AR TeenDatingViolence

Teen Dating Violence: A Review of Risk Factors and Prevention Efforts (April 2005) Page 1 of 13
*The production and dissemination of this publication was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number U1V/CCU324010-02 from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the official views of the CDC, VAWnet, or the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Applied Research Forum
National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women
In the past several decades dating violence has
emerged as a significant social and public health
problem. Much of the dating violence research,
however, has focused on adult couples or college
samples and only recently has attention been paid to
dating violence among high school students (e.g.,
Foshee, 1996; James, West, Deters, & Armijo,
2000; Kreiter et al., 1999). Teen dating violence is
a significant problem not only because of its alarming
prevalence and physical and mental health conse-
quences (Callahan, Tolman, & Saunders, 2003;
Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000), but also
because it occurs at a life stage when romantic
relationships are beginning and interactional patterns
are learned that may carry over into adulthood
(Werkerle & Wolfe, 1999). Teen dating violence
ranges from emotional and verbal abuse to rape and
murder and appears to parallel the continuum of
adult domestic violence (Sousa, 1999). Adolescents
often have difficulty recognizing physical and sexual
abuse as such and may perceive controlling and
jealous behaviors as signs of love (Levy, 1990).
Perhaps due to their need for autonomy and greater
reliance on peers, teens involved in dating violence
seldom report the violence to a parent or adult; if it
is reported, most tell a friend and the incident never
reaches an adult who could help (Cohall, 1999).
The focus of the present article is two fold: 1) to
provide a critical review of the dating violence
literature with respect to potential risk factors for
both perpetrators and victims; and 2) to examine the
empirical research regarding the effectiveness of
prevention and intervention programs targeting teen
dating violence.
Before reviewing the existing literature, two
areas are discussed briefly: prevalence rates and the
issue of mutual aggression.
Prevalence Rates
A considerable body of research has been
conducted to assess prevalence rates of dating
violence. A recent national survey found that
approximately 12% of high school students reported
experiencing physical violence in a dating
relationship (Center for Disease Control, 2000).
However, rates of dating violence in high school
samples have been found to be as low as 9%
(Roscoe & Callahan, 1985) and as high as 57%
(Cascardi, Avery-Leaf, OLeary, 1994).
The wide range in prevalence rates may be due
to several factors. Similar to the research on spousal
violence, there appears to be no standard definition
of dating violence. Whereas some researchers
include psychological and emotional abuse in their
definition of dating violence (e.g., intimidation, verbal
abuse, and monitoring a partners whereabouts)
(OKeeffe, Brockopp, & Chew, 1986; Halpern,
Oslak, Young, Martin, & Kupper, 2001), others use
a more restrictive definition that includes only
physically violent acts such as slapping, pushing,
hitting, kicking, choking, etc. (DeMaris, 1992;
Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992). Compli-
cating the matter is that sexual violence is often
excluded in the definition of dating violence. An-
other reason for the variation in prevalence rates is
that many studies consider violence in a single or
recent relationship and others consider violence
Teen Dating Violence:
A Review of Risk Factors and Prevention Efforts
Maura OKeefe
With contributions from Leah Aldridge
VAWnet Applied Research Forum
VAWnet: The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women www.vawnet.org
occurring in multiple relationships (Arias, Samios, &
OLeary, 1987; Stacy, Schandel, Flannery, Conlon,
& Milardo, 1994). Confusion regarding rates of
violence also arises from the mingling of perpetration
and victimization data, that is, any exposure to dating
violence either as a perpetrator or as a victim are
merely added together (Hotaling & Sugarman,
1990). Some researchers have noted that rates of
violence may be inaccurate. For example, since
most dating violence research relies on self-report,
socially desirable responses or other biases in
reporting may affect prevalence rates (Sugarman &
Hotaling, 1989). Males may tend to underreport
and deny or minimize their own aggression whereas
females may over report to accept blame (Jackson,
1999). Despite the problems in estimating preva-
lence rates, it is not unlikely that physical aggression
occurs in one of three adolescent dating relation-
ships, an alarmingly high rate.
Among high-risk youth, dating violence may be
even more commonplace. One study found that
among a sample of 14 to 16 year old girls receiving
child protection services, over half had experienced
sexual and physical violence at the hands of a dating
partner (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999). Another study
found that 68% of males and 33% of females
attending an alternative school reported being violent
against a current or recent dating partner (Chase,
Treboux, OLeary, & Strassberg, 1998).
Although studies are sparse, rates of dating
violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB)
youth are comparable or even higher than those for
heterosexual couples (Elze, 2002; Freedner, Freed,
Yang, & Austin, 2002). Threats of outing, such as
threatening to reveal lesbian or gay identity to family,
friends, ex-partners, or employers are particularly
high for bisexual adolescents (Freedner et al.,
2002).
Mutual Aggression
Importantly, the dynamics of violent teen dating
relationships appear to differ from those of adult
abusive relationships. Studies consistently indicate
that non-sexual violence in dating relationships
involves the reciprocal use of violence by both
partners. Several studies in fact have found that girls
inflict more physical violence than boys (Foshee,
1996; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Malik, Sorenson, &
Aneshensel, 1997; Roscoe & Callahan, 1985;
OKeefe, 1997). When sexual violence is exam-
ined, however, dramatic gender differences emerge
with females sustaining significantly more sexual
violence than males (Bennett & Fineran, 1998;
Foshee, 1996; Molidor & Tolman, 1998).
