolescents, raising risk for a wide range of adverse academic, health, and mental health outcomes (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013; Temple, Le, Muir, Goforth, & McElhany, 2013). But mounting evidence suggests that LGBT youth who are victimized by a dating partner may be particularly vulnerable to negative outcomes. In a national US study, sexual minority IPV victims were more likely than heterosexual IPV victims to experience injury, require medical care, be fearful for their safety, and have posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (Walters et al., 2013). Similarly, among IPV victims, transgender women have been shown to be at higher risk of injury than cisgender people (Pitts, Mitchell, Smith, & Patel, 2006). In a study specifically focused on adolescents, Dank and colleagues (2014) found that LGB victims of DV, compared to heterosexual victims, had increased the likelihood of poor grades, committed more delinquent acts, and reported higher depressive symptom levels. Again, a minority stress framework may be helpful for understanding this increased risk for poor outcomes. Within the current heterosexist social climate, LGBT individuals may have fewer protective resources (e.g., social support from families, schools, and communities; Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Safren & Heimberg, 1999) to buffer them from adverse consequences of violence (Beeble, Bybee, Sullivan, & Adams, 2009; Hammack, Richards, Luo, Edlynn, & Roy, 2004). Furthermore, certain unique stigma-related stressors (e.g., internalized heterosexism and transphobia) faced by LGBT youth may exacerbate negative reactions to IPV (Carvalho, Lewis, Derlega, Winstead, & Viggiano, 2011).

CASE STUDY: ILLUSTRATION OF A MINORITY STRESS FRAMEWORK FOR DV While LGBT youth experience the host of risk factors for DV common to all young people, a minority stress framework posits that they also face unique risks as a result of their sexual or gender minority status. Key distal (external) minority stressors include stigma, discrimination, rejection from primary social supports, and violence, while proximal (internal) stressors include internalized homophobia, expectations of rejection, and identity concealment. Rejection from primary social supports deserves particular attention. LGBT populations represent one of the few minority groups where common sources

222

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

of support, such as family and friends, are often the same sources of invalidation or rejection. Furthermore, many resources heterosexual victims of DV can seek out for support or safety—shelters, religious institutions, parents, employers, law enforcement—may not be as accommodating or even an option for LGBT youth. For example, the majority of shelters across the United States accept only cisgender women and are often religiously associated. Churches or religiously affiliated organizations may be unequal in their treatment of a same-sex couple compared to a heterosexual couple, or worse, outright rejecting, shaming, or conditional. The “outness” of one or both individuals may require navigating their level of identity concealment. For example, something as simple as holding hands in public or deciding whether to accept a relationship status request on social media from one’s partner could result in increased stress, both for the individual and the dyad. The following is a brief vignette that illustrates minority stressors unique to LGBT populations. Carlos is an 18-year-old Hispanic male who is a first-year physics major at a small, liberal arts college in the rural southwest. He was born and raised in Houston, Texas, and is the youngest of three children. He is especially close to his older brother, though he has a conflictual relationship with his father who has refused to accept or acknowledge his sexual orientation since he came out at 16. Religion is extremely important to Carlos and has provided a large source of meaning and guidance in his life. He and his older brother have attended services at a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning friendly church since they were young and have since developed a strong supportive social network. However, since moving to college, he has no best friend, struggles to meet new people, and cannot find an open-and-affirming church in his small college town. Carlos identifies as bisexual and is currently in a relationship with another college student, Tim, who identifies as gay, but has not revealed his sexual orientation to anyone. Carlos states that although the relationship is relatively new, he feels that it is healthy and loving. One week ago, he and his boyfriend Tim were on a date at a local pub. Two of Tim’s roommates approach them. Tim quickly lets go of Carlos’ hand, and shortly after his roommates ask how they know each other. As Carlos begins to state that they are dating, Tim cuts him off and tells his roommates they’re classmates. Later that evening, Carlos confronts Tim and asks why he referred to them as classmates. Tim tries to explain that he’s not “out” to his roommates and often hears them throw around slurs like “faggot” and “don’t be gay.” Carlos continues to push the issue, saying that he’s tired of never being acknowledged as his boyfriend, not being able to hold hands around campus, and having not once been introduced or even mentioned to his parents. Tim becomes increasingly defensive until becoming angry and says “At least I’m not confused about my sexuality. Bisexual? Don’t give me that bullshit. Pick a side.” Carlos responds “fuck you” and the couple continues to verbally

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

223

insult one another as emotions escalate. Carlos says that he’s tired of remaining closeted and threatens, “If you don’t tell your parents you’re gay, then I will,” and proceeds to take out his phone and attempts to call Tim’s father. Trying to grab the phone, Tim forcefully hits Carlos in the face, leaving a mark on his left cheek. Carlos pushes Tim back and angrily runs back to his dorm room. The next morning, Carlos attends a local church for Sunday service. Noticing the bruise on his face, the pastor gently and compassionately inquires what happened. Unsure of his new church’s stance on homosexuality, Carlos switches the pronouns “he” with “she” as he recounts the details of the previous night. The pastor listens patiently, suggests that he reflect and pray about the fight, and enthusiastically insists that Carlos bring his “girlfriend” to a couples group held each week. Carlos nervously and awkwardly exits the situation. He calls his older brother, who he’s always leaned on for support, in hopes of talking things out. His brother doesn’t answer and the call goes straight to voicemail. Still on edge, Carlos browses his contacts looking for a friend to reach out to, though ultimately ends up deciding not to call anyone, saying to himself, “what’s the point?” This short vignette could continue in a variety of directions, but what we find are many similarities of DV shared by both heterosexual and sexual minority youth, such as bidirectionality of abuse, verbal insults, and physical violence. However, we also observe some unique factors. For example, the minority stressor of identity concealment is present in Tim discontinuing holding Carlos’ hand when approached by his roommates, as well as Carlos switching the pronouns of his boyfriend’s gender. Carlos’ bisexuality is also a point of contention and seen by his boyfriend as illegitimate. We also observe a unique form of psychological abuse, namely Carlos threatening to disclose his partner’s sexual orientation to his primary supports. Carlos giving up on reaching out to other supports could be interpreted as expectations of rejection.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE CLINICAL AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Research on DV among LGBT youth is arguably only in its beginning stages, though the past decade has seen an impressive growth of increasingly rigorous, well-controlled studies. As reviewed in this chapter, we can be fairly confident at this point that a gender or sexual minority status increases risk for DV and its negative consequences among adolescents and young adults. Furthermore, youth with multiple minority statuses (i.e., LGBT youth of color and those who are not cisgender male) may be at greatest risk. Yet, there is still significant ground to cover before research on DV in LGBT youth mirrors the empirical rigor of studies using heterosexual participants. As we have previously reported (Reuter et al., 2015), research on DV in

224

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

LGBT youth is often limited by one or more of the following: studies lack a comparison group of heterosexual adolescents, are qualitative or quasiempirical in nature, do not assess perpetration of violence, are cross-sectional, measure DV through a single item, utilize a behavioral criterion to define sexual orientation (e.g., has the participant dated a same-sex partner), lack ethnic diversity, study one gender exclusively, and/or recruit subjects though samples of convenience (e.g., gay and lesbian organizations, bars, and rallies). Studies with more rigorous methodologies, particularly those with longitudinal designs that can help disentangle the direction of effects between variables, assessment of both DV victimization and perpetration, and in-depth assessment of sexual orientation and gender identity, are clearly needed. A minority stress framework highlights additional potential directions for future research to help build our understanding of DV, its risk factors, and its consequences among LGBT youth. Although this framework has been applied to a host of other outcome variables, only one very recent study has directly examined the relationship between sexual minority status and DV while simultaneously measuring the contributions of LGBT stressors (e.g., Stephenson & Finneran, 2016). Future studies using LGBT samples might test unique stigma-related factors that may raise particular youth’s vulnerability to DV and exacerbate its negative consequences. These factors may include individual characteristics (e.g., identity concealment vs expression, internalized homophobia, history of LGBT-related victimization), relationship factors (denial or marginalization of the relationship by others, lack of legal recognition), and contextual factors (e.g., stigmatization of non-heterosexuality in the community, bullying in the school, level of access to LGBT resources). In addition to the individual’s immediate context, future work should also consider the broader sociocultural context. For example, sexual minority youth often lack same-sex models of healthy romantic relationships, with the overwhelming majority of couples referenced in literature, media, advertising, etc., being male/female—from children’s books to popular songs to television shows. Other factors to consider are local, state, and federal laws on discrimination; societal assumptions of heterosexuality or heteronormativity; fewer venues for LGBT youth to meet dating partners; degree of comfort with public displays of affection; or differences in level of outness. Future studies may also benefit from the assessment of protective factors and resiliency, in addition to risks and minority stressors. More broadly, the mere existence of DV in non-heterosexual couples poses serious challenges for the traditional feminist model of partner abuse. The most widespread intervention for victims of battery, the Duluth Model, posits that IPV “is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners” (Bennett & Hess, 2006, p. 312). However, in addition to being limited by mixed empirical support, such a broad and heteronormative generalization fails because it attempts to explain a multifaceted and nuanced public health issue through differences in power due to gender—which

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

225

strictly speaking should not exist in same-sex couples. The consequences of historically adopting such a heteronormative explanatory model are apparent in lack of resources for LGBT victims of DV, specifically sexual minority men and transgender individuals. And given that studies over the past decade are consistently finding an increased rate of DV in sexual minorities, as well as gender parity, there is a dire need for resources regardless of sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity. The majority of states, for example, have no shelters for victims of battery who are not cisgender women, which poses obvious concerns for victims of DV over the age of 18. Clinically, the high prevalence of DV among LGBT youth indicates a clear need for efforts targeting DV in this specific population. We argue that it may be most effective to create specialized programs that are tailored to address the specific needs of LGBT young people, for several reasons. First, the current explanatory model for DV, which underlies existing programming, is grounded in research overwhelmingly conducted on heterosexual youth, which may not fully translate to LGBT youth. Factors unique to the dating experiences of sexual minorities may limit the applicability of DV interventions that are grounded in the dominant heteronormative model to this population. Second, although LGBT youth may share many common risk factors for DV that might be targeted with material from programs that were designed for heterosexual youth, it is likely that such material is infused with heterosexist bias (i.e., assumptions of different-sex partners), which could be experienced as alienating and potentially exacerbate internalized homophobia. The strategies for targeting these risks must also take into account unique challenges faced by LGBT youth; for example, efforts to increase the youth’s connection to and support from family must give consideration to whether making the family aware of the youth’s sexual identity would put him or her at risk for rejection, violence, or homelessness. Third, it is imperative that interventions targeting DV are delivered by practitioners who are culturally competent in working with sexual and gender minority populations. Otherwise, LGBT youth are highly unlikely to attend or benefit from therapy. Fourth, specialized programs could address the unique risk factors for DV in this population (e.g., identity concealment, parental rejection of the youth’s gender or sexual identity) and explore forms of DV unique to this population, such as threatening to “out” one’s partner. Of course, even in programs designed specifically for LGBT young people, leaders must be mindful of the heterogeneity within this population, giving attention to how individuals with multiple gender, racial, and/or sexual minority identities may be at even greater risk for DV. To illustrate these ideas, we briefly describe a potential intervention plan for the case study above. Ideally, any intervention would be conducted by a practitioner who is knowledgeable about sexual and gender minorities, same-sex couple dynamics, and the influence of minority stressors on individual and couple functioning. Given that the psychological and physical aggression was mutual (i.e., bidirectional) and arose when a conflict between the two partners escalated,

226

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

a couples-based approach might be recommended (after individually addressing violence in the relationship). The intervention itself could include training in effective communication and conflict resolution skills, increasing the partner’s abilities to cope with stress, and building social support—components integral to any healthy relationship skills program. These components would be delivered, however, with consideration to the unique challenges faced by Carlos and Tim as sexual minorities. For example, it would likely be important to normalize how the two partners were at different places regarding personal identity disclosure (i.e., how “out” they were to various people in their lives), encourage each partner to empathize with why the other was choosing to disclose or not disclose (e.g., for Carlos to express understanding that Tim was fearful of the very real family, social, and financial repercussions that might follow from coming out), and help them express and validate each other’s feelings about it (e.g., help Tim to validate that his hiding of his sexuality and their relationship might be perceived as rejection or lack of commitment to Carlos). Efforts to build social support and reduce relationship isolation would give consideration to whether the potential sources of support would be rejecting or homophobic. The couple could also be guided to identify how many of the stressors on their relationship that contribute to psychological and physical aggression are minority stressors, which are external not internal to the relationship and result from living in a heterosexist society. This might help to unify them in facing those stressors as a dyad and increase their empathy and understanding of each other’s behavior. It would be important to address the sexual minority specific ways in which Carlos and Tim might hurt one another, such as by “outing” their partner against his will and set up relationship ground rules around such behavior. Finally, work with this couple, comprising two young adult men, might also include more targeted information on sexual health and safety (e.g., HIV prevention, pre-exposure prophylaxis, positioning, non-monogamous relationships), given that these strategies have demonstrated success in decreasing HIV risk behavior in young male same-sex couples (2GETHER; Newcomb et al., 2017). In conclusion, there is mounting evidence of high prevalence, serious costs, and limited existing empirical data on DV in LGBT youth, particularly regarding the impact of minority stressors and resilience. Therefore, future research investigating the causes, correlates, and consequences of DV in this population is warranted, along with evidence-based efforts to develop, implement, and evaluate culturally sensitive interventions to prevent and treat DV in LGBT young people.

REFERENCES American Psychological Association. (2009). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons and socioeconomic status. Retrieved from http:// www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/ factsheet-lgbt.pdf. Badgett, M. V., Lau, H., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

227

Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Mickey, R. M., & Rothblum, E. D. (2005). Mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual siblings: Effects of gender, sexual orientation, and family. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(3), 471. Beeble, M. L., Bybee, D., Sullivan, C. M., & Adams, A. E. (2009). Main, mediating, and moderating effects of social support on the well-being of survivors of intimate partner violence across 2 years. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 718. Bennett, W., & Hess, K. (2006). Criminal investigation. Boston: Cengage Learning. Blosnich, J., & Bossarte, R. (2012). Drivers of disparity: Differences in socially based risk factors of self-injurious and suicidal behaviors among sexual minority college students. Journal of American College Health, 60(2), 141 149. Bostwick, W. B., Boyd, C. J., Hughes, T. L., & McCabe, S. E. (2010). Dimensions of sexual orientation and the prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 468 475. Bronn, C. D. (2001). Attitudes and self-images of male and female bisexuals. Journal of Bisexuality, 1(4), 5 29. Buller, A. M., Devries, K. M., Howard, L. M., & Bacchus, L. J. (2014). Associations between intimate partner violence and health among men who have sex with men: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med, 11(3), e1001609. Burke, L. K., & Follingstad, D. R. (1999). Violence in lesbian and gay relationships: Theory, prevalence, and correlational factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(5), 487 512. Burke, T. W., Jordan, M. L., & Owen, S. S. (2002). A cross-national comparison of gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(3), 231 257. Burrill, K. G. (2009). Queering Bisexuality 1. Journal of Bisexuality, 9(3-4), 491 499. Case, P., Bryn Austin, S., Hunter, D. J., Manson, J. E., Malspeis, S., Willett, W. C., . . . Spiegelman, D. (2004). Sexual orientation, health risk factors, and physical functioning in the Nurses’ Health Study II. Journal of Women’s Health, 13(9), 1033 1047. Carvalho, A. F., Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Viggiano, C. (2011). Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26(7), 501 509. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Estimated HIV incidence in the United States, 2007-2010. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report, 17(4), 1 26. Cochran, S. D. (2001). Emerging issues in research on lesbians’ and gay men’s mental health: Does sexual orientation really matter? American Psychologist, 56(11), 931. Cochran, S., Mays, V., & Sullivan, J. (2003). Prevalence of mental disorders, psychological distress, and mental health services use among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 53 61. Cohler, B. J., & Hammack, P. L. (2007). The psychological world of the gay teenager: Social change, narrative, and “normality”. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(1), 47 59. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170. Conron, K. J., Mimiaga, M. J., & Landers, S. J. (2010). A population-based study of sexual orientation identity and gender differences in adult health. American Journal of Public Health, 100(10), 1953 1960. D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and their families: Disclosure of sexual orientation and its consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(3), 361.

228

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(5), 846 857. Davis, A., Kaighobadi, F., Stephenson, R., Rael, C., & Sandfort, T. (2016). Associations between alcohol use and intimate partner violence among men who have sex with men. LGBT Health, 3(6), 400 406. Dohrenwend, B. P., Levav, I., Shrout, P., Schwartz, S., Nahev, G., Link, B. G., . . . Stueve, A. (1992). Socioeconomic status and psychiatric disorders: The causation-selection issue. Science, 255(5047), 946 952. Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth: The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 662 668. Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(3), 317 326. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71 78. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L., & Beautrais, A. L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56 (10), 876 880. Available from https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.56.10.876. Finneran, C., & Stephenson, R. (2013). Intimate partner violence among men who have sex with men: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 168 185. Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., Kim, H. J., & Barkan, S. E. (2012). Disability among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: Disparities in prevalence and risk. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), e16 e21. Freedner, N., Freed, L. H., Yang, Y. W., & Austin, S. B. (2002). Dating violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: Results from a community survey. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 469 474. Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Wissow, L. S., Woods, E. R., & Goodman, E. (1999). Sexual orientation and risk of suicide attempts among a representative sample of youth. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153(5), 487 493. Gilman, S. E., Cochran, S. D., Mays, V. M., Hughes, M., Ostrow, D., & Kessler, R. C. (2001). Risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals reporting same-sex sexual partners in the National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 933. Halkitis, P. N., Green, K. A., & Carragher, D. J. (2006). Methamphetamine use, sexual behavior and HIV seroconversion. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 10(3/4), 95 109. Halpern, C. T., Young, M. L., Waller, M. V., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2004). Prevalence of partner violence in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships in a nationally sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(2), 124 131. Hammack, P. L., Richards, M. H., Luo, Z., Edlynn, E. S., & Roy, K. (2004). Social support factors as moderators of community violence exposure among inner-city African American young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 450 462. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2008). Emotion regulation and internalizing symptoms in a longitudinal study of sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 49(12), 1270 1278. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01924.x. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Slopen, N. (2013). Sexual orientation disparities in cardiovascular biomarkers among young adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(6), 612 621.

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

229

Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 264 274. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, E. K. (1997). Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults prevalence, psychological correlates, and methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(2), 195 215. Hipwell, A. E., Stepp, S. D., Keenan, K., Allen, A., Hoffmann, A., Rottingen, L., . . . McAloon, R. (2013). Examining links between sexual risk behaviors and dating violence involvement as a function of sexual orientation. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 26(4), 212 218. Institute of Medicine. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for a better understanding. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bisexual women and men: Current research, future directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 4(1-2), 117 134. Jenness, V., Maxson, C. L., Matsuda, K. N., & Sumner, J. M. (2007). Violence in California correctional facilities: An empirical examination of sexual assault. Bulletin, 2(2), 1 4. Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Rodgers, B., Jacomb, P. A., & Christensen, H. (2002). Sexual orientation and mental health: Results from a community survey of young and middle-aged adults. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(5), 423 427. Kann (2011). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among students in grades 9-12: Youth risk behavior surveillance, selected sites, United States, 2001-2009 (Vol. 60, No. 7). DIANE Publishing. King, J. (2013). Hate violence against LGBT community is on a dangerous rise. Colorlines: News for Action. Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2012). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12(1), 45 63. Krahe´, B., & Berger, A. (2013). Men and women as perpetrators and victims of sexual aggression in heterosexual and same-sex encounters: A study of first-year college students in Germany. Aggressive Behavior, 39(5), 391 404. Luo, F., Stone, D. M., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). Physical dating violence victimization among sexual minority youth. American Journal of Public Health, 104(10), 66 73. Marshal, M. P., Dermody, S. S., Cheong, J., Burton, C. M., Friedman, M. S., Aranda, F., . . . Hughes, T. L. (2013). Trajectories of depressive symptoms and suicidality among heterosexual and sexual minority youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(8), 1243 1256. Martin-Storey, A. (2015). Prevalence of dating violence among sexual minority youth: Variation across gender, sexual minority identity and gender of sexual partners. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(1), 211 224. Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1869 1876. McClennen, J. C. (2005). Domestic violence between same-gender partners: Recent findings and future research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(2), 149 154. McLaughlin, K. A., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Xuan, Z., & Conron, K. J. (2012). Disproportionate exposure to early-life adversity and sexual orientation disparities in psychiatric morbidity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(9), 645 655.

230

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Messinger, A. M. (2014). Marking 35 years of research on same-sex intimate partner violence: Lessons and new directions. Handbook of LGBT Communities, Crime, and Justice (pp. 65 85). New York: Springer. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674. Meyer, I. H., Dietrich, J., & Schwartz, S. (2008). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders and suicide attempts in diverse lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 1004 1006. Mustanski, B. S., Garofalo, R., & Emerson, E. M. (2010). Mental health disorders, psychological distress, and suicidality in a diverse sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. American Journal of Public Health, 100(12), 2426 2432. Newcomb, M. E., Macapagal, K. R., Feinstein, B. A., Bettin, E., Swann, G., & Whitton, S. W. (2017). Integrating HIV prevention and relationship education for young same-sex male couples: A pilot trial of the 2GETHER intervention. AIDS and Behavior, 21, 1 15. Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an invisible minority. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Oswalt, S. B. (2009). Don’t forget the “B”: Considering bisexual students and their specific health needs. Journal of American College Health, 57(5), 557 560. Persson, T. J., Pfaus, J. G., & Ryder, A. G. (2014). Explaining mental health disparities for nonmonosexual women: Abuse history and risky sex, or the burdens of non-disclosure? Social Science & Medicine, 128, 366 373. Pitts, M., Mitchell, A., Smith, A., & Patel, S. (2006). Private lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University. Porter, J., & Williams, L. M. (2011). Intimate violence among underrepresented groups on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(16), 3210 3224. Remafedi, G., French, S., Story, M., Resnick, M. D., & Blum, R. (1998). The relationship between suicide risk and sexual orientation: Results of a population-based study. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 57 60. Reuter, T. R., Newcomb, M. E., Whitton, S. W., & Mustanski, B. (2017). Intimate partner violence victimization in LGBT young adults: Demographic differences and associations with health behaviors. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 101. Reuter, T. R., Sharp, C., & Temple, J. R. (2015). An exploratory study of teen dating violence in sexual minority youth. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 8 28. Safren, S. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1999). Depression, hopelessness, suicidality, and related factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 859 866. Sandfort, T., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R., & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1), 85 91. Siemieniuk, R. A. C., Miller, P., Woodman, K., Ko, K., Krentz, H. B., & Gill, M. J. (2013). Prevalence, clinical associations, and impact of intimate partner violence among HIVinfected gay and bisexual men: A population-based study. HIV Medicine, 14(5), 293 302. Stall, R., Mills, T. C., Williamson, J., Hart, T., Greenwood, G., Paul, J., . . . Catania, J. A. (2003). Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 939 942.

Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 9

231

Stephenson, R., & Finneran, C. (2016). Minority stress and intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual men in Atlanta. American Journal of Men’s Health, pii:1557988316677506, 11(4), 952 961. Temple, J. R., Le, V. D., Muir, A., Goforth, L., & McElhany, A. L. (2013). The need for schoolbased teen dating violence prevention. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 4(1), 1 11. Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (1999). Comparing violence over the life span in samples of same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. Violence and Victims, 14(4), 413 425. Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., Gratch, L. V., & Magruder, B. (1997). Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationships: Gender issues explored. Violence and Victims, 12(2), 173 184. Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Whitlock, J., Eckenrode, J., & Silverman, D. (2006). Self-injurious behaviors in a college population. Pediatrics, 117(6), 1939 1948. Whitton, S. W., Newcomb, M. E., Messinger, A. M., Byck, G., & Mustanski, B. (2016). A longitudinal study of IPV victimization among sexual minority youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, pii:0886260516646093. Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(5), 471 482. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1063 1077.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 10

Adolescent Dating Violence Among Ethnically Diverse Youth Asia A. Eaton and Dionne P. Stephens Florida International University, Miami, FL, United States

Every year in the United States, 10% of adolescents experience physical and sexual dating violence (Vagi, Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015). Even more young people, roughly 3 out of 10, report having experienced psychological abuse in dating relationships in the last year (Zweig, Dank, Lachman, & Yahner, 2013). Some studies estimate that over the course of adolescence more than half of all boys and girls will have been victims of some form of dating violence (Bonomi et al., 2012). Adolescent dating violence (ADV) is also a predictor of nearly every major negative social sexual behavior, or outcome teens are at risk for, including but not limited to, drug use, risky sexual behavior, the acquisition of sexually transmitted diseases, suicide, depression and anxiety, and delinquent behavior (Ellis, Crooks, & Wolfe, 2008; Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001). These findings clearly demonstrate that dating violence is a pervasive form of abuse among adolescents, with negative implications for their social, psychological, and physical well-being. However, these numbers also disguise a more nuanced but accurate reality: that the rates and correlates of these phenomena differ based on adolescents’ social identities and locations. The notion that people’s subjective and statistical realities depend on their occupation of simultaneous, interlocking identities, such as gender, race, and age, is known as intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1993; McCall, 2005). Though social science has historically studied these social categories in isolation, making generalizations about individuals based on a single dimension (e.g., gender), the last few decades of research have revealed the flaws in this approach for both theory and practice. One problematic consequence of generalizing across distinct subgroups of individuals is that existing theories and measures used to understand majority groups (e.g., white girls) are often inappropriately applied to minority groups (e.g., black girls), resulting in misleading results and conclusions (West & Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00010-4 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

233

234

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Rose, 2000). Studying identities as a single analytical category (McCall, 2005) also results in nonprototypical and marginalized group members being understudied and unseen (Cole, 2009). In the event that a study sample does include minority youth, a comparative approach is often used in which the majority group is implicitly or explicitly treated as a baseline from which all others samples depart. This deficit-based approach supports negative stereotypes about minorities and contributes to self-fulfilling negative outcomes for these groups. Research that assesses and analyzes identities as separate factors (e.g., race as one factor and gender as another) is also incomplete, as occupying multiple social categories results in emergent experiences for individuals that could not have been predicted based on merely adding the main effects of individual identities (for a review, see Ferguson, 2016). In the last two decades, differences and similarities within youth culture subgroups have been given more attention, and some of the complex sociocultural reasons supporting within and between-group variations have begun to emerge. This chapter is dedicated to a discussion of recent literature on ADV in the United States that takes care to examine phenomena and processes unique to specific racial/ethnic groups, as well as similarities and differences in ADV prevalence and risk and protective factors based on race and ethnicity. Throughout, we consider the importance of context and culture in contributing to findings, and we draw attention to the strengths of those from marginalized populations. Much of the current literature on ADV has used middle class, heterosexual, white adolescents as participants (Alleyne-Green, Coleman-Cowger, & Henry, 2012). This is concerning given that Hispanic Americans constitute over 17% of the total US population today and are estimated to represent 28% of all Americans by 2060 (Stepler & Brown, 2014). African Americans also currently constitute a substantial part of the current US population at about 13% (US Census Bureau, 2015). Meanwhile, the percentage of non-Hispanic white people in the United States has reached an all-time low, and by 2044 the US Census Bureau projects that less than half of the population will be white (US Census Bureau, 2015). In only a few more years, the majority of US children will be racial/ethnic minorities (US Census Bureau, 2015). The limited research examining the relationship between race/ethnicity and ADV prevalence in the United States has typically found that African American, Native American, and Hispanic teens report higher rates of dating violence than whites (Children’s Safety Network, 2012; Eaton et al., 2008; Foshee et al., 2015). Dating violence the is greatest among African American adolescents (Makin-Byrd & Bierman, 2013), who are the most likely to be involved in both physical and psychological abuse (Choi, Weston, & Temple, 2017; Debnam, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2016; Haynie et al. 2013; for an exception, see Alleyne-Green, et al., 2012). The second most at-risk racial/ethnic group is Native American/Alaska Native adolescents, followed by Hispanic adolescents, white adolescents, and Asian

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

235

adolescents (Children’s Safety Network, 2012; Foshee, Ennett, Bauman, Benefield, & Suchindran, 2005; Foshee et al., 2008). This chapter therefore begins with examining the risk factors that make African American, Native American, and Hispanic adolescents more vulnerable to ADV.

ADV RISK FACTORS AMONG ADOLESCENTS OF COLOR A great number of ADV risk factors, defined as variables that increase the likelihood of ADV occurring (Bowen & Walker, 2015), are common across racial/ethnic subgroups. For example, being male (Miller et al., 2013; for an exception, see Foshee et al., 2013), older (Black et al., 2015; Debnam et al., 2016), from a family with low educational attainment (Foshee et al. 2009; Foshee et al., 2015), using drugs and alcohol (Schnurr & Lohman, 2013; Temple, Shorey, Fite, Stuart, & Le, 2012), exhibiting delinquent behavior (East & Hokoda, 2015; Chiodo et al., 2012), approving of ADV (Temple et al., 2016), and being in a single-parent household (Foshee et al., 2009), have all been linked to greater likelihood of ADV victimization across white, African American, and Hispanic populations. However, here we focus on social and cultural risk factors that are unique in their predictive power specifically for African American, Native American, and Hispanic adolescents. In doing so, we hope to draw attention to the important ways that social and structural inequalities in the United States and youth subculture norms contribute to ADV. We also focus mainly on causal and modifiable risk factors, which are most relevant for prevention and treatment efforts.

Risk Factors Specific to African American Adolescents Of the three racial/ethnic minority youth groups we review in this chapter, African American adolescents have received the most research attention, perhaps because they are typically the most at-risk group for ADV. As such, it is fairly well established that the consumption of African American targeted media, exposure to community violence, and informal or alternative forms of helpseeking are ADV risk factors especially relevant to African American youth.

African American Targeted Media The high rate of media consumption among African American adolescents has led researchers to examine its influence in a number of health outcome domains, including ADV. Consider the fact that the average television viewing hours for African American youth are significantly higher than for their white peers (ChildTrends, 2014). In 10th grade, black youth are almost three times more likely to watch 4 or more hours of television per weekday (45%) than whites (14%), and almost twice more likely to watch 4 or more hours per weekday than Hispanics (29%) (ChildTrends, 2014). Research has shown that television, particularly entertainment programming, is the most

236

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

important source of information and socialization for African American adolescents (Bickham et al., 2003; Stephens, Phillips, & Few, 2009). African American adolescents even outpace other racial and ethnic groups in social media usage; a nationally representative survey found that 34% of African American adolescents reported going online “almost constantly” as compared to 32% of Hispanic and 19% of white adolescents (Lenhart, 2015). Many scholars also argue that African American adolescents consume popular media for information about relationships (Bryant, 2008; Stephens, 2012; Stephens & Phillips, 2003; Stephens et al., 2009). Unfortunately, mainstream media consistently frames heterosexual intimate relationships using racialized, stereotypical frameworks (Andsager & Roe, 2003; Stephens, 2012). Culturally targeted forms of media, such as Hip Hop medias, have also been accused of reinforcing messages that rely on stereotypical gender and racial frameworks, including black women’s hypersexuality, black male promiscuity, and male female antagonism (Ross & Coleman, 2011; Stephens, 2012; Stephens & Few, 2007a). The power of Hip Hop media on African American adolescents’ sexual health and decision-making has been studied by researchers examining HIV/STI (Wingood et al., 2003), substance use (e.g., Mulder et al., 2010), and beliefs about beauty and self-presentation (Stephens & Few, 2007b; Stokes, 2007). Taken together, media presents adolescents with a portrait of intimacy as a game that relies upon false self-presentations, while reinforcing the idea that African American male female relationships center on sexual interactions (Mun˜oz-Laboy, Weinstein, & Parker, 2007; Stephens, 2012; Stephens et al., 2009). Bryant (2008), for example, found that the more time spent watching Hip Hop music videos and accompanying lyrics, the more African American teens were likely to perceive that African American males and females are enemies in relationships (Bryant, 2008). This conflictual framework is problematic as it reinforces the belief that it is acceptable to utilize violence when addressing violations in intimate relationship norms. As evidence of this, Stephens and Few (2007b) found that both Black adolescent males and females felt women who enacted highly sexualized scripts from Hip Hop culture were to blame if they were the victims of sexual violence.

Community Violence Exposure Some research points to African Americans’ sociohistorical experiences with physical and psychological violence as a risk factor for ADV. Centuries of racial discrimination and abuse have resulted in African Americans, as a whole, having worse socioeconomic and health trajectories than whites in the United States (Henry & Zeytinoglu, 2012). These accumulated disadvantages over time have positioned large segments of the African American community into low-resource neighborhoods that engender high rates of

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

237

community violence. Research suggests that this societal violence that can eventually manifest in relationship violence through a “trickledown” process (Henry & Zeytinoglu, 2012). As predicted, experiences with community violence are an important predictor of African American ADV victimization and perpetration (e.g., Black et al., 2015; Horowitz, McKay, & Marshall, 2005). In their study examining community violence exposure and sexual behaviors, Voisin Hotton, and Neilands (2014) found aggression was the key factor linking exposure to community violence with sexual debut and sexual risk behaviors for both boys and girls (Voisin et al., 2014). This community-level violence can contribute to the perception that situational violence against women and girls is acceptable. For example, Hernandez, Weinstein, and Munoz-Laboy (2011) found that aggression on the dance floor, such as grabbing or pushing a girl, was seen as commonplace and appropriate among urban, African American adolescents. This was especially true in cases where the male perceived the girls’ response to him as disrespectful (e.g., publicly challenging her male partner or refusing to acquiesce to his demands; Hernandez et al. 2011). Community-level violence can also contribute to violence occurring with families. Reports of personal exposure to violence in familial contexts are higher in urban, black adolescents than among their white counterparts (Alleyne-Green et al., 2012), and such violence exposure has consistently been found to increase adolescents’ likelihood to perpetrate or experience violence in their dating relationships (Walsh, Senn, & Carey, 2012). One reason for this is that violence between neighbors, extended family members, parents, and other community members is adopted by adolescents through social learning and modeling (Landor et al., 2017). Although witnessing violence in one’s family may be at first highly distressing, it can become normalized over time and can shape personal perceptions of acceptable relationship behavior (e.g., Buzawa & Buzawa, 2013; Hernandez et al., 2011). In fact, African American adolescent girls exposed to violence between their parents are more likely to remain in or move into a violent relationship compared to those who have not been exposed (Alleyne-Green et al., 2012).

Informal or Alternative Help-Seeking Although much of the effort to curb ADV has focused on school-based programming, it is important to note that studies suggest African American youth may prefer and utilize other social networks to address this concern (Elias-Lambert, Black, & Chigbu, 2014). For example, Black and Weisz (2003) found African American middle-school girls were more likely to seek help for intimate relationship questions more often from their friends, mothers, and grandmothers than boys. Stephens and Eaton (2016) similarly found that close siblings and close friends were the sources they were most

238

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

likely to trust and view as credible when discussing dating violence. Unfortunately, few programs addressing ADV integrate familial members into their efforts. This oversight is concerning given research that has shown African American parents’ current approaches to addressing dating violence in adolescence may help with prevention but ironically decrease an adolescents’ willingness to report its occurrences. Studies have noted that African American parents’ primary motivation for addressing sexual molestation, assault, or dating violence, particularly with daughters, is the desire to protect them from experiencing victimization. The content of African American parent daughter discussions about intimate relationship conflicts or violations often focuses on self-respect and self-esteem as key influences on adolescents’ ability to make good decisions in dating relationships (Akers, Yonas, Burke, & Chang, 2011; O’Sullivan, Meyer-Bahlburg, & Watkins, 2001; Stephens & Eaton, 2016). These communications primarily focus on daughters’ responsibility in the relationship and what she should expect from her partner. While this approach ensures that daughters have the tools for prevention, it does not address how to deal with violations within the relationship.

Risk Factors Specific to Native American Adolescents Research on adult populations shows that Native American/Alaska Native/ Native Pacific Islander, and other indigenous peoples of the United States (from here forward referred to using the broad term “Native American”) experience high rates of physical, psychological, and sexual violence, often ranking as the highest or second highest at-risk racial/ethnic group in the United States (Breiding et al., 2014; Black et al., 2011; Sapra, Jubinski, Tanaka, & Gershon, 2014). For example, Native American women are 1.7 times more likely to be the victims of physical violence than whites, twice as likely to be the victims of rape, and nearly three times as likely to be killed by an intimate partner (Breiding et al., 2014; Oetzel & Duran, 2004; Karch, Logan, McDaniel, Parks, & Patel, 2012). Native American adolescents are also more likely to be involved in intimate partner violence than their counterparts (e.g., Choi-Misailidis, Hishinuma, Nishimura, & Chesney-Lind, 2008), with studies suggesting that Native American adolescents are the first or second most at-risk racial/ethnic group for ADV in the United States (Children’s Safety Network, 2012; Earnest & Brady, 2016; Pavkov, Travis, Fox, King, & Cross, 2010). Despite this, there is scarce research on the correlates and outcomes of ADV in this population (Smokowski, DavidFerdon, & Stroupe, 2009). Some of the possible risk factors for ADV specifically among Native Americans include the adoption of postcolonial gender roles, physical and psychological segregation, and experiences of prejudice and discrimination, all of which are bound and informed by historical trauma.

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

239

Historical Trauma Perhaps the most foundational risk factor for ADV among Native Americans, which links and sustains an aggregation of health, economic, and social disparities, is historical trauma in the context of ongoing neocolonization (Burnette, 2015; Denham, 2008; Duran & Duran, 1995; Whitbeck, Sittner Hartshorn, & Walls, 2014). The extended and cumulative intergenerational harms caused by the intersecting oppressions of colonialism, sexism, and racism have wounded traditional native cultures in irrevocable ways, including wholesale losses of land, language, art, and life, and are also evident in individual experiences of unresolved emotional trauma (Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998; Burnette, 2015; Mohatt, Thompson, Thai, & Kraemer Tebes, 2014). The specter of historical trauma is at the bedrock of every potential ADV risk factor for Native American adolescents. While the historical trauma running through these risk factors is not itself modifiable, it may be treatable and some of its manifestations can be directly addressed. Postcolonial Gender Roles Some have hypothesized that historical trauma changed gender roles and relations in some Native American cultures (Duran, Duran, Brave Heart, & Yellow Horse-Davis, 1998). Whereas many indigenous cultures were once matrilineal or female-centered, with violence against women being extremely rare (Matamonasa-Bennett, 2015), colonial contact may have created a more antagonistic form of relations between Native men and women (Weaver, 2009), reproducing the domination and hostility enacted by Europeans on Native peoples. Research on non-Native young adults has already linked adversarial gender roles to intimate partner violence and coercion (e.g., Eaton & Matamala, 2014), and future work should investigate if these reconfigured gender roles might contribute to the augmented levels of ADV among Native adolescents. Consistent with the presence of adversarial gender role norms, research on 550 indigenous adolescents in the United States and Canada found that most dating violence reported by adolescents was mutual violence, with boys attacking girls and girls attacking boys (Hautala, Sittner Hartshorn, Armenta, & Whitbeck, 2017). Segregation Another consequence of colonization and historical trauma is the physical and psychological marginalization of Native peoples. Many Native American communities are in rural locations with limited resources. Being both economically and culturally isolated (Irwin, 2011; Sandefur, 1989), these communities often lack adequate victim or legal services, sufficient law enforcement resources and rights, and screening and treatment for intimate partner violence in health care settings (Oetzel & Duran, 2004), potentially

240

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

increasing the risk for ADV. For example, only in the last few years did the Violence Against Women Act enable participating tribes to prosecute nonNative perpetrators of dating and domestic violence (United States, 2013). Although Native American reservations are purposefully and steadfastly selfgoverning, this sovereignty came in exchange for minimal economic support from the federal government, making long-term self-sufficiency difficult to achieve (Gerdes, Napoli, Pattea, & Segal, 1998). In order to substantially reduce violence in Native American communities and reservations, however, it is imperative to increase these communities economic and social opportunities, and access to health care (Yuan, Belcourt-Dittloff, Schultz, Packard, & Duran, 2015). Indeed, a study with a tribally owned women’s health clinic found that low socioeconomic status (SES) was positively associated with past-year IPV even after adjusting for age, relationship status, and household size among Native American women (Malcoe, Duran, & Montgomery, 2004), though SES has not always predicted IPV rates among indigenous peoples (Valdez-Santiago, Hı´jar, Martı´nez, Burgos, & de la Luz, 2013).

Prejudice and Discrimination Native Americans who live in more culturally heterogeneous areas, such as urban centers, are subject to multiple forms of personal and institutional discrimination, and at an even greater rate than many other racial and ethnic minority groups. For example, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development found that more than one in four Native American renters have faced housing discrimination (Fluharty, 2003). Moreover, while Native Americans make up only about 1% of the total US population, they comprised 3.3% of all racially motivated hate crimes in the United States as of 2012 (US Department of Justice, 2012). Similar to other minority groups in the United States, being the target of prejudice and discrimination increases Native Americans’ odds of ADV involvement. Research by Hautala and colleagues (2017) found that Native American adolescents who subjectively experienced high levels of personal discrimination, such as being threatened or demeaned for their cultural heritage, were more likely to report having been involved in mutual dating violence or to have been victims of ADV.

Risk Factors Specific to Hispanic Adolescents Culturally specific gender roles and acculturation into US mainstream culture are two of the risk factors for ADV that apply specifically to Hispanic adolescents.

Hispanic Gender Roles Cross-culturally, ADV has been associated with the acceptance of traditional gender stereotypes. Research asserts, however, that Latino/a’s understanding

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

241

of norms about gender roles, egalitarianism, and intimate relationships may differ from other ethnic groups (Ulloa, Jaycox, Marshall, & Collins, 2004). For example, research on Hispanic culture and violence suggest that some aspects of Hispanic culture are associated with more acceptance or prevalence of violence (Sanderson, Coker, Roberts, Tortolero, & Reininger, 2004). To explain these cultural disparities in attitudes toward violence, researchers often point to marianismo and machismo beliefs, which are definitional to Latino/a gender roles. According to marianismo beliefs, women are expected to embody passivity, submissiveness, humility, asexuality, and self-sacrifice for the family (Castillo, Lopez-Arenas, & Saldivar, 2010). Grounded in the context of Catholicism’s Virgin Mary, marianismo behaviors encourage women to reflect this iconic figures representation of moral integrity, spiritual strength, and the ability to endure suffering, particularly when inflicted by men (Comas-Dı´az, 1995). Within relationships, women are expected to defer to men and depend on them for all physical and psychological needs, including sexual and relationship needs. Among adolescent Latinas, these attitudes directly shape their willingness to challenge male partners when they disagree with them or want to make alternative choices, placing them in a vulnerable position for ADV victimization (Villegas et al., 2013). The complementary framework for Latino men’s expressions of masculinity is “machismo.” Characterized by physical prowess, aggression, toughness, being in charge, and risk-taking, machismo beliefs give primacy to men’s dominance, superiority, and strength in relationships (Marrs Fuchsel, Murphy, & Dufresne, 2012; Sobralske, 2006a, 2006b). The influence of machismo beliefs on ADV beliefs can be particularly powerful. Such beliefs can lead to the expectation that Latinos will “prove” their masculinity through being able to control one’s girlfriend or wife through force or fear (Galanti, 2003; Kyriakakis, Dawson, & Edmond, 2012; Sobralske, 2006b). Furthermore, through the use of traditional theoretical paradigms and approaches that fail to capture within-group differences or integrate culturally relevant findings, researchers have reinforced the belief that Latino/a cultural groups embrace these values and allow men to behave in aggressive ways toward their female partners (Cole, 2009; Marrs Fuchsel et al., 2012; Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2010; Ulloa et al. 2004). However, it is important that researchers consider the role of other key individual difference and identify factors when examining the influence of gender roles on ADV outcomes, including education, acculturation, and language. Framing adolescent Latino/a’s outcomes solely using a culturally specific gender lens does not accurately capture the true influence of gender beliefs on sexual health outcomes broadly (Eaton & Rose, 2012; Stephens, Eaton, & Boyd, 2017) and ADV specifically (Haglund, Belknap, & Garcia, 2012; Stephens & Eaton, 2014). Haglund and colleagues’ (2012) research with Mexican American young women, for example, found that participants

242

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

opposed the stereotype that in Mexican culture men dominate and women do “as they are told.” These women provided familial examples to contradict the stereotypes and describing a desire for egalitarian gender roles in their relationships. Similarly, Stephens and Eaton (2014) found that college Latino’s machismo beliefs were not salient in their reflections upon dating coercion. They further asserted that, in their view, machismo was indistinguishable from westernized hypermasculinity frameworks (Stephens & Eaton, 2014). Recognizing this similarity, researchers have called for greater exploration of the definition and relevance of machismo and marianismo, given that it is often difficult to determine the ways in which they replicate and differ from traditional gender role beliefs in American society (Sobralske, 2006a, 2006b; Stephens & Eaton; 2014; Stephens et al., 2017). Consider the fact that studies drawn from white samples have consistently uncovered gender beliefs that assert it is acceptable for a man to control and dominate a woman in an intimate relationship, yet a comparable racial/ethnic lens is not used to explain this outcome. As such, future efforts to examine ADV in Hispanic populations must include a critique of westernized hypermasculinity and hyperfemininity frameworks, paying particular attention to the ways they can be differentiated from machismo and marianismo beliefs.

Acculturation Research on Hispanic adolescents’ behavioral outcomes has commonly explored the role of acculturation. Defined as the adaptation or preservation of particular cultural norms and practices after an immigration experience (Schwartz et al., 2013), the acculturation process for Hispanic adolescents involves the simultaneous processes of adapting to the “American” culture while retaining values and beliefs from their familial nations and cultures of origin. Adolescents’ ability to do this successfully has been tied to various individual and external factors such as an individual’s and Hispanic subgroup’s characteristics and history, the geographic area where the individuals live, the demographics of that community, and political support (Lara, Gamboa, Kahramanian, Morales, & Bautista, 2005). Hispanic adolescents’ experiences with acculturation are multidimensional and unique across subgroups’ experiences with ADV (Schwartz et al., 2013). Research examining the links between ADV and acculturation across various Hispanic communities has noted that acculturation can serve as risk factor, buffer, or both. Some research has found that Hispanic adolescents who have higher levels of acculturation into American systems are at a greater risk for ADV victimization (e.g., Gonza´lez-Guarda, McCabe, Florom-Smith, Cianelli, & Peragallo, 2011). Other studies have noted that moderate levels of acculturation serve as a protective factor against ADV

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

243

(Smokowski et al., 2009). These discrepancies may be partly due to the variability in measures used to assess acculturation (e.g., years in the United States, language spoken, media source consumption), limiting researchers’ ability to accurately capture the true influence of this phenomenon. These findings must be further read with caution, as acculturation is often measured in narrow or incomplete ways. For example, in the studies noted above, the research does not take into account the extent to which Hispanic teens have acculturated to the American culture and simultaneously maintained attachment to their culture of origin. As a result, we cannot definitively know if acculturation to the American culture is a risk factor, or the maintenance of Hispanic culture is a protective factor, or both. In fact, it may be that the loss of close connections with the familial unit through the rejection of traditional Hispanic culture is the real factor influencing teens risk for ADV victimization or perpetration, rather than the fact they are becoming more “American” (Gonza´lez-Guarda et al., 2011). ADV studies exploring the role of acculturation often do not address other factors that could be contributing to stress in participants’ lives, such as their relationship-coping abilities before the acculturation process began. Furthermore, the reasons why an adolescent Hispanic is acculturating to American culture (e.g., forced migration, refugee), their immigration status (e.g., legal verse illegal), and their receiving context must be considered. For example, Cuban adolescents have an easier time acculturating because they are welcomed in Florida, compared to Mexican American adolescents entering via California where there has been greater resistance to their culture (Forster, Grigsby, Soto, Schwartz, & Unger, 2015; Schwartz et al., 2014). This difference may point to the need for researchers to tease out the role of acculturative stress when exploring acculturation’s role in ADV victimization and perpetration.

ADV PROTECTIVE FACTORS AMONG ADOLESCENTS OF COLOR Although protective factors for ADV are not as well established as risk factors (Vagi et al., 2015), research has uncovered several ADV protective factors that apply across multiple racial/ethnic groups. For example, having prosocial beliefs was associated with reduced involvement in dating violence among white and black adolescents in three North Carolina counties (Foshee et al., 2015). Very often, however, the effect of a particular protective factor on ADV involvement differs by adolescent race and ethnicity (East & Hokoda, 2015). In the following section, we describe protective factors that are particularly relevant and impactful for African American, Native American, and Hispanic youth, respectively.

244

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Protective Factors Among African American Adolescents Parental communications and the expectation of self-sufficiency and selfrespect for women and girls are among the factors that may serve to protect African American adolescents from ADV.

Parental Communications The degree to which parents observe and track their children’s behaviors, attitudes, and life choices has been shown to buffer African American adolescents from engaging in risk-taking (e.g., Murray et al., 2014). African American parental socialization patterns also are essential for the transmission of sexual values, attitudes, and knowledge (Fasula & Miller, 2006). However, it is important to consider the role of gender in these discussions, because black adolescent males are more likely than their female counterparts to report that they discussed sexual topics with their mothers and fathers (Kapungu et al., 2010; Sneed, Somoza, Jones, & Alfaro, 2013). There are also gender differences in the ways in which parental communications influence ADV discussions. When examining the empirical research on sexual communication patterns, maternal indirect (e.g., modeling behaviors) and direct (e.g., mother daughter discussions) messages directly affect African American adolescents’ decision-making around sexual risk (UsherSeriki, Bynum, & Callands, 2008). Overall, African American adolescents report having more frequent talks and greater comfort in talking about sex with their mother compared to their father (Sneed et al., 2013). Supportive and positive direct maternal communication regarding sexuality have been found to be a positive influence for adolescents, particularly those who are sexually active (Fasula & Miller, 2006; Usher-Seriki et al., 2008). However, while these studies find that mother daughter communication about sexrelated topics predicts adolescent sexual behavior, few have explored the degree to which discussions about ADV directly influence victimization or perpetration (Murray et al., 2014; O’Sullivan et al., 2001; Sneed et al., 2013; Usher-Seriki et al., 2008). African American mothers are often hesitant to have these discussions with daughters because they believe their daughters are not involved in dating relationships or do not perceive that they are at risk during this stage of the life span (Usher-Seriki et al., 2008). Fathers’ influence on ADV also differs according to gender. Studies have noted that African American fathers endeavor to indirectly communicate relationship role expectations through the modeling of ideal male partner behavior for sons and daughters, rather than through direct conversations (Akers et al., 2011; Cooper, 2009). Furthermore, the relationship African American fathers have with their teens has differing impacts on ADV outcomes. For example, Alleyne-Green and colleagues (2015) found that black adolescent boys were less likely to engage in ADV perpetration when they perceived their relationship with their father as close. However, the same did

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

245

not hold true for girls. The content and frequency of both father and mothers’ discussions about ADV must continue to be explored in future research as they serve as key influences in adolescents’ outcomes.

Self-sufficiency and Self-respect for Women and Girls African American girls are taught to take responsibility to protect themselves both physically and psychologically; this is particularly true within urban areas where exposure to community violence increases their risk for victimization and perpetration (Kennedy, 2008). For example, African American parents often initiate discussions about sexual health issues with daughters because they feel motivated to prevent sexual molestation, assault, or dating violence victimization (Akers et al., 2011; Kennedy, 2008). This motivation is reflected in the content and focus of parent daughter intimate relationship discussions, where self-respect and self-esteem have been identified as key topics parents believe will shape their child to make good decisions (Akers et al., 2011; O’Sullivan et al., 2001; Stephens & Eaton, 2016). The actual decisions and behaviors of African American youth often reflect norms for self-respect and self-protection that are passed down by parents. For example, one study of African American middle-school students found that 84% of youth took action in response to the use of controlling behaviors in their dating relationships (Elias-Lambert et al., 2014), such as fighting back or breaking up with the offending dating partner. Despite portrayals of black women as promiscuous in Hip Hop media, black girls expressed a strong commitment to holding true to their own personal values and choices around sex and relationships, in keeping with broader beliefs about self-reliance and sexual autonomy (French, 2013). However, believing that one is largely in control of and responsible for all sexual interactions is a double-edged sword, as it may lead to victim blaming and the assumption of personal responsibility for abuse one endures (French, 2013).

Protective Factors Among Native American Adolescents As with data on ADV risk factors, empirical data on factors that protect Native American adolescents from dating violence are scarce (Yuan et al., 2015). It is clear, however, that some indigenous regions, tribes, and nations in the United States have higher risks for severe intimate partner violence than others (Scott & Langhorne, 2012), such that cross-tribal investigations of ADV protective factors could be fruitful. Some comparative research has already been performed using heterogeneous samples of indigenous people, and one potential protective factor identified in this work was strong cultural ties.

Strong Cultural Ties It is important to consider the ways in which within-group cultural affiliations shape experiences with IPV. Unfortunately, research typically treats

246

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Native American adolescent populations as homogeneous or interchangeable. This is problematic as cultural differences within and across Native American populations, such as language or dialect, regional location, and social status within these contexts, can inform adolescents’ cultural identifications and, in turn, experiences with IPV (Fluharty, 2003; Malcoe et al. 2004; Oetzel & Duran, 2004; Weaver, 2009). For example, research in eight indigenous regions of Mexico found that one characteristic distinguishing more at-risk communities from less at-risk communities was whether indigenous people were a minority or majority in that area. Areas where 40% or more of the population spoke an indigenous language (an “indigenous municipality”) experienced lower rates of IPV than areas where less than 40% of the population speaks an indigenous language (a municipality with an “indigenous presence”). The authors of this work suggested that strong cultural ties and the preservation of cultural traditions may therefore protect native communities from IPV and related forms of violence (ValdezSantiago et al., 2013). Ethnographic, theoretical, and intervention work with Native American women has also suggested that having a strong ethnic identity and engaging in traditional health and spiritual practices can protect against ADV and mitigate the negative effects of IPV (Burnette & Hefflinger, 2017; Denham, 2008; Varcoe et al., 2017; Walters & Simoni, 2002). However, other work has associated high levels of tribal identity among Native American women with an increased risk of rape (Yuan, Koss, Polacca, & Golman, 2006). The unique ways in which marginalization experiences shape cultural ties and, in turn, experiences with violence must be teased out in future research.

Protective Factors Among Hispanic Adolescents A strong tie to one’s culture of origin is also a factor protecting Hispanic adolescents from ADV, as well as healthy communication among Hispanic adolescents and their caregivers.

Strong Cultural Ties Similar to research with Native American adolescents and adults, research has shown that Hispanic teens who have a strong identification with their culture of origin (i.e., high levels of ethnic pride) are less at risk for ADV (Sanderson et al., 2004). Although there is only one study supporting the protective relationship between ethnic pride and ADV, this link has been noted with other risk intentions among Hispanic adolescents (GuilamoRamos, 2009), such as cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Ethnic pride among Hispanic adolescents may have a protective effect on risk behaviors through self-esteem (Guilamo-Ramos, 2009). Higher levels of self-esteem among Hispanics adolescents are related to other protective factors such as

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

247

close family relationships with lower levels of conflict (Smokowski et al. 2010). Increases in ethnic/cultural pride and the benefits it can generate can also be achieved alongside increased acculturation (Enriquez, Kelly, Cheng, Hunter, & Mendez, 2012). In pilot testing of an in-school interpersonal violence prevention intervention targeting Hispanic teens, “Familias En Nuestra Escuela,” researchers found that participants increased in their ethnic pride, decreased in their incidence of dating violence, and increased in their acculturation from pre- to postintervention (Enriquez et al., 2012). Personal endorsement of traditional cultural values and norms and cultural values can also protect Hispanic adolescents from ADV. Heritage language use, another indicator of strong cultural ties, has also been negatively related to ADV among Hispanic populations. Spanish language use at home protects against physical relationship violence in urban Latinas, regardless of nativity in the United States (DuPont-Reyes, Fry, Rickert, & Davidson, 2015), possibly through high levels of family closeness and support. Furthermore, the study by Cuevas, Bell, and Sabina (2014) found that women’s Latino cultural orientation, as measured by the Brief Acculturation Rating Scale of Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II) using items like “I enjoy speaking Spanish” and “My friends, while growing up, were of Mexican origin,” were related to an increased likelihood of seeking help to address IPV victimization.

Parental Communications The traditional Hispanic value of familism may support parental influence on adolescents’ beliefs about appropriate dating behaviors, intimacy, and interpersonal interactions that serve to benefit all members of the familial unit (Oramas, Stephens, & Whiddon, 2015). As a framework that centers and validates family and community, familism includes a sense of loyalty and reciprocity with one’s immediate and extended family (Howard, Beck, Hallmark-Kerr, & Shattuck, 2005). Studies examining the influence of family of origin on aggression outcomes have primarily noted that it is through social learning within families that aggressive behavior must be learned, triggered, and reinforced in order for it to be attained and maintained (Snethen & Van Puymbroeck, 2008). In addition to the modeling of behaviors and direct communications, parenting styles have also been found to provide positive outcomes for Hispanic girls and boys in terms of ADV. Specifically, monitoring, communication, and personal interactions can buffer Hispanic adolescents from both ADV victimization and perpetration. For example, mothers’ early strictness, monitoring, and conservative sexual attitudes predicted a lower likelihood of sexual and dating violence victimization among Latina/o adolescents (East & Hokoda, 2015). Furthermore, these maternal behaviors served as significant buffers given external risks for victimization. Similarly, Hispanic

248

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

adolescents’ perceptions of their communication openness with parents have been found to be an important protective factor against physical and sexual dating violence. Higher levels of mother and father communication are associated with less physical violence victimization among adolescent males and females, and with less sexual violence victimization among females (Sabina, Cuevas, & Lannen, 2014).

CULTURALLY RELEVANT PREVENTION AND TREATMENT When seeking to address ADV among teens, researchers, clinicians, and educators must acknowledge the role of ethnic and racial identity. Race and ethnicity have an impact on not only behavioral outcomes but also acceptance and adherence to interventions or research they are expected to participate in (Enriquez et al., 2012; Horowitz et al., 2005; Muir, Schwartz, & Szapocznik, 2004). When researchers or clinicians exhibit inadequate levels of cultural competence and respect, less effective services and data collection will result. The first step is to move from deficit-based approaches that interpret behaviors as nonnormative and/or dysfunctional when they do not reflect those exhibited by middle class, white populations. Rather, those interested in addressing ADV among racial/ethnic minority populations must recognize that behaviors or coping mechanisms that do not reflect dominant culture patterns may be appropriate to or adaptive in certain contexts. For example, among inner-city Hispanic and African American high-school girls, physical dating violence perpetration was more prevalent among African Americans, whereas psychological dating violence victimization was more prevalent among Hispanics (Peskin et al., 2014). This finding points to the need for research that accurately identifies the meanings and values individuals and their communities give to ADV perpetration or victimization. Furthermore, there is a need to integrate the use of assessments that accurately capture the influence of culture and how cultural communities and identities can be helpful. This strategy should include collecting information about individuals’ national origin, birthplace, immigration experience, length of time in the country, language preference, and the meaning of being a member of a racial/ethnic minority group. The research by Cuevas, Sabina, and Bell (2014) reinforces the importance of culture when they noted that ADV among Hispanic adolescents was associated with factors such as peer or sibling victimization, age, and gender indirectly tied to their ethnic identification. Relatedly, those working with these populations must educate themselves about both the broader cultural terms and norms and specific subgroup experiences of the target population. A first step toward this is to become familiar with and gain the ability to critically examine media content applicable to the target population. Those media genres primarily consumed by

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

249

racial/ethnic minority adolescents can be extremely useful for providing insights into the beliefs, language, and meanings adolescents associate with ADV (Adams-Bass, Stevenson, & Kotzin, 2014; Stephens & Eaton, 2016). Research has shown that urban African American adolescent girls often used terminologies about dating violence that differ from terms found in traditional measures (Stephens & Eaton, 2016). Furthermore, the content of Hip Hop media sources has been found to more accurately reflect their language, beliefs, and understandings of ADV than mainstream media sources and adults in their lives (Stephens & Eaton, 2016). Thus, those developing interventions can use media tools to begin conversations about ADV and other sensitive topics, to identify key values and expectations across diverse populations.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Qualitative Research In their study examining the use of qualitative methods with black women, Few, Stephens, & Rouse-Arnett (2003) noted that quantitative research— although quite useful in providing reliable information on broad relationships— can miss the subtle details about the lived experiences of unique populations such as African American adolescents. The use of quantitative measures and inferential statistical may not provide a culturally specific picture of what is occurring in this population. Because this population differs from other racial/ethnic groups in their identities, experiences within mainstream cultures, and ADV outcomes, researchers should obtain a deep understanding of their unique experiences across contexts before developing and testing quantitative models. This deeper understanding requires identifying and describing the subjective perceptions and experiences of adolescent African American’s ADV beliefs and behaviors (Few et al., 2003). Furthermore, such information must be dynamically sized and applied (Sue, 1998), integrating an understanding of the diverse within-group differences shaping this populations’ experiences, such as location (e.g., rural verse urban), SES, and familial nation of origin (e.g., African American, African, Caribbean). For example, youth living in low-income inner-city areas may be at higher risk for ADV victimization and related stressors, with African American adolescents being disproportionately represented in these contexts (Foshee et al. 2008; Spriggs, Halpern, Herring, & Schoenbach, 2009). Qualitative approaches provide the best opportunity to provide a detailed understanding of problematic dating situations for adolescents within and across specific socio-ecological contexts. Unfortunately, few qualitative studies have explored the contextual and situational dynamics that place African American youth at risk for emotional distress and conflicts in dating experiences (e.g., Stephens & Eaton, 2016; Sullivan, Erwin, Helms, Masho, &

250

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Farrell, 2010). This situation is particularly problematic given that qualitative approaches would be ideal for comprehensively exploring this sensitive topic. Through in-depth interviews, for example, researchers can gather data on adolescent African Americans’ personal experiences, perceptions, and personal narratives about ADV, including which social networks are most important, familial/kinship experiences with violence, and their perceptions of options for avoiding perpetration or victimization. By centering adolescents’ subjective experiences, researchers will arrive at increased understandings of culturally relevant points for intervention and change. Furthermore, through qualitative approaches, participants become active agents in the research process through the sharing and analyzing of meanings, social rules, values, and motives that govern ADV within their specific context (Few et al., 2003; Karnieli-Miller, Strier, & Pessach, 2009).

The Use of Culturally Congruent Terms and Measures Research using qualitative methods can contribute to the development of culturally appropriate quantitative measures. Currently, most psychological scales are developed and validated using samples of convenience, often undergraduate students (e.g., Teten et al., 2009; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). Nonetheless, these scales are being widely used to assess the dating violence attitudes and experiences of racial/ethnic minority adults and adolescents (e.g., Alleyne-Green, et al., 2012; Lormand et al., 2013; Rothman et al., 2011). This generalized use of measures is concerning because African American and Hispanic adolescents assign qualitatively unique meanings to ADV that may result in inaccurate conclusions and practices (e.g., Akers, et al., 2011; Gillum, 2009; Nicolaidis et al., 2010; Stephens & Eaton, 2016; Sullivan et al., 2010). Miller (2008) found that African American girls viewed certain styles of heterosexual intimate conversation as simply a form of “running game”; current measures of ADV would have assessed these styles as verbal aggression. Similarly, behaviors that ADV measures typically define as physical aggression were found to be interpreted by both male and female African American adolescents as “just playing” (Love & Richards, 2013) or harmless (Stephens & Eaton, 2016) in some qualitative studies. Thus, it is important that researchers consider that patterns of associations among items or constructs in existing scales might differ as they reflect attributes shared among this population but not among the samples used to develop measures (DeVellis, 2016). In addition, observed mean differences between racial/ethnic minority and white adolescents on measures developed using a white sample could indicate real differences in the endorsement of ADV, or they could be the result of different factor structures across groups that masquerade as mean differences. Indeed, some work has also suggested that reports of violence in Native American communities may be overestimated due to

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

251

cultural misunderstandings between Native American interviewees and nonNative interviewers (Yuan, Koss, Polacca, & Goldman, 2006). Furthermore, interventions designed for one group but implemented with another may have effects that run counter to the intended goals (Szapocznik, Prado, Burlew, Williams, & Santisteban, 2007). For example, Muir and colleagues (2004) describe an adaptation of a Hispanic-focused substance abuse prevention program for use with African Americans. Families who were engaged and retained in the intervention evidenced worse family functioning, and more adolescent problems, compared to families in the control condition. Thus, it is essential to adopt an emic (insider) perspective on ADV among African American adolescents. By creating measures that better capture the cultural orientations and beliefs of racial/ethnic minority adolescents, researchers will open the door to even more successful interventions focused on changing ADV attitudes and behaviors in these population.

Intersectional and Within-Group Research A final recommendation for work on racial/ethnic minority ADV is to continue to pursue intersectional approaches and investigations of within-group differences. Examining how race/ethnicity, sexuality, social class, ability, and other social identities intersect to produce unique risk and protective risk factors for that population, and how they moderate the effect of existing risk and protective factors, will enable researchers and clinicians to better model and serve these populations. For example, there is tremendous cultural and geographic diversity among Native American communities (Sapra et al., 2014). With more than 567 federally recognized American Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in the United States (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2017), future work should be careful to not generalize results from one sample of Native American peoples to others. However, rather than looking purposefully at within-group differences, much of the current literature on adolescent ADV examines the effect of a single identity or characteristic (e.g., ability) on ADV outcomes, while merely controlling for the effects of other identities or characteristics (e.g., race) (e.g., Mitra, Mouradian, & McKenna, 2013). Naturally, this kind of work means recruiting and running larger samples with increasingly rare participants, which presents practical challenges. We therefore recommend greater federal and local funding and support to make this critically important intersectional work possible in our increasingly complex and global society.

REFERENCES Adams-Bass, V., Stevenson, H., & Kotzin, D. (2014). Measuring the meaning of Black media stereotypes and their relationship to the racial identity, Black history knowledge, and racial socialization of African American youth. Journal of Black Studies, 45, 367 395.

252

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Akers, A., Yonas, M., Burke, J., & Chang, J. (2011). Do you want somebody treating your sister like that? Qualitative exploration of how African American families discuss and promote healthy teen dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2165 2185. Alleyne-Green, B., Coleman-Cowger, V., & Henry, D. B. (2012). Dating violence perpetration and/or victimization and associated sexual risk behaviors among a sample of inner-city African American and Hispanic adolescent females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (8), 1457 1473. Andsager, J., & Roe, K. (2003). “What’s your definition of dirty, baby?”: Sex in music video. Sexuality & Culture, 7(3), 79 97. Bickham, D. S., Vandewater, E. A., Huston, A. C., Lee, J. H., Caplovitz, A. G., & Wright, J. C. (2003). Predictors of children’s electronic media use: An examination of three ethnic groups. Media Psychology, 5(2), 107 137. Black, B. M., Chido, L. M., Preble, K. M., Weisz, A. N., Yoon, J. S., Delaney-Black, V., . . . Lewandowski, L. (2015). Violence exposure and teen dating violence among African American youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(12), 2174 2195. Black, B. M., & Weisz, A. N. (2003). Dating violence: Help-seeking behaviors of African American middle schoolers. Violence Against Women, 9(2), 187 206. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., Nemeth, J., Bartle-Haring, S., Buettner, C., & Schipper, D. (2012). Dating violence victimization across the teen years: Abuse frequency, number of abusive partners, and age at first occurrence. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 637 647. Bowen, E., & Walker, K. (2015). Risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence. In E. Bowen, & K. Walker (Eds.), The psychology of violence in adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 52 72). New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Brave Heart, M. Y., & DeBruyn, L. M. (1998). The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8(2), 60 82. Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M. T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(8). Retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6308.pdf. Bryant, Y. (2008). Relationships between exposure to rap music videos and attitudes toward relationships among African American youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 34(3), 356 380. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Who we are. (2017). Retrieved from https://bia.gov/WhoWeAre/index. htm. Accessed 13.02.17. Burnette, C. E. (2015). Disentangling indigenous women’s experiences with intimate partner violence in the United States. Critical Social Work, 16(1), 1 20. Burnette, C. E., & Hefflinger, T. S. (2017). Identifying community risk factors for violence against indigenous women: A framework of historical oppression and resilience. Journal of Community Psychology. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21879. Advance online publication. Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (2013). What does research suggest are the primary risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence (IPV) and what is the role of economic factors? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(1), 128 137.

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

253

Castillo, L. G., Lopez-Arenas, A., & Saldivar, I. M. (2010). The influence of acculturation and enculturation on Mexican American high school students’ decision to apply to college. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 38, 88 98. Children’s Safety Network. Teen dating violence as a public health issue. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/sites/childrenssafetynetwork.org/ files/TeenDatingViolenceasaPublicHealthIssue.pdf. Accessed 12.01.17. ChildTrends. Watching Television. (2014). Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/55_Watching_TV.pdf. Accessed 10.01.17. Chiodo, D., Crooks, C. V., Wolfe, D. A., McIsaac, C., Huges, 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. 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 influence mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(4), 854 866. Choi-Misailidis, S., Hishinuma, E. S., Nishimura, S. T., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2008). Dating violence victimization among Asian American and Pacific Islander youth in Hawaii. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8(4), 403 422. Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170 180. Comas-Dı´az, L. (1995). Puerto Ricans and sexual child abuse. In L. A. Fontes (Ed.), Sexual abuse in nine North American cultures: Treatment and prevention (pp. 31 66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cooper, S. M. (2009). Associations between father-daughter relationship quality and the academic engagement of African American adolescent girls: Self-esteem as a mediator? Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 495 516. Crenshaw, K. (1993). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241 1299. Cuevas, C. A., Bell, K. A., & Sabina, C. (2014). Victimization, psychological distress, and help-seeking: Disentangling the relationship for Latina victims. Psychology of Violence, 4(2), 196 209. Cuevas, C. A., Sabina, C., & Bell, K. A. (2014). Dating violence and interpersonal victimization among a national sample of Latino youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(4), 564 570. Debnam, K. J., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016). Examining the contemporaneous occurrence of bullying and teen dating violence victimization. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 76 90. Denham, A. R. (2008). Rethinking historical trauma: Narratives of resilience. Transcultural Psychiatry, 45, 391 414. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th Ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. DuPont-Reyes, M., Fry, D., Rickert, V., & Davidson, L. L. (2015). Adolescent relationship violence and acculturation among NYC Latinos. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(7), 1543 1552. Duran, E., & Duran, B. (1995). Native American postcolonial psychology. Albany: SUNY Press. Duran, E., Duran, B., Brave Heart, M. Y. H., & Yellow Horse-Davis, S. (1998). Healing the American Indian soul wound. In Y. Danieli (Ed.), International handbook of multigenerational legacies of trauma (pp. 341 354). New York: Plenum. Earnest, A. A., & Brady, S. S. (2016). Dating violence victimization among high school students in Minnesota: Associations with family violence, unsafe schools, and resources for support. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(3), 383 406.

254

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

East, P. L., & Hokoda, A. (2015). Risk and protective factors for sexual and dating violence victimization: A longitudinal, prospective study of Latino and African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(6), 1288 1300. Eaton, A. A., & Matamala, A. (2014). The relationship between heteronormative beliefs and verbal sexual coercion in college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1443 1457. Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2012). Scripts for actual first date and hanging-out encounters among young heterosexual Hispanic adults. Sex Roles, 67, 285 299. Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J. G., Hawkins, J., . . . Wechsler, H. (2008). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2007 ((Vol. 57). Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Elias-Lambert, N., Black, B. M., & Chigbu, K. U. (2014). Controlling behaviors in middle school youth’s dating relationships: Reactions and help-seeking behaviors. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(7), 841 865. Ellis, W. E., Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Relational aggression in peer and dating relationships: Links to psychological and behavioral adjustment. Social Development, 18, 253 269. Enriquez, M., Kelly, P. J., Cheng, A., Hunter, J., & Mendez, E. (2012). An intervention to address interpersonal violence among low-income midwestern Hispanic-American teens. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 14(2), 292 299. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71 78. Fasula, A. M., & Miller, K. S. (2006). African-American and Hispanic adolescents’ intentions to delay first intercourse: Parental communication as a buffer for sexually active peers. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38(3), 193 200. Ferguson, R. F. (2016). Race, gender, sexuality, and social class: Dimensions of inequality. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Few, A. L., Stephens, D. P., & Rouse-Arnett, M. (2003). Sister-to-sister talk: Transcending boundaries and challenges in qualitative research with black women. Family Relations, 52, 205 215. Fluharty, M. HUD study shows more than one in four Native American renters face discrimination. (2003). Retrieved from https://archives.hud.gov/news/2003/pr03-126.cfm. Accessed 13.02.17. Forster, M., Grigsby, T., Soto, D. W., Schwartz, S. J., & Unger, J. B. (2015). The role of bicultural stress and perceived context of reception in the expression of aggression and rule breaking behaviors among recent-immigrant Hispanic youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(11), 1807 1827. Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Faris, R., Chang, L., . . . Suchindran, C. M. (2013). The peer context and the development of the perpetration of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 471 486. Foshee, V. A., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2005). The association between family violence and adolescent dating violence onset: Does it vary by race, socioeconomic status, and family structure? The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(3), 317 344. Foshee, V. A., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E., & Benefield, T. S. (2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual mediators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 596 604.

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

255

Foshee, V. A., McNaughton Reyes, L., Tharp, A. T., Chang, L., Ennett, S. T., Simon, T. R., . . . Suchindran, C. (2015). Shared longitudinal predictors of physical peer and dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(1), 106 112. French, B. H. (2013). More than jezebels and freaks: Exploring how black girls navigate sexual coercion and sexual scripts. Journal of African American Studies, 17(1), 35 50. Galanti, G. (2003). The Hispanic family and male-female relationships: An overview. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14, 180 185. Gerdes, K., Napoli, M., Pattea, C. M., & Segal, E. A. (1998). The impact of Indian gaming on economic development. Journal of Poverty, 2(4), 17 30. Gillum, T. L. (2009). Improving services to African American survivors of IPV. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 57 80. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208328375. Gonza´lez-Guarda, R. M., McCabe, B. E., Florom-Smith, A., Cianelli, R., & Peragallo, N. (2011). Substance abuse, violence, HIV, and depression: An underlying syndemic factor among Latinas. Nursing Research, 60(3), 182 189. Guilamo-Ramos, V. (2009). Maternal influence on adolescent self-esteem, ethnic pride and intentions to engage in risk behavior in Latino youth. Prevention Science, 10(4), 366 375. Haglund, K., Belknap, R. A., & Garcia, J. T. (2012). Mexican American female adolescents’ perceptions of relationships and dating violence. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(3), 215 222. Hautala, D. S., Sittner Hartshorn, K. J., Armenta, B., & Whitbeck, L. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of physical dating violence among North American indigenous adolescents. Youth & Society, 49(3), 295 317. Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B., & Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among U.S. adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associations with health complaints and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 (2), 194 201. Henry, R. R., & Zeytinoglu, S. (2012). African Americans and teen dating violence. American Journal of Family Therapy, 40(1), 20 32. Hernandez, D., Weinstein, H., & Munoz-Laboy, M. (2011). Youth perspectives on the intersections of violence, gender, and hip-hop. Youth & Society, 44, 587 608. Horowitz, K., McKay, M., & Marshall, R. (2005). Community violence and urban families: Experiences, effects, and directions for intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(3), 356 368. Howard, D. E., Beck, K., Hallmark-Kerr, M., & Shattuck, T. (2005). Psychosocial correlates of dating violence victimization among Latino youth. Adolescence, 40, 319 331. Irwin, P. D. (2011). Learning from the American ghetto: A comprehensive analysis of African American inner cities. Agora Journal of Urban Planning and Design, 9 16. Kapungu, C. T., Baptiste, D., Holmbeck, G., Mcbride, C., Robinson-Brown, M., Sturdivant, A., . . . Paikoff, R. (2010). Beyond the “birds and the bees”: Gender differences in sex-related communication among urban African-American adolescents. Family Process, 49(2), 251 264. Karch, D. L., Logan, J., McDaniel, D., Parks, S., & Patel, N. (2012). Surveillance for violent deaths: National violent death reporting system, 16 states, 2009. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 61, 1 43. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6106.pdf. Karnieli-Miller, O., Strier, R., & Pessach, L. (2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279 289. Kennedy, A. (2008). An ecological approach to examining cumulative violence exposure among urban, African American adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 25, 25 41.

256

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Kyriakakis, S., Dawson, B., & Edmond, T. (2012). Mexican immigrant survivors of intimate partner violence: Conceptualization and descriptions of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27, 548 562. Landor, A. M., Hurt, T. R., Futris, T., Barton, A. W., McElroy, S. E., & Sheats, K. (2017). Relationship contexts as sources of socialization: An exploration of intimate partner violence experiences of economically disadvantaged African American adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0650-z. Advance online publication. Lara, M., Gamboa, C., Kahramanian, M. I., Morales, L. S., & Bautista, D. E. H. (2005). Acculturation and Latino health in the United States: A review of the literature and its sociopolitical context. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 367 397. Lenhart, A. Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. (2015). Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/. Accessed 16.03.17. Lormand, D. K., Markham, C. M., Peskin, M. F., Byrd, T. L., Addy, R. C., Baumler, E., & Tortolero, S. R. (2013). Dating violence among urban, minority, middle school youth and associated sexual risk behaviors and substance use. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 415 421. Love, S. R., & Richards, T. N. (2013). An exploratory investigation of adolescent intimate partner violence among African American youth: A gendered analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(17), 3342 3366. Makin-Byrd, K., & Bierman, K. L. (2013). Individual and family predictors of the perpetration of dating violence and victimization in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 536 550. Malcoe, L. H., Duran, B. M., & Montgomery, J. M. (2004). Socioeconomic disparities in intimate partner violence against Native American women: A cross-sectional study. BMC Medicine, 2(20), 1 14. Marrs Fuchsel, C. L., Murphy, S. B., & Dufresne, R. (2012). Domestic violence, culture, and relationship dynamics among immigrant Mexican women. Journal of Women and Social Work, 27(3), 263 274. Matamonasa-Bennett, A. (2015). “A disease of the outside people”: Native American men’s perceptions of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(1), 20 36. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771 1800. Miller, J. (2008). Getting played: African American girls, urban inequality, and gendered violence. New York: NYU Press. Miller, S., Williams, J., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2013). Dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 607 618. Mitra, M., Mouradian, V. E., & McKenna, M. (2013). Dating violence and associated health risks among high school students with disabilities. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 17 (6), 1088 1094. Mohatt, N. V., Thompson, A. B., Thai, N. D., & Tebes, J. K. (2014). Historical trauma as public narrative: A conceptual review of how history impacts present-day health. Social Science & Medicine, 106, 128 136. Muir, J. A., Schwartz, S. J., & Szapocznik, J. (2004). A program of research with Hispanic and African American Families: Three decades of intervention development and testing influenced by the changing cultural context of Miami. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(3), 285 303.

