Dating violence among adolescents
Dr Erica Bowen, Matt Mawer, and Emma Holdsworth
Threats
Psycho – emotional
Sexual
Physical
Saltzman et al. (2002)
Defining violence
Physical violence
Intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury, or harm.
Examples: slapping, grabbing, choking, punching, burning, restraining, biting
Intentional, unwanted sexual touching or intentional touching of a person of diminished capacity
Sexual violence
Examples: groping, pressuring, getting partner drunk/drugged
Psychological trauma to the victim caused by acts, threats of acts, or coercive tactics.
Psychological/emotional violence
Examples: humiliating, controlling, withholding money, isolating, shaming
Using words, gestures, or weapons to communicate the intent to cause death, disability, injury, or physical harm.
Threats of violence
Examples: threats of any type of violence (including through social media)
Definition problems
1. Are these standard definitions?
2. How do we separate “threats”?
3. Sub-hierarchies of violence
4. Who defines behaviour as abuse?
Prevalence
“The prevention and reduction of youth dating violence has become an issue of national urgency"
(Antle et al. 2007; 173) Boys
15% – 44%Girls
14% – 43%
Approx.
25%
6 teenagers in a class of 25 students
• Parental influence• Peer influence• General delinquency• Substance abuse• Psychological adjustment & competencies• Attitudes towards violence• Nature of relationship & dating behaviour• Being a victim of dating violence
Risk factors for dating violence
• Perception of lesser parental involvement• Witnessing inter-parental aggression• Being a victim of parental aggression• Directing aggression towards parents• Perception of parental support for
aggressive solutions
Parental influence
• Perception of lesser parental involvement
– Perceived lack of authority OR– Lack of exposure to good relationships models,
emotional support & stability– OR BOTH
Parental influence
• Witnessing inter-parental violence– Modelling the behaviour - social cognitive model
of violence – Threat to self and self blame– Ineffective coping
Parental influence
• Being a victim of parental aggression
– Problems controlling behaviour– Problems recognising bad behaviours– Developmental traumatology
• Childhood abuse = historic risk factor• Trauma symptoms = changeable risk factor
Parental influence
Childhood abuse
(historic)
Stress-induced neurobiological
changes
Dating violence
Trauma symptoms
(changeable)
Developmental traumatology
• Friends with experience of dating violence• Friends who perpetrate dating violence• Friends who use aggression generally• Friends who are victims of dating violence
Peer influence
• Friends with experience of dating violence– Interdependence theory– Parents become less important as social
relationships become more important• Friends’ perpetration of dating violence
– Socially acceptable dating behaviour norms
Peer influence
• Friends who use aggression generally– Social groups not too diverse– Group norms unchallenged
• Friends who are victims of dating violence– Longitudinal predictor (girls only)– Social groups include perpetrators and victims
Peer influence
• Parental influence– Perception of lesser involvement = less
authority & less emotional support– Witnessing inter-parental aggression =
modelling behaviour & ineffective coping– Victim of parental aggression = trauma
symptoms (proximal risk for violence)
Summary
• Peer influence– Adolescents susceptible to influences of peer
behaviour– Socially acceptable dating norms– Cohesive groups mean norms remains
unchallenged– Social groups can include perpetrators AND
victims
Summary
Study Programme evaluated
1 Love U2: Increasing your relationship smarts
2 Love U2: Communication smart
3 Expect Respect Programme Support Group
4 Safe Dates
5 Connections: Relationships and Marriage
6 Interaction curricula and Law and Justice curricula
7 Reaching and Teaching Teens to Stop Violence
8 The Youth relationships project
Intervention programmes
Behavioural
AttitudinalPersonal / skills
Results
Other issues
1. Interventions can have negative effects• Provoke behaviour• Negative peer influence
2. Do group interventions work?• Evidence mixed• Supportive; but enabling?
Conclusions
“The prevention and reduction of youth dating violence has become an issue of national urgency"
(Antle et al. 2007; 173)
1. Four dimensions of violence
2. 6 in a class of 25 students (25%)
3. Main risks factors: parental and peer
4. Interventions: behavioural change
5. But: Lack of European data!
We want to answer your questions!
Erica Bowen [email protected] Mawer [email protected] Holdsworth [email protected]
References: http://www.cavaproject.eu/