Adolescent Dating Violence: Theory, Research, and Prevention

By David Wolfe

Adolescent Dating Violence: Theory, Research, and Prevention summarizes the course, risk/protective factors, consequences and treatment/prevention of adolescent dating violence. Dating violence is defined as physical, sexual, psychological, and cyber behavior meant to cause emotional, physical, or social harm to a current or former intimate partner. The book discusses research design and measurement in the field, focuses on the recent influx of longitudinal studies, and examines prevention and intervention initiatives. Divided into five sections, the book begins by reviewing theory on and consequences of dating violence. Section II discusses risk factors and protective factors such as peer influences, substance use, and past exposure to violence in the family of origin. Section III discusses how social and cultural factors can influence teen dating violence, addressing the prevalence of dating violence among different ethnicities and among LGBTQ teens, and the influence of social media. Section IV discusses recent research priorities including gender inequality, measurement, psychological abuse, and the dual nature of dating violence during adolescence. Section V reviews evidence-based practice for treatment and prevention across various age groups and settings.

• Encompasses physical, sexual, psychological and cyber violence
• Introduces theory on dating violence
• Emphasizes results from longitudinal studies and intervention initiatives
• Highlights the influence of social media and technology on dating violence
• Discusses ethnic, gender and other social and cultural differences in prevalence
• Examines evidence-based practice in treatment and prevention

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Jun 14, 2018
• ISBN: 9780128118856

Book preview

States

Preface

David A. Wolfe and Jeff R. Temple

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 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.

Section I

Theory and Consequences

Outline

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

Chapter 2 Theories on the Causation of Partner Abuse Perpetration

Chapter 3 The Acute and Chronic Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence: A Public Health Perspective

Chapter 4 Associations Among Family Violence, Bullying, Sexual Harassment, and Teen Dating Violence

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,    ¹Department 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

Abstract

The formation of healthy nonviolent intimate relationships in adolescence can have long-term implications for subsequent relationships, mental wellbeing, and parenting capacity. Thus it is important to consider risk and protective factors of adolescent dating violence throughout development—from early experiences with parents, peers, and the environment to proximal factors such as mental health and friendships. In this chapter we argue that a developmental systems perspective is essential for understanding dating violence during the adolescent and young adult years. We further argue that predicting and explaining adolescent dating violence requires a consideration of different forms of dating aggression, at different stages of development, and across different phases of a relationship (onset, maintenance, dissolution). Finally, we discuss how these developmental differences are occurring in the societal context of rapidly evolving sexual behavioral norms and evolving social media technologies that can have marked effects on dating and dating violence.

Keywords

Dating; dating violence; development; risk factors; protective factors

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).

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 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 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 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 out-group 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 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 (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, 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, Larsen-Rife, & 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 (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 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 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, 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 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 self-efficacy and agency in healthy dating relationships.

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., pro-social 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 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

1. Adelman M, Kil SH. Dating conflicts: Rethinking dating violence and youth conflict. Violence Against Women. 2007;13:1296–1318.

2. Barber BK. Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development. 1996;67:3296–3319.

3. Benotsch EG, Snipes DJ, Martin AM, Bull SS. Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;52:307–313.

4. Bonino S, Ciairano S, Rabaglietti E, Cattelino E. Use of pornography and self-reported engagement in sexual violence among adolescents. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2006;3:265–288.

5. Bradshaw C, Kahn AS, Saville BK. To hook up or date: Which gender benefits? Sex Roles. 2010;62:661–669.

6. Bravo V, Connolly J, McIsaac C. Why did it end? Breakup reasons of youth of different gender, dating stages, and ages. Emerging Adulthood. 2017;5:230–240.

7. Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. The ecology of developmental processes. In: Lerner RM, ed. Theoretical models of human development. 5th ed. New York: Wiley; 1998;993–1028.

8. Buhrmester D. Need fulfillment, interpersonal competence, and the developmental contexts of early adolescent friendship. In: Bukowski WM, Newcomb AF, Hartup WW, eds. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996;158–185.

9. Capaldi D, Clark S. Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology. 1998;34:1175–1188.

10. Capaldi DM, Shortt JW. Understanding conduct problems in adolescence from a lifespan perspective. In: Adams GR, Berzonsky MD, eds. Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2003;470–493.

11. Carver K, Joyner K, Udry JR. National estimates of adolescent romantic relationships. In: Florsheim P, Florsheim P, eds. Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2003;23–56.

12. Casey EA, Beadnell B. The structure of male adolescent peer networks and risk for intimate partner violence perpetration: Findings from a national sample. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2010;39(6):620–633.

13. Choi HJ, Ouytsel JV, Temple JR. Association between sexting and sexual coercion among female adolescents. Journal of Adolescence. 2016;53:164–168.

14. Collins WA. More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2003;13(1):1–24.

15. Collins W, Welsh DP, Furman W. Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology. 2009;60:631–652.

16. Connolly J, Furman W, Konarski R. The role of peers in the emergence of heterosexual romantic relationships in adolescence. Child Development. 2000;71:1395–1408.

17. Connolly J, Friedlander L, Pepler D, Craig W, Laporte L. The ecology of adolescent dating aggression: Attitudes, relationships, media use, and socio-demographic risk factors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2010;19:469–491.

18. Connolly J, Nguyen HT, Pepler D, Craig W, Jiang D. Developmental trajectories of romantic stages and associations with problem behaviours during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence. 2013;36:1013–1024.

19. Cornelius TL, Resseguie N. Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2007;12:364–375.

20. Cui M, Durtschi JA, Donnellan MB, Lorenz FO, Conger RD. Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010;24:688.

21. 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.