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

257

Mulder, J., Bogt, T. F., Raaijmakers, Q. A., Gabhainn, S. N., Monshouwer, K., & Vollebergh, W. A. (2010). Is it the music? Peer substance use as a mediator of the link between music preferences and adolescent substance use. Journal of Adolescence, 33(3), 387 394. Mun˜oz-Laboy, M., Weinstein, H., & Parker, R. (2007). The Hip-Hop club scene: Gender, grinding and sex. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 9(6), 615 628. Murray, A., Ellis, M. U., Castellanos, T., Gaul, Z., Sutton, M. Y., & Sneed, C. D. (2014). Sexual health discussions between African-American mothers and mothers of Latino descent and their children. Sex Education, 14(5), 597 608. Nicolaidis, C., Timmons, V., Thomas, M. J., Waters, A. S., Wahab, S., Mejia, A., & Mitchell, S. R. (2010). “You don’t go tell White people nothing”: African American women’s perspectives on the influence of violence and race on depression and depression care. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1470 1476. Oetzel, J., & Duran, B. (2004). Intimate partner violence in American Indian and/or Alaska native communities: A social ecological framework of determinants and interventions. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 11(3), 49 68. Oramas, L., Stephens, D. P., & Whiddon, M. (2015). The influence of parental conflict resolution strategies on Hispanic college women’s experiences with verbal aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(19), 2908 2928. O’Sullivan, L. F., Meyer-Bahlburg, H., & Watkins, B. (2001). Mother-daughter communication about sex among urban African American and Latino families. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 269 292. Pavkov, T. W., Travis, L., Fox, K. A., King, C. B., & Cross, T. L. (2010). Tribal youth victimization and delinquency: Analysis of youth risk behavior surveillance survey data. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(2), 123 134. Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., & Tortolero, S. R. (2014). Effects of the It’s Your Game. . .Keep It real program on dating violence in ethnicminority middle school youths: A group randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 104(8), 1471 1477. Available from https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301902. Ross, J. N., & Coleman, N. M. (2011). Gold digger or video girl: The salience of an emerging hip-hop sexual script. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 13(2), 157 171. Rothman, E. F., Stuart, G. L., Greenbaum, P. E., Heeren, T., Bowen, D. J., Vinci, R., . . . Bernstein, J. (2011). Drinking style and dating violence in a sample of urban, alcohol-using youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72(4), 555 566. Sabina, C., Cuevas, C. A., & Lannen, E. (2014). The likelihood of Latino women to seek help in response to interpersonal victimization: An examination of individual, interpersonal and sociocultural influences. Psychosocial Intervention, 23(2), 95 103. Sandefur, G. D. (1989). American Indian reservations: The first underclass areas? Focus, 12(1), 37 41. Sanderson, M., Coker, A. L., Roberts, R. E., Tortolero, S. R., & Reininger, B. M. (2004). Acculturation, ethnic identity, and dating violence among Latino ninth-grade students. Preventative Medicine, 39, 373 383. Sapra, J. S., Jubinski, S. M., Tanaka, M., & Gershon, R. R. (2014). Family and partner interpersonal violence among American Indians/Alaska Natives. Injury Epidemiology, 1(7), 1 14. Schnurr, M. P., & Lohman, B. J. (2013). The impact of collective efficacy on risks for adolescents’ perpetration of dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 518 535. Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Rosiers, S. E., Villamar, J. A., Soto, D. W., . . . Szapocznik, J. (2014). Perceived context of reception among recent Hispanic

258

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

immigrants: Conceptualization, instrument development, and preliminary validation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(1), 1 15. Schwartz, S. J., Waterman, A. S., Uman˜a-Taylor, A. J., Lee, R. M., Kim, S. Y., Vazsonyi, A. T., . . . Williams, M. K. (2013). Acculturation and well-being among college students from immigrant families. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 298 318. Scott, D., & Langhorne, A. (2012). Believing in native girls: Characteristics from a baseline assessment. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 19(1), 15 36. Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Mucci, L., & Hathaway, J. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572 579. Smokowski, P. R., David-Ferdon, C., & Stroupe, N. (2009). Acculturation and violence in minority adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(3-4), 215 263. Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R. A., & Bacallao, M. (2010). Influence of risk factors and cultural assets on Latino adolescents’ trajectories of self-esteem and internalizing symptoms. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 41(2), 133 155. Sneed, C. D., Somoza, C. G., Jones, T., & Alfaro, S. (2013). Topics discussed with mothers and fathers for parent child sex communication among African-American adolescents. Sex Education, 13(4), 450 458. Snethen, G., & Van Puymbroeck, M. (2008). Girls and physical aggression: Causes, trends, and intervention guided by social learning theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(5), 346 354. Sobralske, M. C. (2006a). Health care seeking among Mexican American men. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 17, 129 138. Sobralske, M. C. (2006b). Machismo sustains health and illness beliefs of Mexican American men. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 18, 348 350. Spriggs, A. L., Halpern, C. T., Herring, A. H., & Schoenbach, V. J. (2009). Family and school socioeconomic disadvantage: Interactive influences on adolescent dating violence victimization. Social Science & Medicine, 68(11), 1956 1965. Stephens, D. P. (2012). The influence of mainstream Hip Hop’s female sexual scripts on African American women’s dating relationship experiences. In M. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology of love (pp. 69 83). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Stephens, D. P., & Eaton, A. A. (2014). Masculinity scripts and heterosexual Hispanic college men’s perceptions of female initiated sexual coercion. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15, 387 396. Stephens, D. P., & Eaton, A. A. (2016). Social networks influencing urban black girls’ interpretations of Chris Brown’s violence against Rihanna. Journal of Black Psychology, 43(4), 381 408. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798416648829. Stephens, D. P., Eaton, A. A., & Boyd, B. (2017). Hispanic college men’s perceptions of appropriate strategies for initiating sexual intercourse with women. Sex Roles, 77(3-4), 239 253. Stephens, D. P., & Few, A. L. (2007a). Hip Hop honeys or video hos: African American preadolescents’ understandings of popular culture-based female sexual scripts. Sexuality and Culture, 11, 48 69. Stephens, D. P., & Few, A. L. (2007b). The effects of images of African American women in Hip Hop on early adolescents’ attitudes toward physical attractiveness and interpersonal relationships. Sex Roles, 56, 251 264. Stephens, D. P., & Phillips, L. D. (2003). Freaks, gold diggers, divas, and dykes: The sociohistorical development of adolescent African American women’s sexual scripts. Sexuality & Culture, 7, 3 47.

Ethnically Diverse Youth Chapter | 10

259

Stephens, D. P., Phillips, L. D., & Few, A. L. (2009). Examining African American female adolescent sexuality within mainstream Hip Hop culture using a womanist-ecological model of human development. In S. Loyd, A. Few, & K. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of Feminist Theory, Methods and Praxis in Family Studies (pp. 160 174). Newbury Park: Sage. Stepler, R., & Brown, A. Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.pewHispanic.org/2016/04/19/statistical-portrait-of-Hispanics-in-the-unitedstates-key-charts/. Accessed 03.03.2017. Stokes, C. E. (2007). Representin’ in cyberspace: Sexual scripts, self-definition, and hip hop culture in black American adolescent girls’ home pages, March-April Culture, Health & Sexuality, 9(2), 169 184. Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling. American Psychologist, 53, 440 448. Sullivan, T. N., Erwin, E. H., Helms, S. W., Masho, S. W., & Farrell, A. D. (2010). Problematic situations associated with dating experiences and relationships among urban African American adolescents: A qualitative study. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 31(5-6), 365 378. Szapocznik, J., Prado, G., Burlew, A. K., Williams, R. A., & Santisteban, D. A. (2007). Drug abuse in African American and Hispanic adolescents: Culture, development, and behavior. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 77 105. Temple, J. R., Choi, H. J., Elmquist, J., Hecht, M., Miller-Day, M., Stuart, G. L., . . . WolfordClevenger, C. (2016). Psychological abuse, mental health, and acceptance of dating violence among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(2), 197 202. Temple, J. R., Shorey, R. C., Fite, P., Stuart, G. L., & Donna Le, V. (2012). Substance use as a longitudinal predictor of the perpetration of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 596 606. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9877-1. Teten, A. L., et al. (2009). Considerations for the definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimization among adolescent girls. Journal of Womens Health, 18(7), 923 927. Available from https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1515. Ulloa, E. C., Jaycox, L. H., Marshall, G. N., & Collins, R. L. (2004). Acculturation, gender stereotypes, and attitudes about dating violence among Latino youth. Violence and Victims, 19(3), 273 287. United States. (2013). Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. US Census Bureau. New census bureau report analyzes US population projections. (2015). http:// www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html. Accessed 13.02.2017. US Department of Justice 2012 hate crime statistics. (2012). Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/ hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/victims_final. Accessed 03.03.2017. Usher-Seriki, K., Bynum, M. S., & Callands, T. A. (2008). Mother-daughter communication about sex and sexual intercourse among middle- to upper-class African American girls. Journal of Family Issues, 29(7), 901 917. Vagi, K. J., Olsen, E. O., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo-Kantor, A. M. (2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among US high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Journal of the American Medical Association: Pediatrics, 169, 474 482. ´ ., & de la Luz, A. M. (2013). Valdez-Santiago, R., Hı´jar, M., Martı´nez, R. R., Burgos, L. A Prevalence and severity of intimate partner violence in women living in eight indigenous regions of Mexico. Social Science & Medicine, 82, 51 57. Varcoe, C., Browne, A. J., Ford-Gilboe, M., Dion Stout, M., McKenzie, H., Price, R., . . . Merritt-Gray, M. (2017). Reclaiming our spirits: Development and pilot testing of a health

260

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

promotion intervention for indigenous women who have experienced intimate partner violence. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(3), 237 254. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1002/nur.21795. Advance online publication. Villegas, N., Cianelli, R., Gonza´lez-Guarda, R., Kaelber, L., Ferrer, L., & Peragallo, N. (2013). Predictors of self-efficacy for HIV prevention among Hispanic women in South Florida. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 24(1), 27 37. Voisin, D. R., Hotton, A. L., & Neilands, T. B. (2014). Testing pathways linking exposure to community violence and sexual behaviors among African American youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(9), 1513 1526. Walsh, J. L., Senn, T. E., & Carey, M. P. (2012). Exposure to different types of violence and subsequent sexual risk behavior among female sexually transmitted disease clinic patients: A latent class analysis. Psychology of Violence, 2(4), 339 354. Walters, K. L., & Simoni, J. M. (2002). Reconceptualizing native women’s health: An “indigenist” stress-coping model. American Journal of Public Health, 92(4), 520 524. Weaver, H. N. (2009). The colonial context of violence: Reflections on violence in the lives of Native American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(9), 1552 1563. West, C. M., & Rose, S. (2000). Dating aggression among low income African American youth: An examination of gender differences and antagonistic beliefs. Violence Against Women, 6, 470 495. Whitbeck, L., Sittner Hartshorn, K., & Walls, M. (2014). Indigenous adolescent development: Psychological, social and historical contexts. New York: Psychology Press. Wingood, G. M., DiClemente, R. J., Bernhardt, J. M., Harrington, K., Davies, S. L., Robillard, A., et al. (2003). A prospective study of exposure to rap music videos and African American female adolescents’ health. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 437 440. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806 838. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127. Yuan, N. P., Belcourt-Dittloff, A., Schultz, K., Packard, G., & Duran, B. M. (2015). Research agenda for violence against American Indian and Alaska native women: Toward the development of strength-based and resilience interventions. Psychology of Violence, 5(4), 367 373. Yuan, N. P., Koss, M. P., Polacca, M., & Goldman, D. (2006). Risk factors for physical assault and rape among six native American tribes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 1566 1590. Zweig, J.M., Dank, M., Lachman, P., & Yahner, J. Technology, teen dating violence and abuse, and bullying. US Department of Justice. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/nij/grants/243296.pdf. Accessed on 20.01.17.

Chapter 11

Are Neighborhood Factors Associated with Teen Dating Violence? Let Us Examine the Evidence Elizabeth M. Leiman Parker Division of Public Behavioral Health & Justice Policy, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States

This chapter explores how characteristics of neighborhoods can affect rates of teen dating violence (TDV). There is a substantial body of literature documenting the relationship between the multiple ecological levels and TDV; however, less is known about neighborhoods and TDV (Johnson, Parker, Rinehart, Nail, & Rothman, 2015; Rothman et al., 2011; Vagi et al., 2013). We will draw from the comparatively robust body of literature focusing on adult partner violence to illustrate the potential for certain neighborhood characteristics to affect differences in TDV. Neighborhood is an important context for adolescent socialization and also happens to be a setting in which interpersonal relationships often develop. This chapter provides an overview of work in the area of neighborhoods and TDV, discusses methodological challenges and research gaps, and concludes with a discussion of the implications of this work for the field of public health.

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND MAGNITUDE Adolescence is a developmental period when dating behavior is first initiated and when the risk of abuse by or against a dating partner emerges (Hickman, Jaycox, & Aronoff, 2004). TDV victimization is a major public health problem; at least 9% of youth in the United States report being victims of physical TDV in the last year (National Center for HIV/AIDS, 2012), while 29% report being victims of psychological TDV (Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001). Physical victimization by a boyfriend or girlfriend includes pinching, hitting, shoving, slapping, punching, or kicking (Division of Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00011-6 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

261

262

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Violence Prevention, 2014), and psychological victimization includes being sworn at, insulted, or threatened. Estimates of TDV vary because of differences in definitions, variants in measures used to assess TDV, sample characteristics, time periods (lifetime vs past year), and study design (Glass et al., 2003; Haynie et al., 2013). Despite the variability, TDV victimization affects a sizable number of youth. Studies show that TDV victimization and perpetration are associated with negative physical and mental health consequences, similar to those seen in adult victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) (Banyard & Cross, 2008). Outcomes associated with experiencing dating violence may include depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, poor educational outcomes (e.g., dropout), substance use, dismissive attitudes about violence, and behavioral problems (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Silverman, Raj, & Clements, 2004). Individuals who experience dating violence in their adolescent relationships are at increased risk for continuing to experience violence in their adult intimate relationships (Glass et al., 2003; Manchikanti Go´mez, 2011). Similarly, individuals who perpetrate violence in their adolescent relationships are at increased risk of continuing the behavior in their adult intimate relationships (Gidycz, Warkentin, & Orchowski, 2007).

DEFINITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD A primary issue in the study of neighborhood factors and TDV is the definition and operationalization of a “neighborhood.” Neighborhood boundaries are challenging to draw because there is little agreement on what constitutes a neighborhood. According to Coulton, Korbin and Su (1996), the “concept of neighborhood implies local communities that are bounded spatially.” The most widely used approach to defining neighborhoods includes using geographic measures of neighborhood such as zip codes and census tracts, which can then be subdivided into blocks groups (Coulton et al., 1996; Mair, Roux, & Galea, 2008). Block groups are the smallest geographic unit for which the Census Bureau tabulates sample data. The Census further subdivides communities using census blocks, but because data are not always available at this unit of measurement (often due to privacy), it is used less frequently (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). The trouble with using zip codes or the Census’ definitions of neighborhood is that they may not be meaningful to residents, which leads us to another way in which we can define neighborhood, by asking residents. Residents’ perceptions, however, are often different from each other, and if we ask for a definition from a particular resident, we may also see a range of definitions depending on the context and how the question is posed (Coulton et al., 1996). Neighborhoods may also be defined by the categories or typologies researchers are intending to evaluate or learn more about, including the following characteristics: personal views (neighborhood identity), functional

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

263

views (access to grocery stores or markets), social views (social interactions and relationships), physical views (streets and sidewalks), economic views (home ownership or business ownership), or political views (neighborhood associations) (Talen & Shah, 2007). While we can use the Census’ definitions, residents’ definitions, or researchers’ definitions, our choice will often be based on particular research questions or hypothesized causal pathways. In the absence of a clear definition, we should acknowledge the possibility that the definition we choose may influence the results of our research (Mair et al., 2008).

NEIGHBORHOODS AND HEALTH Much of the research on TDV has focused on individual-level factors including substance use, history of mental health problems (e.g., depression, anxiety), early initiation of sexual activity, or having witnessed or experienced violence in the home (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Recently, however, there has been a shift with researchers starting to focus on the neighborhood environment and the role it may play in influencing TDV. Studies that attempt to determine the role individual- and neighborhood-level determinants play in influencing rates of TDV are part of larger body of research focusing on neighborhood factors and a range of health topics. Over the past two decades, the role of neighborhood factors in health has been the focus of a broad array of research. This growing body of work suggests that neighborhood environment is related to a number of health behaviors and outcomes including BMI and obesity; mental health; pregnancy and birth outcomes; cancer screening, diagnosis, and survival; self-rated health; mortality; alcohol and substance use; sexual health and sexually transmitted infections among a number of others (Arcaya et al., 2016). In thinking about why the interest in neighborhoods and health has increased, Diez Roux and Mair (2010) propose four reasons. First is the recognition that individual-based explanations for poor health do not fully account for the distribution of health determinants (Diez Roux & Mair, 2010). Second is to better understand the persistent racial and ethnic differences across a range of health outcomes that cannot be explained by individual-level factors alone (Krieger, 1994). For example, where an individual lives is often determined by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position. A third reason is the development and proliferation of more sophisticated approaches to modeling and analyzing data, including multilevel analysis, as well as the availability of programming software to conduct spatial analysis. Lastly is the acknowledgment that policies and programs that are not explicitly targeting population health may still have significant public health implications. Many of these policies, such as zoning or housing policy, could influence health through their impact on the neighborhoods in which individuals live.

264

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

THEORY AND CAUSES Much of the research on the influence of neighborhoods on partner violence can be framed using the social ecological models (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the broken windows theory (Wilson & Kelling, 1982), and the social disorganization theory (Shaw & McKay, 1942). These theoretical perspectives illustrate how two aspects of the neighborhood, the physical and social environment, merge to influence individual behaviors.

SOCIAL ECOLOGICAL MODELS Social ecological models provide a framework for contextualizing health behaviors within the larger social and environmental contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988; Sallis, Owen, & Fisher, 2008). With a focus on the interaction between an individual and their physical and sociocultural environment, a fundamental concept of social ecological models is that behavior affects and is affected by multiple levels of influence (Glanz & Rimer, 1997; Sallis et al., 2008). A second key concept is that individual behavior “both shapes and is shaped by, the social environment” (Glanz & Rimer, 1997). Researchers have adapted this type of nested model in their own work because it allows for the recognition that individual behaviors may be influenced by environmental factors that are both proximal and distal to the individual. The categories and hierarchies of behavioral influences can be described in several ways (Sallis et al., 2008). Table 11.1 provides descriptions of two specific social ecological models and levels of influence. In Bronfenbrenner’s Systems Theory, he divides environmental influences on an individual’s development into the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macrosystem levels of influence (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; McLeroy et al., 1988). Similarly, an adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s model is McElroy’s Ecological Model for Health Promotion (McLeroy et al., 1988). With McElroy’s model, behavior is viewed as being influenced by public policy, as well as intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and community factors. Although there are several variations to the social ecological model, its primary purpose is to aid in the development of inclusive intervention approaches that can systematically focus on mechanisms of change at varying levels of influence (Sallis et al., 2008). It is assumed that behavior change will be greatest when “environments and policies support healthful choices, when social norms and social support for healthful choices are strong, and when individuals are motivated and educated to make these choices” (Sallis et al., 2008).

BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY One pathway that may help explain the association between neighborhood factors and TDV is the broken windows theory. This theory, described by Wilson

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

265

TABLE 11.1 Social Ecological Models: Levels of Influence

Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)

Ecological Model for Health Promotion (McLeroy et al., 1988)

Concept

Definition

Microsystem

Face-to-face influences in specific settings, including interactions within an individual’s immediate family, informal social networks, or work groups.

Mesosystem

Interrelations among the different settings in which an individual is involved, including family, school, peer groups, and church.

Exosystem

Forces within the larger social system in which the individual is embedded.

Macrosystem

Cultural beliefs and values that influence both the microsystem and the macrosystem.

Intrapersonal level

Individual characteristics that influence behavior, such as knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and personality traits.

Interpersonal level

Interpersonal processes and primary groups, including family, friends, and peers that provide social identity, support, and role definition.

Institutional factors

Rules, regulations, policies, and informal structures, which may constrain or promote recommended behaviors.

Community factors

Social networks and norms, or standards, which exist as formal or informal among individuals, groups, and organizations.

Public policy

Local, state, and federal policies and laws that regulate or support healthy actions and practices for disease prevention, early detection, control, and management.

Source: Adapted and modified from Glanz and Rimer (1997).

and Kelling, associates crime with disorder: “. . .if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken . . . one broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing” (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The theory suggests that a neighborhood’s appearance, specifically the physical environment, is indicative of the kinds of behavior that are acceptable in that neighborhood (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). A disordered physical environment is not only a result of neglect but also a sign to others that behaviors that are often forbidden elsewhere are tolerated in a given environment (Wilson & Kelling, 1982).

266

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

While the physical conditions of a neighborhood may be deteriorating (e.g., adults stop disciplining unruly children, litter accumulates, people drink alcohol publicly, windows are broken, weeds are growing), serious and violent crime may not necessarily be increasing (though the community member perceptions may be otherwise) (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Given the perceived link, as social disorder increases, community members may believe that serious and violent crime is similarly increasing, and they will adjust their behavior accordingly (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Wilson and Kelling write, “They will use the streets less often, and when on the streets will stay apart from their fellows, moving with averted eyes, silent lips and hurried steps” (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). If what Wilson and Kelling (1982) are proposing is true, in certain neighborhoods the physical environment is an indicator of the type of behavior (e.g., TDV and adult partner violence) that is permitted and disapproval of such behavior is likely not to occur, especially if the behavior is occurring in private spaces. To help us better understand how neighborhoods influence health, Cohen, Mason, Farley, and Cohen (2005) developed the framework presented in Fig. 11.1. Cohen et al. (2005) suggest that neighborhood conditions may influence the health of community members by “inhibiting or facilitating risk-taking behavior, by influencing social relationships, and by exposing residents to visual cues that can arouse fear, anxiety, and depression.” One consequence of a socially disordered neighborhood may be children and youths’ long-term exposure to community violence. Studies have shown that exposure to community violence may result in youth interpreting others behaviors as having aggressive intent when the behavior is nonthreatening or ambiguous; this is referred to as hostile attribution bias (Bradshaw, Rodgers, Ghandour, & Garbarino, 2009). Exposure to violence in the community also

Physical structures • Housing • Parks • Transportation • Markets • Urban/suburban design

Situational opportunities and exposures

Socioeconomic status

Health outcomes Social structures • Schools • Jobs • Voluntary organizations • Law enforcement

Health behaviors

FIGURE 11.1 Broken windows theory: environmental influences and health. Cohen et al. (2005).

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

267

conveys to youth the message that violence is a normal behavior, thereby desensitizing youth (Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, Jacques-Tiura, & Baltes, 2009; Reyes, Foshee, Tharp, Ennett, & Bauer, 2015).

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY The other pathway that may explain the relationship between neighborhood and TDV is the social disorganization theory, which suggests that neighborhoods characterized by low socioeconomic status, high ethnic heterogeneity, high residential mobility, and family disruption are expected to have higher crime and delinquency rates because of their reduced capacity to exert formal and informal social control (Shaw & McKay, 1942). This theory was initially conceived to relate the neighborhood environment to crime and violence (i.e., “public violence”); however, it is consistently applied to adult partner violence (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, 2003; Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Harris, 2010; Chang, Foshee, Reyes, Ennett, & Halpern, 2015; Jain, Buka, Subramanian, & Molnar, 2010; Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003). Browning, Soller, and Jackson (2015) have aptly noted that IPV differs from other types of violence in two ways: community members’ ability to monitor partner violence, which often occurs in the privacy of individuals’ homes, and the belief that others in the community view partner violence negatively and would intervene if they witnessed partner violence. Based on this theory, TDV will likely occur at higher rates in neighborhoods that lack a structure to maintain social control (Cunradi, 2007). Neighborhoods with high rates of disorder are expected to see higher rates of TDV.

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS AND TDV It is generally believed that social and physical neighborhood characteristics are associated with TDV; however, empirical evidence confirming these relationships has lagged. While the literature on neighborhood factors and TDV is in the early stages of development, there is a substantial body of literature documenting the association between neighborhood factors, including neighborhood disorganization, limited social support, rundown or vacant housing, presence of alcohol outlets, and limited access to resources, and youth and adults experiencing violence (Gruenewald, Freisthler, Remer, LaScala, & Treno, 2006; Gruenewald & Remer, 2006; Liang & Chikritzhs, 2011; Martinez Jr, Rosenfeld, & Mares, 2008; Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001; Yonas, O’Campo, Burke, & Gielen, 2007). Similarly, there is a growing body of literature examining the association between neighborhood factors and IPV in adult populations (Beyer, Wallis, & Hamberger, 2015; Johnson et al., 2015; Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012). In fact, two comprehensive systematic reviews by Beyer et al. (2015) and Johnson et al. (2015) focused on the association between neighborhood-level factors and adult

268

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

partner violence and emerging adult partner violence, respectively, and reported positive associations between community or neighborhood characteristics and some types of partner violence. The larger body of research on adults suggests that a relationship between neighborhood factors and adolescent partner violence may exist. We can reasonably hypothesize that neighborhood factors will be found to influence rates of TDV. In this next section, we will consider neighborhood physical and social environmental factors and whether they are linked with TDV.

NEIGHBORHOOD PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The neighborhood physical environment includes features of the built environment (e.g., street connectivity, land use mix, density, transportation systems) and access to health-related resources (e.g., grocery stores, green space, medical care). Although the physical environment is often discussed as a way in which neighborhoods may influence community violence, studies of neighborhood physical environments and TDV are less common than studies of neighborhood social environments. Three of the four studies that examined the association between the physical environment and partner violence focused on alcohol outlet exposure among emerging adults. An alcohol outlet is a location where alcohol is sold legally for either on-premise or off-premise consumption. There is substantial evidence that alcohol outlet density is associated with increased rates of violence (Scribner, MacKinnon, & Dwyer, 1995). In emerging adult populations (aged 18 29 years), preliminary evidence from Waller and colleagues (Waller et al., 2013; Waller, Iritani, Flewelling, et al., 2012) supports the link between alcohol outlet density and dating violence perpetration and victimization for men but not for women (Waller, Iritani, Christ, et al., 2012). Men living in high alcohol outlet density neighborhoods had increased odds of experiencing physical IPV victimization (Waller, Iritani, Flewelling, et al., 2012) and of perpetrating physical IPV (against a woman) (Waller et al., 2013) compared to men living in low outlet density neighborhoods. However, in a study of young women by Iritani et al. (2013), it was reported that alcohol outlet density was associated with IPV perpetration. Edwards and Neal (2017), using data from 24,976 youth participating the New Hampshire Youth Risk Behavior Survey, examined population density and physical and sexual TDV victimization. Population density, which was a measure of people per square mile in the locale where the youths’ schools were located, was not related to either type of TDV.

Summary While there is some evidence indicating a positive relationship between certain neighborhood physical environmental factors, like alcohol outlets, and

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

269

adult and emerging adult partner violence, little is known about how these factors influence TDV. Furthermore, only one of the four studies that examined neighborhood physical environmental factors and partner violence included adolescents in the study population, further highlighting the dearth of extant literature in this area.

NEIGHBORHOOD SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT Using the definition provided by Suglia et al. (2016), the neighborhood social environment includes the sociodemographic makeup of the neighborhood along with social contextual features that include “relationships, groups, and social processes” that take place between individuals who live in a neighborhood. Features of the social environment include neighborhood crime and safety, disorder, segregation, poverty, social cohesion, social capital, collective efficacy, and social norms. Investigations into the neighborhood social environment and partner violence are more common than investigations into the physical environment. Even still, there are few empirical studies that have examined these associations in adolescent populations. Those that have done so focus primarily on the social organization of communities, to include collective efficacy and social support, and neighborhood disorder. Collective efficacy refers to the degree of social cohesion among neighbors along with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). It is often measured using two scales, a social control scale and a social cohesion and trust scale (Sampson et al., 1997). In adult populations, studies have found that neighborhood collective efficacy is protective against partner violence (Browning et al., 2015; Wright & Benson, 2011). Among adolescent populations, the results are less consistent. There are four studies that have examined neighborhood collective efficacy and TDV. First, in a study by Rothman et al. (2011), it was reported that lower levels of collective efficacy and social control were significantly associated with physical TDV perpetration. In comparison, Banyard, Cross, and Modecki (2006) found that among adolescents, aged 11 19 who were surveyed in targeted communities, that neighborhood support, which is a proxy measure for collective efficacy, was not associated with TDV perpetration. Then, there are two studies that found an association between collective efficacy and TDV for some adolescents and not others. For example, in one study, perceived neighborhood collective efficacy decreased Hispanic males’ perpetration of TDV, while it increased males’ and African American males’ perpetration of TDV (Schnurr & Lohman, 2013). In the other study, collective efficacy was inversely associated with male victimization but not female victimization (Jain et al., 2010). Neighborhood disorder, another frequently examined neighborhood social factor, is defined as the observed or perceived physical and social features of neighborhoods that may signal the breakdown of order and social control

270

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

(Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Examples of disorder include people drinking or using drugs in the streets, prostitution, drug dealing, gang activity, loitering, abandoned buildings, fighting, and signs of police activity. The mechanism linking neighborhood disorder and TDV is the broken windows theory, and it suggests that the appearance or condition of a neighborhood’s physical environment is symbolic of the kinds of behavior that are acceptable (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). In adult populations, neighborhood disorder is generally positively associated with partner violence (Cunradi, 2007, 2009), and a similar relationship has been noted in adolescent populations. For example, a study of public high school students in Boston found that higher levels of neighborhood disorder were significantly associated with physical TDV perpetration after controlling for gender, race, and nativity (Rothman et al., 2011). Similarly, a study that included youth recruited from urban community health centers found that involvement in neighborhood violence predicted TDV perpetration, and this relationship was stronger among boys who were sexually active (Reed, Silverman, Raj, Decker, & Miller, 2011). Related, a separate study that included over 2000 adolescents in North Carolina found greater neighborhood organization was protective against TDV perpetration while on a date (Champion, Foley, Sigmon-Smith, Sutfin, & DuRant, 2008). Finally, a study that examined crime, which is a specific type of neighborhood disorder, as a neighborhoodlevel risk factor of TDV perpetration, did not find that crime and TDV were associated (Schnurr & Lohman, 2013). In adult populations, results have been inconsistent when considering the relationship between neighborhood violent crime and adult partner violence (Li et al., 2010; Raghavan, Rajah, Gentile, Collado, & Kavanagh, 2009). Structural factors such as ethnic heterogeneity and residential instability within a neighborhood, which are examined far less frequently, may be associated with TDV because they can lead to lack of communication between residents, which then may limit the formation of social connections, thereby weakening social controls. For example, in a study that explored neighborhood and family characteristics that increase adolescents’ risk of TDV victimization, Foshee, Chang, Reyes, Chen, and Ennett (2015) found that ethnic heterogeneity was the only neighborhood factor positively associated with TDV victimization, even after controlling for social disorganization. In a different study, racial segregation and residential instability were not significantly associated with TDV perpetration (Schnurr & Lohman, 2013). Neighborhood disadvantage is often operationalized as a composite of Census variables including the proportion below poverty, the proportion unemployed, the proportion of residents receiving public assistance, and the proportion of female-headed households (Beyers, Bates, Pettit, & Dodge, 2003; Chang et al., 2015). According to the social disorganization theory, neighborhood disadvantage reduces a neighborhood’s ability to control crime at the neighborhood-level (Shaw & McKay, 1942). In adult populations,

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

271

neighborhood disadvantage is strongly and consistently associated with partner violence (Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012); however, a similar consistent association has not been found among adolescent populations. In a study by Chang et al. (2015), living in an economically disadvantaged neighborhood increased girls’ but not boys’ risk for dating violence perpetration across all ages. In comparison, Schnurr and Lohman (2013) found that economic disadvantage was not significantly associated with TDV perpetration in late adolescence. Edwards and Neal (2017), using the percentage of students who receive free or reduced price lunch as a measure of school-level poverty, found that physical TDV victimization was related to higher school-level poverty rates.

Summary There is limited and inconsistent evidence associating social neighborhood factors to TDV among adolescents. Based on the available empirical literature, neighborhood disorder is generally associated with TDV, whereas collective efficacy, crime, structural factors, and neighborhood disadvantage are not reliably associated with TDV. However, existing research shows an association between social neighborhood factors and adult partner violence as well as youth violence, which suggests we need to continue to explore this relationship among adolescents.

RESEARCH METHODS AND PRIORITIES Types of TDV Examined Few studies examined any form of TDV other than physical. This has been noted in other reviews of neighborhood factors and adult partner violence (Beyer et al., 2015; Pinchevsky & Wright, 2012), as well as adolescents and emerging adults (Johnson et al., 2015). There is a tendency for the field to focus on physical TDV to the exclusion of psychological or sexual TDV, though these non-violent forms of abuse are also prevalent. Using a nationally representative sample of adolescents who were followed over time, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, found that 30% of people aged 12 21 in heterosexual relationship reported experiencing psychological abuse in the past 18 months; and 20% of youth in same-sex relationships reported experiencing this form of abuse (Halpern et al., 2001; Halpern, Young, Waller, Martin, & Kupper, 2004). Furthermore, almost 10% of students participating in the Youth Risk Behavior Study who had dated someone in the past 12 months reported that they had been kissed, touched, or physically forced to have sexual intercourse against their will by a dating partner (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). More research is

272

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

needed in order to draw conclusions about whether other forms of TDV are linked with neighborhood factors, if at all.

METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCES Many of the studies examining the link between neighborhood factors and TDV are observational (Banyard et al., 2006; Champion et al., 2008; Edwards & Neal, 2017; Reed et al., 2011; Rothman et al., 2011), and if we hope to establish causality, we need to expand our use of experimental designs. Very few studies, if any, of neighborhood factors and TDV have been conducted using experimental designs, which make drawing any conclusions about their link impossible. Although preferred, experimentally testing neighborhood factors may not be feasible for several reasons. Most obviously are the ethical issues that would prevent these types of studies from being conducted. Other potential issues that may arise are more logistical. Experimental studies are time intensive (it may take too much time to observe the effect of an exposure) and cost prohibitive (it takes a significant amount of funding to track individuals for extended periods of time). Neighborhoods change and evolve along with larger societal processes, which include demographic, economic, and political changes. So another alternative to the cross-sectional study design would be to use a longitudinal design. Although it is observational, this may be a viable alternative in part because neighborhood characteristics are not fixed and this design would account for those changing factors. Therefore, in order to examine how shifting neighborhood factors influence TDV, we should consider examining longitudinal data on individuals and neighborhoods. There are limitations to this design as well including cost and time, much like the limitations of experimental designs.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK When you read a section titled “Recommendations for future research” at the end of an article, you may see authors advocating for the greater use of or role for theory in future studies. This is because research in this area tends to focus primarily on evaluating associations between neighborhood factors and TDV with less attention to the mechanisms by which these associations are produced (Beyer et al., 2015). In a review of community-level correlates of IPV, of the 17 studies included, social disorganization theory or collective efficacy was identified as the theoretical motivation while eight studies did not identify a theory and the remaining two were categorized as “other” (VanderEnde, Yount, Dynes, & Sibley, 2012). Beyer et al. (2015) found that a majority of the articles in their review of neighborhood factors and adult partner violence drew primarily from the social disorganization theory. Both reviews noted that the limited theoretical motivation represents a gap in the literature (Beyer et al., 2015; VanderEnde et al., 2012). Theories should

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

273

serve as the conceptual basis for understanding, analyzing, and designing ways to examine the relationship between neighborhood factors and TDV. The US National Cancer Institute’s monograph Theory at a Glance distinguishes two types of theory; explanatory theory and change theory (Glanz & Rimer, 1997). Explanatory theory helps describe factors that shed light on why a problem exists and helps to identify factors that we may seek to modify in order to address the problem. In comparison, change theory steers the development and implementation of interventions, programs, or policies to change a problem. A more comprehensive theoretical understanding of the relationship between neighborhood factors and TDV, taking into account differences in geographic setting (rural, urban, suburban, or resource poor versus resource rich), will be needed to develop programs and policies focused on reducing the burden of partner violence (Beyer et al., 2015).

DEFINING NEIGHBORHOOD There are many challenges in conceptualizing and measuring neighborhoods and neighborhood characteristics in relationship to TDV. Definitions of neighborhoods regularly used in research, such as census tracts, may not be consistent with an individual’s perception of his or her neighborhood. Researchers should “define the neighborhood relevant to the health outcome of interest based on theory of the process involved” (Diez Roux & Mair, 2010). This becomes difficult because we do not have specific theories on which to base these decisions. Researchers should not spend their time looking for the perfect definition of a neighborhood because this does not exist. Instead, efforts should be made to use a neighborhood definition that is reasonable given the research question and geographic location of interest.

GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY The research on neighborhood factors and TDV relies heavily on data from study populations located in urban centers (Banyard et al., 2006; Chang et al., 2015; Jain et al., 2010; Reed et al., 2011; Rothman et al., 2011; Schnurr & Lohman, 2013). In fact, only one study reviewed included a population of adolescents from a rural setting (Foshee et al., 2015). There is a critical need to expand the examination of neighborhoods and TDV from a primarily urban study population to a broader population that better reflects the social fabric of communities across the United States.

CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN While we are unable to establish a consistent association between neighborhood factors and TDV, we know that the physical environment is associated with the occurrence of crime (Bursik & Grasmick, 1999). Oscar Newman,

274

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

who first introduced the idea of defensible space, proposed the idea that changes to the physical aspects of a neighborhood might affect the indicators of social control including territoriality, security, surveillance, and the social milieu (Newman, 1972). Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a framework that builds upon Newman’s ideas by combining principles from urban planning, architecture, and criminal justice to suggest changes to the physical environment that may decrease the likelihood of crime and violence (Mair & Mair, 2003; “International CPTED, n.d.”). CPTED is based on a set of four design principles (“CPTED Security, 2005”): 1. Surveillance: Promotes increased visibility in and around a property, allowing people to easily observe the space around them. Surveillance may involve the addition of lighting, changing of landscape, or the clearing of blocked windows. 2. Access control: Creates distinct points of entry and exit for homes, businesses, parks, or any other public area. Access control is focused on decreasing criminal accessibility. For example, a personal residence with front and back doors that are clearly visible and well lit. 3. Territorial reinforcement: Territoriality means providing clear designation between public, private, and semi-private areas. It involves showing that your community “owns” your neighborhood. This not only includes cleaning up graffiti or litter but also planting flower gardens or hanging seasonal decorations. It is sending the message that residents of the neighborhood care about the community. 4. Maintenance: Maintenance measures allow for the continued use of spaces for their intended purposes, as well as the upkeep of the measures employed for surveillance, access control, and territorial reinforcement. While CPTED is an approach used to reduce nuisance crime (e.g., vandalism, public drinking, graffiti, aggressive panhandling), there is disagreement in the field as to whether environmental crime prevention strategies can influence violent crimes like IPV, homicide, and rape (Jeffery & Zahm, 1993). To our knowledge, the relationship between CPTED and partner violence in a community has not been explored, though this represents another area for future investigation.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION The literature on neighborhood factors and TDV is in its infancy, but it is expected to grow as researchers from a range of fields including public health, criminology, sociology, and clinical medicine continue examining this important component of health. Given the current state of existing literature on neighborhood factors and TDV, there is limited empirical evidence with which to base policy or practice decisions. If we look into the literature on neighborhood factors and adult partner violence for direction, we see that

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

275

there are several neighborhood factors that may be modified to possibly influence the risk of experiencing dating violence. For example: G G G

Reduce neighborhood disorder to reduce partner violence Increase social support to reduce partner violence Limit number of alcohol outlets in and around neighborhoods to reduce partner violence

The empirical literature examining neighborhood factors and TDV supports interventions that target multiple forms of violence victimization and perpetration. It does not, however, indicate which factors should be addressed in order to reduce TDV. Many of the existing interventions or programs are focused on change at the individual-level through school-based education or prevention programs, or programs for youth who have already perpetrated TDV. Altogether, the existing literature is starting to suggest the potential utility of addressing this issue at the neighborhood-level as well. This means developing interventions or polices to change neighborhoodlevel factors that promote involvement in violence. But, before we can move in this direction, more research is needed to help us understand the relationship between neighborhood factors and TDV and the mechanisms that explain why those relationships exist.

REFERENCES Arcaya, M. C., Tucker-Seeley, R. D., Kim, R., Schnake-Mahl, A., So, M., & Subramanian, S. (2016). Research on neighborhood effects on health in the United States: A systematic review of study characteristics. Social Science & Medicine, 168, 16 29. Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14(9), 998 1013. Banyard, V. L., Cross, C., & Modecki, K. L. (2006). Interpersonal violence in adolescence: Ecological correlates of self-reported perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (10), 1314 1332. Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., DeMaris, A., & Van Wyk, J. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), 207 235. Beyer, K., Wallis, A. B., & Hamberger, L. K. (2015). Neighborhood environment and intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(1), 16 47. Beyers, J. M., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Neighborhood structure, parenting processes, and the development of youths’ externalizing behaviors: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1 2), 35 53. Bradshaw, C. P., Rodgers, C. R., Ghandour, L. A., & Garbarino, J. (2009). Social cognitive mediators of the association between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 199. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Browning, C. R., Soller, B., & Jackson, A. L. (2015). Neighborhoods and adolescent health-risk behavior: An ecological network approach. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 163 172.

276

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Bursik, R. J., Jr, & Grasmick, H. G. (1999). Neighborhoods & Crime. Lexington Books. Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Harris, T. R. (2010). Neighborhood characteristics as predictors of male to female and female to male partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 1986 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Surveillance summaries: Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2013. MMWR, 63(SS-4), 1 168. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Intimate partner violence: Risk and protective factors. Retrieved January 4, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html. Champion, H., Foley, K. L., Sigmon-Smith, K., Sutfin, E. L., & DuRant, R. H. (2008). Contextual factors and health risk behaviors associated with date fighting among high school students. Women & Health, 47(3), 1 22. Chang, L. Y., Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., & Halpern, C. T. (2015). Direct and indirect effects of neighborhood characteristics on the perpetration of dating violence across adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(3), 727 744. Cohen, D. J., Mason, K., Farley, T., & Cohen, D. (2005). Does neighborhood deterioration lead to poor health? (Vol. RB-9074, pp. 1 4): RAND Corporation. Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., & Su, M. (1996). Measuring neighborhood context for young children in an urban area. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(1), 5 32. “CPTED Security, 2005” Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: CPTED Security. (2005). Retrieved from: http://cptedsecurity.com/cpted_design_guidelines.htm. Cunradi, C. B. (2007). Drinking level, neighborhood social disorder, and mutual intimate partner violence. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31(6), 1012 1019. Cunradi, C. B. (2009). Intimate partner violence among Hispanic men and women: The role of drinking, neighborhood disorder, and acculturation-related factors. Violence and victims, 24 (1), 83. Diez Roux, A. V., & Mair, C. (2010). Neighborhoods and health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1), 125 145. Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2014). Understanding teen dating violence factsheet. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from http://www. cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-2014-a.pdf. Edwards, K. M., & Neal, A. M. (2017). School and community characteristics related to dating violence victimization among high school youth. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 203. Foshee, V. A., Chang, L.-Y., Reyes, H. L. M., Chen, M. S., & Ennett, S. T. (2015). The synergy of family and neighborhood on rural dating violence victimization. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 483 491. Fowler, P. J., Tompsett, C. J., Braciszewski, J. M., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., & Baltes, B. B. (2009). Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of exposure and mental health outcomes of children and adolescents. Development and psychopathology, 21(1), 227 259. Gidycz, C. A., Warkentin, J. B., & Orchowski, L. M. (2007). Predictors of perpetration of verbal, physical, and sexual violence: A prospective analysis of college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(2), 79. Glanz, K., & Rimer, B. K. (1997). Theory at a glance: A guide for health promotion practice. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Glass, N., Fredland, N., Campbell, J., Yonas, M., Sharps, P., & Kub, J. (2003). Adolescent dating violence: Prevalence, risk factors, health outcomes, and implications for clinical practice. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 32(2), 227 238.

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

277

Gruenewald, P. J., Freisthler, B., Remer, L., LaScala, E. A., & Treno, A. (2006). Ecological models of alcohol outlets and violent assaults: Crime potentials and geospatial analysis. Addiction, 101(5), 666 677. Gruenewald, P. J., & Remer, L. (2006). Changes in outlet densities affect violence rates. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30(7), 1184 1193. Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(10), 1679 1685. Halpern, C. T., Young, M. L., Waller, M. W., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2004). Prevalence of partner violence in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(2), 124 131. Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B., & Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among us adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associations with health complaints and substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 (2), 194 201. Hickman, L. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Aronoff, J. (2004). Dating violence among adolescents prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention program effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 123 142. International CPTED. (n.d.). Retrieved from: http://www.cpted.net/. Iritani, B. J., Waller, M. W., Halpern, C. T., Moracco, K. E., Christ, S. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2013). Alcohol outlet density and young women’s perpetration of violence toward male intimate partners. Journal of Family Violence, 28(5), 459 470. Jain, S., Buka, S. L., Subramanian, S., & Molnar, B. E. (2010). Neighborhood predictors of dating violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood: A multilevel study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1737 1744. Jeffery, C. R., & Zahm, D. L. (1993). Crime prevention through environmental design, opportunity theory, and rational choice models. In R. V. Clarke, & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine Activity and Rational Choice, Advances in Criminology Theory (pp. 323 350). New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Johnson, R. M., Parker, E. M., Rinehart, J., Nail, J., & Rothman, E. F. (2015). Neighborhood factors and dating violence among youth: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 458 466. Krieger, N. (1994). Epidemiology and the web of causation: Has anyone seen the spider? Social Science & Medicine, 39(7), 887 903. Li, Q., Kirby, R. S., Sigler, R. T., Hwang, S.-S., LaGory, M. E., & Goldenberg, R. L. (2010). A multilevel analysis of individual, household, and neighborhood correlates of intimate partner violence among low-income pregnant women in Jefferson county, Alabama. American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 531. Liang, W., & Chikritzhs, T. (2011). Revealing the link between licensed outlets and violence: Counting venues versus measuring alcohol availability. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30(5), 524 535. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York, NY: Macmillan. Mair, C. F., Roux, A. V. D., & Galea, S. (2008). Are neighborhood characteristics associated with depressive symptoms? A critical review. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62(11), 940 946.

278

SECTION | III Social and Cultural Influences

Mair, J. S., & Mair, M. (2003). Violence prevention and control through environmental modifications. Annual Review of Public Health, 24(1), 209. Manchikanti Go´mez, A. (2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth & Society, 43(1), 171 192. Martinez, R., Jr, Rosenfeld, R., & Mares, D. (2008). Social disorganization, drug market activity, and neighborhood violent crime. Urban Affairs Review, 43(6), 846 874. McLeroy, K., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education & Behavior, 15(4), 351 377. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3), 517 558. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health. (2012). Trends in the prevalence of behaviors that contribute to violence national YRBS: 1991 2011. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.cdc. gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/us_violence_trend_yrbs.pdf. Pinchevsky, G. M., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The impact of neighborhoods on intimate partner violence and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(2), 112 132. Raghavan, C., Rajah, V., Gentile, K., Collado, L., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2009). Community violence, social support networks, ethnic group differences, and male perpetration of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(10), 1615 1632. Reed, E., Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., & Miller, E. (2011). Male perpetration of teen dating violence: Associations with neighborhood violence involvement, gender attitudes, and perceived peer and neighborhood norms. Journal of Urban Health, 88(2), 226 239. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Tharp, A. T., Ennett, S. T., & Bauer, D. J. (2015). Substance use and physical dating violence: The role of contextual moderators. American journal of preventive medicine, 49(3), 467 475. Rothman, E. F., Johnson, R. M., Young, R., Weinberg, J., Azrael, D., & Molnar, B. E. (2011). Neighborhood-level factors associated with physical dating violence perpetration: Results of a representative survey conducted in Boston, MA. Journal of Urban Health, 88(2), 201 213. Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. B. (2008). Ecological models of health behavior. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 465 482). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603 651. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918 924. Schnurr, M. P., & Lohman, B. J. (2013). The impact of collective efficacy on risks for adolescents’ perpetration of dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 518 535. Scribner, R. A., MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). The risk of assaultive violence and alcohol availability in Los Angeles county. American Journal of Public Health, 85(3), 335 340. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study of rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Neighborhood Factors And Teen Dating Violence Chapter | 11

279

Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., & Clements, K. (2004). Dating violence and associated sexual risk and pregnancy among adolescent girls in the United States. Pediatrics, 114(2), e220 e225. Suglia, S. F., Shelton, R. C., Hsiao, A., Wang, Y. C., Rundle, A., & Link, B. G. (2016). Why the neighborhood social environment is critical in obesity prevention. Journal of Urban Health, 93(1), 206 212. Talen, E., & Shah, S. (2007). Neighborhood evaluation using GIS: An exploratory study. Environment and Behavior, 39(5), 583 615. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). American factfinder help: Glossary. Retrieved September 2, 2014, from https://factfinder.census.gov/help/en/index.htm-glossary.htm. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633 649. Van Wyk, J. A., Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., & DeMaris, A. (2003). Detangling individual-, partner-, and community-level correlates of partner violence. NCCD News, 49(3), 412 438. VanderEnde, K. E., Yount, K. M., Dynes, M. M., & Sibley, L. M. (2012). Community-level correlates of intimate partner violence against women globally: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 75(7), 1143 1155. Waller, M. W., Iritani, B. J., Christ, S. L., Clark, H. K., Moracco, K. E., Halpern, C. T., & Flewelling, R. L. (2012). Relationships among alcohol outlet density, alcohol use, and intimate partner violence victimization among young women in the united states. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(10), 2062 2086. Waller, M. W., Iritani, B. J., Christ, S. L., Tucker Halpern, C., Moracco, K. E., & Flewelling, R. L. (2013). Perpetration of intimate partner violence by young adult males: The association with alcohol outlet density and drinking behavior. Health & Place, 21, 10 19. Waller, M. W., Iritani, B. J., Flewelling, R. L., Christ, S. L., Halpern, C. T., & Moracco, K. E. (2012). Violence victimization of young men in heterosexual relationships: Does alcohol outlet density influence outcomes? Violence and Victims, 27(4), 527 547. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly. Wright, E. M., & Benson, M. L. (2011). Clarifying the effects of neighborhood context on violence “behind closed doors”. Justice Quarterly, 28(5), 775 798. Yonas, M. A., O’Campo, P., Burke, J. G., & Gielen, A. C. (2007). Neighborhood-level factors and youth violence: Giving voice to the perceptions of prominent neighborhood individuals. Health Education & Behavior, 34(4), 669 685.

This page intentionally left blank

Section IV

Research Priorities

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 12

Gender Inequality and GenderBased Violence: Extensions to Adolescent Dating Violence,†,‡ Natasha E. Latzman1, Ashley S. D’Inverno2, Phyllis H. Niolon2, and Dennis E. Reidy2 1

RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States, 2Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States

Gender inequality is often cited as a fundamental determinant of violence against women and girls. The United Nations General Assembly, in its 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, noted that this violence is a “manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women.” Gender inequality as a root cause of violence against women is foundational to prevention frameworks, including those of organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) (WHO, 2009), UNICEF (UNICEF, 2010), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (USAID, 2016). Because such an investment has been made based on the premise that preventing violence against women and girls is possible and can be strengthened by improving gender equality, it is important to examine the evidence for this relationship. This chapter explores the relationship between gender inequality and gender-based violence (GBV), particularly as it relates to adolescent dating violence (ADV). ADV is a form of intimate partner violence that occurs between a current or former dating partner and can take the form of physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional violence, including stalking (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention [CDC], 2016). Although a large body of research has focused on the relationship between gender inequality and a



Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. †. Financial Interests: The authors have no financial interests to disclose. ‡. Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00012-8 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

283

284

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

¨ stlin, 2008), broad range of health, social, and economic effects (see Sen & O comparatively less research has focused on ADV specifically. The research conducted to date on gender inequality and partner violence has focused on adult populations and is often conducted in a global context. Thus, our approach to this chapter is broad, taking a global perspective to understand the relationship between gender inequality and ADV, as well as other interrelated forms of GBV such as adult intimate partner violence and sexual violence (Wilkins, Tsao, Hertz, Davis, & Klevens, 2014). We acknowledge the important developmental differences between adult and adolescent dating relationships, particularly regarding power dynamics, social skill development, and peer influence (Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009; Mulford & Giordano, 2008). Given the dearth of research examining gender inequality and ADV, however, we draw from the adult literature to provide historical context and an initial framework for understanding effects within adolescent relationships. Note that, like others (e.g., Reed, Raj, Miller, & Silverman, 2010; USAID, 2016), we use the terms GBV and violence against women and girls interchangeably. This usage acknowledges that most GBV is perpetrated by men against women and girls. This usage is not to imply that both males and females cannot and do not engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors, including violence. On the contrary, as Whitton and Capaldi discuss in Chapters 9 and 14, Adolescent Dating Violence Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth, and Violence Begets Violence: Addressing the Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Adolescent and Young Adult Relationships, respectively, there is growing recognition that ADV is complex and bidirectional; both boys and youth in same-sex relationships experience victimization, particularly within more gender-equal settings and societies (see also Dardis, Dixon, Edwards, & Turchik, 2015; Renner & Whitney, 2012). There is evidence, however, that the etiology and consequences of ADV, such as rates of injury, differ for boys and girls (e.g., Hamby & Turner, 2013; Mun˜oz-Rivas, Gran˜a, O’Leary, & Gonza´lez, 2007; for an exception see Reidy, Early, & Holland, 2017), thus necessitating the need to understand the gendered underpinnings of this form of violence. Throughout the chapter, we describe the limited work examining gender inequality and violence perpetrated by females as relevant. Our discussion is grounded in the Social Ecological Model, a theorybased framework for understanding the multifaceted and interactive effects of individual, interpersonal, and environmental factors shaping health and development. This model is widely applied in understanding determinants of violence, and outlines the importance of considering factors that operate at the individual, relationship, community, and societal levels (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002; Heise, 1998). We begin with the outermost level of the social ecology: the societal level. We offer definitions, examining the way in which gender inequality has been conceptualized and operationalized at this level. Because of the relatively thin literature focused on understanding societal

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

285

level impacts, we also discuss gender-role attitudes, a way in which gender inequality may manifest at the individual and relationship levels of the social ecology. Following this broad overview, we examine the evidence on the link between both gender inequality and gender-role attitudes and GBV, including ADV. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of implications for research and practice. Overall, we argue that ADV research has yet to fully capture the complexity of gender inequality, particularly at the societal level. There is much opportunity for rigorous research that aims to fully understand whether equitable access to resources and egalitarian attitudes has the potential to prevent ADV. Although research in this area is nascent with much yet to be learned, it is clear from the broader field of violence prevention that interventions aiming to reduce both gender inequality and ADV could be strengthened by multicomponent strategies, targeting both males and females and at all levels of the social ecology.

DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENT: AN OVERVIEW Gender Inequality The concept of gender inequality has been defined and operationalized in numerous ways by researchers, policy makers, advocates, and professionals. Here, we define gender inequality as unequal rights, opportunities, responsibilities, and access to resources based on gender (United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2015; United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA], 2010). Importantly, gender refers to the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being male or female, rather than biological aspects of maleness or femaleness (American Psychological Association, 2015). What it means to be male and female is defined and determined by societies and their subgroups (Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 2015). Gender equality does not mean that men and women are the same or that differences do not exist—only that the needs and contributions of men and women are valued equally, unconstrained by stereotypes and prejudices. Gender equality provides equal access to social goods, services, opportunities, and resources, regardless of gender (Inglehart & Norris, 2003). Unfortunately, providing men and women equal opportunity does not always result in gender equality. As noted by researchers and organizations of the United Nations, gender equity, the process of being fair and just to women and men, is often needed to achieve gender equality (UNESCO, 2015). To ensure fairness, strategies and measures may need to be available to compensate for women’s historical and social disadvantages that prevent women and men from otherwise operating on a “level playing field” (Chafetz, 1990; UNESCO, 2015; UNFPA, 2010). The concept of gender equity recognizes that women and men have different needs, access to, and control over

286

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

resources, and that these differences often need to be addressed, such as through programs and policies that specifically empower women and girls (Rosenfield, Min, & Bardfield, 2010; UNESCO, 2015; UNFPA, 2010). Although sometimes used interchangeably, the distinction between gender equality and equity is important. As stated by the Pan American Health Organization (2016), “equity is the means, equality is the result.”

Measurement of Gender Inequality Although there is no “gold standard” method for operationalizing and measuring gender inequalities (Scott, 2010), a series of indices have been developed to capture gender-based gaps in access to resources and opportunities at the societal level (typically, the level of state or country). Across indices, gender inequality is typically measured using indicators of empowerment through health, education, the labor market/economic participation, and political representation. These dimensions are necessarily very broad and may not demonstrate the progress toward equality at other levels of the social ecology. Nonetheless, they are intended to provide a snapshot of progress at a larger scale and are often used to provide country rankings and groupings representing levels of human development ranging from very high to low. Typically, these rankings are based on an overall gender inequality score, although domain scores are often provided, given that a country (or state or community) may have high levels of inequality on one indicator (e.g., health), but low levels on a different indicator (e.g., labor market). Although a full review and discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter, Table 12.1 provides an overview of the most widely used indices which include the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index and the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP’s) Gender Development Index and Gender Inequality Index (GII). Note that we are unaware of any indices that focus specifically on youth or adolescents; however, those outlined in Table 12.1 include indicators that are either directly relevant to adolescents (e.g., adolescent birth rate, secondary education) or are indirectly relevant through maternal experience (e.g., labor force participation). Recent literature documents the links between gender inequality and the next generation’s well-being (e.g., Brinda, Rajkumar, & Enemark, 2015; Smith & Haddad, 2015). Nonetheless, as will be discussed later, there remains great opportunity for researchers to consider whether and the degree to which more developmentally relevant indicators influence adolescent outcomes.

Gender-Role Attitudes Despite gains that women have made over the last decades in the domains of health, education, the labor market/economic participation, and political representation, the ordinal hierarchy that advantages men over women

TABLE 12.1 Summary of Commonly Used Gender Inequality Indices Gender Inequality Indices a

Dimensions

Health

Global Gender Gap Index

Gender Development Index

Gender Inequality Indexb

(World Economic Forum, 2014; Greig, Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2006)

(UNDP, 2016)

(UNDP, 2016)

Created in 2006

Created in 1995

Created in 2010

G G

Education

G G

Labor market/ economic participation

G

G

G

G

G

Political representation

G G

G

a

Sex ratio at birth Female-to-male ratio of life expectancy

G

Female-to-male ratio of literacy Female-to-male ratio of primary, secondary, and tertiary school enrollment

G

Female-to-male ratio of labor force participation Female-to-male ratio of estimated earned income Female-to-male ratio of legislators, senior officials, and managers Female-to-male ratio of professional and technical workers Wage equality between men and women for similar work (survey data; 0 1 scale)

G

Female and male life expectancy at birth

G

G

Maternal mortality ratio Adolescent birth rate

Female and male expected years of schooling for children Female and male mean years of schooling for adults ages 25 years and older

G

Proportion of adult females and males aged 25 years and older with at least some secondary education

Female and male estimated earned income

G

Labor force participation rate of female and male populations aged 15 years and older

G

Proportion of parliamentary seats occupied by females

Female-to-male ratio of seats in parliament Female-to-male ratio of ministerial level representation Female-to-male ratio of number of years with a female head of state

These are general, summary labels of dimensions and not necessarily the exact language used by the authors of each index. In 2010, the UNDP’s Gender Inequality Index replaced the UNDP’s Gender Empowerment Measure, which was created in 1995.

b

G

288

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

remains (Cotter, Hermsen, & Vanneman, 2011; Ridgeway, 2011). The resilience of gender inequality may partly be due to factors at other levels of the social ecology. Specifically, scholars argue that traditional attitudes toward gender roles are also responsible for the persisting inequalities between women and men (Farre´ & Vella, 2013; Inglehart & Norris, 2003). Genderrole attitudes (also often called sex-role attitudes or gender ideology) refer to an individual’s approval or disapproval of traditional gender roles or the shared cultural expectations about appropriate role-related behaviors for men and women and girls and boys (McHugh & Frieze, 1997). Usually centered on notions of femininity and masculinity, these attitudes are often conceptualized as falling on a continuum ranging from traditional to egalitarian (Amato & Booth, 1995). Individuals with a traditional view support a gendered division of family labor, regarding women as homemakers responsible for parenting and men as the wage earner and decision maker. Egalitarian gender-role attitudes include a more equal view on participation in decisions, paid labor, and domesticities (Amato & Booth, 1995; Katz-Wise, Priess, & Hyde, 2010).

Measurement of Gender-Role Attitudes Gender-role attitudes have been operationalized and measured in a range of ways (Davis & Greenstein, 2009; McHugh & Frieze, 1997; Vespa, 2009). Although some work has used interviews and participant observation to categorize individual gender-role ideologies (e.g., Hochschild & Machung, 1989), typically, self-report surveys are used to ask respondents whether they agree or disagree with a series of statements about women’s and men’s roles and responsibilities (Davis & Greenstein, 2009). Davis and Greenstein (2009) identified six common dimensions across the various ways in which researchers have conceptualized and measured gender-role attitudes: (1) belief in separate spheres based on gender; (2) primacy of the breadwinner role; (3) motherhood and the feminine self; (4) working women and relationship quality; (5) household utility; and (6) male-privilege acceptance. For example, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and its Child/Young Adult Supplement (Center for Human Resource Research, 2006) includes an item, “A woman’s place is in the home, not in the office or shop,” tapping belief in gendered separate spheres. Readers are encouraged to consult McHugh and Frieze (1997) and Davis and Greenstein (2009) for more thorough reviews of gender-role attitude measurement strategies.

Relationship Between Gender Inequality and Gender-Role Attitudes Over the last five decades, both women and men worldwide have become more likely to endorse egalitarian gender-role attitudes than in the past (see,

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

289

e.g., Cotter et al., 2011; Donnelly et al. 2016; Zuo & Tang, 2000). In more developed countries, shifts toward more egalitarian attitudes among adults have been attributed to general human and economic development, along the lines of many of the indicators outlined in Table 12.1. These indicators include women’s increased presence in the public sphere (e.g., in paid work, higher education), innovations in birth control methods, increased rates of separation and divorce, and decreased family size (Bolzendahl & Myers, 2004; Rhodebeck, 1996; Zuo & Tang, 2000). In this way, greater societal level equality appears to provide supportive conditions for the development and maintenance of more egalitarian gender roles. At the same time, work over the last two decades indicates that traditional gender-role ideology reinforces larger, societal level gender inequalities (Bradley & Khor, 1993; Chung, 2005; Ka˚gesten et al. 2016). The link between societal level gender inequality and gender-role attitudes is also found with adolescent populations. For example, in an examination of gender roles among adolescents in 36 countries, Sani and Quaranta (2017) found that both males and females display less gender-egalitarian attitudes in countries with higher levels of societal gender inequality, as measured by the UNDP’s GII. However, whereas adolescent females in all countries had more egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles than did adolescent males, the gender gap in attitudes was more evident in more egalitarian contexts. That is, even in more gender-equal societies, adolescent males may support traditional gender roles. This finding is consistent with a larger body of research finding that adolescent females have less traditional and more egalitarian views on gender roles than do adolescent males (Crouter, Whiteman, McHale, & Osgood, 2007; Galambos, Almeida, & Petersen,1990; Ka˚gesten et al., 2016; McHale, Crouter, & Tucker, 1999). In fact, on an individual level, there is a stronger relationship between a mother’s educational attainment and her daughter’s vs son’s egalitarian gender roles. This suggests that exposure to other sources promoting traditional gender roles (e.g., peers, other family members) might interfere with sons adopting more egalitarian views from highly educated mothers (Sani & Quaranta, 2017). As will be discussed later, this gender difference has important implications for dating violence prevention programming.

WHY STUDY GENDER INEQUALITY? Measuring gender inequality and identifying methods to improve the status of women and girls are important for several reasons. Women make up half of the world’s population and have a longer life expectancy than men. However, as measured by the indices described above, progress in human development has been uneven to the detriment of women around the world (UNDP, 2016). Human development is about expanding capabilities and opportunities through access to knowledge, a decent standard of living, good

290

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

health, nondiscrimination, human rights, etc., so that all individuals have agency and freedom to pursue choices that they value (UNDP, 2016). Both gender inequality and the gender-role attitudes and ideology that support and reinforce it have been linked to a range of deleterious consequences to individuals, communities, and larger society (Baron & Straus, 1989; Jewkes, Sen, & Garcia-Moreno, 2002; WHO, 2010). For example, societal level gender inequality has been linked to higher rates of HIV, tuberculosis, drug use, and as will be discussed below, violence (Wechsberg, Anderson, & Howard, 2017). In fact, gender inequality as measured by the UNDP’s GII has been associated with both child mortality (Brinda et al., 2015) and the maintenance—and possibly establishment of—generalized HIV epidemics (Richardson et al., 2014). Attitudes accepting of traditional gender roles are related to subsequent adolescent risk behaviors such as substance use and misuse (Barker, Ricardo, Nascimento, Nascimento, & Carlos, 2010; Schulte, Ramo, & Brown, 2009), and risky sexual behavior (Pulerwitz, Michaelis Verma, & Weiss, 2010; Santana, Raj, Decker, LaMarche, & Silverman, 2006) that result in a range of adverse health outcomes (Courtenay, 2000; Reed et al., 2010). In this way, gender inequality and the traditional genderrole attitudes that support it are associated with harmful consequences for both genders. Finally, an analysis by the McKinsey Global Institute suggests that achieving gender parity may result in significant economic payoffs, such as adding $2.1 trillion to the US Gross Domestic Product by 2025 (in a best case scenario), which is 10% higher than the business-as-usual number (McKinsey Global Institute, 2016). Although no country has achieved full gender equality, the positive effects of attaining gender parity at all levels of the social ecology provide a strong incentive to work toward this goal.

SOCIETAL LEVEL GENDER INEQUALITY AND GBV: THEORETICAL APPROACHES In recent decades, considerable attention has been given to the relationship between gender inequality at the societal level and various forms of GBV, particularly adult sexual violence and intimate partner violence. Research examining the relationship between gender inequality and adult GBV grew out of the feminist movement of the 1970s (Baron & Straus, 1989; Dobash & Dobash, 1979) and has generally supported an association between gender inequality and violence against women, although the exact nature of the relation appears to be a complicated one (Roberts, 2011). Feminist theory views partner violence through the lens of unequal power structures, with partner violence propagated by patriarchal societies that value male dominance and female subservience and devaluation (Dutton & Goodman, 2005; Hague & Malos, 2005; Walker, 1989; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). This perpetuates rigid gender roles and socializes men to become

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

291

aggressive and competitive, while encouraging females to be passive, compliant caretakers (Bradley & Khor, 1993; Chung, 2005; Hague & Malos, 2005; Miedzian, 1995; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). These societal level factors maintain the imbalance of genders and help perpetrators minimize the seriousness of partner violence. Within the feminist perspective, scholars have called attention to several hypotheses. First, the ameliorative hypothesis holds that when gender equality is high, men’s violence against women is expected to be lower than when gender equality is low (e.g., Whaley, 2001). A similar theory focused on distribution of economic resources is marital strain theory, which posits that women in positions of greater economic equality are better able to negotiate change within a relationship or leave a relationship altogether, therefore reducing risk of intimate partner violence (e.g., Gelles, 1976; Kalmuss & Straus, 1982; Levinson, 1989). A great deal of research has supported the general premises of these theories, linking greater gender parity in health, education, the labor market/economic participation, and political representation to lower levels of GBV (e.g., Aizer, 2010; Counts, Brown, & Campbell, 1999; Glick et al., 2000; Herrero, Rodriguez, & Torres, 2017; Levinson, 1989; Pallitto & O’Campo, 2005; Yodanis, 2004). For example, decreases in the gender wage gap have been linked to decreased rates of domestic violence (Aizer, 2010), and indicators of educational and occupational inequality have been linked to rape (Yodanis, 2004). Research using the UNDP’s indices have also demonstrated a positive link between country-level gender inequality and acceptability of intimate partner violence toward women (Herrero et al., 2017), as well as hostile sexism (Glick et al., 2000), a reliable predictor of GBV (Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003; Lisco, Parrott, & Tharp, 2012). Finally, a recent analysis of data from 44 countries found that gender inequality at the country-level, as measured by UNDP’s GII, predicted the population prevalence of intimate partner violence within the last 12 months (Heise & Kotsadam, 2015). Also a product of the feminist theory, the backlash hypothesis notes the paradoxical potential for greater gender equality to increase women’s risk of violence victimization (e.g., Russell, 1975). According to this view, also espoused in relative resource theory (McCloskey, 1996), gender equality is expected to generate a “backlash,” which takes the form of social control strategies intended to maintain men’s relative power. Several studies have found support for these theories. For example, researchers have found positive associations between indicators of gender inequality in education and the labor market/economic participation and rape in studies at the city (e.g., Bailey, 1999; Whaley, 2001) and country level (Austin & Kim, 2000). In fact, using cross-sectional analyses, Whaley (2001) found that more gender equality, as measured by a greater percentage of female (vs male) executives, managers, and administrators, was associated with higher rates of rape in

292

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

109 US cities. Importantly, however, these studies finding a “backlash” effect did not examine indicators of inequality in the area of health or interactions with factors at other levels of the social ecology. Still other evidence suggests that the relationship between gender inequality and GBV may be more nuanced and complicated (Caridad Bueno & Henderson, 2017; Gracia & Merlo, 2016). Several studies support a backlash effect in the short term, followed by an ameliorative effect in the longer term (e.g., Bailey, 1999; Whaley, 2001). For example, using panel data for 109 US cities over three decades, Whaley (2001) found that increases in labor/economic gender equality increased sexual violence in the short term but reduced it in the long term. Jewkes (2002) hypothesizes that empowerment, particularly educational, pushes women to challenge certain aspects of traditional sex roles, but that such empowerment carries an increased risk of victimization until a high enough level is reached for protective effects. Thus, as shifts in equality are taking place, women may be at increased risk of violence (Jewkes, 2002). Also standing in contrast to a straightforward theory is what has been termed “the Nordic paradox”: of the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) that rank highest on gender equality (World Economic Forum, 2014), three (Sweden, Finland, and Denmark) experience more violence against women than the European Union average (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014; Gracia & Merlo, 2016). It is unclear whether this is due to “backlash,” higher levels of awareness and disclosure, an increased openness to discuss victimization (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014), or other confounding variables not considered (Gracia & Merlo, 2016). Regardless, future research could consider not only other determinants of inequality (e.g., race/ethnicity) but also manifestations of gender inequality at other levels of the social ecology (Gracia & Merlo, 2016). As noted in the literature, a change in policies or laws (which, in this case, may be reflected in societal level indicators, such as those outlined in Table 12.1) may not exert a direct downstream effect on the way systems and individuals respond (e.g., CDC, 2012; Jaffe, Crooks, & Wolfe, 2003). Without buy-in from communities, institutions (e.g., schools) and individuals, changes in policies, particularly those that involve a shift of power, can result in unintended negative effects that ripple throughout the social ecology (Jaffe et al., 2003). Indeed, studies in low- and middle-income countries find that women reaching a higher status in relation to their partners, and within an individual- and relationship-level environment marked by traditional and rigid gender norms, may be at higher risk of intimate partner violence victimization (Abramsky et al., 2011; Jewkes, 2002; Vyas & Watts, 2009). In the same vein, using cross-sectional data from the National Survey of Families and Households in the United States, Atkinson, Greenstein, and Lang (2005) found that women’s higher status was not associated with increased risk of violence when her partner holds more egalitarian views on gender ideologies.

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

293

Extensions to ADV Unfortunately, feminist theory and the societal level gender-based inequities it explains have rarely been applied to research examining ADV. On one hand, this is surprising, given that initial research on causes and correlates of ADV drew heavily from frameworks developed to understand adult partner violence (Mulford & Giordano, 2008), of which gender inequality is central (Reed et al., 2010). On the other hand, the relative lack of study may be due, in part, to the emphasis on the important developmental differences between adult and adolescent dating relationships and related calls for separate, often gender-neutral frameworks to study partner violence among younger age groups (Copp, Mumford, & Taylor, 2016; Reed et al., 2010). Largely, attachment (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1994) and social learning frameworks (Bandura, 1977; Patterson, 1982) have been used to understand the development and maintenance of a range of adolescent outcomes, including ADV (e.g., Ehrensaft et al., 2003; Hamby, Finkelhor, & Turner, 2012; Morris, Mrug, & Windle, 2015; see also Chapter 2: Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration). Social learning theories have largely focused on observational learning within the family of origin, with some extensions to the broader peer and school environment (e.g., Giordano, Kaufman, Manning, & Longmore, 2015) and others considering interactions with individual level factors (e.g., Cascardi, 2016). However, extensions have failed to consider societal level factors (for an exception, see Social Structure and Social Learning Theory; Akers, 1998), including gender inequality. Similarly, the background situational model of partner violence (Riggs & O’Leary, 1989) has recently been extended to research with adolescent populations (e.g., Collibee & Furman, 2016; Reese-Weber & Johnson, 2013). This model considers both historical factors (e.g., history of child maltreatment) and contextual factors (e.g., alcohol use) but similarly fails to consider the role of gender inequality. The only known research examining societal level gender inequality and ADV generally supports the complicated picture described within the adult literature (Gressard, Swahn, & Tharp, 2015). This US-based study used the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey to measure physical and sexual dating victimization of both male and female adolescents. The researchers used the UNDP’s GII dimensions of reproductive health, empowerment, and the labor market to provide all 50 US states with a gender inequality score, which was then correlated with state-level ADV. States with higher GII scores, or greater gender inequality, had higher levels of female but not male, physical ADV victimization (Gressard et al., 2015). Among the individual indicators of the GII, adolescent birth rate was significantly associated with both total and female physical ADV victimization. This finding indicates that reproductive health may be an especially important dimension of state-level gender inequality; one that has often been neglected in the adult (and adolescent)

294

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

literature in favor of political and economic indicators of inequality (e.g., Straus, 1994; Yodanis, 2004). On the other hand, state-level GII scores were unrelated to female or male sexual dating victimization. The authors speculate that sexual violence among adolescents may be more influenced by more proximal factors or those at the individual or relationship level of the social ecology (Tharp et al., 2013; Vagi et al., 2013). The authors refer to their study as a “first look” at gender inequality and ADV, one that we hope will serve as a springboard for additional work in this area. Future research would benefit from the consideration of potential confounding variables (e.g., state-level economic factors) and estimates of ADV derived from measures that ask about specific forms of ADV, as well as other measures of ADV that do not rely on self-report.

GENDER-ROLE ATTITUDES AND GBV Research on the relationship between individual level gender-role attitudes and GBV has also been grounded in feminist theoretical perspectives. Feminist theory holds that traditional gender-role attitudes and ideologies reinforce the notion that men should be in a dominant social position that offers privilege and power over women. Based on this perspective, as well as scripting theory (i.e., gendered expectations for attitudes and the sequence of behaviors in specific situations; Byers, 1996) and Lichter and McCloskey’s (2004) expansion of the social cognitive paradigm, men and boys who endorse traditional gender-role attitudes may activate scripts, or an expected set of behaviors for a particular situation, which emphasize male control over women. Consequently, GBV results as one way of expressing and maintaining this dominant position (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Eaton & Rose, 2011; Yllo¨, 1984). In addition, men and boys who endorse traditional gender-role attitudes may tend to view dating relationships through a combative lens in which women are seen as threatening to reverse the hierarchy and to control men (Lee, Fiske, Glick, & Chen, 2010). This combative view may cue the retrieval of dominance scripts and contribute to hostile attitudes toward women that justify male dominance and increase risk for GBV perpetration (Lee et al., 2010). In this perspective, one can imagine how, at an individual level, a backlash may occur if a male feels that his status is being threatened by a female who holds a more egalitarian (vs traditional) gender-role ideology. Importantly, starting from an early age some boys learn to expect that violation of masculine norms will result in negative social consequences. For example, boys demonstrating traditionally feminine behaviors may experience withdrawal of parental attention, rejection, and bullying from peers and may even be victims of aggression and violence (e.g., Bosson, PrewittFreilino, & Taylor, 2005). Thus, perceived threats to their masculine status

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

295

could induce distress about potential repercussions associated with demonstrating submasculine gender-role conformity. Given that aggression and sexual prowess are particularly salient ways for boys to demonstrate masculinity to others (e.g., Vandello & Bosson, 2013), it follows that boys and men could be likely to perpetrate physical and sexual violence toward a female that challenges their masculine status (Reidy, Berke, Gentile, & Zeichner, 2014; Reidy, Smith-Darden, Cortina, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2015). This violence serves to demonstrate their masculinity and to resolve their distress associated with perceived gender-role nonconformity. A significant amount of research has been devoted to testing these general theories with adult populations. Two meta-analytic reviews identified a moderate effect size between traditional gender-role attitudes and male perpetration of intimate partner violence (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996). Similarly, a 2002 meta-analysis found a small but significant positive relationship between adherence to traditional gender-role attitudes and sexual violence against women (Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002), with a more recent systematic qualitative review finding a positive relationship between these variables in 19 of 21 studies (Tharp et al., 2013). However, scholars caution that many studies examining the relationship between GBV and hostile attributes, attitudes, and beliefs broadly conceptualized are plagued by methodological limitations, including cross-sectional designs that fail to account for the associations among risk factors (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; Tharp et al., 2013).

Extensions to ADV Whereas research on societal level gender inequality and ADV is nearly nonexistent, literature on the role of individual level gender-role attitudes in the development and persistence of ADV is slightly more robust (Das et al., 2014; Foshee et al., 2004; Foshee et al., 2008; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; McCauley et al., 2013; Reed et al., 2010; Reyes, Foshee, Niolon, Reidy, & Hall, 2016). Adolescence is a key developmental period in which both gender-role attitudes (Crouter et al., 2007) and patterns of abusive dating behaviors emerge (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). Thus, this developmental period provides a critical opportunity to shape nonviolent and egalitarian attitudes and healthy relationship behaviors before nonegalitarian ideologies become rigid and entrenched (Amin & Chandra-Mouli, 2014). Unfortunately, this small body of work is subject to limitations like those of the adult literature. Specifically, researchers have mostly used cross-sectional designs that preclude understanding developmental timing of associations and have failed to consider important covariates (e.g., exposure to adult intimate partner violence) that may produce a spurious relationship between gender-role attitudes and violence (Reyes et al., 2016; Vagi et al., 2013).

296

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Cross-sectional work has largely supported a positive relationship between endorsement of traditional gender norms and male-perpetrated ADV (e.g., Anderson, Simpson-Taylor, & Hermann, 2004; Fitzpatrick, Salgado, Suvak, King, & King, 2004; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Reed, Silverman, Raj, Decker, & Miller, 2011; Santana et al. 2006; Sears, Byers, & Price, 2007) and general sexual violence (de Bruijn, Burrie, & van Wel, 2006; Lacasse & Mendelson, 2007). However, this finding is not consistent; some work finds no associations (Foshee, Linder, MacDougall, & Bangdiwala, 2001), and still other research finds that associations may vary depending on the specific type of ADV assessed; with traditional gender-role attitudes more consistently related to sexual vs physical ADV (e.g., Eaton & Matamala, 2014; Foshee et al., 2004; Shen, Chiu, & Gao, 2012). For example, Shen et al. (2012) found an association between traditional gender-role attitudes and boys’ sexual, but not physical, ADV perpetration among Chinese adolescents. Similarly, in a US high-school sample, girls endorsing traditional gender-role attitudes were more likely to experience chronic sexual, but not physical, dating violence victimization than were girls holding more egalitarian attitudes (Foshee et al., 2004). Perhaps a product of the move toward understanding ADV within a gender-neutral framework (Reed et al., 2010), some cross-sectional work has focused on understanding the relationship between gender-role attitudes and girls’ ADV perpetration. This work, although mixed, indicates that female endorsement of traditional gender-roles may be related to female perpetration (e.g., Gomez, Speizer, & Moracco, 2011; Eaton & Matamala, 2014; Fitzpatrick et al., 2004; Nabors & Jasinski, 2009). For example, in a crosssectional study using a sample drawn from a US college, Fitzpatrick and colleagues (2004) found that, controlling for relationship quality, more egalitarian gender-role attitudes decreased the likelihood of male-perpetrated psychological and physical dating violence but increased the likelihood of femaleperpetrated psychological (but not physical) dating violence. Similarly, in a large Hispanic college sample, heteronormative beliefs (i.e., a construct that men and women are situated in a hierarchical relationship with masculinity perceived as powerful and femininity as passive) were cross-sectionally associated with increased verbal sexual coercion among both men and women (Eaton & Matamala, 2014). Results for males are consistent with the traditional sexual script, which holds that boys are supposed to initiate and aggressively pursue sexual involvement with dating partners (Byers, 1996). The findings with women are more perplexing, although authors speculate that it is possible that women may use verbal coercion in a heteronormative fashion in line with the stereotype for women to be “coy and enticing” (p. 1454). Results such as these also highlight the importance of dyadic work—to our knowledge, all studies with adolescent samples to date have involved single individuals rather than couples. Research with adults indicates that lower rates of

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

297

conflict and violence are found when both members of a dyad endorse more egalitarian views (e.g., Coleman & Straus, 1988). Only a few studies have used longitudinal designs to examine the relationship between gender-role attitudes and ADV. These studies generally support traditional gender-role attitudes as a risk factor for later maleperpetrated ADV (Grest, Amaro, & Unger, 2017; Nabors & Jasinski, 2009; Reyes et al., 2016), with interesting results emerging regarding gender, temporality, and interactions with other individual level variables. First, regarding gender, in contrast to the cross-sectional work described above, longitudinal work examining the relationship between gender-role attitudes and ADV has not supported a link for female perpetration (Grest et al., 2017; Nabors & Jasinski, 2009). For example, in a longitudinal study of Latino youth, Grest and colleagues (2017) found that endorsement of more traditional gender roles in 10th grade was related to subsequent male, but not female, perpetration of both psychological and physical dating violence in emerging adulthood. Second, regarding temporality, some longitudinal work supports theoretical perspectives that suggest ADV perpetration might influence gender-role attitudes (e.g., cognitive consistency theory; Foshee & Bauman, 2001). Using a multiwave US college student sample, Nabors and Jasinski (2009) found a positive relationship between ADV perpetration and subsequent attitudes supportive of gender-role stereotypes and gendered violence. These findings are similar to that of Mueller and colleagues (2013), who found that ADV perpetration predicted subsequent beliefs about the acceptability of violence (but not vice versa), also supporting the hypothesis that adolescents may change beliefs to help justify violent behavior. More research on the order of influence is needed, particularly given that the conceptual models on which many prevention programs are based assume gender-role attitudes precede violent behavior. This relationship may be bidirectional, with gender-role attitudes contributing to ADV, and ADV contributing to the maintenance of traditional gender-role attitudes, perhaps because of the efforts to reduce cognitive dissonance or justify the status quo (Eaton & Matamala, 2014). Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) states that when there is incongruence between one’s actions and attitudes/beliefs, this disparity will be resolved by (1) changing behavior; (2) changing attitude/ beliefs; or (3) changing perceptions of the behavior. Third, a limited but growing body of research with both adult and adolescent populations suggests that the influence of gender-role attitudes on violence perpetration may be conditioned by other factors, such as normative beliefs about violence (Poteat, Kimmel, & Wilchens, 2011). For example, Reyes et al. (2016) found that traditional gender-role attitudes among US high-school students predicted greater likelihood of male physical ADV perpetration, but only among boys who reported high acceptance of dating

298

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

violence (i.e., injunctive norms). That is, males who endorsed traditional gender-role attitudes and attitudes accepting of ADV were more likely to physically abuse their partners than those endorsing either traditional genderrole ideologies or attitudes supportive of ADV alone (see also Reitzel-Jaffe & Wolfe, 2001). The authors speculate that, consistent with social information processing models (e.g., Huesmann, 1988), injunctive norms disapproving of violence toward dating partners serve to “filter out inappropriate behaviors,” regardless of an individual’s gender-role attitudes (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Indeed, in a review focused on the etiology of adult IPV, Jewkes (2002) noted that the two necessary (but not always sufficient) causes of IPV are the unequal position of women (in both dyads and community/ society) and the normative use of violence in a conflict.

