The “Real World” of Dating Violence in Adolescence and Young Adulthood: A Longitudinal Portrait

2. The “Real World” of Dating Violence in Adolescence and Young Adulthood:A Longitudinal Portrait National Institute of Justice September 29, 2014 Peggy C. Giordano, PI pgiorda@bgsu.edu Monica A. Longmore, Co-PI mseff@bgsu.edu Wendy D. Manning, Co-PI wmannin@bgsu.edu

3. *This research was supported by grants from National Institute of Justice (2009-IJ-CX-0503, 2010-MU-MU-0031, and 2012-IJ-CX-0015), as well as grants from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD036223, HD044206, and HD066087), Department of Health and Human Services (5APRPA006009), and by the Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University, which has core funding from The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD050959). The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this presentation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institute of Justice, The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health, or Department of Health and Human Services.

4. Research and official statistics indicate that intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs frequently during adolescence and young adulthood. Some statistics indicate a peak during the young adult period (Halpern et al. 2009; Rennison 2001) • Research landscape is changing, but initially studies of violence focused on samples of older married adults • Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS), a five-wave longitudinal study, centers on ages 13 - 29

5. Objectives • Take a step back: general findings about the character and dynamics of adolescent and young adult relationships useful background for this more focused investigation of IPV • Present results highlighting relationship risk factors associated with IPV • Examine patterns of IPV across the thirteen year study period • Develop a relationship-focused perspective on desistance (once an abuser?...) • Suggest implications of TARS findings for prevention and intervention efforts

6. Key assumption: IPV not about anger, fundamentally about power and control • Power and control are central to theorizing about IPV and figure prominently in prevention/intervention efforts

7. Power and Control Wheel

8. Male privilege: Treating her like a servant: making all the big decisions, acting like the “master of the castle,” being the one to define men’s and women’s roles • IPV extension of the control or dominance motive

9. Early research on adolescent relationships has parallels… Assumptions: • transition from same-gender peer relationships to romance more easily accomplished for boys (Maccoby, 1990) • boys relatively less “engaged” (Wight, 1994) • boys have more power within these relationships (Thorne, 1993) • Few studies had systematically examined dynamics within adolescent or young adult relationships

10. Data • Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study • 5-wave longitudinal study spanning ages 13 – 29 • Stratified random sample (N = 1,219), includes oversamples of African American and Hispanic adolescents • School attendance not required, most interviews in respondents’ homes • In-depth “relationship history” narratives elicited from a subset at waves 1, 3, 4, and 5 • Wave 5: Qualitative interviews with 102 male and female respondents who reported violence experiences; 50 interviews with partner

11. Approach • Detailed questions about romantic lives of respondents as adolescents and later as young adults • Questions about IPV perpetration and victimization at each of the five waves of structured interviews • Wave 5 focuses central attention on IPV; retains relationship focus with greater attention to dynamics associated with conflict escalation

12. Relationship basics: Communication awkwardness Source: Giordano,PEGGYC., Wendy D. Manning, Monica A. Longmore, and Christine M. Flanigan. 2012. “Developmental Shifts in the Character of Romantic and Sexual Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Pp. 133-164 in Alan Booth, Susan Brown, Nancy Landale, Wendy Manning, and Susan McHale (Eds.), National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol. 2: Early Adulthood in a Family Context. New York: Springer.

13. Dating confidence Source: Giordano,PEGGYC., Wendy D. Manning, Monica A. Longmore, and Christine M. Flanigan. 2012. “Developmental Shifts in the Character of Romantic and Sexual Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Pp. 133-164 in Alan Booth, Susan Brown, Nancy Landale, Wendy Manning, and Susan McHale (Eds.), National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol. 2: Early Adulthood in a Family Context. New York: Springer.

14. Partner’s control/influence attempts Source: Giordano,PEGGYC., Wendy D. Manning, Monica A. Longmore, and Christine M. Flanigan. 2012. “Developmental Shifts in the Character of Romantic and Sexual Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Pp. 133-164 in Alan Booth, Susan Brown, Nancy Landale, Wendy Manning, and Susan McHale (Eds.), National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol. 2: Early Adulthood in a Family Context. New York: Springer.

15. Partner’s actual influence Source: Giordano,PEGGYC., Wendy D. Manning, Monica A. Longmore, and Christine M. Flanigan. 2012. “Developmental Shifts in the Character of Romantic and Sexual Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Pp. 133-164 in Alan Booth, Susan Brown, Nancy Landale, Wendy Manning, and Susan McHale (Eds.), National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol. 2: Early Adulthood in a Family Context. New York: Springer.

16. General decisionmaking power Source: Giordano,PEGGYC., Wendy D. Manning, Monica A. Longmore, and Christine M. Flanigan. 2012. “Developmental Shifts in the Character of Romantic and Sexual Relationships from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Pp. 133-164 in Alan Booth, Susan Brown, Nancy Landale, Wendy Manning, and Susan McHale (Eds.), National Symposium on Family Issues, Vol. 2: Early Adulthood in a Family Context. New York: Springer.

