subtypes of british adolescents involved in adolescent dating violence kate walker & erica bowen
DESCRIPTION
Subtypes of British Adolescents Involved in Adolescent Dating Violence Kate Walker & Erica Bowen. Background: Adolescent Dating Violence. Adolescent dating violence: The problems and prevalence - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Background: Adolescent Dating Violence
Adolescent dating violence: The problems and prevalence
• Verbal, psychological and physical aggression are common features of adolescent dating relationships (e.g., Banyard & Cross, 2008; Danielsson, Blom, Nilses, Heimer, & Högberg, 2009; Reed, Silverman, Raj, Decker, & Miller, 2011)• 35% report mild form of abuse • 10-20% report more severe forms (Black et al., 2011)
• Comprehensive international review (Europe and North America; Leen et al., 2013) found rates of physical ADV ranged between 10 and 20% and psychological 17 and 88% in general population samples
• Perpetration and victimisation co-occur (e.g., Foshee et al., 1996; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997) i.e., a perpetrator is likely to be a victim, and a victim is likely to be a perpetrator
Typologies• Johnson (1995, 2008) Typology research in adults:
– Intimate Terrorism (IT), Violent Resistant (VR), Situational Couple Violence (SCV), Mutual Violent Control (MVC)
– Applied recently to ADV (Zweig et al. 2014): SCV most common (86% females; 80% males); IT (7% females; 11% males); VR (6% females; 6% males); MVC (1% females; 4% males)
• Only few other studies examined typologies of ADV (Bossarte, Simon, & Swahn, 2008; Draucker et al., 2010; Draucker et al., 2012; Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007; Haynie et al., 2013)– Mutuality was a dominant characteristic of violence, but the motives for such a
presentation varied between types– Need to understand the role that each of the individual plays in relation to the
use, severity and types of violence employed– Little is known about role of control in ADV
Current Research
To extend typology research in adults to explore mutuality in use of violence in adolescent dating relationships
Aims Twofold:(1) To determine the prevalence of physical and psychological violence and controlling behaviours in a UK sample of adolescents in the context of a dating relationship(2) To determine whether meaningful subtypes of adolescents are evident based on involvement in physical ADV and if subtypes differ in relation to psychological violence and controlling behaviours
Research593 adolescents 203 males (34.2%), 390 females (65.8%)
Mean age 14.33 years (SD = 0.90, range 12.00 to 16.42 years) Mean age for
first relationship 11.25 years (SD = 2.32) Mean number of dating relationships 3.24 (SD = 3.10)
The Victimization in Dating Relationships (VDR) and Perpetration in Dating Relationships (PDR; Foshee et al. 1996) Revised Conflict
Tactics Scales (CTS2: Straus, 1990; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) The
Controlling Behaviours Scale (CBS: Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003)
Prevalence rates (victim perpetrator ) physical, psychological, controlling behaviours
Cluster analysis (based on frequency scores on PDR and VDR) Group comparisons (clusters) on controlling behaviours and
psychological violence
Prevalence
Total Sample (N = 593)
Males (n = 203; 34%)
Females (n = 390; 68%)
Abuse Type Prevalence Prevalence Prevalence
Any P*n (%)
Any V** n (%)
Any P n (%)
Any Vn (%)
Any Pn (%)
Any Vn (%)
Physical 143 (24.1) 193 (32.5) 40 (19.7) 64 (31.5) 103 (26.4) 129 (33.1)
Psychological 285 (48.1) 281 (47.4) 72 (35.5) 74 (36.5) 213 (54.6) 207 (53.1)
Controlling 380 (64.1) 37 (53.5) 119 (58.6) 90 (44.3) 261 (66.9) 227 (58.2)
* Perpetrator** Victim
Prevalence
Total Sample (N = 593)
Males (n =
203; 34%)
Females (n =
390; 68%)Abuse Type Prevalence Prevalence Prevalence
P* Onlyn (%)
V** Only n (%)
P & Vn (%)
P Only n (%)
V Onlyn (%)
P & Vn (%)
P Only n (%)
V Onlyn (%)
P & Vn (%)
Physical 18 (3.0)
68 (11.4)
124 (25)
3 (1.4)
40 (19.0)
37 (18.2)
15 (3.8)
41 (10.5)
88 (22.5)
Psychological 20 (3.4)
16 (2.7)
265(44.7)
5 (2.5)
7 (3.4)
67 (33.0)
15 (3.8)
9 (2.3)
198 (50.8)
Controlling 86 (14.5)
23 (3.9)
294 (49.6)
39 (19.2)
10 (4.9)
80 (39.4)
47 (12.1)
13 (3.3)
214 (54.9)
* Perpetrator** Victim
Clusters developedCluster analysis used on frequency scores of the PDR & VDR• Cluster 1: Low frequency victim/perpetrator group, (n = 152). Low
levels of victimisation and perpetration, but frequency of victimisation (M = 2.00, SE = .16) was higher than frequency of perpetration (M = .60, SE = .10) and the difference was significant t (151) = -9.53 p < .001, d = 0.61.