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Implications for Research Violence against women and girls, including ADV, does not exist in a “social vacuum” but rather arises out of interacting factors across all levels of the social ecology (Jewkes et al., 2015, p. 1586). Gender inequality and the gender-role attitudes and norms that support it (and vice versa) appear to play a central role in GBV, although research is just beginning to explore the role in the development and maintenance of ADV specifically (Gressard et al., 2015). The small body of work examining gender-role inequality, gender-role attitudes, and ADV indicates that the relationships among these constructs are complicated and potentially bidirectional, highlighting the need for future work in this area. Following we list five overarching recommendations for future research.

Societal Level Gender Inequality and ADV In general, there is a lack of information about societal level risk factors for GBV compared with the individual, relationship, and to some extent, community level (e.g., DeGue et al., 2012). This is also true for research on ADV specifically (Vagi et al., 2013), with a particularly large gap when it comes to understanding the role of societal level gender inequality in the development and maintenance of ADV. To our knowledge, no existing indices focus on quantifying the inequalities between male and female adolescents specifically. Nonetheless, as mentioned previously, many indicators included in existing frameworks are either directly applicable to adolescents or affect youth through parental experience (e.g., Smith & Haddad, 2015). Some emerging frameworks include an even broader range of indicators than those listed in Table 12.1, many of which may also have intergenerational effects. For example, McKinsey Global Institute’s (2016) gender equality

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

299

framework includes indicators tapping financial inclusion (e.g., female-tomale composite ratio of the rate of account holders at a financial institution, rate of borrowing, and mobile banking rates) and legal protection (e.g., composite index of the extent of protection to women by different legal provisions such as the right to inherit and access jobs). However, this framework has yet to be used in work examining gender inequality and GBV and ADV. Many existing frameworks could also be extended to examine indicators that may have a more proximal impact during the period of adolescence, particularly within more developed or gender-egalitarian nations, which may have comparatively less variability on some indicators across states or communities (e.g., sex ratio at birth). For example, legal protection could be measured by the extent of state-offered legal protection in dating relationships. Hoefer, Black, and Ricard (2016) found that stronger US state laws regarding civil protection orders (e.g., allowing unmarried adolescents to obtain protection orders) are associated with reduced rates of ADV. Similarly, in the domain of education (and, for adolescents, extracurricular activities), potential indicators could also include the male-to-female ratio in (and retained in) optional science, technology, engineering, and math programs in primary and secondary school (D’Inverno, Kearns, & Reidy, 2016). Male-to-female ratio in secondary and higher education administrative positions, degree of Title IX enforcement by state and local governing bodies, and school compliance to Title IX regulations may also be worth considering as education-relevant indicators. Also, within the domain of health, potential adolescent-proximal indicators could include the proportion of adolescent girls who have received with the HPV vaccine according to current guidelines (UNICEF, 2015), the proportion of secondary schools teaching comprehensive sexual education (Maternal, Newborn, Child, & Adolescent Health [MNCAH], 2016), the proportion of adolescent female sexual and reproductive health service access without third-party authorization/consent (from partner, parent or other; MNCAH, 2016), and the proportion of health facilities that provide a comprehensive sexual and reproductive health package of care (MNCAH, 2016). Given the findings of Gressard et al. (2015), further exploration in the domain of health specifically may prove particularly fruitful in identifying specific aspects of gender inequality that have the most impact on ADV.

Interactions With Other Determinants of Inequality The distribution of power by gender interacts with other systems of power relations. Differences in power among men and among women are based on other determinants of inequality (e.g., socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and age) (UN Division for the Advancement of Women, 2008). Although literature has examined the intersections between race, socioeconomic status, and gender and their implications for health (e.g., Schultz & Mullings, 2006), no research to our knowledge has examined the intersectionality of

300

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

gender inequality and other social determinants on adolescent violence outcomes specifically.

Use of More Rigorous Designs Most research designs examining the impact of gender inequality, and particularly gender-role attitudes, and ADV, have been cross-sectional. These designs are an important first step in identifying potential risk markers that warrant attention in longitudinal work. More rigorous designs are needed, however, to specify the relationship between gender inequality and ADV over time, particularly given work indicating that ADV may in fact influence gender-role attitudes (e.g., Nabors & Jasinski, 2009). Similarly, very rarely have studies collected data from both partners; examination of the interaction of each partner’s gender-role attitudes will likely provide more information about the emergence and, course, of ADV than data from one partner alone (Capaldi et al. 2012). Finally, future research should consider measures that capture the full range of ADV behaviors, including psychological abuse and stalking. Use of a Developmental Lens Future research can examine relationships among gender inequality, genderrole attitudes, and ADV across nuanced developmental periods. Research indicates that both the nature of dating relationships (Collins et al., 2009) and the type and context of ADV (e.g., Orpinas, Hsieh, Song, Holland, & Nahapetyan, 2013) change over the course of adolescence and into emerging adulthood. Similarly, adolescents’ gender-role ideologies also appear to shift across the course of adolescence (Crouter et al., 2007; Galambos et al., 1990), potentially along with pubertal development, increasing importance of peers, and exposure to new school environments. For example, McHale and colleagues (1999) found that over a 2-year period in adolescence, younger siblings became more like their older siblings with respect to gender-role attitudes, even after controlling for the effects of parent gender-role attitudes. This change may reflect the overall dynamic of the adolescent period, characterized by a shift from heavily reliance on parents to increasing dependence on peers, romantic partners, and others (Furman, Brown, & Feiring, 1999; Laursen & Williams, 1997). Future work exploring the relationships between siblings and peers gender-role attitudes over time could provide further insight into the social learning processes that affect gender-role development and ADV throughout adolescence. An integrated approach that is developmentally sensitive and considers both social learning and genderbased theories will greatly move the field forward. Female Perpetration As noted, most research on gender inequality and violence has focused on male perpetration of violence against females. Self-defense scholars have

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

301

noted that female perpetration of violence against male partners is likely due to other forms of non-gender specific unhealthy relationship behaviors (Reed, 2008). Nonetheless, the power imbalances in relationships associated with societal level gender inequality and individual level inequitable gender ideologies may play a role in female perpetration of ADV. For example, although Gomez and colleagues (2011) did not find a relationship between individual level support for gender equity and female perpetration of dating violence among adolescents in Brazil, they found a positive relationship between female unemployment and female ADV perpetration. The authors posit that gender inequity may underlie this relationship, such that women who are unemployed are more likely to be socially isolated, thereby less likely to learn of nontraditional gender roles that are not generally supported by their community at large (Gomez et al., 2011). Female unemployment also contributes to a woman’s financial dependence on her partner and creates other power imbalances that relate to unhealthy relationship norms (Gomez et al., 2011). More research is needed to capture the complex, catalytic role that gender inequality may play in partner violence.

Implications for Practice For decades, promoting gender equality has been a critical part of violence prevention activities, including ADV (Basile et al., 2016; Niolon et al., 2017; WHO, 2009; WHO, 2016). Although etiological work has been subject to numerous limitations, many of which we outlined above, evaluations of intervention programs that aim to reduce gender inequality and promote egalitarian gender ideologies as part of an overall prevention strategy provide some support to the idea that promotion of greater gender equality reduces GBV. Although, it must be said (again): the evidence for ADV is sparser. Activities with some evidence of effectiveness in the prevention of GBV, all of which contain components aimed at increasing gender equality at the community or individual level, have largely fallen into four approaches: (1) women’s economic empowerment combined with gender equity training that focuses on topics such as gender roles, cultural beliefs, communication in relationships, and intimate partner violence (e.g., microfinance programs, or structural interventions that offer small loans and financial literacy training to poor individuals, most often women; cash transfer programs in Malawi; Baird, Garfein, McIntosh, & Ozler, 2012); (2) group-based gender-focused interventions (e.g., Stepping Stones in South Africa; Jewkes et al., 2008); (3) social norm change in communities, focusing on women/girls and men/ boys (e.g., One Man Can in South Africa; Dworkin, Hatcher, Colvin, & Peacock, 2013); and (4) school-based curriculum interventions (e.g., Safe Dates in the United States; Foshee et al, 2004; Coaching Boys into Men in the United States; Miller et al, 2013; Fourth R in Canada; Wolfe et al., 2009).

302

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Although a thorough review of programs is beyond the scope of the current chapter, we encourage readers to consult Chapter 16, What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence? A Global Review of Best Practices, for a discussion of school-based interventions intended to prevent ADV specifically. The WHO’s (2009) global action plan, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s intimate partner and sexual violence prevention technical packages for evidence also provide information about these overarching strategies, approaches, and example programs, practices, and policies (Basile et al., 2016; Niolon et al., 2017). Jewkes et al. (2015) provides a summary of approaches engaging men and boys specifically. We do want to highlight several themes, though, that have emerged from the literature on preventing GBV through interventions aimed at addressing gender ideology.

Engaging Men and Boys First, over the last decades, there has been enormous growth in the approaches that seek to engage men and boys, particularly when used in conjunction with approaches that engage women and girls (e.g., Basile et al., 2016; Niolon et al., 2017; WHO, 2016; UNFPA, 2010). Approaches engaging men and boys typically focus on transforming masculine norms to be more equitable and respectful (Barker et al., 2010). Regarding ADV specifically, most of this work has been done with adolescents in group settings, and often in schools, to promote more equal relationships and support boys in challenging harmful, traditional notions of masculinity, and resulting gender roles. In fact, a systematic review found that 90% of the high-quality studies evaluating programs with men and boys to prevent sexual violence were conducted in school settings (Ricardo, Edads, & Barker, 2011). Athletics has been used as a specific entry point with boys and young men to promote a male peer group supportive of positive masculinities. For example, Coaching Boys into Men (Miller et al., 2013) trains athletic coaches to work weekly with their male athletes to promote gender-equal, nonviolent attitudes and to improve bystander behavior (i.e., intervening when faced with peers’ ADV-related behaviors, rather than respond with apathy or encouragement). Results of a randomized controlled trial showed that athletes who had participated in Coaching Boys into Men reported less perpetration of dating violence and less negative bystander behaviors (e.g., laughing or going along with peers’ abusive behaviors) than controls at a 12-month follow-up. Interestingly, at the 12-month follow-up, researchers saw no significant differences between intervention athletes and controls on genderequitable attitudes. The authors speculate that changing traditional gender norms and masculinity scripts—including those that condone sexual violence—may be less amenable to change; a sentiment that mirrors the conclusions of Gressard et al. (2015) following their finding that societal level

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

303

gender inequality did not have an impact on rates of sexual ADV. As noted earlier, in countries with high gender equality, boys (vs girls) appear to be less influenced by their highly educated mothers; exposure to other sources promoting traditional gender roles (e.g., peers, media) may interfere with them picking up their attitudes at home (Sani & Quaranta, 2017). Programs involving influential, nonparental role models (e.g., coaches) in addition to interventions at other levels of the social ecology may be especially important prevention approaches for boys and young men. More research is needed to examine the impact of role models on boys’ adoption, or lack thereof, of egalitarian attitudes.

Multilevel Approaches Second, gender inequality and ideologies are embodied across the levels of the social ecology, and thus, a comprehensive approach that targets multiple levels is critical to effecting change (Niolon et al., 2017). One intervention (e.g., a single school-based intervention aimed at students only) cannot always do this, and so strategic approaches to programming are needed, with collaborations among organizations and stakeholders, such as schools and communities (e.g., CDC’s multilevel approach to ADV, Dating Matters, see Tharp, 2012). This approach is especially important given that changes in one system or dimension tapping gender inequality may not exert a direct downstream effect on the way various systems, including individuals, respond (CDC, 2012; Jaffe et al., 2003). As described earlier, some work has found that greater labor/economic and educational equality has been associated with increased adult sexual violence and intimate partner violence, at least in the short term (Jewkes et al., 2002; Whaley, 2001). The implication of these findings is that multilevel prevention is critical to the prevention of GBV; changes at the societal level will fall short if attitudes and individual ideologies continue to be transmitted throughout generations. Unfortunately, we know very little about the effect of general interventions at the societal level (including country, state, or community) on ADV (Hoefer, Black & Ricard, 2015), let alone gender-specific interventions. However, research examining changes in ADV rates based on gender inequality indicators outlined in Table 12.1, and extensions to adolescents described above, may provide a starting point for the creation of policies aimed at preventing and reducing GBV. The question of how to best coordinate separate interventions, which work at different levels of the social ecology (and target different risk factors), is an important task for both research and practice (Jewkes et al., 2015), although the literature on this front is growing. For example, One Man Can (OMC; Dworkin et al., 2013), a gender equality and health program implemented in South Africa, is based on the premise that changing deeply held gender and sexuality-related beliefs and practices requires comprehensive, multicomponent strategies. As such, the program is implemented

304

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

in a wide range of settings and by a range of men and boys, including religious and traditional leaders, young and adult men in prisons and upon release, commercial fishermen, primary and secondary students and their parents, and policy makers and health service providers at the national, provincial, and local level (Dworkin et al., 2013). Qualitative work examining the impact of OMC is promising, with men reporting shifts toward more egalitarian gender-role attitudes in domains such as division of household labor and decision-making, as well as more positive views of women’s’ rights; men participating in OMC also reported changes in their dominant views of masculinity, were able to control their anger, and reduce their use of violence against both women and men (Dworkin et al., 2013).

CONCLUSION In this chapter, we explored the relationship between gender inequality, gender-role attitudes, and GBV, drawing extensions to ADV. Etiological research and evaluations of intervention programs indicate that gender inequality and the gender-role attitudes that support it (and vice versa) appear to play a central role in GBV, although research is just beginning to explore impacts on ADV specifically. Gleaning knowledge from the broader field of violence prevention, there is promise in the reduction of gender inequality and ADV via multicomponent interventions that target both males and females. Future work in the area would benefit from the use of more rigorous designs to examine gender inequality at the societal level (including using or adapting existing gender inequality indices) and interactions with other determinants of inequality (e.g., race), as well as use of a developmental lens to examine both male and female ADV perpetration.

REFERENCES Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111 125. Abramsky, T., Watts, C. H., Garcia-Moreno, C., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Ellsberg, M., . . . Heise, L. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11, 109. Aizer, A. (2010). The gender wage gap and domestic violence. The American Economic Review, 100(4), 1847. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1995). Changes in gender role attitudes and perceived marital quality. American Sociological Review, 60(1), 58 66. American Psychological Association. (2015). APA dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). Washington: Author.

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

305

Amin, A., & Chandra-Mouli, V. (2014). Empowering adolescent girls: Developing egalitarian gender norms and relations to end violence. Reproductive Health, 11(1), 75. Anderson, V. N., Simpson-Taylor, D., & Herrmann, D. J. (2004). Gender, age, and rapesupportive rules. Sex Roles, 50(1), 77 90. Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1137 1148. Austin, R. L., & Kim, Y. S. (2000). A cross-national examination of the relationship between gender equality and official rape rates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(2), 204 221. Bailey, W. C. (1999). The socioeconomic status of women and patterns of forcible rape for major US cities. Sociological Focus, 32(1), 43 63. Baird, S. J., Garfein, R. S., McIntosh, C. T., & Ozler, B. (2012). Effect of a cash transfer programme for schooling on prevalence of HIV and herpes simplex type 2 in Malawi: A cluster randomised trial. Lancet, 379(9823), 1320 1329. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(11)61709-1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Oxford: Prentice-Hall. Barker, G., Ricardo, C., Nascimento, M., Nascimento, A. M., & Carlos, S. (2010). Questioning gender norms with men to improve health outcomes: Evidence of impact. Global Public Health, 5(5), 539 553. Baron, L., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Four theories of rape in American society: A state-level analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press. Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K., Dills, J., Smith, S. G., & Raiford, J. L. (2016). STOP SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bolzendahl, C. I., & Myers, D. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974 1998. Social Forces, 83, 759 790. Available from https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2005.0005. Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Taylor, J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 552 565. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Bradley, K., & Khor, D. (1993). Toward an integration of theory and research on the status of women. Gender & Society, 7(3), 347 378. Brinda, E. M., Rajkumar, A. P., & Enemark, U. (2015). Association between gender inequality index and child mortality rates: A cross-national study of 138 countries. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 97. Byers, E. S. (1996). How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? A review of a program of research. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 8, 7 25. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231 280. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231. Caridad Bueno, C., & Henderson, E. A. (2017). Bargaining or backlash? Evidence on intimate partner violence from the Dominican Republic. Feminist Economics, 1 27. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2017.1292360. Cascardi, M. (2016). From violence in the home to physical dating violence victimization: The mediating role of psychological distress in a prospective study of female adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(4), 777 792. Center for Human Resources Research. (2006). NLSY79 user’s guide: A guide to the 1979 2004 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

306

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). Step by step—Evaluating violence and injury prevention strategies: Brief 5: Evaluating policy impact. Atlanta: Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed February 10, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/ policy/Brief%205-a.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2016). Understanding teen dating violence. Atlanta: Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed August 16, 2017, from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-factsheet-a.pdf. Chafetz, J. (1990). Gender equity: An integrated theory of stability and change. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Chung, D. (2005). Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and heterosexual relationships. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28(6), 445 455. Coleman, D. H., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Marital power, conflict, and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence and Victims, 1, 141 157. Collibee, C., & Furman, W. (2016). Chronic and acute relational risk factors for dating aggression in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(4), 763 776. Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631 652. Available from 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459. Copp, J. E., Mumford, E. A., & Taylor, B. G. (2016). Money lending practices and adolescent dating relationship abuse: Results from a national sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(9), 1902 1916. Available from 10.1007/s10964-016-0521-3. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2011). End of the gender revolution? Gender role attitudes from 1977 to 2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 259 289. Counts, D. A., Brown, J. K., & Campbell, J. (1999). To have and to hit: Cultural perspectives on wife beating. University of Illinois Press. Courtenay, W. H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1385 1401. Crouter, A. C., Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Osgood, W. D. (2007). The development of gender attitude traditionality across middle childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 78(3), 911 926. Available from 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01040.x. Dahlberg, L., & Krug, E. (2002). Violence-A global public health problem. In E. Krug, L. Dahlberg, J. Mercy, A. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), World Report on Violence and Health (pp. 1 22). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2015). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 136 152. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517559. Das, M., Ghosh, S., Verma, R., O’Connor, B., Fewer, S., Catrina Virata, M., & Miller, E. (2014). Gender attitudes and violence among urban adolescent boys in India. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19(1), 99 112. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02673843.2012.716762. Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87 105. Available from https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-soc-070308-115920. de Bruijn, P., Burrie, I., & van Wel, F. (2006). A risky boundary: Unwanted sexual behaviour among youth. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12(2), 81 96.

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

307

DeGue, S., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., Tharp, A. T., & Valle, L. A. (2012). Looking ahead toward community-level strategies to prevent sexual violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 21(1), 1 3. D’Inverno, A. S., Kearns, M. C., & Reidy, D. E. (2016). The potential role of science, technology, engineering, and math programs in reducing teen dating violence and intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 25(12), 1199 1203. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1089/jwh.2016.6213. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York: Free Press. Donnelly, K., Twenge, J. M., Clark, M. A., Shaikh, S. K., Beiler-May, A., & Carter, N. T. (2016). Attitudes toward women’s work and family roles in the United States, 1976 2013. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 41 54. Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11-12), 743 756. Dworkin, S. L., Hatcher, A. M., Colvin, C., & Peacock, D. (2013). Impact of a gendertransformative HIV and antiviolence program on gender ideologies and masculinities in two rural, South African communities. Men and Masculinity, 16, 181 202. Eaton, A. A., & Matamala, A. (2014). The relationship between heteronormative beliefs and verbal sexual coercion in college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(7), 1443 1457. Eaton, A. A., & Rose, S. (2011). Has dating become more egalitarian? A 35 year review using sex roles. Sex Roles, 64(11), 843 862. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-0119957-9. Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Farre´, L., & Vella, F. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of gender role attitudes and its implications for female labour force participation. Economica, 80(318), 219 247. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Fitzpatrick, M. K., Salgado, D. M., Suvak, M. K., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (2004). Associations of gender and gender-role ideology with behavioral and attitudinal features of intimate partner aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(2), 91. Foshee, V. A., & Bauman, K. (2001). Gender stereotyping and adolescent sexual behavior: A test of temporal order. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(20), 1561 1579. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619 624. Foshee, V. A., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E., & Benefield, T. S. (2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual mediators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(6), 596 604. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128 141. Furman, W., Brown, B. B., & Feiring, C. (1999). The development of romantic relationships in adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

308

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. C. (1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex role attitudes in early adolescence: Exploring gender intensification. Child Development, 61. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb03574.x, 1905 1014. Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38 (4), 659 668. Giordano, P. C., Kaufman, A. M., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2015). Teen dating violence: The influence of friendships and school context. Sociological Focus, 48(2), 150 171. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., . . . Alao, A. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763 775. Gomez, A. M., Speizer, I. S., & Moracco, K. E. (2011). Linkages between gender equity and intimate partner violence among urban Brazilian youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(4), 393 399. Gracia, E., & Merlo, J. (2016). Intimate partner violence against women and the Nordic paradox. Social Science & Medicine, 157, 27 30. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2016.03.040. Greig, F. Hausmann, R, Tyson, L D, and Zahidi, S. (2006). The Gender Gap Index 2006: A New Framework for Measuring Equality. In The Global Gender Gap Report 2006. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Gressard, L. A., Swahn, M. H., & Tharp, A. (2015). A first look at gender inequality as a societal risk factor for dating violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 448 457. Grest, C. V., Amaro, H., & Unger, J. (2017). Longitudinal predictors of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization in Latino emerging adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, online advance publication. Hague, G., & Malos, E. (2005). Domestic violence: Action for change (3rd ed.). Cheltenham: New Clarion Press. Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., & Turner, H. (2012). Teen dating violence: Co-occurrence with other victimizations in the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV). Psychology of Violence, 2(2), 111 124. Hamby, S., & Turner, H. (2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the national survey of children’s exposure to violence. Psychology of Violence, 3(4), 323 339. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029706. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1 22. Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262 290. Heise, L. L., & Kotsadam, A. (2015). Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: An analysis of data from population-based surveys. The Lancet Global Health, 3(6), e332 e340. Herrero, J., Rodriguez, F. J., & Torres, A. (2017). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23(3), 351 367. Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The Second Shift. New York: Viking. Hoefer, R., Black, B., & Ricard, M. (2015). The impact of state policy on teen dating violence prevalence. Journal of Adolescence, 44, 88 96. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14(1), 13 24.

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

309

Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408 419. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2003). Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to evaluate intended and unintended consequences. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 205 213. Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359(9315), 1423 1429. Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580 1589. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61683-4. Jewkes, R., Nduna, M., Levin, J., Jama, N., Dunkle, K., Puren, A., & Duvvury, N. (2008). Impact of stepping stones on incidence of HIV and HSV-2 and sexual behaviour in rural South Africa: Cluster randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 337, a506. Available from https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a506. Jewkes, R., Sen, P., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002). Sexual violence. In E. Krug, L. Dahlberg, J. Mercy, A. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), World Report on Violence and Health (pp. 147 181). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Ka˚gesten, A., Gibbs, S., Blum, R. W., Moreau, C., Chandra-Mouli, V., Herbert, A., & Amin, A. (2016). Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS One, 11(6), e0157805. Kalmuss, D. S., & Straus, M. A. (1982). Wife’s marital dependency and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 277 286. Katz-Wise, S. L., Priess, H. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). Gender-role attitudes and behavior across the transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 46, 18 28. Lacasse, A., & Mendelson, M. J. (2007). Sexual coercion among adolescents victims and perpetrators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 424 437. Laursen, B., & Williams, V. A. (1997). Perceptions of interdependence and closeness in family and peer relationships among adolescents with and without romantic partners. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 78, 3 20. Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583 601. Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. London: Sage Publications. Lichter, E. L., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 344 357. Lisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. (2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men’s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37 (11), 1264 1270. Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Policy Indicator Dashboard (2016). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Accessed March 1, 2017. Available from http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/epidemiology/policy-indicators/en/. McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R., Austin, S. B., McCormick, M. C., & Miller, E. (2013). Gender-equitable attitudes, bystander behavior, and recent abuse perpetration against heterosexual dating partners of male high school athletes. American

310

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Journal of Public Health, 103(10), 1882 1887. Available from https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.2013.301443. McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and coercive power within the family. Gender & Society, 10(4), 449 463. McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Family context and gender role socialization in middle childhood: Comparing girls to boys and sisters to brothers. Child Development, 70, 990 1004. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00072. McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1 16. McKinsey Global Institute. (2016). The power of parity: Advancing women’s equality in the United States. New York: McKinsey & Company. Miedzian, M. (1995). Learning to be violent. In E. Peled, P. G. Jaffe, & J. L. Edelson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of violence: Community responses to children of battered women (pp. 10 24). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., & Silverman, J. G. (2013). One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(1), 108 112. Morris, A. M., Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2015). From family violence to dating violence: Testing a dual pathway model. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1819 1835. Mueller, V., Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., & Rosenfield, D. (2013). Adolescent beliefs about the acceptability of dating violence: Does violent behavior change them? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 436 450. Mulford, C., & Giordano, P. C. (2008). Teen dating violence: A closer look at adolescent romantic relationships. National Institute of Justice Journal, 261, 34 40. Mun˜oz-Rivas, M. J., Gran˜a, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & Gonza´lez, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(4), 298 304. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2006.11.137. Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359 375. Nabors, E. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2009). Intimate partner violence perpetration among college students the role of gender role and gendered violence attitudes. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 57 82. Niolon, P. H., Kearns, M., Dills, J., Rambo, K., Irving, S., Armstead, T., & Gilbert, L. (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence across the lifespan: A technical package of programs, policies, and practices. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Orpinas, P., Hsieh, H. L., Song, X., Holland, K., & Nahapetyan, L. (2013). Trajectories of physical dating violence from middle to high school: Association with relationship quality and acceptability of aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 551 565. Pallitto, C. C., & O’Campo, P. (2005). Community level effects of gender inequality on intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy in Colombia: Testing the feminist perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 60(10), 2205 2216. Pan American Health Organization (2016). Gender and health. Pan American Health Organization, Washington. Accessed April 2, 2017, from: http://www2.paho.org/hq/index. php?option5com_content&view5article&id52680%3Agender-and-healt&catid53344% 3Agender&Itemid54017&lang5en.

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

311

Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene: Castalia. Poteat, V. P., Kimmel, M. S., & Wilchins, R. (2011). The moderating effects of support for violence beliefs on masculine norms, aggression, and homophobic behavior during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 434 447. Pulerwitz, J., Michaelis, A., Verma, R., & Weiss, E. (2010). Addressing gender dynamics and engaging men in HIV programs: Lessons learned from Horizons research. Public Health Reports, 125(2), 282 292. Reed, E. (2008). Intimate partner violence: A gender-based issue? American Journal of Public Health, 98(2), 197. Reed, E., Raj, A., Miller, E., & Silverman, J. G. (2010). Losing the “gender” in gender-based violence: The missteps of research on dating and intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16(3), 348 354. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209361127. Reed, E., Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., & Miller, E. (2011). Male perpetration of teen dating violence: Associations with neighborhood violence involvement, gender attitudes, and perceived peer and neighborhood norms. Journal of Urban Health, 88(2), 226 239. Reese-Weber, M., & Johnson, A. I. (2013). Examining dating violence from the relational context. In H. R. Cunningham, & W. F. Berry (Eds.), Handbook on the psychology of violence. New York: Nova Publishing. Reidy, D. E., Berke, D. S., Gentile, B., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Man enough? Masculine discrepancy stress and intimate partner violence. Personality & Individual Differences, 68, 160 164. Reidy, D. E., Early, M. S., & Holland, K. M. (2017). Boys are victims too? Sexual dating violence and injury among a high-risk sample of youth. Preventive Medicine. Available from https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.018. Reidy, D. E., Smith-Darden, J. P., Cortina, K. S., Kernsmith, R. M., & Kernsmith, P. D. (2015). Masculine discrepancy stress, teen dating violence, and sexual violence perpetration among adolescent boys. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(6), 619 624. Reitzel-Jaffe, D., & Wolfe, D. A. (2001). Predictors of relationship abuse among young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(2), 99 115. Renner, L. M., & Whitney, S. D. (2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 40 52. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.007. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Niolon, P. H., Reidy, D. E., & Hall, J. E. (2016). Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(2), 350 360. Rhodebeck, L. A. (1996). The structure of men’s and women’s feminist orientations: Feminist identity and feminist opinion. Gender and Society, 10, 386 403. Ricardo, C., Eads, M., & Barker, G. T. (2011). Engaging boys and young men in the prevention of sexual violence: A systematic and global review of evaluated interventions. Pretoria, South Africa: Sexual Violence Research Initiative and Promundo. Richardson, E. T., Collins, S. E., Kung, T., Jones, J. H., Tram, K. H., Boggiano, V. L., . . . Zolopa, A. R. (2014). Gender inequality and HIV transmission: A global analysis. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 17(1). Available from https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.1.19035. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press. 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: Praeger Publishers.

312

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Roberts, S. C. (2011). What can alcohol researchers learn from research about the relationship between macro-level gender equality and violence against women? Alcohol and Alcoholism, 46(2), 95 104. Rosenfield, A., Min, C., & Bardfield, J. (2010). Women’s global health and human rights. In P. Murthy, & C. L. Smith (Eds.), Women’s global health and human rights (pp. 3 7). Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Russell, D. E. H. (1975). The politics of rape, the victim’s perspective. New York: Stein & Day. Sani, G. M. D., & Quaranta, M. (2017). The best is yet to come? Attitudes toward gender roles among adolescents in 36 countries. Sex Roles, 1(2), 30 45. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-016-0698-7. Santana, M. C., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., La Marche, A., & Silverman, J. G. (2006). Masculine gender roles associated with increased sexual risk and intimate partner violence perpetration among young adult men. Journal of Urban Health, 83(4), 575 585. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9061-6. Schulte, M. T., Ramo, D., & Brown, S. A. (2009). Gender differences in factors influencing alcohol use and drinking progression among adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 535 547. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.003. Schultz, A., & Mullings, L. (Eds.), (2006). Gender, race, class and health: Intersectional approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scott, J. (2010). Quantitative methods and gender inequalities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13(3), 223 236. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13645579.2010.482258. Sears, H., Byers, S., & Price, L. (2007). The co-occurrence of adolescent boys’ and girls’ use of psychologically, physically and sexually abusive behaviours in their dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 30(3), 487 504. ¨ stlin, P. (2008). Gender inequity in health: Why it exists and how we can change it. Sen, G., & O Global Public Health, 3(1), 1 12. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/17441690801900795. Shen, A. C., Chiu, M. Y., & Gao, J. (2012). Predictors of dating violence among Chinese adolescents: The role of gender-role beliefs and justification of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(6), 1066 1089. Smith, L. C., & Haddad, L. (2015). Reducing child undernutrition: Past drivers and priorities for the post-MDG era. World Development, 68, 180 204. Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65 98. Straus, M. A. (1994). State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in relations to assaults on wives in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 7 24. Sugarman, D. B., & Frankel, S. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11(1), 13 40. Tharp, A. T. (2012). Dating matters: The next generation of teen dating violence prevention. Prevention Science, 13(4), 398 401. Tharp, A. T., DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Brookmeyer, K. A., Massetti, G. M., & Matjasko, J. L. (2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 14(2), 133 167. UNICEF (2010). Working for an equal future: UNICEF policy on gender equality and the empowerment of girls and women. UNICEF, New York. Accessed January 5, 2017, from https://www.unicef.org/gender/files/Working_for_an_Equal_Future_UNICEF_Gender_Policy_ 2010.pdf.

Gender Inequality and Gender-Based Violence Chapter | 12

313

UNICEF. (2015). Monitoring the situation of children and women for 20 years: The Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) 1995 2015. New York: UNICEF. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2016). Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York: Oxford University Press. United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women. (2008). Women 2000 and Beyond: The role of men and boys in achieving gender equality. New York: Author. Accessed February 1, 2017, from http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2008/12/ women-2000-and-beyond-the-role-of-men-and-boys-in-achieving-gender-equality#sthash. t6G6mPLl.dpuf. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2015). A guide for gender equality in teacher education policy and practices. Paris, France. Accessed February 10, 2017, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002316/231646e.pdf. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2010). Promundo. Engaging men and boys in gender equality and health: A global toolkit for action. Accessed February 10, 2017, from: http:// www.unfpa.org/public/home/publications/pid/6815. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2016). United States strategy to prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally. Washington: Author. Accessed August 14, 2017, from: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/258703.pdf. Vagi, K. J., Rothman, E. F., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Hall, D. M., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 633 649. Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101. Vespa, J. (2009). Gender ideology construction: A life course and intersectional approach. Gender & Society, 23(3), 363 387. Vyas, S., & Watts, C. (2009). How does economic empowerment affect women’s risk of intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published evidence. Journal of International Development, 21(5), 577 602. Walker, L. E. (1989). Psychology and violence against women. American Psychologist, 44, 695 702. Wechsberg, W., Anderson, S. & Howard, B.N. (Eds.) (2017). Ending gender inequalities: Addressing the nexus of HIV, drug use, and violence with evidence-based action, April 12 13, 2016 (RTI Press Publication No. CP-0003-1704). Research Triangle Park: RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2017.cp.0003.1704. Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerging prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 19(4), 435 456. Whaley, R. B. (2001). The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender & Society, 15(4), 531 555. Wilkins, N., Tsao, B., Hertz, M., Davis, R., & Klevens, J. (2014). Connecting the Dots: An Overview of the Links Among Multiple Forms of Violence. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., . . . Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692 699. World Economic Forum (2014). The global gender gap report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization. (2009). Promoting gender equality to prevent violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

314

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

World Health Organization. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO/London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. World Health Organization. (2016). Global plan of action to strengthen the role of the health system within a national multisectoral response to address interpersonal violence, in particular against women and girls, and against children. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Yllo¨, K. (1984). The status of women, marital equality, and violence against wives: A contextual analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 5(3), 307 320. Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 (6), 655 675. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504263868. Zuo, J., & Tang, S. (2000). Breadwinner status and gender ideologies of men and women regarding family roles. Sociological Perspectives, 43, 29 43. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1389781.

Chapter 13

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Deinera Exner-Cortens Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

WHY MEASUREMENT MATTERS Findings presented throughout this volume rest on the quality of measurement and so exploring how adolescent dating violence (ADV)1 is measured in current research has important implications: sound measurement is imperative to the accurate understanding of this complex public health problem. To date, literature reviewing ADV measurement is limited, making the task of understanding the measurement landscape difficult. Almost four decades into research on dating violence, however, there are a number of measurement issues that require attention and discussion among ADV researchers. For example, in the literature, ADV victimization and perpetration are typically assessed as the endorsement of any aggressive or violent behavior during the time frame under study. As a result, current empirical literature may not adequately capture dating violence in a way that matches lived experience. This limitation is especially true for the construct of psychological aggression, which suffers from poor definition and validation (Follingstad, 2007). Furthermore, many ADV measures were developed for adults (Wolfe et al., 2001) and thus not all have evidence of reliability and validity in early and mid-adolescent populations, and those measures that do have this

1. In this chapter, adolescent dating violence is defined as physically, psychologically, and sexually abusive actions, including stalking, experienced in dating and romantic relationships between the ages of 11 and 18 years (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2016a). This chapter does not specifically consider dating violence experienced in college-aged samples. When considering measurement, this chapter focuses on measures that assess dating violence behaviors (i.e., acts) and attitudes. For space, this chapter does not explicitly focus on dating violence screening tools or measures that assess bystander behaviors for adolescent dating violence. Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00013-X © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

315

316

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

evidence are not always used in empirical research (Exner-Cortens, Gill, & Eckenrode, 2016a, 2016b). As an example, the questions on the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health—a study that has substantially contributed to the ADV knowledge base—come from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), a popular measure for assessing ADV (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012), but a measure that was initially developed for and tested in adult and college-age samples. Because what is measured determines what is found, it is important to understand the state of ADV measurement. As we discuss in our recent review on this topic (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a): “In the early stages of teen dating violence research, where the goal was to provide an initial scope of the problem, researchers typically used measures that were not developed for or psychometrically tested in adolescent populations. Now thirty years into work on dating violence, it is important to evaluate the state of ADV measurement, in order to assess gaps in the field and provide directions for future research” (p. 65). The purpose of this chapter is thus to review commonly used measures, as well as current gaps in the measurement literature. This chapter also discusses emerging innovations in ADV measurement and concludes with recommendations for future research in this area.

CURRENT MEASUREMENT APPROACHES What measures are currently used to assess ADV? Two Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compendia of youth and intimate partner violence (IPV) measurement list Foshee, Fothergill and Stuart’s (1992) Acceptance of Couple Violence scale, Foshee et al.’s (1996) Safe Dates scales, and Straus et al.’s (1996) CTS2 (as cited in Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, & Behrens, 2005 and Thompson, Basile, Hertz, & Sitterle, 2006). However, neither of these compendia give information on current use of these measures in ADV research. Fortunately, several recent measure reviews focused on ADV provide a more detailed answer to this question. In a systematic review of risk factors for IPV, Capaldi et al. (2012) found that for adolescent samples, the most commonly used measure was the CTS2 (40% of studies). Other measures used included one to three self-report questions (i.e., not a tested scale; 24% of studies), the Safe Dates scales (14% of studies), the Conflict in Relationships scale (9% of studies) and the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; 5% of studies) (Capaldi et al., 2012). In their synthesis of research published between 2000 and 2013 on ADV prevalence and impact, Stonard, Bowen, Lawrence, and Price (2014) also found that some version of the CTS was the most commonly used to assess physical (33% of studies) and psychological (57% of studies) aggression in

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

317

adolescent dating relationships. However, a fairly large number of studies assessing physical and psychological aggression used ad hoc or other untested measures (Stonard et al., 2014). Measurement for sexual violence was much more varied than for physical or psychological aggression, and most measures used to assess sexual violence had not been tested for use in adolescent samples (per the review of Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a). Most recently, Smith et al. (2015) conducted a review of the behavioral ADV measures commonly used in current research, by asking US federally funded ADV researchers about what measures they had used, and by conducting a literature review to complement the information provided by researchers (p. 676). Using this strategy, they located 48 different measures of ADV behavior (i.e., of psychological aggression, physical aggression, sexual violence, and/or stalking); however, most of these measures assessed only one or two forms of ADV, and most measured only victimization (p. 676 677). As with the Capaldi et al. (2012) review, Smith et al. (2015) found that the most commonly used measure was the CTS2 (24% of studies), followed by the Safe Dates scales (22% of studies) and the CADRI (15% of studies). In total, just over half (54%) of the assessments used were established measures, and, even when researchers used an existing measure, they often adapted items for their specific study. Furthermore, Smith et al. (2015) found that only 35% of measures used in current research were developed specifically for adolescents. ADV attitude scales were not reviewed in either the Capaldi et al. (2012), Stonard et al. (2014), or the Smith et al. (2015) studies. However, in a systematic review of psychometrically tested ADV measures, we present information on attitudes scales (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016b). Attitudes scales identified in our review included the Attitudes Towards Dating Violence Scales (ATDVS; Price & Byers, 1999); the Attitudes About Aggression in Dating Situations scale (AADS; Slep, Cascardi, Avery-Leaf, & O’Leary, 2001); the Justification of Verbal/Coercive Tactics scale (JVCT; Slep et al., 2001); the Attitudes Towards Interpersonal Violence scale (AIV; Slep et al., 2001); the Adolescent Attitudes Regarding Dating Relationships scale (Davidson, 2005); the Prescribed Norms/Normative Beliefs about Aggression scale (Edelen, McCaffrey, Marshall, & Jaycox, 2009); and the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations scale (Rayburn et al., 2007). In their review of “some of the most commonly used self-report instruments for adolescent dating violence” (p. 33), Caselman, Dubriwny, and Curzon (2014) also refer to the AADS, the AIV, and the JVCT as commonly used attitude measures. While a number of psychometrically tested attitude scales thus exist, when we reviewed work published over the past decade for use of these tested measures, we found that only the ATDVS was used during this period (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016b).

318

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Measure Quality From the studies by Capaldi et al. (2012), Stonard et al. (2014), and Smith et al. (2015), commonly used measures to assess ADV behavior (i.e., actbased scales) in current research appear to be the CTS2, the CADRI, and the Safe Dates scales. This result may be because the CADRI is the most tested ADV scale (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a), and the CTS2 is a very commonly used assessment of adult IPV (Capaldi et al., 2012). The Conflict Tactics Scale was also already a tested measure at the time research on dating violence began (while the CADRI and Safe Dates scales were not). The Safe Dates scales were developed in the early days of ADV research and are also the primary assessment tools for an evidence-based dating violence prevention program (Foshee et al., 1996; Foshee et al., 2005). However, unlike the CTS and CADRI, the Safe Dates scales were only recently subjected to psychometric evaluation (Cutbush & Williams, 2016; Goncy, Farrell, Sullivan, & Taylor, 2016). Recently, we conducted the first systematic review that assessed the quality of ADV attitude and behavior measures (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a, 2016b). Given the focus of most research in this volume, a summary of measure quality details for the three most commonly used behavioral measures (CTS2, CADRI, and Safe Dates) is presented in Table 13.1. Attitude measures with evidence of measure quality are described above, and a full review of measure quality is given in Exner-Cortens et al. (2016b). During the process of conducting our review, it became clear that many existing empirical articles used ADV attitude and behavior measures that were not tested, had no evidence of reliability beyond internal consistency, and had no evidence of validity. In total, our review found 13 measures of ADV attitudes and behavior that had been subject to measure testing, but even for these tested measures, “the amount of evidence supporting reliability and validity . . . is limited . . . only four were assessed in more than one study, and only the CADRI was assessed in more than two studies. Thus, for behavioral measures, the CADRI has the most robust support of its reliability and validity. . . Of the attitude measures, the ATDVS, AADS and JVCT are the most studied. . .. [However], no one [attitude or behavior] measure was identified as the ‘gold standard’. . .” (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016b, p. 103). This last point indicates that there are several limitations in current approaches to ADV measurement, some of which will now be explored.

LIMITATIONS IN CURRENT MEASUREMENT APPROACHES From the review above, two important limitations in current ADV research are (1) the relatively small number of psychometrically tested ADV measures and (2) researchers’ limited use of those measures that are tested (including the frequent adaptation of tested measures, without subsequent

TABLE 13.1 Summary of Measure Testing for the CTS, CADRI, and Safe Dates Scales Authors and Year

Measure Name [Abbreviation(s)]

Type of Violence

Reliability Evidence

Validity Evidence

Cascardi, Avery-Leaf, O’Leary, and Slep (1999)

Modified Conflict Tactics Scale [M-CTS]

PV, PsV PP, PsP

NA

Construct (convergent)

Nocentini et al. (2011)

Revised Conflict Tactics Scale [CTS2]

PP

Internal consistency

Construct (factor structure, measurement invariance)

Ferna´ndez-Fuertes, Fuertes, and Pulido (2006)

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory [CADRI]—Spanish

PV, PsV, SV PP, PsP, SP

Internal consistency

NA

Ferna´ndez-Gonza´lez, Wekerle, and Goldstein (2012)

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory [CADRI]—Short Form

PV, PsV, SV PP, PsP, SPa

Internal consistency

Predictive Concurrent Construct (factor structure, convergent)

Hokoda et al. (2006)

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory [CADRI]—Spanish

PV, PsV, SV PP, PsP, SP

Internal consistency Test retest

NA

Jouriles et al. (2005)/ Jouriles et al. (2009)

Relationship Violence Interview [RVI]— CADRI Physical Abuse, Threatening Behavior, and Verbal/Emotional subscales

PV, PsV

Internal consistency

Construct (convergent)

CTS

CADRI

(Continued )

TABLE 13.1 (Continued) Authors and Year

Measure Name [Abbreviation(s)]

Type of Violence

Reliability Evidence

Validity Evidence

Wolfe et al. (2001)

Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory [CADRI]

PV, PsV, SV PP, PsP, SPa

Internal consistency Test retest Partner agreement

Construct (factor structure, convergent)

Cutbush and Williams (2016)

Families for Safe Dates Dating Abuse Perpetration Scale

PP, PsP

NA

Construct (factor structure, measurement invariance)

Foshee et al. (2005)b

Safe Dates Dating Aggression Scales

PV, PsV, SV PP, PsP, SP

Internal consistency reliability

NA

Goncy et al. (2016)

Safe Dates Dating Aggression Scales— modified

PV, PsV PP, PsP

NA

Construct (factor structure, measurement invariance) Differential item functioning

Safe Dates

P, physical; Ps, psychological; S, sexual; P, perpetration; V, victimization. a Only the perpetration items were assessed for reliability/validity. b Because neither the Cutbush and Williams (2016) or Goncy et al. (2016) articles present reliability evidence, Foshee et al. (2005) is included in this table as it provides internal consistency information for the Safe Dates scales. Source: Reprinted in part from Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 27, D. Exner-Cortens, L. Gill, & J. Eckenrode, Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 1, Behaviors), pp. 67 68, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier. For more details on measure testing samples, see ExnerCortens et al. (2016a), Cutbush and Williams (2016), and Goncy et al. (2016).

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

321

testing of the adapted versions). In part, both limitations may reflect that current measures do not fully capture the construct of ADV in a way that matches the needs of researchers and participants. As noted in the introduction of this chapter, it is also possible that current measures do not fully capture lived experiences of violence, diminishing our ability to understand ADV holistically. Limitations around construct validity will be explored in this section by specifically considering one form of ADV, psychological aggression. To ground this discussion, a brief review of adolescent development and its relevance to psychological aggression measurement is presented. This section also considers measurement gaps for three other forms of violence (cyber aggression, sexual violence, and stalking) and explores a new area for measure development—healthy relationships.

Psychological Aggression Developmental Context While romantic relationships can play a positive role in youth development (Furman, Low, & Ho, 2009), for many youth, adolescent romantic relationships are an emerging, and not a salient, developmental task (Roisman, Masten, Coatsworth, & Tellegen, 2004). As an emerging task, these relationships serve as an important domain to explore and gain experience (Roisman et al., 2004); one domain for this exploration is conflict negotiation, a skill that may be poorer in emerging developmental settings (Selman, 1980). For example, examining conflict negotiation with friends and romantic partners, Furman and Shomaker (2008) found that mid-adolescent participants exhibited more conflict with romantic partners than friends during a video-taped discussion task, potentially because peer relationships were a more salient and familiar interpersonal context. Adolescent romantic relationships are also generally characterized by heightened emotionality and volatility (Giordano, Manning, & Longmore, 2006), related to the development of the cognitive control system (Steinberg, 2008). This system develops over the course of adolescence, with maturation leading to greater inhibition of impulsive behavior and better control over responses to emotionally arousing situations (Steinberg, 2008). Romantic relationships thus serve as a place to develop conflict negotiation skills in a new interpersonal context, one with pronounced emotionality to which many early and mid-adolescents have less ability to regulate their response. Measurement Given this developmental background, it is perhaps not surprising that a large number of adolescents report the experience of psychologically aggressive behaviors in their dating relationships (e.g., insulting, yelling, treating disrespectfully); indeed, the number of adolescents reporting these

322

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

behaviors in quantitative survey data often exceeds 50%, with some studies reporting that almost all participants endorsed the experience of at least one psychologically aggressive behavior (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a). Due to the nuanced nature of interpersonal interactions, psychological aggression is a particularly complicated construct to measure. This task is also made difficult because current ADV measures generally do not probe for context (e.g., severity, frequency, perceived intent, and perception), limiting a full understanding of meaning and experience. Furthermore, when considering psychological aggression, developmental understandings suggest some of this behavior may be normative. However, by using current measures, we cannot determine which of these behaviors are normative and which are not, or investigate whether there are any differences in impact between receipt of more normative aggression and receipt of aggression with harmful intent. In her review of IPV measurement, Follingstad (2007) specifically presents a critique of the psychological aggression literature. Four key issues are addressed, the first of which is that psychological aggression “has not been adequately defined, validated, and conceptually anchored in a way which provides a sound basis for its measurement or which allows for conclusions to be made” (p. 441). Providing a review of the varying research bases used to define psychological aggression and the incongruities among them, Follingstad (2007) highlights the troubled definitional state of the field and provides support for her three other arguments, namely, the issues arising from defining psychological aggression parallel to physical abuse; the limitations of defining psychological aggression solely by self-report, without a consideration of the contexts of interpersonal interactions; and the inability of current measures to capture the complex and nuanced experience of psychological aggression2 (p. 441). In a subsequent article, Follingstad (2009) further argues that due to these methodological and measurement issues, research findings around psychological aggression should be interpreted with caution: as discussed by Jordan et al. (2010), “although many articles report that deleterious effects have been identified as a result of being the target of psychological aggression, the subjective nature of the experience, the occurrence of it within interpersonal interactions and relationship contexts, the frequent co-occurrence of physical violence, and problematic measurement all combine to reduce certainty as to the impact of these actions” (p. 614).

2. Follingstad (2007) also advocates for the use of the term psychological aggression, instead of the term psychological abuse, because psychological aggression “covers a range of behavior, does not require a threshold severity level, and can consider whether an impact occurred, but does not have to require that a person has been harmed” (p. 443). Taking this definition further, Jordan, Campbell, and Follingstad (2010) describe psychological aggression as “rang[ing] from boorish and inept relationship behavior through interpersonal terrorism,” and in reference to thresholds, clarify that “there is currently no gold standard for when the threshold of ‘psychological abuse’ has been reached in a particular relationship” (p. 610).

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

323

Although these past reviews and critiques pertain to adult IPV, they can also be extended to the measurement of adolescent psychological aggression. Psychologically aggressive actions are common in adolescent romantic relationships (approximately 30% lifetime prevalence in a nationally representative sample; Halpern, Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001), just as they are in adult relationships (where national estimates of lifetime prevalence are around 50%; Black et al., 2011). Emerging research also demonstrates longitudinal associations between experiences of psychological aggression and multiple adverse health outcomes (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman, 2013), just as research with adults has shown negative consequences. In regard to perception, in a sample of high-school students (mean age 5 15.4 years), those who had experienced both physical and psychological aggression rated psychological aggression as more unpleasant than physical aggression and were less likely to ascribe psychological aggression to a partner playing around (Jouriles, Garrido, Rosenfield, & McDonald, 2009), seeming to reflect findings from samples of adult women (e.g., Coker et al., 2002). Thus, psychological aggression in adolescent romantic relationships is equally deserving of proper measurement; however, the deficiencies outlined by Follingstad (2007) also pertain to adolescent measurement, with the additional caveat that many of the items used for adolescents were originally developed for adult samples, often with little to no rigorous adaptation work (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a). This adaptation work is important because the interpretation of behaviors depends on context, including the context of the relationship itself, and adolescent romantic relationships are certainly a very different context (developmentally and otherwise) than married or long-term adult relationships. As reviewed above, adolescents are learning to negotiate conflict in intimate relationships characterized by heightened emotionality and volatility, and so the function of some of this aggression may differ from that used by adults. For example, in their validation of the CADRI, Wolfe et al. (2001) found that the use of relationally aggressive behavior (e.g., spreading rumors) was most strongly related to a latent “abuse” factor among Grade 9 students (as compared to students in Grades 10 and 11), suggesting that the use of these behaviors by some younger adolescents may be indicative of a developmental process and not harmful intent. However, even given this knowledge, how best to assess psychological aggression in adolescent romantic relationships remains an active question.

Cyber Aggression The most commonly used behavioral measures were mostly developed two decades ago and thus are likely not keeping pace with current forms of ADV. Specifically, electronic forms of communication including texting, use of cell phones, and social media are now ubiquitous in the lives of teenagers (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickuhr, 2010). Indeed, in my own work on

324

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

ADV measure development and adaptation, a key theme that has emerged is the central role technology plays in experiences of ADV (and how our current measures fail to capture this context). Developmentally, the use of electronic media can positively contribute to psychosocial milestones, including identity, intimacy, and sexuality (Valkenburg & Peter, 2011; Chapter 8, Youth Dating Violence and Homicide, this volume). Electronic media are also a popular way to communicate with dating partners (Carlson & Rose, 2012), including relationships where dating violence is present (Draucker & Martsolf, 2008). However, the use of electronic media also presents risk, and emerging work documents the growing use of cyber aggression in adolescent romantic relationships (Draucker & Martsolf, 2008; Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011; Stonard et al., 2014). In dating relationships, electronic communication can be used to perpetrate both psychologically and sexually abusive acts, as well as stalking behaviors (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011; Rothman et al., 2012; Stonard et al., 2014). Electronic communication used for sexual purposes also includes sexting or the sending of sexually explicit images between dating partners (Temple & Choi, 2014). As with other forms of electronic communication, sexting may be a part of normative sexual development and exploration, or may be used as a form of sexual abuse (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014). However, understanding of the prevalence and impacts of cyberfacilitated ADV is limited to date, potentially because of gaps in measurement. For example, in their recent synthesis of ADV research, Stonard et al. (2014) found only 12 studies published between 2000 and 2013 that reported on the prevalence of cyber ADV. These studies also used “ad hoc” (i.e., untested) measures to assess cyber aggression, with Stonard et al. (2014) concluding that “an established instrument is needed which will enable future assessment to be more consistent and comparable” (p. 410). Measure development is also needed for sexting (Temple & Choi, 2014). Because the exploration of cyber-facilitated ADV is still in its infancy, the establishment of valid measures that assess this form of aggression is a pressing task. When designing measures that include the cyber realm, Valkenburg and Peter (2011) suggest that “different types of Internet use and online communication should be conceptually distinguished and assessed separately in their operational translation. For the valid assessment of different types of Internet use and online communication, it may be necessary to go beyond traditional self-reported frequency estimates in surveys. . .Alternative methods, such as the media diary method, have elicited promising results, but are still rarely applied” (p. 126). Measurement issues pertaining to psychological aggression should also be considered, because electronic communications are one way to perpetrate psychologically aggressive actions, and thus cyber aggression measurement may face many of the same challenges as psychological aggression measurement.

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

325

Sexual Violence and Stalking Measurement of sexual violence and stalking is also a current gap in the ADV literature (Smith et al., 2015), despite the potential for both to occur in adolescent romantic relationships. As shown in Table 13.1, only one of the commonly used “acts” measures (the CADRI) has sexual violence items that have undergone psychometric assessment. In the Smith et al. (2015) measure review, another commonly used measure to assess sexual ADV was the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES; Koss & Gidycz, 1985), but the SES was neither designed for nor has been tested with adolescent populations. The review by Smith et al. (2015) also found that when sexual violence was assessed, typically only victimization was measured, potentially because researchers studying ADV in the school setting (the setting where a majority of ADV research takes place) may face pressure to not include/may not be permitted to include perpetration items (p. 684). However, Smith et al. (2015) also note that researchers typically did not present a rationale for why they did not assess sexual violence perpetration, and so an important first step in the measurement discussion is to determine why these questions are not being asked, and how measurement can be improved to facilitate the collection of this information. In addition to more traditional sexual violence items (e.g., unwanted touching, forced sex; Koss & Gidycz, 1985), recent work also demonstrates the importance of broadening the assessment in the adolescent context to include reproductive coercion (i.e., birth control sabotage; pregnancy coercion; abortion coercion; Grace & Anderson, 2016; McCauley et al., 2017), sexual harassment (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012), and sexual cyber abuse (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013), including sexting (Klettke, Hallford, & Mellor, 2014). The review by Smith et al. (2015) also identified only one measure that assessed stalking perpetration (Rothman et al., 2012), and one that assessed stalking victimization (Lifetime Trauma and Victimization History Survey; Widom, Dutton, Czaja, & DuMont, 2005). For the former, three investigatorcreated items on invasion of privacy and harassment were added to the Safe Dates scale (“broke into email or cell phone,” “stalking,” and “threatened suicide or to hurt self if broke up”; Rothman et al., 2012), and for the latter, the scale was not specific to adolescent romantic relationships and only included one item (“stalked”). Thus, psychometrically tested measures of adolescent stalking are needed, as the paucity of measures may underlie the little that is known about stalking in adolescent romantic relationships. A recent systematic review presents a conceptual framework to guide the development of these stalking assessments (Logan & Walker, 2017). Per this framework, elements covered in stalking measurement should include the intentionality of the course of conduct (including types of acts experienced and the duration, intensity and frequency of those acts); whether reasonable fear, concern for safety, or emotional distress arose from the acts; and

326

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

whether the acts were unwanted. Just as with psychological aggression, then, stalking measures should include a consideration of the threshold level of severity and context.

Healthy Relationships Since many adolescents have the capacity to use some aggressive behavior in their romantic relationships, much recent work considers dating violence as part of a continuum of healthy and unhealthy relationship behaviors. This observation is especially true in the prevention realm, where the promotion of healthy relationships (as opposed to the prevention of aggressive behaviors) has become a focus (e.g., Levesque, Johnson, Welch, Prochaska, & Paiva, 2016; Miller et al., 2015; Niolon et al., 2016; Wolfe et al., 2009). Creating programs around healthy relationships promotes positive youth development goals; however, measurement has not yet caught up with this strengths-based approach. For example, a primary outcome of most healthy relationships program evaluations is the reduction in victimization and/or perpetration that occurs as a result of the program, as opposed to the increase in healthy relationships skills, which may in part be due to the dearth of measures focusing on these skills (Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a). Indeed, where healthy relationships skills have been included in evaluation, they are assessed with investigator-created measures (Levesque et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2015). This gap in measurement not only precludes concurrent assessment of violence reduction and skill promotion in program evaluation but may also explain the lack of literature exploring how healthy relationship attitudes and skills are implicated in lowering risk for ADV. This latter question is important to answer in order to build the theory of change underlying healthy relationships programs, but relies on the availability of healthy relationships measures. Measures that better discriminate between healthy relationships, unhealthy relationships, and violent/abusive relationships are also important for a clearer understanding of outcomes of romantic relationships in adolescence, including developmental trajectories of violent/aggressive behavior. While content areas for a healthy relationships measure depend on more rigorous definition of this construct, potential areas for inclusion are conflict resolution, positive features of the relationship, and communication skills.

RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR MEASUREMENT The previous section identified several limitations in ADV measurement. These include the need for valid measures of psychological aggression, cyber aggression, sexual violence, and stalking in adolescent romantic relationships, which also means beginning to assess the context within which acts occur. Measures that tap healthy relationships concepts are also needed, both

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

327

to build the theory of change around how healthy relationship skills relate to dating violence reductions, and to contribute to a continuum understanding of ADV experiences. Recently, the National Institute of Justice (2015) convened a meeting on measurement with leading ADV researchers. In addition to the areas described above (psychological aggression, cyber aggression, sexual violence, stalking, and healthy relationships), attendees identified a number of other research priorities for ADV measurement, including issues around defining the threshold for violence (e.g., to clarify adolescent-limited vs lifecourse persistent use of violence; Moffitt, 1993), the phrasing of survey questions, the appropriate time frame for recall, gender parity (i.e., better accounting for teasing/joking and self-defense), the definitions of dating used in ADV research, and determining clear definitions of the construct we are trying to measure (e.g., what do we include in the definition of dating violence? Does harm need to have occurred?). In addition to the development of measures that better assess psychological aggression, cyber aggression, sexual violence, stalking, and healthy relationships, these questions also comprise critical research priorities for the field. Thinking more broadly of future research directions, Follingstad and Bush (2014) introduce a model for developing a “gold standard” measure of adult IPV. While developing such a measure may not be a goal of the ADV field (National Institute of Justice, 2015), the recommendations of Follingstad and Bush (2014) can still help shape research on ADV measurement, as many of the measurement issues present in the IPV literature (e.g., reliance on self-report checklists, lack of assessment of context, poor measurement of psychological aggression, and difficulty defining a threshold) are also present in the ADV literature. Specifically, Follingstad and Bush (2014) recommend that researchers “develop a criterion standard, which might constitute several modalities and which would cover the range of abusive experiences” (p. 374) by using a four-phase model that parallels the process for the development and evaluation of prevention programs (i.e., Phase One: concept development; Phase Two: piloting; Phase Three: testing psychometric properties; Phase Four: real-word evaluation, p. 375). This model could be used to address many of the limitations of ADV measurement identified in this chapter.

Emerging Innovations in Measurement Drawing from the limitations and research priorities described previously, two particular issues have been the subject of recent ADV measure research: defining the construct and use of new methodologies. A brief review of this current work is presented here.

328

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Defining the Construct Although research on ADV is now in its fourth decade, there are still questions about what exactly we are trying to measure when we assess ADV. In a recent series of papers, Hamby (2016a), Jouriles and Kamata (2016), and Straus (2016) discuss construct issues as they pertain to adult IPV measurement, and much of this discussion also pertains to ADV measurement. One key question arising from their discussion includes whether or not acts described on ADV behavioral measures should imply a minimum threshold level of severity.3 The scales that are most commonly used to assess ADV victimization and perpetration (Table 13.1) typically do not contain such a threshold, leading to the possibility that some of the behaviors endorsed on these scales are not violent or abusive in nature but are rather part of normative adolescent conflict or part of playing around with the partner. As Hamby (2016a) states, “behavior does not have to be admirable to qualify as non-violent” (p. 354). As such, a first task for research and innovation is to debate and discuss what “counts” as ADV (and include youth voice in this process; see below), and in turn, what we aim to assess when designing measures. Related to this task is the development of a theoretical framework for ADV: research to date on ADV theory is limited (Exner-Cortens, 2014), but the creation of a unifying theoretical framework is a key aspect of construct, and subsequently measure, development (Mehari, Farrell, & Le, 2014). When defining the construct, future research also needs to attend to measurement equivalence across subgroups and time (Harachi, Choi, Abbott, Catalano, & Bliesner, 2006), as both Goncy et al. (2016) and Goncy and Rothman (2016) did in their recent ADV measure development work. Several contemporary studies have demonstrated how defining the construct matters. One of the most relevant examples is the recent wording change to the physical ADV question on the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance (YRBS) survey (Hamby, 2016a). At the suggestion of ADV researchers (Rothman, & Xuan, 2012), the physical dating violence question on the 2013 YRBS increased the threshold level of severity (original wording, 1999 2011: “During the past 12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose?”; new wording, 2013: “During the past 12 months, how many times did someone you were

3. A consideration of thresholds also includes whether typical dichotomous coding for ADV (i.e., where 0 5 no violence; 1 5 any violence) is optimal for increasing sensitivity of measures. For example, a study assessing psychological aggression in a sample of female adolescents (ages 16 21 years) found that a majority of participants did not report feeling abused until they had experienced nine or more psychologically aggressive acts (Rodrı´guez-Franco et al., 2012). However, researchers typically include anyone experiencing one or more acts in the “ADV victim” group. Thus, this study raises important questions about how we create cut-points when assessing ADV.

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

329

dating or going out with physically hurt you on purpose? (count things such as being hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or weapon”)) in order to make clearer that the question was not about horseplay or playing around (Vagi, Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo-Kantor, 2015). With the original wording, approximately 10% of male and female adolescents reported physical victimization each year (Rothman, & Xuan, 2012, March). However, with the new wording, YRBS data for the first time showed a lack of gender parity in physical ADV victimization (with more females than males saying they had been victimized in the past year, Vagi et al., 2015; this finding was also replicated in the 2015 YRBS, CDC, 2016b). Work by Hamby (2016b) in a college sample also demonstrated changes to victimization prevalence by gender when wording was revised to indicate that respondents should not include behaviors done as part of horseplay or joking around. These two examples demonstrate the potential impact of changing how researchers define the construct.4 Furthermore, because gender parity in ADV prevalence remains an area of controversy (Reed, Raj, Miller, & Silverman, 2010), these findings indicate the need for experimental research that more thoroughly assesses how survey wording impacts measure validity (Hamby, 2014). In addition to research on the impact of wording changes, probing for context is also a needed innovation. As an example, using the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence, Hamby and Turner (2013) explored how the addition of contextual prompts on physical injury and fear impacted the prevalence of physical ADV victimization for males and females (ages 12 17 years). As is commonly reported, without contextual prompts, they found gender parity in reports of physical ADV among the youth in this sample. However, when contextual prompts were included, this led to gender asymmetry in findings, with females significantly more likely to report physical violence that was injurious or fear inducing. Contextual prompts can thus add nuance that allows for a deeper understanding of violence etiology, with potential implications for outcomes and intervention. While adding such prompts may be onerous to participants completing paperand-pencil surveys, the ubiquitous nature of computer-based surveys (and available skip logic) should make this important innovation possible to implement (Hamby, 2014). As a final example of defining the construct, Goldman, Mulford, and Blachman-Demner (2016) recently used a concept mapping approach with adolescents (aged 14 18 years), young adults (aged 19 22 years), and adult

4. However, it is also important to note that other studies examining ADV and accounting for joking/horseplay do not find these differences (Jouriles & Kamata, 2016). Given these mixed findings, Jouriles and Kamata (2016) discuss that key questions to ask include how exactly different qualifiers work and how these different qualifiers may or may not contribute to gender asymmetry in ADV rates (p. 349).

330

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

practitioners and researchers to probe differing understandings of ADV among these groups. This study is important because the inclusion of youth voice in the ADV literature is limited: because of this, it is unclear whether current conceptualizations of ADV (defined primarily by adults) match with how ADV is experienced by adolescents. Indeed, teens may view aggression in dating relationships very differently than adults (e.g., seeing control as a form of affection; Goldman et al., 2016), and so as discussed above, it is important that we incorporate these developmental understandings into measurement. Using concept mapping,5 Goldman et al. (2016) found that the same nine-cluster concept map was a fit for both adolescents and adults in their sample. This map included the dimensions of healthy unhealthy relationships and personal public actions. However, while the overall map was the same, adolescents were more likely to view ambiguous clusters (i.e., those clusters that were neither clearly healthy or unhealthy) as more dependent “on the particular circumstances of the relationship” (i.e., more contextdependent; p. 6). The context-dependent nature of act interpretation reflects my own past work on this topic (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, Schrader, & Rothman, 2014) and again speaks to the importance of starting to simultaneously assess context when measuring behavioral acts. There were also a number of differences in how adolescents and adults rated the desirability of certain actions in relationships. Thus, although the same map held for both groups, suggesting a similar overall conceptualization of ADV, there were differences in how those actions were perceived and understood between adolescents and adults, supporting the need to more carefully assess for nuance and include youth voice in ADV measurement. The results of Goldman et al. (2016) also support the need to capture both healthy and unhealthy aspects of adolescent romantic relationships, to provide a robust understanding of relationships in context.

New Methodologies The NIJ meeting (2015) also highlighted the need to study alternate modes of data collection for ADV acts and attitudes (i.e., other than self-report surveys). These alternate forms could include some combination of critical incident or cognitive interviewing, daily diaries, ecological momentary assessments, timeline follow-back interviews, daily call in surveys, experience-based sampling, partner reports, or content analysis of social media data (National Institute of Justice, 2015): best practice in measurement promotes the use of multiple 5. This approach included idea generation (in response to the prompt “A thought, action, feeling, or behavior that teens in dating relationships might have or do is. . .”), idea synthesis, sorting of synthesized ideas, rating of synthesized ideas, analysis of sort and ratings data, and interpretation of results via facilitated discussions (Goldman et al., 2016, p. 5). Adolescents, young adults, and adults were included throughout these steps.

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

331

methods to understand convergence and divergence in estimates (Hamby, 2016a) and to compensate for flaws within each singular methodology.6 Several examples of such innovation in ADV measurement methodologies have recently been published (e.g., Draucker et al., 2016; Edelen et al., 2009; Jouriles, McDonald, Garrido, Rosenfield, & Brown, 2005; Jouriles, Rosenfield, Yule, Sargent, & McDonald, 2016; Rothman et al., 2016). New methods should also include the use of measurement tools that are meaningful to youth (e.g., apps, texts, or social media; National Institute of Justice, 2015). For example, given that most adolescents now own a cell phone (Lenhart et al., 2010), the creation of a standard ADV data collection app that researchers could use to send push notifications would greatly increase the feasibility of conducting ecological momentary assessment or daily diary studies. Having a data collection app could also allow for additional innovation in measurement, such as through the collection of geofencing data (i.e., using cell phone GPS technology to determine where the adolescent was when ADV occurred). As one example of innovation in data collection methodologies, Rothman et al. (2016) compared both a timeline follow-back retrospective reporting method and an interactive voice response prospective reporting method for ADV perpetration, in a vulnerable sample of males and females aged 18 24 years. In interactive voice response, participants are incentivized to call in and answer questions on a daily basis for a set period of time. While this is a prospective method, it can lead to large amounts of missing data if participants neglect to call in (Rothman et al., 2016) and can be expensive (as participants are incentivized for each call). Timeline follow-back uses a structured interview and a calendar to help participants remember the use of aggression over a set recall period (e.g., past 30 days). While this method can thus theoretically allow for the collection of more reliable data over a set period of time, it still relies on recall and may not be as accurate for behaviors that do not occur in a regular pattern. In Rothman et al.’s (2016) sample, the timeline follow-back method resulted in a larger number of total reported ADV events, but the interactive voice response method led to the report of more severe perpetration incidents, as well as the report of more frequent ADV perpetration. There was also some tapering-off of reported events in the interactive voice response method, as compared to the timeline

6. Most of these methods are still self-report in nature but are different than the typically used self-report survey with behavioral checklist. As Rothman et al. (2016) note, it will be difficult to fully move away from self-report data in ADV measurement, as “individuals are likely the best source of information about the prevalence, nature, and consequences of their own dating abuse experiences” (p. 3). One potential option for non-self-report data is the use of observations (e.g., as used by Capaldi, Kim, and Shortt (2007) in their assessment of physical aggression in young adult couples). However, to my knowledge, the use of observational techniques for ADV has not yet been assessed, and thus both the utility and ethics of this approach with adolescents should be considered in future research.

332

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

follow-back method. The study was not designed to explicitly compare these two methods, and Rothman et al. (2016) suggest both methods might be useful under different circumstances. Because the participants in Rothman et al.’s (2016) study were all aged 18 years or older, additional investigation of both methods with younger samples is also needed. The use of an app to collect daily survey data (as opposed to having participants call in) could also be explored as a method to reduce the amount of missing data experienced with interactive voice response. Another area for innovation in methodology pertains to measure testing. While most ADV measures were developed using classical test theory (i.e., by examining reliability and validity; Exner-Cortens et al., 2016a, 2016b), newer work often uses item response theory (IRT) to assess measure quality.7 IRT is a form of innovation that is pertinent for ADV, because it can account for nonequivalence in traits between subgroups through the assessment of differential item functioning. As discussed by Edelen et al. (2009), “an item is said to exhibit differential item functioning if two respondents from distinct subgroups who have equal levels of the psychological trait being measured do not have the same probability of endorsing each response category of that item” (p. 1245). As one example of this method, Edelen et al. (2009) used IRT to develop two measures of ADV attitudes (one that assessed attitudes towards boy-on-girl violence and a second that assessed attitudes towards girl-on-boy violence), with a sample of primarily 9th grade Latino/a youth. Accounting for differential item functioning led to important differences in conclusions regarding overall scores on attitudes scales (as compared to an analysis that did not account for differential item functioning, Edelen et al., 2009, p. 1257). Specifically, when not accounting for differential item functioning, a significant difference was found between males’ and females’ attitudes towards girl-on-boy violence, with males showing more accepting attitudes than females (P 5 0.0009). However, once differential item functioning was accounted for, this difference was reduced in magnitude (P 5 0.0449), indicating that males had only slightly more accepting attitudes towards girl-on-boy ADV than females. For boy-on-girl violence, the opposite pattern was observed: without accounting for differential item functioning, there were no significant differences between male and female scores on this scale (P 5 0.1185), but when differential item functioning was accounted for, males showed significantly higher acceptance of boy-on-girl violence than females (P 5 0.0002). Thus, the incorporation of differential item functioning in this analysis led to a more accurate assessment of underlying attitudes, demonstrating that for both types of violence assessed, males had more accepting attitudes than females (a conclusion that would have been missed 7. A full comparison of the differences between these two measure development approaches is beyond the scope of this chapter. For a review of classical test theory, see Kline (2000). For a review of IRT, see Hambleton and Jones (1993).

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

333

without accounting for differential item functioning). As such, the use of IRT should be considered as an innovative method to account for gender (as well as other subgroup) differences for both acts and attitudes scales. Finally, most of this chapter has described the quantitative assessment of ADV victimization and perpetration, primarily due to the focus on this type of assessment in the measurement literature. However, when thinking of methodology innovation, other approaches can be considered. Specifically, innovation in ADV measurement should also include the use of qualitative and visual research methods. The inclusion of these types of data in the ADV literature is limited to date but is important to generating a more holistic understanding of context and lived experience. As an example, Draucker et al. (2016) used semistructured interviews with 88 young adults (aged 18 21 years) to explore retrospective ADV narratives and understand whether narrative therapy might be a useful clinical approach for ADV survivors. Given the small amount of work examining effective therapeutic approaches for individuals who have experienced ADV, this type of research is critically needed. Using the narrative method, Draucker et al. (2016) found six types of unique stories used to describe ADV outcomes in their sample (facing-fact stories, standing-up-for-myself stories, cutting-’em-loose stories, cutting-it-off stories, getting-back-on-track stories, and changing-it-up-stories; p. 115). As the unique outcomes documented in this study all represented “turning points” in survivors’ lives (p. 119), the data collected suggest that exploring and reframing ADV narratives may be a promising area for clinical intervention. The findings also demonstrate the power of qualitative research for deepening our understanding of victimization experiences.

IMPLICATIONS OF MEASUREMENT As all empirical ADV findings rest on measurement, advancement and innovation in measurement science has substantial implications for the field. Because of this, measurement work needs to be included in dating violence funding calls, so that researchers can endeavor to address the many limitations identified in this chapter. When thinking about why it is important to support and conduct this research, two areas stand out: experiences of diverse youth, and prevention and intervention work. The former area has been relatively neglected in ADV science to date, and the latter is key to promoting youth well-being. Thus, these two areas both have important implications for research and practice.

Experiences of Diverse Youth In the ADV literature, the experiences of diverse youth (e.g., sexually and gender diverse youth; racially/ethnically diverse youth; differently abled youth; geographically diverse youth; neurodiverse youth, etc.) have not been

334

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

an area of focus, perhaps due to the lack of measures designed with and for these groups. In particular, research with LGBTQ2 youth is almost absent from the ADV literature (Dank, Lachman, Zweig, & Yahner, 2014), despite the fact that a substantial minority of youth engage in nonheterosexual romantic and sexual relationships and that LGBTQ2 youth may face different forms of violence that need to be captured in measurement. Thus, measure development and testing with LGBTQ2 youth is an urgent task. Existing measures also need to be tested for validity and equivalence with other populations of diverse youth, some of which are listed above. Given the marginalization some youth face due to aspects of their identity, expansion of measurement to include methods that better incorporate youth voice (e.g., qualitative methods, visual research methods) is also critical. Finally, to capture both needs and strengths, ADV measurement with diverse youth should strive to assess both healthy and unhealthy aspects of romantic relationships in order to promote a holistic understanding of experiences with aggression and violence.

Prevention and Intervention Better understanding of ADV among youth in all their diversity also has important implications for prevention and intervention. As discussed by Hamby and Turner (2013), “prevention, intervention, and policy need accurate data to understand the scope of the problem, monitor trends over time, and evaluate the impact of programs. Both the availability of programs and the content of prevention curricula need to accurately reflect the number and needs of. . .ADV victims” (p. 325). Currently, prevention and intervention programs are primarily based on data collected from majority white, heterosexual, cisgender samples of youth, using acts-based scales, without assessment of context. Thus, by understanding how ADV is experienced in different settings and contexts through improved measurement, we can also better tailor our prevention and intervention programs to meet the needs of all youth. Furthermore, it is possible that in creating measures themselves, we may find new possibilities for intervention. For example, Rothman et al. (2016) suggest that the decline in ADV perpetration reported on the interactive voice response method in their study may have resulted from increased self-monitoring (i.e., as participants became more aware of their violent behavior, they may have decreased use, p. 19). Similarly, although Draucker et al.’s (2016) study was designed to use qualitative interviews to measure retrospective narratives, it is possible that the sharing of those narratives was in itself therapeutic. As such, measure innovation can support prevention and intervention in multiple ways.

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

335

CONCLUSION As stated by Jouriles and Kamata (2016), “no measure is valid in an absolute sense; rather, it is valid under certain conditions and for certain purposes, and measures are often valid for some purposes but not others” (p. 349). It remains for ADV researchers to determine when our measures are valid and when they are not, and consequently how best to understand violence and aggression within adolescent romantic relationships. Several other conclusions result from the review presented in this chapter. First, there are currently key gaps in the measurement literature (especially for psychological aggression, cyber aggression, sexual violence, stalking, and healthy relationships) that represent priorities for new measure development. When creating measures for these and other areas, researchers should consider multiple methods of assessment (beyond self-report surveys), incorporate youth voice and developmental experience, and conduct rigorous testing in diverse samples of youth. This last point also holds for measure adaptations. Both new and existing measures also need to better account for context if we are to truly understand the lived experience of ADV. In conclusion, given the limited literature on this topic, it might be gathered that conducting ADV measure research has not been considered a particularly rewarding (or fundable) area of work. However, data reviewed in this chapter demonstrate the great potential for innovation that exists within measurement science, as well as the concurrent need for funders to prioritize this type of research. Measurement underlies all research, policy, and practice in the field, and should thus be viewed as a critical and exciting area for future ADV science.

REFERENCES Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101 111. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231 280. Carlson, W. C., & Rose, A. J. (2012). Brief report: Activities in heterosexual romantic relationships: Grade differences and associations with relationships satisfaction. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 219 224. Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (1999). Factor structure and convergent validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychological Assessment, 11, 546 555. Caselman, T., Dubriwny, N., & Curzon, E. L. (2014). Teen dating violence: A comparison of self-report measures. School Social Work, 38, 32 48.

