Edward F. Garrido, Ph.D. and Heather N. Taussig, Ph.D.

1. Do Parenting Practices and Pro-social Peers Attenuate the Association Between Intimate Partner Violence Exposure and Teen Dating Violence? Edward F. Garrido, Ph.D. and Heather N. Taussig, Ph.D. University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect

2. How Serious is Teen Dating Violence (TDV)? • More than half of teens surveyed report being the victim of psychological abuse in a dating relationship. • Psychological abuse includes acts such as insults, threats of break up, controlling behaviors. • Psychological abuse victimization is more harmful, in terms of mental health (anxiety, depression, trauma symptoms), than physical abuse victimization. • Recent studies find that about 10-30% of teens surveyed report being the victim of physical abuse.

3. Predictors of TDV • One of the most commonly studied risk factors for TDV perpetration and victimization is being exposed, during childhood, to parents/caregivers who engage in intimate partner violence (IPV). • Consistent evidence finds that youth exposed to IPV are significantly more likely than non-exposed youth to engage in, and/or being the victim of, violence in their own dating relationships. • Surprisingly, less research has been conducted on possible protective factors that might attenuate the IPV-TDV link.

4. Study Objectives • We wanted to explore whether two factors could serve a protective role for youth exposed to IPV. • In other words, could these two factors attenuate the link between IPV and TDV? • Exposure to positive parenting practices (warmth, support, responsiveness) • Exposure to peers who engage in pro-social activities (community or religious activities, involved in clubs). • Our hypothesis was that, in the same manner youth learn to be violent – through observation of salient models – they could also learn to use non-violent means of resolving relationship difficulties.

5. Hypotheses • There would be a direct relationship between IPV exposure and TDV perpetration/victimization. • Youth with greater exposure to IPV would evidence higher levels of TDV perpetration and victimization. • Positive parenting practices and pro-social peer relationships would attenuate the association between IPV exposure and TDV perpetration and victimization, such that IPV exposure would only be significantly associated with TDV involvement at low levels of positive parenting practices and pro-social peer relationships.

6. Methods (Recruitment) • Study participants were involved in the Fostering Healthy Futures program– a mentoring and skills-based program for adolescents in out-of-home care. • Participants were recruited for the FHF program if they met the following inclusion criteria: • they had been court-ordered into out-of-home care within the preceding 12 months due to maltreatment • they were proficient in English • they had no known intellectual disabilities

7. Methods (Recruitment – cont.) • 93% of eligible youth and caregivers (N = 146) completed interviews prior to entering the FHF program (baseline assessment). • The current study involved data obtained at a follow-up assessment conducted 3.5 years after baseline. • 105 youth were excluded from the current analyses due to the following reasons: • 16 youth and their caregivers refused the follow-up interview • 6 youth were living in a residential treatment center, which precluded collecting data on current parenting practices • 83 youth reported they either did not have a dating partner or had not had an argument or disagreement (TDV questions not asked)

8. Methods (Sample) • 41 youth in the sample (65.9% female) • Mean age 13.59 years (Range = 12-15; SD = 1.00). • Two thirds of youth resided in of out-of-home care (at the follow-up interview), while 1/3 had reunified with their biological parents. • The sample was racially and ethnically diverse: 43.9% were Caucasian, 36.6% were Hispanic, 31.7% were African-American, 10.0% were Native American, and 2.4% were Asian or Pacific Islander (non-exclusive categories).

9. Methods (Youth Measures) • Youth were asked about their exposure to IPV across all of their previous living situations. • For each act of IPV youth had been exposed to, they were asked to report on frequency and proximity of the exposure. Severity of the exposure was assessed by examining the types of IPV youth had been exposed to. • A multidimensional factor score comprised of frequency, proximity, and severity, was created for each child as an index of their IPV exposure. • Youth were asked how many of their friends (0 = “No Friends” to 2 = “Most Friends”) engaged in various prosocial activities (10 items) during the prior year.

10. Methods (Youth Measures cont.) • Finally, youth were asked about their TDV perpetration and victimization during the year prior. • 3 items used to assess physical abuse perpetration and victimization (slapped/pulled hair, threw something, kicked/hit/punch). • 14 items used to assess psychological abuse (e.g., insults, tried to make jealous). • For each of the 17 items, we dichotomized whether youth had engaged in the act or not (0, 1) and then summed up these scores across the 17 items – two scores (perp & vict)

11. Methods (Caregiver Measures) • The child’s caregiver at the follow-up reported on their own positive parenting practices. • Caregivers rated their use of warmth and their involvement in their child’s activities, as well as their use of appropriate and consistent discipline (22 items). • For each item, caregivers were asked to indicate, “How often do you do each of these things with your child?” with responses scored on a five-point scale (1 = “Never or none of the time” to 5 = “Always or all of the time”).

12. Study Results • There was a significant, direct relationship between IPV exposure and TDV victimization (greater IPV exposure – more TDV victimization). • No relationship between IPV exposure and TDV perpetration, however. • Positive parenting practices and prosocial peers attenuated the association between IPV exposure and TDV perpetration. • Only positive parenting practices attenuated the association between IPV exposure and TDV victimization.

13. TDV Perpetration as a Function of IPV Exposure and Pro-social Peer Relationships

14. TDV Victimization as a Function of IPV Exposure and Positive Parenting

15. Implications • Results suggest that there are factors that can counteract the harmful effects of IPV exposure. • This is especially significant given that these were all youth who had been removed from their homes because of abuse and neglect. • This has implications for TDV prevention programs. • Kids at high risk of engaging in TDV could benefit from programs that engage both caregivers and their peers rather than merely trying to affect knowledge and attitudes towards TDV.

16. Acknowledgements • Funding • NIMH – 3R01MH07691902S1 • Kempe Foundation • Research Institute at The Children’s Hospital