It is important to note, that there are fundamental
problems in asserting gender parity regarding
relationship violence. Most obvious is the greater
physical harm that can be inflicted by male violence
due to males often-greater size and strength.
Compared to boys, girls are more likely to sustain
injuries and require medical treatment as a result of
the violence (Makepeace, 1987). Most of the
dating violence research has relied on the Conflict
Tactic Scale (CTS) (Straus, 1979) an instrument
that fails to address the meaning, context, or conse-
quences of the violence (Dekeseredy, 1995). For
example, much of the dating violence research
overlooks whether female use of violence was in
self-defense or in response to male physical or
sexual violence.
The few studies that have examined the conse-
quences of the violence have found gender differ-
ences with females reporting more negative emo-
tional consequences of the violence including experi-
encing greater fear for their safety (Foshee, 1996).
Molidor and Tolman (1998) found that adolescent
boys were less likely than girls to perceive incidents
of dating violence as physically or psychologically
threatening or damaging. OKeefe and Treister
(1998) found that males and females perceive being
the victim of dating violence very differently.
Whereas female victims indicate emotionally hurt
and fear as the two primary effects for them, males
indicate thought it was funny and anger. Gender
also appears to influence motives for violence.
OKeefe (1997) reported that whereas anger was
cited as the most frequently mentioned motive by
both males and females, self-defense was the
second most frequently cited motive for girls, but for
boys it was the desire to get control over their
partner. Also, Felson and Messner (2000) suggest
that the control motive is significantly more likely to
occur in male-to-female violence than any other
gender combination. Given that fear, intimidation,
power, and control are at the core of adult battering
relationships, it is critical to understand how these
dynamics may be played out in adolescent relation-
ships. Taken together, these studies suggest that
despite gender parity in reported rates of partner
violence among adolescents, one cannot conclude
that partner violence is a gender-neutral phenom-
enon. More research, particularly qualitative stud-
ies, are needed to enhance our understanding of
adolescent dating violence including the nature of
relationship conflicts as well as the meaning, context,
intent, and consequences of the violence.
The next section provides a definition of risk
factors and a review of empirical studies on high
school samples that investigate risk factors for both
inflicting and sustaining dating violence.
A Literature Review of Risk Factors
for Inflicting and Sustaining Dating Violence
Risk factors for dating violence may be defined
as attributes or characteristics that are associated
with an increased probability of [its] reception and/
or expression (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990 p.1).
Although risk factors are thought to differentiate
individuals involved in dating violence from those
who are not, it is important to note that they are
correlates of dating violence and are not necessarily
causative factors. Consequently, these variables
may have implications for the primary prevention of
dating violence, but they may also be symptoms or
outcomes that have implications for treatment.
The following review organizes risk factors into
several categories: demographic characteristics,
prior experiences/exposure to violence, attitudes
towards violence, peer influences, personality or
intrapersonal factors, other problem behaviors, and
relationship factors.
Demographic Characteristics. As with intimate
partner violence, teen-dating violence appears to
occur in a wide range of socio economic strata
(SES). Two studies found higher rates of dating
violence in low SES groups (Makepeace, 1987;
Sigelman, Berry, & Wiles, 1984); however, no
consistent pattern has been found. Rates of inflicting
physical aggression against a dating partner appear
to vary by region with the higher rates found in
urban inner city areas compared to rural areas
(Bergman, 1992; Makepeace, 1987). In addition,
some differences have been found for race/ethnicity,
with higher rates of perpetration found among
African Americans and lower rates among Asians
and Latinos. Caucasians appear to fall in the middle
of this continuum (Makepeace, 1987; OKeeffe et
al., 1986; OKeefe, 1997). Other researchers,
however, report no racial differences in rates of
dating violence when SES or other variables were
statistically controlled (Malik et al., 1997), indicating
that factors other than race may account for the
differences. Research on ethnic minority groups is
limited due to small sample size. Also, samples have
been frequently based on college samples where
minorities and lower SES families are
underrepresented.
With regard to other demographic factors, two
studies examined the effects of family structure on
dating violence. Malik and colleagues (1997) found
that family structure was a correlate of dating
violence for girls, whereas OKeeffe et al., (1986)
found that family structure was not associated with
perpetrating or victimization of dating violence.
Prior Experiences/Exposure to Prior Violence.
An important variable examined repeatedly in the
literature on both dating and marital violence is
exposure to models of aggression in intimate rela-
tionships. Studies hypothesizing a predictable
relationship between family of origin violence and
inflicting dating violence have produced inconsistent
results with some studies indicating that teens,
particularly males, who witness interparental vio-
lence are at higher risk for inflicting dating violence
(DeMaris, 1990; Foo & Margolin, 1995; OKeefe,
1997), and other studies finding no effect for wit-
nessing interparental violence on the likelihood of
inflicting dating violence (Schwartz, OLeary, &
Kendziora, 1997). Compared to its association
with inflicting violence, witnessing interparental
violence appears to play a less significant role in
being the victim of dating violence for both genders.