336

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2016a). Understanding teen dating violence: Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-datingviolence-factsheet-a.pdf. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2016b). Youth risk behavior surveillance— United States, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65, 1 174. Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260 268. Cutbush, S., & Williams, J. (2016). Teen dating violence, sexual harassment, and bullying among middle school youth: Examining measurement invariance by gender. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 918 926. Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd Ed.). Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 846 857. Davidson, M. M. (2005). Adolescent attitudes regarding dating relationships: The construction of sex-specific scales. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Draucker, C. B., & Martsolf, D. S. (2008). The role of electronic communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 133 142. Draucker, C. B., Smith, C., Mazurczyk, J., Thomas, D., Ramirez, P., McNealy, K., & Martsolf, D. S. (2016). Unique outcomes in the narratives of young adults who experienced dating violence as adolescents. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 22, 112 121. Edelen, M. O., McCaffrey, D. F., Marshall, G. N., & Jaycox, L. H. (2009). Measurement of teen dating violence attitudes: An item response theory evaluation of differential item functioning according to gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1243 1263. Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., & Hamburger, M. E. (2012). Bullying perpetration and subsequent sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 60 65. Exner-Cortens, D. (2014). Theory and teen dating violence victimization: Considering adolescent development. Developmental Review, 34, 168 188. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71 78. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., Schrader, D., & Rothman, E. (2014, March). Adolescents’ views on psychological aggression in dating relationships. Poster presented at the 15th Society for Research on Adolescence Biennial Meeting, Austin, TX. Exner-Cortens, D., Gill, L., & Eckenrode, J. (2016a). Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 1, Behaviors). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 64 78. Exner-Cortens, D., Gill, L., & Eckenrode, J. (2016b). Measurement of adolescent dating violence: A comprehensive review (Part 2, Attitudes). Aggression and Violent Behavior, 27, 93 106. Ferna´ndez-Fuertes, A. A., Fuertes, A., & Pulido, R. F. (2006). Evaluacio´n de la violencia en las relaciones de pareja de los adolescents. Validacio´n del Conflict in Adolescent Dating

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

337

Relationships Inventory (CADRI)—Version espan˜ola. International Journal of Clinical Health and Psychology, 6, 339 358. Ferna´ndez-Gonza´lez, L., Wekerle, C., & Goldstein, A. L. (2012). Measuring adolescent dating violence: Development of ‘Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory’ short form. Advances in Mental Health, 11, 35 54. Follingstad, D. R. (2007). Rethinking current approaches to psychological abuse: Conceptual and methodological issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 439 458. Follingstad, D. R. (2009). The impact of psychological aggression on women’s mental health and behavior: The status of the field. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 271 289. Follingstad, D. R., & Bush, H. M. (2014). Measurement of intimate partner violence: A model for developing the gold standard. Psychology of Violence, 4, 369 383. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6, 245 258. Foshee, V., Fothergill, K., & Stuart, J. (1992). Results from the teenage dating abuse study conducted in Githens Middle School and Southern High Schools. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. (Unpublished), Technical Report. Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Health, J. L., & Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 39 47. Furman, W., Low, S., & Ho, M. J. (2009). Romantic experiences and psychosocial adjustment in middle adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38, 75 90. Furman, W., & Shomaker, L. B. (2008). Patterns of interaction in adolescent romantic relationships: Distinct features and links to other close relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 771 788. Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2006). Adolescent romantic relationships: An emerging portrait of their nature and developmental significance. In A. C. Crouter, & A. Booth (Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging adulthood: Risks and opportunities (pp. 127 150). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goncy, E. A., Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T. N., & Taylor, K. A. (2016). Measurement of dating aggression during middle school: Structure, measurement invariance, and distinction from general aggression. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 509 523. Goncy, E. A., & Rothman, E. F. (2016). The reliability and validity of the Dating Abuse Perpetration Acts Scale in an urban, emergency department-based sample of male and female youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260516660299, Advance online publication. Goldman, A. W., Mulford, C. F., & Blachman-Demner, D. R. (2016). Advancing our approach to teen dating violence: A youth and professional defined framework of teen dating relationships. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0039849. Grace, K. T., & Anderson, J. C. (2016). Reproductive coercion: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016663935, Advance online publication. Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L., & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1679 1685.

338

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 38 47. Hamby, S. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research: Scientific progression, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 149 158. Hamby, S. (2016a). Advancing survey science for intimate partner violence: The Partner Victimization Scale and other innovations. Psychology of Violence, 6, 352 359. Hamby, S. (2016b). Self-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Psychology of Violence, 6, 323 335. Hamby, S., & Turner, H. (2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. Psychology of Violence, 3, 323 339. Harachi, T. W., Choi, Y., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Bliesner, S. L. (2006). Examining equivalence of concepts and measures in diverse samples. Prevention Science, 7, 359 368. Hokoda, A., Ramos-Lira, L., Celaya, P., Vilhauer, K., Angeles, M., Ruı´z, S., & Mora, M. D. (Eds.), (2006). Reliability of translated measures assessing dating violence among Mexican adolescents. Violence and Victims, 21, 117 127. Jordan, C. E., Campbell, R., & Follingstad, D. (2010). Violence and women’s mental health: The impact of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 607 628. Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009). Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 451 460. Jouriles, E. N., & Kamata, A. (2016). Advancing measurement of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 6, 347 351. Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & Brown, A. S. (2005). Assessing aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Can we do it better? Psychological Assessment, 17, 469 475. Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., Yule, K., Sargent, K. S., & McDonald, R. (2016). Predicting high-school students’ bystander behavior in simulated dating violence situations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 58, 345 351. Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 44 53. Kline, P. (2000). A psychometrics primer. London, UK: Free Association Books. Koss, M. P., & Gidycz, C. A. (1985). The Sexual Experiences Survey: Reliability and validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 422 423. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Washington: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Levesque, D. A., Johnson, J. L., Welch, C. A., Prochaska, J. M., & Paiva, A. L. (2016). Teen dating violence prevention: Cluster-randomized trial of Teen Choices, an online, stage-based program for healthy, nonviolent relationships. Psychology of Violence, 6, 421 432. Logan, T. K., & Walker, R. (2017). Stalking: A multidimensional framework for assessment and safety planning. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18, 200 222. McCauley, H. L., Silverman, J. G., Jones, K. A., Tancredi, D. J., Decker, M. R., McCormick, M. C., & Miller, E. (2017). Psychometric properties and refinement of the Reproductive Coercion scale. Contraception, 95, 292 298. Mehari, K. R., Farrell, A. D., & Le, A. H. (2014). Cyberbullying among adolescents: Measures in search of a construct. Psychology of Violence, 4, 399 415.

Measuring Adolescent Dating Violence Chapter | 13

339

Miller, E., Chopel, A., Jones, K., Dick, R.N., McCauley, H.L., Jetton, J., & Tancredi, D.J. (2015). Integrating prevention and intervention: A school health center program to promote healthy relationships. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248640.pdf. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674 701. National Institute of Justice. (2015). Teen dating violence measurement meeting summary. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249015.pdf. Niolon, P. H., Taylor, B. G., Latzman, N. E., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Valle, L. A., & Tharp, A. T. (2016). Lessons learned in evaluating a multisite, comprehensive teen dating violence prevention strategy: Design and challenges of the evaluation of dating matters: Strategies to promote teen healthy relationships. Psychology of Violence, 6, 452 458. Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., Pastorelli, C., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2011). Physical dating aggression in adolescence: Cultural and gender invariance. European Psychologist, 16, 278 287. Offenhauer, P., & Buchalter, A. (2011). Teen dating violence: A literature review and annotated bibliography. Washington: Library of Congress. (DOJ Document No. 235368). 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, 351 375. Rayburn, N. R., Jaycox, L. H., McCaffrey, D. F., Ulloa, E. C., Zander-Cotugno, M., Marshall, G. N., & Shelley, G. A. (2007). Reactions to dating violence among Latino teenagers: An experiment utilizing the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm. Journal of Adolescence, 30, 893 915. Reed, E., Raj, A., Miller, E., & Silverman, J. G. (2010). Losing the “gender” in gender-based violence: The missteps of research on dating and intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16, 348 354. Rodrı´guez-Franco, L., Borrego, J. L., Rodrı´guez-Dı´az, F. J., Molleda, C. B., Pineda, C. E., Bellerı´n, A., & Quevedo-Blasco, R. (2012). Labeling dating abuse: Undetected abuse among Spanish adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Clinical and Healthy Psychology, 12, 55 67. Roisman, G. I., Masten, A. S., Coatsworth, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Salient and emerging developmental tasks in the transition to adulthood. Child Development, 75, 123 133. Rothman, E. F., Heeren, T., Winter, M., Dorfman, D., Baughman, A., & Stuart, G. (2016). Collecting self-reported data on dating abuse perpetration from a sample of primarily Black and Hispanic, urban-residing, young adults: A comparison of timeline followback interview an interactive voice response methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516681154, Advance online publication. Rothman, E. F., Stuart, G. L., Winter, M., Wang, N., Bowen, D. J., Bernstein, J., & Vinci, R. (2012). Youth alcohol use and dating abuse victimization and perpetration: A test of the relationships at the daily level in a sample of pediatric emergency department patients who use alcohol. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2959 2979. Rothman, E.F., & Xuan, Z. (2012, March). Assessing the prevalence of dating violence using national and state YRBS data from 1999-2009: What we’ve learned, and how we might improve the YRBS question going forward. In Paper presented at the Futures Without Violence 2012 Conference on Healthcare and Domestic Violence, San Francisco, CA. Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. New York: Academic Press.

340

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Slep, A. M. S., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary, K. D. (2001). Two new measures of attitudes about the acceptability of teen dating aggression. Psychological Assessment, 13, 306 318. Smith, J., Mulford, C., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Niolon, P. H., & Blachman-Demner, D. (2015). Taking stock of behavioral measures of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24, 674 692. Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78 106. Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Lawrence, T. R., & Price, S. A. (2014). The relevance of technology to the nature, prevalence and impact of adolescent dating violence and abuse: A research synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 390 417. Straus, M. A. (2016). Gender-violence, dyadic-violence, and dyadic concordance types: A conceptual and methodological alternative to Hamby (2016) that incorporates both the gendered and dyadic interaction aspects of violence to enhance research and the safety of women. Psychology of Violence, 6, 336 346. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283 316. Temple, J. R., & Choi, H. (2014). Longitudinal association between teen sexting and sexual behavior. Pediatrics, 134, e1287. Thompson, M. P., Basile, K. C., Hertz, M. F., & Sitterle, D. (2006). Measuring intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Vagi, K. J., Olsen, E. O., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo-Kantor, A. M. (2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among US high school students. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 474 482. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 121 127. Widom, C. S., Dutton, M. A., Czaha, S. J., & DuMont, K. A. (2005). Development and validation of a new instrument to assess lifetime trauma and victimization history. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 519 531. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 692 699. Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. (2001). Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277 293. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). “Sexting” and its relation to sexual activity and sexual risk behavior in a national survey of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 757 764. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063 1077.

Chapter 14

Violence Begets Violence: Addressing the Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Adolescent and Young Adult Relationships Deborah M. Capaldi1, Joann W. Shortt1, Stacey S. Tiberio1, and Sabina Low2 1

Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR, United States, 2T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University Social Sciences, Tempe, AZ, United States

The chapters in this book reflect the major advances that have been made in the field of partner violence (PV) toward a romantic or sexual partner within adolescent relationships in the past approximately 20 years. Perhaps nowhere is this advance clearer than in the inclusion of a chapter on the dual or bidirectional nature of PV, which would not have been even considered in earlier volumes. There has been a substantial increase in the number of studies that examine bidirectional PV in either adolescence or adulthood (or assess both partner’s PV perpetration and victimization, compared with only PV perpetration by boys or men as in earlier years of the field) (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012a, 2012b; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012). Given the now more widely accepted view that much of couples’ PV involves a dynamic behavior of two people, rather than a perpetrator or a victim only, greater strides toward understanding this behavior and improving PV-prevention and treatment programs can be made. In this chapter, we first review theoretical approaches to PV and the evidence regarding the prevalence of bidirectional PV for couples in adolescence compared with adulthood. We then address a number of key issues related to the development, escalation, severity, and outcomes of such PV, as well as prevention implications, conclusions, and future directions. The focus of the chapter is mainly on physical PV, which has been the predominant focus of research studies on PV in adolescence, but also includes discussion of psychological and sexual PV. Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00014-1 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

341

342

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

THEORETICAL ISSUES Typological Approaches As the study of PV from adolescence to adulthood has progressed, it has been apparent that a “one size fits all model”—based on the theory that essentially all PV is perpetrated by men against women due to male dominance of women in western societies (Walker, 1989)—was not an adequate explanation of the emerging data. This progression led to interest in describing and understanding heterogeneity in PV, spawning a number of typological approaches (for a review, see Ali, Dhingra, & McGarry, 2016). Advantages of typological approaches are that they simplify relatively complex data and behavior by creating archetype characterizations, and that the types could be useful in making decisions regarding prevention and treatment. Initially, these types tended to be based on aspects of male perpetrator’s behavior, such as generally violent/antisocial, dysphoric/borderline personality, and family-only violence (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000). Other typologies were based more on motivations for PV, such as patriarchal or intimate terrorism versus common couple violence (Johnson, 1995). These motivations involved (when first presented) men’s dominance and PV toward women (hypothesized as involving severe unidirectional PV), versus couples’ conflict (hypothesized as involving less severe bidirectional PV). Capaldi and Kim (2007) critiqued such typological approaches on several grounds. First, evidence supporting the typologies (e.g., the Johnson typology) was weak. Second, there was stronger evidence that PV is best characterized as a continuum from low levels to severe (with the risk characteristics of those perpetrating such violence also tending to range from low to severe). Third, typological approaches are essentially static approaches of types—grouping individuals on the basis of behavior at one point in time, as “apples versus oranges.” They do not encompass nor explain the dynamic nature of PV, such that change over time is characteristic of such violence (despite some significant level of stability). For example, a follow-up study by Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, and Stuart (2003) found some evidence of stability of PV but considerable evidence of change in the violent behaviors of the men in the different groupings rendered the types less distinguishable. Other issues with such typologies include that they tend to rest on the assumption that frequent or severe PV is instrumental or controlling, premeditated, and emotionally cold, versus less severe PV involving angry, impulsive, emotionally hot, or hostile violence. A conceptualization of instrumental PV related to gender issues (i.e., men’s PV being motivated by the desire to dominate and control women) is the basis of the Duluth model of batterer treatment (Pence & Paymar, 1993). However, as argued by Bushman and Anderson (2001), the

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

343

contention that instrumental and hostile forms of PV are distinct is overly simplistic, and there is evidence that the factors related to occasions of more severe PV (e.g., higher frequency PV and PV resulting in an arrest) are complex (Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Capaldi, Kim, & Pears, 2009). More recently, a typology based on the directionality of PV within couples was proposed by Dr. Murray Straus, whose pioneering work in the field of family violence involved the earliest work to highlight the fact that both men and women perpetrate PV (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). He proposed that there are three types of PV (within heterosexual couples), termed Dyadic Discordance Types, namely male-only PV, female-only PV, and both partners in the dyad PV or bidirectional PV. He posits that identifying these types will enhance research, theories, and services for victims and offenders (Straus, 2015). This is an advance over the “one size fits all” model and for practical purposes can assist with services and treatment planning as proposed—for example, should both partners be counseled regarding reducing PV or just one partner at any particular point in time (i.e., it is likely that if the couple were assessed 2 years later that their pattern or type classification may have changed). However, it is more questionable that the Dyadic Discordance typology will move understanding forward in terms of research and theory. The main issue is that this typology suffers from problems similar to other typologies in that, being based on a static conceptualization and cross-sectional data, it does not take into account the fact that PV is a dynamic phenomenon that tends to change across time, and that understanding such change is a key part of understanding PV.

Dyadic Theoretical Approaches The growing evidence of bidirectional PV and the need to understand how it emerges and changes over time has led to a significant shift in recent years from theories of unidirectional PV perpetrated by men toward women, to theories based on dyadic behavior and thus encompassing bidirectional PV. In the 2000s, there were numerous calls for a stronger focus on the characteristics of both members of the dyad and on interactional processes (Jouriles, McDonald, Norwood, & Ezell, 2001; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2006). Early proponents of a dyadic theoretical approach to understanding couples’ PV were Riggs and O’Leary (1989, 1996) who examined the role of partner factors, with a focus on conflict and PV, for dating and engaged couples. O’Leary and Slep (2003) examined physical PV among high school partners who remained in a dating relationship for 3 months. They found significant stability over this time period in PV perpetration for both the boys and girls, and in a path model including both partners’ behaviors found that individual physical PV was predictive of partner’s physical PV at the later time point.

344

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Similar issues, along with an emphasis on the role of developmental risk factors for PV, led us to propose a dynamic developmental systems approach to understanding PV (Capaldi & Kim, 2007; Capaldi et al., 2012). The model is also based on ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1995) and life span development (Cairns & Cairns, 1995; Caspi & Elder, 1988) approaches. The model focuses on the developmental risk factors that each partner brings to the relationship (Capaldi et al., 2012), particularly family of origin experiences including exposure to interparent PV (Capaldi & Clark, 1998) and experience of harsh parental discipline (Capaldi et al., 2009), and individual characteristics including antisocial behavior and depressive symptoms, which at least partially act as mediators between family of origin experiences and later involvement in PV in adolescence (Kim & Capaldi, 2004). Adolescents do not come to dating relationships as “blank slates.” They come as a complex mix of temperamental characteristics, family of origin and peer experiences, levels of social interaction skills, and possibly symptoms of psychopathology (e.g., aggression and a prior history of bullying; Connolly, Pepler, Craig, & Taradash, 2000). The young couple’s interactions occur within a larger context of layered systems, from society-wide factors such as media portrayals of adolescent relationships to closer social influences such as dating behaviors within the peer group, and proximal contextual factors such as stress, substance use, unsupervised partying, and dating activities. Within these multiple system influences, the young partners both act and react to each other’s behaviors in an ongoing fashion. Age and relationship length have considerable influence on PV. Developmental time or age is strongly related to PV, with peaks occurring at young ages in adolescence or young adulthood and declines starting by at least the later 20s (Kim, Laurent, Capaldi, & Feingold, 2008). In this respect, adolescent PV shows similarity to other forms of delinquency at adolescence, which also tend to decrease in the 20s (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986). A recent theory regarding this change, namely the Dual Systems Theory (Casey, Getz, & Galvan, 2008; Steinberg, 2008, 2010), is related to brain development. The theory posits that a sharp increase in dopaminergic activity in the limbic and paralimbic areas of the brain, characterized as the socioemotional system, leads to increases in reward seeking and risk taking in adolescence, and that this increase in reward seeking occurs prior to the structural maturation of the cognitive control system (mainly involving the lateral prefrontal and parietal cortices and parts of the anterior cingulate cortex to which they are connected) and its connections to the socioemotional areas. Thus, adolescence is a vulnerable period for impulsive behaviors, including poorly controlled anger and aggression. Length of relationship also is a risk factor, with the combination of longer relationships at young ages (i.e., adolescence) being related to higher risk for PV within the relationship (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997). We have conducted a number of tests of models based on the dynamic developmental systems approach, which

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

345

support numerous aspects of the model including the contribution of family of origin, prior developmental risk factors, and concurrent contextual factors to PV involvement (e.g., Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001; Kim & Capaldi, 2004; Shortt, Capaldi, Kim, & Tiberio, 2013).

PREVALENCE OF BIDIRECTIONAL PV Separately within the domains of physical, psychological, and sexual PV, bidirectionality of PV is defined as the prevalence or occurrence of perpetration by each partner in a relationship at some time during the assessment period (e.g., in the past 6 months, not necessarily within the same violent encounter). Importantly, bidirectionality, sometimes termed mutual PV or reciprocal PV, does not imply that the PV perpetrated by each partner is symmetric (i.e., equal in frequency, severity, types of behaviors, or impact).

Physical PV A review of studies that reported rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012) identified 50 studies (since 1990) of varying samples. Among school and college samples involving adolescents and young adults, the average prevalence of PV (weighted by sample size) was 39.2%, and among those reporting any PV, 51.9% was bidirectional. Of the 48.1% reported as unidirectional, 16.2% involved male-only PV and 31.9% female-only PV. Relatedly, in our work with the Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) community sample, 40% of young adult couples reported physical PV in their relationships; for couples with PV in their relationships, 71% participated in bidirectional physical PV. Particularly interesting in the review by LanghinrichsenRohling et al. was that rates of bidirectional PV predominantly of adults in population samples and among community samples (for those reporting any PV, 57.9% and 59.6%, respectively, reported bidirectional PV) were similar to the school/college rate. Thus, it appears that bidirectional PV in adolescence is not a transitory couple behavior related to developmental stage, but rather a fundamental characteristic of couples’ PV. Of course, this does not mean that PV may not change in other important ways from adolescence to adulthood. Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2012) also examined possible differences in PV rates of bidirectionality among gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals (compared with heterosexual studies) but did not find such differences. Some differences by ethnicity were found, with bidirectional PV rates being the lowest for Latino reporters (40.9%), the highest for African American reporters (61.8%), and intermediate for European American reporters (50.9%). Even so, a substantial proportion of PV was reported as bidirectional for

346

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

each ethnic group. The authors concluded that even though the overall prevalence of PV differed significantly across samples, the proportion of PV that was categorized as bidirectional did not show major variations. Findings regarding the prevalence of bidirectional PV may also apply to non-US samples. Esquivel-Santoven˜a, Lambert, and Hamel (2013) reviewed and compared prevalence of PV by men versus women in worldwide samples, and the studies mostly involved dating student, adolescent, or clinical samples. For physical PV, prevalence was higher for female perpetration than for male perpetration in 62% of the comparisons. For psychological PV, prevalence was higher for females in 67% of comparisons, and for sexual PV, prevalence was higher for male perpetration in 63% of comparisons. Straus (2008) examined physical PV in 32 college samples internationally and found that almost one-third of both the young men and young women reported perpetrating physical PV in the past 12 months, and that the most frequent pattern was bidirectional PV, followed by female-only PV, with the least frequent pattern being male-only PV. Physical PV is also commonly bidirectional among adult samples, even from countries reporting a relatively high prevalence of physical PV. Couples in Peru had a very high prevalence of PV among men and women in a community sample, such that 61% reported bidirectional PV and 11.4% unidirectional violence (for a total of 72% of couples reporting PV) (Delgado Cuzzi, 2015). Thus, the finding that much physical PV in couples is bidirectional is a robust phenomenon.

Sexual PV As discussed by Shortt, Capaldi, and Tiberio (in press), sexual PV covers a wide range of behavior, and, as assessed in surveys, often ranges from coercion without physical contact (e.g., trying to persuade partner to go further than they want) to sexual touching to penetration, to which the individual does not or is unable to consent (e.g., due to a disability, intoxication). A meta-analytic review (Wincentak, Connolly, & Card, 2017) of teen dating violence in heterosexual relationships identified 96 studies reporting physical PV rates and 31 studies reporting sexual PV rates for adolescents aged 13 18 years. An overall prevalence of 20% for physical PV and 9% for sexual PV was found. Gender differences were significant for physical PV perpetration (boys 13% vs girls 25%) but not for physical PV victimization (21% for both boys and girls), sexual PV perpetration (boys 10% vs girls 3%), and sexual PV victimization (boys 8% vs girls 14%). A Centers for Disease Control survey of adults (Black et al., 2011) also indicated that both men and women may be victimized by sexual PV but with a higher proportion of women reporting victimization. In the LIFT community sample, 55% of young adult couples reported sexual PV in their relationships; of these couples, 66% participated in bidirectional sexual PV. This rate of bidirectional sexual PV is nearly as high as was found for bidirectional physical PV in the sample and higher than expected.

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

347

Psychological PV Verbal or psychological PV does not involve violence by the definition of a physical act purposefully directed at another but does involve behaviors such as name calling, criticisms, threats, restriction of activities, and damage to property. These acts may have the intention of humiliating, blaming, dominating, isolating, and intimidating the partner (Follingstad, Coyne, & Gambone, 2005). Psychological PV is considered a form of PV because it involves aggressive behavior (ranging from mild to severe) that hurts the partner in some way (O’Leary, 1999). Psychological PV is also significantly associated with physical PV (r 5 0.60; r 5 0.55, P ,0.001, for 17 18-yearold males and females, respectively) (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997). Furthermore, it can sometimes have more negative consequences than physical PV (Follingstad, 2007; O’Leary, 1999). Psychological PV differs considerably from both physical and sexual PV in being a very common behavior at some level—most dating adolescents perpetrate at least mild psychological PV (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997). Thus, estimates of psychological PV among adolescents and young adults are high, so high in fact that by definition this behavior is most usually bidirectional. Accordingly, in the LIFT community sample, 92% of young adult couples reported psychological PV in their relationships, and for the couples with PV in their relationships, 91% participated in bidirectional psychological PV. An important issue that has not been adequately addressed is bidirectionality of psychological PV at different levels of severity and frequency. One study that examined bidirectionality in trajectories of low, increasing, and high levels of psychological PV over 7 years from Grades 6 to 12 classified 91% of adolescents in concordant categories of perpetration and victimization (36% in a low-perpetration and low-victimization group, 40% in an increasing-perpetration and increasing-victimization group, and 15% in a high-perpetration and high-victimization group) (Orpinas, Nahapetyan, Song, McNicholas, & Reeves, 2012). Implications are that psychological PV is a risk factor for physical PV, and because it has detrimental outcomes in its own right, prevention and treatment programs should aim to increase awareness of psychological PV issues and decrease levels of such PV for adolescents and young adults.

Cyber or Computer-Mediated PV Both psychological PV and sexual PV that does not involve physical contact may be committed in situations other than face to face via a variety of computer-mediated forms of communication. Korchmaros, Ybarra, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Boyd, and Lenhar (2013) found that 41% of dating adolescents who reported perpetrating PV in the past 12 months had used computer-mediated communication to commit psychological PV—many of

348

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

these had also perpetrated such PV face to face. In a sample of students in Grades 7 12, 10.5% of adolescents in a current/recent dating relationship reported perpetrating nonsexual cyber PV (e.g., sending threatening text messages), 2.7% perpetrating sexual cyber PV (e.g., pressuring partner to send sexual/nude photos), 22.2% being victimized by nonsexual cyber PV, and 11.2% being victimized by sexual cyber PV. Gender differences were significant for being victimized by sexual cyber PV (boys 7.2% vs girls 14.8%) but not for being victimized by nonsexual cyber PV (boys 20.9% vs girls 23.2%), perpetrating nonsexual cyber PV (boys 7.4% vs girls 13%), and perpetrating sexual cyber PV (boys 3.8% vs girls 1.6%) (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). Cyber PV (sexual and nonsexual) was bidirectional for 8.6%, which was less than bidirectional physical PV (15.8%) and bidirectional psychological PV (23.1%), but greater than bidirectional sexual coercion at 1.2%. The relatively low rates of bidirectionality may reflect the sample’s younger ages, inclusion of middle-school students, and higher reported rates of PV victimization compared to PV perpetration for cyber, physical, and psychological PV as well as sexual coercion. Cyber PV perpetration and victimization co-occurred with physical PV, psychological PV, and sexual coercion perpetration and victimization—with the highest degree of overlap between sexual cyber PV perpetration and victimization and sexual coercion perpetration and victimization (Zweig et al., 2013). A shortterm longitudinal study involving a diverse sample of high school students also found that cyber PV was bidirectional and co-occurred with physical and psychological PV perpetration and victimization over time, emphasizing that adolescents are perpetrating and experiencing different forms of PV in multiple contexts (Temple et al., 2016).

EMERGENCE OF PV RELATED TO BIDIRECTIONALITY Observed Physical PV Including Playful Studies of physical PV involving observed interaction in young couples are rare but support the finding that physical PV is bidirectional more often than would be expected by chance. In the first study (to our knowledge) that observed aggressive behavior during discussions—including problem-solving interactions with adolescent male female couples aged 17 18 years (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997)—in the course of the observation, 6% of the males and 16% of the females perpetrated physical PV considered by the coders to be not playful and 18% of the males and 34% of the females perpetrated physical PV considered to be playful (e.g., delivered in positive affect, no force used). Thus, a number of young men and women were observed to use some physical PV during the relatively brief observation (36 minutes). According to either coder ratings of observed physical PV (excluding PV considered playful) or reports of both perpetration and victimization by each

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

349

of the partners, neither partner was physically violent in 49% of the couples, the male-only in 4%, the female-only in 17%, and both partners in 30%. Thus, of those showing any physical PV, 59% involved bidirectional PV. The use of physical PV considered playful provides insight into the emergence of physical PV in couples. In considering the nature of the aggressive interchanges observed for the adolescent couples, Capaldi and Crosby (1997) state that “The term ‘playful’ may seem inappropriate as a descriptor of physical PV. We used this designation for such acts when the physical force was not greater than the level of a firm touch. Similarly, Maccoby (1980) has described rough and tumble play between family members, which is mostly conducted without the intent or result of hurting, but is considered fun. Some of the observed physical PV in couples seemed to be part of a pattern of sexual intimacy. The majority of these young adults reported that they were in love (89% of the males and 87% of the females). Many touched frequently during the task. The female PV sometimes seemed to be an attention getting device to arouse the young man’s interest and engage him physically” (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997, p. 201). Playful PV has been described as horseplay seen as common in young relationships and potentially serving social and sexual desires (Hamby, 2009). In a study that interviewed adolescents concerning perpetrating PV, both girls and boys reported that physical PV was sometimes committed “in play” or accidentally (Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007). Importantly, couples who engaged in playful physical PV were more likely to use non-playful PV, indicating that playful PV is not necessarily harmless (Capaldi, Shortt, & Crosby, 2003). Thus, physical PV may be part of a complex pattern of interaction for young couples. Adolescents may underestimate the degree to which playful and minor acts of physical PV in romantic relationships may start a pattern that can escalate at times of high stress and conflict.

Jealousy and Negative Emotions Romantic relationships are relatively new to adolescents and young adults, and the ways in which they are the same or different from more familiar sibling and peer relationships may be somewhat confusing and difficult to negotiate at first. The transition to romantic relationship interactions may be especially difficult for youth with lower levels of social skills, inexperienced both in communicating and handling conflict, and lacking constructive ways to cope with frustration and distress. Furthermore, due to the issues involved in sexual attraction and involvement, emotions often run much higher in romantic relationships compared with sibling and peer relationships. At age 17 18 years, the most frequently picked topic for the problem-solving discussion (selected by 15% of both young women and young men) was their partner’s jealousy (Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2004). By the mid-20s this issue was lower in the rankings of choices, probably due to the fact that the

350

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

relationships were now more stable and secure. Focus groups with high school students indicated that technology use and the ease with which teens can contact and communicate online with potential partners may exacerbate adolescents’ feelings of jealousy when dating (Baker & Carren˜o, 2016). Youth may have a difficult time handling the triggering of strong negative emotions such as fear, sadness, and anger associated with jealousy and other issues within dating relationships. Although emotion processes develop early in life, the development of skills to exert effortful control over emotions continues into adolescence and often improves in adulthood (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Experiencing negative emotions associated with conflictual interaction appears to increase the likelihood of using PV to solve relationship problems for young adults and adults (Crane & Testa, 2014; Finkel, 2007; McNulty & Hellmuth, 2008; Watkins, DiLillo, Hoffman, & Templin, 2015). A study involving undergraduates indicated associations between emotion regulation difficulties and PV perpetration, in particular between impulse control difficulties and psychological, physical, and sexual PV for men but only psychological and physical PV for women (Shorey, Brasfield, Febres, & Stuart, 2011). The downregulation of negative emotions and physiological arousal, as well as upregulation of positive emotions, plays important roles in relationship quality and stability (Levenson, Haase, Bloch, Holley, & Seider, 2014). In addition, youth may underestimate the degree to which hurt and anger related to impulsive aggressive acts may be triggered in romantic relationships. A component on dealing with strong emotion may be a valuable part of dating PV-prevention programs. Some prevention programs do contain such components, such as constructive responses to anger within the Safe Dates Program (Foshee et al., 2004).

Assortative Partnering by Antisocial Behavior A key factor that we have identified as a risk factor for bidirectional physical PV is assortative partnering by antisocial behavior (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997). Such assortative partnering occurs due to a number of factors. Notably, partners tend to be selected from within the peer group, which for individuals with elevated levels of antisocial behavior is likely to contain other individuals who also show elevated levels, also called delinquent peer association (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995). Second, individuals tend to select partners with preferred characteristics that are usually similar in some respects to their own, such as a college-bound girl preferring a boy with similar academic strengths, or a boy who likes to party and use alcohol and marijuana dating a girl who likes to do these activities with him. Third, individuals may grow rather more alike in their behaviors when they are in a dating relationship. We found significant associations in antisocial behavior across partners in late adolescence for the couples in the OYS-Couples Study (r 5 0.44, P ,0.001). We have also shown that such assortative partnering is

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

351

related to considerably higher levels of physical PV in the couples (Kim, Shortt, Tiberio, & Capaldi, 2016). If both partners (at age 21 years on average) showed antisocial behavior at or above the 67th percentile (standardized separately for men and women), their mean physical PV level on a standardized score was 0.60 versus 20.20 if neither partner was elevated, or almost 0 if just one partner was elevated. (Note that results did not differ depending on whether it was the young woman or the young man who was elevated in antisocial behavior.) Thus, assortative partnering by antisocial behavior is likely to be a key factor related to risk for bidirectional PV and escalation of PV for young couples.

PV PROCESSES RELATED TO BIDIRECTIONALITY Initiation of PV Evidence of bidirectionality leads to questions of whether boys or girls tend to initiate the physical PV. Proponents of the traditional model of PV argue that women’s perpetrations are largely in self-defense or possibly retaliation (Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Saunders, 1986). As discussed by Kim et al. (2016), findings regarding initiation of PV in young couples using reports from the partners have either indicated that the young men and women are equally likely to initiate physical PV or that the adolescents/young adult women are more likely to initiate physical PV toward their male partners (Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005). It is possible that initiating acts of physical PV are often relatively minor but then result in an escalating exchange. Thus, young couples may not fully notice which partner has initiated the PV, yet it may affect their behavior by leading to risk for escalation of PV. Observational data during couples’ problem-solving discussions can provide valuable information regarding issues of initiation. We examined this issue using such observations in the OYS-Couples Study, which included approximately biannual observations over time from ages 18 to 24 years (Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007). The young women were three to four times more likely than the young men to initiate physical PV during these interactions. The gender difference later declined and was nonsignificant by the late 20s. Twenty-five percent of the young men and women reciprocated their partner’s physical PV at some point during the remainder of the discussion. Note that, given that the young women were three to four times more likely to initiate physical PV in the observed interactions, a considerably larger proportion of the young men’s PV was in reciprocation to her behavior. Very importantly, observed mutual physical PV was associated with the highest prevalence of injuries in the relationships (Capaldi et al., 2007), indicating that even physical PV that appears to be relatively minor (e.g., a push, a poke, a slap) may be reciprocated by the other partner, thus increasing the risk of more severe PV resulting in injuries.

352

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Persistence and Desistance in PV The nature of change over time in PV, and whether changes tended to be coordinated in direction and whether change occurs from one relationship to another, offers some insights into the bidirectional nature of PV. Studies of persistence and desistance over time have mainly been of adults. In one of the earliest studies, O’Leary et al. (1989) examined persistence and desistance of perpetration among couples engaged to be married and found that 51% of male perpetrators and 59% of female perpetrators were still violent 18 months into the marriage. This study is relatively typical and indicates that although many men and women persist in PV, many also desist, even within the same relationship. Capaldi et al. (2003) examined change over time from late adolescence to young adulthood (from approximately age 18 21 years) for young men in the OYS and their female partners. Using prevalence of PV perpetration in the last year, both young men and young women who were with the same partner at the two time points were more likely to persist in PV perpetration than to desist (60% and 68%, respectively, by gender), whereas young men who changed partners were less likely (42%) to persist. Similar patterns of persistence and desistence for PV perpetration were found when following the young men and their partners into their 30 s (Shortt et al., 2012). However, note that even when partners remained the same, a substantial proportion of both young men and women desisted in PV perpetration over time. Using levels of PV perpetration, rather than prevalence, there were significantly stronger associations in men’s PV perpetration over time if they stayed with the same versus a new partner. For men with the same partners over time, prediction with regard to levels of physical or psychological PV at age 21 years were similar to their own and their partners’ age of 18 years levels of PV perpetration, again indicating stability in men’s PV perpetration and an enmeshed or dyadic process for PV. Similarly, higher rates of PV stability were found over a 1-year period for continuing relationships versus new partners in a sample of adolescent dating couples (Fritz & Slep, 2009). Whitaker, Le, and Niolon (2010) examined persistence and desistance in PV perpetration across young adult relationships using the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. At ages 18 26 years, young adults were asked questions regarding all their romantic relationships in the past 5 years. They found that 18% of young adults reported perpetrating physical PV in their first relationship, yet only 30% of these young adults reported perpetrating such PV in their second relationship. Thus, desistance was relatively high across relationships. Furthermore, 13% of those reporting no physical PV perpetration in the first relationship reported perpetration in the second relationship, thus indicating some change in terms of new cases of PV perpetration, rather than just of desistance.

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

353

In a study that followed women over time, Testa, Hoffman, and Leonard (2011) examined young women’s reports of their own as well as their partner’s physical PV perpetration across the first year of college, examining stability and predictors of mutual and non-mutual PV. They found that 65% of the women reported no physical PV in their relationship, 14% reported their own perpetration only, 20% reported bidirectional PV, and only 1% reported PV by their male partner toward them only. Interestingly, of those women engaging in bidirectional PV, 69% reported that they were the more frequent aggressor. Women in the bidirectional PV group showed more frequent physical and psychological PV than did the female-only couples. The bidirectional group also reported the highest level of risk factors. Similar to findings for the OYS men, the stability of the young women’s PV perpetration across the year was considerably higher if they were in the same relationship than if they changed partners. Physical PV perpetration at the end of the year was strongly predicted by perpetration at the beginning of the year and by the frequency of psychological PV at the beginning of the year. Overall, the findings of higher levels of persistence in same versus different relationships again indicate a dyadic process.

High-Frequency PV It has been hypothesized that higher frequency physical PV is more likely to be unidirectional (characterized as “intimate terrorism”) versus lower frequency PV, hypothesized as more due to “common couple conflict” (Johnson, 1995). However, there is considerable evidence that highfrequency PV is also very likely to be bidirectional, based on both samples of adolescents/young adults (Capaldi & Owen, 2001; Gray & Foshee; 1997; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007) and on samples considered to be the most likely victims of intimate terrorism (i.e., women’s shelter samples; Holmes et al., 2016; McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, & Minze, 2009), perpetrators of intimate terrorism (i.e., men who have been arrested for PV perpetration; Capaldi et al., 2009), and men mandated to PV treatment (Crane, Hawes, Mandel, & Easton, 2014), where 30% of the men reported being also victims of their female partners’ violence. There is some evidence of symmetry in bidirectionality in couples where there has been more serious PV. Among couples who experienced PV resulting in an arrest (usually of the young man), both the men and women in that couple showed relatively high levels of physical and psychological PV compared with men and women within couples with no arrest incident (Capaldi et al., 2009). Furthermore, both men and women within the arrest-incident couples showed relatively equal (to each other) and elevated (compared with no incident men and women) levels of severe types of physical PV (e.g., kicking, beating up, choking, and burning). High-frequency PV, including severe acts and acts with severe outcomes (e.g., entering a shelter), shows a

354

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

substantial proportion of bidirectional PV, which indicates that bidirectionality is a characteristic of PV at all levels and points to the fundamental need to address this issue in prevention and treatment programs.

IMPACT OF BIDIRECTIONAL PV Injury Risk A key question regarding bidirectional PV regards whether the outcomes are more, less, or similar in severity to outcomes of unidirectional PV. If equal or more severe, then this emphasizes the importance of understanding and addressing bidirectional PV in order to prevent or treat PV. In a study of young adults (aged 20 23 years) in the OYS-Couples Study, we found injuries were likely to be mutual—at three times higher than expected by chance (Capaldi & Owen, 2001). Whitaker et al. (2007) examined similar questions for young adults in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Reciprocal PV was associated with greater risk of injury (adjusted odds ratio 4.4) than was nonreciprocal unidirectional PV, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. In an analysis of a very large sample of college students, bidirectional PV, including high-frequency PV, was associated with the highest probability of injury, especially for the young women (Straus & Gozjolko, 2014). The findings from these studies regarding higher risk for injury of women as well as men from bidirectional violence again emphasize the importance of addressing such violence in prevention and treatment.

Other Impacts There are a number of other problematic PV outcomes in addition to injury, including depressive symptoms (Lawrence, Orengo-Aguayo, Langer, & Brock, 2012) and relationship breakdown (Shortt, Capaldi, Kim, & Owen, 2006). Although not examined as much as PV-related injuries, couples with bidirectional PV were at greater risk for mental health disorders such as depressive symptoms relative to unidirectional violence (Temple, Weston, & Marshall, 2005; Ulloa & Hammett, 2016). More alcohol use has also been associated with bidirectional PV compared to unidirectional PV for a sample of young adults (Melander, Noel, & Tyler, 2010) and a gay, lesbian, and bisexual community sample (Kelly, Izienicki, Bimbi, & Parsons, 2011). More attention to whether the impacts of bidirectional PV differ from those associated with unidirectional PV is warranted.

Children Exposed to Interparent PV One outcome that may be less considered in relation to adolescent and young adult PV is the potential impact on the children of parents in this age range.

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

355

The adolescent years present a relatively high-risk environment for children of these young parents in that these are years of high-risk for numerous problematic behaviors, including substance use (Brown et al., 2008) and delinquency (Blonigen, 2010). Adolescence and also young adulthood are developmental stages of relatively high levels of PV. Furthermore, childhood risk factors, including antisocial behavior, are related both to a higher likelihood of teen parenthood (Bunting & McAuley, 2004) and to higher risk for PV (Capaldi et al., 2012). At the age 17- to 18-year OYS-Couples Study assessment, 20% of the young men who participated in OYS-Couples Study were parents versus 4% of the men who did not participate—mainly because they did not have a partner. The young men who participated at ages 17 18 years were also more likely to have an arrest record, use marijuana, and to have not completed high school. Thus there are a substantial number of children with adolescent and young adult parents who may be affected by their parents’ PV and other risk behaviors. In 2014, close to 250,000 children were born to adolescents 15 19 years of age in the United States. With the estimated prevalence of PV perpetration in adolescence at 39% (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012), numerous children are possibly affected. Regarding bidirectionality of PV and impact on children, one study on the effects of children exposed to interparent PV found that children were most impacted when parents engaged in bidirectional PV (Straus, 2015).

PREVENTION IMPLICATIONS Early efforts to prevent PV among adolescents mainly were based on traditional feminist theory and focused on changing behavior of boys with regard to PV perpetration, whereas behavioral change foci for girls related to victim behaviors only including factors such as encouraging help seeking (Whitaker et al., 2006). There are now a number of primary prevention programs for adolescent PV that address both boys’ and girls’ behaviors (Whitaker, Murphy, Eckhardt, Hodges, Cowart, 2013)—which, in addition to addressing such factors such as gender stereotyping and attitudes, also address positive and negative communication skills. However, although there has been movement toward acknowledging that both boys and girls may perpetrate PV (although not all programs address girls’ perpetration), it is not clear that these preventive programs take the issue of bidirectional PV adequately into account (Bates, 2016). The effectiveness of the programs may be increased by including a focus on how even relatively minor initiations of PV may lead to escalation and the risk of sending a message that physical PV is allowed in the relationship. Adolescent and young adult parents may be particularly in need of prevention or treatment programs to address PV to provide a safer environment not only for themselves but for their offspring. An efficacy trial of a brief four-session program targeted pregnant adolescent girls who were receiving

356

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

services at an inner-city teen pregnancy center and who were interested in building more loving relationships with the baby’s father (LanghinrichsenRohling & Turner, 2012). Girls who successfully completed the program reported significant reductions in their perpetration of psychological PV toward their baby’s father compared with the control participants. Importantly, they also reported experiencing significantly less severe PV victimization over the course of the program. This study provides some support for a dynamic dyadic model and consideration of bidirectional violence, because the reduction in the young women’s PV perpetration may have led to a reduction in the men’s PV toward them (men were not part of the intervention). This finding indicates that both partners’ PV perpetration can be reduced even if only one of the partners is involved in intervention.

ASSESSMENT ISSUES One issue regarding future directions that emerges from the consideration of bidirectional PV is that it is difficult to study just what happens during more severe incidents of PV—for example, the extent to which both partners were involved in the violence, how the occasion unfolded, and identification of the contextual and precipitating factors. One possible approach to this is based on the principles of the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), which has been used in some areas of sociology and psychology for many years. We have used the broad principles of this approach to interview partners (individually) about either a severe conflict that they remember having in the past year (which may or may not involve PV) or an occasion that involved physical PV. The individual is asked in an open-ended question to describe what the conflict was about, what happened on the occasion, what each partner did, and what made the incident so bad (or how it resulted in PV). Numerous probes may then be used to help identify factors related to precipitation or escalation of the incident. For example, whether either partner had been drinking alcohol or using drugs, whether children or others were involved, whether it involved injuries, and the type of injury. If partners are asked the question separately, they often identify different occasions as problematic. One occasion that often results in severe conflict incidents is relationship breakup. We have contacted each partner (separately) after a breakup and asked them to describe what happened in a similar fashion to that already described. Note that this often results in quite different stories from each partner (e.g., that the young woman says the problem was that the young man was not prepared to commit to her and the baby, and the young man says it was because she was unfaithful), indicating some of the problems of relying on the validity of only one partner’s reports on such issues. Nonetheless, collecting information on critical incidents may be helpful in understanding the factors involved in severe occasions of PV, which cannot be directly observed.

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

357

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The issues and studies reviewed in this chapter demonstrate that much progress has been made in researching and understanding teen dating violence. There has been a radical shift toward recognizing that risk for adolescent PV is affected by prior development, PV is bidirectional, and that such behavior is dynamic and changes both within and across relationships. However, as discussed by Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Capaldi (2012), prevention of this form of violence is in its infancy. Findings discussed in this chapter also make it clear that if there is true commitment to protecting adolescent girls—keeping them safe from injury and other harmful outcomes of PV—prevention programs must address both the contributory role that girls may play in such PV and focus on evidence-based factors that have been identified in numerous studies (Capaldi et al., 2012). Programs need to capitalize on the research findings that have emerged in recent years and focus more on building relationship skills, dealing with strong negative emotions, general contextual risks (e.g., stress, drug use), relationship contextual risks (e.g., relationship crises, relationship breakdowns), and the risks from bidirectional and escalating PV of all kinds (i.e., psychological, physical, and sexual). Regarding basic research, understanding of bidirectionality of PV would benefit from moving beyond issues of whether there is bidirectionality in prevalence of PV (i.e., any vs none) to examining issues of symmetry in frequency and severity of PV within couples. We discussed data for couples who have experienced PV resulting in an arrest-incident—indicating both young men and women in such couples were elevated on physical and psychological PV, including for more severe incidents of physical PV. We examined symmetry in psychological PV assessed simply by correlations of continuous scores at both ages 17 18 and 20 23 years. At each of these ages there was a very high correlation across the young men and young women in a heterosexual relationship for a construct of psychological PV scored from low to high in frequency (r 5 0.78 and 0.77, respectively, P ,0.001). This correlation indicates a high level of symmetry, not just basic bidirectionality, for both physical and psychological PV in adolescence and young adulthood. Such findings again indicate a fundamentally dyadic behavior, where some couples may escalate bidirectional PV to a severe level. Issues such as symmetry of severity of psychologically aggressive behaviors should also be examined, especially with ethnically and sexually diverse samples.

REFERENCES Ali, P., Dhingra, K., & McGarry, J. (2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16 25. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.06.008. Baker, C., & Carren˜o, P. (2016). Understanding the role of technology in adolescent dating and dating violence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 308 320. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0196-5.

358

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Barnett, O. W., Lee, C. Y., & Thelen, R. E. (1997). Gender differences in attributions of selfdefense and control in interpartner aggression. Violence Against Women, 3, 462 481. Bates, E. A. (2016). Current controversies within intimate partner violence: Overlooking bidirectional violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 937 940. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10896-016-9862-7. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Blonigen, D. M. (2010). Explaining the relationship between age and crime: Contributions from the developmental literature on personality. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 89 100. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.001. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.), (1986). Criminal careers and career criminals (Vol. 1). Washington: National Academy Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). The bioecological model from a life course perspective: Reflections of a participant observer. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context (pp. 559 618). Washington: American Psychological Association. Brown, S. A., McGue, M., Maggs, J., Schulenberg, J., Hingson, R., Swartzwelder, S., . . . Murphy, S. (2008). A developmental perspective on alcohol and youths 16 to 20 years of age. Pediatrics, 121(Suppl4), S290 S310. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2007-2243D. Bunting, L., & McAuley, C. (2004). Research review: Teenage pregnancy and parenthood: The role of fathers. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 295 303. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00335.x. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273 279. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.273. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1995). Social ecology over time and space. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 397 421). Washington: American Psychological Association. Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1175 1188. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1175. Capaldi, D. M., & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184 206. Available from https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb0010. Capaldi, D. M., Dishion, T. J., Stoolmiller, M., & Yoerger, K. (2001). Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37, 61 73. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.37.1.61. Capaldi, D. M., & Kim, H. K. (2007). Typological approaches to violence in couples: A critique and alternative conceptual approach. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 253 265. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.001. Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Pears, K. C. (2009). The association between partner violence and child maltreatment: A common conceptual framework. In D. Whitaker, & J. Lutzker (Eds.), Preventing partner violence: Research and evidence-based intervention strategies (pp. 93 111). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

359

Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004). Women’s involvement in aggression in young adult romantic relationships: A developmental systems model. In M. Putallaz, & K. L. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls: A developmental perspective (pp. 223 241). New York: Guilford. Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101 111. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231 280. Available from https://doi. org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231. Capaldi, D. M., & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk, young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 425 440. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.425. Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., & Crosby, L. (2003). Physical and psychological aggression in atrisk young couples: Stability and change in young adulthood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 1 27. Capaldi, D. M., Shortt, J. W., Kim, H. K., Wilson, J., Crosby, L., & Tucci, S. (2009). Official incidents of domestic violence: Types, injury, and associations with nonofficial couple aggression. Violence and Victims, 24, 502 519. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/ 0886-6708.24.4.502. Casey, B. J., Getz, S., & Galvan, A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28, 62 77. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003. Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H. (1988). Childhood precursors of the life course: Early personality and life disorganization. In E. M. Hetherington, R. M. Lerner, & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Child development in life-span perspective (pp. 115 142). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Connolly, J. A., Pepler, D. J., Craig, W., & Taradash, A. (2000). Dating experiences of bullies in early adolescence. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 5, 299 310. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559500005 004002. Crane, C. A., Hawes, S. W., Mandel, D. L., & Easton, C. J. (2014). The occurrence of femaleto-male partner violence among male intimate partner violence offenders mandated to treatment: A brief research report. Violence and Victims, 29, 940 951. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00136. Crane, C. A., & Testa, M. (2014). Daily associations among anger experience and intimate partner aggression within aggressive and nonaggressive community couples. Emotion, 15, 985 994. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036884. Delgado Cuzzi, P. (2015). Reciprocal violence and injuries in couples in Arequipa, Peru. In Culminating projects in community psychology, counseling, and family therapy (Paper 4). St. Cloud State University: Repository at St. Cloud State. Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012a). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3, 140 169. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/19466560.3.2.140. Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012b). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships, Part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse, 3, 170 198. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/19466560.3.2.170.

360

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality and interactional processes. Child Development, 66, 139 151. Esquivel-Santoven˜a, E. E., Lambert, T. L., & Hamel, J. (2013). Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4, 6 75. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.6. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1103 1119. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00202.x. Finkel, E. J. (2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11, 193 207. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/ 1089-2680.11.2.193. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327 358. Follingstad, D. R. (2007). Rethinking current approaches to psychological abuse: Conceptual and methodological issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 122, 439 458. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.004. Follingstad, D. R., Coyne, S., & Gambone, L. (2005). A representative measure of psychological aggression and its severity. Violence and Victims, 20, 25 38. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1891/0886-6708.2005.20.1.25. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennet, S. T., Linder, F., Benefield, T. S., & Suchindran, C. M. (2004). Assessing the long term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 619 624. Available from https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.94.4.619. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Typologies of adolescent dating violence: Identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 498 519. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260506298829. Fritz, P. A. T., & Slep, A. M. S. (2009). Stability of physical and psychological adolescent dating aggression across time and partners. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 303 314. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410902851671. Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. A. (1997). Adolescent dating violence: Differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126 141. Hamby, S. L. (2009). The gender debate on intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma, 1, 24 34. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015066. Holmes, S. C., Johnson, N. L., Rojas-Ashe, E. E., Ceroni, T. L., Fedele, K. M., & Johnson, D. M. (2016). Prevalence and predictors of bidirectional violence in survivors of intimate partner violence residing at shelters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516670183, online first. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000 1019. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022006X.68.6.1000. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J. C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. L. (2003). Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 728 740. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0022006X.71.4.728.

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

361

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476 497. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283 294. Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Norwood, W. D., & Ezell, E. (2001). Issues and controversies in documenting the prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic violence. In S. A. GrahamBermann, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives of children: The future of research, intervention, and social policy (pp. 12 34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kelly, B. C., Izienicki, H., Bimbi, D. S., & Parsons, J. T. (2011). The intersection of mutual partner violence and substance use among urban gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Deviant Behavior, 32, 379 404. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/01639621003800158. Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). The association of antisocial behavior and depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 82 96. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.82. Kim, H. K., Laurent, H. K., Capaldi, D. M., & Feingold, A. (2008). Men’s aggression toward women: A 10-year panel study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1169 1187. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00558.x. Kim, H. K., Shortt, J. W., Tiberio, S. S., & Capaldi, D. M. (2016). Aggression and coercive behaviors in early adult relationships: Findings from the Oregon Youth Study Couples Study. In T. J. Dishion, & J. J. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of coercive relationship dynamics (pp. 169 181). New York: Oxford University Press. Korchmaros, J. D., Ybarra, M. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Boyd, D., & Lenhar, A. (2013). Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 561 567. Available from https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0627. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Capaldi, D. M. (2012). Clearly we’ve only just begun: Developing effective prevention programs for intimate partner violence. Prevention Science, 13, 410 414. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0310-5. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 199 230. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.199. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Turner, L. A. (2012). The efficacy of an intimate partner violence prevention program with high-risk adolescent girls: A preliminary test. Prevention Science, 13, 384 394. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-011-0240-7. Lawrence, E., Orengo-Aguayo, R., Langer, A., & Brock, R. L. (2012). The impact and consequences of partner abuse on partners. Partner Abuse, 3, 406 428. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.406. Levenson, R. W., Haase, C. M., Bloch, L., Holley, S. R., & Seider, B. H. (2014). Emotion regulation in couples. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 267 283). New York: Guilford Press. Maccoby, E. E. (1980). Social development: Psychological growth and the parent-child relationship. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich. McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Tart, C. D., & Minze, L. C. (2009). Children’s adjustment problems in families characterized by men’s severe violence toward women: Does other family violence matter? Child Abuse and Neglect, 33, 94 101. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.03.005.

362

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

McNulty, J. K., & Hellmuth, J. C. (2008). Emotion regulation and intimate partner violence in newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 794 797. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0013516. Melander, L. A., Noel, H., & Tyler, K. A. (2010). Bidirectional, unidirectional, and nonviolence: A comparison of the predictors among partnered young adults. Violence and Victims, 25, 617 630. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.617. O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 3 23. O’Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263 268. O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 314 327. Orpinas, P., Nahapetyan, L., Song, X., McNicholas, C., & Reeves, P. M. (2012). Psychological dating violence perpetration and victimization: Trajectories from middle to high school. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 510 520. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21441. Pence, E., & Paymar, R. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer. Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical model of courtship aggression. In M. A. Pirog-Goood, & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 53 71). New York: Praeger Publications. Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1996). Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 519 540. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon, & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105 176). New York: Wiley. Saunders, D. G. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband abuse or self-defense? Violence and Victims, 1, 47 60. Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 20, 870 885. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10926771.2011.629342. Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., Kerr, D. C. R., Owen, L. D., & Feingold, A. (2012). Stability of intimate partner violence by men across 12 years in young adulthood: Effects of relationship transitions. Prevention Science, 13, 360 369. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11121-011-0202-0. Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Owen, L. D. (2006). Relationship separation for young, at-risk couples: Prediction from dyadic aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 624 631. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.624. Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Tiberio, S. S. (2013). The interplay between interpersonal stress and psychological intimate partner violence over time for young at-risk couples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 619 632. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10964-013-9911-y. Shortt, J. W., Capaldi, D. M., & Tiberio, S. S. (in press). Sexual assault. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of lifespan human development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Dual Nature of Partner Violence in Relationships Chapter | 14

363

Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78 106. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007. 08.002. Steinberg, L. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52, 216 224. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20445. Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252 275. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004. Straus, M. A. (2015). Dyadic concordance and discordance in family violence: A powerful and practical approach to research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 83 94. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.04.011. Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City: Anchor/Doubleday. Straus, M. A., & Gozjolko, K. L. (2014). “Intimate terrorism” and gender differences in injury of dating partners by male and female university students. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 51 65. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9560-7. Temple, J. R., Choi, H. J., Brem, M., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Stuart, G. L., Peskin, M. F., & Elmquist, J. (2016). The temporal association between traditional and cyber dating abuse among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 340 349. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0380-3. Temple, J. R., Weston, R., & Marshall, L. L. (2005). Physical and mental health outcomes of women in nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent relationships. Violence and Victims, 20, 335 359. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.20.3.335. Testa, M., Hoffman, J. H., & Leonard, K. E. (2011). Female intimate partner violence perpetration: Stability and predictors of mutual and nonmutual aggression across the first year of college. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 362 372. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20391. Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. B. (2006). Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557 583. Available from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904. 190110. Ulloa, E. C., & Hammett, J. F. (2016). The effect of gender and perpetrator victim role on mental health outcomes and risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1184 1207. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/088626 0514564163. Walker, L. E. (1989). Psychology and violence against women. American Psychologist, 44, 695 702. Watkins, L. E., DiLillo, D., Hoffman, L., & Templin, J. (2015). Do self-control depletion and negative emotion contribute to intimate partner aggression? A lab-based study. Psychology of Violence, 5, 35 45. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033955. Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. E. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941 947. Available from https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020. Whitaker, D. J., Le, B., & Niolon, P. H. (2010). Persistence and desistance of the perpetration of physical aggression across relationships: Findings from a national study of adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 591 609. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260509334402.

364

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., . . . Reese, L. R. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 151 166. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.07.007. Whitaker, D. J., Murphy, C. M., Eckhardt, C. I., Hodges, A. E., & Cowart, M. (2013). Effectiveness of primary prevention efforts for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4, 175 195. Available from https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.2.175. Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. A. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224 241. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0040194. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063 1077. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8.

Chapter 15

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones but Words Will Always Hurt Me Rachel Jewkes, Andrew Gibbs, and Kristin Dunkle Gender and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa

Adolescent dating violence is a complex area because the period of adolescence, viewed in global context, spans a very wide range of life stages. In the teenage years, some young men and women are married or cohabiting, some have quite involved dating relationships, but others still are living in very sheltered contexts within their families. Research into relationships in early adolescence has shown that there is a very great range of interpretations of relationships, and many of them do not bear a great deal of resemblance to adult relationships. Thus, dating partners during adolescence may have relationships only conducted in school in the company of classmates or which largely involve exchange of notes or cell phone messages (Gevers, Jewkes, Mathews, & Flisher, 2012). Many younger adolescents do not have sexual intercourse with dating partners, or if they do it is very infrequent, and time spent together with dating partners is spent mostly in a public setting or the company of friends or family. However there are other settings where sex is seen as integral to “proper” dating and where adolescents generally conduct their relationships in private in doors or in secluded out door settings (common in rural sub-Saharan Africa) (Wood & Jewkes, 1997). In sub-Saharan Africa, dating often results in teenage pregnancies and births, usually not followed by marriage (R. Jewkes, Morrell, & Christofides, 2009). The vulnerability of an adolescent to emotional violence depends on their situation, but it also differs according to the features of the relationship, including individual personalities. Adolescents do not come into dating relationships as a blank slate. They bring with them the products of their socialization into interpersonal relationships over the preceding years and draw on aspects of this behavior in their relationships. A central part of this is socialization into gendered beings within society and their learning of gendered social hierarchy, values, Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00015-3 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

365

366

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

expected behaviors, and norms. Integrally related to this is their socialization into norms related to how power and dominance are acquired, maintained and contested, including through the use of physical violence and associated behaviors or strategies. Two critical domains of learning about dominance and control are within the family through observation and experience of the behavior of parents or other important individuals, and learning through socialization among siblings and peers. Both of these domains are important for shaping understanding of, and ideas about, gender relations. Parents and important other adults demonstrate intimate relationships and the use of violence by both parents or either parent against the other (or other intimate partner) influences emerging ideas and behaviors related to dating violence (Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007). While most of the literature has focused on children witnessing physical violence between their parents, they also witness emotionally controlling and abusive strategies, which shape their understanding of “appropriate” relationship strategies. Furthermore, children experience emotional abuse and neglect from parents, as well as physical and sexual violence, which has a major impact on them through learned behavior as well as the impact of these forms of violence on their selfesteem and psychological development, including their ability to communicate and express and feel empathy and remorse (Fulu, Jewkes, Roselli, & Garcia-Moreno, 2013; Jewkes, Fulu, Roselli, & Garcia-Moreno, 2013). Within the peer context, peer violence is a common part of childhood in virtually all settings. A commonly used measure describes this as having four underlying domains: physical violence, verbal violence, social manipulation, and attacks on property (Mynard & Joseph, 2000). Peer violence is generally more common among boys than girls but is highly prevalent among both and perpetration and victimization frequently overlap. In the early period of dating, adolescents draw established peer group behaviors into the new context of relationships, which helps explain why bullying is predictive of negative dating experiences (Ellis & Wolfe, 2015; Shamu et al., 2015). Apart from physical violence, the other three domains of peer violence map on closely to many of the behaviors that, between intimate partners, constitute emotional abuse. The major differences being in relation to controlling behaviors and to economic abuse, which is much less relevant in the peer context, although some of this is seen in severe bullying with theft of money, cellphones, food, and so forth. Emotional abuse has long been recognized as an important part of dating or intimate partner violence (IPV) but is generally overshadowed in the literature by the related acts of physical and sexual abuse. Substantially more work has been done on the measurement of these latter two forms of abuse, particularly of physical violence, and there is a wider body of evidence on their health impact from diverse settings. Yet emotional abuse is recognized to be pervasive, generally much more highly prevalent than physical or sexual violence, and women who are abused in many settings describe this as

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones Chapter | 15

367

the most hurtful (Follingstad, 2009; Follingstad, Rutledge, & Berg, 1990). Emotional abuse may be experienced by men as well as women in dating and marital relationships, including same-sex relationships. A much deeper understanding of emotional abuse and its impact is needed, and especially its negative impact on the health of adolescents, as well as insights into how it can be prevented.

WHAT IS EMOTIONAL ABUSE? Emotional abuse is generally agreed to be a term that encompasses forms of violence that cause psychological injury, rather than physical or sexual harm or abuse. Despite this general definition, the range of acts that constitute emotional abuse are not well agreed upon. In particular, emotional abuse intersects with what is often called economic abuse, although the forms include some other acts of structural violence (such as undermining access to education or eviction from home), and there is some disagreement about whether these are distinct forms of violence or two parts of the same phenomenon. There are a number of domains of emotional and economic/structural violence which are well recognized from qualitative research with survivors. These include personal insults, being belittled in front of others, being socially isolated from friends and family, damage to property, harm to another person of importance (e.g., child, friend, and family) or a pet, boasting about or deliberately flaunting another girl/boyfriend, being intimidated or scared (e.g., by yelling or breaking things), and threatened with violence (or having threats made against victims’ loved ones, pets, or property). The economic and structurally violent acts include not being given money for the home or the baby when he has money for other things, having earnings taken, not being supported with education needs, being prevented from working or earning or studying/learning, and being thrown out of the house or having children evicted or preventing those from a previous relationship living with their mother. These forms of violence are more commonly experienced by cohabiting adolescents or those who have children with their dating partner. Where dating adolescents do become pregnant, as is common in sub-Saharan Africa, emotional violence may extend to the child with denial of paternity as well as rejection of the mother (R. Jewkes & Morrell, 2012). Controlling behavior is another form of emotional abuse, which includes behaviors such as jealousy, controlling movement, dominating decisions and expecting obedience, controlling clothing, expecting domestic service (e.g., ironing, etc.), generating insecurity about the relationship, and threatening to end the relationship or to harm him/herself. There is also considerable uncertainty about whether acts of emotional abuse should be described and measured in terms of what they are intended to achieve (e.g., isolation from family or friends or lower self-esteem or dominance in the relationship) or the strategies used to achieve these (e.g., threatening violence, yelling,

368

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

illness, divorce). Furthermore, it is unclear whether controlling behavior, emotional abuse, and economic/structural violence should be measured as one scale or kept distinct. Levesque, Johnson, Welch, Prochaska, and Paiva (2016), in work yet to be published, are among the few researchers who have combined them all in one scale (Levesque et al., 2016). The goal of emotional abuse is generally to achieve control and dominance in a relationship, often linked to a desire to punish or hurt. This slightly differs from economic/structural abuse where the goal may also be to obtain an economic advantage. Most adolescents are in relationships where economic violence is less of an issue. The general pattern in research thus far has been to keep different aspects distinct, especially emotional abuse and controlling behavior. Furthermore, measures used in large studies generally fail to measure many aspects of emotional and economic abuse. The WHO multi-country study on violence against women, which has a questionnaire that is regarded as the gold standard for measuring physical violence in lowand middle-income country settings, has four items covering emotional violence. These encompass: being insulted or made to feel bad; belittled or humiliated in front of others; scared or intimidated; and having threats made to hurt her or to hurt someone she cares about. This questionnaire also has four questions on economic abuse, which encompass having to give all or part of earnings to the partner; having given up or refused to take a job due to the partner not wanting her to work; the partner taking earnings or savings against her will; and him refusing to give money for household expenses when he has money for other things. The revised Conflict Tactics Scale has been used with adolescents, but it only has eight items measuring psychological abuse and these span insults, shouting, threats of violence, and destroying property (Strauss, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The scale with the most comprehensive measure of dating violence is the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (Wolfe et al., 2001). This has been used more extensively in North America and has three domains of questions on aspects of emotional abuse: threatening behavior, verbal emotional abuse, and relational abuse. The threatening behavior dimension includes acts to threaten or frighten her/him and her/his property (four items). The verbal emotional abuse measure includes 10 items of abuse, belittling, put down in front of others, manipulating her/him to hurt her/him, and controlling behavior. The relational abuse dimension includes three acts which isolate her/him or damage her/his reputation. There is also no consensus on coding and analysis of responses to emotional and economic abuse questionnaire items; this creates further complexities in understanding the prevalence and unique health impacts of these constructs. Some studies treat emotional and economic IPV as separate constructs (Dillon, Hussain, Loxton, & Rahman, 2013). Others treat emotional IPV and economic IPV as one construct in analysis (Jewkes et al., 2017), while in other studies individual items are treated separately, rather than

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones Chapter | 15

369

combined together to form one construct (Antai, Antai, & Anthony, 2014). Furthermore, it is not clear which dimensions of emotional IPV and economic IPV are most relevant for health outcomes: type of IPV as measured by questionnaire items or broad categories (i.e., emotional vs economic); timing of IPV (i.e., lifetime, past year, or another dimension); or frequency of IPV and, if so, over what time period. While the debates about measurement, coding, and data analysis continue unresolved, the concepts of emotional IPV and economic IPV are often pushed to the margins, undermining a comprehensive understanding of IPV.

Emotional Abuse Among Adolescents Given the diversity in approaches to measurement, it is inevitable that there is little agreement for the prevalence of emotional abuse among adolescents globally. However, where research has been conducted, emotional abuse has been shown to be highly prevalent. This was seen in South Africa, in the cohort of 1414 unmarried, school-going, adolescent women who were recruited into the randomized controlled trial evaluating the HIV prevention intervention Stepping Stones and followed up for 2 years (Jewkes et al., 2008). At baseline, 28.6% had experienced any emotional abuse in the past year and 39.3% had experienced it in their lifetime. The assessment was based on five questions that asked about her boyfriend insulting her or making her feel bad about herself, belittling or humiliating her in front of other people, being scaring or intimidating her on purpose, for example, by the way he looked at her, by yelling and smashing things, and threatening to hurt her and preventing her from seeing other friends. There was considerable overlap between emotional, physical, and sexual violence. In the sample, 47.4% of young women had not experienced any abuse, 11.8% had experienced only emotional abuse in their lifetime but not physical or sexual abuse, 12.2% experienced physical or sexual abuse without emotional abuse, and 26.9% had experienced both emotional and sexual or physical abuse from their boyfriend. Most of the women who had ever experienced emotional IPV had done so in the past year, with only 6% of the overall sample had prior to the past year exposure but not last year exposure to emotional abuse. Table 15.1 shows the past year prevalence of emotional abuse among women in the Stepping Stones trial. Of the total group of 33.5% of young women who had experienced emotional abuse in the last year, only 22.5% had only experienced one incident of emotional abuse, with the vast majority of women (77.5%) experiencing multiple incidents or acts of abuse. This suggests that emotional abuse is often frequent or even pervasive, as opposed to occurring in isolated acts. A question explored in the data set was whether emotional abuse is important in its own right in terms of health outcomes. This could be seen in analysis of the relationship between emotional abuse and depression. At

370

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

TABLE 15.1 Prevalence of Reporting of Emotional Abuse in the Past Year at Baseline Among Women in the Stepping Stones Trial Emotional Abuse Item

Percentage

Being scared or intimidated or yelled at

15.3

Insulted or made to feel bad

14.2

Prevented from seeing friends

10.8

Threatened with physical violence

10.9

Being belittled or humiliated in front of others

3.9

baseline, 20.5% of young women had considerable symptoms of depression, 10.9% of young women had high levels of depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression; CES-D cut point 21 1 ), and a further 9.6% had moderately elevated levels (CES-D score 16 20). An analysis of factors associated with having considerable levels of depressive symptoms (cut point 21 1 ) was performed using multivariable regression modeling, adjusting for age, socio-economic status, and social support. This showed depression to be associated with sexual abuse in childhood, odds ratio (OR) 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 2.46; P 5 0.015), and ever experiencing two or more episodes of physical or sexual IPV (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.10 2.60; P 5 0.017), but it was also associated with having ever experiencing emotional abuse, OR 1.74 (95% CI 1.14 2.66; P 5 0.01). Young women who scored more highly on the measure of relationship control (Pulerwitz, Gortmaker, & DeJong, 2000) and thus had more power within the relationship (compared to those with the least) were less likely to be depressed, OR 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 0.83; P 5 0.014). In other words, at baseline, there was a visible independent effect of emotional abuse and also of controlling behaviors on depression, which was not explained by physical or sexual dating violence exposure or other child abuse. The Stepping Stones data set was longitudinal, which enabled analyses to take into account the elucidated temporal sequence of exposures. Poisson regression modeling was used to assess the incidence of depression, adjusted for study design, other associated factors, and person-years of follow-up. The results showed that the incidence among those exposed to physical or sexual intimate partner violence was elevated by 84%, Incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.84 (95% CI 1.30 2.62; P 5 0.001), but it was also raised by 46% among those who had ever experienced emotional abuse at baseline, IRR 1.46 (95% CI 1.03 2.09; P 5 0.034). Again, this was an independent effect, over and above that of the physical or sexual violence. The clearest way of comparing the relative importance of these exposures is through calculating the attributable fraction, i.e., the proportion of the problem which would not exist

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones Chapter | 15

371

in the absence of the risk factor, and this revealed that 16.3% of depression during the 2-year follow-up period could have been avoided in the absence of exposure to physical or sexual partner violence and a very similar proportion, 14.9%, could have been avoided in the absence of exposure to emotional abuse. Another analysis with this data set showed physical health impacts of emotional abuse. The researchers examined the impact of emotional abuse on cellular immunity, especially in HIV infected young women (R. Jewkes, Dunkle, Jama-Shai, & Gray, 2015). For this, multiple regression models were fitted to measure rate of change in CD4 and CD8 and included terms for age, person-years of CD4 1 /CD8 1 T-cell observation, HIV positivity at baseline, and stratum. Exposure variables included drug use, emotional, physical, or sexual IPV exposure, nonpartner rape, pregnancy, and food insecurity. Mean CD4 1 T-cell count at baseline (or prior to the first HIV 1 test) was 567.6 (range 1121 114). Participants were followed for an average of 1.3 years. The magnitude of change in CD4 T cells was significantly associated with having ever experienced emotional abuse from a current partner at baseline or prior to the first HIV 1 test (Coefficient 2132.9; 95% CI 2196.4 to 269.4; P , 0.0001), as was the change in CD8 T cells (Coefficient 2178.4; 95% CI 2330.2 to 226.5; P 5 0.02) (R. Jewkes et al., 2015). This finding indicates that in young antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV positive women, emotional abuse exposure was associated with a faster rate of decline in markers of cellular immunity, and physical and sexual abuse were not associated in this way. Taken together, these analyses highlight another dimension of the importance of emotional abuse on young women’s health. Forms of emotional abuse were also found to be implicated in HIV acquisition. The primary outcome of the Stepping Stones trial was HIV acquisition, which is disturbingly common among dating adolescents in South Africa, as shown by the 12.4% of women school-going trial participants who were infected at baseline. Thus, we explored whether exposure to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and controlling behavior at baseline were associated with HIV acquisition over 24 months of follow-up. Analysis showed that exposure to emotional IPV was not associated with HIV acquisition, but exposure to controlling behaviors (having low relationship power) as well as exposure to more than one episode of physical or sexual IPV was (R. K. Jewkes, Dunkle, Nduna, & Shai, 2010). Although some other research has looked at the health impact of emotional abuse, distinct from physical abuse, in teenage dating relationships (Estefan, Coulter, & VandeWeerd, 2016), this study has particularly clearly shown that emotional abuse is an important and independent (distinct from physical/sexual violence) predictor of negative health consequences, and deserves much more research. Furthermore, analyses suggest that there is a value in measuring controlling behavior as a separate component of emotional abuse as they appear to be distinct, albeit related.

372

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Does the Measure Matter? Research on the Stepping Stones trial used five ever/never questions to measure emotional abuse. Although not a comprehensive measure of emotional abuse with respect to the above discussion, it was sufficient in this data set to show important health impacts of abuse. Gibbs and colleagues have explored the questions about whether the different items in emotional abuse and economic abuse scales are differentially impactful on depression and suicidality (Gibbs, Dunkle, & Jewkes). They also explored whether impact was different if one incident of abuse in the past year was compared to none, or two or more incidents compared to none, and whether it was important for different types of reported abuse to be compared to no abuse. The analysis was conducted on a data set of women enrolled in another evaluation of Stepping Stones in South Africa, but this time delivered with a livelihoods strengthening intervention known as Creating Futures, to women aged 18 30 years living in informal settlements in the environs of Durban. Their results showed that any exposure to any item of emotional and economic abuse in the past 12 months was associated with a statistically significantly higher score on the CES-D. The same finding was shown if emotional abuse was considered as any or no exposure versus two or more reports of any measure (or more than two measures), but in the latter case the effect sizes were slightly larger. There was very little difference in the summary measure, however. The authors also reflected on the fact that there is considerable overlap between exposure to emotional and economic abuse and physical and sexual violence. Could the impact be driven by this overlap? To explore this possibility, the authors looked at the associations between depression and exposure to no abuse, emotional abuse only (or economic abuse only or combined), physical and emotional abuse (or sexual and emotional abuse), and physical abuse only (or sexual abuse only). The authors showed that consistently the combination of emotional/economic and physical and/or sexual IPV was associated most strongly with depression. In most of the analysis, physical or sexual abuse without emotional abuse was not associated with depression, and neither was emotional or economic abuse alone. A plethora of research from diverse countries has generated similar findings about the greater impact of emotional abuse combined with physical or sexual abuse. For example, a Brazilian study demonstrated that emotional abuse was a stronger predictor of postnatal depression than physical or sexual abuse alone. The strongest association was found for women exposed to the combined impact of physical or sexual violence and emotional abuse (Ludermir, Lewis, Valonguiero, Barreto de Araujo, & Araya, 2012). A population-based study of Japanese women conducted as part of the WHO’s multi-country study examined 11 health-related indicators and found that for 7 of them, the odds of experiencing a health problem were significantly higher among those who reported emotional abuse only, relative to those

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones Chapter | 15

373

who reported experiencing no IPV. Women had heightened odds for 9 of 11 health indicators when they experienced emotional abuse in combination with physical or sexual violence (Yoshihama, Horrocks, & Kamano, 2009). While this adds to the importance of emotional abuse exposure, there was not a comparison with physical or sexual IPV without emotional abuse; a problem present in most extant research given the fact that emotional abuse is almost always present when physical or sexual violence occurs. Interpreting these findings requires insights into the relationship context in which abuse occurs. Although emotional abuse is measured through discrete questions that usually ask about types of abuse and number of episodes, it is understood to be commonly pervasive. Indeed, it is possible that the reason Gibbs and colleagues found one incident of emotional abuse to be so impactful was because one incident likely indicates more or deeper abuse that is not uncovered by a questionnaire. Women who experience emotional abuse may have a sense of being trapped in relationships as the abuse may not appear serious enough (or is outweighed by positive relationship characteristics) for women to leave the relationship. Nonetheless, this emotional abuse may impact relationship quality and self-esteem, and may create feelings of powerlessness and fear in relationships. There are several important implications of the findings of Gibbs and colleagues. First, they suggest that we do not need to measure all forms of emotional abuse to see a mental health impact and do not need elaborate measures of frequency. The addition of multiple items to questionnaires has often been considered as overly burdensome for studies and not capturing any distinct impact on women’s health, beyond what has already been captured through assessing physical and sexual IPV (Gibbs A, et al.). Given the high prevalence of experiencing any emotional abuse, the returns on measuring additional acts or forms of emotional abuse will not yield results much different than when measuring a few acts. As they demonstrated, emotional IPV and economic abuse have distinct and cumulative mental health impacts over and above physical and sexual IPV. Although their inclusion is important, the analysis shows that a relatively small set of items can lead to capturing these health impacts, particularly when combined with other forms of abuse. Furthermore, emotional IPV and economic IPV have distinctive outcomes in terms of mental health, as well as being clear indicators of severity of impact, when combined with physical and sexual IPV. As such, it is hugely important that these behaviors are included as trial outcomes in interventions working to prevent partner violence. At a practical level, reducing all forms of dating violence that have an impact on mental health is crucial, and because emotional abuse has a distinct and separate impact to physical/sexual violence, and may have an enhanced impact in combination, the impact of interventions on these should be assessed. Additionally, the findings of other studies suggest that interventions may have a differential impact on forms of IPV. For instance, an evaluation of Oportunidades, a nationwide

374

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

cash transfer program for child’s health and well-being in Mexico, showed a reduction in physical IPV among female recipients, with no differences emerging in emotional abuse or threats of violence (Bobonis, GonzalesBrenes, & Castro, 2013).