17. A different viewof gender and relationships • Romantic relationships have unique features and characteristics → early peer worlds incomplete as guides to action • Boys relatively more engaged, less confident than traditional depictions • Girls more experienced with world in which intimacy and communication are important elements • Girls likely to engage in influence attempts within the context of these early relationships

18. IPV risk • Returning to the traditional assertion that IPV is not about anger, but about control • Hypothesized that both male and female control attempts may be associated with IPV • Focused on the heightened emotionality that characterizes these early relationships, we hypothesized that negative emotions (i.e., anger) may also play a role • Limiting to oppose these dynamics

20. Research findings contribute to prior studies indicating a role for anger and also highlight that relationships characterized by mutual control are especially risky • Yet abstract, incomplete quality to these findings Why angry? What attempting to control?

21. Specific contested domains identified in the in-depth interviews Content: • Financial/economic concerns • Time spent with peers • Infidelity and infidelity concerns Form: • Discord heightened through the use of certain negative forms of communication (e.g., name calling, ridicule)

24. Relationship factors ‘matter’ for understanding IPV risk • Control attempts may stem not only from a general need for dominance, but desire to influence partner with reference to specific contested domains • Negative emotions also link to these contested areas, to resentments about the partner’s attempts to control, and negative attributions partner has communicated • Traditional frameworks (learning theories, gender socialization) not sensitive to observed variability→ over time, within and across relationships

25. Patterns: Variability across five waves of data • Among those reporting perpetration, most do not exhibit this behavior at all waves

26. Patterns: Variability across relationships • Only 1.3% of men and 2.4% of women report perpetration in all of their relationships

27. Patterns: Form of violence • Prior research has distinguished different forms of IPV (bidirectional, perpetrator only, victimization only) • Analyses of changes over time document considerable fluidity in the form as well as presence/absence of IPV within and across relationships

28. Changes in IPV status in young adulthoodby same/different partner Same Partner (N = 227) Any IPV at wave 4 (n = 84) (bidirectional, perpetration only, victimization only) Wave 5 72% changed (changed form of IPV or desisted) Different Partner (N = 527) Wave 5 81% changed Any IPV at wave 4 (n = 213) (changed form of IPV or desisted)

29. Patterns: Across the life course Source: Johnson, Wendi L.,PEGGY C. Giordano, Wendy D. Manning, and Monica A. Longmore. In press. “The Age-IPV Curve: Changes in Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration during Adolescence and Young Adulthood.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

30. Complications of gender • Generally recognized that women are deeply affected by IPV and rates of injury and experience of fear and intimidation highlight gender nature of this problem • Yet girls and women report relatively high rates of IPV perpetration in TARS and other data sets • Controversies remain about the meaning of these self-reports

31. Male perpetration I caught him in a lie [and] I start to like pack up my stuff and I was gonna go to my parents for the night and uhm he got a butcher knife and held it to my throat and spit in my face [went on] for like 5 hours and then made me call off work the next morning…. he rips me off the couch by my hair and he drags me in to the kitchen and he’s screaming at me to make him food.

32. Female perpetration … I would punch him and kick him and throw things… usually [use]my hand and like, I would either choke him or I would straight punch him as hard as I could.” [Jen] My mom said, “Are you serious? That’s from her, again?” And I’d just be like, “Yea, we got into it.” And she’d leave handprints, she’d leave scratch marks, bruises, cuts, you name it, all over my back, all over the front of me.” [John] Um, but she hit me, she whacked me so hard, no guy’s ever punched me that hard. [Deron]

33. And I used to hit his ass… yea I punched him in his face… while he was driving me to go to Target, I sure did… I punched him in his mouth cause he pissed me off… [Candace] I was in the shower and she was going through my phone, so I hop out the shower and I think the woman called and she’s like, “who is this woman” and smacked, and just swung at me. Smacked me right here…in the face. Like whack. [Matthew] She thought I was cheatin on her [but] then we go to sleep and, boom, she’s like “Get up, get up [expletive]!” She smacks me, “Get up!” I wake up and you know I’m looking at a pistol… Pfft, I just begged her. [James]

34. Patterns: Links to depression • Changes in depressive symptoms significantly related to IPV exposure – controlling for prior depressive symptoms and other covariates • Results indicate IPV exposure is linked to variability in men’s as well as women’s depressive symptoms • Results significant for both perpetration and victimization Source: Johnson, Wendi L.,PEGGY C. Giordano, Monica A. Longmore, and Wendy D. Manning. “Intimate Partner Violence and Depressive Symptoms during Adolescence and Young Adulthood.”Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(1):39-55.