Likewise, the link between experiencing parent-child
abuse and dating violence appears to be equivocal
with some studies indicating that being hit by parents
is associated with later use of dating violence and
others finding no association (Malik et al., 1997;
OKeefe, 1997). One study found that family
violence variables (witnessing interparental violence
and parent-child violence) were significantly corre-
lated on a bivariate basis with receiving dating
violence for both genders, but were not significant in
multivariate analyses where more proximal variables
(i.e., those closer in time or more related to the
context in which the violence occurred) such as
relationship or attitudinal factors became more
powerful influences (OKeefe & Treister, 1998). A
recent longitudinal study (Simons, Lin, & Gordon,
1998) found that although corporal punishment by a
parent was not associated with later delinquency, it
was associated with later teen dating violence,
suggesting that corporal punishment specifically
teaches that it is both legitimate and effective to hit
those you love (p. 475).
Exposure to community violence has also been
associated with perpetration of dating violence for
both genders (Malik et al., 1997); for females, it has
been associated with being the recipient of dating
violence (OKeefe & Treister, 1998). Exposure to
violence in the community may have a spillover
effect and increase ones use of violence in intimate
relationships, perhaps by increasing ones accep-
tance of violence. Also, the more violence in ones
community the more likely a female is to become a
victim of violence (OKeefe, 1997).
There has been consistent support in the litera-
ture for a positive association between dating
violence and aggression against peers (Riggs &
OLeary, 1989). That is, adolescents who show a
general tendency towards aggression or who use
physical aggression against peers are also more
likely to use aggression with a dating partner.
Whereas some studies found this association for
both males and females, another found that general
interpersonal aggression only predicted male use of
dating aggression (Chase et al., 1998). Not surpris-
ingly, a strong positive association has been found
between prior use of aggression against a dating
partner and present dating aggression suggesting
that this behavior may persist over time across
relationships (Cano, Avery Leaf, Cascardi, &
OLeary, 1998).
Attitudes Regarding Violence. One of the most
consistent and strongest factors associated with
inflicting violence against a dating partner is the
belief that it is acceptable to use violence (Malik et
al., 1997; OKeefe, 1997; Tontodonato & Crew,
1992). In some studies, this association has been
found to be stronger for males (Cate, Henton,
Koval, Christopher, & Lloyd, 1982; Henton, Cate,
Koval, Lloyd, & Christopher, 1983). Furthermore,
males who initiated violence against their partner
were more likely to expect positive consequences
whereas non-violent males were more likely to
expect violence to dissolve the relationship (Riggs &
Caulfield, 1997). Interestingly, several studies found
that the relationship between witnessing parental
violence and use of dating aggression was mediated
by acceptance of dating aggression, but that this
was true for males only. In other words, for males,
witnessing parental violence is associated with
dating violence through its link with acceptance of
dating violence norms (OKeefe, 1997). Similarly,
Foshee, Bauman, and Linder (1999) reported that
the association between exposure to family violence
and perpetrating dating violence was mediated by
both acceptance of dating violence as well as an
aggressive conflict response style. This relationship
held for both males and females.
Peer Influence. Related to attitudes justifying
dating violence, Arriaga and Foshee (2004)
explored whether adolescents follow in their friends
footsteps. Findings indicated that having friends in
violent relationships was associated with an
adolescents own experience as both a perpetrator
and victim of dating violence. In fact, this variable
was more influential than the effects of witnessing
interparental violence. In their longitudinal analysis
(one of the few studies that used a longitudinal
design) friend violence statistically predicted later
inflicting dating violence for both males and females,
but friend violence statistically predicted becoming
the victim of dating violence for females only.
Research findings regarding beliefs about
traditional sex roles show mixed findings. Theoreti-
cally, patriarchal beliefs and gender socialization
processes are thought to groom females for victim-
ization and males for aggression in intimate relation-
ships. A few studies supported the view that females
who maintain traditional views regarding womens
roles in society were more likely to be victims of
dating aggression, while males who adopt traditional
beliefs about mens roles are more likely to perpe-
trate dating violence (Currie, 1983; Sigelman et al.,
1984). One study showed unexpected effects, that
is, females use of dating violence was associated
with traditional views of womens roles while males
use was associated with less traditional views on
mens roles (Bookwala et al., 1992). This finding is
particularly difficult to explain and requires further
research examining the meaning and intent of the
violence.
Personality or Interpersonal Variables. A
number of intrapersonal variables have been corre-
lated with relationship violence. Low self-esteem
was found to discriminate between males initiating
dating violence and their non-violent controls, but
this pattern was not significant for females (OKeefe,
1997). Similar to domestic violence victims, low
self-esteem was found to be associated with being
the victim of dating violence for females, but not for
males (OKeefe & Treister, 1998). Depression,
more specifically sad and hopeless feelings, and
suicidality were found to be associated with victim-
ization for both males and females in a nationally
representative sample of high school student (Kreiter
et al., 1999; Howard & Wang, 2003a; Howard &
Wang, 2003b). Notably, examination of low self-
esteem and depression raises the question of causa-
tion and whether they are risk factors, conse-
quences, or related to dating violence through a third
variable.
Coping styles may be viewed as a psychological
resource that assists individuals to cope with conflict.
From a social learning theory perspective, skill
deficits, such as poor problem solving abilities,
difficulty managing anger and communicating feelings
would increase the likelihood of resorting to violence
to solve problems. Indeed, among a sample of
college freshmen, Bird, Stith, and Schladale (1991)
reported that confrontive coping strategies charac-
terized by anger, blaming, and trying to get the
partner to change differentiated between partners in
violent and non-violent relationships. Respondents
in violent dating relationships more often resorted to
insults, swearing, or cold and silent withdrawing to
motivate the partner to act according to their wishes.