Preventing Emotional Abuse Among Adolescents Globally, the body of research on factors associated with the perpetration of emotional abuse is limited. The UN multi-country study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific, however, examined factors associated with perpetration of more than one act of emotional or economic violence (or one act several times) in men who did not perpetrate sexual or physical IPV. They were compared to men who had not perpetrated any of form of violence (Fulu et al., 2013). The study was conducted in Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Sri Lanka. Across all age groups, the variables associated with emotional or economic abuse perpetration only differed slightly by country, but included food insecurity, child abuse (emotional, physical and sexual), as well as witnessing abuse of their mother, having been sexually abused (apart from child sexual abuse), depression, alcohol abuse and having a low life satisfaction, having lower empathy, quarreling more, engaging with gangs and fighting with weapons, having low gender equitable attitudes, more sexual partners, having had transactional sex or sex with a sex worker, and reporting more controlling behaviors. Some of the reasons for differences by country included the fact that the variables had somewhat different prevalences in different settings and there were differences in the size of the emotional/economic abuse category. A more restricted analysis was conducted across all of the countries of factors associated with past year emotional abuse perpetration in the sample of 672 ever partnered older adolescent men (aged 18 25 years), 112 of whom had been emotionally abusive but had not perpetrated physical or sexual IPV in the past year. Emotional abuse perpetration was associated with exposure to physical or sexual abuse in childhood (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.96; 95% CI 1.21 3.17; P 5 0.006 or aOR 2.24; 95% CI 1.12 4.50; P 5 0.023, respectively), the man’s father rarely or never being at home during his childhood (aOR 2.02 95% CI 1.30, 3.16 p 5 0.002), having engaged in transactional sex or having had sex with a sex worker (aOR 1.75; 95% CI 1.00 3.06; P 5 0.048), and having been in a fight with weapons (aOR 2.31; 95% CI 1.30 4.10; P 5 0.005). Essentially, this identifies the major driver of late adolescent emotional abuse as being exposure to trauma in childhood and having the experience of growing up without a father around in the home for at least much of the time. Having had transactional sex, a potential indicator of objectification of women, along with fighting with weapons, are generally interpreted as indicative of engagement with a more gender inequitable masculinity. Fighting with weapons is further indicative of

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones Chapter | 15

375

engagement in aggressive peer violence. There is considerable overlap between these risk factors for past year emotional abuse among young men who have not been sexually or physically violent towards women, and the risk factors for physical and sexual violence (Fulu et al., 2013). Although this analysis was from a single global region, there are clear overlaps with findings from other regions. Prevention of emotional abuse among adolescents should begin with changing the context of socialization with respect to gender relations and the use of violence. Adolescents should reap the benefit of reduced violence among their parents and other adults, as well as efforts to reduce child abuse and bullying or peer violence. They also should benefit from interventions which seek to transform gender relations and build more respectful relationships. Although the analysis of factors associated with emotional abuse has focused on men as perpetrators, it is logical to conclude that the same types of interventions would help in circumstances where women or girls perpetrate emotional abuse. There needs to be a much greater investment in interventions that directly engage adolescents to reduce dating violence, including psychological violence, especially those effective in wide-ranging global contexts. Furthermore, they need to be developed, tested, and evaluated for their effect on emotional abuse as an outcome. Some of the major interventions directed at adolescents have either not been evaluated for this or else have not been shown to impact emotional abuse. Wolfe and colleagues’ Fourth R curriculum was not evaluated for its impact on emotional abuse victimization or perpetration (Wolfe et al., 2009). Jewkes et al.’s Stepping Stones intervention evaluation also did not assess its impact on emotional abuse or controlling behavior (Jewkes et al., 2008). However, the Stepping Stones and Creating Futures intervention pilot evaluation findings point to more equitable gender attitudes for women and men and less controlling behavior perpetrated by men. Furthermore, an ongoing trial of this intervention includes controlling behaviors as a primary outcome (Jewkes et al., 2014). Foshee and colleagues’ Safe Dates curriculum was evaluated for impact on psychological violence but was not shown to have had any (Foshee et al., 2000; Foshee et al., 2004). In South Africa, the PREPARE curriculum was evaluated for its impact when used in after school settings with eighth graders. The main IPV outcome was applied to both boys and girls and was based on a score of four questions, two of which asked about emotionally abusive acts (being insulted and threatened with violence), one physically abusive act, and one question about forced sex. The intervention was shown to significantly reduce IPV victimization but did not impact perpetration (Mathews et al., 2016). Another exception is the three-session online intervention Teen Choices, which was shown to impact emotional violence victimization and perpetration (Levesque et al., 2016). Further work is needed to determine its applicability to other settings. Indeed, there is clearly a need for much greater work on prevention of emotional abuse in general.

376

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

CONCLUSIONS While emotional abuse is generally agreed to be a prevalent and pervasive form of intimate partner (or dating) violence, the inconsistency in definition and measurement between studies and settings makes it difficult to fully understand. Research does however point to the severe health impact of emotional abuse and controlling behaviors, and shows that this is not explained just by the substantial overlap that exists between emotional violence and physical or sexual IPV. In fact, when combined with one or both of these forms of abuse, the health impact is shown to be accentuated. While further work on measurement of emotional abuse is urgently needed, understanding its health impact can be seen through the use of quite simple indicators. The question of the indicators to use in evaluation of interventions to prevent emotional/economic abuse may be a more complicated one, but an important first step here is to encourage much more widespread measurement of impact on emotional abuse. It is of considerable importance that interventions for adolescents to prevent dating violence address this dimension. It’s not likely, nor rational, for interventions for adolescents on preventing dating violence to focus exclusively on emotional abuse, and indeed the risk factors that theoretically must change for this overlap largely with those for addressing physical and sexual abuse. While the field has come a long way in the past three decades, additional investment is needed in developing and evaluating approaches to globally prevent partner violence overall.

REFERENCES Antai, D., Antai, J., & Anthony, D. S. (2014). The relationship between socio-economic inequalities, intimate partner violence and economic abuse: A national study of women in the Philippines. Global Public Health, 9(7), 808 826. Bobonis, G., Gonzales-Brenes, M., & Castro, R. (2013). Public transfers and domestic violence: The roles of private information and spousal control. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(1), 179 205. Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 101 111. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1. Dillon, G., Hussain, R., Loxton, D., & Rahman, S. (2013). Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: A review of the literature. International Journal of Family Medicine, 2013, 313909. Ellis, W. E., & Wolfe, D. A. (2015). Bullying predicts reported dating violence and observed qualities in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(17), 3043 3064. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554428. Estefan, L. F., Coulter, M. L., & VandeWeerd, C. (2016). Depression in women who have left violent relationships: The unique impact of frequent emotional abuse. Violence Against Women, 22(11), 1397 1413. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215624792. Follingstad, D. R. (2009). The impact of psychological aggression on women’s mental health and behavior: The status of the field. Trauma Violence Abuse, 10(3), 271 289. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334453.

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones Chapter | 15

377

Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., et al. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 107 120. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F., Koch, G. G., Linder, G. F., & MacDougall, J. E. (2000). The Safe Dates program: 1-year follow-up results. American Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 1619 1622. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619 624. Fulu, E., Jewkes, R., Roselli, T., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2013). Prevalence and risk factors for male perpetration of intimate partner violence: Findings from the UN Multi-country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. The Lancet Global Health, 1(4), e187 207. Gevers, A., Jewkes, R., Mathews, C., & Flisher, A. (2012). ‘I think it’s about experiencing, like, life’: A qualitative exploration of contemporary adolescent intimate relationships in South Africa. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 14(10), 1125 1137. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13691058.2012.723752. Gibbs A., Dunkle K., & Jewkes, R. Emotional and economic intimate partner violence as key drivers of depression and suicidal ideation: A cross-sectional study among young women in informal settlements in South Africa PLoS One. Jewkes, R., & Morrell, R. (2012). Sexuality and the limits of agency among South African teenage women: Theorising femininities and their connections to HIV risk practices. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1729 1737. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2011.05.020. Jewkes, R., Nduna, M., Levin, J., Jama, N., Dunkle, K., Puren, A., & Duvvury, N. (2008). Impact of Stepping Stones on incidence of HIV, HSV-2 and sexual behaviour in rural South Africa: Cluster randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 337, a506. Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., & Christofides, N. (2009). Empowering teenagers to prevent pregnancy: Lessons from South Africa. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 11(7), 675 688. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050902846452. Jewkes, R., Fulu, E., Roselli, T., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2013). Prevalence and risk factors for non-partner rape perpetration: Findings from the UN multi-country cross-sectional study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. The Lancet Global Health, 1(4), e208 18. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70069-X. Jewkes, R., Gibbs, A., Jama-Shai, N., Willan, S., Misselhorn, A., Mushinga, M., . . . . . . Skiweyiya, Y. (2014). Stepping Stones and Creating Futures intervention: Shortened interrupted time series evaluation of a behavioural and structural health promotion and violence prevention intervention for young people in informal settlements in Durban, South Africa. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1325. Available from https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1325. Jewkes, R., Dunkle, K., Jama-Shai, N., & Gray, G. (2015). Impact of exposure to intimate partner violence on CD4 1 and CD8 1 T cell decay in HIV infected women: Longitudinal study. PLoS One, 10(3). Available from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122001, e0122001. Jewkes, R., Fulu, E., Tabassam Naved, R., Chirwa, E., Dunkle, K., Haardoerfer, R., & GarciaMoreno, C. (2017). Comparing reports of past year prevalence of intimate partner violence and rape from women and men, and women’s risk factors for IPV: Findings from the UN multi-country cross-sectional study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. PLoS Medicine, 14(9), e1002381. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002381, eCollection 2017 Sep.

378

SECTION | IV Research Priorities

Jewkes, R. K., Dunkle, K., Nduna, M., & Shai, N. (2010). Intimate partner violence, relationship power inequity, and incidence of HIV infection in young women in South Africa: A cohort study. The Lancet, 376(9734), 41 48. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736 (10)60548-X. Levesque, D. A., Johnson, J. L., Welch, C. A., Prochaska, J. M., & Paiva, A. L. (2016). Teen dating violence prevention: Cluster-randomized trial of teen choices, an online, stage-based program for healthy, nonviolent relationships. Psychol Violence, 6(3), 421 432. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000049. Ludermir, A. B., Lewis, G., Valonguiero, S. A., Barreto de Araujo, T. V., & Araya, R. (2012). Violence against women by their intimate partner during pregnancy and postnatal depression: A prospective cohort study. The Lancet, 376(9744), 903 910. Mathews, C., Eggers, S. M., Townsend, L., Aarø, L. E., de Vries, P. J., Mason-Jones, A. J., . . . De Vries, H. (2016). Effects of PREPARE, a multi-component, school-based HIV and intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention programme on adolescent sexual risk behaviour and IPV: Cluster randomised controlled trial. AIDS & Behavior, 20(9), 1821 1840. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1410-1. Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer-victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26(2), 169 178. Pulerwitz, J., Gortmaker, S., & DeJong, W. (2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42, 637 660. Shamu, S., Gevers, A., Mahlangu, P., Jama-Shai, N., Chirwa, E., & Jewkes, R. (2015). Prevalence and risk factors for intimate partner violence among grade eight learners in urban South Africa: Baseline analysis from the Skhokho Supporting Success randomised controlled trial. Journal of International Health, 8, 18 26. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1093/inthealth/ihv068. Strauss, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283 316. 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(2), 277 293. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., . . . Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692 699. Wood, K., & Jewkes, R. (1997). Violence, rape, and sexual coercion: Everyday love in a South African township. Gender and Development, 5(2), 41 46. Yoshihama, M., Horrocks, J., & Kamano, S. (2009). The role of emotional abuse in intimate partner violence and health among women in Yokohama, Japan. American Journal of Public Health, 99(4), 647 653. Available from https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2007.118976.

Section V

Treatment and Prevention

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 16

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence? A Global Review of Best Practices Mary Ellsberg1, Chelsea Ullman1, Alexandra Blackwell1, Amber Hill2, and Manuel Contreras1 1 2

Global Women’s Institute, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States

BACKGROUND Intimate partner and sexual violence (IP/SV) among adolescents is common throughout the world, with devastating effects on their physical and mental health and well-being that can last a lifetime. Until recently, virtually all of the rigorously evaluated interventions to prevent adolescent IP/SV came from high-income countries (Ellsberg et al., 2015; Leen, 2013; Lundgren & Amin, 2015). The majority of these interventions were conducted in schools and college campuses and largely focused on reducing perpetration and victimization among both boys and girls in dating relationships. However, in the last decade a growing body of evidence has emerged in low- and middleincome countries (LMIC), which addresses other forms of violence against adolescents including early and forced marriage, sexual violence, and intimate partner violence (IPV), both in dating relationships as well as in marriage. These interventions largely focus on male violence against adolescent girls, based on the evidence that girls are more vulnerable to IP/SV in LMIC and that gender-based norms and discriminatory practices are a major driver of such violence. This paper will review the current evidence for effective interventions to address physical and sexual violence against adolescents in relationships. We utilize the term adolescent intimate partner and sexual violence (IP/SV), as it encompasses the full spectrum of partner violence that occurs during adolescence, including that which occurs within marriages.

Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00016-5 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

381

382

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Although boys and girls both suffer violence during childhood and adolescence, the characteristics and consequences of this violence are often different (Thompson et al., 2004). The gendered nature of violence becomes increasingly relevant and apparent during adolescence. To effectively respond to violence in adolescence, it is essential to understand the differing dynamics, consequences, and implications at play for both boys and girls. We argue that a gender perspective is crucial for understanding how structural factors such as differential access to education, resources, and rigid gender norms define the different challenges and opportunities that boys and girls face and their experiences of violence, particularly IPV. In high-income countries, dating violence is the most common form of IPV reported among adolescents. Dating violence refers to physical or sexual violence that occurs in a relationship that is neither marriage nor a long-term dating relationship. International research, mostly collected in Europe and North America, suggests that adolescents start dating between 13 and 15 years. In the United States, 72% of adolescents 13 16 years have had dating experience, whereas in the United Kingdom 88% of adolescents 15 years or older report dating experience (Leen, 2013). Research on adolescent dating violence in these settings is seldom approached with a gender lens, resulting in the assumption that it affects girls and boys to a similar degree and in similar ways. A review of adolescent violence found a prevalence of physical adolescent dating violence between 10% and 20% of general population samples. The prevalence estimates were similar for both boys and girls, with a trend towards slightly higher male victimization (Leen, 2013). In a study of Swedish adolescents, male victimization was substantially higher (20% 59% in boys, 10% 43% in girls), particularly for the most serious abuse (Danielsson, Blom, Nilses, Heimer, & Hogberg, 2009). For sexual dating violence, the tendencies are reversed. Although great variability is found, sexual dating victimization is higher for girls than for boys (Leen, 2013; Lundgren & Amin, 2015). This is consistent with IPV data from LMIC. In LMIC, there are few surveys that specifically look at dating violence in this age group, and many of the studies on adolescent IP/SV are not comparable. A fairly recent source of information is the Violence against Children Surveys (VACS), which have been conducted in over 11 countries to date (Sumner et al., 2015). The VACS collect information on all forms of physical and sexual violence experienced by boys and girls before the age of 18 years. These surveys typically do not disaggregate findings by age groups, so it is difficult to determine whether the violence occurred during early childhood or adolescence. Although main perpetrators of sexual violence against girls are romantic or intimate partners, the VACS do not provide a specific measure of IP/SV among adolescents. Another important source of information is the studies that measure the prevalence of different forms of violence against women and girls (VAWG), including IPV. The WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

383

Domestic Violence against Women, the Domestic Violence Module of the Demographic and Health Surveys, the CDC Reproductive Health Surveys, the International Men and Gender Equality Survey, and the UN Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence all measure physical and sexual violence by a current or former intimate partner against women aged 15 49 years (Contreras et al., 2012; Devries et al., 2013; Fulu, Jewkes, Roselli, & GarciaMoreno, 2013). It is possible to disaggregate these numbers by age groups to estimate the prevalence of IPV in the group of women aged 15 19 years. In countries where dating is uncommon, only women who have been married or lived with a male partner are asked the questions about IPV. Due to these differing conceptions of the violence experienced by adolescents, it is difficult to compare the different estimates between high-income countries and LMIC, and between the data collected using different survey instruments. However, existing data from LMIC indicate that the prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence against boys and girls vary widely across settings. A comparative review of the VACS in 10 countries found that among 18 24 year olds, the prevalence of any form of sexual violence before the age of 18 years ranged from 4.4% among females in Cambodia to 37.6% in Swaziland, with the prevalence in most countries greater than 25%. Among boys, the range was from 5.6% in Cambodia to 21.2% in Haiti. Sexual abuse was higher among girls in all countries except Cambodia and Laos (Sumner et al., 2015). However, completed unwanted sex (pressured or forced penetrative sex acts) was several times higher among girls in all countries except Haiti and Laos. For example, in Zimbabwe, 13.5% of girls reported coerced sex compared to 1.8% of boys (Sommarin, Kilbane, Mercy, Moloney-Kitts, & Ligiero, 2014). The perpetrators of sexual violence are also different for adolescent boys and girls. In the VACS, the main perpetrators for sexual abuse against boys were neighbors, schoolmates, and friends, whereas between 45% and 77% of sexual violence against girls was perpetrated by a romantic or intimate partner (Sommarin et al., 2014). Although these data are not disaggregated by age group, it is likely, given global patterns of sexual debut and marriage, that most of the cases of IPV occur among adolescents, rather than younger children. The high rates of IP/SV reported by adolescent girls in the VACS are consistent with global estimates based on research on VAWG. The WHO Multi-Country Study estimates a lifetime prevalence of physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner among ever-partnered girls aged 15 19 years at about 30%. This is similar to the overall lifetime prevalence of IPV among women of reproductive age (Devries et al., 2013). This is remarkable, considering that girls have been exposed to the risk of IPV for a much shorter period. A review of data from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Domestic Violence in nine countries found that the 12-month prevalence of IPV among adolescent and younger women aged 15 24 years ranged from 8% to 57%. This rate was significantly higher than IPV rates in older women in all but one country, indicating that IPV starts early in the

384

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

relationship (Stockl, March, Pallitto, Garcia-Moreno, & WHO Multi-country Study Team, 2014). Gender disparities with respect to access to education, health, economic, and social opportunities exist across the life span; however these disparities surge during adolescence. Girls and boys in cultures throughout the world are treated differently from birth onward (and even prenatally where selective abortion of female fetuses is practiced), but at puberty this gender divide increases significantly. During adolescence, opportunities expand for boys and contract for girls. As boys begin to take advantage of new privileges reserved for men, girls endure new restrictions reserved for women. Boys gain autonomy, mobility, opportunity, and power (including power over girls’ sexual and reproductive lives), while girls are systematically deprived of these assets. During adolescence, gender socialization is reinforced and pressures to conform to hegemonic notions of masculinity and femininity are heightened (Barker, Ricardo, Nascimento, Olukoya, & Santos, 2010; Ricardo et al., 2011). Adolescent boys are encouraged to be aggressive and dominant, including sexually. In contrast, girls are expected to be chaste and submissive in the face of male domination. During this period, as adolescents are beginning to engage in romantic and sexual relationships, the internalization of these norms has important implications both for perpetration and victimization of violence, and negotiation of sexual relationships. For adolescent girls in LMICs, IPV is closely linked to child marriage. It is estimated that one in three girls in the world are married before the age of 18 years. Currently, nearly 70 million girls between the ages of 18 and 24 years were married before the age of 18 years, and many of these marriages are forced upon the girl against her will (UNFPA, 2013). In the VACS report from Malawi, 27% of women 18 24 years were married or cohabiting with a partner before the age of 18 years, compared to 3% of men (Maksud, 2014). The negative consequences of child marriage are well documented and extend throughout a girl’s lifetime. A girl who is married before the age of 18 years is not only more likely to suffer IPV, she is also less likely to continue her education, her earning potential is greatly diminished, and she is likely to be isolated from family and social networks. In addition to child marriage, there are other forms of violence and harmful practices to which only girls are also subjected, including violence related to dowry/bride price and honor-related violence (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2015). Because of the direct impact of early/ child marriage on the risk of IP/SV for girls, we will include interventions to delay the age of marriage in our review of effective interventions.

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS ADOLESCENT IP/SV As mentioned above, the great majority of rigorously evaluated interventions to reduce adolescent dating violence as well as IPV overall are derived from only a few high-income countries, particularly the United States and Canada

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

385

(Arango et al., 2014). Despite this, there is an emerging body of evidence coming from LMICs on interventions that show promise in reducing VAWG. In high-income countries, most interventions to address dating violence among adolescents are based in schools, with an emphasis on secondary schools or universities (Leen, 2013; Lundgren & Amin, 2015). In contrast, interventions in LMICs to prevent adolescent IP/SV are more focused on group training for either boys or girls, or both, and some community-level programs. These interventions are more likely to focus on empowering girls to make decisions around their sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and on changing the behavior of both boys and girls by challenging traditional views regarding gender. These interventions are also more likely to explicitly describe themselves as “gender transformative,” in that they aspire to encourage new ideas and behaviors among participants and communities about the balance of power between men and women in households and in society. Although most interventions in LMICs focus on adolescents and young adults, increasingly programs are targeting preadolescents in schools to address the gendered norms that lead to IP/SV in adolescents. These programs will also be included in the review. The following pages describe the most effective or promising approaches to address adolescent IP/SV. This analysis is based on a systematic review of reviews conducted in 2014 (Arango et al., 2014; Ellsberg, et al., 2015) addressing interventions to reduce all forms of VAWG. This was updated in 2017 to include papers published between 2014 and 2017, as well as papers that included perpetration of dating violence against adolescent boys, which were not included in the original review.

School-based Interventions to Prevent and Respond to Adolescent IP/SV One of the most important sectors in the efforts to prevent adolescent IP/SV is that of education. Schools are environments in which children and adolescents learn and develop social and behavioral norms. Therefore, the education sector presents a unique entry point to shape future generations’ ideas of healthy relationships and balanced power dynamics (Leach, Dunne, & Salvi, 2014; Gennari, Urban, McCleary-Sills, Arango, & Kiplesund, 2014). At the highest level, policymakers can develop and enforce laws and policies that outline how education systems will work in an integrated manner with other sectors to prevent violence. At the institutional level, administrators can implement training curricula for teachers and students that focus on fostering gender equitable attitudes and norms. Finally, at the community-level, teachers and school administrators can work with other influential community members to hold conversations, workshops, and other activities that will strengthen community knowledge and capacity to respond to and prevent IP/SV, potentially leading to broader social change (Gennari et al., 2014).

386

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

There are a variety of school-based approaches to preventing or reducing adolescent IP/SV. Relevant school-based interventions are those that address adolescent relationships directly, as well as those that address broader themes of gender equality. Only a few school-based interventions have been rigorously evaluated.1 Effective interventions are those that have been rigorously evaluated, show significant reductions in physical, emotional/psychological, or sexual adolescent IP/SV, and/or improve behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge that promote gender equality and healthy power dynamics. A total of 11 interventions were found that fall under this category (Table 16.1). Four of those interventions directly address adolescent IP/SV, while the other seven target broader gender norms, attitudes, and conflict resolution skills relating to the large school and community. The majority of these interventions engage communities with a gender approach using a comprehensive methodology over a sustained period of time. Both Stop Violence against Girls in Schools (SVAGS) and Safe Schools programs demonstrate how multifaceted and culturally relevant school-based interventions implemented over a longer period of time can affect change not only among students and teachers but also within the surrounding communities. Within these interventions, religious and community leaders, parents, and community organizations, among others, were engaged in sensitization training and broader discussions about gender, different types of violence, and girls’ education. Students and teachers showed significant improvements in knowledge, attitudes, and key behaviors (i.e., help-seeking) (Parkes & Heslop, 2013; USAID, 2008). Looking specifically at the Girls’ Clubs in the SVAGS program, participating girls had higher mean attitude index scores2,3 and significantly improved knowledge on relevant laws and policies, reporting mechanisms, and support organizations at the end of the intervention. SVAGS has been adapted to the Tanzanian and Nigerian context, Transforming Education for Girls in Nigeria and Tanzania, extending beyond the focus on violence against girls to encompass more of a “wholeschool approach” to address other forms of school-related violence (Parkes & Heslop, 2013; ActionAid International, 2012). Similarly, educational programs that aim to improve social networks and decrease tolerance for violence have shown significant reductions in bullying and overall school violence while demonstrating promising results for reducing IP/SV (Farrington, 2012).

1. Rigorously evaluated interventions are those that employed experimental or quasiexperimental evaluation designs. 2. Only students in Kenya and Mozambique showed statistically significant differences in the mean attitudes index score. 3. “Challenging violence and gender equality index”: score between 0 (does not challenge attitudes on gender inequality) and 1 (challenges attitudes on gender inequality) based on a series of eight statements.

TABLE 16.1 Effective Primary and Secondary School-Based Interventions for Adolescent IP/SV Author

Summary of Intervention

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

Main Results

Teen Choices is a web-based multimedia intervention consisting of three sessions that are individually tailored, with five different tracks matched to dating history, dating violence experiences, and stage of readiness for using healthy relationship skills.

Clusterrandomized trial with follow-up at 6 and 12 months.

Students enrolled in Grades 9 11 (ages 14 17 years)

Perpetration and experience of emotional and physical violence

In the subset of participants who reported a past-year history of dating violence at baseline and/or who dated during the study, the program was associated with significantly reduced odds of all four types of dating violence.

The intervention, “Amor. . . pero del Bueno” (True Love) consisted of two components delivered over one semester: school climate and individuallevel. It consisted of a classroom-based curriculum delivered over 16 weeks and school-wide activities that promote prevention and awareness of dating violence.

Quasiexperimental evaluation using matching and fixed-effects models

Students enrolled in low-income high schools at risk for violence (ages 14 18 years)

Perpetration and experience of psychological, physical, and sexual violence

In the Fourth R: Skills for Youth Relationships, trained teachers implemented a provincially mandated 21-lesson curriculum in a Grade 9 health class that focused on fostering knowledge and skills regarding safety and injury prevention and healthrelated issues.

Clusterrandomized trial with 2.5 year follow-up

Students enrolled in Grade 9 (14 15 years of age)

Self-reported perpetration of PDV 2.5 years after the baseline among all boys

Dating Violence Programs Levesque et al. 2016

Sosa-Rubi et al., 2016

Wolfe et al., 2009

Relationship skills and dating violence attitudes

Attitudes and beliefs about general violence and sexism, gender norms in dating, and knowledge about potential source of support to prevent and cope with violence

Self-reported perpetration of PDV 2.5 years after baseline among boys who had dated in the previous 12 months

The study found a significant reduction in the prevalence of perpetrated and experience of psychological violence among male students in the combined program. Additionally, the study found a significant reduction in beliefs and attitudes justifying sexism and violence in dating relationships among both females and males. After 2.5 years of follow-up, those in the control group had close to three times higher odds of perpetrating violence than those in the intervention group.

(Continued )

TABLE 16.1 (Continued) Author

Summary of Intervention

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

Main Results

Wolfe et al., 2003

Youth Relationships Project is an 18-session intervention that aimed to strengthen participants’ problem-solving and communications skills, improve attitudes on gender norms and healthy relationships, and mobilize social action through a series of participatory and educational activities.

Randomized longitudinal study

Adolescents (14 16 years of age) with history of child maltreatment

Self-reported perpetration of physical dating violence using the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory among boys and girls

There were greater rates of reductions in perpetration of dating violence by boys in the intervention group as compared to those in the control.

Gender attitudes; behaviors; levels of VAWG

At follow-up, boys and girls in the intervention groups had higher gender equality scores. In addition, girls in the GEA 1 campaign intervention group self-reported positive changes in behavior. Boys and girls in the GEA 1 campaign intervention group were more likely to report a positive reaction by peers in response to gender-based violence.

Broader Programs Targeting Gender Norms and Attitudes and Conflict Resolution Achyut et al., 2011

The Gender Equity Movement in Schools (GEMS) is a 1- or 2year intervention that involved either group educational activities (45 minutes each) 1 an awareness campaign (1-week long), the awareness campaign alone, or neither.

Quasiexperimental randomized control design

Boys and girls in Grades 6 and 7

Parkes & Heslop, 2013

Stop Violence Against Girls (SVAGS) is a multicomponent intervention which included clubs to increase knowledge on gender equality for students, Reflect Circles to engage parents and community members, sensitization training for community leaders and teachers on VAWG-related issues and with parents on the importance of girls’ education, as well as community-wide campaigns and national-level advocacy work.

Farrington, 2012

Educational programs were implemented in schools to improve social networks and decrease tolerance for violence.

Miller et al., 2014

An adaptation of the Coaching Boys into Men approach, PARIVARTAN works with high school cricket athletes in India. Coaches participated in a 3-day workshop and then facilitated discussions on gender equitable attitudes, bystander behaviors, and violence with their athletes on a weekly basis for 4 months.

Control and comparison

Primary school students, teachers, community leaders, and parents

Prevalence of violence

School-going children

Behaviors: Bullying perpetration decreased by 20% 23%

High school male athletes

Knowledge and attitudes related to gender, and reporting behaviors

After the intervention, girls in both Ghana and Mozambique were more likely to report experiencing violence. Positive effects on knowledge and attitudes related to gender were seen among participants of Girls’ Clubs.

Effective: reducing bullying

Experiencing of being bullied

Emerging: reducing IP/SV

Decreased by 17% 20%

Emerging: decreasing sexual harassment Greater positive changes in gender attitudes and greater reductions in negative bystander behaviors were demonstrated among those in the intervention than in the control.

(Continued )

TABLE 16.1 (Continued) Author

Summary of Intervention

Miller et al. 2012.

In the program Coaching Boys into Men (CBM), trained coaches held brief group discussions (15 min) with athletes on a weekly basis over the course of a sports season (approximately 12 weeks) on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to violence against women

Rijsdijk et al., 2011

Computer-based interactive learning to address sociocognitive determinants of safe sex behavior (condom use and noncoercive sex)

USAID, 2008

Safe Schools included advocacy campaigns, sensitization training of teachers and supervisors and creating relevant codes of conduct, capacity training with local leaders and community organizations, and teacher training to guide students on attitudes and knowledge on gender-related issues.

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

High school male athletes

Quasiexperimental pre-test posttest, mixedmodel repeated measures analysis

Main Results Athletes in the intervention group experienced positive changes in intentions to intervene when witnessing dating violence and improved bystander behaviors as compared to the control group.

48 secondary schools

Knowledge and attitudes

Participants noted a statistically greater sense of self-efficacy in dealing with sexual coercion than the control group. Students also reported a greater likelihood of intervening in sexual harassment, and boys and girls self-reported greater positive changes in their behavior than those in the control group.

Policymakers, teachers, peer leaders, community leaders, and students (upper primary, lower secondary schools)

Knowledge, attitudes, and awareness

Among both teachers and students, there were shifts in knowledge of gender-based violence, increased awareness of rights, and reductions in acceptability towards violence.

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

391

Early Interventions The Gender Equity Movement in Schools (GEMS) program in India involved multimodal and gender-specific interventions over a relatively lengthy period of time. It did not, however, explicitly involve activities that engaged the broader community outside of the school.4 GEMS consisted of a series of educational activities for groups of boys and girls centered around gender, healthy relationships, health, and violence. In addition, a week-long schoolwide campaign was launched to engage all students in participatory activities on issues related to IP/SV. Students in the intervention groups obtained higher gender equality scores, and there were improvements in self-reported positive behavior changes (Achyut, Bhatla, Kandekar, Maitra, & Verma, 2011). It is important to note that while one of the main objectives of the effective interventions mentioned thus far was to reduce IP/SV, methodological challenges, especially for community-wide and multilevel interventions, limit measurability. There are comprehensive programs that have shown a decrease in the prevalence and perpetration of IP/SV. The program “Amor. . . pero del Bueno” (True Love) implemented in high schools at risk for violence in Mexico found a significant reduction in the prevalence of perpetration and victimization of psychological violence among male students who participated in the program, though no impact was found among female students (Sosa-Rubi, Saavedra-Avendano, Piras, Van Buren, & Bautista-Arredondo, 2016). However, the intervention, which included both school-wide campaigns and activities and individual-level programming, also demonstrated a significant reduction in beliefs and attitudes justifying sexism and violence in dating relationships among both female and male students. The Fourth R program, implemented in classrooms in Canada as part of the health curriculum, also showed significantly lower odds of perpetrating violence for boys in the intervention than those in the control after 2.5 years of follow-up (Wolfe et al., 2009). The healthy relationships approach, which is the foundation of the Fourth R program, has also been applied in a variety of other settings across Canada through programs such as Making Waves, Respectful Relationships (R 1 R), and Healthy Relationships in Rural Youth, although evaluation results for these three programs have not been published (Tutty, 2011). The Youth Relationships Project, which utilized a similar Fourth R approach, has been rigorously evaluated and resulted in a reduction in the perpetration and victimization of IP/SV among higher risk youth (both boys and girls) who grew up in abusive homes (Wolfe et al., 2003). Other targeted school-based interventions include those that have engaged coaches and male athletes to reduce perpetration of violence as well as

4. Although they were not measured, this does not mean that ripple effects of the intervention into the community were not possible.

392

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

improve gender equitable attitudes. Coaching Boys into Men (CBIM) is an innovative intervention which trains coaches to facilitate discussions about norms and attitudes on gender inequalities to high school athletes. A rigorous evaluation showed increases in reported intentions to intervene and positive bystander intervention behaviors (Miller et al., 2012). CBIM has also been adapted to the Indian context into a program known as PARIVARTAN, which engages cricket coaches and their school athletes. An initial rigorous evaluation showed significant increases in positive attitudes on gender equality (Miller et al., 2014). The program is now being expanded to include girls in an effort to empower and create safe spaces for participants (Das, 2015). There are five additional interventions that showed promising results; however, the results were not disaggregated by sex. At the middle/high school level, Shifting Boundaries and Safe Dates showed overall reductions in the perpetration and victimization of dating violence among participating adolescents as a result of a series of gender-sensitive and multiple component interventions implemented over a long period of time (Taylor, Stein, Woods, & Mumford, 2011; Foshee, et al. 2004). Another program, Connections, evaluated in six high schools in California, also showed reduction in the perpetration of violence through teaching high school students about healthy relationships (Gardner, Giese, & Parrott, 2004). Similarly, the Katie Brown Educational Program, which delivers targeted content about dating behaviors and healthy relationships over the course of just three sessions, showed significant reductions in IP/SV (Joppa, Rizzo, Nieves, & Brown, 2016). There are several other interventions that have shown promising results but were either not rigorously evaluated or did not provide enough information on the evaluation methodology to draw reliable conclusion on the programs’ effectiveness of reducing IP/SV and/or improving related knowledge and attitudes. Similar to those in the effective category, these interventions applied participatory approaches that engaged students and teachers over a long period of time. Activities included awareness campaigns and the development of curricula that addressed healthy relationships, balanced power dynamics, human rights, and/or harmful gender norms. The Young Men Initiative (YMI), coordinated by CARE International Balkans, is an adaptation of the innovative and well-evaluated Program H developed by Promundo (Namy, Heilman, Stich, & Edmeades, 2014; Barker, Nascimento, Pulerwitz, & Segundo, 2006). The YMI program focuses on adolescent boys and consists of several sessions about gender, sexual health, and violence. An initial evaluation showed a significant improvement in gender equitable attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors in some of the schools (Namy et al., 2014). In the United Kingdom, WOMANKIND implemented an education program in several schools by integrating lessons on violence and other gender-related issues into “citizenship lessons” (Maxwell, Chaise, Warwick, Aggleton, & Wharf, 2010). The C-Change Program, implemented in the Democratic Republic of Congo, went a step further to involve parents

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

393

and other community members. While we cannot say for certain that these programs were effective, preliminary evidence shows promising results (C-Change, 2013). Finally, a few innovative school-based programs exist that are currently being implemented but have yet to be fully evaluated. Expect Respect, a long-standing program implemented by SafePlace in Texas, includes schoolbased support groups to engage middle- and high school students in discussions about healthy relationships. A preliminary evaluation demonstrates an improvement in healthy conflict resolution skills among participants (Ball et al., 2012). SafePlace is also working in partnership with EngenderHealth on the Gender Matters project to reduce levels of teenage pregnancy through discussions and campaigns around healthy relationships, SRH, and support networks (EngenderHealth, 2015). Dating Matters, a CDC-led initiative, is also in the implementation phase and includes a series of interventions that help prevent dating violence among young adolescents (aged 11 14 years) in high-risk schools and communities throughout four cities in the United States. This project specifically emphasizes the need to work with children during early adolescence, in addition to engaging their schools, families, and broader communities (CDC, 2015). When examining effective school-based interventions, it is important to note that the majority of effective interventions that used a gender-specific approach were more broadly focused on gender norms and attitudes rather than adolescent IP/SV, specifically. These, as well as many of the promising and innovative programs, aim to improve behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge that promote gender equality and healthy power dynamics. Thus, while not specifically targeting partner violence, these programs can provide participants with the tools to question and challenge attitudes and behaviors that perpetuate gender inequalities and drive IP/SV and VAWG. Significant methodological weaknesses, such as small sample size, lack of comparison groups, and controlling for confounding factors, have prevented the rigorous evaluation of adolescent IP/SV programs. Many evaluations do not disaggregate data by sex, making it difficult to understand whether the impact of programs is different according to gender. In addition, many effective and innovative programs have been implemented in the Global North, resulting in a dearth of information on how to adapt interventions into different contexts. Overall, a deeper understanding of effective programming within the education sector is greatly needed.

Campus-based Interventions to Prevent and Respond to IP/SV Colleges and universities are working to prevent and respond to IP/SV on campus. Though prevalence of campus IP/SV is high (Fedina, Holmes, & Backes, 2016), there are few rigorously evaluated interventions that directly address it, making the selection and implementation of effective programs

394

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

challenging. Of 16 rigorous evaluations of campus-based interventions addressing IP/SV identified, 12 of these interventions demonstrated statistically significant, effective results in attitudes, behaviors, or prevalence measures related to violence. Effective interventions are displayed in Table 16.2. All evaluations were conducted in the United States. Half of the 12 interventions that were evaluated and showed effectiveness were some form of bystander intervention training. All of these interventions were delivered in person, usually as a workshop, except for one intervention that was delivered online (Kleinsasser, 2015). Theater was also used in two effective interventions as a mechanism for educating students about campus IP/SV and was shown to be a promising mechanism in other studies (Milhausen, 2006). Most of these evaluations used attitudes (e.g., rape acceptance myths, intent to intervene as a bystander) or behaviors (e.g., bystander behaviors) related to IP/SV as outcome variables. Only three of these evaluations used prevalence of self-reported victimization or perpetration as outcome variables (Coker et al., 2015; Marx, Calhoun, Wilson, & Meyerson, 2001; Rothman & Silverman, 2007). Thus, even among the few interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in rigorous evaluations, only three of these evaluations were measuring whether the intervention actually reduced violence. Though four interventions identified did not demonstrate effectiveness in a rigorous evaluation, these interventions still reveal important lessons about promising practices (Bradley, 2009; Breitenbecher & Scarce, 1999; Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011; Katz, 1995). Two of these interventions (Gidycz et al., 2011; Katz, 1995) worked exclusively with college men and centered discussions of healthy masculinity. These interventions showed some improvements in the men’s knowledge around laws related to campus IP/SV and their willingness to engage in bystander behavior, and reductions in their self-reported sexual aggression and association with sexually aggressive peers. One intervention focused on reducing revictimization of students that had already experienced IP/SV (Breitenbecher & Scarce, 1999). Though this particular intervention did not show statistically significant effects, other interventions affirm the importance of focusing on a previously victimized group, demonstrating promising impact on preventing those who had already been victimized (Marx et al., 2001). Overall, the findings from evaluations of effective interventions demonstrate a positive impact of bystander interventions on attitudes and behaviors related to IP/SV. One evaluation even showed positive effects sustained 1 year following the intervention (Moynihan et al., 2015). Bystander interventions have been implemented and evaluated in the United States since the mid-1990s (Katz, 1995), and have typically included interactive activities that build participants’ skills to intervene in potentially violent situations, and provided the opportunity to discuss these scenarios and skills (Peterson, 2016). A bystander approach defines IP/SV as a community problem and

TABLE 16.2 Effective Campus-Based Interventions for Adolescent IP/SV Author(s) & Year

Summary of Intervention

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

Results

Bystander Intervention Programs Alegrı´aFlores, Raker, Pleasants, Weaver, & Weinberger, 2017

One Act is a single, inperson workshop that encourages bystander behavior through observation, assessment, action, and follow-up

Quasi-experimental pretest post-test with comparison group at a large university in SE United States

1487 college students at a large university in the Southeastern United States

Attitudes (date rape, bystander confidence) and behaviors (willingness to help in low- and high-risk situations)

Significant positive results for date rape attitudes and behaviors, bystander’s confidence, and willingness to help

Borsky, McDonnell, Turner, & Rimal, 2016

The Red Flag Campaign is a 30-minute workshop on dating violence followed by a week-long social marketing campaign that raises awareness around dating violence

Quasi-experimental pretest post-test with comparison group; difference-in-difference analysis

329 college students at two colleges in Virginia, United States

Attitudes (bystander intentions, self-efficacy, norms) and behaviors (bystander behaviors)

Mixed: significant positive results for bystander behavior, but no significant change for bystander intentions, self-efficacy norms or attitudes

Moynihan et al., 2015; Banyard et al., 2007

Bringing in the Bystander is a onetime, 4.5-hour educational workshop focusing on engaging bystanders in preventing sexual and relationship violence

Randomized control trial using two universities as the treatment and control groups; pre-test, posttest, and one-year follow-up; longitudinal regression analysis

948 freshmen college students at two universities in the Northeastern United States

Attitudes (bystander attitudes including readiness to help and perceptions of peer helping) and behaviors (reported bystander behavior and opportunity for bystander behavior)

Significant positive results for bystander attitudes and behaviors

(Continued )

TABLE 16.2 (Continued) Author(s) & Year

Summary of Intervention

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

Results

Peterson, 2016

A 90-minute adaptation of Bringing in the Bystander, as compared to a 90-minute traditional education program on dating violence

Quasi-experimental pretest post-test and 2-month follow-up

1001 freshmen college students at a university in the Western United States

Attitudes (rape myth acceptance, bystander efficacy, intent to help), behaviors (bystander action)

Significant positive results for bystander attitudes, beliefs, efficacy, intentions, and behavior

Amar, Tuccinardi, Heislein, & Simpson, 2015

Friends Helping Friends is a bystander intervention program using peer-education

Quasi-experimental pretest post-test

101 college students

Attitudes (feeling of responsibility and intention to intervene, identification of risk, skills to act as a bystander, and rape myth acceptance)

Significant positive results (feeling of responsibility to intervene, skills to act as a bystander, and rape myth acceptance)

Coker et al., 2015; Coker et al., 2017

Green Dot is a onetime bystander intervention training consisting of one 50minute motivational speech and a 4- to 6hour workshop

Quasi-experiment using two universities as the treatment and comparison groups; pretest, post-test, and 1 year follow-up; longitudinal regression analysis

7026 college students (2768 in an intervention group from University of Kentucky, 4258 in a comparison group from Universities of Cincinnati and South Carolina)

Prevalence (victimization and perpetration)

Significant positive results for prevalence of victimization, and positive results for prevalence of perpetration

Broader Campus-Based Programming Kleinsasser, 2015

Take Care is a one-time 20-minute online training

Quasi-experimental pretest, post-test, and 2month follow-up with comparison group

93 college students from a social psychology class at a midsize university

Attitudes (efficacy for intervening) and behaviors (bystander behaviors)

Significant positive results for self-efficacy attitudes and bystander behaviors

Hanson & Gidycz, 1993

The Acquaintance Rape Prevention Program is a one-time workshop with a video, worksheets, and discussion

Quasi-experimental pretest, post-test with comparison group

360 women college students

Attitudes (sexual assault awareness), behaviors (dating behavior and sexual communication), prevalence (victimization)

Significant positive results of prevalence of victimization for college women without a history of victimization, no effect of prevalence of victimization for college women with a history of victimization

McMahon, Postmus, Warrener, & Koenick, 2014

SCREAM Theater is a one-time, 75-minute long, peer-education theater program

Quasi-experimental pre-test post-test

643 college students

Attitudes (rape myth acceptance and bystander attitudes)

Significant positive results in both rape myth acceptance and bystander attitudes

Rothman & Silverman, 2007

Sexual Assault Prevention Program that includes a one-time 90-minute drama presentation called “Sex Signals” and a one-time 90-minute small group workshop

Quasi-experimental retrospective cohort design

1982 freshmen college students in the Northeastern United States

Prevalence (victimization)

Significant positive results on victimization

(Continued )

TABLE 16.2 (Continued) Author(s) & Year

Summary of Intervention

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

Results

Woodin & O’Leary, 2010

Drinker’s Check-Ups are brief, motivational sessions including an assessment and 1 hour session with feedback

Quasi-experimental with comparison group; hierarchical linear modeling used for analysis

50 college dating couples between 18 and 25 years old who reported at least one act of male-to-female physical aggression in their current relationships at a university in New York, United States

Behaviors (in men: physical aggression perpetration during the previous 3 months, harmful alcohol use, acceptance of female psychological aggression; in women: acceptance of male psychological aggression)

Significant positive results on incidence in men of physical aggression perpetration during the previous 3 months, harmful alcohol use, acceptance of female psychological aggression; and in women: acceptance of male psychological aggression

Marx et al., 2001

Revictimization Prevention Program is a program of two, 2hour sessions that combine psychoeducation and skills training

Quasi-experimental pretest post-test

66 college women with a history of sexual victimization from two large universities in the southeastern (34 women) and midwestern (32 women) United States

Prevalence (incidence of sexual revictimization within 2 months of the intervention)

Significant positive results for rape revictimization specifically (but no significant results for sexual revictimization more generally)

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

399

encourages all members of a community to adopt a role with which they can identify and intervene to prevent violence (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007). These interventions help shift community-level norms that perpetuate IP/SV and are also essential in the prevention of violence. This shifting of norms includes increasing bystanders’ awareness/knowledge of IP/SV, their sense of responsibility to intervene, and their ability to take action safely (Banyard, 2011). Bystanders learn about IP/SV and their role in prevention of violence in the community through the interaction and discussion of the intervention. The community begins to change, as a function of individual learning of each bystander. Two key bystander programs emerge as particularly effective following rigorous evaluation. Bringing in the Bystander is a bystander intervention program developed by researchers at the University of New Hampshire in close consultation with IP/SV practitioners in local crisis centers. Bringing in the Bystander is delivered in multiple in-person workshops. Two facilitators, one man and one woman, lead participants through discussions that include how to identify a potentially violent situation, how to intervene, and how to respond to a person who discloses that they are a survivor of IP/SV. Workshops also include active learning exercises. Each workshop is 90-minute long, and campuses can adapt how many sessions they facilitate based on their individual time constraints (Banyard, 2007; Moynihan et al., 2015). Green Dot is a bystander intervention that engages college students in educational workshops thematically similar to the Bringing in the Bystander program. Staff members who are trained in Green Dot first deliver a 50-minute long motivational speech, known as the “Green Dot speech,” within an introductory course for college freshmen. This speech includes educational content around the importance of being an active bystander and how relatively simple it is to intervene. The goal of this speech is to motivate bystander behavior in participants. The motivational speech is followed up with a 4- to 6-hour bystander training session, in small groups of 20 25 students, which teaches safe and effective bystander intervention skills (Coker et al., 2015). Both Bringing in the Bystander and Green Dot incorporate elements of discussion and skills training. Both programs are delivered in-person, and neither program is delivered as a singular event. Available research paints a limited picture of what interventions effectively address IP/SV on campus. There is significant research focus on bystander interventions as prevention of campus IP/SV (Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl, 2016). Additional evaluations of a more diverse set of intervention types are needed to understand what other mechanisms are effective in addressing campus IP/SV. This should include interventions with diverse target populations. By focusing primarily on bystander interventions, rigorously evaluated programs tend to target only bystanders and not perpetrators or survivors. Bystander interventions also focus solely on prevention, leaving a dearth of rigorously evaluated interventions that respond to campus IP/SV.

400

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

There are response mechanisms available to survivors in the wake of an assault, including the filing of a complaint against their campus through the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education under Title IX. Initial qualitative research has demonstrated that this mechanism is slow-moving and inadequate in providing access to justice for survivors (Peterson et al., 2016), but further evaluation of response interventions around campus IP/SV are needed. It is important to note that the rigorously evaluated campus-based interventions that showed positive effects primarily used attitudes and behaviors, as opposed to actual reductions in prevalence of violence, as outcomes. This weakness limits the ability of these evaluations to demonstrate impacts on rates of actual violence. In addition, all of the rigorously evaluated interventions with positive effects were delivered once and not sustained over a longer period of time. The impacts of one-off interventions may be limited (Bradley, 2009), but there is little evaluation research of interventions that follows up on outcomes longer than a year post-intervention. Further evaluation of longer term, more comprehensive interventions is necessary to understand whether a higher intensity, higher frequency intervention is more effective than a low-intensity, one-off intervention. Notably, only two interventions (Hanson & Gidycz, 1993; Rothman & Silverman, 2007) addressed which demographics in their samples were more likely to be victimized. These populations included individuals who had previously experienced IP/SV, members of the LGBTQIA community, and students who consumed alcohol and/or engaged in binge drinking (Rothman & Silverman, 2007). While bystander interventions appear to be effective in reducing attitudes that accept rape myths and increasing bystander knowledge and behaviors, these interventions raise the question of whether or not they address the root causes of IP/SV, or work within the paradigm of existing gender inequality. Interventions that promote gender equality are more effective in producing a variety of positive outcomes, including reduction of violence (Brush & Miller, 2017). With the hope that future evaluations focus on perpetration and victimization of IP/SV as outcome variable, measuring the impact of interventions on violence, this lesson about the effectiveness of interventions that transform gender norms is increasingly salient.

Group-based Targeted Interventions to Prevent and Respond to Adolescent IP/SV Group-based Training Interventions to Empower Women and Girls The vast majority of violence prevention programs in LMICs to prevent IP/ SV use participatory group training, which typically consists of a series of

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

401

educational meetings or workshops with targeted groups of individuals. The ultimate goal of such programs is not only to reduce male perpetration of VAWG but also to address underlying expectations about male and female roles and behavior, and to support the development of new skills for communication and conflict resolution through a process of critical reflection, discussion, and practice. There is a wide diversity in terms of the duration of training, target groups, and components. Intervention components vary between interventions, and are often embedded in programs whose primary purpose is to improve SRH, or livelihoods programs such as microfinance or vocational training (Table 16.3.) A successful program in Uganda sought to empower adolescent girls through life skills training to build knowledge and reduce risky behaviors, as well as through vocational training enabling them to establish small-scale enterprises (Bandiera et al., 2012). A randomized control trial tracked 4800 girls over 2 years and found significant improvements in SRH knowledge and behavior among girls in the intervention group, as well as a large reduction in coerced sex. In Kenya, an empowerment-based intervention for girls living in poor Nairobi neighborhoods included six 2-hour sessions on empowerment, de-escalation, and self-defense skills. A cluster-randomized trial found that 10.5 months post-intervention, the rate of sexual assault among the intervention group decreased by 60%, whereas no difference was found among the comparison group. Disclosures of sexual assault also increased significantly in the intervention group but not in the comparison group (Sarnquist et al., 2014).

Group Training Targeting Men and Boys As presented by Jewkes and colleagues (2015), there is a diverse range of interventions involving boys and men in violence prevention, although the evidence of their effectiveness is still limited. One successful program, Yaari Dosti, was carried out in Mumbai and Gorakhpur, India (Verma, Pulerwitz, Mahendra, et al., 2008). The program, based on “H,” an intervention developed for young men in Brazil (Barker et al., 2006), aimed to reduce male VAWG by transforming gender inequitable norms through group training and “social lifestyle marketing.” The participants were both married and unmarried young men between 15 and 29 years. Men in the intervention arms in Mumbai and Gorakhpur were five times and two times less likely, respectively, to report having used physical or sexual violence against a partner during the last 3 months than participants in the comparison group. Other similar programs targeting young men have been implemented globally (Das, 2015; Namy et al., 2014; Pulerwitz et al., 2010). Evaluations of these interventions indicate promising outcomes in changing young men’s attitudes towards gender equality and views on the justifications for violence but did not result in significant behavioral changes. It is not clear why Yaari

TABLE 16.3 Effective Group Training Programs for IP/SV Author(s) & Year

Summary of Intervention

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

Results

Group Training for Women and Girls Bandiera et al., 2012

The Empowerment and Livelihood for Adolescents (ELA) Program is designed to improve the cognitive and noncognitive skills of adolescent girls. The program operates through “adolescent development clubs.” The two forms of skills training, life and vocational skills training, operated through “adolescent development clubs.” Clubs also host popular recreational activities.

Randomized Control Trial. Intention to Treat (ITT) Analysis.

Adolescent girls (approximately 14 20 years)

Report of having had sex unwillingly

The evaluation is based on a 2year panel of over 4800 adolescent girls. A fall of around 17 pp starting from a baseline level of 21% meaning that almost no girls resident in communities where the ELA program operates, report being subject to such situation.

Erulkar & Muthengi, 2009

Berhane Hewan was a 2-year pilot project that aimed to reduce the prevalence of child marriage in rural Ethiopia, through a combination of group formation, support for girls to remain in school and community awareness.

Quasi-experimental. Analysis used chi-square tests, proportional hazard models and logistic regressions

Girls aged 10 14 years

Ever married, girls aged 10 14 years

At baseline, the likelihood of having ever been married among girls 10 14 years decreased with years of education. At endline, intervention girls were much less likely than girls at the control site to have gotten married, suggesting that the program may have helped delay marriage in this age group. However, among girls aged 15 19 years, those in the intervention area had an elevated likelihood of having gotten married by the endline.

Pande, et. al., 2006

Sarnquist et al., 2014

IHMP consisted of a year-long life skills course. The course was 1 hour each weekday evening, taught by a trained village woman with at least a seventh-grade education. A total of 225 1-hour sessions, divided into five sections: social issues and institutions, local bodies, life skills, child health and nutrition, and health; girls also conducted community service. IHMP held monthly meetings for parents.

Quasi-experimental study. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression used to examine the effect of the intervention on age at marriage.

Empowerment and self-defense intervention. Six 2-hour intervention sessions for 6 weeks

Unmarried adolescent girls, ages 12 18 years, with a focus on out-of-school and working adolescents

Proportion of marriage to young girls (11 17 years) between 1997 and 2001

Quasi-experimental study in four neighborhoods in informal settlements in Nairobi in 2012.

Adolescent girls aged 13 20 years, attending secondary schools

Incidence of sexual assault (forced or coerced penetration and sexual harassment)

10.5 months after the intervention, the rate of sexual assault among the intervention group decreased by 60%, whereas no difference was shown for the comparison group. Disclosures of sexual assault also increased significantly in the intervention group but not in the comparison group.

Cluster RCT of 70 villages (clusters) in eastern Cape province of South Africa. Villages randomized to receive either stepping stones or 3 h intervention on HIV and safer sex.

Young men and women (aged 15 26 years), who were mostly attending schools

Perpetration (for men) and victimization (for women) of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence in the past-year

Reported IPV perpetration was significantly reduced among men in the intervention group compared with the control group at 24 months, but not at 12 months. No significant reduction in reported victimization by women at 12 months or 24 months.

One of marriage in young girls (aged 11 17 years) steadily decreased in the intervention villages (including girls who did not participate in life skills training). Median marriage age increased from 16 to 17 years. No significant changes were noted in the control group.

Group Training for Men and Women Jewkes et al. 2008

Stepping Stones, a program that uses participatory learning to build HIV risk awareness, knowledge, and communication. Group-based delivery of intervention, with separate groups for men and women. The intervention consisted of 50 hours of training.

(Continued )

TABLE 16.3 (Continued) Author(s) & Year

Summary of Intervention

Study Details

Population

Outcome(s)

Results

Quasi-experimental 3 group design in urban slums of Mumbai and in rural villages in Gorakhpur, 2006 07. Used multivariate logistic regression analysis.

The sample included married and unmarried young men aged 16 29 years in urban settings and aged 15 24 years in rural settings.

Violence against a partner (physical or sexual) reported by men in the last 3 months

Young men in the intervention groups in Mumbai and Gorakhpur were about five times and two times, respectively, less likely to report perpetration of partner violence than those in the comparison sites. The levels of partner abuse rose in both comparison sites.

Group Training for Men Verma et al., 2008

The intervention consisted of different combinations of intervention activities on young men’s support for inequitable gender norms, HIV/STI risk behaviors, and partner violence.

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

405

Dosti was more successful than the other interventions, but it could be related to the intensity and duration of the interventions or underpowered studies. More research is needed to understand what elements of the interventions with men and boys are key for achieving behavioral changes (Ricardo et al., 2011).

Group Training with Men and Women—Synchronizing Gender Approaches In response to the increasing recognition that both men and women should be engaged in efforts to prevent VAWG, more programs are using “gender synchronized approaches.” According to Greene and Levack (2010, p 5), “By intentionally reaching out to both men and women in a coordinated way, gender synchronized approaches seek to equalize the balance of power between men and women, in order to ensure gender equality and transform social norms that lead to gender-related vulnerabilities.” Stepping Stones is a widely adapted program that uses participatory learning approaches with both young men and women to build knowledge, risk awareness, communication, and relationship skills around gender, violence, and HIV. A cluster-randomized trial conducted in South Africa with young men and women found that at 2 years post-intervention, men’s selfreported perpetration of physical and/or sexual IPV was significantly lower, compared to men in the control villages. The program also achieved a significant reduction in HSV-2 infections among both men and women. No differences were found in women’s reports of IPV victimization between the intervention and control villages (Jewkes et al., 2008).

Community Mobilization In contrast to group training programs, which seek to reduce violence among a targeted group of individuals, community mobilization interventions aim to reduce violence at the population level by transforming public discourse, practices, and norms around gender and violence. Instead of focusing solely on adolescent boys and girls, community mobilization approaches are typically complex interventions that engage multiple stakeholders at different levels (e.g., community men and women, youth, religious leaders, police teachers, and political leaders). They use a variety of strategies, from group training to public events, and advocacy campaigns such as the 16 Days of Activism on Gender Violence (from November 25 to December 10). They often make use of mobile phone apps, such as Hollaback, Circle of Six, and Safetipin in India, to provide information about violence and neighborhood safety and to help women report violence or receive emergency help from friends and authorities (see Box 16.1) (Wagman et al., 2014). Community activists have partnered with innovative education/entertainment, or

406

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

BOX 16.1 Emerging technologies to prevent and respond to violence Mobile technology is emerging as an important tool to prevent and respond to IP/SV on campus. Mobile apps addressing IP/SV are proliferating at secondary and university schools across the world, and in particular in high-income countries. Though none have yet been rigorously evaluated, many demonstrate promising effects. Most of these apps address the prevention of campus IP/SV, as opposed to response. Circle of 6 is one such mobile app, where users can enter six contacts into their “circle” to contact quickly (with phrases like “come get me” or “call me”) in the case he/she needs to get out of a dangerous situation. Circle of 6 was piloted at Williams College, where it was reported that the app was contributing to a “cultural change” on campus relating to IP/SV (Rollston, 2016). On Watch is another mobile app of this type, where users can preprogram contacts into their phone and send a message for help. Apps like TapShield (piloted at the University of Florida) allow users to send their GPS location and a message for help to law enforcement with the touch of a button. Other apps are emerging that address the reporting of campus IP/SV: for example, Callisto, which provides on online reporting system for survivors of IP/SV, who can record an anonymous, time-stamped documentation of the incident and decide later whether or not they would like to report it. This increase in mobile technology to address campus IP/SV is encouraging, and though rigorous evaluations have not yet been performed, these evaluations are imminent (FordGilboe et al., 2017; Glass et al., 2015). While mobile apps have mostly focused on campus-based populations, several apps are attempting to reach broader populations. Teen Choices, a webbased intervention targeting secondary school students in the United States, showed significantly lower odds of perpetrating and experiencing emotional/verbal violence for both boys and girls in the intervention group after 3 months of follow-up (Levesque, Johnson, Welch, Prochaska, & Paiva, 2016). Other computer-based learning tools have shown similar results in secondary schools (Rijsdijk et al., 2011). A mobile app focused on IPV among all women, the MyPlan app, helps users evaluate the potential for violence in their relationship, and walks users through personal safety planning. The MyPlan app is being implemented in several different communities in both high- and low-income countries but has not yet been evaluated.

“edutainment” programs such as Soul City, Sexto Sentido and Bell Bajao, in the development of high-quality communication materials such as posters, street theater, radio, and television programs. While there is no evidence that social communication programs alone can prevent violence, rigorous evaluations have shown significant changes in knowledge and use of services, attitudes towards gender, and acceptance of VAWG, which can provide critical support for local efforts (Solorzano et al., 2008; Solotaroff & Pande, 2014; Usdin, Scheepers, Goldstein, & Japhet, 2005; Wagman et al., 2014).

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

407

Because of their complexity, community mobilization programs are challenging to evaluate, and very few rigorous evaluations have been conducted to date. As described by Michau et al. (2015), a cluster-randomized trial of the SASA! program in Uganda has shown highly promising results in reducing the prevalence of IPV in intervention communities compared to control sites, as well as significantly reducing acceptance of IPV among both men and women, and sexual concurrency among men (Abramsky et al., 2014). This model is now being adapted in other settings throughout sub-Saharan Africa as well as Haiti. A similar program carried out in Rakai, Uganda, found not only reductions in physical and sexual IPV but also reduced incidence of HIV/AIDS (Wagman et al., 2014). Although these interventions do not focus specifically on adolescents, they provide important insights on how IP/SV can be addressed at a community-level among adults as well as adolescents. Financial or material incentives have also been used with promising results to reduce child marriage. The incentives include school uniforms, livestock in Ethiopia, or cash transfers. Typically, these transfers are conditional on staying in school, or staying unmarried up to the age of 18 years, although a program in Malawi showed promising results in keeping girls in school and delaying marriage through unconditional cash transfers (Baird, ¨ zler, 2011). An innovative program was established in 1994 McIntosh, & O by the Government of the State of Haryana, India, to increase the perceived value of girls and to reduce child marriage. Cash transfers were provided to parents of girls at two points; a small cash disbursement upon the birth of an eligible girl, and a savings bond in the name of the daughter redeemable at age 18 years, provided the girl was not married. An evaluation is being conducted to assess the impact of the program on the girls enrolled in the program, who are now turning 18 years. Preliminary findings show that beneficiary girls have attained higher levels of schooling and are much more likely to be currently in school compared to non-beneficiaries, controlling for other factors. Because girls typically leave school upon marriage, this is likely to represent a significant impact on age of marriage among beneficiaries (Nanda, Datta, & Das, 2014).

DISCUSSION In light of increasing evidence of the high prevalence and severe health and social consequences of IP/SV among adolescents, it is troubling that rigorous data on prevention is still so scarce. We found many methodological weaknesses among the studies included in our review. Many of the studies had very small sample sizes (commonly with small numbers of clusters in RCTs), and some of the null findings could well be attributable to the challenge of underpowered studies. There was also a very wide range of outcome measurements and time frames, which made comparisons difficult. Many of the studies did not control for confounding factors, which may have resulted

408

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

in some bias or inaccurate results. The vast majority of the evaluations identified did not include a long follow-up period, making it difficult to determine if changes are sustained over time. There are a number of areas where the evidence base is small or nonexistent. Few interventions were carried out in indigenous or ethnically diverse populations. With a few exceptions, the evaluations in this review did not measure cost effectiveness of interventions, which is a pivotal decision point for those that wish to implement and adapt an intervention. The adaptation of interventions to different settings is also undocumented, and information on the time and effort that this crucial step takes is also missing. Despite the shortcomings of the current evidence base, some promising trends have emerged. Several studies have shown that it is possible to prevent IP/SV among adolescents, showing that large effect sizes can be achieved over programmatic time frames. Multisectoral programs that engage with multiple stakeholders appear to be the most successful in transforming deeply entrenched attitudes and behaviors. Strong programs not only challenge the acceptability of violence but also address the underlying risk factors for violence, including social norms regarding gender dynamics and the acceptability of violence, women’s economic dependence on men and support the development of new skills, including in communication and conflict resolution. The positive examples of intervention impact point to the imperative of greatly increasing investment in violence prevention. Alongside programmatic investment, it will remain important to support rigorous evaluations, to guide international efforts to end IP/SV among adolescents. As the field continues to develop, it will be important to learn more about the costs of programs and identify models of intervention that can be delivered at scale.

REFERENCES Abramsky, T., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Nakuti, J., Kyegombe, N., Starmann, E., . . . Watts, C. (2014). Findings from the SASA! Study: A cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of a community mobilization intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Medicine, 12, 122. Achyut, P., Bhatla, N., Kandekar, S., Maitra, S., & Verma, R. K. (2011). Building support for gender equality among young adolescents in School: Findings from Mumbai, India. New Delhi, India: International Center for Research on Women. ActionAid International. (2012). Transforming education for girls in Tanzania: Endline research summary report. Washington: ActionAid International. Alegrı´a-Flores, K., Raker, K., Pleasants, R. K., Weaver, M. A., & Weinberger, M. (2017). Preventing interpersonal violence on college campuses: The effect of one act training on bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(7), 1103 1126. Amar, A. F., Tuccinardi, N., Heislein, J., & Simpson, S. (2015). Friends helping friends: A nonrandomized control trial of a peer-based response to dating violence. Nursing Outlook, 63(4), 496 503.

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

409

Arango, D., Morton, M., Gennari, F., Kiplesund, S., Contreras, M., & Ellsberg, M. (2014). Interventions to reduce or prevent violence against women and girls: A systematic review of reviews. World Bank. ¨ zler, B. (2011). Cash or condition? Evidence from a cash transfer Baird, S., McIntosh, C., & O experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1709 1753. Available from https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr032. Ball, B., Tetan Tharp, A., Noonan, R. K., Valle, L. A., Hamburger, M. E., & Rosenbluth, B. (2012). Expect respect support groups: Preliminary evaluation of a dating violence prevention program for at-risk youth. Violence Against Women, 18(7), 746 762. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801212455188. Bandiera, O., Buehren, N., Burgess, R., Goldstein, M., Gulesci, S., Rasul, I., & Sulaiman, M. (2012). Empowering adolescent girls: Evidence from a randomized control trial in Uganda. Washington: World Bank. Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1(3), 216 229. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463 481. Barker, G., Nascimento, M., Pulerwitz, J., & Segundo, M. (2006). Promoting gender-equity among young Brazilian men as an HIV prevention strategy. Washington: Population Council. Barker, G., Ricardo, C., Nascimento, M., Olukoya, A., & Santos, C. (2010). Questioning gender norms with men to improve health outcomes: Evidence of impact. Global Public Health, 5(5), 539 553. Borsky, A. E., McDonnell, K., Turner, M. M., & Rimal, R. (2016). Raising a red flag on dating violence: Evaluation of a low-resource, college-based, bystander behavior intervention program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Bradley, A. R. (2009). An evaluation of a mixed-gender sexual assault prevention program. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(6), 697; 697-715; 715. Breitenbecher, K. H., & Scarce, M. (1999). A longitudinal evaluation of the effectiveness of a sexual assault education program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(5), 459 478. Brush, L.D., & Miller, E. (2017). Trouble in paradigm: “Gender transformative programming” in violence prevention. For presentation at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Paper presented in Montreal, Quebec, Aug 2017. C-Change. (2013). C-Change Final Report. Washington, DC: C-Change/FHI360. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Dating Matterss Initiative. Atlanta, Georgia: CDC. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/datingmatters/. Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Cook-Craig, P. G., DeGue, S. A., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J., & Recktenwald, E. A. (2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 566 578. Available from https://doi.org/ S0749-3797(17)30027-2. Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2015). Evaluation of the green dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1507 1527. Contreras, M., Heilman, B., Barker, G., Singh, A., Verma, R., & Bloomfield, J. (2012). Bridges to adulthood: Understanding the lifelong influence of men’s childhood experiences of violence analyzing data from the international men and gender equality survey. Washington,

410

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

DC: International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and Rio de Janeiro: Instituto Promundo. Danielsson, I., Blom, H., Nilses, C., Heimer, G., & Hogberg, U. (2009). Gendered patterns of high violence exposure among swedish youth. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 88(5), 528 535. Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00016340902846056. Das, M. (2015) Gender Equity: Redefining Safe Space for Young Women and Girls. Presented at Gender, Policy and Measurement Webinar. Washington, DC. Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y., Garcia-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder, G., & Watts, C. H. (2013). Global health. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340(6140), 1527 1528. Ellsberg, M., Arango, D. J., Morton, M., Gennari, F., Kiplesund, S., Contreras, M., & Watts, C. (2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say? Lancet (London, England), 385(9977), 1555 1566. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(14)61703-7. EngenderHealth. (2015). Gender matters. New York: EngenderHealth. Available from http:// www.engenderhealth.org/our-work/major-projects/gender-matters.php. Erulkar, A., & Muthengi, E. (2009). Evaluation of Berhane Hewan: A program to delay child marriage in rural Ethiopia. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35(1), 6 14. Farrington, D. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(5), 405 418. Fedina, L., Holmes, J. L., & Backes, B. L. (2016). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76 93. Ford-Gilboe, M., Varcoe, C., Scott-Storey, K., Wuest, J., Case, J., Currie, L. M., & Wathen, C. N. (2017). A tailored online safety and health intervention for women experiencing intimate partner violence: The iCAN plan 4 safety randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Public Health, 17, 273. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. Am J Public Health, 94, 619 624. Fulu, E., Jewkes, R., Roselli, T., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2013). Prevalence of and factors associated with male perpetration of intimate partner violence: Findings from the UN multicountry cross-sectional study on men and violence in Asia and the pacific. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214109X13700743/par. Garcia-Moreno, C., Zimmerman, C., Morris-Gehring, A., Heise, L., Amin, A., Abrahams, N., & Watts, C. (2015). Addressing violence against women: A call to action. Lancet (London, England), 385(9978), 1685 1695. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14) 61830-4. Gardner, S. P., Giese, K., & Parrott, S. M. (2004). Evaluation of the “Connections: Relationships and Marriage” curriculum. Family Relations, 53(5), 521 527. Gennari, F., Urban, A. M., McCleary-Sills, J., Arango, D. J., & Kiplesund, S. (2014). Violence against Women & Girls: Education Sector Brief. Washington: The World Bank, The Global Women’s Institute, The Inter-American Development Bank. Available from http://www. vawgresourceguide.org/.

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

411

Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 720 742. Glass, N., Clough, A., Case, J., Hanson, G., Barnes-Hoyt, J., Waterbury, A., & Perrin, N. (2015). A safety app to respond to dating violence for college women and their friends: The MyPlan study randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 871. Greene, M., & Levack, A. (2010). Synchronizing gender strategies: A cooperative model for improving reproductive health and transforming gender relations. Washington, DC: Interagency Gender Working Group (IGWG). Hanson, K. A., & Gidycz, C. A. (1993). Evaluation of a sexual assault prevention program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 1046 1052. Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580 1589. Jewkes, R., Nduna, M., Levin, J., Jama, N., Dunkle, K., Puren, A., & Duvvury, N. (2008). Impact of stepping stones on incidence of HIV and HSV-2 and sexual behaviour in rural South Africa: Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 337, a506. Joppa, M. C., Rizzo, C. J., Nieves, A. V., & Brown, L. K. (2016). Pilot investigation of the Katie Brown Educational Program: A school-community partnership. Journal of School Health, 86(4), 288 297. Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The mentors in violence prevention project. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 163. Kleinsasser, A. (2015). An online bystander intervention program for the prevention of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(3), 227 235. Leach, F., Dunne, M., & Salvi, F. (2014). School-related Gender-based Violence: A global review of current issues and approaches in policy, programming and implementation responses to School-Related Gender-Based Violence (SRGBV) for the Education Sector. Paris, France: UNESCO. Leen, E. (2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy of primary interventions for adolescent dating violence: An international review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 159 174. Levesque, D. A., Johnson, J. L., Welch, C. A., Prochaska, J. M., & Paiva, A. L. (2016). Teen dating violence prevention: Cluster-randomized trial of Teen Choices, an online, stage-based program for healthy, nonviolent relationships. Psychology of violence, 6(3), 421. Lundgren, R., & Amin, A. (2015). Addressing intimate partner violence and sexual violence among adolescents: Emerging evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, S42 S50. Maksud, N., 2014. Violence against children and young women in Malawi: findings from a national survey, 2013. Ministry of Gender, Children Disability and Social Welfare of the Republic of Malawi, United Nations Children’s Fund, The Center for Social Research at the University of Malawi, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lilongwe, Malawi. Marx, B. P., Calhoun, K. S., Wilson, A. E., & Meyerson, L. A. (2001). Sexual revictimization prevention: An outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 25 32. Maxwell, C., Chaise, E., Warwick, I., Aggleton, P., & Wharf, H. (2010). Preventing violence, promoting equality: A whole-school approach. London, UK: WOMANKIND Worldwide.

412

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

McMahon, S., Postmus, J. L., Warrener, C., & Koenick, R. A. (2014). Utilizing peer education theater for the primary prevention of sexual violence on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 78 85. Michau, L., Horn, J., Bank, A., Dutt, M., & Zimmerman, C. (2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: Lessons from practice. The Lancet, 385(9978), 1672 1684. Milhausen, R. (2006). Evaluating a peer-led, theatrical sexual assault prevention program: How do we measure success? College Student Journal, 40(2), 316. Miller, E., Das, M., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Virata, M. C. D., Nettiksimmons, J., . . . Verma, R. (2014). Evaluation of a gender-based violence prevention program for student athletes in Mumbai, India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(4), 758 778. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, J. G. (2012). “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 431 438. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cares, A. C., Potter, S. J., Williams, L. M., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain 1 year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1), 110 132. Namy, S., Heilman, B., Stich, S., & Edmeades, J. (2014). Be a man, change the rules! Findings and Lessons from Seven Years of CARE International Balkans’ Young Men Initiative. Washington: International Center for Research on Women. Nanda, P., Datta, N., & Das, P. (2014). Evaluation of a conditional cash transfer program to improve the status of girls in Northern India. IMPACCT: Impact on Marriage: Program Assessment of Conditional Cash Transfers. Washington: International Center for Research on Women. Pande, R., Kurz, K., Walia, S., MacQuarrie, K., & Jain, S. (2006). Improving the reproductive health of married and unmarried youth in India: Evidence of cost and effectiveness from community-based interventions. Washington: International Center for Research on Women. Parkes, J., & Heslop, J. (2013). Stop Violence Against Girls in School: A cross-country analysis of change in Ghana, Kenya and Mozambique. Washington: ActionAid International. Peterson, A. (2016). A better balance: Providing survivors of sexual violence with “effective protection” against sex discrimination through Title IX complaints. The Yale Law Journal, 125(7), 2132 2155. Peterson, K., Sharps, P., Banyard, V., Powers, R. A., Kaukinen, C., Gross, D., & Campbell, J. (2016). An evaluation of two dating violence prevention programs on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Pulerwitz, J., Martin, S., Mehta, M., Castillo, T., Kidanu, A., Verani, F., & Tewolde, S. (2010). Promoting gender equity for HIV and violence prevention: Results from the Male Norms Initiative evaluation in Ethiopia. Washington, DC: PATH. Ricardo, C., Eads, M., et al. (2011). Engaging boys and young men in the prevention of sexual violence. Pretoria, South Africa: Oak Foundation. Rijsdijk, L., et al. (2011). The World Starts With Me: A multilevel evaluation of a comprehensive sex education program targeting adolescents in Uganda. BMC Public Health, 11, 334. Rollston, R. (2016). Analytic review of mobile phone apps developed to respond to violence against women and girls. Background paper developed for the Global Women’s Institute at the George Washington University. Rothman, E., & Silverman, J. (2007). The effect of a college sexual assault prevention program on first-year students’ victimization rates. Journal of American College Health, 55(5), 283 290.

What Works to Prevent Adolescent Intimate Partner Chapter | 16

413

Sarnquist, C., Omondi, B., Sinclair, J., Gitau, C., Paiva, L., Mulinge, M., . . . Maldonado, Y. (2014). Rape prevention through empowerment of adolescent girls. Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 133, e1226. Solorzano, I., Bank, A., Pena, R., Espinoza, H., Ellsberg, M., Pulerwitz, J. (2008) Catalyzing personal and social change aroung gender, sexuality, HIV: IMpact evaluation of puntos de encuentro’s communication strategy in Nicaragua. Puntos de Encuentro; CIDS/UNAN Leon; PATH; Horizons Program; . Solotaroff, J., & Pande, R. (2014). Violence against women and girls: Lessons from South Asia. 2014. Washington: South Asia Development Forum, World Bank Group. Sommarin, C., Kilbane, T., Mercy, J. A., Moloney-Kitts, M., & Ligiero, D. P. (2014). Preventing sexual violence and HIV in children. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999), 66(Suppl 2), S217 S223. Available from https://doi.org/10.1097/ QAI.0000000000000183. Sosa-Rubi, S. G., Saavedra-Avendano, B., Piras, C., Van Buren, S. J., & Bautista-Arredondo, S. (2016). True love: Effectiveness of a school-based program to reduce dating violence among adolescents in Mexico City. Prevention Science, 1 14. Stockl, H., March, L., Pallitto, C., Garcia-Moreno, C., & WHO Multi-country Study Team. (2014). Intimate partner violence among adolescents and young women: Prevalence and associated factors in nine countries: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14, 751 2458-14-751. Available from https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-751. Storer, H. L., Casey, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2015). Efficacy of bystander programs to prevent dating abuse among youth and young adults: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(3), 256 269. Sumner, S. A., Mercy, A. A., Saul, J., Motsa-Nzuza, N., Kwesigabo, G., Buluma, R., & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2015). Prevalence of sexual violence against children and use of social services—Seven countries, 2007-2013. MMWR.Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64(21), 565 569. Taylor, B., Stein, N. D., Woods, D., & Mumford, E. (2011). Shifting Boundaries: Final Report on an Experimental Evaluation of a Youth Dating Violence Prevention Program in New York City Middle Schools. Washington, DC: Police Executive ResearchForum. Thompson, M. P., Kingree, J. B., & Desai, S. (2004). Gender differences in long-term health consequences of physical abuse of children: Data from a nationally representative survey. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 599 604. Tutty, L. M. (2011). Healthy Relationships Preventing Teen Dating Violence: An Evaluation of the teen Violence Prevention Program. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Women’s Foundation. UNFPA. (2013). Motherhood in childhood: Facing the challenge of adolescent pregnancy. State of world population 2013. New York: UNFPA. US Agency for International Development. (2008). Safe Schools Program Final Report. Washington: USAID. Usdin, S., Scheepers, E., Goldstein, S., & Japhet, G. (2005). Achieving social change on genderbased violence: A report on the impact evaluation of Soul City’s fourth series. Social Science & Medicine, 61(11), 2434 2445. (1982). Verma, R., Pulerwitz, J., Mahendra, V., Khandekar, S., Singh, A., Das, S., & Barker, G. (2008). Promoting gender equity as a strategy to reduce HIV risk and gender-based violence among young men in india. Washington: Population Council. Wagman, J., Gray, R., Campbell, J., Thoma, M., Ndyanabo, A., Ssekasanvu, J., Brahmbhatt, H. (2014). Impact of an integrated intimate partner violence and HIV prevention intervention:

414

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

A cluster randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. In National Conference of Health and Domestic Violence. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692 699. Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A. L., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 279 291. Woodin, E. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2010). A brief motivational intervention for physically aggressive dating couples. Prevention Science, 11(4), 371 383. Available from https://doi. org/10.1007/s11121-010-0176-3.

Chapter 17

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Katie M. Edwards and Victoria L. Banyard Department of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States

OVERVIEW Sexual violence is a pervasive public health issue in the United States, and globally (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2004; Dahlberg & Krug, 2002). Sexual violence impacts adolescents and emerging adults (i.e., individuals between the ages 13 and 25 years) at rates higher than any other age group (Black et al., 2011; Rennison, 2001). Moreover, sexual violence leads to a host of negative psychological, physical, social, academic, and occupational/economic outcomes (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Banyard, Weber, Grych, & Hamby, 2016; Edwards, 2015b; Holt & Espelage, 2007; Peterson, DeGue, Florence, & Lokey, 2017). Thus, the primary prevention of sexual violence is a public health priority (Health & Services, 2012). Primary prevention, used interchangeably with universal prevention, targets the general population with the goal of preventing sexual violence from occurring in the first place (Kellam & Langevin, 2003). As such, the vast majority of sexual violence primary prevention initiatives have targeted adolescents and emerging adults (DeGue et al., 2014). The aims of this chapter are to (1) define and document the scope of sexual violence, (2) summarize literature on the etiology of sexual violence, (3) review the research on sexual violence prevention initiatives, and (4) delineate implications for research, practice, and policy. We note at the outset that the range of research we review is somewhat broad because the definitions of adolescence and emerging adulthood encompass many different potential developmental moments that have implications for prevention. Most research to date on sexual violence with adolescents and emerging adults has included individuals ranging in age from approximately 12 years (early adolescence) to 25 years (late emerging adulthood). The current Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00017-7 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

415

416

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

chapter will summarize etiological research that identifies the foundation of prevention work, and promising or effective prevention methods that target these different groups of etiological or contextual factors. We will then make the case that a more comprehensive and synthesized set of strategies are needed that weave together efforts across pieces of the social-ecological model (Banyard, 2013) and that focus on many different prevention entry points or target audiences. We conclude with the argument that a focus on actionist intervention training (used interchangeably with bystander-focused training), along with programming that reduces risk and increases protective factors for sexual violence victimization and perpetration, is one possible theme that can integrate these prevention pieces.

DEFINITION AND EPIDEMIOLOGY Sexual violence is defined as “a sexual act committed against someone without that person’s freely giving consent” (Basile, Smith, Breiding, Black, & Mahendra, 2014). Sexual violence exists on a continuum, ranging from unwanted sexual contact (e.g., unwanted fondling of breasts) to attempted or completed rape. Research suggests that 1 in 5 women and close to 1 in 59 men will experience an attempted or completed rape during their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Moreover, 27.3% of women and 10.8% of men report experiencing unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Adolescence and emerging adulthood is marked by disproportionately high rates of sexual violence victimization experiences, with 79.6% of female rape victims reporting their first rape before the age of 25 years (Black et al., 2011). When sexual violence is broadly defined by all acts ranging from unwanted sexual contact to completed rape, 51% of high school girls and 26% of high school boys report being sexually assaulted by a peer during their lifetime (Young, Grey, & Boyd, 2009). Looking specifically at high school students who dated during the past year, 10.6% were victims of sexual dating violence just in the past year; rates of sexual dating violence were higher for female students (15.6%) than male students (5.4%) (Kann et al., 2014). Researchers have also documented that sexual violence occurs at concerning rates among emerging adults as well, including college students. For example, the Association of American Universities conducted a survey of 150,072 college students at 27 institutions of higher education; results documented that 23.1% of undergraduate women had experienced sexual violence during college (Cantor et al., 2015).