• Cluster 2: Moderate frequency victim/perpetrator group, (n = 40). Moderate levels of victimisation and perpetration, but frequency of victimisation (M = 9.50, SE = .86) was higher than frequency of perpetration (M = 5.01, SE = .47) and the difference was significant t (39) = -4.06 p < .001, d = 0.61.
• Cluster 3: High frequency perpetration/victimisation group, (n = 19). High levels of victimisation and perpetration, but frequency of perpetration (M = 23.49, SE = 1.82) was higher than frequency of victimisation (M = 20.44, SE = 1.64) and the difference was significant t (18) = 2.84 p < .05, d = 0.56.
Subtypes• Examination of the frequency of roles within each behavioural
subgroup (victim, perpetrator, mutual)• 5 subgroups developed
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Low frequency perpetrator (LP)(n = 18, 11.8%)
Moderate frequency mutual (MM) (n = 36, 90%)
High frequency mutual (HM) (n = 19, 100%).
Low frequency victim(LV)(n = 64, 42.1%) Low frequency mutual (LM)(n = 70, 46.1%)
Validation of SubtypesValidation of group memberships using psychological abuse and
controlling behaviours
Significant effects of group on: • Scores of controlling behaviour perpetration F (5, 583) = 107.95, p
< .001, partial η2 = .48• Scores of controlling behaviour victimisation F (5, 583) = 88.10, p
< .001, partial η2 = .43• Perpetration of psychological violence F (5, 583) = 97.60, p < .001,
partial η2 = .46• Victimisation of psychological violence F (5, 583) = 113.59, p < .001,
partial η2 = .49)
Validation of SubtypesRanking 1-6 ▲based on mean scores
Behaviour Group 1
(LP)
Group 2
(LV)
Group 3
(LM)
Group 4
(MM)
Group 5
(HM)
Control
(C)
Physical P* 3 1 4 5 6 1
Physical V** 1 4 3 5 6 1
Psychological P 4 2 3 5 6 1
Psychological V 3 2 4 5 6 1
Controlling P 2 3 4 5 6 1
Controlling V 3 2 4 5 6 1
▲1<2<3<4<5<6 *Perpetration**Victimisation
ConclusionsHigh proportion of adolescents have used and/or experienced physical and
psychological ADV
PERPETRATIONPhysical Violence
24%
Psychological Violence
48%
Controlling Behaviours
64%
VICTIMISATIONPhysical Violence
32%
Psychological Violence
47%
Controlling Behaviours
57%
ConclusionsHigh proportion of adolescents have used and/or experienced physical and
psychological ADV
PERPETRATIONPhysical Violence
24%
Psychological Violence
48%
Controlling Behaviours
64%
VICTIMISATIONPhysical Violence
32%
Psychological Violence
47%
Controlling Behaviours
57%
Conclusions
Adolescents who report ADV involvement were heterogeneous in relation to the nature of their involvement
CLUSTERS:5 subtypes
Perpetration and victimisation co-occurOf 5 subtypes 60% participants reported co-
occurrenceUse of control and psychological abuse (P &
V) distinguished groups
Implications
• Findings have potential to advance theory on the heterogeneity of violence in ADV
• Based on prevalence intervention and prevention required within the school curriculum– Typology research; examine behaviours of both
partners and different behaviours (physical, psychological, controlling)
References
Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14(9), 998-1013. doi:10.1177/1077801208322058Black, 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, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Danielsson, I., Blom, H., Nilses, C., Heimer, G., & Högberg, U. (2009). Gendered patterns of high violence exposure among Swedish youth. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 88(5), 528-535. doi:10.1080/00016340902846056 Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11(3), 275-286. doi:10.1093/her/11.3.275-a Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(1), 126-141. doi:10.1177/088626097012001008 Leen, E., Sorbring, E., Mawer, M., Holdsworth, E., Helsing, B., & Bowen, E. (2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy of primary interventions for adolescent dating violence: An international review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 18(1), 159-174. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015 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. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00143-2 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. doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9545-x Zweig, J. M., Yahner, J., Dank, M., & Lachman, P. (2014). Can johnson's typology of adult partner violence apply to teen dating violence? Journal of Marriage & Family, 76(4), 808-825. doi:10.1111/jomf.12121