Other Problem Behaviors. Adolescents who
engage in one problem behavior are likely to engage
in other problem behavior and this appears to be the
case for dating violence. Use of alcohol and drugs
has been consistently found to be strongly associ-
ated with inflicting and being the recipient of dating
violence for both genders (Burcky, Reuterman, &
Kopsky, 1988; OKeeffe et al., 1986; OKeefe,
1997; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001).
An association between substance use and females
experiencing sexual aggression from dating partners
has also been noted (Koss & Dinero, 1989). It has
been hypothesized that sexist rape myths, suggesting
that females who consume substances on a date are
fair game and are partly responsible for their
assault, may increase the risk of sexual victimization
by a dating partner (Marx, Van Wie, & Gross,
1996). Clearly, altering sexist beliefs and attitudes
that blame the victim need to be a focus of preven-
tion programs.
Other problem behaviors associated with
females experiencing dating violence include engag-
ing in risky sexual behaviors (e.g., having multiple
sex partners and nonuse of condoms), pregnancy,
and unhealthy weight control (Silverman et al.,
2001). The same risky sexual behaviors were also
found to be associated with males experiencing
dating violence. Again these correlational findings
need to be more fully understood. Future research
is needed to determine the nature of the relationships
between experiencing dating violence and these
health risk behaviors and whether one form of
behavior may trigger another or whether all are part
and parcel of a risk lifestyle.
Relationship Variables. A number of relationship
factors have been associated with both inflicting and
receiving dating violence. Similar to college
samples, greater relationship conflict and a greater
number of dating partners was positively associated
with inflicting dating violence for both males and
females (Bergman, 1992; OKeefe, 1997). It is
likely that arguments or conflicts may set the stage
for use of violence among some adolescents. For
females, greater relationship conflict and less rela-
tionship satisfaction were significantly associated
with being the recipient of dating violence (OKeefe
& Treister, 1998). Again, given the cross sectional
design of most of the research on dating violence, it
is difficult to determine whether greater relationship
conflict and less relationship satisfaction are risk
factors or consequences of the violence.
Summary and Directions for Future Research
Dating violence among young adolescents is all
too commonplace. The physical and emotional
consequences are well documented and it is likely
that its occurrence has implications for intimate adult
relationships. The methodological limitations such as
reliance on cross sectional designs and non-repre-
sentative sampling will need to be addressed in
further studies. The available data indicate that
dating violence is multi-determined and that numer-
ous factors interact with one another to affect a
particular outcome. However, the mechanisms by
which various factors are associated with dating
violence or how they may relate to each other are
not fully understood. Practitioners tell us that
adolescents do not perceive of dating aggression as
deleterious to the relationship nor do they view
violence as a cause for ending the relationship.
Research to enhance our understanding of gender
and its importance in victimization and perpetration
of interpersonal violence as well as the meaning,
context, and consequences of dating violence is
needed. Also, there is a paucity of research examin-
ing the experiences of dating violence among gay,
lesbian, and bisexual adolescents as well as high-risk
adolescents, for example those with known involve-
ment in criminal related activities or with substance
abuse. The latter have been particularly neglected in
the research literature and given that they are a
population at high risk for perpetration and use of
violence in adult intimate relationships, this gap is
troubling. Also, research identifying resiliency
factors that may interrupt the development of
aggressive behaviors in dating relationships is
needed.
The extant research does provide enough
information to guide professionals to design preven-
tion programs and target high-risk individuals.
Taken together the research points to several key
factors amenable to change that should be targeted
to prevent dating violence. Altering norms associ-
ated with dating violence, including dispelling myths
that underline the acceptance and justification of
violence, should be a priority. Having friends in
violent dating relationships is predictive of ones own
involvement as well as use of violence highlights
further the need to alter social norms that condone,
justify, and glamorize violence. A primary preven-
tion program should include education regarding the
different forms of relationship violence, early warn-
ing signs, understanding the dynamics of intimidation,
power, and control that underlie relationship vio-
lence, and teaching skills for building healthy rela-
tionships such as communication and conflict resolu-
tion. Further, despite some equivocal findings,
exposure to family and community violence, alcohol
and drug, a history of aggression appear to be
vulnerability factors that should be considered when
targeting high risk groups. Importantly, given the
possible spillover effects of community violence on
intimate partner violence, programs that focus on
reducing community violence will likely reduce
violence in adolescent dating relationships. The next
section provides a discussion of programs and
reviews the research evaluating the effectiveness of
specific dating violence prevention efforts.
Prevention and Intervention Programs
There are only a handful of studies that have
empirically investigated the effectiveness of pro-
grams to prevent teen dating violence. Most are
school based and use a group format. Program
length varies from less than a day to more than 20
sessions. Whereas a few programs frame the issue
of dating violence using a feminist perspective,
others use a more skills-based and gender-neutral
approach. Most of the prevention programs attempt
to target correlates of dating violence such as
attitudes about violence and gender stereotyping or
teach conflict management or problem solving skills.
Activities aimed at increasing awareness and dispel-
ling myths about violence in relationships are often
included in the curriculum.