SEXUAL VIOLENCE: THEORY, CAUSES, AND PREVENTION The prevention of sexual violence has historically focused on three different entry points for prevention messaging and skill building: potential perpetrators, potential victims, and potential bystanders (who we call actionists).

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

417

Each of them has strengths and limits as a focus of prevention work. Thus, an understanding of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration and victimization and factors that facilitate or hinder positive action in sexual violence situations is critical in order to develop sexual violence prevention efforts. These factors illuminate key attitudes and behaviors that are both distal and proximal to the occurrence of an assault and that, if changed, might keep the incident from happening. At the outset we note that most sexual violence prevention initiatives target individual and relational level risk factors as opposed to community and social factors. We have tried to include relevant research from these other layers when possible. Furthermore, most sexual violence prevention has been school-based, that is, delivered as part of a curriculum in middle school, high school, and/or college, and this is reflected in the review below. Finally, although a number of curriculum-based sexual violence prevention initiatives have been developed, only a few have been rigorously evaluated (i.e., experimental or quasi experimental methods) and even fewer have demonstrated promising changes in sexual violence behaviors. To date, approximately 150 articles have been published that report on the outcomes of sexual violence prevention initiatives. A review of all of these articles is beyond the scope of one book chapter, thus we focus most specifically on programs that have shown some impact on behavior and used more rigorous evaluation designs. We begin with a brief summary of factors that correlate with and/or predict being a sexual violence perpetration risk, sexual violence victimization risk, and positive actionists in sexual violence situations. We then discuss how this research has been leveraged in prevention initiatives that target potential perpetrators, potential victims, and potential actionists, with a specific emphasis on prevention initiatives that have demonstrated reductions in rates of sexual violence.

Sexual Violence Perpetration Overview Responsibility for sexual violence rests first and foremost with perpetrators, who choose to use force and coercion to engage in sexual behavior without the consent of the other person. Fundamental prevention of sexual violence involves keeping perpetrators from acting, and this is one of the most important strengths of focusing prevention work on this entry point. As a result, a number of theories of sexual violence perpetration have been proposed and researched, though theory has been developed more with adult samples than with adolescents and work remains to be done to examine whether theoretical models equally apply across age groups and developmental moments (Abbey, McAuslan, Zawacki, Clinton, & Buck, 2001; Dardis, Dixon, Edwards, & Turchik, 2014; Tharp et al., 2013).

418

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

A widely used theory to explain sexual violence perpetration is the confluence model (Malamuth, 1986; Malamuth, Heavey, & Linz, 1993; Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, Barnes, & Acker, 1995; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991). Grounded in interdisciplinary theories (e.g., feminist theory, evolutionary theory), the confluence model asserts that there are two primary pathways to sexual violence perpetration: (1) Adolescent delinquency and impersonal sex (that result from early risk factors such as child abuse) and (2) attitudes accepting of hostile masculinity and aggression. This and other theories posit that it is a combination of more distal, early life experiences (especially victimization and trauma) and the formation of several different types of attitudes that increase sexual violence perpetration propensity. Indeed, one of the challenges of focusing on perpetrators as the target audience for prevention is the number of potential risk factors to be addressed, which often conflicts with the limited resources for prevention work that restrict the scope of content that can be built into the program.

Correlates and Theories Research has identified a number of individual, relational, cultural, and societal factors that increase or decrease risk for sexual violence perpetration; this has led to the popularity of the social ecological model for organizing our understanding of both etiology and prevention of this problem (Tharp et al., 2013). Individual factors that increase risk for sexual violence perpetration include alcohol and drug use, delinquency, early sexual initiation, attitudes accepting of violence, general aggressive tendencies, coercive sexual fantasies, preference for impersonal sex, sexual risk taking, exposure to and preference for sexually explicit media, hostility towards women, hyper masculinity, adherence to traditional gender roles, and a history of sexual victimization and/or perpetration (Tharp et al., 2013). Relationship factors related to sexual violence perpetration include a violent and/or emotionally unsupportive family environment, history of childhood abuse, poor parent child relationships, and associations with peers who are aggressive, hyper masculine, and/or delinquent (Tharp et al., 2013). Community factors related to sexual violence perpetration include social processes (community ties) and community “accountability cues,” which (McMahon, 2015) describes as policies or well publicized sanctions that are indicators to community members that violence is taken seriously and met with clear negative consequences. For example, variables related to sexual violence perpetration include poverty, lack of employment opportunities, weak community sanctions against sexual violence perpetrators, and general community tolerance of sexual violence (Tharp et al., 2013), and also variables such as the availability of alcohol and the use of sexualized and sexist images in conjunction with alcohol sales (Lippy & DeGue, 2014). Finally, societal factors related to sexual violence perpetration include high rates of other forms of violence, weak laws and policies regarding sexual violence and gender equality, and

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

419

societal norms that support sexual violence, male superiority and entitlement, and women as inferior to men (Tharp et al., 2013). One limitation of this research is that studies of adolescent and adult sexual violence perpetration have been relatively siloed. We have a number of studies of risk factors for sexual violence perpetration for teens and studies of risk factors for sexual violence perpetration among adult samples. Little has been done, however, to examine how these risk factors may shift and change their influence over time. For example, Reyes and colleagues followed students in 8th 12th grades to examine whether the impact of alcohol use was a risk factor for persistent teen dating violence; the researchers found that the association between heavy alcohol use and sexual violence perpetration was less strong among older students compared to younger students (Reyes, Foshee, Bauer, & Ennett, 2012). This is consistent with the recent work by Swartout and colleagues who documented that there were different trajectories of perpetration for subgroups of young men in college who had a history of sexual violence perpetration, with some escalating and some diminishing over time (Swartout, Brennan, & White, 2015). These findings remind us that adolescent sexual violence prevention must use a developmental lens, and different risk factors may need to be the focus of prevention attention at different ages, given that adolescence itself represents a broad array of ages and developmental moments.

Prevention The earliest prevention work had its foundations in trying to change the attitudes of men and boys who might be at risk for perpetration of sexual violence. Programming that targets increasing knowledge and shifting attitudes has been around for decades, but meta analyses suggest these types of programs do not lead to reductions in sexual violence (Anderson & Whiston, 2005) or may have some negative effects (Darnell & Cook, 2009). DeGue and colleagues conducted a comprehensive review of the research literature and concluded that only three prevention initiatives had unequivocally led to reductions in sexual violence (DeGue et al., 2014). These initiatives include Safe Dates, Shifting Boundaries, and the Violence Against Women Act. Safe Dates and Shifting Boundaries specifically target adolescents and are discussed in more detail. Safe Dates is a school-based program for middle and high school students (Foshee & Langwick, 2010). Safe Dates includes a number of components including classroom-based instruction on healthy relationships, effective and respectful communication, warning signs related to dating and sexual violence, activities to shift traditional notions of gender roles, and how to get help for issues related to dating and sexual violence (Foshee & Langwick, 2010). Thus, at the core, this program targets some of the central risk factors for perpetration documented in the literature

420

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

(Foshee & Langwick, 2010). Different iterations of Safe Dates also can include booster doses through newsletters home to students’ families, student engagement in designing and performing skits at school, and holding community training forums to increase community capacity for responding to dating violence including sexual violence (Foshee & Langwick, 2010). Research on this program have shown that it decreases sexual violence and dating violence perpetration among adolescents (Foshee et al., 1996, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005). Mediators of behavioral outcomes include changes in dating violence norms, gender role norms, and awareness of community services. Moreover, findings suggested that Safe Dates worked equally as well for boys and girls and for all races/ethnicities (Foshee et al., 1996, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2005). The Shifting Boundaries program was evaluated in middle schools; results suggested that classroom-based educational sessions on healthy relationships and understanding violence was not effective in decreasing sexual violence perpetration. However, school-wide prevention strategies including identifying particularly at risk locations and diverting more adult monitoring to those locations, improving violence response policies as strong cues for accountability, and school wide social marketing materials about sexual violence and harassment did result in reductions of sexual violence perpetration (Taylor, Stein, Mumford, & Woods, 2013). More recently, programs with adolescents and late adolescents/early adults (in college samples) have sought to expand the range of risk factors that are the focus of prevention work beyond attitudes specific to sexual violence and relationship behaviors to other proximal variables identified in perpetration research. For example, work conducted in both United States and international contexts has focused on improving social norms related to gender and masculinity to promote more gender equitable norms and attitudes (Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 2015; Katz, Heisterkamp, & Fleming, 2011). Other prevention efforts, evaluated primarily with college men, have worked to change misperceptions men have of how much their peers support sexual violence prevention and how much their peers frown upon the use of coercion in relationships (Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, & Stark, 2003; Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011). Also at the relational level of the social ecological model are efforts to implement prevention through key adult relationships in the lives of youth and emerging adults such as coaches (Kroshus, Paskus, & Bell, 2015). The most well known of these efforts is Coaching Boys to Men, a program that trains high school coaches to teach their athletes about dating violence and sexual violence prevention and respect in relationships. Coaching Boys to Men increased positive actionist behavior (see below, for a fuller discussion of this form of prevention) and changed some risky attitudes (Miller et al., 2012, 2013). Moreover, Coaching Boys to Men reduced some forms of

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

421

dating violence perpetration, but sexual violence perpetration was not measured, specifically (Miller et al., 2012, 2013). Other prevention efforts have had more success by focusing on the broader context in which perpetrators may try to act to prevent these behaviors. For example, studies of college campuses found that reductions in the availability of alcohol were associated with declines in sexual violence (Lippy & DeGue, 2014). These lines of inquiry are promising, but more research is needed. Reviews like those by DeGue and Lundgren point out that few evaluation studies measure perpetration as a behavioral outcome. Most studies are done in well resourced, developed countries, and few use strategies that address many different risk factors for perpetration across parts of the ecological model simultaneously.

Sexual Violence Victimization Overview A second point of entry, or target audience for prevention work, focuses on potential victims. This was also a foundational approach to rape prevention. A challenge of this focus is that perpetrators are solely responsible for sexual violence, and both researchers and practitioners have raised legitimate concerns about how a focus on victims in education and skill building efforts has a strong potential to blame victims for assaults. In the past two decades, however, important advances have been made in this work, framing these strategies as an important and potentially empowering corollary to primary prevention methods to reduce perpetrator behavior. Primarily, this work has been done with late adolescents and emerging adults in college but internationally some programs are showing very positive results with high school girls. A strength of this approach is that it does give girls, who are disproportionately the victims of sexual violence, tools that they can use to try to resist an assault if they become an unwitting target of a perpetrator, to feel like they can try to take action, while also providing very clear training in messages that sexual violence is never the fault of the victim. Thus, the strategies try to empower women and girls through risk reduction strategies and work to inoculate women and girls against social norms that lead to high levels of self blame among victims if they do, through no fault of their own, encounter a perpetrator and are assaulted. Correlates and Theories Several theories have been used to organize risk and protective factors for sexual victimization. For example, emotion regulation theories suggest that dysregulated emotional states (e.g., alexithymia) increase risk for sexual violence victimization. Factors that mediate this relationship are deficits in risk recognition and lack of effective responses to risk (e.g., not exiting

422

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

a dangerous situation); Cloitre & Rosenberg, 2006; Walsh, DiLillo, & Messman Moore, 2012). Cognitive ecological theory asserts that women’s response to sexual violence situations is impacted by cognitive processing of environmental cues (i.e., primary and secondary appraisals) (Nurius, 2000; Nurius & Norris, 1996). Primary appraisals involve identification (or lack thereof) that a situation is dangerous (Nurius & Norris, 1996). For a number of reasons (e.g., alcohol), risk cues may be ignored. Secondary appraisals include the process of weighing the cost and benefits of responding to a perceived threat. Individuals may not react assertively (scream for help physically push the perpetrator away) because they perceive that the social consequences (e.g., social rejection) outweigh the benefits to responding (Nurius & Norris, 1996). Consistent with these theories, research suggests that certain, modifiable risk factors place women at increased risk for experiencing a sexual violence, specifically (1) deficits in recognizing risk in potential perpetrators and situations in which sexual violence is likely to occur, (2) difficulties in responding assertively to unwanted sexual advances from men, and (3) lack of engagement in self protective behaviors (Gidycz, McNamara, & Edwards, 2006; Gidycz, Van Wynsberghe, & Edwards, 2008). Thus, enhancing protective factors to decrease victimization risk includes heightening perceptions of risk to help women and girls get out of escalating situations, teach tools and skills for exiting risky situations safely as much as possible, and teaching strong messages that work against victim blame if an assault occurs.

Risk Reduction Programming Several researchers have documented the effectiveness of empowerment and feminist-based rape resistance programs among emerging adults in college. Charlene Senn and her colleagues evaluated a 12-hour program entitled Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA). EAAA includes ample opportunity for verbal and physical resistance training and practice, while underscoring that blame for sexual violence lies solely with the perpetrator. Results from a rigorous evaluation of EAAA suggested that this program reduced sexual violence by about 50% (completed rape) to 66% (attempted rape). Other researchers have documented similar promising findings, specifically that feminist self defense training reduces rates of sexual violence, although some research suggests that that this type of programming is more effective for women without histories of sexual victimization than women with histories of sexual victimization (Gidycz et al., 2001, 2015; Gidycz, Rich, Orchowski, King, & Miller, 2006; Hollander, 2014, 2015; Marx, Calhoun, Wilson, & Meyerson, 2001; Orchowski, Gidycz, & Raffle, 2008). Internationally, a few studies are among the only research to examine risk reduction and rape resistance education as a prevention tool for high

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

423

school girls. Although sexual violence is a global health issue, rates of sexual violence are among the highest in Nairobi’s (Kenya) informal settlements (“slums,” i.e., communities with extreme poverty, high crime, minimal infrastructure, and unsanitary living conditions such as minimal running water and electricity). Indeed, 12% 25% of girls in informal settlements of Nairobi are victims of sexual violence each year (Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya, 2008; Kenya Nation Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) & ICF Macro, 2010). Recent research documented that IMpower, an empowermentbased self-defense course, reduces the sexual violence rate by over 40% among adolescent girls living in informal settlements in Nairobi (Sarnquist et al., 2014; Sinclair et al., 2013). IMpower consists of six 2-hour sessions taught by local women (Ujamaa Africa’s instructors from the informal settlements in which they are teaching) and emphasizes empowerment, verbal negotiation and de-escalation skills, and self-defense (Sarnquist et al., 2014). We are unaware of any studies in the United States that have rigorously evaluated an empowerment-based self-defense course among high school age girls.

Positive Actionists in Sexual Violence Situations Overview The third entry point for prevention is relatively new and focuses on training individuals to challenge norms that condone sexual violence, interrupt situations of escalating risk to prevent sexual violence, and support sexual violence survivors after an assault (Banyard, 2015b; Banyard et al., 2016; Edwards, Rodenhizer Sta¨mpfli, & Eckstein, 2015). One of the strongest features of this approach is that it gives everyone a role to play in sexual violence prevention and reduces defensiveness to messages (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). Termed “bystander intervention,” work in this area has historically been guided by the framework proposed by Latane and Darley (1970), and more recently has been adapted for sexual violence (Banyard, 2011) to include relational and community factors that may impact actionists. It was brought into the field of sexual violence prevention in work by Katz and Berkowitz 20 years ago (Berkowitz, 2002; Katz, 1995). Since then, there has been a burgeoning interest in actionist training, and a number of sexual violence prevention initiatives have been created that are grounded in or incorporate actionist training. Correlates and Theories Actionists are individuals who are adults, peers, parents, and/or community members who are not themselves perpetrators or victims but witness some aspect of a sexual violence incident or escalating risk for an incident. Originally studied as people who, during an emergency situation,

424

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

stand by and do nothing, for those focused on sexual violence prevention, the bystander term itself is limited, as it often brings to mind passive observers who turn their back and choose not to help. In our discussion below we introduce the term “actionists” to signify observers who choose to step in or take some action to show that sexual violence is not accepted and that victims should be supported and believed (Banyard, 2015b). There is a rich and growing literature on what variables make it more likely that an actionist will step in across the continuum of sexual violence risk. The foundation was set by Latane and Darley’s model that describes stages or pieces of the action process (Latane´ & Darley, 1970). They asserted that taking action involves first noticing the situation as problematic, assuming responsibility to do something about it, creating a course of action for what must be done, and lastly, choosing to act. Banyard (2011) expanded this model and suggested that intrapersonal variables (e.g., gender and attitudes towards violence) and contextual variables (e.g., closeness to the victim, severity of the situation) may also impact actionists in situations of sexual violence (Banyard, 2015a; Bennett, Banyard, & Edwards, 2015). Possessing the knowledge and skills to intervene effectively is also essential. Actionists must notice risky situations, label them as problematic, take responsibility for doing something, and overcome barriers to intervention to actually take action. This model and its expansion has been the subject of many empirical studies. Research has documented a number of factors that relate to taking action in situations of violence. Individual factors that increase the likelihood of action include being a female, possessing less accepting attitudes towards violence, greater victim empathy, and more confidence to intervene (Banyard, 2011, 2015a). Relationship factors related to positive actionism include peer group norms that support helping behaviors, adults like teachers and coaches indicating support for actionists, and modeling disapproval of coercive behaviors (Banyard, 2011, 2015a). Extending to outer realms of the social-ecological model, action is more likely to happen in communities characterized by high levels of collective efficacy, which consists of the social bonds and ties that can enable neighbors or groups of people to work together to form shared goals and collaboratively achieve them (Banyard, 2011; Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Edwards, 2015a; Edwards, Mattingly, Dixon, & Banyard, 2014; Frye, 2007). To date, most research on actionists has focused on college students, and less so on middle and high school youth. We know that there are developmental similarities and differences across the ages of adolescence and emerging adulthood in terms of correlates of actionist mobilization. For example, Edwards et al. (2015) documented via focus groups that there were factors that both facilitated (e.g., victim at risk for serious harm) and hindered (e.g., getting involved with “drama”) helping in situations of dating and

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

425

sexual violence. Edwards and colleagues also documented that “hot spots” (e.g., school buses, house parties) for dating and sexual violence were locations in which there were the most opportunities for helping in addition to specific ways in which youth helped (e.g., causing a distraction, directly confronting perpetrators). Other research has examined school personnel as individuals who can be actionists to prevent sexual violence among youth. In a qualitative study with 22 high school personnel researchers documented that school personnel intervened both during (e.g., breaking up fights between dating partners) and after (e.g., comforting victims) instances of teen sexual violence (Edwards, Rodenhizer Stampfli, & Eckstein, 2016). Furthermore, in another study with school personnel, researchers found that actions in situations of teen dating and sexual violence were more likely to occur when selfreported barriers to these actions were perceived to be low(Edwards, Banyard, Sessarego, & Mitchell, 2017b).

Actionist Focused Prevention Prevention strategies that aim to increase actionists and improve their prevention of sexual violence are increasing. These programs take many forms including online modules, in person training workshops, social marketing campaigns, and interactive theater (Banyard et al., 2007; Cares et al., 2015; Jouriles et al., 2016; McMahon, Postmus, Warrener, & Koenick, 2014; Moynihan et al., 2015; Potter, 2012). These programs have differences but often share core elements that map onto the research about what makes it more likely that actionists will step in including building knowledge of warning signs and risk factors, so that actionists will know a risky situation when they see it, modeling and discussing more positive social norms that show that everyone has a role to play in ending sexual violence, and teaching specific skills to build an actionists’ toolkit for intervening. Most of the evaluation of actionist training efforts has been with emerging adults on college campuses, and the outcomes show promise for increasing rates of positive actionist behavior when there is risk for sexual violence. With the exception of two studies, one with college men and one with full campuses, the outcomes measured have mainly been actionist behavior to intervene in situations of sexual violence, rather than measuring actual reductions in rates of sexual violence perpetration or victimization (Coker et al., 2014, 2016; Gidycz et al., 2011). Although findings were somewhat mixed and more rigorous research methodologies are needed, results from the several studies that measured sexual violence suggested that actionist focused programming may be effective at reducing rates of sexual violence among emerging adults. Actionist mobilization has also been used with younger populations of adolescents. Four programs appear in the evaluation literature with a specific bystander focus that are tailored to high school students: Coaching Boys to

426

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Men (Miller et al., 2012), Mentors in Violence Prevention (Katz et al., 2011), Green Dot (Coker et al., 2017), and the Bringing in the Bystander High School (Edwards, Banyard, Mitchell, & Sessarego, 2017a; Leyva & Eckstein, 2015). Again, many of the promising outcomes are that these programs increase positive actionist behaviors to interrupt risky situations, support survivors, and to model social norms that show violence will not be tolerated. Green Dot, however, has been evaluated and found to lead to reductions in rates of sexual violence among high school youth (Coker et al., 2017),

Key Ingredients of Effective Prevention Across prevention programing that targets potential perpetrators, potential victims, and potential actionists, it is critical to identify ingredients that make programs effective. Researchers have identified key characteristics of efficacious prevention programming, and much of this knowledge comes from the broader field of prevention science (Banyard, 2015b; Crooks, Jaffe, Wolfe, Hughes, & Chiodo, 2010; Crooks, Scott, Ellis, & Wolfe, 2011; Edwards, Neal, & Rodenhizer Sta¨mpfli, in press; Mihalic, Fagan, Irwin, Ballard, & Elliott, 2002; Nation et al., 2003). Research is clear that prevention initiatives are more likely to be effective if they are grounded in theory and research on the etiology of the targeted health behavior (Edwards et al., in press; Nation et al., 2003). Moreover, prevention initiatives are most effective if they are sufficiently dosed, comprehensive, multilevel, developmentally appropriate, culturally relevant, provide opportunities for skill building, and include highly trained facilitators/instructors (Banyard, 2015b; Crooks et al., 2010, 2011; Edwards et al., in press; Mihalic et al., 2002; Nation et al., 2003).

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE PRIORITIES Our understanding of sexual violence prevention has substantially increased over the past few decades. Not only have we begun to identify best practices for sexual violence prevention but several prevention initiatives have also demonstrated reductions in rates of sexual violence. In fact, reductions in rates of sexual violence have been associated with programs that target potential perpetrators, potential victims, and potential actionists. These findings in conjunction with myriad risk and protective factors for sexual violence underscore the need for comprehensive sexual violence prevention. There are two dimensions to a comprehensive sexual violence prevention approach: (1) dosage (i.e., programming initiatives that have multiple sessions) and (2) inclusivity of myriad strategies and content (i.e., targeting risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration, victimization, and bystander non action). First—dosage—whereas current sexual violence prevention approaches show some promise in changing the risk and

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

427

protective factors associated with sexual violence, the effects of single programs tend to dissipate over short term follow up periods, with few programs being associated with reductions in rates of sexual violence. Because programs are often only a few hours in length, there is also question as to whether the dosage of current sexual violence prevention efforts is sufficient to engender lasting change in desired outcomes. Second—strategy and content—it seems logical to conclude that the next step in advancing the science and practice of sexual violence prevention is to develop and evaluate a more intensive and comprehensive prevention package that incorporates multiple approaches, including those that target potential perpetrators (via social norms and healthy masculinity programming), potential victims (via feminist empowerment self-defense trainings), and potential actionists (via bystander trainings). This assertion is consistent with a large body of efficacy research noting that increased doses of an intervention lead to enhanced outcomes, and that a combination of interventions should increase effectiveness (Banyard, Weber, Grych, & Hamby, 2015; DeGue, 2014; Edwards et al., 2015; Nation et al., 2003; Taylor et al., 2013). Each approach is uniquely justified, targets a complimentary array of modifiable risk and protective factors for sexual violence, and has promising efficacy in promoting positive change in desired outcomes. Thus, a prevention package that integrates these three components will likely be more effective at reducing sexual violence than any of the individual components alone. Research is needed to understand how to best implement comprehensive sexual violence prevention programs. Whereas a comprehensive and intensive prevention package that combines multiple programming strategies is most likely to lead to long lasting reductions in the rates of sexual violence, little is known about the most optimal way to deliver comprehensive sexual violence prevention and the gap between implementation of sexual violence prevention in the context of a carefully controlled study with research resources to rigorously implement and evaluate the program, and actual implementation of the same program in the real world context of schools and communities is vast and well documented (Noonan et al., 2009). Also, given that sexual violence prevention initiatives have overlapping components (e.g., addressing victim blaming attitudes in both bystander trainings and feminist empowerment self-defense training), comprehensive prevention programming would need to be streamlined in order to avoid redundancy which could impact program participant adherence. Moreover, more rigorous methodologies such as dismantling designs are needed to determine which components of programs are driving change. In a time of limited resources, this type of information is critical for communities to know when making decisions about which sexual violence prevention initiatives to implement. More research is also needed on the optimal ordering of various prevention components (Potter et al., 2015). For example, which component is the

428

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

best frontline approach? Although it is plausible that the ordering of intervention components always matter, it also is feasible that ordering may only matter for some individuals depending on their profile of risk and protective factors. These are important and practical questions that have yet to be addressed within the sexual violence prevention field. Researchers have highlighted the utility of identifying the optimal ordering of prevention strategies in order to maximize program impact (Banyard, 2013); noting that it is important to identify the ordering of intervention components that maximize program impact. Key theories of health behavior and attitude change also lend support for considering the optimal ordering of intervention components. For example, theories of readiness for change describe how it is important to first move individuals to a stage of awareness and recognition of the personal relevance of an issue, which subsequently should lead to a sense of responsibility for enacting change. Next, individuals should develop specific skill sets and a sense of confidence in enacting those skills, and finally, enact the behaviors and endorse a new set of attitudes (Banyard, Eckstein, & Moynihan, 2010). Therefore, it is logical to conclude that various sexual violence prevention strategies should be ordered in a manner capitalizing on these stages of change. Part of this ordering is considering prevention across the full age spectrum of adolescence and emerging adulthood. We need answers to questions like what impact does it have if middle school students receive effective sexual violence prevention programming when they enter high school and are again exposed to prevention messages? What is the best sequencing of sexual violence prevention content to connect with middle school students, then build on this training in high school and ultimately in college?

Final Thoughts In summary, the past few decades have witnessed an exciting surge of research on the etiology of sexual violence in adolescence and emerging adulthood and on strategies to prevent sexual violence. It is a good moment to reflect on the strengths of this work and lessons learned. There have been promising reductions in sexual violence related to programs that focus on risk factors for perpetration and empowering risk reduction for potential victims. The added focus on actionists has reduced defensiveness to sexual violence prevention messages and expanded conversations about and buy in for prevention efforts. But ongoing surveillance data make clear that we are still a long way from reaching a goal of preventing sexual violence in this at risk age group. Future solutions will come from comprehensive approaches that combine promising strategies researched to date, and from the use of new research designs to answer questions about important key ingredients for effective prevention.

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

429

REFERENCES Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., Zawacki, T., Clinton, A. M., & Buck, P. O. (2001). Attitudinal, experiential, and situational predictors of sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(8), 784 807. Anderson, L. A., & Whiston, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 374 388. Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1(3), 216 229. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/a0023739. Banyard, V. L. (2013). Go big or go home: Reaching for a more integrated view of violence prevention. Psychology of Violence, 3(2), 115 120. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0032289. Banyard, V. L. (2015a). Bystander action coils: Moving beyond the situational model toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence (pp. 53 75). Springer International Publishing. Banyard, V. L. (2015b). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities (1st Ed). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14(9), 998 1013. Banyard, V. L., Eckstein, R. P., & Moynihan, M. M. (2010). Sexual violence prevention: The role of stages of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(1), 111 135. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463 481. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159. Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1), 61 79. Available from https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078. Banyard, V. L., Weber, M. C., Grych, J., & Hamby, S. L. (2015). Where are the helpful bystanders? Ecological niche and victims’ perceptions of bystander intervention. Journal of Community Psychology, in press. Banyard, V. L., Weber, M. C., Grych, J., & Hamby, S. (2016). Where are the helpful bystanders? Ecological niche and victims’ perceptions of bystander intervention. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(2), 214 231. Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. (2014). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 2.0. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bennett, S., Banyard, V. L., & Edwards, K. (2015). The impact of the bystander’s relationship with the victim and the perpetrator on intent to help in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. [in press]. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/26037814. Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In P. A. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 163 196). Washington: American Psychological Association. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NVSVS):

430

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

2010 summary report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Townsend, R., Hyunshik, L., Bruce, C., & Thomas, G. (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Retrieved from Washington: https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/AAU_Publications/AAU_Reports/ Sexual_Assault_Campus_Survey/Report%20on%20the%20AAU%20Campus%20Climate %20Survey%20on%20Sexual%20Assault%20and%20Sexual%20Misconduct.pdf. Cares, A. C., Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Williams, L. M., Potter, S. J., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence translating an in person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 165 187. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Sexual violence prevention: Beginning the dialogue. Retrieved from Atlanta: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ svprevention-a.pdf. Cloitre, M., & Rosenberg, A. (2006). Sexual revictimization: Risk factors and prevention. In V. C. Follette, & J. I. Ruzek (Eds.), Cognitive behavioral therapies for trauma (2nd ed, pp. 321 361). New York: The Guilford Press. Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Cook Craig, P. G., DeGue, S. A., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J., & Recktenwald, E. A. (2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 566 578. Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2016). Multi college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 295 302. Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2014). Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1507 1527. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284. Crooks, C. V., Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., Hughes, R., & Chiodo, D. (2010). School based dating violence prevention. Sourcebook on violence against women (p. 327) London: Sage. Crooks, C. V., Scott, K., Ellis, W., & Wolfe, D. A. (2011). Impact of a universal school based violence prevention program on violent delinquency: Distinctive benefits for youth with maltreatment histories. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(6), 393 400. Available from https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.03.002. Dahlberg, L. L., & Krug, E. G. (2002). Violence: A global public health problem. In E. G. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, & R. Lozano (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 1 22). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2014). An examination of the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 136 152. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013517559. Darnell, D. A., & Cook, S. L. (2009). Investigating the utility of the film War Zone in the prevention of street harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 266 274. Davis, K. C., Stoner, S. A., Norris, J., George, W. H., & Masters, N. T. (2009). Women’s awareness of and discomfort with sexual assault cues: Effects of alcohol consumption and relationship type. Violence Against Women, 15(9), 1106 1125. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1077801209340759. DeGue, S. (2014). Preventing sexual violence on college campuses: Lessons from research and practice. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta.

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

431

DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346 362. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.avb.2014.05.004. Edwards, K. M. (2015a). Intimate partner violence and the rural urban suburban divide myth or reality? A critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16, 359 373. Edwards, K. M. (2015b). Incidence and outcomes of dating violence victimization among high school youth: The role of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1 19. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515618943. Edwards, K. M., Banyard, V. L., Mitchell, K. J., & Sessarego, S. N. (2017a). Evaluating a bystander focused relationship abuse and sexual assault prevention program with high school youth: A cluster randomized control trial. Manuscript in preparation. Edwards, K. M., Banyard, V. L., Sessarego, S. N., & Mitchell, K. J. (2017b). School personnel’s bystander action in situations of teen relationship abuse and sexual assault: Prevalence and correlates. Manuscript in preparation. Edwards, K. M., Mattingly, M. J., Dixon, K. J., & Banyard, V. L. (2014). Community matters: Intimate partner violence among rural young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1 2), 198 207. Edwards, K. M., Neal, A. M., & Rodenhizer Sta¨mpfli, K. A. (invited book chapter in press). Domestic violence prevention. In B.T. Bradley, & M.S. Bradley (Eds.), Preventing crime and violence: Springer Press. Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer Stampfli, K., & Eckstein, R. P. (2016). School staffs’ perceptions of bystander intervention in situations of dating and sexual violence among high school youth: A qualitative analysis. Manuscript under review. Retrieved from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260517698821. Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer Sta¨mpfli, K. A., & Eckstein, R. P. (2015). Bystander action in situations of dating and sexual aggression: a mixed methodological study of high school youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2321 2336. Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003). Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52(3), 105 112. Available from https://doi. org/10.1080/07448480309595732. Federation of Women Lawyers in Kenya. (2008). Gender based domestic violence in Kenya. Retrieved from: http://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/dashboard/wp-content/uploads/Genderbased-violence-in-Kenya.pdf. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates: An adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45 50. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T. S., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 619 624. Available from https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.94.4.619. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T. S., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245 258. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0007-0.

432

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F., Koch, G. G., Linder, G. F., & MacDougall, J. E. (2000). The Safe Dates Program: 1-year follow up results. American Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 1619 1622. Foshee, V. A., & Langwick, V. L. (2010). Safe Dates: An adolescent dating abuse prevention curriculum (2nd ed). Center City, MI: Hazeldon. Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., & Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 39 47. Frye, V. (2007). The informal social control of intimate partner violence against women: Exploring personal attitudes and perceived neighborhood social cohesion. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(8), 1001 1018. Gidycz, C. A., Lynn, S. J., Rich, C. L., Marioni, N. L., Loh, C., Blackwell, L. M., & Pashdag, J. (2001). The evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction program: A multisite investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(6), 1073 1078. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.6.1073. Gidycz, C. A., McNamara, J. R., & Edwards, K. M. (2006). Women’s risk perception and sexual victimization: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 441 456. Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. (2011). An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention to prevent sexual aggression among college men. Violence Against Women, 17, 720 742. Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., Probst, D. R., Edwards, K. M., Murphy, M. J., & Tansill, E. C. (2015). Concurrent administration of sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programming: Outcomes for women. Violence Against Women, 21(6), 780 800. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215576579. Gidycz, C. A., Rich, C. L., Orchowski, L. M., King, C. R., & Miller, A. K. (2006). The evaluation of a sexual assault self-defense and risk-reduction program for college women: A prospective study. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 173 186. Available from https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00280.x. Gidycz, C. A., Van Wynsberghe, A., & Edwards, K. M. (2008). Prediction of women’s utilization of resistance strategies in a sexual assault situation: A prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(5), 571 588. Health, U.D.O., & Services, H. (2012). Healthy people 2020: Injury and violence prevention. Hollander, J. (2015). Why isn’t self defense training available to every woman who wants it? Huffington Post. Hollander, J. A. (2014). Does self defense training prevent sexual violence against women? Violence Against Women, 20(3), 252 269. Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 984 994. Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580 1589. Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D., Levy, N., Sargent, K., Caiozzo, C., & Grych, J. H. (2016). TakeCARE, a video bystander program to help prevent sexual violence on college campuses: Results of two randomized, controlled trials. Psychology of Violence, 6(3), 410 434. Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Kawkins, J., Harris, W. A., & Chyen, D. (2014). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ, 63 (Suppl 4), 1 168.

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

433

Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The Mentors in violence prevention project. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 163 175. Katz, J., Heisterkamp, H. A., & Fleming, W. M. (2011). The social justice roots of the mentors in violence prevention model and its application in a high school setting. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 684 702. Kellam, S. G., & Langevin, D. J. (2003). A framework for understanding “evidence” in prevention research and programs. Prevention Science, 4(3), 137 153. Kenya Nation Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) and ICF Macro. (2010). Kenya demographic and health survey 2008 2009. Retrieved from Calverton, MD: www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/ FR229/FR229.pdf. Kroshus, E., Paskus, T., & Bell, L. (2015). Coach expectations about off field conduct and bystander intervention by US college football players to prevent inappropriate sexual behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. online first. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/26390892. Latane´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? New York: Appleton. Leyva, C. P., & Eckstein, R. P. (2015). Bringing in the Bystander—High School Curriculum. Durham: University of New Hampshire. Lippy, C., & DeGue, S. (2014). Exploring alcohol policy approaches to prevent sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1524838014557291. Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 953. Malamuth, N. M., Heavey, C. L., & Linz, D. (1993). Predicting men’s antisocial behavior against women: The interaction model of sexual aggression. In G. C. Nagayama Hall, R. Hirschman, J. R. Graham, & M. S. Zaragoza (Eds.), Sexual Aggression: Issues in Etiology, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 63 97). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., Barnes, G., & Acker, M. (1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 353 369. Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 670. Marx, B. P., Calhoun, K. S., Wilson, A. E., & Meyerson, L. A. (2001). Sexual revictimization prevention: an outcome evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 25 32. McMahon, S. (2015). Call for research on bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The role of campus environments. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(3 4), 472 489. McMahon, S., Postmus, J. L., Warrener, C., & Koenick, R. A. (2014). Utilizing peer education theater for the primary prevention of sexual violence on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 55(1), 78 85. Mihalic, S., Fagan, A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2002). Blueprints for violence prevention replications: Factors for implementation success. Boulder: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., & Silverman, J. G. (2012). “Coaching Boys into Men”: A cluster randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 431 438.

434

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., & Silverman, J. G. (2013). One year follow up of a coach delivered dating violence prevention program: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(1), 108 112. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cares, A. C., Potter, S. J., Williams, L. M., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain one year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1), 110 132. Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6 7), 449. Noonan, R. K., Emshoff, J. G., Mooss, A., Armstrong, M., Weinberg, J., & Ball, B. (2009). Adoption, adaptation, and fidelity of implementation of sexual violence prevention programs. Health Promotion Practice, 10(1 suppl), 59S 70S. Norris, J., Nurius, P. S., & Dimeff, L. A. (1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women’s perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20(1), 123 145. Norris, J., Nurius, P. S., & Graham, T. L. (1999). When a date changes from fun to dangerous: Factors affecting women’s ability to distinguish. Violence Against Women, 5(3), 230 250. Nurius, P. S. (2000). Risk perception for acquaintance sexual aggression: A social cognitive perspective. Aggression Violent Behavior, 5(1), 63 78. Nurius, P. S., & Norris, J. (1996). A cognitive ecological model of women’s response to male sexual coercion in dating. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 8(1 2), 117 139. Nurius, P. S., Norris, J., Young, D. S., Graham, T. L., & Gaylord, J. (2000). Interpreting and defensively responding to threat: Examining appraisals and coping with acquaintance sexual aggression. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 187 208. Orchowski, L. M., Gidycz, C. A., & Raffle, H. (2008). Evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction and self defense program: A prospective analysis of a revised protocol. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 204 218. Available from https://doi.org/10.0361-6843/08. Peterson, C., DeGue, S., Florence, C., & Lokey, C. N. (2017). Lifetime economic burden of rape among US adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine., 52, 691 701. Potter, S., Banyard, V., Stapleton, J., Demers, J., Edwards, K., & Moynihan, M. (2015). It’s not just the what but the how. Durham: University of New Hampshire. Potter, S. J. (2012). Using a multimedia social marketing campaign to increase active bystanders on the college campus. Journal of American College Health, 60(4), 282 295. Rennison, C. M. (2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993 99. Washington: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Bauer, D. J., & Ennett, S. T. (2012). Heavy alcohol use and dating violence perpetration during adolescence: Family, peer and neighborhood violence as moderators. Prevention Science, 13(4), 340 349. Sarnquist, C., Omondi, B., Sinclair, J., Gitau, C., Paiva, L., Mulinge, M., & Maldonado, Y. (2014). Rape prevention through empowerment of adolescent girls. Pediatrics, 133, e1226 e1232. Available from https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-3414. Sinclair, J., Sinclair, L., Otieno, E., Mulinge, M., Kapphahn, C., & Golden, N. H. (2013). A self defense program reduces the incidence of sexual assault in Kenyan adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(3), 374 380. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jadohealth.2013.04.008. Stoner, S. A., Norris, J., George, W. H., Davis, K. C., Masters, N. T., & Hessler, D. M. (2007). Effects of alcohol intoxication and victimization history on women’s sexual assault

Preventing Sexual Violence among Adolescents and Young Adults Chapter | 17

435

resistance intentions: The role of secondary cognitive appraisals. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 344 356. Swartout, K. M., Swartout, A. G., Brennan, C. L., & White, J. W. (2015). Trajectories of male sexual aggression from adolescence through college: A latent class growth analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 41(5), 467 477. Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14(1), 64 76. Tharp, A. T., DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Brookmeyer, K. A., Massetti, G. M., & Matjasko, J. L. (2013). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(2), 133 167. Walsh, K. L., DiLillo, D., & Messman Moore, T. L. (2012). Lifetime sexual victimization and poor risk perception: Does emotion dysregulation account for the links? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(15), 3054 3071. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260512441081. Young, A. M., Grey, M., & Boyd, C. J. (2009). Adolescents’ experiences of sexual assault by peers: Prevalence and nature of victimization occurring within and outside of school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(8), 1072 1083.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 18

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Meagan J. Brem, Autumn R. Florimbio, Hannah Grigorian, Joanna Elmquist, Caitlin Wolford-Clevenger, and Gregory L. Stuart Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States

DEFINITION AND EPIDEMIOLOGY Definitions Dating violence research requires clear, consistent definitions to more accurately identify those at risk, examine rates of violence over time, and aid in prevention and treatment efforts (Hamby, 2017). Current research defines dating violence as the threat or perpetration of violence against a current or former romantic partner (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra, 2015). This definition is not limited by demographic characteristics and includes violence perpetration across factors such as gender and sexuality. This definition of dating violence can be divided into distinct forms including physical, psychological, and sexual (Black et al., 2011). Physical dating violence is defined as the use of deliberate, physical force against a victim that may or may not result in physical injury or death (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelley, 2002). Such acts may include slapping, punching, or choking (Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013). Psychological dating violence is defined as any verbal or behavioral act that has the intention to blame, humiliate, dominate, intimidate, or to threaten one’s partner (Follingstad, Coyne, & Gambone, 2005). This can encompass many possible acts such as verbal threats or isolation of one’s partner from their family and friends (Lawrence, Yoon, Langer, & Ro, 2009). Lastly, sexual coercion within a romantic relationship is defined as any attempted or completed sexual act in which consent was either not given freely or was unable to be given such as in cases of intoxication, unconsciousness, or disability (Basile & Saltzman, 2002). Increasingly, research has begun to expand upon these main typologies of physical, psychological, and sexual coercion to also include categories such

Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00018-9 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

437

438

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

as stalking and cyber abuse, although they share some overlap with existing categorizations. Stalking is defined as unwanted perpetrated harassment or threats that occur in a pattern and cause fear or safety concerns for victims (Walters et al., 2013). However, it is important to note that this definition lacks uniformity in the literature and is largely based on existing legal parameters (Shorey, Cornelius, & Strauss, 2015a). In addition, the requirement of fear or safety concerns overlaps with proposed definitions of physical dating violence (Heyman, Slep, & Foran, 2015). Cyber abuse can include stalking via monitoring or harassment and further encompasses psychological abuse perpetrated through technology including cell phones and social media (Southworth, Finn, Dawson, Fraser, & Tucker, 2007; Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). As a result of this overlap, there is debate as to whether cyber abuse is a distinct form of violence or if it simply falls under the umbrella of psychological dating violence (Borrajo, Ga´mez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015).

Epidemiology Prevalence The prevalence of college dating violence varies significantly depending on the type of violence, the definition of dating violence, and the measures/ questions used to assess college dating violence (Mitchell, 2009). Despite the discrepancies in prevalence, it is well documented that the prevalence of dating violence is a significant problem among college-aged populations, with the frequency of dating violence being the highest during young adulthood (O’Leary, 1999). Specifically, it is estimated that approximately 10% 50% of college students have experienced at least one form of dating violence (Kaukinen, 2014). In terms of the specific forms of dating violence, it is estimated that the prevalence of physical violence victimization among men and women is between 20% and 30% (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008), the prevalence of psychological aggression victimization among men and women is between 70% and 90% (Shorey et al., 2008), and the prevalence of sexual coercion victimization among females is approximately 30% (Shorey et al., 2008) and among males is 12% (Sabrina & Straus, 2008). The prevalence of physical violence perpetration among college students ranges from 20% to 30%, the prevalence of psychological aggression perpetration is approximately 80%, and the prevalence of sexual coercion perpetration ranges from 10% to 20% (Shorey et al., 2008). However, when reporting such prevalence rates of perpetration and victimization, it is important to consider that these percentages are based on measures which include a wide spectrum of interpersonal behaviors ranging from relatively minor to severe acts. Minor acts of perpetration include throwing objects at a partner or shoving a partner, while more severe acts of

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

439

perpetration, for instance, include choking or the use of a weapon such as a gun or a knife. When considering only acts of severe violence, prevalence among college students drops significantly. Extant literature reported that 8% 16% of college students perpetrate severe physical violence, 12% 30% perpetrate severe psychological aggression, and 3% 9% perpetrate severe sexual coercion perpetration annually (Bell & Naugle, 2007; Hines & Saudino, 2003). Victimization rates among college students also differ when solely considering severe acts with 5% 16% reporting severe physical aggression victimization, 23% 27% reporting severe psychological aggression victimization, and 5% 8% reporting severe sexual coercion victimization (Bell & Naugle, 2007; Hines & Saudino, 2003). Men and women perpetrate and are victims of physical and psychological dating violence at comparable rates (Archer, 2000; Taft, Schumm, Orazem, Meis, & Pinto, 2010). In contrast to physical violence, there is gender asymmetry in psychological aggression and sexual coercion perpetration, with women perpetrating psychological aggression at higher rates than men and men perpetrating sexual coercion at higher rates than women (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Stalking behavior within intimate relationships is a comparatively understudied form of dating violence (Shorey et al., 2015a). Prevalence rates are variable across studies, with prevalence rates ranging from 6% to 27% (Shorey et al., 2015a). In a recent descriptive study of stalking behavior within intimate relationships, Shorey et al. (2015a) reported that the prevalence of stalking behaviors was as high as 38%, with males and females only differing on one form of stalking behavior (i.e., leaving unwanted items for a partner).

Consequences of Dating Violence There are a multitude of negative consequences associated with college dating violence. Physical, psychological, and sexual coercion are associated with an increased risk for depression, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and posttraumatic stress disorder (Shorey, McNulty, Moore, & Stuart, 2015b). For instance, in a longitudinal study examining the relationship between dating violence victimization and substance use, Shorey et al. (2008) reported that experiencing dating violence predicted the next day cannabis use. Additionally, in a study examining dating violence among a sample of college students, Wolford-Clevenger et al. (2016) reported that psychological aggression was associated with an increased risk for suicidal ideation among women and physical violence was associated with an increased risk for suicidal ideation among men. Examination of the specific types of dating violence indicates that there is symmetry in consequences across dating violence types (Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012). Furthermore, the severity of consequences increases

440

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

with the incidence of multiple types of violence (Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012). Compared to psychological aggression, physical violence and sexual coercion victimization are associated with more severe physical injuries, such as bruises, burns, and broken bones (Eshelman & Levendosky, 2012). Although victims often report that psychological aggression is more distressing than other forms of aggression, male-to-female physical violence is often more severe than female-to-male physical violence, and is more likely to result in severe physical injuries for women (LanghinrichsenRohling & Capaldi, 2012; Lawrence et al. 2009). Research exploring the negative consequences associated with stalking behaviors has focused exclusively on female victims, thereby limiting an ability to assess consequences of stalking for men (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Furthermore, consequences vary as a function of the duration, frequency, and severity of the stalking behaviors (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Consequences of stalking behaviors include mental health symptoms (e.g., depression, posttraumatic stress disorder), physical injury, avoidance of the stalker, and dropping out of college or switching universities (Hines & Saudino, 2003).

Risk Factors for Dating Violence Given the prevalence of, and negative consequences associated with, college dating violence, identifying the predictors and correlates of college dating violence is of great importance. Witnessing or experiencing violence in the family of origin is a robust risk factor for college dating violence among both men and women (Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008). Substance use is a second important risk factor for dating violence perpetration and victimization (Kaukinen, 2014). For instance, in a longitudinal daily dairy study, Shorey, Stuart, McNulty, & Moore (2014a) demonstrated that heavy alcohol use temporally increases the risk for college dating violence among men. Additionally, in a systematic review of literature examining the relationship between the substance use and dating violence, Shorey and colleagues (2011b) reported a significant relationship between substance use and college dating violence for both men and women. Third, psychopathology and negative mental states, namely depression, anger, and anxiety, have been identified as important risk factors for both dating violence perpetration and victimization (Kaukinen, 2014). Additionally, emotion dysregulation, or difficulty with regulating emotions, has been proposed to be an important risk factor for college dating violence, with theoretical and empirical literature supporting this relationship (Shorey, Rhatigan, Fite, & Stuart, 2011a). Specifically, it is postulated that college students might perpetrate dating violence in order to cope with negative, aversive emotional states (Shorey et al., 2011a). The aforementioned risk factors are correlates of physical violence, psychological aggression, and sexual coercion. However, there are specific

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

441

risk factors for sexual coercion. Robust predictors of sexual coercion include the belief that rape is committed by strangers (Salter, 2003) and acceptance of sexual coercion and rape myths (Thompson, Koss, Kingree, Goree, & Rice, 2011). In terms of stalking behaviors within college dating relationships, relationships characterized by dependence and possession are associated with an increased risk for stalking, particularly if the relationship ends (Hines & Saudino, 2003). Additional risk factors include perpetrators with antisocial, histrionic, or borderline personality traits and perpetrators with insecure attachment (Hines & Saudino, 2003).

THEORY AND CAUSES Researchers have yet to agree upon a comprehensive, unifying framework from which to conceptualize college dating violence (Follingstad, Bradley, Laughlin, & Burke, 1999; Shorey et al., 2008). Multiple theories of intimate partner violence have been applied to college dating violence, though few have been empirically tested or applied to college dating violence prevention and intervention programming (Shorey et al., 2008; Whitaker et al., 2006). Prevailing theories can best be understood within an ecological paradigm, which helps researchers, clinicians, and advocates conceptualize risk factors for college dating violence within each ecological level: the microsystem (individuals and their immediate settings), the mesosystem (relations among settings in which the individual is involved), the exosystem (the larger neighborhood and media), and the macrosystem (broad cultural factors; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Though not specific to college dating violence, the following theoretical frameworks have been used to examine causes of intimate partner violence among adults at each ecological level and may be useful for conceptualizing college dating violence.

Individual/Developmental Theories Biological Theories The biological perspective of dating violence focuses on the role of genetics, neurochemistry, and psychophysiological processes in dating violence perpetration (Ali & Naylor, 2013; Pinto et al., 2010). Biological perspectives on dating violence contend that underlying biological abnormalities give rise to various psychological mechanisms that increase the likelihood that dating violence will occur. A majority of research in this domain investigated biological correlates of partner-directed aggression in samples of men arrested for domestic violence and married couples, which limits generalizability to college-aged populations. Nonetheless, biological perspectives gleaned from existing studies may inform future dating violence theories and interventions.

442

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

In their review of biological correlates of partner violence, Pinto et al. (2010) concluded that various biological factors give rise to relationship aggression through abnormal neuropsychological processing and psychiatric mechanisms. For instance, performance deficits on measures of verbal intellectual ability, executive functioning, and attention are associated with psychological and physical aggression perpetration (Pinto et al., 2010). Furthermore, impairment in executive functioning is believed to influence perpetrators’ impulsivity, inhibition, and planning, which may give rise to partner-directed aggression (Pinto et al., 2010). Finally, androgen levels, such as elevated testosterone and low serotonin, were linked to physical aggression perpetration in both men and women (Hermans, Ramsey, & van Honk, 2008; Kaiser & Powers, 2006; Pinto et al., 2010). Heightened levels of testosterone were also linked to various dating violence correlates, including rapid responding to fear- and rage-producing stimuli, alcohol and drug use, and sensation seeking (Pinto et al., 2010). Drawing from these preliminary studies, biological theories of dating violence posited that the association between abnormal androgen levels and dating violence may be mediated by various neuropsychological processes (e.g., impulsivity; Pinto et al., 2010). A growing number of studies linked genetic factors to violence, including intimate partner violence among adults (Hines & Saudino, 2004; Stuart et al., 2014; Stuart, McGeary, Shorey, & Knopik, 2016). In the first study of genetic and environmental influences on intimate partner violence, Hines and Saudino (2004) concluded that genetic influences account for approximately 20% of the variance in psychological and physical intimate partner violence. Of the many genes that may influence partner violence, monoamine oxidase A, a mitochondrial enzyme involved in the metabolism of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine, gained increased attention for its role in traits associated with dating violence, including impulsivity, substance use, antisociality, and general aggression (Pinto et al., 2010). Researchers characterized genetic influences on partner aggression as probabilistic, indicating that genetic polymorphisms likely exert influences on aggressive behavior (e.g., dating violence) through changes in neurotransmitters and neuropeptides, which then influence behaviors associated with dating violence (e.g., impulsivity and substance use; Hines, Malley-Morrison, & Dutton, 2013). Given the limited research in this domain, theories of dating violence and dating violence intervention programming may benefit from further investigation of psychophysiological, genetic, and neurochemical correlates of dating violence among college students.

Attachment Theories The basic premise of attachment theories is that children’s early experiences with caregivers contribute to their expectations about the availability and responsiveness of others and will inform their expectations within other

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

443

important human relationships (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973). These prototypes for relationships remain relatively stable over time and inform individuals’ selection of dating partners. According to this perspective, individuals who experience consistent, responsive caregiving develop secure attachment, have positive feelings toward oneself and others, and are better able to regulate their emotions in response to separation (Bowlby 1969/1982, 1973; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Alternatively, individuals who receive inconsistent, unresponsive, or aversive caregiving develop an insecure attachment style, have negative feelings towards oneself and others, and display poor ability to regulate emotions in response to separation (Bowlby 1969/1982, 1973; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Dutton and colleagues (Dutton, 1994; Dutton & Golant, 1995) conceptualized violent behavior within intimate relationships as stemming from problems in early attachment. These researchers posited that anxiously attached individuals are hypersensitive to cues to the loss of a relationship and convert anxiety about this potential loss into anger and controlling behaviors designed to regain relationship stability. Consistent with this theory, college students’ anxious attachment related to angry temperament, which then related to attempts to control a partner (Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, & Laughlin, 2002). Research grounded in attachment theory also indicated that college men and women who endorsed higher levels of attachment insecurity were more likely to experience dating violence victimization and perpetration (Karakurt, Keiley, & Posada, 2013; Orcutt, Garcia, & Pickett, 2005). Limitations of attachment theories for dating violence are that they offer little explanation for why securely attached individuals perpetrate dating violence, as well as the causal mechanisms by which relationship prototypes facilitate dating violence years later (Shorey et al., 2008).

Social Information Processing/Cognitive Behavioral Theories Social information processing and cognitive behavioral theories of dating violence emphasize the role of the perpetrator’s judgments about behaviors, thoughts, and feelings in dating violence perpetration. The ways in which social cues are processed, interpreted, and assigned meaning will inform how an individual responds to distress, negative affect, frustrations, and disappointment (Crick & Dodge, 1994). According to the social information processing model for aggressive behavior, individuals process information by (1) encoding cues, (2) interpreting cues, (3) clarifying and selecting a goal, (4) developing behavioral response options, (5) choosing a response, (6) anticipating the effect of the response, and (7) enacting the response (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Holtzworth-Munroe, 1992). Individuals with strong abilities in these domains are expected to have well-developed communication, coping, and conflict resolution skills. Alternatively, maladaptive behaviors (e.g., dating violence) can occur if there are deficits in one or more steps of the model.

444

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Consistent with this theory, adults who perpetrated partner violence, relative to adults who did not perpetrate partner violence, evidenced greater negative attributions, generated fewer coping responses during conflict, selected less competent coping responses, and behaved in a more negative manner (Clements & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2008; Holtzworth-Munroe & Anglin, 1991; Tonizzo, Howells, Day, Reidpath, & Froyland, 2000). Among dating college couples, researchers reported that men and women who generated fewer coping responses to conflict were at greater risk for dating violence victimization (Setchell, Fritz, & Glasgow, 2016). Women whose partners generated fewer coping response alternatives were at greater risk for victimization, and men who generated less competent coping responses were at greater risk for perpetration (Setchell et al., 2016). Similarly, data gleaned from undergraduate men and women who watched a video vignette of a male sexually advancing towards a female partner revealed that men and women differed across all social information processing stages (i.e., causal interpretation, intent interpretation, emotional reaction, goal clarification, and response decision; Ambrose & Gross, 2016). These researchers concluded that sexual decision-making among college students, particularly in the context of sexual dating violence, may be limited by men’s and women’s differing perceptual biases and emotional reactivity (Ambrose & Gross, 2016). Criticisms of social information processing theory as it relates to dating violence include the theory’s lack of account for dual processes in decisionmaking. Specifically, research in this domain has largely ignored the automatic, unconscious, and quick aspects of decision-making and has instead focused primarily on the conscious, effortful decision-making processes that relate to dating violence (e.g., Setchell et al., 2016).

Social Learning Theory Bowlby (1973) introduced social learning theory, which states that behaviors are learned through the observation and imitation of others. Researchers have used this theory to explain dating violence by suggesting that individuals learn aggression targets and aggressive behaviors in much the same way as they learn other behaviors: through imitating others (e.g., parents and significant others) and through patterns of reinforcement and punishment. Sellers, Cochran, and Branch (2005) provide an overview of social learning theory applied to intimate partner violence. According to Sellers et al. (2005), the likelihood of an individual perpetrating violence will be determined by an individual’s (1) exposure to others who perpetrated or endorsed partner violence, (2) endorsement of violence-approving norms and values, and (3) anticipated costs (e.g., fear of arrest, loss of a relationship, or guilt) and rewards (e.g., power, control, and encouragement from others). Similarly, Cochran, Sellers, Wiesbrock, and Palacios (2011) suggested that individuals exposed to intimate partner violence may internalize norms

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

445

associated with intimate partner violence, accept it as normal, and approve of it, thereby offering a theoretical rationale for intimate partner violence victimization as well. The social learning theory for intimate partner violence has gained considerable support through studies documenting the intergenerational transmission of violence. These studies indicated that exposure to violence in one’s family of origin (e.g., witnessing or experiencing violence) is predictive of intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization among college men and women (Gover et al., 2008; Karakurt et al., 2013). In a 20-year longitudinal study, Ehrensaft et al. (2003) reported that children exposed to violence in their families of origin were at increased risk of violence perpetration in early adulthood. Although these researchers did not examine sexual dating violence, Carr and VanDeusen (2002) reported that attitudes supporting intimate partner violence, but not exposure to interparental violence, predicted college men’s sexual dating violence. Despite a wealth of data supporting the application of social learning theory to dating violence, research on the intergenerational transmission of violence was criticized for not accounting for genetic influences. While this theoretical model evidenced some utility for predicting dating violence among college students, Luthra and Gidycz (2006) indicated that the model is only able to accurately classify male dating violence perpetrators 30% of the time, suggesting that additional factors influence the trajectory of dating violence.

Microsystem Theories Stress Theory Stress theory proposes that a person is at increased risk for committing a crime, such as dating violence, when he or she is unable to meet cultural or interpersonal expectations due to forces outside of his or her control (Merton, 1938). According to this theory, an individual attempts to adapt to the strain and stress of his or her environment, which may include behaving in socially inappropriate ways to achieve a socially approved goal (e.g., achieving economic security). Researchers proposed that dating violence is one such behavior in which an individual may engage in an attempt to achieve goal fulfilment (Moynihan & Banyard, 2008). College students may experience stress in relation to academic expectations, financial limitations, gender role expectations, and pressure to achieve and maintain intimate relationships. According to this theory, violence may be directed towards a perceived source of uncontrollable stress or may be displaced onto a vulnerable target, in an attempt to regain control of one’s circumstances (Moynihan & Banyard, 2008). Mason and Smithey (2012) reported that life stress, length of time within an intimate relationship, hours worked, and academic strain positively related

446

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

to psychological, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration. Similarly, college men’s gender role stress significantly related to their dating violence perpetration (Mcdermott & Lopez, 2013). Stress related to the experience of being a racial or sexual minority can also contribute to increased distress and dating violence. For instance, college students who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning who endorsed high minority stress (i.e., internalized homonegativity and identity concealment) reported more frequent physical and sexual dating violence perpetration (Edwards & Sylaska, 2013). One criticism of stress theory as it relates to college dating violence is that researchers assume individuals aspire for the same cultural goals centered on high economic security, occupational success, and long-term intimate relationships. Furthermore, stress theory may overemphasize the role of socioeconomic class in deviant behaviors (e.g., dating violence).

Exosystem Theories Sociocultural Theories According to these theories, individuals who are embedded in a community and peer group supportive of violence will be at an increased risk of dating violence perpetration (Hines et al., 2013). Thus, it is important to consider factors specific to college communities, as well as each institution individually, when considering the risk of dating violence among students. Institution type, including structure and student body makeup, influences student, faculty, and staff attitudes towards dating violence perpetration and intervention (Voth Shrag, 2017). Additionally, sociocultural theories of dating violence propose that structural forms of violence such as racism and classism may influence violence-condoning attitudes within college communities and explain the disproportionate sexual and physical dating violence among college women of color (Voth Shrag, 2017). Research supports an association between community-level factors (e.g., neighborhood violence and other public displays of physical violence) and men’s college dating violence perpetration (Raghavan, Rajah, Gentile, Collado, & Kavanagh, 2009). Some researchers proposed that witnessing violence within the community and receiving support from peers for violence normalizes violence as an effective means of conflict resolution (Raghavan et al., 2009). Indeed, college men who affiliated with delinquent peers, or peers who perpetrated dating violence, were at an increased risk for dating violence perpetration (Silverman & Williamson, 1997). Furthermore, participation in Greek life may increase the risk of dating violence through group norms that support violence and perpetuate rape myths within this subcommunity (Boyle & Walker, 2016; Franklin, 2016).

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

447

Research informed by sociocultural theories for dating violence among college students is scant. Furthermore, these theories remain limited in their ability to predict which individuals will perpetrate dating violence

Macrosystem Theories Feminist Theory Feminist theory for dating violence proposes that dating violence is largely a gendered problem. That is, feminist theory suggests that patriarchy, or the system of male power within society, perpetuates male-dominant attitudes and behaviors that facilitate violence towards women (Dobash & Dobash, 1992). Similarly, the feminist perspective is that rape and sexual violence on college campuses is not motivated by sexual gratification; rather, sexual violence is motivated by control and domination (Jasinski, 2001). This theory argues that a male-dominated social structure teaches men and women gender-specific roles and behaviors; it is through this ideology that male dominance is maintained and women’s access to resources remains limited (Jasinski, 2001). Based on the feminist perspective, men are traditionally the perpetrators of violence, whereas women are the victims (Shorey et al., 2008). These attitudes are theorized to account for both men’s and women’s acceptance of violence towards women. For instance, men who felt stress as a result of gender-role expectations were at an increased risk for perpetrating physical dating violence (Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002). Men who were more egalitarian perpetrated less physical dating violence towards female partners and were less likely to be victimized by dating violence perpetration (Fitzpatrick, Salgado, Suvak, King, & King, 2004). These findings suggest that cultural gender-role expectations may influence dating violence indirectly by increasing college men’s experience of stress and the need to fulfill masculine social roles. Whereas research supported an association between sexist attitudes and beliefs and intimate partner violence perpetration among adults (Flynn, 1990), feminist-based research among college students produced different results. Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, and Ryan (1992) reported that college men who endorsed sexist beliefs (e.g., there are some jobs women just should not have) were less likely to perpetrate violence towards women. Similarly, Nabors and Jasinski (2009) found that gendered, violence-related attitudes were not strong predictors of college female- or male-perpetrated dating violence. Instead, dating violence research among college students suggested that power and control dynamics between men and women, as opposed to men’s efforts to control women, may better predict college dating violence (Straus, 2008). Indeed, there is an increased risk of college men’s dating violence, college women’s dating violence, and bidirectional dating violence

448

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

whenever there is dominance of one partner (either male or female) over the other (Straus, 2008). Other criticisms of feminist theory for dating violence include poor ability to account for female-perpetrated violence and lack of applicability to dating violence among gay and lesbian partners.

Summary A growing body of research examined correlates of college dating violence across ecological levels. Yet, investigators have yet to develop an integrative, empirically validated framework from which to conceptualize college dating violence. Efforts to develop and implement efficacious prevention and intervention programs on college campuses would benefit from a theory that incorporates risk factors across ecological levels.

TREATMENT AND PREVENTION With the passage of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act in 2013, colleges and universities are now required to provide education on sexual and dating violence prevention. Given these legal mandates as well as the devastating effects of dating violence on young adults, recent research focused on developing a number of dating violence prevention and intervention programs. However, prevention research to date failed to demonstrate lasting behavior change and is inundated with methodological limitations (Shorey et al., 2012). First, we review prevention and intervention efforts that garnered the most empirical support followed by specific recommendations for developing prevention programs within this population.

Bystander Intervention Programs The primary aim of bystander intervention programs is to provide young adults with the necessary skills and confidence to safely intervene with dating and sexual violence (Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl, 2016). According to the bystander model, both men and women have the capacity and obligation to intervene with violence; when individuals ignore violence, they are implicitly reinforcing the behaviors. In response to the growing evidence that college-based bystander interventions significantly influenced students’ willingness to engage in bystander behavior (Coker et al., 2015), college campuses and college-based organizations (e.g., the National Collegiate Athletic Association) nationwide adopted these programs to protect students from dating and sexual violence (Storer et al., 2016). The Bringing in the Bystander program (Banyard, Moynihan, & Crossman, 2009; Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Moynihan, Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein, & Stapelton, 2010; Moynihan, Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein, & Stapleton, 2011) was extensively

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

449

evaluated across multiple studies using various versions of the program within large college populations as well as subgroups within college settings (e.g., athletes, members of sororities and fraternities, and resident advisors). Bringing in the Bystander’s program provides participants with examples of how to intervene with various violent actions ranging from hearing rapesupportive comments within a peer group to witnessing physical assault in a large social gathering. Students participating in the intervention practice developing a plan for intervening with violence, practice bystander behaviors, identify community resources, and pledge to be an ally to prevent future sexual and dating violence. Sessions consist of either a single 90minute session or a 4.5-hour session; both are accompanied by a booster session at a later date. Although cross-sectional findings suggest Bringing in the Bystander increased students’ self-reported likelihood of using bystander behavior and their confidence in intervening (Banyard et al., 2009; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Moynihan et al., 2011), longitudinal data produced mixed results with regards to actual use of bystander behaviors. College men and women who participated in the 90-minute intervention and a 6-month booster session (i.e., a pro-bystander social marketing campaign) reported higher levels of bystander behaviors towards a friend at 12-month postintervention relative to students who only participated in the booster session (Moynihan et al., 2015). However, bystander behavior decreased between time points, and engagement in bystander behavior towards strangers did not increase among those who reported high opportunities to do so, or among men (Moynihan et al., 2015). Furthermore, whereas Banyard et al. (2007) reported an increase in bystander behavior use 2 months after the intervention, gains were not sustained for 4 or 12 months after intervention, nor were these findings replicated in a subsequent longitudinal study (Moynihan et al., 2010). The Green Dot Active Bystander program (Coker et al., 2011) is a twophase program that includes a 50-minute presentation on the prevalence, causes, and impacts of both sexual and dating violence as well as examples of bystander activities (Phase 1), and an optional, 6-hour “weekend retreat” training course consisting of small group discussions on the topics presented in Phase 1 as well as bystander behavior practice (Phase 2). Coker et al. (2011) collected cross-sectional data during the spring semester from students at a university where the Green Dot active Bystander program had been implemented during the same academic year. Data revealed that students who participated in either phase of the program during the past academic year self-reported higher bystander behavior use than did students who did not participate in the program at all (Coker et al., 2011). Additionally, students who participated in Phase 2 of the intervention selfreported lower levels of rape myths and higher levels of bystander behavior use towards sexual violence than did students who did not receive training during Phase 2. Though evaluation of the Green Dot Active Bystander

450

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

program has several methodological limitations (e.g., this was not a randomized controlled trial) and has not yet produced long-term behavioral outcome data, cross-sectional data suggested that even short-duration presentations can produce bystander behavior change. However, results also indicated that more intensive programmatic efforts may be necessary to produce more robust changes. Furthermore, the Green Dot Active Bystander program is designed to address sexual violence broadly as opposed to sexual violence within dating relationships, and it does not address other types of dating violence (e.g., stalking, and psychological and physical violence). A number of other college-based bystander intervention programs were developed to specifically target bystander behaviors in response to sexual violence. The InterACT Sexual Assault Prevention Program comprised unscripted performances of common bystander scenarios by trained actors and educators who provide suggestions for possible bystander behaviors (Ahrens, Rich, & Ullman, 2011). College-aged audience members selfreported increased likelihood of engaging in bystander behaviors the day after they completed the program. However, 3-month postintervention intentions to use bystander behaviors decreased among women and those who entered the program already endorsing bystander behaviors. Among men who had more moderate views of bystander behaviors prior to the intervention, reported rates of using bystander behaviors increased. One long-standing, evolving, campus-based sexual assault prevention program, The Men’s Program (Foubert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Brasfield, & Hill, 2010; Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Capaldi, 2012) used male educators to target college men’s attitudes and beliefs towards sexual violence, empathy, helping behaviors, and consent. Intervention components included videos of sexual assault, interactive group discussion, and role playing. Though program evaluation was limited to pre- and post-test evaluations as opposed to longitudinal evaluations of behavior change, results revealed that men who participated in the intervention self-reported increased likelihood of using bystander behaviors, increased perception of bystander efficacy, and decreased rape myth acceptance (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Foubert, Brasfield, Hill, & Shelley-Tremblay, 2011). Investigators have yet to determine whether participation in the intervention related to increased bystander behavior use. Another campus-based, sexual assault prevention program, the Men’s Project (Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011), targeted social norms that reinforce rape culture (e.g., unhealthy beliefs and attitudes towards masculinity and consent) through a scripted curriculum for college men. The intervention curriculum includes educational components (e.g., the causes and consequences of sexual violence, and the bystander model), as well as group discussion and role playing bystander behaviors. Results revealed no significant impact of program participation on bystander behaviors or attitudes at 4- or 7-month assessments. Men who participated in the intervention

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

451

reported less sexual aggression perpetration 4 months after the intervention relative to men who did not participate in the intervention, but this difference was not maintained 7 months after the intervention (Gidycz et al., 2011). Notably, at both 4- and 7-month follow-up assessments, men who received the intervention self-reported decreased association with sexually coercive peers and increased perceptions that other men would intervene with sexual violence (Gidycz et al., 2011). Recently, researchers have adapted the bystander approach to sexual violence intervention to be completely web-based (Salazar, Vivolo-Kantor, Hardin, & Berkowitz, 2014). Salazar et al. (2014) randomized undergraduate men to participate in RealConsent, a web-based bystander program consisting of six 30-minute, media-based, and interactive modules (e.g., informed consent, sexual communication skills, the role of alcohol in sexual violence, male socialization in relation to sexual violence, empathy for victims, and bystander models) or a web-based general health program. Men who participated in RealConsent reported less sexual violence perpetration, more frequent bystander intervention, increased knowledge of consent, and less problematic attitudes (e.g., rape myth acceptance, comfort with men’s inappropriate behaviors, hostility towards women, etc.) than did men in the control condition 6 months after intervention participation (Salazar et al., 2014). Though preliminary, results provide support for cost-effective mechanisms by which sexual assault bystander interventions can be implemented across large populations. In sum, bystander intervention programs to date have primarily targeted sexual assault prevention, as opposed to dating violence broadly on college campuses. Furthermore, few of these interventions included longitudinal follow-up assessments; evidence for long-term behavior change stemming from existing approaches (e.g., Bringing in the Bystander, InterACT Sexual Assault Prevention, and The Men’s Project) remains inconclusive (Storer et al., 2016). Together, findings suggest that researchers cannot yet conclude that participation in bystander intervention programs leads to long-term behaviors that reduce dating violence on college campuses, though shortterm changes in problematic attitudes and behaviors may be beneficial.

Brief Motivational Interventions Motivational interviewing (Miller, 1983; Miller & Rollnick, 2002) is a nonconfrontational, empathic intervention approach intended to reduce ambivalence related to behavior change and increase self-efficacy for change. Motivational interviewing demonstrated efficacy in reducing college students’ risky behaviors, including alcohol use (Carey, Carey, Maisto, & Henson, 2006). As such, Woodin and O’Leary (2010) implemented a brief motivational intervention for dating college couples who experienced maleto-female physical dating violence. Couples completed a 2-hour assessment

452

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

session consisting of questionnaires and a conjoint interview. Afterwards, couples were randomly assigned to receive either extensive, individualized motivational feedback or minimal, nonmotivational feedback. Therapists conducted the motivational feedback sessions in an empathic, nonconfrontational manner with each member of the couple while discussing the impact of physical dating violence on the individual as well as the relationship. The motivational feedback included a discussion about risk factors for aggression (e.g., alcohol use) as well as possible behavior change. Statements indicative of motivation to change were reinforced by the therapist. After individualized feedback, the couple completed a 15-minute discussion about the future of their relationship, including concerns they may have about the relationship. The therapist reinforced any motivation to change problematic behaviors expressed by the couple. Results of Woodin and O’Leary’s (2010) brief motivational intervention for dating violence revealed that, compared to the control group, couples who received the brief motivational feedback reported less physical dating violence, harmful alcohol use, acceptance of female-perpetrated psychological aggression, and, among women, less acceptance of male-perpetrated psychological aggression across 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up assessments. Reductions in physical dating violence were predicted by reductions in both psychological aggression and acceptance of psychological aggression (Woodin & O’Leary, 2010). Though preliminary, results of Woodin and O’Leary’s (2010) study suggested that couple-based motivational approaches that incorporate individualized feedback may be efficacious components to future college-based dating violence intervention programs. Efforts to improve upon this preliminary work could include emphasis on psychological and sexual dating violence in addition to physical violence, as well as increased attention to other risk factors for college dating violence (e.g., emotion regulation) during the assessment and motivational feedback sessions.

Future Directions and Considerations Previous research investigating interventions for college-based dating violence primarily focused on bystander approaches aimed to reduce sexual coercion, with a particular focus on male-perpetrated violence. Given this myopic focus of existing intervention programs, Shorey et al. (2012) suggested new avenues for college dating violence prevention and intervention. For instance, dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) has been efficacious in reducing aggression by targeting emotion regulation difficulties, poor distress tolerance, and interpersonal skill deficits (e.g., poor assertiveness skills; Frazier & Vela, 2014; Linehan, 1993). Shorey et al. (2012) suggested that an intervention protocol informed by DBT may be efficacious in reducing

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

453

college dating violence as these skill deficits seem to be applicable to college students who perpetrate dating violence. Mindfulness, a specific facet of DBT that emphasizes nonjudgmental attentiveness to present-moment experiences, may also be efficacious as a stand-alone intervention for dating violence (Shorey et al., 2012). Indeed, recent research suggested that inducing state mindfulness reduces aggression perpetration following provocation (Heppner et al., 2008). Given the crosssectional associations between low levels of mindfulness and dating violence perpetration among college women (Brem et al., 2018; Shorey, Seavey, Quinn, & Cornelius, 2014b), interventions that emphasize mindfulness (e.g., Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction; Kabat-Zinn, 1990) may benefit dating violence intervention programs targeting college women. Given the prevalence of technology use among today’s college students, dating violence prevention efforts may benefit from utilizing a variety of technological mediums. For instance, university presence on social media could be used to implement social media campaigns that raise awareness of, and change attitudes towards, dating and sexual violence on campus. Furthermore, technology could be used to report instances of dating violence by the victim, a peer, or a bystander much in the same way that anonymous text messages can be sent to police when a crime is witnessed (Quinn, 2012). For instance, bystanders could text eye witness reports to school officials. Finally, burgeoning evidence suggested that college students may use technological mediums (e.g., smart phones, social media, and email) to perpetrate dating violence (Brem, Spiller, & Vandehey, 2015; WolfordClevenger et al., 2016; Zapor et al., 2017). Referred to as “cyber dating abuse,” these acts can include sexual harassment (e.g., sending unwanted, or requesting, sexually explicit photographs through text messages), stalking, partner monitoring, threatening behaviors, and verbal abuse (Borrajo et al. 2015). Given the growing body of research documenting the prevalence and consequences of cyber dating abuse, it will become increasingly imperative for future research to develop methods of intervening with these behaviors. Finally, the limited research investigating the efficacy of college-based dating violence intervention precludes firm conclusions regarding the benefits of individual versus group approaches, primary versus secondary or universal approaches, or interventions that target both genders or men and women separately (Shorey et al., 2012). Additionally, limited evidence exists to support the efficacy of college-based dating violence interventions that target individuals in same-sex relationships. Virtually no college-based dating violence prevention programs have been designed to be culturally sensitive or specific. Furthermore, intervention programs to date have been based on a relatively restricted range of theoretical approaches, which highlights the potential need to develop and assess intervention programs from a wider range of dating violence theories. Given the heterogeneity of problems faced by college students who perpetrate dating violence, it is unlikely that any

454

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

one program will be effective in eradicating dating violence. Selective interventions that target specific at-risk populations may be effective in reducing the behaviors or attitudes that facilitate dating violence. Unfortunately, researchers must first identify a comprehensive, unifying framework for college dating violence in order to identify at-risk populations.

RESEARCH METHODS AND PRIORITIES Research Methods Research on dating violence and sexual assault among college students is overwhelmingly descriptive and cross-sectional in nature (Voth Shrag, 2017). A review of the research literature on dating violence and sexual assault indicated that 71% of the studies included in the review used a crosssectional design, and only 13% of studies were classified as intervention studies (i.e., research studies with reported outcome data on an implemented prevention program). Most commonly, methods of data collection for the assessment of dating violence include self-report questionnaires administered to participants via paper-and-pencil format or via electronic methods (e.g., online survey, telephone administration; Brock et al., 2015). Additionally, research on dating violence within college dating relationships mostly focused on its prevalence and correlates (e.g., risk and protective factors, substance use, beliefs regarding violence; Voth Shrag, 2017). Also notable is that the majority of studies focusing on dating violence and sexual assault are conducted at large- and medium-sized universities, with fewer research studies reported at smaller universities, liberal art colleges, and community colleges (Voth Shrag, 2017), thereby limiting our knowledge about this problem among students attending smaller and nontraditional institutions. Despite the extant research that informed existing programs of dating violence prevention, methodological issues exist that require attention (e.g., definitional issues, measurement methods, limited long-term follow-up periods; Murray & Graybeal, 2007; Shorey et al., 2012). These issues should be considered when planning future research and evaluation in this area.

Limitations of Past Research and Directions for Future Research Definitions A notable issue in dating violence research is the lack of having consistent definitions of dating violence. The term violence is often used interchangeably with other terms, such as “abuse” or “aggression,” despite these terms being differentially defined across studies. A clear and consistent definition of what constitutes dating violence is critical for research efforts to effectively inform the assessment of dating violence on college campuses (Rennison & Addington, 2014). Furthermore, outcome evaluations of

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

455

prevention programs hinge on consistent definitions, and the ease of comparability of outcomes across research studies will increase by employing consistent definitions (Banyard, 2014). In addition to inconsistent definitions of violence, definitions of what constitutes dating and being in a relationship have evolved. For instance, dating may not necessarily indicate exclusivity and instead may refer to being intimately involved with more than one partner (Breiding et al. 2015). Continued research is needed to stay current with what is considered a dating relationship, as well as work toward a consistent definition of violence among college student populations, to ensure that current measures are accurately reflecting the scope of the problem.

Program Focus Violence prevention efforts on college campuses tend to focus primarily on reducing the occurrence of sexual violence on college campuses (Banyard, 2014). Such programs tend to focus on sexual violence in general, not sexual violence that occurs exclusively within dating relationships. As such, limited research evaluated the effectiveness of programs that incorporate multiple forms of violence (e.g., psychological and physical dating violence, and stalking). Researchers conducting dating violence prevention studies should consider effective components of other empirically supported prevention programs that can be modified to target dating violence prevention broadly on college campuses (Shorey et al., 2012). Program Characteristics The most effective delivery of programs to college students is another area that requires attention (e.g., group setting versus individual format, matchedor mixed-gender groups, web-based vs face-to-face, etc.). Individuals with a history of witnessing, perpetrating, or experiencing victimization of dating violence may respond differently to prevention programs compared to individuals without a history of such experiences, suggesting the need for more individualized prevention and intervention programs related to dating violence (Littleton, 2014). Individually administered programs showed to be an effective delivery method with college student populations in reducing other risky behaviors (e.g., alcohol use; Borsari & Carey, 2005); however, such programs can be costly. Future research may consider “screening” participants to identify those at risk for perpetration and/or victimization of dating violence to offer a more rigorous and individualized prevention type program, while reducing cost. Gender of participants as well as the gender of program facilitators should also be considered (Shorey et al., 2012). Research should continue to evaluate the efficacy of programs when groups are separated by gender or mixed. For example, participants may feel more comfortable engaging in the program when they are among their peers in a matched gender group format

456

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

(McMahon & Dick, 2011). Researchers should evaluate whether matching program facilitators and participants based on gender impacts participants’ responsiveness to, engagement in, and perceptions of prevention programming. Finally, evaluating different formats of prevention program delivery, such as electronically delivered educational/prevention programming compared to face-to-face programs, will inform future efforts. For individuals that prefer anonymity, electronic methods may improve engagement in prevention programming (Littleton, 2014). Investigations of these individual factors and facilitator characteristics may provide insight into what delivery method is most efficacious and appropriate for certain individuals.

