Subtypes of British Adolescents Involved in Adolescent Dating Violence Kate Walker & Erica Bowen

1. Subtypes of British Adolescents Involved in Adolescent Dating Violence Kate Walker & Erica Bowen

2. Background: Adolescent Dating Violence • Adolescent dating violence: The problems and prevalence • Verbal, psychological and physical aggression are common features of adolescent dating relationships (e.g., Banyard & Cross, 2008; Danielsson, Blom, Nilses, Heimer, & Högberg, 2009; Reed, Silverman, Raj, Decker, & Miller, 2011) • 35% report mild form of abuse • 10-20% report more severe forms (Black et al., 2011) • Comprehensive international review (Europe and North America; Leen et al., 2013) found rates of physical ADV ranged between 10 and 20% and psychological 17 and 88% in general population samples • Perpetration and victimisation co-occur (e.g., Foshee et al., 1996; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997) i.e., a perpetrator is likely to be a victim, and a victim is likely to be a perpetrator

3. Typologies • Johnson (1995, 2008) Typology research in adults: • Intimate Terrorism (IT), Violent Resistant (VR), Situational Couple Violence (SCV), Mutual Violent Control (MVC) • Applied recently to ADV (Zweig et al. 2014): SCV most common (86% females; 80% males); IT (7% females; 11% males); VR (6% females; 6% males); MVC (1% females; 4% males) • Only few other studies examined typologies of ADV (Bossarte, Simon, & Swahn, 2008; Draucker et al., 2010; Draucker et al., 2012; Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007; Haynie et al., 2013) • Mutuality was a dominant characteristic of violence, but the motives for such a presentation varied between types • Need to understand the role that each of the individual plays in relation to the use, severity and types of violence employed • Little is known about role of control in ADV

4. Current Research To extend typology research in adults to explore mutuality in use of violence in adolescent dating relationships Aims Twofold: (1) To determine the prevalence of physical and psychological violence and controlling behaviours in a UK sample of adolescents in the context of a dating relationship (2) To determine whether meaningful subtypes of adolescents are evident based on involvement in physical ADV and if subtypes differ in relation to psychological violence and controlling behaviours

5. Research

6. Prevalence * Perpetrator ** Victim

7. Prevalence * Perpetrator ** Victim

8. Clusters developed Cluster analysis used on frequency scores of the PDR & VDR • Cluster 1: Low frequency victim/perpetrator group, (n = 152). Low levels of victimisation and perpetration, but frequency of victimisation (M = 2.00, SE= .16) was higher than frequency of perpetration (M = .60, SE= .10) and the difference was significant t (151) = -9.53 p < .001, d = 0.61. • Cluster 2: Moderate frequency victim/perpetrator group, (n = 40). Moderate levels of victimisation and perpetration, but frequency of victimisation (M = 9.50, SE = .86) was higher than frequency of perpetration (M = 5.01, SE = .47) and the difference was significant t (39) = -4.06 p < .001, d = 0.61. • Cluster 3: High frequency perpetration/victimisation group, (n = 19). High levels of victimisation and perpetration, but frequency of perpetration (M = 23.49, SE = 1.82) was higher than frequency of victimisation (M = 20.44, SE = 1.64) and the difference was significant t (18) = 2.84 p < .05, d = 0.56.

9. Subtypes • Examination of the frequency of roles within each behavioural subgroup (victim, perpetrator, mutual) • 5 subgroups developed

10. Validation of Subtypes Validation of group memberships using psychological abuse and controlling behaviours Significant effects of group on: • Scores of controlling behaviour perpetration F (5, 583) = 107.95, p < .001, partial η2 = .48 • Scores of controlling behaviour victimisation F (5, 583) = 88.10, p < .001, partial η2 = .43 • Perpetration of psychological violence F (5, 583) = 97.60, p < .001, partial η2 = .46 • Victimisation of psychological violence F (5, 583) = 113.59, p < .001, partial η2 = .49)

11. Validation of Subtypes ▲1<2<3<4<5<6 *Perpetration **Victimisation

12. Conclusions PERPETRATION Physical Violence 24% Psychological Violence 48% Controlling Behaviours 64% VICTIMISATION Physical Violence 32% Psychological Violence 47% Controlling Behaviours 57% High proportion of adolescents have used and/or experienced physical and psychological ADV

13. Conclusions Adolescents who report ADV involvement were heterogeneous in relation to the nature of their involvement Conclusions PERPETRATION Physical Violence 24% Psychological Violence 48% Controlling Behaviours 64% VICTIMISATION Physical Violence 32% Psychological Violence 47% Controlling Behaviours 57% CLUSTERS: 5 subtypes Perpetration and victimisation co-occur Of 5 subtypes 60% participants reported co-occurrence Use of control and psychological abuse (P & V) distinguished groups High proportion of adolescents have used and/or experienced physical and psychological ADV

14. Implications • Findings have potential to advance theory on the heterogeneity of violence in ADV • Based on prevalence intervention and prevention required within the school curriculum • Typology research; examine behaviours of both partners and different behaviours (physical, psychological, controlling)

15. References Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14(9), 998-1013. doi:10.1177/1077801208322058 Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Danielsson, I., Blom, H., Nilses, C., Heimer, G., & Högberg, U. (2009). Gendered patterns of high violence exposure among Swedish youth.ActaObstetricia Et GynecologicaScandinavica, 88(5), 528-535. doi:10.1080/00016340902846056 Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11(3), 275-286. doi:10.1093/her/11.3.275-a Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(1), 126-141. doi:10.1177/088626097012001008 Leen, E., Sorbring, E., Mawer, M., Holdsworth, E., Helsing, B., & Bowen, E. (2013). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy of primary interventions for adolescent dating violence: An international review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 18(1), 159-174. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015 Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21(5), 291-302. doi:10.1016/S1054- 139X(97)00143-2 Reed, E., Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., & Miller, E. (2011). Male perpetration of teen dating violence: Associations with neighborhood violence involvement, gender attitudes, and perceived peer and neighborhood norms. Journal of Urban Health, 88(2), 226-239. doi:10.1007/s11524-011-9545-x Zweig, J. M., Yahner, J., Dank, M., & Lachman, P. (2014). Can johnson's typology of adult partner violence apply to teen dating violence? Journal of Marriage & Family, 76(4), 808-825. doi:10.1111/jomf.12121