The program Skills for Violence Free Relation-
ships (Levy, 1984) is a multi-session curriculum for
adolescents, which uses a gendered perspective,
i.e., it is an adaptation of programs for battered
women and focuses on males as perpetrators and
females as victims. Two evaluations of this preven-
tion program have been undertaken (Jones, 1987;
Levy 1984), but neither demonstrated change in
students attitudes toward use of violence.
In Touch with Teens (Aldridge, Friedman, &
Giggans, 1993) is an eight session curriculum
covering such topics as roots of violence, power and
control, cycle of violence, and building blocks of a
good relationships to name a few. An evaluation
conducted on this program using a pre/post test
design demonstrated expected change on several
items pertaining to knowledge regarding healthy
relationships and knowledge regarding sexual
harassment and sexual assault.
Using a skill-based program focusing on attitude
change, skill enhancement, and support for help-
seeking; Avery Leaf, Cascardi, OLeary, and Cano
(1997) implemented a five-session dating violence
prevention curriculum Building Relationships in
Greater Harmony Together (BRIGHT). Health
classes in a high school were randomly assigned to
receive the prevention program or no intervention.
Findings revealed that students in the treatment
group showed significant reductions in their attitudes
justifying dating violence as well as a significant
increase regarding intention to seek help compared
to those in the no treatment group.
Two interventions that did not use a comparison
group have also been evaluated. One included an
evaluation of a one-day violence prevention pro-
gram involving community presentations targeting
high school students in Canada (Jaffe, Sudermann,
Reitzel, & Killip, 1992). Findings indicated signifi-
cant increased knowledge regarding dating violence
for both males and females. However, there was a
backlash effect among some boys attitudes, that is,
at posttest male students reported being more
supportive of dating violence norms. Another
involved an evaluation of a two or four session
intervention (using a didactic and activities format) in
a Canadian high school (Lavoie, Vezina, Piche, &
Boivin, 1995). Findings indicated significant change
in students attitudes in the desired direction.
One of the largest attempts to evaluate a dating
violence prevention program was conducted by
Foshee et al. (1998) and included school and
community based activities for 8
th
and 9
th
graders in
a rural county in North Carolina (N = 1886).
Fourteen schools were randomly assigned to
treatment and control groups. The Safe Dates
program included school and community activities
aimed at changing attitudes about violence and
gender stereotyping, conflict management, and
providing support for help seeking when violence
occurred. Data collected at a short one-month
follow-up indicated that the Safe Dates program
was effective in preventing psychological, physical,
and sexual abuse perpetration against dating part-
ners as well as in changing mediating variables such
as attitudes about violence, gender stereotyping,
conflict resolution, and awareness of community
services for dating violence. Unfortunately, the
behavioral effects of the program faded at a one-
year follow-up. However, the effects of the pro-
gram on risk factors such as decreasing pro-vio-
lence norms, conflict management skills, and aware-
ness of community services were maintained over
the year following the program.
Foshee and her colleagues (Foshee et al., 2004)
recently undertook a four-year post intervention
evaluation study. Between the 2
nd
and 3
rd
year
follow-up, a randomly selected half of the adoles-
cents receiving the program also received booster
sessions. Findings indicated that adolescents who
received the Safe Dates program reported signifi-
cantly less psychological, physical, and sexual dating
violence perpetration and victimization than the
control group. The booster, however, did not
improve the effectiveness of the program. This
study was the first to test the long-term effects of an
adolescent dating violence prevention program and
one that shows exceptional promise.
In addition to school-based programs, one
community-based program designed to help teens at
risk for dating violence was evaluated. The Youth
Relationship Project (YRP) (Wolfe et al., 2003) is a
community-based intervention delivered in small
groups over 18 weekly two-hour sessions. The
curriculum focuses on education about healthy and
abusive relationships, conflict resolution and commu-
nication skills, as well as social action activities. The
evaluation study included 158 participants, ages 14-
16, with histories of child maltreatment. Participants
were randomly assigned to the intervention group or
a no-treatment control group. Findings indicated
that those receiving the intervention had significantly
fewer incidents of physical and emotional abuse as
well as reduced symptoms of emotional distress
compared to the control group.
Data is accumulating indicating that students
consider having their first boyfriend or girlfriend
sometime between 9 and 12 years of age (Avery-
Leaf, et al., 1997) and that between 28% and 45%
of students in this age group have experienced some
form of sexual harassment by a peer or group of
peers. More programs are beginning to target
middle and elementary schools, but only a few have
reported evaluation results.
For example, Macgowan (1997), using a
program developed by Domestic Violence Interven-
tion Services, reported that a five-session prevention
program was successful in changing attitudes about
non-physical violence and knowledge about dating
violence in a sample of 6
th
to 8
th
grade students.
Students who received the intervention made
significant improvement from pretest to posttest on
items related to knowledge about relationship
violence and attitudes abut nonphysical violence,
whereas those who did not showed no changes.
A promising primary prevention program for
elementary school children is the Expect Respect
School Project (Rosenbluth, 2002), a program that
addresses abuse, bullying, and sexual harassment.
The program is based on the belief that bullying and
sexual harassment are precursors of dating violence.