Research Design Historically, empirical evaluations of prevention programs with college students are limited by a lack of long-term follow-ups, preventing the ability to evaluate long-term effects and outcomes of programs. Although the field has strived to increase the number of longitudinal studies, funding issues, limited resources, and high-study attrition have significantly compromised the quality of research that has been conducted. Given that the average length of a college student’s attendance is 4 years, researchers, administrators, practitioners, etc., should collaborate to develop innovative ways to follow college students after they have graduated and/or left college (Banyard, 2014).

Conclusion Past research efforts informed our understanding of dating violence and sexual assault on college campuses, as well as the development of prevention and intervention programs. The need for continued research in this area is undeniable. Future research should work toward establishing a consistent definition of dating violence and intimate relationships as well as utilize multiple forms of assessment and study designs. The recruitment of college students should extend to include college students at smaller institutions to better understand the scope of the problem among a broader range of collegiate environments. Furthermore, program characteristics should be evaluated to determine the most appropriate delivery method and program format, as well as program content. In utilizing information that is well-informed and empirically supported, our understanding of dating violence prevention among college students will be further advanced, as will our understanding of how to approach its prevention.

LEGAL, POLICY, AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS The prevalence of dating violence and its harmful consequences among college students have had legal, policy, and health impacts on college campuses

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

457

worldwide (Banyard, 2014; Straus, 2004). First, legal statutes have been implemented with intent to reduce dating violence on college campuses. Second, campuses have implemented policies aimed at reducing and addressing dating violence. Third, dating violence has been shown to significantly impact the mental and physical health of college students (Coker et al., 2002; Kaura & Lohman, 2007; Shoener, 2008), which in turn influences campuses’ efforts to screen for and address dating violence (Gibbons, 2008).

Legal Implications A majority of the legal statutes applicable to dating violence that affect university and college campuses have fallen under those applying to campus crime broadly (Gibbons, 2008). The most prominent law that applies to dating violence, specifically sexual violence, is Title IX, which was passed in 1972. Title IX states that no student can be discriminated on the basis of sex under education programs that receive federal funding (Henrick, 2013). Although Title IX was not intended to address sexual violence, over the years, the Office of Civil Rights issued guidance expanding the applicability of Title IX to sexual violence, including sexual harassment and assault. This required schools to conduct investigations into such, or lose federal funding for noncompliance (Cantalupo, 2014). More relevant to dating violence, the 1990 “Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act” mandated that universities disclose campus crime each year (Gibbons, 2008). An amendment revised the law as the “Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act” in response to the murder and rape of college student Jeanne Clery (Fisher, Hartman, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Gibbons, 2008). Initially, this act was intended to disclose the frequency of only certain violent crimes occurring on campus to potential students and their parents (Cantalupo, 2014). However, it has since been revised to require colleges and universities to make the frequency of sexual and dating violence occurring on campus publically available as well (Cantalupo, 2014). One drawback to this law is that it depends on victims to report crimes, which is in direct opposition to schools’ desires to appear to be a safe campus. In 1992, the “Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights” was implemented. This law mandates that colleges and universities provide victims of sexual assault with mental health resources and options for disciplinary or legal action that could be taken against their assailant (Gibbons, 2008). Finally, the Violence Against Women Act of 1992 dedicated funds for communities to use in effort to reduce domestic violence, which was later amended to include nonmarital domestic violence (e.g., dating violence). This allowed universities and colleges to receive federal funds to address dating violence (Sacco, 2015).

458

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Although laws have been implemented with intent to address and reduce violence, including dating violence, on college campuses, there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of these statutes (Fisher et al., 2002; Gregory & Janosik, 2002). Notably, researchers have argued that there are weaknesses in the reliability, validity, and generalizability of the campus statistics required by the Clery Act. As such, experts believe that the act only serves as an initial, symbolic step towards addressing and preventing dating violence on college campuses (Fisher et al., 2002).

Policy Implications One benefit of the legal push for colleges and universities to address dating violence is that colleges and universities have begun to implement policies aimed at this problem (Gibbons, 2008). However, each university and college differs in their policies (Sabina & Ho, 2014). Furthermore, experts have identified common weaknesses in university and college policies regarding dating violence. Policy changes are crucial to curbing dating violence, as these policies impact overall campus norms as well as making bystander intervention and reporting of dating violence easier for faculty, staff, administrators, and students (Banyard, 2014; Littleton, 2014). These policies often involve developing and partnering with existing agencies that provide services to dating violence victims and perpetrators (Gibbons, 2008). Furthermore, colleges and universities develop disciplinary processes as an option to penalize perpetrators that does not require criminal prosecution (Gibbons, 2008). Nonetheless, research on university students has shown that despite policies being in place, not all victims of violence are aware of the services available to them and many experience barriers to pursuing them (Sabina & Ho, 2014). Thus, university policies must continue to address the wider climate surrounding reporting and seeking help for dating violence (Banyard, 2014; Littleton, 2014; Sabina & Ho, 2014).

Health Implications Dating violence is related to physical and psychological health problems (Coker et al., 2002; Kilpatrick, Resnick, & Acierno, 1997; Shoener, 2008; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Depending on the frequency, chronicity, and severity of physical violence, survivors experience health-related problems of chronic pain, gastrointestinal disorders, arthritis, headaches, reduced immune system efficiency, and disabilities (Campbell, 2002; Coker et al., 2002; Shoener, 2008). Sexual violence results in other physical problems such as unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and chronic pelvic pain (Coker et al., 2002; Shoener, 2008). Finally, psychological aggression can result in numerous mental health difficulties including depression,

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

459

posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, substance abuse, eating disorder symptoms, suicidal thoughts and behaviors, somatization, and impaired sleep (Chan, Straus, Brownridge, Tiwari, & Leung, 2008; Shoener, 2008). These significant health consequences of dating violence emphasize the need for universities and colleges to have adequate and accessible medical and mental health care for survivors of dating violence (Shoener, 2008). For example, some university policies require dating violence to be a part of routine screenings at campus health centers (Kilpatrick et al., 1997; Shoener, 2008). This further requires campus health providers to be competent at assessing, diagnosing, and treating mental and physical health outcomes related to dating violence (Kilpatrick et al., 1997). In conclusion, college dating violence research highlighted the significance of this serious public health concern. The literature has shown that consistent definitions and typologies of dating violence that also include stalking and cyber abuse are needed to improve research and resulting prevention and intervention efforts. Furthermore, researchers must work towards a comprehensive theory of college dating violence to ameliorate the consequences associated with dating violence through prevention and intervention efforts. Finally, this continued development of efficacious, theoretically informed prevention strategies is critical to future legal and campus policies aiming to reduce violence within this population.

REFERENCES Ahrens, C. E., Rich, M. D., & Ullman, J. B. (2011). Rehearsing for real life: The impact of the InterACT Sexual Assault Prevention program on self-reported likelihood of engaging in bystander interventions. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 760 776. Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the biological and psychological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 373 382. Ambrose, C. E., & Gross, A. M. (2016). Interpreting sexual dating encounters: Social information processing differences in men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 361 370. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 126(5), 651 680. Banyard, V. L. (2014). Improving college campus-based prevention of violence against women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 339 351. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1524838014521027. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463 481. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Crossman, M. T. (2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: The role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 446 457. Basile, K. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2002). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

460

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2007). Effects of social desirability on students’ self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22(2), 243 256. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297 311. Borrajo, E., Ga´mez-Guadix, M., Pereda, N., & Calvete, E. (2015). The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 358 365. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2005). Two brief alcohol interventions for mandated college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19(3), 296 302. Available from https://doi. org/10.1037/0893-164X.19.3.296. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and Loss: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Separation (Vol. 2). London, UK: The Hogarth Press. Boyle, K. M., & Walker, L. S. (2016). The neutralization and denial of sexual violence in college party subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 31, 1 19. Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 2.0. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Brem, M. J., Spiller, L. C., & Vandehey, M. A. (2015). Online mate-retention tactics on Facebook are associated with relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30 (16), 2831 2850. Brem, M. J., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Zapor, H., Elmquist, J., Shorey, R. C., & Stuart, G. L. (2018). Dispositional mindfulness as a moderator of the relationship between perceived partner infidelity and women’s dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(2), 250 267. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515604415. Brock, R. L., Barry, R. A., Lawrence, E., Rolffs, J., Cerretani, J., & Zarling, A. (2015). Online administration of questionnaires assessing psychological, physical, and sexual aggression: Establishing psychometric equivalence. Psychology of Violence, 5(3), 294 304. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037835. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331 1336. Cantalupo, N. C. (2014). Institution-specific victimization surveys: Addressing legal and practical disincentives to gender-based violence reporting on college campuses. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 227 241. Carey, K. B., Carey, M. P., Maisto, S. A., & Henson, J. M. (2006). Brief motivational interventions for heavy college drinkers: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 14, 943 954. Carr, J. L., & VanDeusen, K. M. (2002). The relationship between family of origin violence and dating violence in college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(6), 630 646. Chan, K. L., Straus, M. A., Brownridge, D. A., Tiwari, A., & Leung, W. C. (2008). Prevalence of dating partner violence and suicidal ideation among male and female university students worldwide. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 53(6), 529 537.

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

461

Clements, K., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2008). Aggressive cognitions of violent versus nonviolent spouses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32, 351 369. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10608-007-9139-9. Cochran, J. K., Sellers, C. S., Wiesbrock, V. S., & Palacios, W. R. (2011). Repetitive intimate partner victimization: An exploratory application of social learning theory. Deviant Behavior, 32, 790 817. Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260 268. Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Williams, C. M., Fisher, B. S., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., & Hegge, L. M. (2011). Evaluation of Green Dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17, 777 796. Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2015). Evaluation of the Green Dot Bystander Intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1507 1527. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 101. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1992). Women, Violence and Social Change. London and New York: Routledge. Dutton, D. G. (1994). Behavioral and affective correlates of Borderline Personality Organization in wife assaulters. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17(3), 265 277. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(94)90030-2. Dutton, D. G., & Golant, S. K. (1995). The batterer: A psychological profile. New York, NY: Basic Books. Edwards, K., & Sylaska, K. (2013). The perpetration of intimate partner violence among LGBTQ college youth: The role of minority stress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (11), 1721 1731. Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741 753. Eshelman, L., & Levendosky, A. A. (2012). Dating violence: Mental health consequences based on type of abuse. Violence and Victims, 27(2), 215 228. Fisher, B. S., Hartman, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Making campuses safer for students: The Clery Act as a symbolic legal reform. Stetson Law Review, 32, 61. Fitzpatrick, M. K., Salgado, D. M., Suvak, M. K., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (2004). Associations of gender and gender-role ideology with behavioral and attitudinal features of intimate partner aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5(2), 91 102. Flynn, C. P. (1990). Sex roles and women’s response to courtship violence. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 83 94. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Laughlin, J. E., & Burke, L. (1999). Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency and severity levels in a college sample. Violence and Victims, 14, 365 380. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Helff, C. M., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). A model for predicting dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry temperament, and need for relationship control. Violence and Victims, 17(1), 35 47.

462

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Follingstad, D. R., Coyne, S., & Gambone, L. (2005). A representative measure of psychological aggression and its severity. Violence and Victims, 20, 25 38. Foubert, J. D., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Brasfield, H., & Hill, B. (2010). Effects of a rape awareness program on college women: Increasing bystander efficacy and willingness to intervene. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 813 827. Franklin, C. A. (2016). Sorority affiliation and sexual assault victimization. Violence Against Women, 22(8), 895 922. Frazier, S. N., & Vela, J. (2014). Dialectical behavior therapy for the treatment of anger and aggressive behavior: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2), 156 163. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.001. Gibbons, R. (2008). Campus violence. In C. M. Renzetti, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of interpersonal violence (Vol. 2, pp. 85 87). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412963923.n55. Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17, 720 742. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667 1693. Gregory, D. E., & Janosik, S. M. (2002). The Clery Act: How effective is it? Perceptions from the field: The current state of the research and recommendations for improvement. Stetson L. Review, 32, 7. Hamby, S. (2017). On defining violence, and why it matters. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 167 180. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511 524. Henrick, S. (2013). A hostile environment for student defendants: Title IX and sexual assault on college campuses. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 40(1), 49 92. Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Goldman, B. M., Davis, P. J., & Cascio, E. V. (2008). Mindfulness as a means of reducing aggressive behavior: Dispositional and situational evidence. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 486 496. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ab.20258. Hermans, E. J., Ramsey, N. F., & van Honk, J. (2008). Exogenous testosterone enhances responsiveness to social threat in the neural circuitry of social aggression in humans. Biological Psychiatry, 63, 263 270. Heyman, R. E., Slep, A. S., & Foran, H. M. (2015). Enhanced definitions of intimate partner violence for DSM-5 and ICD-11 may promote improved screening and treatment. Family Process, 54(1), 64 81. Available from https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12121. Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scale. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 197 217. Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on intimate partner aggression: A preliminary study. Violence and Victims, 19(6), 701 718. Hines, D. A., Malley-Morrison, K., & Dutton, L. B. (2013). Issues in the definition of family violence and abuse. Family Violence in the United States: Defining, Understanding, and Combatting Abuse (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1992). Social skill deficits in maritally violent men: Interpreting the data using a social information processing model. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 605 617.

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

463

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Anglin, K. (1991). The competency of responses given by maritally violent versus nonviolent men to problematic marital situations. Violence and Victims, 6, 257 269. Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2), 97 106. Jasinski, J. L. (2001). Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 5 22). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). ). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Dell Publishing. Kaiser, H., & Powers, S. (2006). Testosterone and conflict tactics within late-adolescent couples: A dyadic predictive model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(2), 231 248. Karakurt, G., Keiley, M., & Posada, G. (2013). Intimate relationship aggression in college couples: Family-of-origin violence, egalitarian attitude, attachment security. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 561 575. Kaukinen, C. (2014). Dating violence among college students the risk and protective factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 283 296. Kaura, S. A., & Lohman, B. J. (2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22(6), 367 381. Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Acierno, R. (1997). Health impact of interpersonal violence 3: Implications for clinical practice and public policy. Behavioral Medicine, 23(2), 79 85. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Capaldi, D. M. (2012). Clearly we’ve only just begun: Developing effective prevention programs for intimate partner violence. Prevention Science, 13, 410 414. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Foubert, J. D., Brasfield, H. M., Hill, B., & Shelley-Tremblay, S. (2011). The men’s program: Does it impact college men’s self-reported bystander efficacy and willingness to intervene? Violence Against Women, 17, 743 759. Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental as physical aggression? The independent effect of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims, 24, 20 35. Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive behavioral therapy of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford. Littleton, H. (2014). Interpersonal violence on college campuses: Understanding risk factors and working to find solutions. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 297 303. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521030. Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 717 731. Mason, B., & Smithey, M. (2012). The effects of academic and interpersonal stress on dating violence among college students: A test of classical strain theory. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(5), 974 986. McMahon, S., & Dick, A. (2011). “Being in a room with like-minded men”: An exploratory study of men’s participation in a bystander intervention program to prevent intimate partner violence. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 19(1), 3 18. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.3149/jms.1901.3. Mcdermott, R. C., & Lopez, F. G. (2013). College men’s intimate partner violence attitudes: Contributions of adult attachment and gender role stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 127 136.

464

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672 682. Miller, W. R. (1983). Motivational interviewing with problem drinkers. Behavioural Psychotherapy, 1, 147 172. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed). New York: Guilford Press. Mitchell, C. (2009). Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective. New York: Oxford University Press USA. Moynihan, M. M., & Banyard, V. L. (2008). Community responsibility for preventing sexual violence: A pilot with campus Greeks and intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 36, 23 38. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., Eckstein, R. P., & Stapelton, J. (2010). Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. Journal of American College Health, 59, 197 204. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., Eckstein, R. P., & Stapleton, J. G. (2011). Sisterhood may be powerful for reducing sexual and intimate partner violence: An evaluation of the bringing in the bystander in-person program with sorority members. Violence Against Women, 17, 703 719. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cares, A. C., Potter, S. J., Williams, L. M., & Stapelton, J. G. (2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain 1 year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 110 132. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514532719. Murray, C. E., & Graybeal, J. (2007). Methodological review of intimate partner violence prevention research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(10), 1250 1269. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507304293. Nabors, E. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2009). Intimate partner violence perpetration among college students. Feminist Criminology, 4(1), 57 82. Orcutt, H. K., Garcia, M., & Pickett, S. M. (2005). Female-perpetrated intimate partner violence and romantic attachment style in a college student sample. Violence and Victims, 20(3), 287 302. O’Leary, D. K. (1999). Developmental and affective issues in assessing and treating partner aggression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 400 414. Pinto, L. A., Sullivan, E. L., Rosenbaum, A., Wyngarden, N., Umhau, J. C., Miller, M. W., & Taft, C. T. (2010). Biological correlates of intimate partner violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 387 398. Quinn, R., (2012). Police seek crime tips via text messages. The State Journal. http://www.statejournal.com/latest%20headlines/2012/11/02/police-seek-crime-tips-via-text-messages. Raghavan, C., Rajah, V., Gentile, K., Collado, L., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2009). Community violence, support networks, ethnic group differences, and male perpetration of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(10), 1615 1632. Rennison, C. M., & Addington, L. A. (2014). Violence against college women: A review to identify limitations in defining the problem and inform future research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 159 169. Available from https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1524838014520724. Sabina, C., & Ho, L. Y. (2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 201 226. Sabrina, C., & Straus, M. A. (2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental health among U.S. college students. Violence and Victims, 23(6), 667 682.

College-Based Dating Violence Prevention Strategies Chapter | 18

465

Sacco, L. N. (2015). The violence against women act: Overview, legislation, and federal funding. Congressional Research Report (R42499). Washington: The United States Congress. Salazar, L. F., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Hardin, J., & Berkowitz, A. (2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), e203. Available from https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426. Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists, & other sex offenders: Who they are, how they operate, and how we can protect ourselves and our children. New York: Basic Books. Saltzman, L.E., Fanslow, J.L., McMahon, P.M., & Shelley, G.A. (2002). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements (version 1.0). Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sellers, C. S., Cochran, J. K., & Branch, K. A. (2005). Social learning theory and intimate partner violence: A research note. Deviant Behavior, 26, 379 395. Setchell, S., Fritz, P. T., & Glasgow, J. (2016). Relation between social information processing and intimate partner violence in dating couples. Aggression, 9999, 1 13. Shoener, S. (2008). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. In C. M. Renzetti, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence (Vol. 2, pp. 327 328). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Bell, K. M. (2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 185 194. Shorey, R. C., Rhatigan, D. L., Fite, P. J., & Stuart, G. L. (2011a). Dating violence victimization and alcohol problems: An examination of the stress-buffering hypothesis for perceived support. Partner Abuse, 2, 31 45. Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., & Cornelius, T. L. (2011b). Dating violence and substance use in college students: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 541 550. Shorey, R. C., Temple, J. R., Frebres, J., Brasfield, H., Sherman, A. E., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). Dating violence prevention programming: Directions for future interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 289 293. Shorey, R. C., Zucosky, H., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., Cornelius, T. L., Sage, C., & Stuart, G. L. (2012). Dating violence prevention programming: Directions for future interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 289 296. Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., McNulty, J. K., & Moore, T. M. (2014a). Acute alcohol use temporally increases the odds of male perpetrated dating violence: A 90-day diary analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 39(1), 365 368. Shorey, R. C., Seavey, A. E., Quinn, E., & Cornelius, T. L. (2014b). Partner-specific anger management as a mediator of the relation between mindfulness and female perpetrated dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 4, 51 64. Available from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033658. Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Strauss, C. (2015a). Stalking in college student dating relationships: A descriptive investigation. Journal of Family Violence, 30(7), 935 942. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9717-7. Shorey, R. C., McNulty, J. K., Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2015b). Being the victim of violence during a date predicts next-day cannabis use among female college students. Addiction, 111(3), 492 498. Available from http//doi.org/10.1111/add.13196. Silverman, J. G., & Williamson, G. M. (1997). Social ecology and entitlements involved in battering by heterosexual college males: Contributions of family and peers. Violence and Victims, 12, 147 164. Southworth, C., Finn, J., Dawson, S., Fraser, C., & Tucker, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking. Violence Against women, 13(8), 842 856.

466

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Storer, H. L., Casey, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2016). Efficacy of bystander programs to prevent dating abuse among youth and young adults: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 17(3), 256 269. Straus, M. A. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790 811. Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Child and Youth Services Review, 30, 252 275. Stuart, G. L., McGeary, J. E., Shorey, R. C., Knopik, V. S., Beaucage, K., & Temple, J. R. (2014). Genetic associations with intimate partner violence in a sample of hazardous drinking men in batterer intervention programs. Violence Against Women, 20(4), 385 400. Stuart, G. L., McGeary, J., Shorey, R. C., & Knopik, V. (2016). Genetics moderate alcohol and intimate partner violence treatment outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of hazardous drinking men in batterer intervention programs: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 592 598. Taft, C. T., Schumm, J., Orazem, R. J., Meis, L., & Pinto, L. A. (2010). Examining the link between posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and dating aggression perpetration. Violence and Victims, 25(4), 456 469. Thompson, M., Koss, M. P., Kingree, J., Goree, J., & Rice, J. (2011). A prospective mediational model of sexual aggression among college men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(13), 2716 2734. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence against Women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tonizzo, S., Howells, K., Day, A., Reidpath, D., & Froyland, I. (2000). Attributions of negative partner behavior by men who physically abuse their partners. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 155 167. Available from https://doi.org.ezproxy.uwindsor.ca/10.1023/A:1007590827696. Voth Schrag, R. J. (2017). Campus-based sexual assault and dating violence: A review of study contexts and participants. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 32(1), 67 80. Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 648(73), 6. Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, S., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., . . . Reese, L. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 151 166. Wolford-Clevenger, C., Zapor, H., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., Elmquist, J., Brem, M., . . . Stuart, G. L. (2016). An examination of the partner cyber abuse questionnaire in a college student sample. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 156 162. Woodin, E. M., & O’Leary, D. O. (2010). A brief motivational intervention for physically aggressive dating couples. Prevention Science, 11, 371 383. Zapor, H., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Elmquist, J., Febres, J., Shorey, R. C., Brasfield, H., & Stuart, G. L. (2017). Psychological aggression committed through technology: A study with dating college students. Partner Abuse, 8(2), 127 145. Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063 1077.

Chapter 19

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop “Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships,” A Healthy Relationship Intervention for Early Middle School Students Melissa F. Peskin1, Christine M. Markham1, Efrat K. Gabay1, Ross Shegog1, Paula M. Cuccaro1, Jeff R. Temple2, Belinda Hernandez1, Melanie Thiel2, and Susan T. Emery1 1 Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, United States, 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) Health, Galveston, TX, United States

INTRODUCTION Teen dating violence (TDV) is a major public health concern in the United States. It includes physical (e.g., hitting, kicking), emotional (or psychological) (e.g., bullying, name calling), and sexual (e.g., physically or nonphysically forcing a partner to have sex) violence, as well as stalking (e.g., threatening to cause fear) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012b; Smith et al., 2015). In a recent study, one-third and more than two-thirds of middle school students, respectively, reported perpetrating physical and emotional dating violence (DV) perpetration (Niolon et al., 2015). In another study, more than 1 in 10 sixth graders reported perpetrating cyber dating abuse (Peskin et al., 2017). TDV is often more common among black and Hispanic youth than white youth (Champion et al., 2008; Coker et al., 2014; Foshee et al., 2008; Howard et al., 2013; Schnurr & Lohman, 2013). As with most youth risk behaviors, TDV is a complex public health problem and, as such, is influenced by multiple levels of the socioecological

Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00019-0 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

467

468

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

model (e.g., youth, family, school staff; see Chapter 2: Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration) (Banyard et al., 2006; Foshee et al., 2004, 2011; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012a). Some programs (e.g., Safe Dates, Shifting Boundaries, Fourth R) have been shown to be effective in reducing DV perpetration and/or victimization (Foshee et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2013; Wolfe et al., 2009). With the exception of Shifting Boundaries, however, the majority of these programs were developed for and/or evaluated for older, predominantly white adolescents. Further, few programs provide access to resources through the school or include parental components (Foshee et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2013; Wolfe et al., 2009). Thus, TDV programs that address multiple levels of the socioecological model are needed for ethnic minority middle school youth. Recently, It’s Your Game. . .Keep it Real! (IYG), a theory and evidence-based sexual health education program for ethnic minority middle school students, was shown to be effective in reducing emotional and physical DV victimization and emotional DV perpetration; however, significant effects were not observed for physical DV perpetration and effects on sexual DV perpetration/victimization are unknown (Peskin et al., 2014). Thus, our goal was to develop a new program (adapted from IYG) to more completely address TDV for ethnic minority middle school youth that included youth, family, and school components. In this chapter, we describe how we used IM, a stepped intervention development process that incorporates evidence from empirical and theoretical research and community input (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016) to develop this new program. The six steps of IM include (1) construct a logic model of the problem, (2) state program outcomes and objectives, (3) design program, (4) produce program, (5) prepare program implementation plan, and (6) evaluation plan. IM has been used extensively to develop health promotion interventions in a variety of areas, including cancer screening, uptake of influenza vaccination, and HIV, STI, and teen pregnancy prevention (Garba & Gadanya, 2017).

STEP 1: LOGIC MODEL OF THE PROBLEM Task 1: Establish and Work with a Planning Group The first task in Step 1 is to establish and work with a planning group (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016), which in this case consisted of behavioral scientists, epidemiologists, psychologists, and other public health professionals. Building on the extensive community input we obtained while developing IYG, we worked with an ethnically diverse 15-member teen advisory board (TAB) to ensure that this new program was relevant to the needs of the priority population—ethnic minority middle school youth.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

469

Task 2: Conduct the Needs Assessment to Create a Logic Model of the Problem In task 2, we used the PRECEDE model to guide the development of the logic model of the problem (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016; Green & Kreuter, 2005). The PRECEDE model facilitates an understanding of the personal and environmental determinants of a health behavior through an ecological framework as well as the associated behaviors, health outcomes, and quality of life issues. Previous qualitative work from IYG (Tortolero et al., 2010), a literature review on DV and unhealthy relationship behaviors (Ali et al., 2011; Black & Preble, 2016; East & Hokoda, 2015; Espelage et al., 2014; Foshee et al., 1996, 2016; Miller et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2011; Reyes et al., 2016a, 2016b; Sabina et al., 2016; Temple et al., 2016; Weisz & Black, 2001), and theory (socioecological, social cognitive theory, theory of planned behavior) (Bandura, 1986; Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008; Sallis & Owen, 2002) guided the logic model completion. Because the priority population for the program was middle school students, we identified unhealthy emotional, physical, and sexual relationship behaviors, from dating partners and peers as target behaviors for the program. Further, because they often share similar risk factors (Coker et al., 2014) and co-occur (Reeves & Orpinas, 2011; Ybarra et al., 2016), unhealthy relationship behaviors encompassed both perpetration and victimization. Fig. 19.1 describes the logic model of the problem.

Phase 4 Psychosocial factors • Lack of knowledge about healthy relationships and accessing resources • Lack of skills, selfefficacy: • Decision-making • Communication • Managing emotions • Attitudes & social norms about aggression and DV • Beliefs about traditional gender roles Parent & school staff lack of knowledge about bullying and DV, parent lack of skills/selfefficacy for talking & monitoring school staff lack of skills/self-efficacy for identifying and making referrals

Phase 3 Behavioral and environmental factors Behaviors • Unhealthy relationship behaviors (peers and dating partners) • Emotional • Physical • Sexual

Environmental factors • Low parent-child communication • Low parental monitoring • Low parental closeness • Lack of recognition by school staff • Access to services and resources • Violence in the neighborhood and in the media • Family violence

FIGURE 19.1 Logic model of the problem.

Phase 2 Health problems • Depression • Suicide • Anxiety • Substance use • Risky sexual behavior • Physical injury • Death

Phase 1 Quality of life • Perform poorly in school or other school difficulties • Have poor life satisfaction • Experience difficulties in future relationships • Participate in adult violence

470

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Task 3: Describe the Context for the Intervention Young people spend the vast majority of day in school; thus, we felt that schools were the ideal setting for this program. Further, IYG was developed for use in schools, and data suggest that most school personnel agree that TDV is a major problem at school (Khubchandani et al., 2012, 2013). The original priority population for the new program was seventh graders; however, because most seventh graders in the partnering school district were receiving IYG as part of another initiative, we felt it was necessary to change the study population to sixth graders. Additionally, the school district expressed an interest in their sixth graders participating in a healthy relationship curriculum and DV is prevalent among sixth graders (Orpinas et al., 2012; Orpinas et al., 2013).

Task 4: Specify Program Goals Because the program’s primary goal was to reduce DV, we wrote program goals specific to this health behavior. IYG reduced emotional DV perpetration, emotional DV victimization, and physical DV victimization by approximately 10, 13, and 4 percentage points. Based upon these data and what percentage point difference we felt was reasonable and important to detect, the program goals for this new program were as follows: 1. After 1 year of the program, the percentage of students in the intervention group who report perpetrating any type of DV will be 8 percentage points lower than the percentage of students who do not receive the intervention. 2. After 1 year of the program, the percentage of students in the intervention group who report being victimized by any type of DV will be 8 percentage points lower than the percentage of students who do not receive the intervention.

STEP 2: PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND OBJECTIVES Task 1: State Behavioral and Environmental Outcomes The first task in Step 2 is to state the desired behavioral (BOs) and environmental outcomes (EOs) for the program (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). We modified the original BOs and EOs from IYG to more completely address all types of unhealthy relationship behaviors and subsequently identified the following outcomes for the new program: “Students will have healthy peer and dating relationships (i.e., that are free of emotional, physical, and sexual violence)” (BO1) and “Parents will communicate with their child about healthy peer and dating relationships (EO1).” Program planners also added one additional EO based on the needs assessment:

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19 G

471

School staff (program facilitators, nurses, counselors, social workers, school leadership) will recognize DV among youth, respond appropriately, and refer students to resources (EO2).

Unfortunately, budgetary resources precluded us from including separate BOs related to parental monitoring and closeness (these were still addressed, however, as part of the parent EO), and neighborhood, family, and media violence.

Task 2: Specify Performance Objectives The next task is to identify performance objectives for each BO and EO (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). Performance objectives describe operationally what program participants need to do in order for the desired health or environmental behavior to occur. The performance objectives for students, parents, and school staff are provided in Table 19.1.

Task 3: Select Personal Determinants of Behavioral and Environmental Outcomes The next task is to specify changeable determinants, or factors which influence the BOs or EOs (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). Our needs assessment work guided the identification of determinants (Ali et al., 2011; Reyes et al., 2016a, 2016b; Weisz & Black, 2001; Black & Preble, 2016; East & Hokoda, 2015; Espelage et al., 2014; Foshee et al., 1996, 2016; Miller et al., 2009; Reed et al., 2011; Sabina et al., 2016; Temple et al., 2016).

Task 4: Create Matrix of Change Objectives The fourth task in Step 2 is to create a matrix of change objectives for each BO and EO (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). These matrices serve as the “blueprint” for the program. To create each matrix, the performance objectives are listed vertically, and the determinants are listed horizontally across the top. To determine the change objectives, the program planners asked, “What does the learner need to change about determinant X in order to accomplish performance objective Y?” The change objectives are located within the cells in the middle. We constructed a separate matrix for BO1, EO1, and EO2. A partial matrix for BO1 is provided in Table 19.2.

Task 5: Create a Logic Model of Change The fifth task in Step 2 is to create a logic model of change, using information gleaned from Step 1 and the previous Step 2 tasks, to illustrate the pathways by which the proposed program will create change (see Fig. 19.2).

TABLE 19.1 Behavioral Outcomes, Environmental Outcomes, and Performance Objectives for New Healthy Relationships Program BO Students will

Associated Performance Objectives

BO.1. Have healthy peer and dating relationships (i.e., that are free of emotional, physical, and sexual violence)

1. Decide to have healthy peer and dating relationships 2. Identify and evaluate their own behaviors within past and current peer and/or dating relationships 3. Identify and evaluate peers’ and/or dating partner’s behaviors within past and current peer and/or dating relationships 4. Use effective communication strategies to foster healthy peer and dating relationships (e.g., conflict resolution, problem solving, and active consent) 4a. Use active consent (give and obtain) when engaging in sexual behaviors 5. Manage emotional responses (e.g., love, anger, anxiety, stress, depression, jealousy) to foster healthy peer and dating relationships 6. Avoid peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors 7. Avoid alcohol and drug use 8. Get out of unhealthy peer and/or dating relationships 9. Manage unhealthy peer and/or dating relationships that are unavoidable 10. Disclose abusive dating relationships (emotionally, physically, or sexually abusive either in person and/or electronically) 11. Access resources to help respond to current violent dating relationships and to prevent potential DV

EO Parents will EO.1. Communicate with their child about healthy peer and dating relationships

1. Decide to discuss with their child how to have healthy peer and dating relationships (i.e., that are free of emotional, physical, and sexual violence) 2. Create the appropriate times, locations, and activities to talk with their child about healthy peer and dating relationships 3. Use effective communication strategies when talking with their child (e.g., active listening, being nonjudgmental)

4. Discuss with their child strategies for having healthy peer and dating relationships (e.g., conflict resolution, problem solving, effective communication) 5. Discuss with their child strategies for managing their emotional responses appropriately (e.g., love, anger, anxiety, stress, depression, jealousy) in peer and dating relationships 6. Discuss strategies with their child for getting out of unhealthy peer and dating relationships 7. Discuss strategies with their child for avoiding peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors 8. Establish and discuss rules regarding how their child will spend time in friendship and dating activities (i.e., where, when, with whom) and use media (TV, Internet, video games, music) 9. Monitor adherence to the rules they establish with their child with respect to how they will spend time in friendship and dating activities (i.e., where, when, with whom) and use media (TV, Internet, video games, music) 10. Discuss with their child resources for avoiding and getting out of unhealthy relationship EO School staff will EO.2. School staff (program facilitators, nurses, counselors, social workers, school leadership) will recognize DV among youth, respond appropriately, and refer to resources

BO, Behavioral outcome; EO, environmental outcomes; DV, dating violence.

1. Decide to respond appropriately to youth DV incidents 2. Use active listening when engaging with youth in discussions about their relationship experiences 3. Answer questions and concerns youth may have about relationships 4. Provide resources for youth 5. Maintain confidentiality standards with youth 6. Identify and adhere to reporting laws

TABLE 19.2 Partial Matrix for BO1: Students Will Have Healthy Peer and Dating Relationships (i.e., That Are Free of Emotional, Physical, and Sexual Violence) Performance Objectives

Determinants

The student will

K

PO.1. Decide to have healthy peer and dating relationships

K.1.i. Define healthy relationships (a dating relationship is healthy when two people trust, respect, and listen to each other, and both people accept and support each other’s right to say yes or no at any time for any reason)

S

SE

PN

SE.1.i. Feel confident in ability to decide to have healthy relationships

PN.1.i. Recognize that most peers decide to have healthy relationships

K.1.ii. List the characteristics of healthy/unhealthy relationships

PN.1.ii. Recognize that most peers do not tolerate any type of violence in any of their relationships

K.1.iii. Describe how deciding to be in a healthy relationship will reduce chances of DV

PN.1.iii. Describe how relationships portrayed in various forms of media may not be representative of actual relationships and may actually model unhealthy relationships

PO.2. Identify and evaluate their own behaviors within past and current peer and/or dating relationships

K.2.i. List actions that constitute unhealthy behaviors (e.g., hitting, choking, substance use, bullying, stalking, verbal threats, unwanted sexual touching, constant texting)

S.2.i. Demonstrate the ability to identify and evaluate their behaviors within relationships

SE.2.i. Feel confident that they can identify and evaluate their behaviors within relationships

PN.2.i. Recognize that peers identify and evaluate their behaviors within relationships

K.2.ii. List actions that constitute healthy behaviors (e.g., support, trust, respecting physical boundaries and sexual limits, active consent) K.2.iii. Describe how evaluating their own behaviors will be helpful for being in a healthy relationship K.2.iv. List actions that constitute own healthy and unhealthy behaviors in past and/or current peer and/or dating relationships K.2.v. Define inappropriate use of power in a relationship K.2.vi. Identify how power differentials can influence a relationship (Continued )

TABLE 19.2 (Continued) Performance Objectives

Determinants

The student will

K

S

SE

PN

PO.4. Use effective communication strategies to foster healthy peer and dating relationships

K.4.i. Describe effective communication strategies to foster healthy relationships

S.4.i. Demonstrate the ability to use effective communication strategies to foster healthy relationships

SE.4.i. Feel confident in ability to use effective communication strategies to foster healthy relationships

PN.4.i. Recognize that peers also use effective communication strategies to foster healthy relationships

K.4.ii. Identify appropriate contexts in which to use effective communication strategies

S.4.ii. Demonstrate the ability to recognize appropriate contexts in which to use these strategies

SE.4.ii. Feel confident in ability to recognize appropriate contexts in which to use these strategies

K.5.i. List types of emotions

S.5.i. Demonstrate the ability to manage emotional responses

SE.5.i. Feel confident in ability to manage emotional responses

K.5.ii. Define what an emotional response

S.5.ii. Demonstrate the ability to recognize the signs and situations for when to manage emotional responses

SE.5.ii. Feel confident in ability to recognize the signs and situations for when to manage emotional responses

PO.5. Manage emotional responses to foster healthy peer and dating relationships

K.5.iii. Describe how to manage emotional responses to foster healthy peer and dating relationships K.5.iv. Recognize the signs and situations for when to manage emotional responses

PN.5.i. Recognize that peers also manage emotional responses

PO.6. Avoid peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationships behaviors

K.6.i. Identify peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors K.6.ii. Identify where they come in contact with peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors (e.g., school, unsupervised parties, places where peers do drugs) K.6.iii. List strategies (e.g., clear no, alternative actions, avoidance/refusal strategies) to avoid peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors

K, Knowledge; S, skills; SE, self-efficacy; PN, perceived norms.

S.6.i. Demonstrate the ability to use strategies to avoid peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors

SE.6.i. Feel confident in using strategies to avoid peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors

PN.6.i. Recognize that peers avoid other peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationship behaviors

FIGURE 19.2 Logic model of change for new healthy relationships program.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

479

STEP 3: PROGRAM DESIGN Task 1: Generate Program Themes, Components, Scope, and Sequence In the first task of step 3, the goal is to generate program themes, components, scope, and sequence (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). For the development of this new program, this step was conducted simultaneously with the next two tasks in Step 3. The planning group developed the program theme which ultimately became the program name, “Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships (Me & You).” We purposefully chose a theme related to developing skills to “build healthy relationships” rather than “preventing teen DV.” Feedback from school staff and students suggested that the latter had a more negative connotation to parents. Further, this theme suggested that the skills learned in this program could be applied to all relationships (peers, dating partners, family members, etc.). Stemming directly from IYG, there were also two program subthemes: (1) “keep it real” and (2) “select, detect, protect” (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). Potential definitions of “keep it real” included “being yourself, being healthy and happy, and being responsible.” These definitions were provided by youth who were involved in IYG development. As with IYG, in Me & You, youth were encouraged to develop and keep relationships that would help them “keep it real.” “Select (knowing your personal rules to have healthy relationships), detect (watching for signs that could challenge your personal rules), protect (avoid or use refusal skills to get out of a risky situation where rules are being challenged)” followed a self regulation decisionmaking paradigm that could help youth play by their personal rules and build healthy relationships. Based upon the work conducted in Step 1, program planners decided that Me & You would include youth, parent, and school staff components. For Me & You, the planning team used classroom and computer-based instruction (similar to IYG). Some of the computer-based components included activities that were individually tailored. Both classroom and computer delivery vehicles were included because of their unique learning benefits. For example, traditional face to face group classroom instruction allowed teachers to model health promoting behaviors and elicit group discussion on peer and social norms (Kirby, 2001). However, integrating technology-based instruction into classroom activities allowed students to further process, personalize, and practice these behaviors, often in situations specifically tailored to them (Coyle et al., 2016). Additional delivery vehicles included parent and school newsletters, parent child take home activities, group debriefing, and a school staff training. The program planners developed a sixth grade youth curriculum that included thirteen 25-minute lessons: five classroom (teacher facilitated),

480

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

five computer only (individually on student computers), and three classroom computer blended lessons (delivered in a classroom setting but also utilized some group-based computer activities). We felt that 13 lessons were of sufficient length and coverage to impact behavior change as effective TDV prevention curricula range from 6 to 21 lessons (Foshee et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2013; Wolfe et al., 2009). A 2-day school teacher training was delivered prior to curriculum implementation, and all school staff received a school newsletter which highlighted information about TDV and bullying and provided strategies for recognizing and referring related incidents. To encourage parent child communication about healthy dating relationships, parents received two parent newsletters, and students completed three parent child take home activities with their parents. The scope (content) and sequence (lesson order) for Me & You is provided in Table 19.3.

Task 2: Choose Theory and Evidence-Based Change Methods to Address Program Objectives and Task 3: Select Practical Applications The development of program activities within the curriculum scope and sequence began with tasks 2 and 3 (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). In task 2, we chose theory and evidence-based change methods to address the program objectives for Me & You, and in task 3, we chose practical applications to operationalize the chosen methods. “Methods” are the theoretical tools for influencing change in determinants, whereas “practical applications” indicate how these methods are operationalized in the health program. To complete tasks, we first mapped all change objectives to the program’s scope and sequence to ensure that all objectives would be addressed during program development. Next, we created the blueprint for a design document (described in further detail in Step 4) for each lesson or program activity. Within each lesson or program activity, we sorted the change objectives by determinant and brainstormed different methods to address different determinants. Because social cognitive theory and the theory of planned behavior (Bandura, 1986; Montano & Kasprzyk, 2008) were guiding theoretical frameworks for Me & You, we identified methods often used with these theories (e.g., information about others’ approval, guided practice) (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). Next, we turned to other theoretical frameworks (e.g., attribution theory, theories of information processing) (Marlatt & Donovan, 2005; Petty et al., 2009) for additional methods to address determinants. All methods identified were used in IYG which have been used in similar effective sexual health and relationship programs (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016; Foshee et al., 2005; Kirby et al., 2004; Wolfe et al., 2008). Next, we brainstormed practical applications for these methods. See Table 19.4 for a summary of the methods and applications that were selected to address BO1 (see Table 19.2).

TABLE 19.3 Scope and Sequence for Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships Youth Component Lesson Number

Sixth Grade Lessons

Vehicle

1

Me & You G Describe the goals of the curriculum G List agreements for classroom discussion G Describe different types of relationships G Describe how people in their lives can support them

Classroom

2

Healthy Friendships G Demonstrate the ability to evaluate friendships G Feel confident in the ability to have healthy friendships G Recognize that peers can have healthy friendships G Resist social pressure to have an unhealthy friendship

Computer

3

Playing by Your Rules G Describe the three steps necessary for playing by your rules (SELECT, DETECT, PROTECT) in the context of healthy friendships and relationships G Define the meaning of a “personal rule” G Identify situations that may challenge personal rules G Identify actions to help stick with personal rules

Classroom

4

Protecting Your Rules about Relationships G Identify situations that may challenge personal rules about healthy relationships G Identify actions to help stick with personal rules about healthy relationships G List characteristics of a “clear NO” statement G Distinguish between ineffective and effective approaches to using “clear NO” statements G Use “clear NO” statements effectively G Avoid unhealthy relationships

Classroom computer blended

(Continued )

TABLE 19.3 (Continued) Youth Component Lesson Number

Sixth Grade Lessons

Vehicle

5

Healthy Dating Relationships G Demonstrate the ability to evaluate dating relationships G Recognize that teens can be in healthy dating relationships G Recognize the importance of respecting other people’s rules in dating relationships G Resist pressure to have an unhealthy dating relationship G Evaluate healthy and unhealthy dating relationships

Computer

The Thoughts and Emotions Link Recognize that “a healthy relationship starts with you” G Identify different emotional responses G Describe the connection between thoughts and feelings G Describe types of damaging thoughts, stinkin’ thinkin’, that may influence emotional responses G Describe the three steps to managing emotional responses: relax, rewind, and replay G Personalize how they can manage their emotions in challenging situations

Computer

Communication for Healthy Relationships State the importance of effective communication (with family/friends and future dating partners) G Describe effective negotiation (speaking and listening) skills G Demonstrate the ability to effectively communicate with others in order to protect personal rules about healthy relationships

Classroom computer blended

Tech Protect Identify unhealthy friendship and dating relationship behaviors that occur in the context of technology G Describe ways to protect personal rules about online communication and behavior G Demonstrate the ability to protect personal rules about online communication and behavior within the context of relationships, including how they behave toward others

Computer

6

G

7

G

8

G

9

Unhealthy Dating Relationships List types of violence (emotional, physical, and sexual) G Recognize signs of an unhealthy dating relationship G Recognize that DV can be in person or through technology G Understand the importance of active consent in relationships G Personalize what is important to them in a dating relationship

Computer

Consequences of Unhealthy Dating Relationships Understand the importance of active consent in relationships G Recognize warning signs of an unhealthy dating relationship G Identify physical, social, and emotional consequences of unhealthy dating relationships for victims and perpetrators G Understand the importance of establishing rules about healthy relationships G Identify the influence of gender stereotypes and power differentials in relationships

Classroom

Getting Out of Unhealthy Dating Relationships Recognize the importance of getting out of unhealthy friendships and dating relationships G Recognize that disclosing an unhealthy relationship can lead to support from others to get out of the relationship G Identify resources and social support sources for getting out of unhealthy relationships G Recognize how they can help friends who are in unhealthy relationships G Demonstrate the ability to manage unavoidable relationships that are unhealthy

Classroom computer blended

Keeping Your Relationships Healthy Distinguish between situations that have active consent vs situations in which there is no consent G Describe various strategies for keeping relationships healthy G Demonstrate the ability to manage emotions and use effective communication to keep their relationships healthy G Identify the influence of gender roles and power differentials in relationships

Classroom

Wrap Up Describe what they learned from the curriculum G Describe how they will use what they learned in the future

Classroom

G

10

G

11

G

12

G

13

G

Parent Component Lesson Number 5

Parent Student Take Home Activities

Vehicle

Healthy Relationships Characteristics of a healthy friendships and dating relationships G Dating rules and expectations

Worksheet

Talking Together G Communication and negotiation skills

Worksheet

My Escape Plan G Getting out of unhealthy relationships

Worksheet

G

7

11

Group debriefing

Group debriefing

Group debriefing

Parent Newsletter 1

G G G G

9

G G G G G

Overview of Me & You Tips for how parents can be involved with Me & You Tips for talking with your child Importance and tips for increasing parent child connectedness

Newsletter

Review of Me & You Setting and sticking to rules for healthy relationships Tech protect: helping kids stay safe online Tips for effective parent child communication Warning signs of an unhealthy dating relationship

Newsletter

School Staff Component Prior to L1

School Teacher Training Overview of Me & You G Facilitation skills and teaching with fidelity G Exploring values and attitudes G Answering sensitive questions G What you can do as a member of the school staff (recognize, respond, refer) G Importance of confidentiality G Lesson demonstration and practice

Training

School Newsletter Overview of Me and You G Unhealthy relationship behaviors G Why bullying and DV are issues for schools G What you can do as a member of the school staff (recognize, respond, refer)

Newsletter

G

1

G

DV, Dating violence.

TABLE 19.4 Student Outcome: Partial Example Methods and Practical Applications BO1: Students will have healthy peer and dating relationships (i.e., that are free of emotional, physical, and sexual violence Knowledge Determinants and Change Objectives

Method

Application

Knowledge about characteristics of healthy and unhealthy peer and potential dating partner relationships (in general and their own behaviors)

Discussion

Group processing about role model stories related to the characteristics of healthy relationships, signs of unhealthy relationships, characteristics of active consent

Knowledge about power differentials and unhealthy relationships, types of emotions and emotional responses, identifying unhealthy relationships

Take home activity with parent about healthy relationships

Elaboration

Brainstorming characteristics of healthy relationships

Scenariobased risk information

Quizzes and games about healthy relationships, managing emotions, and preventing teen DV

Knowledge about the consequences of healthy and unhealthy peer and potential dating partner relationships

Discussion

Group processing about role model stories related to the consequences of unhealthy relationships and consequences of not having active consent

Knowledge related to the steps for managing emotions

Chunking

Using acronyms to describe the steps (“Relax, Rewind Replay;” “Select, Detect, Protect”)

Modeling

Characters in stories demonstrate effective and ineffective refusal and communication skills

Knowledge of the signs and situations in which young people need to manage emotions or may come into contact with unhealthy peer and potential dating partner relationships

Anticipated regret

Knowledge related to the steps for having healthy relationships Knowledge of the characteristics of effective avoidance, refusal, and communication skills for fostering healthy relationships and/ or avoiding unhealthy relationships

Skills and Self-Efficacy Skills and self-efficacy to identify and evaluate their behaviors in relationships

Scenariobased risk information

Students evaluate animated scenarios that demonstrate healthy and unhealthy relationships behaviors

Self-efficacy to decide to have healthy relationships (i.e., select a personal rule to have a healthy relationship)

Modeling

Students see models of other students who have made the decision to have healthy relationships

Skills and self-efficacy for managing emotional responses

Planning coping responses

Students learn the “Relax, Rewind, Replay” paradigm to help them identify and manage emotional responses through animated role model scenarios

Skills and self-efficacy for using effective communication skills to foster healthy relationships

Guided practice

Facilitators demonstrate the skill and then the students do in-class and/or virtual online role plays in which they practice the skill; feedback is provided to the student

Skills and self-efficacy to use refusal/avoidance strategies to avoid peers and potential dating partners that engage in unhealthy relationships behaviors

Resistance to social pressure

Assessment quizzes with remediation

Modeling Goal setting

Students set goals for their relationships on a private online “graffiti wall”

Discussion

Group processing and quizzes about role model stories related to the characteristics of healthy relationships, signs of unhealthy relationships, characteristics of active consent

Information about others’ approval

“Teens talk” (peer videos) on healthy friendships, pressures in relationships, dating relationships (what makes them healthy and unhealthy), strategies for managing emotions

Perceived Norms Perceived norms that peers: G Decide to have healthy relationships and do not tolerate violence in relationships G Identify and evaluate behaviors within in their relationships G Manage emotional responses G Use effective avoidance, refusal, and communication skills for fostering healthy relationships and/or avoiding unhealthy relationships

Cultural similarity

488

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

STEP 4: PROGRAM PRODUCTION Task 1. Refine Program Structure and Organization Through our meetings with school district stakeholders and prior intervention implementation experiences, we identified four issues to help us refine the structure and organization of Me & You: (1) the program needed to be developed within the specified budget, (2) students had to have access to individual computers (all computer lessons were designed to be delivered individually with the exception of the classroom computer blended lessons which were teacher delivered), (3) students had to access the computer-based lessons on the computers, and (4) students had to complete all lessons within the class time period. Regarding the first issue, the initial intent was to develop a completely web-based curriculum. Unfortunately, the budget allocated was not sufficient. Further, our school district partner expressed interest in having a curriculum that included teacher facilitation and student to student interaction. We overcame these challenges by developing a hybrid curriculum which included computer as well as classroom components. Furthermore, we planned to adapt or utilize assets developed for IYG and its other adaptations, including IYG Tech (a completely computer-based version of IYG) (Peskin et al., 2015; Shegog et al., 2014) and Native IYG, an adaptation of IYG Tech for American Indian and Alaskan Native youth (Shegog et al., 2017). Related to the second issue, implementation staff worked with schools to identify times for participants to access the program on school computers in the computer lab. Testing and other school activities made scheduling challenging, but strong school district relationships enabled us to overcome this challenge. For the third issue, we knew that it would not be possible for students to access the computer-based curriculum on the Internet due to school district bandwidth limitations. Thus, we planned for a version of Me & You which could be downloaded onto computers. Regarding the fourth issue, we developed lessons that were 25 minutes in length so that they could be taught within a 55-minute class period. This timing provided sufficient time for students to come to class, receive instructions, and receive the entire Me & You lesson.

Task 2: Prepare Plans for Program Materials In this task, our goal was to create detailed design documents for each student lesson, parent child newsletter, and school training materials. According to Bartholomew Eldredge et al. (2016), the purpose of a design document is “to convey the team’s intent in detail to those who write or select content from available resources and design graphics or other communications.” The design documents are the blueprints for the program activities; their development is an iterative process that helps protect against errors

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

489

in the finished product. For Me & You, five planning group members led the development of each design document; however, all documents were reviewed by the entire group. Each design document included the change objectives that would be addressed by the particular lesson or program component, lesson objectives (which were derived from the change objectives), the methods, applications, sample activity descriptions and estimated duration, lesson flow, navigation, and specific tailoring points by gender (for selected computer-based lessons). With respect to lesson flow for the computer-based lessons, for example, we specified a 30-second introduction with a specific character, 4 5 activities (each 2.5 6.5 minutes long), and a 30-second wrap up. Specific computer-based activities included skill building simulations and games, role model stories (animated, video, and photographic still pictures), and peer videos. During the development of design documents, we evaluated IYG, IYG Tech, and Native IYG change objectives to assess which program activities could be adapted or repurposed for Me & You. When these activities were identified, they were noted in the relevant design document, as well as any needed adaptations. For example, we identified one Native IYG activity in which students view an animation of an imaginary partner who perpetrate different types of DV and then identify if the relationship is healthy or unhealthy. We felt this activity addressed Me & You change objectives; however, we made notes to remove references to scenarios that might be more relevant to Native youth and rewrite the script to be more age appropriate for younger youth (Native IYG was developed for a slightly older population).

Task 3: Draft Messages, Materials, and Protocol In task 3, we used design documents to develop the messages and specific scripts for each Me & You activity (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). For example, we developed a virtual role play activity script to ensure students could develop skills related to using avoidance and refusal strategies. We specified “modeling” and “resistance to social pressure” to address change objectives and used appropriate models and remediation to address these methods (see example script in Fig. 19.3). This script also specified the self tailoring options available. Specifically, students could select a partner based on gender preference and could choose the most relevant scenario for himself/herself. Other principles guiding our script development included ensuring diverse actors and characters, gender neutral names (when possible) to promote inclusivity, and the inclusion of both genders as potential perpetrators and victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Capaldi, 2012). To enhance relevance for black and Hispanic youth, Me & You addressed surface (e.g., settings, music, clothing) and deep (e.g., respect for family, inclusion of ethnic minority peer role models) structure

490

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Lesson #: 8, Activity #: 5 Change Objectives: (1) Increase self-efficacy for effective negotiation via skills practice, (2) Demonstrate ability to communicate personal limits to friends and partners, and (3) Use appropriate refusal skills to keep from doing things you don’t want to do Timing: 5:00 Description/Script/Audio: In this activity the learner chooses one scenario to complete. Three scenarios are provided. Each is a video-based simulation. The camera takes the learner’s point of view (POV). The learner interacts with a video model by selecting a negotiation line from available options and seeing this played out. After the video model responds the video freezes until the learner makes his/her next selection. Mia VO Here are three important rules. Protecting these rules will require open and honest negotiation. Scroll over each rule to see the situation that you will need to negotiate through. Choose the rule that is most right for you. Three rule options are displayed with titles and explanations. Text on screen reads: SELECT your rule 1. Choosing not to look at explicit material online: You are choosing to not look at explicit pictures or material online. (Freeze frame setting – in a living room doing homework with a friend.) 2. Choosing not to get involved in cyber-bullying: [Example script provided below] You have decided that you will not participate in any form of bullying. (Freeze frame setting – in a driveway). 3. Choosing not participate in sexting: You have decided that you will not send explicit pictures of any kind. (Freeze frame setting – in your bedroom) Actor: “Check out my post and comment on it! I wrote something about “you know who” that’s going to have everyone laughing at him. You should repost it too, so all your friends see it. Learner: a. No, that’s not cool. b. I don’t want to have anything to do with that. I’ll just mind my own business. c. Really? As soon as I get a chance I’ll check it out. IF learner selects C, THEN remediation Mia or Derek VO Sorry! You are opening the door for your friend to think you might be ok with this later. Try again! Actor: “Why? I thought you didn’t like him either.” Learner: a. Ugh…what is it you want me to say? FIGURE 19.3 Virtual role play script (lesson 8, student curriculum).

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

491

b. That’s not the point. I’m not comfortable talking about people, especially online. c. No, I’m telling you I don’t want to get involved. IF learner selects A, THEN remediation Mia or Derek VO This is not a clear or strong enough response to protect your rule. You are not stating your position at all. Try again! Actor: “So what are you saying? You’re too good to just comment?” Learner: a. I’m saying that I don’t want to get involved. Saying mean things online is the same as doing it in person. b. No, not at all. Maybe I’ll just like the post? c. You’re turning this around. Honestly I feel that we’re both too good. IF learner selects B, THEN remediation Mia or Derek VO Sorry! You are not sticking to your rules… “liking” the post is also bullying. There is a better response. Actor: “I don’t get it…not even a simple LOL?” Learner: a. I’ll do it this time, but don’t ask me to do something like this again. b. No, not even LOL. c. Saying LOL is getting involved, and I really would like if you respect my decision to stay out of it. IF learner selects A, THEN remediation Mia or Derek VO Don’t give in that easy. Make sure to stick to your rule and repeat your NO message if you have to. Try again! Actor: “Ok, well can you log onto someone else’s account and comment then?” Learner: a. I don’t even know how to get on anyone else’s account and I wouldn’t do that anyway. Maybe you should delete the post. b. If I’m not going to comment from mine, then I’m not going to comment from someone else’s. I really think you should take it down. c. You’re killing me…whose account do you have in mind? IF learner selects C, THEN remediation Mia or Derek VO Wow, you’re going to give up that easily? This won’t protect your rule. Select a better response. Actor: “Ok, I understand what you’re saying…I’ll take it down.” [GO TO Mia OUTRO] FIGURE 19.3 (Continued)

492

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

The Situation: You and a friend made plans to see a movie this weekend. At the last minute, your friend calls and says he/she doesn’t feel like going. This is the third time your friend has cancelled your plans together. This upsets you and makes you feel like your friend doesn’t care about your friendship. You want to tell them how you feel without hurting the friendship. Directions: (1) Fill in the blank lines with what you will say to your friend about this situation. Remember to use the stages of effective communication. (2) Practice the role-play lines with a partner. (3) After you complete the role-play, ask your partner which stages you used and check them off at the bottom of the page. You: _______________________________________________________ Your Friend: Ah, it’s no big deal. We can catch a movie next weekend. You: _______________________________________________________ Your Friend: I shouldn’t have cancelled our plans to go out. You: _______________________________________________________ Your Friend: I’m sorry. I really do care about our friendship.

Stage 1: Pay attention, listen, & empathize

Stage 2: Speak your case clearly

Stage 3: Use Eye Contact, Tone of Voice,& Body Language

FIGURE 19.4 Student role play: cancelled.

cultural features. Figs. 19.4 and 19.5, respectively, provide an example of a Me & You classroom role play and parent child take home activity. While all scripts were written by the planning group, we worked with a graphic artist, computer graphic designers and application developers, and video production and postproduction specialists to assist us in developing the computer-based lessons (which included video and animation). We developed a production task list to ensure all deliverables were met. Prior to producing the video and computer-based activities, we executed contracts with the outside vendors, auditioned and hired actors, recruited youth for “teens talk” videos, and arranged set locations and props. All videos were shot and edited. All animations were produced by the computer graphic designers and reviewed iteratively by the planning group. Fig. 19.6 provides sample screen shots.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

493

Directions: Explain to your parent(s) or other adult that you are learning about what makes a relationship between two people healthy. Ask them to think back to when they were growing up. Then ask them these questions. Write their answers in the space provided. 1. When you were my age, did you have someone that was a really good friend to you? Who was that person? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 2. What made them a good friend? List at least three things that made them a good friend. 1) ___________________________________________________ 2) ___________________________________________________ 3) ___________________________________________________ 3. What types of things did you do together that were fun? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 4. In class, I am also learning about what makes a dating relationship between two people healthy. How do you know when someone is in a healthy dating relationship? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 5. Most teens my age are not dating. How old do you think I should be before I start dating? Why? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 6. When I start dating, how do you think my boyfriend/girlfriend should treat me? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------Cut here and return this part to your Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships teacher. We have completed the Healthy Relationships homework together. Student’s Name (Print): Parent/Guardian’s Signature: FIGURE 19.5 Parent student homework activity: healthy relationships.

Task 4: Pilot Test, Refine, and Produce Materials Seven research staff alpha tested the computer-based program to identify technical issues. Further, we pilot tested newly developed Me & You lesson activities with our TAB. The TAB comprised a group of 15 ethnically diverse (African-American, Asian, and Hispanic) students (11 males and 4 females). TAB members provided input on the relevance of the scripts, stories, and role play topics. This feedback ensured the development of program content and scenarios that reflected realistic situations and relevant behaviors for urban, ethnic minority youth.

494

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

FIGURE 19.6 Me & You sample screen shots.

STEP 5: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Task 1: Identify Program Adopters and Implementers Because Me & You was a school-based program, adopters included school district representatives and school principals, and implementers were school teachers and staff facilitators. Because the goal was to implement the program through physical education/health classes, we met with the school district Health and Physical Education Department to obtain buy-in. We also met with the district School Health Advisory Council (SHAC). The SHAC ultimately has the authority to recommend to the school board whether a program can be implemented in the district (Hernandez et al., 2011), and it was subsequently approved. After receiving SHAC and school board approval, we met with school principals or another school appointed designee to obtain approval to implement the program at the schools. Next, we established a school contact at each of the schools and met with them to identify physical education and/or health teachers that were willing and available to teach Me & You. Monetary incentives were given to each of the schools, their contacts, and implementing teachers for assistance with program implementation.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

495

TABLE 19.5 Performance Objectives for Me & You Implementation Outcome: Physical Education, Health Teachers, and Staff Facilitators Will Implement Me & You in Health and/or Physical Education Classes during Spring 2014 Performance Objectives 1. All identified physical and/or health education teachers and staff facilitators attend Me & You training 2. Identified physical and/or health education teachers and staff facilitators plan how and when Me & You will be implemented 3. Identified physical and/or health education teachers and staff facilitators obtain program materials from Me & You staff 4. Identified physical and/or health education teachers and staff facilitators secure computer lab/library staff and other staff time if necessary 5. Computer, library staff, and/or program staff arrange for Me & You installation on school computers 6. Identified physical and/or health education teachers and staff facilitators teach all Me & You lessons as described in the teacher manual, with fidelity 7. Principal or other school district designee ensures teacher training time (including securing substitutes if necessary) and encourages Me & You implementation Adapted/reprinted with permission from Bartholomew Eldredge, L. K., Markham, C. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernandez, M. E., Kok, G., & Parcel, G. S. (2016). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tasks 2 and 3: State Outcomes and Performance Objectives and Construct Matrices of Change Objectives for Adoption and Implementation Tasks 2 and 3 were adapted from protocols and procedures developed for IYG adoption and implementation (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). For example, one IYG implementation outcome was: “Principals, physical education teachers, and necessary nonphysical education teachers will implement IYG, an effective HIV, STD, and pregnancy prevention program, as part of their fulfillment for teaching the state’s Health Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) objectives” (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). For Me & You, we adapted this outcome as follows: Physical education, health teachers, and staff facilitators will implement Me & You in health and/or physical education classes during spring 2014. Tables 19.5 and 19.6 include the performance objectives and a partial matrix of change for this Me & You implementation outcome.

Task 4: Design Implementation Intervention The Me & You implementation intervention was a teacher training, which also served as one of the Me & You components. The purpose of the training

496

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

TABLE 19.6 Partial Matrix for Me & You Implementation Outcome: Physical Education, Health Teachers, and Staff Facilitators Will Implement Me & You in Health and/or Physical Education Classes during Spring 2014 Psychosocial Factors Performance Objectives

A. Knowledge

B. Attitudes

C. Outcome Expectations

D. Skills and Self-Efficacy

1. All identified physical education and/or health teachers and staff facilitators attend Me & You training

1a. Describe where training is and how it will be covered (substitute coverage, during training day, etc.)

1b. Describe the training as useful and necessary

1c. Expect that by attending the training they will be able to successfully implement program and students will benefit

1d. Demonstrates ability to attend the training and expresses confidence to do so

2. Identified physical education and/or health teachers and staff facilitators plan how and when Me & You will be implemented

2ai. Describe which lesson plans will be incorporated into the curriculum

2b. Feels the Me & You program will enhance their overall lesson plans for students

2c. Expects that Me & You program lessons are adaptable and therefore easy to include in curriculum

2d. Demonstrate ability to fit lessons into yearly plan and expresses confidence in ability to do so

2aii. Describe when the lessons will be implemented during allotted health class time

Adapted/reprinted with permission from Bartholomew Eldredge, L. K., Markham, C. M., Ruiter, R.A. C., Fernandez, M. E., Kok, G., & Parcel, G. S. (2016). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

was to ensure that teachers and staff (i.e., program facilitators) received knowledge and skills to implement Me & You. The change matrix guided development of methods and practical applications for the training, which were also adapted from the IYG training (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). Discussion, modeling, guided practice, and values clarification were theoretical methods used to address the psychosocial determinants of knowledge, skills and self-efficacy, perceived norms, and outcome expectations. Practical applications included modeling and lesson demonstration by trainers, teacher lesson practice with feedback from trainers, and interactive group activities. Training topics related to implementation included an overview of program and lessons, facilitation skills, teaching with fidelity, exploring values and attitudes, classroom management and answering sensitive questions, and lesson preparation skills.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

497

STEP 6: EVALUATION PLAN Tasks 1 and 2: Write Outcome and Process Evaluation Questions and Select Measures The logic model, BOs, and matrices guide the development of the outcome evaluation questions (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). The primary outcome evaluation question examined the impact of Me & You on reducing any type of TDV perpetration and victimization among students who received Me & You versus those who received regular health education. Secondary outcome evaluation questions examined the impact of Me & You on specific types of TDV perpetration and victimization (physical, emotional, cyber, sexual); bullying; and on psychosocial factors (e.g., selfefficacy to avoid conflict, increased coping and conflict management skills, attitudes and norms about violence, perceived peer involvement in risky behaviors, parent child communication) associated with TDV perpetration and victimization. Measures were adapted from existing questionnaires that have been shown to be valid and reliable in adolescent populations (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Dahlberg et al., 2005; Foshee et al., 1999, 2001; Orpinas et al., 2013; Wolfe et al., 2001). Process evaluation questions examined program reach, dose delivered, dose received, and fidelity.

Task 3: Specify Outcome Evaluation Design A randomized 2-arm, nested design with 10 middle schools was conducted; students who received Me & You were compared to students receiving usual care. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately following the intervention, and at 12 months after baseline.

Task 4: Complete the Evaluation Plan We developed an evaluation plan that outlined evaluation questions, measures, and procedures (Bartholomew Eldredge et al., 2016). Over 900 sixth grade students were recruited into the evaluation study. Active parental permission and student assent were obtained. Data were collected through a computer assisted self-interview. Facilitators and trained observers collected process data. Process evaluation instruments include rosters to measure intervention exposure, facilitator curriculum logs, and observation assessments. We will present and publish the evaluation findings in a future publication.

CONCLUSION IM provided a detailed framework for decision-making during each phase of program development for Me & You. By using this systematic process, which uses theory, empirical evidence, and community input, program planners were able to ensure that all relevant and feasible determinants for unhealthy

498

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

youth relationship behaviors could be addressed. Because IM uses an ecological approach, it was particularly helpful in developing a healthy relationship intervention that included youth, parent, and school components. Although the planning framework may seem complex at times, each IM step provides practical step by step instructions for ensuring the development of a theory and empirically based intervention. This case study may serve as a practical guide for future program planners who wish to use IM to develop and/or adapt similar interventions.

REFERENCES Ali, B., Swahn, M., & Hamburger, M. (2011). Attitudes affecting physical dating violence perpetration and victimization: Findings from adolescents in a high-risk urban community. Violence and Victims, 26, 669 683. Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescents follow in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162 184. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Banyard, V. L., Cross, C., & Modecki, K. L. (2006). Interpersonal violence in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1314 1332. Bartholomew Eldredge, L. K., Markham, C. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernandez, M. E., Kok, G., & Parcel, G. S. (2016). Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Black, B., & Preble, K. (2016). Parental responses to youths’ reports of teen dating violence: Recommendations from parents and youth. Journal of Adolescence, 51, 144 155. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012a). Dating matters: Strategies to promote health teen relationships. ,http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/DatingMatters_flyer-a.pdf.. Accessed 01/02/18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012b). Understanding teen dating violence. ,http:// www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-factsheet-a.pdf. . Accessed 01/02/ 18. Champion, H., Wagoner, K., Song, E. Y., Brown, V. K., & Wolfson, M. (2008). Adolescent date fighting victimization and perpetration from a multi-community sample: Associations with substance use and other violent victimization and perpetration. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 419 429. Coker, A. L., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., Asaolu, I. O., Cook-Craig, P. G., Brancato, C. J., et al. (2014). Dating violence victimization and perpetration rates among high school students. Violence against Women, 20, 1220 1238. Coyle, K., Anderson, P., & Laris, B. A. (2016). Schools and sexuality education. In J. J. Ponzetti, Jr. (Ed.), Evidence based approaches to sexuality education: A global perspective (pp. 146 168). New York: Routledge. Dahlberg, L. L., Toal, S. B., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. B. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention. East, P. L., & Hokoda, A. (2015). Risk and protective factors for sexual and dating violence victimization: A longitudinal, prospective study of Latino and African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1288 1300.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

499

Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Low, S. K. (2014). Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 287 305. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6, 245 258. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 331 342. Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39, 1007 1016. Foshee, V. A., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Bauman, K. E., et al. (2008). What accounts for demographic differences in trajectories of adolescent dating violence? An examination of intrapersonal and contextual mediators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 596 604. Foshee, V. A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128 141. Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., et al. (1996). The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 39 47. Foshee, V. A., Naughton Reyes, H. L., Chen, M. S., Ennett, S. T., Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., et al. (2016). Shared risk factors for the perpetration of physical dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment among adolescents exposed to domestic violence. Journal of youth and adolescence. Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Mathias, J. P., Karriker-Jaffe, K. J., et al. (2011). Risk and protective factors distinguishing profiles of adolescent peer and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 344 350. Garba, R. M., & Gadanya, M. A. (2017). The role of intervention mapping in designing disease prevention interventions: A systematic review of the literature. PLoS ONE, 12, e0174438. Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach (4th ed). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional. Hernandez, B. F., Peskin, M. F., Shegog, R., Markham, C. M., Johnson, K., Ratliff, E. A., et al. (2011). Choosing and maintaining programs for sex education in schools: The CHAMPSS model. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 2, 1 33. Howard, D. E., Debnam, K. J., & Wang, M. Q. (2013). Ten-year trends in physical dating violence victimization among U.S. adolescent females. The Journal of School Health, 83, 389 399. Khubchandani, J., Price, J. H., Thompson, A., Dake, J. A., Wiblishauser, M., & Telljohann, S. K. (2012). Adolescent dating violence: A national assessment of school counselors’ perceptions and practices. Pediatrics, 130, 202 210. Khubchandani, J., Telljohann, S. K., Price, J. H., Dake, J. A., & Hendershot, C. (2013). Providing assistance to the victims of adolescent dating violence: A national assessment of school nurses’ practices. The Journal of School Health, 83, 127 136. Kirby, D. (2001). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

500

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Kirby, D. B., Baumler, E., Coyle, K. K., Basen-Engquist, K., Parcel, G. S., Harrist, R., et al. (2004). The “Safer choices” intervention: Its impact on the sexual behaviors of different subgroups of high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 442 452. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Capaldi, D. M. (2012). Clearly we’ve only just begun: Developing effective prevention programs for intimate partner violence. Prevention Science, 13, 410 414. Marlatt, G. A., & Donovan, D. M. (2005). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Sullivan, T., Orpinas, P., & Simon, T. R. (2009). Parent and peer predictors of physical dating violence perpetration in early adolescence: Tests of moderation and gender differences. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology: The Official Journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53, 38, 538 550. Montano, D. E. ,, & Kasprzyk, D. (2008). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed, pp. 67 96). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Niolon, P. H., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Latzman, N. E., Valle, L. A., Kuoh, H., Burton, T., et al. (2015). Prevalence of teen dating violence and co-occurring risk factors among middle school youth in high-risk urban communities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, S5 S13. Orpinas, P., Hsieh, H. L., Song, X., Holland, K., & Nahapetyan, L. (2013). Trajectories of physical dating violence from middle to high school: Association with relationship quality and acceptability of aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 551 565. Orpinas, P., Nahapetyan, L., Song, X., McNicholas, C., & Reeves, P. M. (2012). Psychological dating violence perpetration and victimization: Trajectories from middle to high school. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 510 520. Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., & Tortolero, S. R. (2014). Effects of the It’s Your Game . . . Keep It Real program on dating violence in ethnic-minority middle school youths: A group randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 1471 1477. Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Temple, J. R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., et al. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 358 375. Peskin, M. F., Shegog, R., Markham, C. M., Thiel, M., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., et al. (2015). Efficacy of it’s your game-tech: A computer-based sexual health education program for middle school youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 515 521. Petty, R. E., Barden, J., & Wheeler, S. C. (2009). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Developing health promotions for sustained behavioral change. In R. J. Diclemente, R. A. Crosby, & M. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 185 214). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reed, E., Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., & Miller, E. (2011). Male perpetration of teen dating violence: Associations with neighborhood violence involvement, gender attitudes, and perceived peer and neighborhood norms. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 88, 226 239. Reeves, P. M., & Orpinas, P. (2011). Dating norms and dating violence among ninth graders in northeast Georgia: Reports from students surveys and focus groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1677 1698.

Using Intervention Mapping to Develop Chapter | 19

501

Reyes, H. L., Foshee, V. A., Chen, M. S., & Ennett, S. T. (2016a). Patterns of dating violence victimization and perpetration among Latino youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1727 1742. Reyes, H. L., Foshee, V. A., Niolon, P. H., Reidy, D. E., & Hall, J. E. (2016b). Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 350 360. Sabina, C., Cuevas, C. A., & Cotignola-Pickens, H. M. (2016). Longitudinal dating violence victimization among Latino teens: Rates, risk factors, and cultural influences. Journal of Adolescence, 47, 5 15. Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (2002). Ecological models of health behavior. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health promotion and health education: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 462 484). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Son, Inc. Schnurr, M. P., & Lohman, B. J. (2013). The impact of collective efficacy on risks for adolescents’ perpetration of dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 518 535. Shegog, R., Craig, R. S., Gorman, G., Jessen, C., Torres, J., Lane, T. L., et al. (2017). NATIVE-It’s your game: Adapting a technology-based sexual health curriculum for American Indian and Alaska Native youth. Journal of Primary Prevention, 38, 27 48. Shegog, R., Peskin, M. F., Markham, C., Thiel, M., Karny, E., Addy, R. C., et al. (2014). Its your game-tech: Toward sexual health in the digital age. Creative Education, 5, 1428 1447. Smith, J., Mulford, C., Latzman, N. E., Tharp, A. T., Niolon, P. H., & Blachman-Denner, D. (2015). Taking stock of behavioral measures of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 24, 674 692. Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14, 64 76. Temple, J. R., Choi, H. J., Elmquist, J., Hecht, M., Miller-Day, M., Stuart, G. L., et al. (2016). Psychological abuse, mental health, and acceptance of dating violence among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59, 197 202. Tortolero, S. R., Markham, C. M., Peskin, M. F., Shegog, R., Addy, R. C., Escobar-Chaves, S. L., et al. (2010). It’s your game: Keep it real: Delaying sexual behavior with an effective middle school program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 169 179. Weisz, A. N., & Black, B. N. (2001). Evaluating a sexual assault and dating violence prevention program for urban youths. Social Work Research, 25, 89 100. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., et al. (2009). A school based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 692 699. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Hughes, R., & Jaffe, P. J. (2008). The fourth R: A school-based program to reduce violence and risk behaviors among youth. In D. Pepler, & W. Craig (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. 184 197). Bloomington, IN: Author House. 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. Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Korchmaros, J. D., & Boyd, D. (2016). Lifetime prevalence rates and overlap of physical, psychological, and sexual dating abuse perpetration and victimization in a national sample of youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1083 1099.

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 20

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention: Lessons Learned From the Alaska Fourth R Initiative Claire V. Crooks1, Deinera Exner-Cortens2, Wendi Siebold3, Mollie Rosier4, and Jenny Baker4 1

Centre for School Mental Health, Western University, London, ON, Canada, 2University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, 3Strategic Prevention Solutions, Seattle, WA, United States, 4 State of Alaska Department of Health and Human Services, Juneau, AK, United States

INTRODUCTION Teen dating violence (TDV) continues to be a common problem with numerous negative outcomes (for a recent review, see Jennings et al. 2017). Although TDV was historically minimized as being not as serious as adult intimate partner violence (IPV), research now shows that there is a high degree of continuity from TDV to IPV. TDV is a strong predictor of ongoing interpersonal violence in adulthood; specifically, both TDV perpetration and victimization can increase the likelihood of perpetration and victimization later in the life course (Cui, Finchman, Gordon, & Ueno, 2013; ExnerCortens, Eckenrode, Rothman, & Bunge, 2017; Manchikanti, 2011). The prevalence, consequences, and potential longevity of TDV are such that a public health approach is warranted, and effective prevention programs are a key component of such an approach (Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002). Unfortunately, while many TDV prevention programs have been developed and implemented, few have demonstrated effectiveness. The Fourth R and Safe Dates are the two programs that currently have the most evidence of effectiveness for TDV prevention, although there are many other innovative approaches under development or in various stages of testing (De Koker, Mathews, Zuch, Bastien, & Mason-Jones, 2014; De La

Adolescent Dating Violence. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811797-2.00020-7 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

503

504

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2017; Ellsberg et al., 2015; Niolon et al. 2016; Taylor, Mumford, & Stein, 2015). The focus of this chapter is the Fourth R, which is a TDV prevention program that was designed to be implemented by teachers in standard health classes (Wolfe, Jaffe, & Crooks, 2006). The Fourth R refers to “relationships” and is based on the contention that relationship skills are as important for schools to teach as the first three R’s (i.e., reading “riting,” and “rithmetic”). The Fourth R uses a social emotional learning framework and has a strong emphasis on skill development. The program looks at adolescent behavior in a holistic way, by addressing the overlaps among healthy relationships, different types of relationship violence, sexual health, and substance use and misuse. To cover these topics, the original Grade 9 version consists of 21 sessions that are 75 minutes in length, and matched to curriculum requirements (Wolfe et al., 2009). Since its initial development in the early 2000s, there are now many other Fourth R program options available other than the original Grade 9 program. Most of which continue to align with curriculum expectations to minimize barriers to implementation (i.e., as compared to add-on programs). Other Fourth R programs include healthy living curricula for Grades 7 8 and English curricula for Grades 9 12. There are slightly different versions of these curricula that align with every province’s and territory’s specific educational expectations to ensure that educators across Canada can meet their teaching requirements by implementing the program. The program has also been aligned with health expectations in numerous US states. Additional versions of the Fourth R have also been developed for different First Nations perspectives (e.g., Crooks, Exner-Cortens, Burm, Lapointe, & Chiodo, 2017a). The Fourth R offers various in-person and online teacher training options, including opportunities to become master trainers, for school districts and community organizations to develop their own trainers certified in the Fourth R (for more information, see www.youthrelationships.org). The Fourth R team has published numerous studies evaluating the program and its implementation. The initial cluster randomized controlled trial with the Grade 9 program included 20 schools with over 1700 students aged 14 15 years. Students were surveyed before receiving programming and 2.5 years after the program. Results indicated that physical dating violence was about 2.5 times greater among control (i.e., standard health education) versus intervention (i.e., Fourth R) students at the 2.5-year follow-up, and that the intervention impact was greater for boys than girls (Wolfe et al., 2009). In addition, the Fourth R intervention improved condom use among sexually active boys compared to their counterparts in the control condition (Wolfe et al., 2009). The development of positive relationship behaviors was also studied, and observational data demonstrated an increase in effective peer resistance skills among Fourth R students compared to the control group (Wolfe, Crooks, Chiodo, Hughes, & Ellis, 2012).