35. Desistance: The change process • Respondents describe self-conscious attempts to alter these patterns of behavior • Unique features of IPV that affect likelihood and nature of desistance • Associated with many negatives • Not a source of status enhancement • Associated with relationship churning • Depression • Dyadic component • Multiple ‘paths’ to change • Decide to leave, get a new partner • Modify own behavior • Work with partner to modify dynamics

36. ‘Hooks’ for change • The specter of jail or arrest (exogenous influence) • The transition to parenthood (a change in roles) • Relationship-based changes: “the relationship learning curve”

38. I mean, I’ve changed. I have to be firm. Like when I believe it isn’t right, it’s not right. I can’t be lenient with you to benefit you and it’s not helping me, by you being dangerous or putting me in danger. Or by me putting you in danger, that doesn’t help either one of us, by me fighting you or me allowing myself to hit, that means I should just leave you. It’s not, especially if it’s dangerous or especially if I’m, we’re not helping each other, we’re not progressing or growing as people, then we don’t need to be together… it’s like I was looking in a mirror… it’s gotta be something in you that you have to change for yourself in order to not be so angry. You can’t be happy being that angry and treating a person or attacking a person, you know. It’s shocking. [Kate]

39. I think our relationship is really important to me. That’s how I feel, and I think I would say it’s passionate. Sometimes she doesn’t agree with that. But I’m getting older and this is, I don’t want to bullshit anymore. I don’t want to waste time arguing. I want to go forward, not backwards. And I don’t want to stay in the same place.[Chad]

40. My kids are getting older, so its not like I can sit there and argue with somebody in front of them and them not take that to their brain like oh, well that’s how it’s supposed to be. [Jasmine]

41. Lessons learned I mean I haven't hit him since, for like two years, ya know like um, just because like I know it doesn't work. But as far as like why I did it, it was just because I was angry, and I couldn't, I couldn't, I felt like and literally this is how I felt, like the incredible hulk. There was no stopping me, I was that mad and I was gonna do what I wanted to do, and hitting them [two previous partners] just felt like it was just gonna feel good, because what they were doing and what they were saying tempted me to wanna do that. Clicked something in my mind said that I wanna hit you. [Kris]

42. Make changes in relationship risk factors: Infidelity I learned how to be faithful and stuff like that, I ain’t playing her or nothing… if I do her like that, it’s eventually gonna come to the light. I ain’t trying to take that chance. I don’t want all that drama. I already experienced it and I didn’t like it. I play it like I don’t want to lose her. [Eric] I used to could tell [how] I used to make Lisa feel when I used to do it… It is like ok I don’t want that to happen to me so I’m not gonna do it no more… [Andrew] Or… Don’t do, no, I don’t, that’s set in stone, I’m not doing that. I’m not putting up with no more cheating from nooooo-body. I don’t care who you are, I’m not doing that. [Jennifer]

43. Changes in use of verbal ‘amplifiers’ With Eric like, I used to scream and all that stuff. I, I’ve definitely calmed down and like grown up since that whole thing. [Heather] If I heard something, I was gonna confront you right away and if I um, ya know, if you ignored my phone call, I'd call you back right away and leave a really nasty message. [Brittany] We talk about it a lot now. I’ve learned, hopefully, she has learned how to calmly… go over disagreements and stuff. [Edward]

44. Implications for policy and practice • References to arrest/jail suggest changes in societal and criminal justice responses to this problem. Applied efforts have made a major difference with respect to normative climate and beliefs about consequences. • Relationship-centered approaches to prevention and intervention nevertheless needed. Recognize that dyadic processes are involved, while avoiding “victim blaming” or equating men’s and women’s experiences

45. Implications • Develop a more ‘localized’ approach to discussions of power and control → control attempts may reflect a desire to dominate the other partner, but may also stem from desire to influence the partner with respect to specific contested areas (e.g., level of commitment, time with peers) • Heighten negative meanings of use of unhealthy control tactics and IPV itself—position further as a reflection of relationship vulnerabilities

46. Implications • Include attention to multiple scenarios linked to violence • Traditional emphasis: jealous, controlling boyfriend (revolves around unwarranted concerns) • “warranted” concerns regarding male infidelity

47. Implications • Emotions are involved in all but the most routine actions; intuitive relationship to IPV • Attempt to develop a more nuanced view of anger and IPV connections • Not opposite of reason (“my emotions got the best of me”) • Connects to concrete concerns and is malleable • Not something that builds up, exists as a separate entity (“my hands just moved by theirself”)

48. Implications • Many discussions of unhealthy relationship dynamics present lists of warning signs (attempts to isolate, monitoring) • Consider attention to a broader array of relationship dynamics that are a part of the sequence (e.g., infidelity issues)

49. Implications • Avoid broad gender-based generalizations (e.g., women get hurt; men laugh) • Women only hit in self-defense • Embracing the complexity of experiences across gender provides a basis for underscoring real differences in • Intimidation • Fear • Injury

50. Implications • Research on discontinuities across time and relationships and naturally occurring desistance within the TARS study provide reasons for some optimism about possibilities for change • Early prevention and intervention should be a high priority—need to assist young people as they navigate early relationships, and interrupt these processes before they become chronic/firmly entrenched