The program has several components including
counseling and support groups for students who
have experienced abuse or witnessed domestic
violence, a bullying prevention program, and content
on dating violence, sexual harassment, and healthy
relationships. The program was implemented in
several public elementary schools in Austin, Texas,
and an evaluation was conducted at the end of the
first and second years. Findings indicated that
compared to students who did not receive the
program, those who received the intervention
demonstrated an increased knowledge of sexual
harassment and awareness of bullying behavior;
also, those who received the intervention were
significantly more accurate in identifying examples of
sexual harassment than students who did not receive
the curriculum. At the end of the second year,
results indicated that students in the intervention
schools were significantly more likely to report
bullying than those in the comparison group.
Summary. A number of programs targeting physi-
cal and verbal abuse in teen dating relationship have
been developed that show promising results, par-
ticularly in the areas of increasing knowledge about
dating violence, changing norms, and improving
communication skills. Given that many of these
prevention programs have only been short-term
interventions, the results are particularly encouraging
and demonstrate a potential to impact public health.
Especially encouraging is the fact that one program
demonstrated long-term behavioral change, an
important achievement that bodes particularly well
for future relationships of these youth.
Policy Implications
It is nave to think a change in attitudes or
behavior can occur unless a long term, integrated,
and multi-dimensional approach is launched at all
system levels. Prevention of dating violence will
require a clear commitment (both financial and
otherwise) with the goal of establishing a consistent,
coordinated, and integrated approach in every
school and community. Dating violence prevention
programs need to be incorporated into systems and
institutions serving youth including schools, recre-
ational programs, juvenile justice programs, the
foster care system, etc. Schools are particularly well
position to develop a comprehensive response to
teen dating violence. Components of a comprehen-
sive school based response should include commu-
nity collaboration, education, and prevention pro-
grams, as well as treatment for perpetrators and
support services to victims. For example, an
advisory board on teen dating violence could be
established in each school district consisting of
teachers, parents, students, law enforcement, and
community groups to develop specific policies for
promoting a positive, safe, and violence free envi-
ronment. Education and training programs need to
be implemented not just for students, but also for the
entire school community including teachers, adminis-
trators, and staff and most importantly parents, with
programs tailored to the needs of each group. A
clear policy stating that bullying, sexual harassment,
and dating violence will not be tolerated needs to be
developed with explicit guidelines addressing conse-
quences for perpetrators of violence, such as
disciplinary action and mandated counseling ser-
vices. Intervention and referral services should be
developed that include mandated intervention
programs for teen perpetrators, support groups for
victims as well as group programs for those consid-
ered at high risk of inflicting violence. Clearly,
creating an environment that promotes safe, respect-
ful, and violence free relationships will require the
efforts of all, but the potential benefits are enormous.
Author of this document:
Maura E. OKeefe, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Southern California
School of Social Work
[email protected]
Consultant:
Leah Aldridge
Associate Director
Youth Violence Prevention Policy Training
Peace Over Violence (formerly Los Angeles Com-
mission on Assaults Against Women/LACAAW)
[email protected]
Distribution Rights: This Applied Research
paper and In Brief may be reprinted in its entirety
or excerpted with proper acknowledgement to the
author(s) and VAWnet (www.vawnet.org), but may
not be altered or sold for profit.
Suggested Citation: OKeefe, M. (2005, April).
Teen Dating Violence: A Review of Risk Factors
and Prevention Efforts. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet,
a project of the National Resource Center on
Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against
Domestic Violence. Retrieved month/day/year,
from: http://www.vawnet.org
References
Aldridge, L., Friedman, C., & Gigans, P. (1993). In
touch with teens: A relationship violence preven-
tion curriculum. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles
Commission on Assaults Against Women.
Arias, I., Samios, M., & OLeary, K. D. (1987).
Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression
during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 2, 82-90.
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.
Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., OLeary, K. D., &
Cano, A. (1997). Efficacy of a dating violence
prevention program on attitudes justifying aggression.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 21(5), 11-17.
Bergman, L. (1992). Dating violence among high
school students. Social Work, 37, 2127.
Bennett, L., & Fineran, S. (1998). Sexual and severe
physical violence among high school students: Power
beliefs, gender, and relationship. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 68(4) 645-652
Bird, G. W., Stith, S. M., & Schladale, J. (1991).
Psychological resources, coping strategies, and
negotiation styles as discriminators of violence in
dating relationships. Family Relations, 40, 45-50.
Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K.
(1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate
analysis. Violence and Victims, 7(4), 297-311.
Burcky, W., Reuterman, N., & Kopsky, S. (1988).
Dating violence among high school students. School
Counselor, 35(5), 353-358.
Callahan, M. R., Tolman. R. M., & Saunders, D. G.
(2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and
psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 18(6), 664-681.
Cano, A., Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., & OLeary,
D. K. (1998). Dating violence in two high school
samples: Discriminating variables. Journal of
Primary Prevention, 18(4), 431-446
Cate, R., Henton, L., Koval, J., Christopher, S., &
Lloyd, S. (1982). Premarital abuse: A social psycho-
logical perspective. Journal of Family Issues, 3, 79-
80.
Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & OLeary, K.D.
(1994). Building a gender sensitive model to explain
male and female use of dating violence: Preliminary
results. Paper presented at the 102nd annual Meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Los
Angeles, CA
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000,
June 9). Youth risk behavior surveillanceUnited
States 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, 49(5), 1-96.
Chase, K. A., Treboux, D., OLeary, K. D., &
Strassberg, Z. (1998). Specificity of dating aggres-
sion and its justification among high-risk adolescents.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(6),
467-473.
Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., McKeown, R. E. & King,
M. L. (2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate
partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and
psychological battering. American Journal of
Public Health, 90(4), 55-559.
Cohall, A. (1999). Strategies for health care provid-
ers to address adolescent dating violence. American
Medical Womens Association, 144, 144-145.
Currie, D.W. (1983). A Toronto model. Social Work
With Groups, 6, 179-188.
Dekeseredy, W. (1995). Enhancing the quality of
survey data on woman abuse: Examples from a
national Canadian study. Violence Against Women,
1, 158-173.
DeMaris, A. (1990). The dynamics of generational
transfer in courtship violence. A biracial exploration.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1, 219-231
DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of
aggression: The case of courtship violence. In E. C.
Viano (Ed), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary
perspectives (pp.111-120). Washington, DC: Hemi-
sphere.
Elze, D. E. (2002) Against all odds: The dating
experiences of adolescent lesbian and bisexual
women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 17-29
Felson, R. B., & Messner, S. F. (2000). The control
motive in intimate partner violence. Social Psychol-
ogy Quarterly, 63, 86-94.
Foshee, V. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent
dating abuse prevalence, types, and injuries. Health
Education Research, 11(3), 275-286.
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. Ameri-
can Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 1619-1622.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F.
(1999). Family violence and the preparation of
adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning
and social control processes. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 61(2), 331-342.
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 vio-
lence 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). Assess-
ing the Long-Term Effects of the Safe Dates Pro-
gram and a Booster in Preventing and Reducing
Adolescent Dating Violence Victimization and
Perpetration. American Journal of Public Health,
94, 4, 619-625.
Foo, L., & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate
investigation of dating violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 10, 351-377.
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, 21, 469-474.
Gray, H., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating
violence: Differences between one-sided and mutu-
ally violent profiles. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 12(1), 126-141.
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.
Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christo-
pher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating
relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4(3), 467-
482.
Hotaling, G. T., & Sugarman, D. B. (1990). A risk
marker analysis of assaulted wives. Journal of
Family Violence, 5(1), 1-13.
Howard, D. E., & Wang, M. Q. (2003a). Psychoso-
cial factors associated with adolescent boys reports
of dating violence. Adolescence, 38(151), 519-533.
Howard, D. E., & Wang, M. Q. (2003b). Risk
profiles of adolescent girls who were victims of
dating violence. Adolescence, 38(149), 1-14.
James. W. H., West, C., Deters, K. E., & Armijo, E.
(2000). Youth and dating violence. Adolescence,
35(139), 455-465.
Jackson, S. M. (1999). Issues in the dating violence
research: A review of the literature. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 4(2), 233-247.
Jaffe, P. G., Sudermann, M., Reitzel, D., & Killip, S.
M. (1992). An evaluation of a secondary school
primary prevention program on violence in intimate
relationships. Violence & Victims, 7, 129-146.
Jones, L. E. (1987). School curriculum project
evaluation report. Minnesota Coalition for Battered
Women, MN.
Kreiter, S. R., Krowchuk, D. P., Woods, C. R., Sinal,
S. H., Lawless, M. R., & DuRant, R. H. (1999).
Gender differences in risk behaviors among adoles-
cents who experience date fighting. Pediatrics,
104(6), 1286-1292.
Koss, M. P. & Dinero, T. (1989). Discriminant
analysis of risk factors for sexual victimization among
a national sample of college women. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(2), 242-
254.
Lavoie, F., Vezina, L., Piche, C., & Boivin, M.
(1995). Evaluation of a prevention program for
violence in teen dating relationships. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 10, 516-524
Levy, B. (1984). Skills for violence free relationships:
Curriculum for young people ages 13-18. St. Paul:
Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women.
Levy, B. (1990). Abusive teen dating relationship: An
emerging issue for the 90s. Response to the Victim-
ization of Women and Children, 13(1), 59.
Macgowan, M. J. (1997). An evaluation of a dating
violence prevention program for middle school
students. Violence and Victims, 12, 223-235.
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.
Makepeace, J. M. (1987). Social factors and victim
offender differences in courtship violence. Family
Relations, 36(1), 87-91.
Marx, B. P., Van Wie, V., & Gross, A. M. (1996).
Date rape risk factors: A review and methodological
critique of the literature. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 1, 27-45.
Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and
contextual factors in adolescent dating violence.
Violence Against Women, 4, 180-194.
OKeefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence
among high school students. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 12, 546-568.
OKeefe, M., & Treister, L. (1998). Victims of dating
violence among high school students: Are the predic-
tors different for males and females. Violence
Against Women, 4(2), 195-223.
OKeeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986).
Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31(6), 465-468.
Riggs, D. S., & Caulfield, M. (1997). Expected
consequences of male violence against their female
dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence
12, 229240.
Riggs, D. S., & OLeary, K. D. (1989). A theoretical
model of courtship aggression. In M. A. Pirog-Good
& J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relation-
ships: Emerging social issues (pp. 53-70). New
York: Praeger.
Roscoe, B., & Callahan, J. (1985). Adolescents self-
report of violence in families and dating relations.
Adolescence, 20, 545-554.
Rosenbluth, B. (2002). Expect Respect: A School
Based Program Promoting Health Relationships for
Youth. National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence: NRCDV Publications.