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

505

Beyond the Fourth R’s universal impacts, there is evidence that the program has a protective impact for vulnerable youth. Analysis of the Grade 9 randomized controlled trial data indicated that there was a protective effect for youth with a history of multiple forms of maltreatment with respect to lowering the likelihood of engaging in violent delinquency (Crooks, Scott, Wolfe, Chiodo, & Killip, 2007). This buffering effect was still evident at the 2.5-year follow-up (Crooks, Scott, Ellis, & Wolfe, 2011). In addition to strong findings with the Grade 9 program, the evidence base has been extended to include younger students. A province-wide evaluation in Saskatchewan showed that youth in the Grade 8 program demonstrated improved knowledge about violence, awareness about the impacts of violence, and an increased ability to identify healthy coping strategies following participation in the program and as compared to a control group (Crooks et al. 2015). Most recently, a health economics evaluation documented relatively low implementation costs across several different implementation scenarios, as well as significant averted costs due to the observed decrease in delinquency (Crooks et al., 2017b). On the basis of this evidence, the Fourth R has been identified as effective or promising by a number of organizations, including the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning. Access to evidence-based programs is an important and necessary piece of an effective public health approach. However, access to programs alone is not sufficient for ultimately changing health behavior, as there are many considerations that underlie effective implementation and sustainability of such efforts in the real world beyond program efficacy under highly controlled research conditions. In practice, widespread implementation of effective TDV prevention has remained elusive. In particular, school-based TDV prevention programs have shown promise, but the successful implementation of school-based prevention efforts requires attention to multiple levels in a complex system (e.g., considerations related to the intervention and implementation support system, as well as those related to the larger school and societal contexts; Domitrovich et al., 2008). As well, the larger macro-level context—including policies and financing, leadership and human capital, and university/community partnerships—is often overlooked, which impedes high-quality implementation and sustainability. Beyond the complexity of implementing programs in schools, there are also problems with trying to house the prevention of TDV entirely within this system, and with embarking on school-based TDV prevention without links to other community stakeholders and initiatives. First, an approach that is entirely focused on the school environment may miss youth who are not in the school building on a regular basis and who may be most in need

506

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

of resources. Second, a fragmented approach that does not include the multiple stakeholders with a role to play in preventing TDV results in multiple sectors lacking shared responsibility for this public health problem (Fawcett, Schultz, Watson-Thompson, Fox, & Bremby, 2010). As such, prevention of TDV requires collaboration across multiple stakeholders because youth needs cut across health, education, and social services (Davis & Tsao, 2014): TDV prevention does not belong to any one sector, and there is a clear need to move beyond silos to a coordinated approach. Such an approach requires collaborative partnerships, defined as an alliance among people and organizations from multiple sectors working together to achieve a common purpose (Himmelman, 1992). Because of their focus on collaboration and common purpose, multisectoral approaches play a particularly important role in the sustainability of prevention efforts (Hawkins, Oesterle, Brown, Abbott, & Catalano, 2014). However, although there is widespread recognition of the importance of multisectoral partnerships and a collaborative approach to prevention work, there are few examples of such collaborations occurring successfully, especially outside the framework of large grant-funded projects. The purpose of this chapter is to describe one successful example where multisectoral stakeholders assumed shared responsibility for the implementation, evaluation, and scale-up of an evidence-based TDV program (the Fourth R) in schools across Alaska. We begin with a brief description of the Alaska Fourth R initiative and the multisectoral collaborative partnership that implemented this initiative. We then utilize the Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) (Meyers, Durlak, & Wandersman, 2012) to describe how this work unfolded across four phases. Throughout this chapter, we highlight ways in which the multisectoral collaborative partnership was able to navigate different challenges and achieve success. We also describe a dynamic tension that arose between a simultaneous focus on implementation and rigorous outcome evaluation. We conclude with lessons learned for future multisectoral TDV prevention work.

THE ALASKA FOURTH R INITIATIVE The Alaska Fourth R initiative began in 2008, when a multisectoral collaborative partnership that was part of a larger statewide prevention group (known as Pathways to Prevention) began to plan a school-based prevention strategy. As part of this planning, one of the members of this larger group (from the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault) began working with one of the key program developers of the Fourth R to look at possible adaptations for the Alaska context. Starting in 2009, a process was outlined and undertaken to make the Fourth R curriculum more relevant to Alaska.

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

507

After 2 years of adaptation and pilot implementation, the multisectoral Alaska Fourth R partnership1 secured State funding to more formally evaluate the effectiveness of the Fourth R when implemented in the Alaska school context. Between 2011 and 2014, the adapted program was implemented and evaluated in 12 schools (six intervention, seven comparison)2 in 11 communities across Alaska. Over 500 ninth graders participated in the Alaska Fourth R evaluation study, which employed a quasi-experimental, mixedmethods design. Quantitative components included pre-post and 12-month follow-up surveys from students in intervention and comparison schools. Qualitative components included focus groups with students in intervention schools and teacher interviews. There were also implementation tracking surveys and school prevention activity tracking. A final report was prepared that included quantitative and qualitative findings, process evaluation findings, and three case studies to describe differences in implementation (Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014). Despite a number of methodological challenges that are common in community evaluations (Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014) and also some unique challenges within the context of program evaluation in Alaska, evaluation results showed that youth who participated in the Fourth R experienced significant improvements compared to their peers. Specifically, students who participated in the Fourth R curriculum reported greater intentions to seek help from trusted adults, teachers, family members or shelters/hotlines if a dating relationship became physically or sexually abusive, and also somewhat lower pro-violence attitudes. Among those students with low-abuse awareness scores at pretest, there was also significant improvement in awareness of abusive behaviors. Finally, among those who indicated an opportunity to talk to a friend about what makes a relationship abusive in the past month (a skill that directly ties to much of the material covered by the Fourth R program and also builds on awareness of abusive behaviors and knowledge of where to seek help), participation in the Fourth R was related to a greater likelihood of engaging in this prosocial bystander behavior (see Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014, for statistical analyses and results). Overall, qualitative data indicated that students enjoyed participating in the Fourth R curriculum, and that teachers who implemented the curriculum using the interactive materials offered by the program preferred using the 1. Initial partners in the Fourth R Alaska partnership included the State of Alaska Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS), the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), and the State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (EED). In 2011 the State of Alaska, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault became formally involved with the partnership (CDVSA). 2. Of the 11 schools in the evaluation, 6 implemented the Fourth R curriculum, and the remaining 7 schools implemented their regular health class and served as a comparison group (note: 2 schools began as comparison schools and then crossed over to intervention schools; see Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014, for additional details).

508

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Fourth R to their regular health class curriculum. Students and teachers were also able to give examples of how students were using the Fourth R lessons in their real life (i.e., outside of the classroom). Although methodological constraints limited the number of outcome findings in this study (Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014), overall, quantitative and qualitative results were positive and demonstrated that the Fourth R has distinct promise for Alaska’s students. More detail about the methods and findings of the evaluation are available in the final report (Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014). The Fourth R continues to be disseminated following the evaluation and has now been implemented in 60 schools across 21 districts in Alaska. Furthermore, over 300 school staff and community partners throughout the state have been trained to deliver the program (Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, undated) and, between 2009 and 2017, six cohorts of master trainers in Alaska were developed, further increasing the sustainability of the program. Finally, in June 2016, the Alaska Safe Children’s Act Task Force delivered its report to the government, and the Fourth R was specifically named as a recommended curriculum. This report offered implementation guidelines for legislation that had been passed in 2015. We now turn to successes and challenges and lessons learned during the implementation and evaluation of the Fourth R in Alaska (2011 20143). Throughout this chapter, we use illustrative quotes to share the voices of various stakeholders in Alaska. Some of these quotes are from the individuals who made up the multisectoral collaborative partnership and are drawn from an article identifying how different factors contributed to the success of the partnership (Crooks et al., 2018). Other quotes are from teachers involved in the evaluation (Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014) and were gathered either in focus groups or through year-end implementation surveys. To organize these data, we first summarize the QIF by Meyers et al. (2012), and then apply this framework to data collected through the Alaska Fourth R initiative.

UNDERSTANDING IMPLEMENTATION: THE QIF Over the past 15 years, implementation science has emerged as an important context for understanding program effectiveness. This field grew out of recognition that carefully implemented and evaluated programs often lacked success when rolled out under real-world conditions. As researchers began to study the implementation process more clearly, it became evident that implementation quality (and in some cases even just implementation monitoring) 3. Although the formal evaluation was conducted between 2011 and 2014, data collection is ongoing as a condition of PREP funding, which has been used since 2013 to support the Fourth R in Alaska. Thus, the DHHS continues to collect youth data every year (with appropriate IRB approval, parental consent, and youth assent).

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

Phase 1: Initial Considerations Regarding the Host Setting

Phase 2: Creating a Structure for Implementation

Phase 3: Ongoing Structures Once Implementation Begins

509

Phase 4: Improving Future Applications

FIGURE 20.1 The four phases of the QIF. From Meyers et al., 2012.

played an important role in determining outcomes (Aarons, Sommerfeld, Hcht, Silovsky, & Chaffin, 2009; Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Holloway, Valentine, & Copper, 2002; Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003). Numerous models have thus been proposed to identify the complex interactions of factors that promote or impede implementation (e.g., Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011; Damschroeder, et al., 2009; Domitrovich et al., 2008; Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2005, 2009; Rogers, 2010). One of these—the QIF—is described further here. The QIF was proposed as a meta-theory of implementation based on a careful synthesis of many other reviews and models (Meyers et al., 2012). As shown in Fig. 20.1, it describes four sequential and necessary phases for successful implementation: initial considerations regarding the host setting (Phase 1), creating a structure for implementation (Phase 2), ongoing structures once implementation begins (Phase 3), and improving future applications (Phase 4). Furthermore, within each phase, specific critical steps are identified, based on the literature synthesis; in total, 14 steps are identified in the implementation process (Meyers et al., 2012). These phases and steps provide a useful framework for describing the implementation process of the Alaska Fourth R initiative.

Phase 1: Initial Considerations Regarding the Host Setting The first phase of the QIF is hypothesized to include eight steps: needs and resource assessment, fit assessment, capacity/readiness assessment, possibility for adaptation, buy-in/supportive climate, general organizational capacity, staff recruitment and maintenance, and preinnovation training (Meyers et al., 2012). Although not all eight of these were undertaken distinctly in the Alaska Fourth R initiative, most of them were addressed to some extent. For example, although the Fourth R collaborative did not undertake a specific need and resource assessment, this multisectoral partnership was building on the needs identified by the larger Pathways to Prevention initiative, from which the Fourth R initiative emerged. Pathways to Prevention was developed in response to the high rates of domestic violence reported in Alaska (Rosier & Mishra, undated). At the time that the Fourth R collaborative was planning to implement school-based TDV prevention programming,

510

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Alaska had some of the highest rates of domestic violence and sexual assault in the nation (Black et al., 2011). Beyond high rates of domestic violence in general, a clear case had also been articulated regarding the need for prevention with a focus on adolescents. In 2009, National Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance System data indicated that the past year prevalence of TDV among high-school students in Alaska was 13.3%, compared to the national average of 9.8%, and Alaskan high-school students were more likely to have been physically forced to have sexual intercourse in their lives than US students nationally (10.1% versus 7.4%; Eaton et al., 2010). There were also other disparities in predictors of TDV among Alaskan students (e.g., around sexual activity behaviors; Eaton et al., 2010). Together, these statistics were widely recognized by stakeholders in the collaborative as a key part of the call to action. The data led to a sense of urgency across several sectors, and this urgency reached the level of senior decision-makers required to allocate resources to the initiative. Beyond the clear need, a second factor contributing to readiness was that interest in identifying and implementing an evidence-based TDV prevention approach came from different directions simultaneously (aligning with the QIF factor of buy-in/supportive climate). In 2008, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) Family Violence Project Director, while working with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, was part of a review committee researching evidence-based healthy relationship and TDV prevention curricula. The Fourth R was one of the two effective programs identified through that process. At the same time, other agencies in Alaska were seeking a comprehensive school-based program that promoted healthy relationships and addressed adolescent health risks. Specifically, the Adolescent Health Program of the DHHS was interested in teen pregnancy prevention and youth engagement; the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) was interested in violence prevention and community involvement; and the state Department of Education and Early Development (EED) was interested in HIV prevention and comprehensive health education. Consequently, there was a high level of readiness and buy-in across sectors for the implementation of a healthy relationships resource in Alaska. An important part of Phase 1 in the QIF is looking at the issue of fit and possible adaptation of a program. There are many advantages to adapting an evidence-based program to meet community needs versus simply implementing as is, or alternatively, developing something locally (O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009). For example, implementing an evidence-based program as a one-size-fits all venture may result in poor fit with a particular community’s needs, strengths, and capacities, resulting in a lack of program ownership and sustainability (O’Connell et al., 2009). Conversely, a locally developed approach might have good ownership but is not assured of having any positive impacts (and, in some cases, may instead have iatrogenic effects). The middle ground, which involves adapting an evidence-based program, can

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

511

maximize the likelihood of achieving positive results, while also meeting the needs of the local population and increasing buy-in from stakeholders (O’Connell et al., 2009). Related to this balance between adaptation and fidelity, there is emerging consensus that hybrid prevention programs with “built-in” guidelines for engaging fit while maximizing fidelity are an important innovation (Castro, Barrera, & Martinez, 2004). For example, the Fourth R has a traffic light guide in the implementation manual that offers suggestions for modifications that should not be made (i.e., red light), those that can be made with caution (i.e., yellow light), and modifications that can be freely made (i.e., green light; Crooks, Zwarych, Burns, & Hughes, 2015). The Alaska collaborative felt that the Fourth R curriculum overall was relevant for the Alaskan population as it had materials that were specifically designed for Indigenous youth (Crooks, Wolfe, Hughes, Jaffe, & Chiodo, 2008), and many schools in Alaska serve Alaska Native youth. To improve the fit, initial adaptations involved changing text (e.g., making the scenarios fit better) and adding Alaska Native cultural components, which resulted in the new “Alaska Perspectives” curriculum. Interestingly, these enhancements were eventually largely dropped by educators because of the added length they brought to the program; nonetheless, assessing and adapting fit for the Alaska context was an important early exercise in building momentum for implementation. The Adolescent Health Program, ANDVSA, and EED also focused on the Fourth R because it met Alaska’s criteria around promoting evidence-based practices, increasing healthy relationships, preventing teen pregnancies/STDs, and preventing violence; as such, the Fourth R was particularly attractive because of its interconnected content areas and multipurpose approach to comprehensive skill building (Rosier & Mishra, undated). In this manner, the content of the Fourth R also led to increases in buy-in and supportive climate. For example, the State of Alaska DHSS had a primary interest in teen pregnancy prevention and youth engagement, while ANDVSA focused on both domestic violence and sexual assault prevention, and the State of Alaska EED had primary interests in broad-based health education and social emotional learning. The focus on social emotional learning in the Fourth R may also have contributed to buy-in, since such approaches are increasingly recognized as consistent with a public health approach, further breaking down silos that have traditionally existed between education and public health (Greenberg, Domitrovich, Weissberg, & Durlak, 2017). In sum, the broad nature of Fourth R programming was able to speak to the needs and mandates of diverse stakeholders, and give a common focal point for their comprehensive efforts.

Phase 2: Creating a Structure for Implementation The second phase of the QIF focuses on the structural features needed for high-quality implementation (Meyers et al., 2012). It includes creating

512

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

implementation teams and addressing questions of organizational responsibility for implementation, as well as roles, processes, and responsibilities for implementation team members. Beyond identifying the implementation team, there is also a focus on the importance of identifying who will provide support to frontline implementers as needed (Wandersman et al., 2008). In the Alaska Fourth R initiative, the implementation structure existed at two levels. First, there was the statewide planning process conducted under the umbrella of Pathways to Prevention, followed by the smaller Fourth R initiative subgroup. Although members of the collaborative partnership overseeing the Fourth R had strong interpersonal relationships, they did not rely on these relationships alone and instituted formal planning processes, such as regular meetings with agendas/action items and Memorandums of Understanding among participating organizations, in order to provide the foundation for high-quality implementation (Crooks et al., 2018). We had an annual workplan. And at the federal level we were required to do semi-annual progress reports. And on an annual basis we would redo the contract with [collaboration partner] and we would outline a workplan and new budget. And so there was always that discussion Stakeholder, multisectoral collaborative, as cited in Crooks et al., 2018, page 100.

In addition to implementation planning, members of the collaborative also provided support to educators implementing the Fourth R (for details, see the next section). The second level of implementation planning occurred at the school or district level. For the Fourth R initiative, all educators participated in one full day of training by a Fourth R master trainer. In addition, educators were provided with implementation tracking sheets to identify which part of the curriculum and activities they used, as well as any modifications they made (and why these modifications were needed). Another important aspect of determining an implementation structure is finding adequate resources for a project. Again, the timing was good for the Fourth R initiative in that it aligned with a governor’s mandate in the area of violence prevention. In 2009, Governor Sean Parnell initiated the Choose Respect Campaign to eliminate domestic violence and sexual assault in Alaska (Rosier & Mishra, undated). This initiative identified key areas to target in Alaska, and established work groups to dedicate attention to domestic violence and sexual assault prevention, intervention, and response. As a result of a recommendation from the Governor’s Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) Legislative Task Force Report to the Legislature (March, 2008), a health education specialist position was created in EED, and one of the position’s primary focus areas was to work on Fourth R implementation, evaluation planning, and training coordination. Along with the new position in EED, governor’s initiative funding also created a

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

513

new program coordinator position within CDVSA. This position was funded to provide focused attention to the implementation and evaluation of prevention efforts across the state, including the Fourth R. Having these allocated resources and personnel played an important role in providing a supported implementation structure for the Fourth R in Alaska. In addition to governor’s initiative funding, other resources were accessed to support Fourth R implementation and evaluation. In 2010, the DHHS was awarded Personal Responsibility Education Program funding from the US Department of Health & Human Services to promote and expand the Fourth R program in Alaska. These funds helped to secure the program’s progression in Alaska for 5 years by supporting the purchase of curricula, teacher training, fidelity monitoring, and process evaluations (involving teacher follow-up, lesson tracking, and feedback from teachers). To conduct these activities, the Alaska Fourth R initiative created two working subgroups (one focused on implementation and the other on evaluation), with formalized roles and responsibilities for implementation, training, process evaluation, and outcome evaluation. These teams provided important implementation support for both the program itself, as well as for the outcome evaluation.

Phase 3: Ongoing Structure Once Implementation Began Phase 3 of the QIF is where the most obvious action occurs; programs are implemented and data are collected and analyzed. A major focus for the QIF at this phase is on technical assistance (TA), coaching, and supervision. The focus of TA with implementers is to build the capacities required to achieve high-quality implementation, which in turn leads to better outcomes (Chilenski et al., 2017). The benefits of TA and coaching activities are well supported, as performance feedback is a particularly important strategy for increasing implementation quality and sustainability (Han & Weiss, 2005). However, developing TA, coaching, and supervision for school-based programs remain major challenges, even when research structure and funding are available. In Alaska, coaching and TA were included as part of the Memorandum of Understanding that school districts entered into, such that districts or teachers could request this support, and it was then fulfilled by the Fourth R implementation team. Educators also had the opportunity to enter a voluntary agreement with the Adolescent Health Program (DHHS) to participate in fidelity monitoring, and educators who elected to do so received a gift card for their participation. Despite the provision of these resources and incentives, uptake of coaching and fidelity monitoring was sporadic. These challenges are not unique to this project, and issues of teacher support and consultation are common challenges across school-based prevention

514

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

programming (Forman, Olin, Hoagwood, Crow, & Saka, 2009). Related to this challenge, one member of the collaborative identified the difference in perspectives between educators (who are often focused on individualized education) and public health professionals (who are often focused on implementation fidelity): So I think that having the implementation of the Fourth R be desired and easy for schools and teachers is one that that schools would be looking for, where public health would be looking for. . . teaching with fidelity Stakeholder, Alaska Collaborative, as cited in Crooks et al., 2018, page 102.

Unfortunately, when there is a lack of monitoring, it is difficult to discern between program-consistent adaptations and consequential declines in fidelity. There are also different views among educators as to whether fidelity requires adherence to the published curriculum or adherence to the core messages (Cutbush, Gibbs, Krieger, Clinton-Sherrod, & Miller, 2017). Process evaluation is another focus of Phase 3 of the QIF, as it is important to have a plan to evaluate strengths and challenges as the innovation unfolds, as well as to identify the success of different aspects of implementation (Meyers et al., 2012). As part of the Alaska Fourth R initiative, implementation was tracked through self-report as teachers implemented the program, and this tracking identified a range of implementation quality (Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014). However, despite this varying implementation quality, focus groups and surveys with teachers identified a high general level of satisfaction and perceived relevance: “I love it, especially for a first-year teacher. It’s super friendly” (educator, as cited in Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014, pp. 41). Some teachers commented specifically on the skill-based nature of Fourth R as a program strength. The health curriculum previously taught caught some of these points, but nothing was structured. The other thing it didn’t really give time to the development of skills sets which is what the [Fourth R] is all about. Educator, as cited in Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014, page 41.

Others spoke to the importance of the content and skills, even compared to academic coursework: I’m just really enthralled. I think the Fourth R has completely changed the way I’ve taught. I really enjoy it. It’s reinvigorated me. . . But’s is important, and you know, I’m getting older and I see enough stuff going on. To me, this is so much more important than anything else going on in this school. I don’t care if kids are taking AP classes or advanced math classes or English or Honors English. It’s just if they don’t have the relationship, it just doesn’t really matter. Educator, as cited in Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014, page 42.

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

515

Beyond finding the program acceptable and relevant, teachers’ comments indicated that they saw it as effective for youth. The other day the school nurse came in, and she goes, “You know, there was a girl that talked to me, and she said this Fourth R unit really made her think about her current relationship” Educator, as cited in Strategic Prevention Solutions, 2014, page 41.

It is important to document that teachers find the program both acceptable and effective (from their perspective), not because these perceptions take the place of an effectiveness evaluation, but because they play an important role in a program’s sustainability (Han & Weiss, 2005). At the same time, the variable implementation reported by teachers is a reminder that teachers’ positive views of a program are not enough to ensure highquality implementation. One potential challenge involved with collecting and reporting process data throughout the course of a project is that the eventual outcome data may not match the expectations of stakeholders based on the positivity of the process data gathered along the way. In the Alaska Fourth R initiative, there was considerable momentum developed through the collection and reporting of process data. As a result, there was also some disappointment among members of the collaborative partnership when not all expected outcomes reached statistical significance or when quantitative findings did not match the experience of students and teachers involved in implementation (due in part to methodological challenges and sample size). Related to implementation, one of the dynamic tensions that occurred over the course of the Alaska Fourth R initiative was the pull between a multisectoral partnership approach to implementation and conducting the most rigorous outcome evaluation possible under the circumstances. Initially, the evaluation team applied for NIH funding to support the evaluation but were not successful with that application. Subsequently, the state government provided funds for evaluation as part of Fourth R funding.4 As a result, the evaluation work in Alaska very much unfolded in tandem with the larger considerations about program implementation. This situation led to the reintegration of the evaluation and implementation working subgroups, to reflect the overlapping nature of these two activities and to allow the entire collaborative to be involved in discussions about implementation and research.

4. In the Alaska Fourth R initiative, there were tensions in this process in part because of the trajectory through which evaluation development occurred. When the evaluation proposal was initially shaped for submission to NIH, the researchers developed a rigorous and complex evaluation with input from community partners. Once the evaluation became funded by the state and was embedded in the implementation plan, it shifted to more of a community-based partnership, while maintaining a focus on rigorous methodology and outcomes. This foundation set the stage for competing visions and expectations of the evaluation process (at times).

516

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

However, a dynamic tension did emerge between implementation and evaluation goals, particularly in light of the timeframe within which evaluation outcomes were expected. Specifically, the funder expected outcome data within a very short timeline, whereas a community-based research process would have allowed for more time to negotiate research perspectives, plan implementation, and collect process data. For some members of the collaborative partnership, the focus on outcome data was seen to occur too early in the implementation process and undermined it: And I think, in my mind, again, the evaluation, the formal evaluation, took so much time that we weren’t planning and developing the process evaluation. We didn’t get the implementation and the process evaluation ironed out until practically we had done all our work with the formal evaluation, the outcome evaluation Stakeholder in the Alaska Collaborative, as cited in Crooks et al., 2018, page 102.

Conversely, those tasked with producing a quasi-experimental outcome evaluation identified the compressed time frames as a challenge, particularly in the sense of undertaking a rigorous evaluation while implementation was still being finalized: Things are demanded at a high rate and intensity in Alaska because there’s such a need for it. And with this group, people get excited and they say, “Oh, I have this money, let’s fund it, go, go, go.” And that’s good in a lot of senses and also can be hard when you’re rolling out a controlled evaluation study Stakeholder in the Alaska Collaborative, as cited in Crooks et al., 2018, page 102.

Implications of this tension are discussed in the following section.

Phase 4: Improving Future Applications The final step of the QIF addresses the question, what can be learned about quality implementation from each and every initiative (Meyers et al., 2012). The inclusion of process evaluation data and informal communication among stakeholders throughout the Alaska Fourth R initiative provided a basis for several lessons about quality implementation. In this section, we highlight three lessons for improving future applications. These lessons relate to adaptation, coaching and TA, and negotiating expectations about evaluation. As noted previously, the Fourth R multisectoral partnership undertook adaptation at the outset to ensure that the program matched the local context. In doing so, they were aligning with a hybrid prevention program approach that identifies the importance of evidence-based programs that are also adapted to enhance fit (Castro et al. 2004), with the aim of increasing engagement, effectiveness, and sustainability (Cabassa & Baumann, 2013). However, although there are some data to support these contentions about the promise of intentional adaptation, such promise remains primarily

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

517

theoretical (Barrera, Berkel, & Castro, 2017). Indeed, as the implementation of Fourth R in Alaska unfolded, it became apparent that there were two significant barriers faced by teachers with respect to implementing this enhanced (and adapted) curriculum. First, the Alaska enhancements lengthened the program, and implementers were already struggling to complete all the sessions. Second, some implementers indicated a lack of comfort and confidence in teaching some of the additions (e.g., relating to Alaskan Native traditions). One lesson moving forward is thus to ensure that there is more time to pilot adaptations prior to the full implementation, recognizing that teachers might be balancing logistics such as time constraints with an enhanced (and therefore longer) curriculum. A second lesson about implementation was the degree to which it was a challenge to offer coaching and TA to educators, even when the coaching was offered by a neutral party (i.e., public health instead of education) and when there was an incentive to participate. This challenge is not unique to the Alaska Fourth R initiative and is one that requires innovative solutions and more data. On one hand, coaching and TA are recognized as highly valuable in the literature, but on the other hand there are many barriers to implementing these practices (in particular, time), even when there are resources available. Moving forward, more discussion may be needed to occur with all stakeholders in the education system (e.g., teachers, administrators, union leaders) to explore solutions to this challenge. The third lesson relates to the dynamic tension between a focus on implementation and a focus on rigorous evaluation and underscores the need to negotiate not only the evaluation questions and process at the outset but also the timelines associated with each phase (Janzen, Ochocka, & Stobbe, 2017). To maintain buy-in and engagement, it is important to ensure that various stakeholders have a shared understanding of when different implementation and evaluation phases will unfold and how these phases can mutually inform and strengthen one another. Funders also need to be a part of this discussion, in that an unrealistic expectation for when outcome data will be available can undermine the complex process of engaging stakeholders and undertaking implementation with attention to important processes. The Alaska Fourth R initiative was made possible by state funding and a push from the state political climate for TDV prevention that was evidence-based and outcomedriven. However, the timeline of politics does not always align with the rigor of local adaptation and controlled studies.

SUMMARY The purpose of this chapter was to provide a detailed example of how a multisectoral partnership was able to implement and evaluate the Fourth R successfully across the state of Alaska, with the goal of preventing TDV among Alaskan youth. There were implementation challenges, but the partnership

518

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

was able to develop and sustain significant momentum despite these challenges. Strengths of the partnership included the ability for organizations to leverage each other’s skills, funding opportunities, and relationships. Furthermore, the involvement of a number of key sectors from the outset prepared a foundation for strong knowledge mobilization. Although the Alaska Fourth R initiative capitalized on good timing in terms of the larger Pathways to Prevention project and governor’s attention to domestic violence, the success of the Fourth R initiative in turn contributed to the statewide momentum around TDV prevention. The success of the initiative notwithstanding several lessons emerged from this project. Notably, the importance of adequate time to pilot adaptations prior to their full implementation, the need to seek innovative solutions to address low uptake of TA and coaching opportunities, and the challenge of balancing between a focus on implementation and a focus on rigorous evaluation.

REFERENCES Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4 23. Aarons, G. A., Sommerfeld, D. H., Hecht, D. B., Silovsky, J. F., & Chaffin, M. J. (2009). The impact of evidence-based practice implementation and fidelity monitoring on staff turnover: Evidence for a protective effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 270. Alaska Safe Children’s Act Task Force (2016). Final report. Retrieved October 16, 2017, from https://education.alaska.gov/tls/SchoolHealth/pdf/SafeChildrenActTaskForceFinal.pdf. Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (undated). Fourth R Fact Sheet. Retrieved September 8, 2017, from http://dhss.alaska.gov/dph/wcfh/Documents/adolescent/ 4R_FactSheet.pdf. Barrera, M., Berkel, C., & Castro, F. G. (2017). Directions of the advancement of culturally adapted preventive interventions: Local adaptations, engagement, and sustainability. Prevention Science, 18, 640 648. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cabassa, L. J., & Baumann, A. A. (2013). A two-way street: Bridging implementation science and cultural adaptations of mental health treatments. Implementation Science, 8(1), 90 104. Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., & Martinez, C. R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5(1), 41 45. Chilenski, S. M., Welsh, J., Olson, J., Hoffman, L., Perkins, D. F., & Feinberg, M. E. (2017). Examining the highs and lows of the collaborative relationship between technical assistance providers and prevention implementers. Prevention Science. Advanced online publication. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0812-2. Crooks, C. V., Exner-Cortens, D., Burm, S., Lapointe, A., & Chiodo, D. (2017a). Two years of relationship-focused mentoring for First Nations, Me´tis, and Inuit adolescents: Promoting positive mental health. Journal of Primary Prevention, 38(1-2), 87 104.

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

519

Crooks, C. V., Exner-Cortens, D., Siebold, W., Moore, K., Grassgreen, L., Owen, P., & Rosier, M. (2018). The role of relationships in collaboration success: Lessons from the Alaska Fourth R initiative. Evaluation and Program Planning, 67, 97 104. Crooks, C. V., Scott, K., Ellis, W., & Wolfe, D. (2011). Impact of a universal school-based violence prevention program on violent delinquency: Distinctive benefits for youth with maltreatment histories. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35, 393 400. Crooks, C. V., Scott, K. L., Broll, R., Zwarych, S., Hughes, R., & Wolfe, D. A. (2015). Does an evidence-based healthy relationships program for 9th graders show similar effects for 7th and 8th graders? Results from 57 schools randomized to intervention. Health Education Research, 30(3), 513 519. Crooks, C. V., Scott, K. L., Wolfe, D. A., Chiodo, D., & Killip, S. (2007). Understanding the link between childhood maltreatment and violent delinquency: What do schools have to add? Child Maltreatment, 12, 269 280. Crooks, C. V., Wolfe, D. A., Hughes, R., Jaffe, P. G., & Chiodo, D. (2008). Development, evaluation and national implementation of a school-based program to reduce violence and related risk behaviors. Institute for the Prevention of Crime Review, 2, 109 135. Crooks, C. V., Zwarych, S., Burns, S., & Hughes, R. (2015). The Fourth R implementation manual: Building for success from adoption to sustainability. London, ON: Western University. Crooks, C. V., Zwicker, J., Wells, L., Hughes, R., Langlois, A., & Emery, J. C. H. (2017b). Estimating costs and benefits associated with evidence-based prevention: Four case studies based on the Fourth R program. The School of Public Policy, SPP Research Papers, 10(10), 1 27. Cui, M., Fincham, F. D., Gordon, M., & Ueno, K. (2013). The continuation of intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood: Continuation of violence in relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 300 313. Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Krieger, K., Clinton-Sherrod, M., & Miller, S. (2017). Implementers’ perspectives on fidelity of implementation: “Teach every single part” or “be right with the curriculum?”. Health Promotion Practice, 18(20), 275 282. Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. (2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(1), 50. Davis, R. A., & Tsao, B. (2014). Multi-sector partnerships for preventing violence: A guide for using collaboration multiplier to improve safety outcomes for young people, communities and cities. Oakland: Prevention Institute. De Koker, P., Mathews, C., Zuch, M., Bastien, S., & Mason-Jones, A. J. (2014). A systematic review of interventions for preventing adolescent intimate partner violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(1), 3 13. De La Rue, L., Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 7 34. Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J. M., Hoagwood, K., Buckley, J. A., Olin, S., . . . Ialongo, N. S. (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 1(3), 6 28. DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157 197.

520

SECTION | V Treatment and Prevention

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3-4), 327 350. Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., . . . Lim, C. (2010). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2009. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 59 (5), 1 142. Ellsberg, M., Arango, D. J., Morton, M., Gennari, F., Kiplesund, S., Contreras, M., & Watts, C. (2015). Prevention of violence against women and girls: What does the evidence say? The Lancet, 385(9977), 1555 1566. Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., Rothman, E., & Bunge, J. (2017). Revictimization after adolescent dating violence in a matched, national sample of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), 176 183. Fawcett, S., Schultz, J., Watson-Thompson, J., Fox, M., & Bremby, R. (2010). Building multisectoral partnerships for population health and health equity. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7 (6), A118. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531 540. Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. (2009). Evidence-based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health, 1(1), 26. Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., & Durlak, J. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning as a public health approach to education. Future of Children, 27(1), 13 32. Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665 679. Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2014). Youth problem behaviors 8 years after implementing the communities that care prevention system: A community-randomized trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 168(2), 122 129. Himmelman, A. T. (1992). Communities working collaboratively for a change. Minneapolis: Humphrey Institute Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Janzen, R., Ochocka, J., & Stobbe, A. (2017). Towards a theory of change for community-based research projects. Engaged Scholar Journal: Community-Engaged Research, Teaching, and Learning, 2(2), 44 64. Jennings, W. G., Okeem, C., Piquero, A. R., Sellers, C. S., Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). Dating and intimate partner violence among young persons ages 15 30: Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 107 125. Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083 1088. Manchikanti Go´mez, A. (2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth & Society, 43(1), 171 192. Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3-4), 462 480. Niolon, P. H., Taylor, B. G., Latzman, N. E., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Valle, L. A., & Tharp, A. T. (2016). Lessons learned in evaluating a multisite, comprehensive teen dating violence prevention strategy: Design and challenges of the evaluation of Dating Matters: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen Relationships. Psychology of Violence, 6, 452 458.

Building Capacity to Implement Teen Dating Violence Prevention Chapter | 20

521

O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., Warner, K. E., & National Research Council. (2009). Implementation and dissemination of prevention programs. Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities (pp. 297 336). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rosier, M. & Mishra, M. (undated). State Story: Alaska empowers youth to develop healthy relationships through the Fourth R curriculum. Juneau, AK: Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. Retrieved September 1, 2017, from http://www.astho.org/Maternal-andChild-Health/Alaska-Empowers-Youth-to-Develop-Healthy-Relationships-through-theFourth-R-Curriculum/. Strategic Prevention Solutions. (2014). Alaska Fourth R curriculum evaluation: Findings report (2011-2014). Retrieved September 4, 2017, from https://www.strategicpreventionsolutions. com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Alaska-Fourth-R-Evaluation-Final-Report-6-30-14.pdf. Taylor, B. G., Mumford, E. A., & Stein, N. D. (2015). Effectiveness of “Shifting Boundaries” teen dating violence prevention program for subgroups of middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, S20 S26. Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., & Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3 4), 171 181. Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 136 149. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., & Ellis, W. (2012). Observations of adolescent peer resistance skills following a classroom-based health relationship program: A post-intervention comparison. Prevention Science, 13, 196 205. Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Jaffe, P. G., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., Stitt, L., & Donner, A. (2009). A universal school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 163, 693 699. Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P. G., & Crooks, C. V. (2006). Adolescent risk behaviors: Why teens experiment and strategies to keep them safe. New Haven: Yale University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

Index Note: Page numbers followed by “f” and “t” refer to figures and tables, respectively.

A AADS. See Attitudes About Aggression in Dating Situations scale (AADS) AAM. See Attention allocation model (AAM) AAUW. See American Association of University Women (AAUW) Abuse. See also Adolescent dating abuse; Dating abuse; Emotional abuse; Family violence and abuse; Partner abuse perpetration abusive behaviors, 85 86 child, 218 219 child physical, 88 cyber, 437 438 cyber dating, 122 123, 453 economic, 367 outcomes, 71 73 physical, 64, 86, 217 218 psychological, 64, 223, 368 research on, 113 116 sexual, 64, 85, 217 218 types, 79, 122 123 verbal, 86 Access control, 274 Access to evidence-based programs, 505 Accountability cues, 418 419 Acculturation, 241 242, 246 247 Hispanic adolescents, 242 243 Acculturation Rating Scale of Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II), 247 Actionists, 423 424 focused prevention, 425 426 mobilization, 425 426 “Acts scales”, 36 “Ad hoc” measures, 316 317, 324 Adolescent dating abuse. See also Dating abuse outcomes associating with, 65 75 mental/psychological health outcomes, 66 69

physical health outcomes, 69 71 substance use/abuse outcomes, 71 73 victimization/perpetration outcomes, 73 75 victimization, 67 68 Adolescent dating violence (ADV), 53 54, 89 90, 92 93, 106, 136, 233 234, 283 284, 298, 365. See also Dating violence (DV); Partner violence (PV); Sexual violence; Teen dating violence (TDV) clinical and research directions, 223 226 culturally relevant prevention and treatment, 248 249 dating abuse, 75 timing considerations in measurement of exposure and outcomes, 65 types, 64 65 directions for future research, 149 151 extensions to, 293 298 gaps in literature, 79 80 implications, 78 79, 333 334 experiences of diverse youth, 333 334 prevention and intervention, 334 intersectional and within-group research, 251 LGBT youth consequences of DV in, 221 differences in DV among subgroups of, 219 221 prevalence of DV among, 216 219 limitations in current measurement approaches, 318 326 cyber aggression, 323 324 healthy relationships, 326 psychological aggression, 321 323 sexual violence and stalking, 325 326 measurement, 315 316 approaches, 316 318 quality, 318

523

524

Index

Adolescent dating violence (ADV) (Continued) minority stress framework for DV, 221 223 negative consequences, 76 prevention and intervention implications, 151 152 protective factors among adolescents of color, 243 248 among African American adolescents, 244 245 among Hispanic adolescents, 246 248 among Native American adolescents, 245 246 qualitative research, 249 250 race/ethnicity relationship, 234 235 research priorities for, 326 333 risk factors among adolescents of color, 235 243 specific to African American adolescents, 235 238 specific to Hispanic Adolescents, 240 243 specific to native American adolescents, 238 240 sample characteristics, 64 study selection, 54 63, 55t substance use among adolescents, 136 137 substance use and, 141 149 teen dating violence outcomes, 77 78 theoretical frameworks for substancerelated dating violence, 137 140 use of culturally congruent terms and measures, 250 251 victimization, 74 Adolescent(s)/adolescence, 54, 67, 85, 92, 105, 111 112, 120 121, 135 136, 159, 215, 261 262, 326, 344 345, 382, 385 386, 415, 417, 420, 425 426, 468 attachment quality, 108 109 dating and DV in, 160 161 economic violence, 368 emotional abuse among, 369 371 females, 170 friendships, 110 individuation, 106 107 IP/SV, 381 group-based targeted interventions to prevent and respond to, 401 405 school-based interventions to prevent and respond to, 385 393

parents, 355 356 partner violence, 267 268 preventing emotional abuse among, 374 375 risk behaviors, 119 120 romantic relationships, 321 socialization, 261, 365 366 substance use among, 136 137 types and functions of peer relationships, 106 108 Adult intimate partner violence, 283 284 Adult partner violence, 266 ADV. See Adolescent dating violence (ADV) African American adolescents. See also Hispanic adolescents; Native American adolescents protective factors among, 244 245 parental communications, 244 245 self-sufficiency and Self-respect for women and girls, 245 risk factors specific to, 235 238 African American targeted media, 235 236 community violence exposure, 236 237 informal help-seeking, 237 238 Aggression, 10 11, 33 34, 105 106, 172, 199 cyber, 323 324 perpetration, 115 116 physical, 28 29 psychological, 321 323, 458 459 research on peer aggression, 113 116 sexual, 28 29, 135 136 Aggressive behavior. See Aggression AIV. See Attitudes Towards Interpersonal Violence scale (AIV) Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), 507 508, 510, 513 Alaska Fourth R initiative, 506 508, 515 516 Alaska Native cultural components, 511 Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA), 507 508, 510 Alaska Safe Children’s Act Task Force, 508 Alcohol, 39 40, 90, 94, 117, 141 145 myopia, 139 outlet, 268 and substance use, 263 Alexithymia, 421 422 Alternative help-seeking. See Informal help-seeking

Index American Association of University Women (AAUW), 86 87 American culture, 243 Amphetamines, 136 Androgen levels, 442 ANDVSA. See Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA) Angry/anger, 31, 34, 88 temperament, 443 Antisocial behaviors, 87 88 assortative partnering by, 350 351 outcomes, 75 Antisocial developmental behaviors, 92 93 Antisocial perpetrators, 29 30 Anxiety, 38, 67, 170 171, 219 anxious attachment pattern, 108 109 Archetype characterizations, 342 ARSMA-II. See Acculturation Rating Scale of Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II) Assortative partnering by antisocial behavior, 350 351 ATDVS. See Attitudes Towards Dating Violence Scales (ATDVS) Ativan, 136 Attachment disruptions, 170 176 combining effects of trouble with emotion regulation and, 173 PTSD and related comorbidities, 173 176 theorists, 87 88 theory, 11 12, 108 109, 442 443 Attacks on property, 366 Attention allocation model (AAM), 139 Attitudes accepting of violence, 166 167 in social information processing, 166 169 supporting traditional gender roles, 166 167 Attitudes About Aggression in Dating Situations scale (AADS), 317 Attitudes Towards Dating Violence Scales (ATDVS), 317 Attitudes Towards Interpersonal Violence scale (AIV), 317 Authoritative parenting styles, 109

B Background situational factor theories, 33 34 Background situational model, 40 41

525

Backlash hypothesis, 291 292 Behavioral outcomes (BOs), 470 471 Bell and Naugle model (2008), 139 140 Bidirectional PV, 343 impact children exposed to interparent PV, 354 355 injury risk, 354 other impacts, 354 prevalence, 345 348 cyber or computer-mediated PV, 347 348 physical PV, 345 346 psychological PV, 347 sexual PV, 346 Bidirectionality PV processes high-frequency PV, 353 354 initiation of PV, 351 persistence and desistance in PV, 352 353 PV-related emergence assortative partnering by antisocial behavior, 350 351 jealousy and negative emotions, 349 350 observed physical PV, 348 349 “Big Five” personality factors, 39 40 Biological theories, 38 39, 441 442 Bi-invisibility, 219 220 Birth outcomes, 263 Bisexual adults, 219 Bisexuality, 217 219 “Blank slates”, 344 BMI, 65 66, 70, 263 Boolean searching, 54 Borderline perpetrators, 29 30 BOs. See Behavioral outcomes (BOs) Boys, group training targeting, 401 405 Breakup violence, 199 Bringing in the Bystander program, 399, 448 449 Broken relationship, 196 Broken windows theory, 264 267, 266f “Bully-victims”, 115 Bullying, 8 13, 85 87, 90, 93, 479 480, 497 categories, 115 linking sexual harassment, teen dating violence and, 91 92 perpetration, 87 88 programs, 119 120

526

Index

Bullying (Continued) research on, 113 116 Bystander approach, 394 399 Bystander intervention programs, 423, 448 451

C CADRI. See Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI) Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights, 457 Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act), 448 Campus-based interventions, 394 400, 395t Canadian General Social Survey, 37 Cancer screening, 263 Carlos bisexuality, 223 CBIM. See Coaching Boys into Men (CBIM) C-Change Program, 392 393 CDC. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) CDVSA. See Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) CEA. See Child emotional abuse (CEA) Cell phones, 13 Census’ definitions of neighborhood, 262 Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D), 369 370, 372 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 27, 40 41, 86, 283 284, 316, 346 CES-D. See Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Change theory, 272 273 Child abuse, 33 34, 87, 161 162, 218 219, 374, 417 Child emotional abuse (CEA), 88 89 Child emotional maltreatment, 163 Child maltreatment, 161 162 emotional, 161 experiences and DV, 163 physical, 161 162 sexual, 162 Child physical abuse, 88 Child physical maltreatment, 163 Child sexual abuse (CSA), 89 90 Child sexual maltreatment, 163 Childhood, 382 antisocial behaviors, 91 maltreatment, 118 119

Children, 85, 87 88, 159, 385 386 exposed to interparent PV, 354 355 peer relationships, 110 physical and sexual violence, 365 366 CI. See Confidence interval (CI) Coaching Boys into Men (CBIM), 392, 420 421 Cocaine, 136 137 Coerce identity verification, 31 32 Coercive controlling violence. See Intimate terrorism Cognitive behavioral theories, 443 444 Cognitive biases in information processing, 168 169 in social information processing, 166 169 Cognitive ecological theory, 421 422 Cognitive functioning, 65 66 Collaboration, 7 Collective efficacy, 269, 272 273, 424 College-based dating violence prevention strategies, 437. See also Teen dating violence (TDV) epidemiology, 438 441 consequences of dating violence, 439 440 prevalence, 438 439 risk factors for dating violence, 440 441 health implications, 458 459 legal implications, 457 458 limitations of past research and directions for future research, 454 456 definitions, 454 455 program characteristics, 455 456 program focus, 455 research design, 456 policy implications, 458 research methods, 454 theory and causes, 441 448 exosystem theories, 446 447 individual/developmental theories, 441 445 macrosystem theories, 447 448 microsystem theories, 445 446 treatment and prevention, 448 454 brief motivational interventions, 451 452 bystander intervention programs, 448 451 future directions and considerations, 452 454 “Common couple conflict”, 353

Index Community community-based dating abuse prevention programs, 36 factors, 418 419 mobilization, 405 407 emerging technologies to prevent and respond to violence, 406 professionals and collaboration, 209 210 violence exposure, 236 237 Compensatory process of control, 31 32 Computer-mediated PV, 347 348 Confidence interval (CI), 369 370 Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI), 316, 319t, 368 Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), 319t Conflict Tactics Scale, 36, 368 Conflict theory, 33 34 Consequences of adolescent dating abuse, 53 54, 70 71, 75 76 Contextual factors, 11, 224, 344 Controlling behaviour, 367 368 Cortisol dysregulation, 38 39 Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA), 507 508, 512 513 CPTED. See Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Creating Futures, 372, 375 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED), 273 274 Criminal behavior, 159 Criminologic theories, 37 CSA. See Child sexual abuse (CSA) CTS. See Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) CTS2. See Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2) Cuban adolescents, 243 Cyber abuse, 437 438 Cyber aggression, 323 324. See also Psychological aggression Cyber bullying, 122 123 Cyber dating abuse, 14, 122 123, 453 violence perpetration, 122 123 Cyber PV, 347 348 Cyberbullying, 95

D Dating, 105, 191 in adolescent and young adult relationships, 160 161 homicide, 192 193

527

norms, 13 partners during adolescence, 365 relationships, 105 106, 114, 159 160, 191 192, 381 Dating abuse, 27 31, 54, 75, 78, 122 123. See also Adolescent dating abuse parent influence, 108 109 peer relationships influence, 109 113 theory importance to dating abuse prevention, 25 27 timing considerations in measurement of exposure and outcomes, 65 types, 64 65 victimization, 69 Dating experiences and abuse research on bullying, peer aggression, and, 113 116 research on parental and peer influence and, 118 119 research on peer deviancy and, 117 research on peer influence and, 116 117 Dating Matters initiative, 303, 393 Dating violence (DV), 64, 76, 87, 105 106, 123, 135 136, 140 149, 159 160, 191 192, 216 218, 221, 233, 382, 437, 467 468. See also Adolescent dating violence (ADV) in adolescents and young adults, 3 bullying, dating violence, and spousal violence, 8 13 conclusions and implications for research and intervention, 16 17 developmental changes in dating relationships and implications for, 7 8 developmental systems perspective, 6 7 in digital age, 13 15 effects of social and cultural contexts on dating norms and, 13 relationships, 160 161 romantic development, 4 5 trajectories of dating violence over time, 5 6 alcohol, 141 145 drugs, 148 149 explanatory model, 225 exposure to violence in family of origin and, 162 165 gender differences in relation of exposure to violence in family of origin, 164 165 timing and continuity of violence in family of origin to, 164

528

Index

Dating violence (DV) (Continued) type or number of child maltreatment experiences and, 163 heterosexual victims, 221 222 intervention, 448, 452 453 marijuana, 145 148 mechanisms linking violence in family or origin and, 165 perpetration, 141 143, 145 149, 219 220, 440 441, 443, 446 prevention, 448, 452 453, 455 typologies, 122 123 victimization, 93, 135 136, 140, 143 145, 147 149, 440, 444 prevalence, 216 217 DBT. See Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) Delinquent peer association, 350 351 DELTA program, 40 41 Demographics, 35 36 Depression, 66 67, 77, 159, 170 171, 192, 200, 219 Depressive symptoms, 66 67, 161, 216 217, 344, 354, 369 370 Design documents, 488 489 Developmental lens use, 300 Developmental systems perspective, 6 7 Deviancy training, 112, 117 Deviant peer affiliation, 169 170 DHSS. See Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), 452 453 Digital age, dating and violence in, 13 15 Direct reinforcement, 109 Discrimination, 218 222, 238 Native American adolescents, 240 sexuality-based, 218 219 Discriminative stimuli, 34 Dissociation, 421 422 Distal minority stressors, 221 222 Distal proximal factor theories, 33 34 Domestic homicide, 192 194 in youth population, 195 198 Domestic violence, 27, 87 88, 191 192, 457 Domestic violence death review committees (DVDRCs), 191 Downstream effect, 220 221, 292 293, 303 Draft messages, 489 492 materials, and protocol, 489 492 Drugs, 148 149 prevention programs, 94 use, 90 Dual marginalization, 219 220

DV. See Dating violence (DV) DVDRCs. See Domestic violence death review committees (DVDRCs) Dyadic Discordance Types, 343 Dyadic theoretical approaches, 343 345 Dysphoric perpetrators, 29 30 Dysphoric/borderline personality violence, 342

E EAAA. See Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) EAAA groups. See Equally apply across age groups (EAAA groups) Early adolescence, 7 Early interventions, 391 393 EBSCOhost, 54 Ecological paradigm, 441 Economic abuse, 367 Economic and structurally violent acts, 367 Education and Early Development (EED), 507 508, 510 “Edutainment” programs, 405 407 EED. See Education and Early Development (EED) Egalitarian attitudes, 284 285, 289 Electronic literature searches, 54 Emerging adulthood, 141, 159 160, 193 194, 300, 415 416, 424 425, 427 428 Emerging adults, 145, 174, 191, 193, 268, 271 272, 415 416, 420 422, 425 Emotion regulation, 170 172 regulation theories, 421 422 trouble with, 170 176 Emotional abuse, 366 375 among adolescents, 369 371 measurement, 372 374 prevalence of reporting, 370t prevention among adolescents, 374 375 Emotional child maltreatment, 161 Emotional regulation, trouble with, 170 176 combining effects of attachment disruption and, 173 PTSD and related comorbidities, 173 176 Emotionally abusive forms of dating violence, 87 Enforcing gender, 36 Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA), 422 Environmental outcomes (EOs), 470 471

Index EOs. See Environmental outcomes (EOs) Equally apply across age groups (EAAA groups), 417 Evolutionary psychology theory, 33 Exchange theory, 34 35 Exchange/resource theory, 34 35 “Exchange/social control” approach, 34 35 Exosystem theories, 446 447. See also Microsystem theories sociocultural theories, 446 447 Explanatory theory, 272 273 External minority stressors See Key distal minority stressors

F Familism, 247 Family conflict, 87 88 Family interventions, 94 Family of origin violence, 159 160 attachment disruptions and trouble with emotional regulation, 170 176 attitudes and cognitive biases in social information processing, 166 169 dating and DV in adolescent and young adult relationships, 160 161 deviant peer affiliation, 169 170 mechanisms linking violence in family or origin and DV, 165 relation between exposure to violence in family of origin and DV, 162 165 violence types in family of origin, 161 162 Family systems theory, 32 33 Family violence, 87, 159 and abuse ADV and IPV, 92 93 alcohol and drug use, bullying, and sexual harassment, 90 bullying, sexual violence, and teen dating violence, 86 87 CEA, 88 89 CSA and teen dating violence, 89 90 developmental framework linking multiple forms of violence and victimization, 87 family conflict, and bullying perpetration, 87 88 family violence exposure and bullying perpetration, 88 implications for future research, 94 95 implications for violence prevention, 93 94

529

linking bullying, sexual harassment, and teen dating violence, 91 92 Family-only partner abuse perpetrators, 29 30 Family-only violence, 342 Fatty acid, 39 Female perpetration, 301 Female-perpetrated partner homicide, 36 Femicide, 195 196 Feminist theorists, 87 88, 167 Feminist theory, 291 293, 447 448 of partner violence, 36 Forced marriage, 381 Four-phase model, 327 Fourth R program, 151, 208 209, 375, 391 392, 503 504, 509 510 multisectoral partnership, 516 517 Framework, 25 27 Friends, 111 dating violence, 118 119 Friendships, 107, 119 Frustration aggression hypothesis, 31 32 Frustrations, 31 Functional romantic relationships, 110

G Gays, 219 220 GBV. See Gender-based violence (GBV) GEMS. See Gender Equity Movement in Schools (GEMS) Gender, 285 debate, 28 29 development index, 286 differences in relation of exposure to violence, 164 165 disparities, 384 equality, 285 286 equity, 285 286 gender-based violence, 208 matters, 393 stereotyping and attitudes, 355 transformative, 385 Gender Equity Movement in Schools (GEMS), 391 Gender ideology. See Gender-role attitudes Gender inequality, 283 286 definitions and measurement, 285 286 of gender-role attitudes, 286 288 gender-role attitudes and GBV, 294 298 implications for practice, 301 304 engaging men and boys, 302 303

530

Index

Gender inequality (Continued) multilevel approaches, 303 304 implications for research, 298 301 female perpetration, 301 interactions with other determinants of inequality, 299 300 societal level gender inequality and ADV, 298 299 use of developmental lens, 300 use of more rigorous designs, 300 relationship with gender-role attitudes and, 289 societal level gender inequality and GBV, 290 294 studying, 289 290 Gender Inequality Index (GII), 286, 287t Gender-based violence (GBV), 283 285. See also Partner violence (PV); Teen dating violence (TDV) definitions and measurement of gender inequality, 285 286 of gender-role attitudes, 286 288 gender inequality studying, 289 290 gender-role attitudes and GBV, 294 298 implications for practice, 301 304 engaging men and boys, 302 303 multilevel approaches, 303 304 implications for research, 298 301 female perpetration, 301 interactions with other determinants of inequality, 299 300 societal level gender inequality and ADV, 298 299 use of developmental lens, 300 use of rigorous designs, 300 relationship between gender inequality and gender-role attitudes, 289 societal level gender inequality and GBV, 290 294 Gender-role attitudes, 284 285 definitions and measurement, 286 288 extensions to ADV, 295 298 and GBV, 294 298 relationship with gender inequality and, 289 Genetic influences, 442 Geographic diversity, 273 GII. See Gender Inequality Index (GII) Girls group-based training interventions to empowering, 401 self-sufficiency and self-respect for, 245

“Gold standard” measure of adult IPV, 327 Google Scholar, 54 Gottman and Jacobson typology, 29 30 Grade 8 program, 505 Grade 9 program, 504 505 Green Dot Active Bystander program, 399, 449 450 “Grossly narcissistic” behavior, 204 Group-based targeted interventions to prevent and respond to adolescent IP/SV, 401 405 group-based training interventions to empowering women and girls, 401, 402t group training targeting men and boys, 401 405 group training with men and women, 405

H Hallucinogens, 136 137 Health impact of emotional abuse, 366 367, 371 372 mental, 373 Health implications, 458 459 Healthy relationships, 326 approach, 391 392 skills, 119 120 Healthy romantic relationships, 3 Heroin, 136 Heteronormative explanatory model, 224 225 Heteronormativity, 224 Heterosexist bias, 225 Heterosexual(s), 217 220, 223 adolescents, 223 224 attitudes, 219 220 counterparts, 216 218 youth, 225 Heterosexuality, 224 High-frequency PV, 353 354 Hispanic adolescents. See also African American adolescents; Native American adolescents protective factors among, 246 248 parental communications, 247 248 strong cultural ties, 246 247 risk factors specific to, 240 243 acculturation, 242 243 Hispanic gender roles, 240 242 Hispanic culture, 240 241, 243 Hispanic gender roles, 240 242 Historical trauma, 239

Index HIV HIV-positive status, 216 217 prevention, 225 226 Holtzworth-Monroe and Stuart developmental model, 29 30 Homicide. See Youth dating violence and homicide “Hooking up”, 13 Hostile attribution bias, 39 40, 266 267 Human development, 286, 289 290 Hypothesis, 25 27

I Implementers, 494 IMpower, 422 423 Indicators, 376 health-related, 372 373 of mental health/psychological functioning, 65 66 Indigenous municipality, 245 246 Indigenous presence, 245 246 Indirect models, 138 Indirect reinforcement, 109 Individual characteristics, 224 factors, 418 419, 424 risk factors, 9 violence, 106 Individual/developmental theories, 441 445. See also Microsystem theories attachment theories, 442 443 biological theories, 441 442 social information processing/cognitive behavioral theories, 443 444 social learning theory, 444 445 Informal help-seeking, 237 238 Informal social control, 37 Inhalants, 137 Injury risk, 354 “Integrated theory”, 25 27 InterACT Sexual Assault Prevention Program, 450 Intergenerational transmission theories, 32 33, 38 Internal stressors. See Proximal stressors Internalized homophobia, 218 219, 221 222, 224 225 Internalizing disorders, 66 Internet, 13 Interparent PV, children exposed to, 354 355 Interparental violence, 32 33, 118 119

531

Interpersonal resource-exchange theory, 34 35 Interpersonal violence, 106 Intersectional research in ADV, 251 Intersectionality, 233 Intervention components, 450 Intervention mapping evaluation plan, 497 completion, 497 specifying outcome evaluation design, 497 write outcome and process evaluation questions and select measures, 497 logic model of problem, 468 470, 469f conducting needs assessment, 469 context for intervention, 470 establishing and working with planning group, 468 specifying program goals, 470 program design, 479 487 choosing theory and evidence based change methods, 480 487, 486t generate program themes, components, scope, and sequence, 479 480 practical applications, 480 487, 486t program implementation, 494 496 design implementation intervention, 495 496 identifying program adopters and implementers, 494 state outcomes and performance objectives and construct matrices, 495 program outcomes and objectives, 470 478, 472t logic model creation of change, 471 478 matrix creation of change objectives, 471 performance objectives, 471 personal determinants selection of behavioral and environmental outcomes, 471 state behavioral and environmental outcomes, 470 471 program production, 488 493 draft messages, materials, and protocol, 489 492 parent student homework activity, 493f pilot test, refine, and produce materials, 493 preparing plans for program materials, 488 489 refining program structure and organization, 488

532

Index

Intervention mapping (Continued) student role play, 492f virtual role play script, 491f Interventions to addressing adolescent IP/SV, 385 407 campus-based interventions, 394 400 community mobilization, 405 407 group-based targeted interventions, 401 405 school-based interventions, 385 393 Intimate partner and sexual violence (IP/SV), 381 effective interventions to addressing adolescent, 385 407 Intimate partner violence (IPV), 87, 92 93, 162, 191 192, 216, 224 225, 262, 283 284, 301 302, 316, 366 369, 373 375, 381, 503 Intimate same-sex friendships, 110 Intimate terrorism, 27 28, 353 Intoxication, 139 IP/SV. See Intimate partner and sexual violence (IP/SV) IPV. See Intimate partner violence (IPV) IRT. See Item response theory (IRT) It’s Your Game. . . Keep it Real! (IYG), 468, 470 Item response theory (IRT), 332 333 IYG. See It’s Your Game. . . Keep it Real! (IYG) IYG Tech, 488 489

J Jealousy, 349 350 Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 457 Justification of Verbal/Coercive Tactics scale (JVCT), 317

themes and recommendations, 200 Lauren Dunne Astley Memorial Fund, 200 Law enforcement, 37 Legal implications, 457 458 Leonard’s theoretical model, 139 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT), 215, 219 220 adults, 215 217 category, 219 persons, 218 youth, 215 consequences of DV, 221 differences in DV, 219 221 prevalence of DV, 216 219 subgroups, 219 221 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and questioning groups (LGBTQ groups), 64, 76, 79 80 LGBTQ2 youth, 333 334 Lesbians, 217 220 “Level playing field”, 285 286 LGBT. See Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) LGBTQ groups. See Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender and questioning groups (LGBTQ groups) LIFT. See Linking Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) Linking Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT), 345 LMIC. See Low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) Logic model creation of change, 471 478, 478f Los Angeles Times, 31 Low-and middle-income countries (LMIC), 381 LSD, 137, 148

K Katie Brown Educational Program, 392 “Keep it real” program subthemes, 479 Kenya Nation Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), 422 423 Klonopin, 136 KNBS. See Kenya Nation Bureau of Statistics (KNBS)

L Latane and Darley’s model, 424 Lauren Astley case, Massachusetts, United States, 198 200

M Machismo beliefs, 240 242 Macrosystem theories, 447 448 feminist theory, 447 448 Male violence, 33 Maltreatment, 85 Marianismo beliefs, 240 242 Marijuana, 136 137, 145 148 “Mate guarding”, 33 Maternal, Newborn, Child, & Adolescent Health (MNCAH), 299 Matrix creation of change objectives, 471, 474t

Index McElroy’s Ecological Model for Health Promotion, 264 Me & You implementation intervention, 495 496, 496t Me & You sample screen shots, 492, 494f Me & You: Building Healthy Relationships (Me & You) program, 479, 481t Mechanisms linking violence in family or origin and DV, 165 Mediation effect, 175 Men group training targeting, 401 405 group training with, 405 Men’s Program, 450 Mental health, 78, 263 Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC), 193 Methamphetamines, 137 Mexican American adolescents, 243 MHCC. See Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) Microsystem theories, 445 446. See also Individual/developmental theories stress theory, 445 446 Midwestern batterer intervention program, 31 32 Mindfulness, 453 Minority stress framework, 218 219, 221, 224 for DV, 221 223 theory, 218 Mixed-methods research design, 122 123 MNCAH. See Maternal, Newborn, Child, & Adolescent Health (MNCAH) Mortality, 263 Motivational interventions, 451 452 Motivational interviewing, 451 452

N Natalie Novak case, Toronto, Canada, 200 203 themes and recommendations, 202 203 National Institute of Justice (NIJ), 4 5, 327, 330 331 National Intimate Partner, 87, 216 217 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 271 272 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 4 5 data, 509 510

533

Native American adolescents. See also African American adolescents; Hispanic adolescents protective factors among, 245 246 strong cultural ties, 245 246 risk factors specific to, 238 240 discrimination, 240 historical trauma, 239 postcolonial gender roles, 239 prejudice, 240 segregation, 239 240 Native IYG, 488 489 Negative emotional reactions, 88 Negative emotions, 349 350 Negative mental states, 440 Neighborhood(s), 261, 272 definition, 262 263, 273 disadvantage, 270 271 disorder, 269 270 and health, 263 physical conditions, 266 physical environment, 268 269 social environment, 269 271 social factor, 269 270 and TDV, 267 268 Nested model, 264 New Hampshire Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 268 NIJ. See National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Non-monogamous relationships, 225 226 Nonviolent, 30 Nonviolent discord, 118 “Nordic paradox”, 292 Norm-consistent behavior, 111 112 Normative feedback, 121 122

O Obesity, 263 Observational learning, 109, 111 112 Observational methods, 123 Observed physical PV, 348 349 Obsessive stalking, 206 Odds ratio (OR), 369 370 OMC. See One Man Can (OMC) One Man Can (OMC), 303 304 “One size fits all” model, 342 Online media, 86 OR. See Odds ratio (OR) Overestimating peer norms, 121 122 OYS-Couples Study, 351, 354 355

534

Index

P Pan American Health Organization, 285 286 Parent influence on dating abuse, 108 109 Parental communications African American adolescents, 244 245 Hispanic adolescents, 247 248 Parental influence, research on dating experiences and abuse and, 118 119 Parental rejection, 218 219, 225 Parental violence, 89 Parenting risk factors, 11 12 Parenting styles, 109 PARIVARTAN program, 392 Partner abuse perpetration biological theories, 38 39 causal explanations for partner abuse, 30 31 criminologic theories, 37 dating abuse, 27 30 distal proximal factor theories, 33 34 intergenerational transmission theories, 32 33 personality traits, 39 40 psychoanalytic theory and frustration aggression hypothesis, 31 32 social ecological model, 40 41 sociocultural theories, 34 36 theories, 26f theory to dating abuse prevention, 25 27 Partner violence (PV), 27, 341. See also Gender-based violence (GBV); Teen dating violence (TDV) assessment issues, 356 impact of bidirectional PV, 354 355 emergence of PV-related to bidirectionality, 348 351 future directions, 357 prevalence of bidirectional PV, 345 348 prevention implications, 355 356 PV processes related to bidirectionality, 351 354 theoretical issues dyadic theoretical approaches, 343 345 typological approaches, 342 343 Pathways to prevention, 506, 509 510 Peer relationships influence on dating abuse peer socialization, 110 113 relationship skills training, 109 110 influencing dating violence

assessing source of peer influence, 121 122 mixed-methods research design, 122 123 parent influence on dating abuse, 108 109 peer relationships influence on dating abuse, 109 113 peers role in prevention and intervention programming, 119 120 research on bullying, peer aggression, and dating experiences and abuse, 113 116 research on parental and peer influence and dating experiences and abuse, 118 119 research on peer deviancy and dating experiences and abuse, 117 research on peer influence and dating experiences and abuse, 116 117 supportive relationships and prevention, 120 121 types and functions of peer relationships, 106 108 typologies of dating violence, 122 123 Peer(s) aggression, 6 behaviors perceptions, 121 122 bullying, 113 cliques, 107 108 contagion framework, 113 crowds, 108 groups, 120 121, 124 influence, 113 assessing source, 121 122 research on dating experiences and abuse and, 116 119 knowledge and prevention, 120 121 research on dating experiences and abuse and peer deviancy, 117 research on peer aggression, 113 116 risk factors, 10 role in prevention and intervention programming, 119 120 timing of prevention, 119 120 socialization, 110 113 violence, 366 Performance objectives, 471, 472t, 495, 495t Perpetration, 64 66, 366 outcomes, 73 75 Perpetrator, 27 28 Persistence and desistance in PV, 352 353

Index Personal determinants selection of behavioral and environmental outcomes, 471 Personality traits, 39 40 Physical abuse, 64, 86 Physical abuse, 217 218 Physical aggression, 28 29 Physical assault, 85 Physical bullying, 115 Physical child abuse, 161 162 Physical child maltreatment, 161 162 Physical dating victimization, 74 violence, 135 136, 437, 440 441 Physical environment, 264 265, 273 274 neighborhood physical environment, 268 269 Physical health outcomes, 69 71 Physical PV, 345 346 Physical teen dating violence victimization, 68 Physical victimization, 261 262 Physical violence, 145, 366 Playful, 348 349 Policy changes, 458 implications, 458 Population density, 268 Population-level prevention, 40 Pornography, 15 Positive actionists in sexual violence situations, 423 426 actionist focused prevention, 425 426 correlates and theories, 423 425 Positive relationship behaviors, 504 Postcolonial gender roles Native American adolescents, 238 239 Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 38 39, 159 and related comorbidities, 173 176 symptoms, 175 176, 221 “Power and control”, 27 28 PRECEDE model, 469 Pregnancy, 263 Prejudice, 240 PREP funding, 508 509 PREPARE curriculum, 375 Prevention of emotional abuse among adolescents, 374 375 Prevention programming, 119 120 Prevention-oriented educational programs, 40 Primary appraisals, 421 422 Primary prevention, 415 Process evaluation, 497, 514

535

Program adopters, 494 characteristics, 455 456 focus, 455 goals, 470 themes, 479 480 Protective factors of ADV among adolescents of color, 243 248 among African American adolescents, 244 245 among Hispanic adolescents, 246 248 among Native American adolescents, 245 246 Proximal effects and related models, 138 139 Proximal stressors, 221 222 Psychoanalytic theory, 31 32 Psychological abuse, 64, 223, 368 Psychological aggression, 458 459 developmental context, 321 measurement, 321 323 Psychological dating violence, 73, 437, 440 441 Psychological disorders, 79 Psychological functioning, 65 66 Psychological PV, 347 Psychological teen dating violence victimization, 68 Psychological violence, 375 Psychopathology, 92 93, 440 Psychosocial functioning, 65 66 PTSD. See Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Public violence, 267 PV. See Partner violence (PV)

Q QIF. See Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) Qualitative components, 507 Qualitative research in ADV, 249 250 Quality Implementation Framework (QIF), 506, 508 517 creating structure for implementation, 511 513 improving future applications, 516 517 initial considerations regarding host setting, 509 511 phases, 509f structure, 513 516 Quantitative assessment of ADV victimization and perpetration, 333

536

Index

R Racial/ethnic groups, 234, 248 249 ADV protective factors, 243 ADV risk factors, 235 African American adolescents, 235 Native American adolescents, 238 Native American/Alaska Native adolescents, 234 235 Racism, 218 219 Rape, 217 218 RealConsent, 451 Relational abuse, 86 Relational aggression, 95 Relational bullying, 115 Relationship factors, 224, 418 419, 424 skills training, 109 110 violence, 115 Relevant theory, 106, 111 Research design, 456 methods, 454 Research priorities for measurement, 326 333 emerging innovations in measurement, 327 333 defining construct, 328 330 new methodologies, 330 333 Residents’ perceptions, 262 Resilience, 120 Resource theory, 34 35 Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), 315 316 Risk factors of ADV among adolescents of color, 235 243 specific to African American adolescents, 235 238 specific to Hispanic Adolescents, 240 243 specific to native American adolescents, 238 240 of emotional abuse, 374 375 Risk reduction programming, 422 423 Risky sexual behaviors, 65 66 Romantic development, 4 5 Romantic relationships, 7 8, 105, 321 Routine activities theory, 37

S Safe Dates program, 151 152, 208 209, 419 420 scales, 319t

Sage Premier, 54 SaVE Act. See Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE Act) School Health Advisory Council (SHAC), 494 School violence interventions, 94 95 School wide prevention strategies, 420 School-based interventions to prevent and respond to adolescent IP/SV, 385 393, 387t early interventions, 391 393 Secondary appraisals, 421 422 Segregation, 239 240 “Select, detect, protect” program subthemes, 479 Self-disclosure, 7 Self-injurious behaviors, 219 Self-medication hypothesis. See Dating violence (DV) Self-rated health, 263 Self-respect for women and girls, 245 Self-stigmatization, 218 Self-sufficiency for women and girls, 245 Separation-instigated violence, 27 28 SES. See Sexual Experiences Survey (SES); Socioeconomic status (SES) Sex-role attitudes. See Gender-role attitudes Sexting, 14 15, 74 75 behaviors, 65 66 Sexual abuse, 64, 85, 217 218 aggression, 28 29, 135 136 behaviors, 70 71, 216 bullying, 115 child maltreatment, 162 coercion, 437, 440 441 victimization, 74 75 cyber PV, 347 348 dating violence, 444 446, 452 health and sexually transmitted infections, 263 minorities, 216, 219 PV, 346 Sexual and reproductive health (SRH), 385 Sexual Experiences Survey (SES), 325 Sexual harassment, 86 87, 90, 93 and assault, 457 linking bullying, teen dating violence and, 91 92 Sexual minority adolescents, 217

Index sexual minority related stress, 38 39 youth, 223 Sexual violence, 27, 86 87, 283 284, 381, 415, 422 423. See also Teen dating violence (TDV) definition and epidemiology, 416 key ingredients of effective prevention, 426 perpetration, 417 421 correlates and theories, 418 419 prevention, 419 421 positive actionists in sexual violence situations, 423 426 actionist focused prevention, 425 426 correlates and theories, 423 425 research and practice priorities, 426 428 and stalking, 325 326 survey, 216 217 theory, causes, and prevention, 416 426 victimization, 421 423 correlates and theories, 421 422 risk reduction programming, 422 423 Sexuality-based discrimination, 218 219 SHAC. See School Health Advisory Council (SHAC) Shana Grice case, Brighton, England, 205 207 Shifting Boundaries and Safe Dates, 392 Shifting Boundaries program, 420 Situational couple violence, 27 29 Sleep quality, 39 SnapChat, 14 15 Social ecology, 40 41 isolation, 218 219 lifestyle marketing, 401 405 manipulation, 366 service, 198 social-cognitive theory, 166 social ecological model, 40 41, 418 421 Social Control Perspective, 120 Social disorganization theory, 267, 270 273 Social ecological models, 264, 265t, 284 285 Social environment, 264 neighborhood social environment, 269 271 Social Identity Perspective, 111 Social information processing, 443 444 attitudes and cognitive biases in attitudes accepting of violence, 166 167 attitudes supporting traditional gender roles, 166 167 cognitive biases in information processing, 168 169

537

Social learning, 33 34 frameworks, 293 theorists, 87 88 theory, 11 12, 32, 109, 111 112, 116 117, 293, 444 445 Socialization, 110 111 in adolescence, 111 for African American adolescents, 235 236 Societal factors, 418 419 Societal level gender inequality, 289 and ADV, 298 299 and GBV, 290 294 extensions to ADV, 293 294 Sociocultural theories, 34 36, 446 447 Socioecological model, 467 468 Socioeconomic status (SES), 239 240 Sophie Elliot case, Dunedin, New Zealand, 203 205 themes and recommendations, 204 205 Spousal violence, 8 13 Spurious effects models, 138 SRH. See Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) Stalking, 437 438 behaviors, 145, 439, 441 obsessive, 206 Stepping Stones, 369, 375, 405 data set, 370 371 emotional abuse measurement, 372 374 prevalence of reporting of emotional abuse, 370t Stigma-related stressors, 218 219, 221 Stop Violence against Girls in Schools (SVAGS), 386 391 Stress theory, 445 446 Strong cultural ties Hispanic adolescents, 246 247 Native American adolescents, 245 246 Structural factors, 270 Structural inequality approach, 35 36 Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (1990), 457 Sub-Saharan Africa dating in, 365 emotional violence, 367 Substance use, 117, 136, 141 149, 440 among adolescents, 136 137 rates and types, 136 137 directions for future research, 149 151 outcomes, 71 73 prevention and intervention implications, 151 152

538

Index

Substance use (Continued) substance use and dating violence, 141 149 theoretical frameworks for substancerelated dating violence, 137 140 Substance-related dating violence, theoretical frameworks for, 137 140 AAM, 139 Bell and Naugle model (2008), 139 140 indirect and spurious effects models, 138 proximal effects and related models, 138 139 theories of substance use and dating violence victimization, 140 Substances, 78 Supportive relationships and prevention, 120 121 peer knowledge and prevention, 120 121 Surveillance, 274 Survival, 263 SVAGS. See Stop Violence against Girls in Schools (SVAGS) Synchronizing gender approaches, 405 Systems Theory, 264, 265t

T TA. See Technical assistance (TA) TAB. See Teen advisory board (TAB) Target congruence theory, 37 TDV. See Teen dating violence (TDV) Teachers role in identifying youth dating violence, 209 Technical assistance (TA), 513, 516 517 Technologies to prevent and respond to violence, 406 Teen advisory board (TAB), 468, 493 Teen dating violence (TDV), 53 54, 86 87, 89 90, 261, 467 468, 503. See also Gender-based violence (GBV); Partner violence (PV); Sexual violence Alaska Fourth R initiative, 506 508 broken windows theory, 264 267, 266f CPTED, 273 274 definition of neighborhood, 262 263 geographic diversity, 273 implications and conclusion, 274 275 linking bullying, sexual harassment, and, 91 92 methodological advances, 272 neighborhood, 267 268 definition, 273

and health, 263 physical environment, 268 269 social environment, 269 271 problem definition and magnitude, 261 262 QIF, 508 517 research methods and priorities, 271 272 social disorganization theory, 267 social ecological models, 264, 265t theoretical framework, 272 273 theory and causes, 264 victimization, 261 262 Teen(s), 105 108, 111 112, 114. See also Adolescent(s)/adolescence ADV, 247 attitudes and behaviors, 110 111 on bullying, 114 Choices, 375 Hispanic, 243, 246 247 in low-quality friendships, 120 substance use, 117 Temporality, 297 Territorial reinforcement, 274 Territoriality, 274 Theory of Normative Social Behavior, 112, 116 “Theory” to dating abuse prevention, 25 27 Threatening, 65 66, 75, 173 174, 223, 225, 294, 367 368, 453 Threats, 105 106, 145, 202, 295, 347, 373 374 Timing considerations in dating abuse exposure and outcomes measurement, 65 Title IX (law), 457 Tranquilizers, 136 Transgender, 64, 95, 216, 220, 445 446 Transphobia, 221 Trauma-related outcomes, 67 “Trickledown” process, 236 237 Two-factor model, 64

U UNDP. See United Nations Development Program (UNDP) UNESCO. See United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization (UNESCO) UNFPA. See United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Unhealthy relationships, 3

Index United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 286 United Nations Educational, Scientific, & Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 285 United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), 285 United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 283 Universal prevention, 208 209 USAID. See United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

V VACS. See Violence against Children Surveys (VACS) Valium, 136 VAWG. See Violence against women and girls (VAWG) Verbal abuse, 86 Verbal bullying, 115 Verbal PV. See Psychological PV Verbal threats, 159 Verbal violence, 366 Victim-blaming, 32 33, 245, 421 422 Victimization, 64 66, 217 220, 366 ADV victimization and perpetration, 315 316 developmental framework linking multiple forms of violence and, 87 physical victimization, 261 262 TDV victimization, 261 262 victimization/perpetration outcomes, 73 75 Victims, 27 28, 70 71, 204 205, 209 210, 341 Violence against Children Surveys (VACS), 382 384 Violence Against Women Act (1992), 239 240, 419, 457 Violence against women and girls (VAWG), 283 284, 298, 382 383, 385, 401 407 Violence/violent, 33 34, 53 54, 85 86, 91, 95, 454 455. See also Adolescent dating violence (ADV); Dating violence (DV); Sexual violence; Teen dating violence (TDV) attitudes accepting of, 166 167 breakup, 199 dating behaviors, 117

539

developmental framework linking multiple forms of victimization and, 87 domestic, 27 emerging technologies to prevent and respond to, 406 exposure to violence in family of origin and DV, 162 165 family environment, 118 implications for violence prevention, 93 94 interparental, 32 33, 118 119 interpersonal, 106 intimate partner, 191 192 IPV, 503 male, 33 partner, 27 perpetrators, 29 30 physical, 366 public, 267 resistance, 27 28 separation-instigated, 27 28 sexual, 27 situational couple, 28 29 timing and continuity of violence in family of origin to DV, 164 types in family of origin, 161 162 verbal, 366 victimization and perpetration, 275 violent/antisocial violence, 342 against women, 368

W Web of Science, 54 Weight control behaviors, 65 66 WHO. See World Health Organization (WHO) “Whole school approach”, 386 391 Within-group research in ADV, 251 Witnessing experiencing violence, 440 IPV, 162 163 Women group training with, 405 self-sufficiency and self-respect for, 245 Working models of relationships, 108 109 World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, 286 World Health Organization (WHO), 192 193, 283, 368, 382 383 WSDVFR, 197 198

540

Index

X Xanax, 71 72, 136

Y YMI. See Young Men Initiative (YMI) Young adults, 215, 217 parents, 355 356 relationships, 160 161 Young Men Initiative (YMI), 392 393 Younger adolescents, 113 114 Youth dating violence and homicide, 191 195. See also Dating violence (DV) community professionals and collaboration, 209 210 domestic homicide research, 195 198 future research, 210 Lauren Astley case, Massachusetts, United States, 198 200 Natalie Novak case, Toronto, Canada, 200 203 research on homicides, 207 208

role of teachers, 209 Shana Grice case, Brighton, England, 205 207 Sophie Elliot case, Dunedin, New Zealand, 203 205 universal prevention, 208 209 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 217 218 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), 217 218, 271 272, 328 329 Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance. See Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) Youth(s), 111 112, 159 160, 193 195, 420 421, 424 425 development, 321 domestic homicide research in youth population, 195 198 in intimate relationships, 197 198 YRBS. See Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) YRBSS. See Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS)