Teen dating violence is an especially troubling public health issue given its high prevalence, and the research suggesting that early relationship behaviors often set the tone for future adult relationships. Based on data from the CDC, 10 percent of high school students report being physically harmed by a boyfriend or girlfriend each year. Negative behaviors that occur in adolescence, such as teasing and name calling, often continue into adulthood and can escalate into increasingly abusive behaviors.
The following studies examined the school and community characteristics that may serve as risk or protective factors for dating violence, the mechanisms by which witnessing intimate partner violence influences beliefs about the acceptability of dating violence, and the role of technology in teen dating and dating violence.
In addition to reviewing the following research summaries, psychologists are encouraged to explore the literature more completely to determine what may be useful to them in practice.
Edwards, K. & Neal, A. (2017). School and Community Characteristics Related to Dating Violence Victimization Among High School Youth. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 203–212. DOI: 10.1037/vio0000065.
Much research has been conducted investigating individual and relational factors as predictors of dating violence, however, the examination of broader community factors is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the school and community characteristics that may serve as risk or protective factors for dating violence (DV) experiences.
The 2013 New Hampshire Youth Risk Behavior Survey was completed by 38,181 students. Responses from 24,976 high school students from 13-18 years old who reported a dating experience were analyzed to assess demographic characteristics, DV victimization, and psychological and behavioral health and academic variables. Participants’ community group participation and perceptions of their own importance in the community (community mattering) were assessed, each using a single item. Population density was taken from the local Census data and school poverty level was derived using the percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunches.
The researchers found higher rates of physical DV but not sexual DV in school communities where there were higher levels of poverty. Population density was unrelated to both physical and sexual DV victimization. Community mattering predicted lower rates of both physical and sexual DV victimization. While no connection was found between involvement in community organizations and physical DV victimization, involvement in community organizations was related to an increased risk for sexual DV victimization. In other words, the more an adolescent feels they matter to the community, the less likely they are to be a victim of physical or sexual DV. However, unexpectedly, adolescents who participate in community groups were more likely to be a victim of sexual DV than adolescents who did not participate in community groups.
For DV victims, feeling important to one’s community predicted lower levels of depression and academic failure. DV victims not involved in community group participation had poorer academic functioning than DV victims that were involved with community groups.
Similar to previous studies, numerous fixed factors were found to be the strongest predictors of DV victimization as older, female, racial minority and sexual minority adolescents were more likely to experience physical and sexual DV than their demographic opposites.
Lee, M., Begun, S., DePrince, A., & and Chu, A. (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. DOI: 10.1037/tra0000130.
Recent surveys have indicated that at least a third of adolescents have witnessed intimate partner violence (IPV) during their lifetime (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck & Hamby, 2013). Additionally, research has found that youth who witness IPV are more likely to believe that violence is acceptable in close relationships (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004), which could increase the likelihood of dating violence as they age (Foshee, Bauman & Linder, 1999). This study examined the mechanisms by which witnessing IPV influences beliefs about the acceptability of dating violence by testing the relative contributions of interpersonal schemas (expectations about relationships) and ambivalent sexism.
A diverse sample of 79 teenaged girls aged 13-20 recruited as a part of a larger study examining interpersonal victimization risks among girls in the child welfare system participated in this research. Participants completed the Traumatic Events Screening Inventory- Child Version to determine frequency of witnessing IPV. Additional assessments to gauge ambivalent sexism, acceptability of dating violence and implicit associations between relationships and harm were administered.
Results indicated that more frequent exposure to IPV did not have a direct effect on acceptability of dating violence, however, more frequent exposure to IPV was linked with increased expectations that relationships include harm. Further, increased expectations that relationships include harm was linked with greater acceptability of dating violence. This demonstrates that among girls who witnessed IPV, witnessing violence is indirectly linked to acceptability of dating violence through associations between harm and close relationships. Additionally, as adolescent girls’ hostile sexist views (e.g., that women are inferior) increased, so did their beliefs that dating violence is acceptable. Benevolent sexism (e.g., that women need protection) was unrelated to IPV exposure and acceptability of dating violence.
Baker, C.K., & Carreño, P.K. (2016). Understanding the Role of Technology in Adolescent Dating and Dating Violence. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(1), 308-320.
The use of technology, including cell phones and social networking sites, has become an increasingly common part of adolescent life. This study aimed to explore how technology is used at various stages of adolescent romantic relationships; describe adolescents’ experience with technology use and dating violence; and examine any gender differences in the use of technology with regards to dating and dating violence.
Sex-specific focus groups were conducted with 39 adolescent participants from Hawaii. The participants were recruited from a variety of community-based organizations including peer mentoring programs and court-ordered temporary group homes. In order to be eligible for participation, youth had to be between the ages of 14 and 19; have had a prior relationship in the past year that they described as problematic; and were not currently involved in an abusive or violent relationship.
Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software was utilized in addition to open coding procedures to determine whether there were patterns to adolescents’ discussions of technology use and dating. Resultant patterns demonstrated:
- Technology use focused on texting and posting on social networking sites (SNS, mostly Facebook).
- Adolescents often met someone face to face, but then texted or communicated through SNS before arranging another in-person meeting.
- Communication via technology continued throughout the relationships including in ending them.
- Extensive talk and worry about cheating.
- High use of monitoring and controlling behaviors.
- An association between technology use and jealousy that often led to conflict and violence in the relationship.
Boys and girls did not appear to differ in their use of technology in dating, however, their reasons for how they used technology were not the same. To initiate relationships, girls used technology to better get to know a new partner in a safe environment, while boys saw communicating through technology as less likely to cause them embarrassment or pain if they were rejected. With regards to monitoring behaviors, boys reported monitoring to make sure their girlfriends were not meeting other boys, while girls reported monitoring because they were worried about their partner. Regardless of intent, monitoring may be a warning sign for future abuse with its connection to jealousy and tendency to result in fights between the couple. The one sex difference in technology use and dating violence was that the boys moved beyond monitoring to try to isolate their partners to prevent them from moving on to another male.
Clinical implications
Taken together, these three studies suggest that there are steps at the individual and community level to help prevent teen dating violence and improve the outcomes for victims. Reducing poverty and finding ways to better increase a teen’s feelings of importance to their communities are important prevention and remediation steps. While community group participation may be helpful, given the positive correlation found by Edwards and Neal (2017) between involvement in community organizations and risk for sexual DV victimization, finding supervised community organizations and promoting positive peer groups is emphasized.
Interventions may need to directly target girls’ expectations about relationships, namely that healthy relationships do not involve harm. Additionally, education about sexism in society and strategies to target hostile sexist beliefs may be necessary to reduce attitudes about the acceptability of dating violence.