Jill C. Hoxmeier H671: Advanced Theory of HB Fall 2012

1. Teen Dating Violence:Analysis of Common Theories Used to Explain TDV & Application of the Theory of Triadic Influence Jill C. Hoxmeier H671: Advanced Theory of HB Fall 2012

2. Teen Dating Violence • “The use or threat of physical force or restraint carried out with the intent of causing pain or injury to another” (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989, p.5) • Inclusion of emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse. • 1 in 4 teens experience dating aggression (Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, O’Leary, & Cano, 1997; Foshee et al., 1996) • 9.4% of high school students had been physically abused by partner (CDC, 2011); more than 75% of teens report psychological aggression (Jackson, Cram, & Seymour, 2000) • Wide range of negative health outcomes associated with DV • Teen experience unique from adult experience • Variety of theories used to explain DV but their limitations challenge ability to fully understand, intervene, and prevent

3. Feminist Theory • Posits violence against women is rooted in patriarchy; DV is extension of sexist oppression where perpetrators use abusive behaviors to exert P & C over victim Support: • Supported by adult DV rates and teen rates of sexual victimization • Qualitative studies showing teens endorsing gender role stereotypes (i.e. male aggression as symbol of masculinity) Limitations: • Focus on the social/environmental determinants of behavior • Much evidence shows girls and boys have similar perpetration and victimization rates • Does not explain how teens / adults are able to avoid use of aggression in relationships (de Bouvoir, 1957; Dobash & Dobash, 1979)

4. Attachment Theory • Posits the child/parent relationship creates prototype for which future relationships are based (insecure styles increases risk for aggression) Support: • Some people with healthy parent relationships have healthy romantic relationships and vice versa (Hazen & Shaver, 1987) • Accounts for both cognitive and affective influences Limitations: • Overemphasis on interpersonal / social determinants of behavior • “Parent-blaming” through exclusive focus on parenting style • Creates gendered roles for victims and perpetrators not supported by the literature (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980)

5. Theory of Intergenerational Transmission of Violence • Posits children learn aggression from parents through growing up in DV home and enculturation of patriarchal values Support • Children who witness parent violence have more accepting attitudes toward violence (Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999) are increased risk for being violent in their own relationships (Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999) Limitations • Exclusive focus on interpersonal / social determinants of behavior • Creates gendered / rigid roles for victims and perpetrators • Does not account for teens who witness DV in homes and do not use violence (Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981; Ulbrich, & Huber, 1981)

6. Social Learning Theory • Posits children learn aggression through observation and modeling of violence behaviors Support: • Expands focus to peers in addition to parents • Helps explains female and male perpetration / victimization rates (teens who have DV friends are increased risk for DV) Limitations: • Emphasis on interpersonal / social context • Does not provide clear causal pathway from modeling to performance if models / observation are incongruent • If not all teens act aggressively, there must be determinants that SLT does not account for (Bandura, 1976)

7. Theory of Triadic Influence • Posits HRB are determined by influences under three stream and at three different levels, where constructs are interrelated yet assumes no strength of relationship between determinants Improvements on other theories: • Personal, Social, and Environmental determinants have all been found to influence teen dating violence • Organized in a manner that provides alternative causal pathways that account for variability teens who do and do not perform aggressive behaviors • Emphasized the role of reinforcing influences • Accounts for similar causal pathways of related behaviors (Flay& Petraitis, 1994)

8. BIOLOGY/ PERSONALITY SELF-EFFICACY BEHAVIORAL CONTROL TTI: Personal Stream of Influence 1 2 • Sense of Self / Control: those seeking external validation of self more likely to report DV; teens using aggression to exert control of others = influences self determination of having healthy relationships • Social Competence: capacity for gaining perspective of others, from experience, relating to others, building relationships, etc. = influences ability resolve conflict • Self-Efficacy / Behavioral Control: lack of self-esteem + inability to resolve conflict effectively = dating violence Sense of Social Self/Control Competence 7 8 Self Skills: Determination Social+Generalal 13 14

9. SOCIAL SITUATION SOCIAL NORMATIVE BELIEFS TTI: Social Stream of Influence • Other’s Behaviors and Attitudes: witnessing violence and exposure to violence accepting attitudes shape perceived norms on use of violence 3 4 • Interpersonal Bonding: relationships influence motivation to comply; similar to Attachment Theory / TITV Interpersonal Others’ Bonding Beh & Atts 9 10 Motivationn Perceived to Comply Norms 15 16 • Social Normative Believes: influenced by relational modeling / observation of aggression acceptance and use

10. CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Interactions w/ Social Instit’s ATTITUDES TOWARD THE BEHAVIOR TTI: Environmental Stream of Influence 5 6 • Interactions w/ Social Institutions: youth exposed to community violence at increased risk = shapes values on use of aggression • Information / Opportunities: media perpetuation of violence and aggression = shape expectancies of the use of violence • Attitude Toward the Behavior: exposure to violence and the expectations of its use influence attitude toward using aggression Information/ Opportunities 11 12 Values/ Knowledge/ Evaluations Expectancies 17 18

11. THE THEORY OF TRIADIC INFLUENCE Levels of Causation Ultimate CULTURAL SOCIAL BIOLOGY/ Causes ENVIRONMENT SITUATION PERSONALITY Interactions w/ Social Instits Distal Influences ATTITUDES SOCIAL SELF-EFFICACY TOWARD THE NORMATIVE BEHAVIORAL BEHAVIOR BELIEFS CONTROL Proximal 19 20 21 Predictors 22 23 Intrapersonal Stream Social/Normative Stream Cultural/Attitudinal Stream Biological/Nature Nurture/Cultural 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sense of Information/ Interpersonal Others’ Social Self/Control Opportunities Bonding Beh & Atts Competence 7 8 9 10 11 12 Self Skills: Motivationn Perceived Values/ Knowledge/ Determination Social+Generalal to Comply Norms Evaluations Expectancies 13 14 15 16 17 18 DECISIONS/INTENTIONS Trial Behavior EXPERIENCES: Expectancies -- Social Reinforcements -- Psychological/Physiological 11

12. Contributions of TTI for Dating Violence • Moves away from gendered perspective • Moves away from rigid perpetrator – victim roles • Moves away from victim blaming and parent blaming • Understand the dynamic nature of teen dating violence and the fluidity of perpetration – victim role • Accounts for behavioral determinants in different contexts and at different levels of influence • Illustrates diversity of pathways through interrelated constructs • Explains TDV more in line with youth aggression perspective, which is supported by the literature on dating violence • Provides interventionists options for program activities