Schwartz, M., OLeary, S. G. & Kendziora, K. T.
(1997). Dating aggression among high school stu-
dents. Violence and Victims, 12, 295.
Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984).
Violence in college students dating relationships.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5(6), 530-
548.
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: The Journal of the American
Medical Association, 286(5), 572-579.
Simons, R. L., Lin, K. H., & Gordon, L. C. (1998).
Socialization in the family of origin and male dating
violence: A prospective study. Journal of Marriage
& the Family, 60(2), 467-478.
Sousa, C. A. (1999). Teen dating violence: The
hidden epidemic. Family & Conciliation Courts
Review, 37(3), 356-374.
Stacy, C., Schandel, L., Flannery, W., Conlon, M., &
Milardo, R. (1994). Its not all moonlight and roses:
Dating violence at the University of Maine. College
Student Journal, 28, 29.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict
and violence. The conflict tactics (CT) scales.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-86.
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating
violence: Incidence, context and risk markers. In M.
A. Pirog-Good and J. E. Stets (Eds.), Victims in
dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp.3-
32). New York: Paeger.
Tontodonato, P., & Crew, B. K. (1992). Dating
violence, social learning theory, and gender: A multi-
variate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7(1), 3-14.
Wekerle, C., & Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Dating violence
in mid-adolescence: Theory, significance, and emerg-
ing prevention initiatives. Clinical Psychology
Review, 19(4), 435-456.
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 &
Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 279-291.
In Brief: Teen Dating Violence: A Review of Risk Factors and Prevention Efforts (April 2005) www.vawnet.org
In Brief:
Teen Dating Violence: A Review of Risk Factors and Prevention Efforts
Violence in teen dating relationships is alarmingly commonplace. It occurs in heterosexual and same-sex
relationships and cuts across racial/ethnic and socio economic lines. Although there are methodological
problems accurately determining prevalence rates, a conservative estimate is that one in three adolescents
has experienced physical or sexual violence in a dating relationship (Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, OLeary, &
Cano, 1997). These rates are higher when verbal abuse is included in the definition. Teen dating violence
appears to parallel violence in adult relationships in that it exists on a continuum ranging from verbal abuse to
rape and murder (Sousa, 1999). Teen victims may be especially vulnerable due to their inexperience in
dating relationships, their susceptibility to peer pressure and their reluctance to tell an adult about the abuse
(Cohall, 1999). Further, many adolescents have difficulty recognizing physical and sexual abuse as such and
may perceive controlling and jealous behaviors as signs of love (Levy, 1990).
This article provides a critical review of the research literature with respect to risk factors for both
perpetrators and victims of dating violence and examines the research on the effectiveness of prevention and
intervention programs. Risk factors have been defined as attributes or characteristics that are associated
with an increased probability of [its] reception and/or expression (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990 p. 1). Risk
factors are correlates of dating violence and not necessarily causative factors. Thus, they may have implica-
tions for prevention program, but they may also be outcomes that have implications for treatment. Key risk
factors consistently found in the literature to be associated with inflicting dating violence include the follow-
ing: holding norms accepting or justifying the use of violence in dating relationships (Malik et al., 1997;
OKeefe, 1997); having friends in violent relationships (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004); exposure to violence in
ones family and community violence (Foo & Margolin, 1995, OKeefe, 1997; Schwartz et al., 1997);
alcohol and drug use (OKeeffe et al., 1986; Silverman et al., 2001); and a having a history of aggression
(Riggs & OLeary, 1989, Chase et al., 1998). The one factor that has consistently been associated with
being the victim of dating violence, particularly for males, is inflicting dating violence (OKeefe, 1997).
There is considerable controversy regarding whether violence in teen dating relationships involves mutual
aggression and indeed several studies report higher rates of inflicting violence for females (Foshee, 1996;
Gray & Foshee, 1997; OKeefe, 1997). Fundamental problems exist, however, in asserting gender parity
regarding relationship violence. Most obvious is the greater physical harm that can be inflicted by male
violence due to males often greater size and strength. Compared to boys, girls are more likely to sustain
injuries and require medical treatment as a result of the violence (Makepeace, 1987). Moreover, the
emotional consequences of the violence are more harmful for females than for males. Further research is
needed to enhance our understanding of adolescent dating violence including the nature of conflicts, as well
as the meaning, context, intent, and consequences of the violence and the role of gender.
In Brief: Teen Dating Violence: A Review of Risk Factors and Prevention Efforts (April 2005) www.vawnet.org
A number of school based programs focusing on reducing violence in teen dating relationships and
promoting healthy respectful relationships show promising results. The majority of these programs have
focused on increasing students awareness and knowledge about dating violence, changing attitudes and
norms that condone violence, and building conflict resolution and communication skills. Given that many of
these prevention programs have only been short-term interventions, the results are particularly encouraging
and demonstrate a potential to impact public health. Especially encouraging is a program demonstrating
long-term behavioral change. Clearly the prevention of dating violence requires a commitment (both finan-
cial and otherwise) with the goal of establishing a consistent, coordinated, and integrated approach in every
school and community.

AR TeenDatingViolence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AR TeenDatingViolence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AR TeenDatingViolence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teen Dating Violence: A Review of Risk Factors and Prevention Efforts (April 2005) Page 1 of 13

You might also like