22. Cutbush S, Williams J, Miller S. Teen dating violence, sexual harassment, and bullying among middle school students: Examining mediation and moderated mediation by gender. Prevention Science. 2016;17:1024–1033.

23. Dardis CM, Dixon KJ, Edwards KM, Turchik JA. 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. 2015;16:136–152.

24. Davila J. Romantic relationships and mental health in emerging adulthood. In: Fincham FD, Cui M, eds. Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press; 2011;275–292.

25. Desjardins TL, Leadbeater BJ. Relational victimization and depressive symptoms in adolescence: Moderating effects of mother, father, and peer emotional support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2011;40:531–544.

26. Dick RN, McCauley HL, Jones KA, et al. Cyber dating abuse among teens using school-based health centers. Pediatrics. 2014;134:e1560–e1567.

27. Donnellan MB, Larsen-Rife D, Conger RD. Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88:562.

28. Draucker CB, Martsolf DS. The role of electronic communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing. 2010;23:133–142.

29. Ellis WE, Crooks CV, Wolfe DA. Relational aggression in peer and dating relationships: Links to psychological and behavioral adjustment. Social Development. 2009;18:253–269.

30. Fincham FD, Cui M. Emerging adulthood and romantic relationships: An introduction. In: Fincham FD, Cui M, eds. Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2011;3–12.

31. Foshee VA, Benefield TS, Reyes H, et al. The peer context and the development of the perpetration of adolescent dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2013;42(4):471–486.

32. Foshee VA, Reyes LM, Tharp AT, et al. Shared longitudinal predictors of physical peer and dating violence. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2015;56:106–112.

33. Furman W, Collibee C. A matter of timing: Developmental theories of romantic involvement and psychosocial adjustment. Development and Psychopathology. 2014a;26:1149–1160.

34. Furman W, Collibee C. Sexual activity with romantic and nonromantic partners and psychosocial adjustment in young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 2014b;43:1327–1341.

35. Furman W, Rose AJ. Friendships, romantic relationships, and peer relationships. In: Lamb ME, Lerner RM, Lamb ME, Lerner RM, eds. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Socioemotional processes, Vol 3. 7th ed Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2015;932–974.

36. Furman W, Shomaker LB. Patterns of interaction in adolescent romantic relationships: Distinct features and links to other close relationships. Journal of Adolescence. 2008;31:771–788.

37. Giordano PC, Johnson WL, Manning WD, Longmore MA. Parenting in adolescence and young adult intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Issues. 2016;37:443–465.

38. Giordano PC, Soto DA, Manning WD, Longmore MA. The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research. 2010;39:863–874.

39. Golden RL, Furman W, Collibee C. The risks and rewards of sexual debut. Developmental Psychology. 2016;52:1913–1925.

40. Goldstein SE, Chesir-Teran D, McFaul A. Profiles and correlates of relational aggression in young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2008;37:251–265.

41. Goodnight JA, Bates JE, Holtzworth-Munroe A, et al. Dispositional, demographic, and social predictors of trajectories of intimate partner aggression in early adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2017;85:950.

42. Gordon-Messer D, Bauermeister JA, Grodzinski A, Zimmerman M. Sexting among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;52:301–306.

43. Greenfield PM. Inadvertent exposure to pornography on the Internet: Implications of peer-to-peer file-sharing networks for child development and families. Applied Developmental Psychology. 2004;25:741–750.

44. Hankin BL, Mermelstein R, Roesch L. Sex differences in adolescent depression: Stress exposure and reactivity models. Child Development. 2007;78:279–295.

45. Harden KP. A sex-positive framework for research on adolescent sexuality. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2014;9:455–469.

46. Hartup WW. Peer interaction: What causes what? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2005;33:387–394.

47. Johnson RM, LaValley M, Schneider KE, Musci RJ, Pettoruto K, Rothman EF. Marijuana use and physical dating violence among adolescents and emerging adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 2017;174:47–57.

48. Johnson WL, Manning WD, Giordano PC, Longmore MA. Relationship context and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2015;57:631–636.

49. Joly LE, Connolly J. Dating violence among high-risk young women: a systematic review using quantitative and qualitative methods. Behavioral Sciences. 2016;6:7.

50. 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.

51. Jouriles EN, Garrido E, Rosenfield D, McDonald R. Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2009;33:451–460.

52. Karney BR, Beckett MK, Collins RL, Shaw R. Adolescent romantic relationships as precursors of health adult marriages: A review of theory, research, and programs Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2007; 2007. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR488.html.

53. Kast NR, Eisenberg ME, Sieving RE. The role of parent communication and connectedness in dating violence victimization among Latino adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2016;31:1932–1955.

54. King-Ries A. Teens, technology, and cyberstalking: The domestic violence wave of the future? Texas Journal of Women and the Law. 2011;20:131–193.

55. Kinsfogel KM, Grych JH. Interparental conflict and adolescent dating relationships: Integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004;18:505.

56. Klettke B, Hallford DJ, Mellor DJ. Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2014;34:44–53.

57. Kreager DA, Molloy LE, Moody J, Feinberg ME. Friends first? The peer network origins of adolescent dating. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2016;26:257–269.

58. Kuperberg A, Padgett JE. Dating and hooking up in college: Meeting contexts, sex, and variation by gender, partner’s gender, and class standing. Journal of Sex Research. 2015;52:517–531.

59. La Greca AM, Harrison HM. Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34:49–61.

60. Leadbeater BJ, Banister EM, Ellis WE, Yeung R. Victimization and relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of parental and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2008;37:359–372.

61. Leadbeater BJ, Kuperminc GP, Blatt SJ, Hertzog C. A multivariate model of gender differences in adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problems. Developmental Psychology.