Predicting Abusive Behaviours in Spanish Adolescents’ Relationships: Insights from the Reasoned Action Approach

Abstract

(1) Background: Partner violence prevention programmes do not produce the expected behavioural changes. Accordingly, experts suggest applying evidence-based behavioural models to identify the determinants of abusive behaviours. In this research, we applied the reasoned action approach (RAA) to predict the performance (boys) and acceptance (girls) of abusive behaviours in adolescents. (2) Method: We designed a questionnaire based on the RAA and performed a cross-sectional study. We analysed the predictive capacity of the RAA constructs on intentions with the sample of single adolescents (n = 1112). We replicated the analysis only with those who were in a relationship (n = 587) and in addition analysed the predictive capacity of intention on future behaviour (3 months later). (3) Results: The hierarchical regression analysis performed with the sample of single adolescents showed that the model explained 56% and 47% of the variance of boys’ intentions to perform the controlling and devaluing behaviours, respectively; and 62% and 33% of girls’ intention to accept them. With those in a relationship, the model explained 60% and 53% of the variance of boys’ intentions to perform the controlling and devaluating behaviour, respectively, and 70% and 38% of girls’ intention to accept them. Intention exerted direct effects on boys’ performance of controlling and devaluing behaviours (31% and 34% of explained variance, respectively) and on girls’ acceptance (30% and 7%, respectively). (4) Conclusions: The RAA seems useful to identify the motivational determinants of abusive behaviours, regardless of adolescents´ relationship status, and for their prediction. Perceived social norms emerge as a relevant predictor on which to intervene to produce behavioural changes with both sexes.

Social Norms About Dating and Relationship Violence and Gender Among Adolescents: Systematic Review of Measures Used in Dating and Relationship Violence Research

“…Two reports presented analyses of different social norms measures from the same randomized controlled trial (Foshee et al, 2001; Reyes et al, 2016) and were therefore treated as two unique studies. Our updated search identified one new eligible report (Hunt et al, 2022), and two additional reports were identified by screening known studies (Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022; Shakya et al, 2022), resulting in the inclusion of 24 eligible reports of 24 unique studies.…”

“…Of the included studies, 11 were conducted in the United States (Foshee et al, 2001; Helland, 1998; Hopper, 2011; Hunt et al, 2022; Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Peskin et al, 2017; Reed et al, 2011; Reyes et al, 2016; Shorey et al, 2018; Wesche & Dickson-Gomez, 2019), three in Canada (Gagné et al, 2005; Hébert et al, 2019; Price, 2002), three in South Africa (Flisher et al, 2007; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Shamu et al, 2016), three in Spain (Aizpitarte et al, 2017; Gonzalez-Mendez et al, 2019; Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022), one in Belgium (Van Ouytsel et al, 2020), one in Brazil (Antônio et al, 2012), one in Israel (Enosh, 2007), and one in Niger (Shakya et al, 2022). All studies were observational, and seven (Enosh, 2007; Foshee et al, 2001; Peskin et al, 2017; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Reyes et al, 2016; Shakya et al, 2022; Shamu et al, 2016) analyzed data collected as part of an evaluation.…”

“…All studies were observational, and seven (Enosh, 2007; Foshee et al, 2001; Peskin et al, 2017; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Reyes et al, 2016; Shakya et al, 2022; Shamu et al, 2016) analyzed data collected as part of an evaluation. One report presented only longitudinal associations between social norms measures and DRV (Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022), all other reports presented cross-sectional analyses, and three presented both (Foshee et al, 2001; Reyes et al, 2016; Shorey et al, 2018). Considering participants, 17 studies sampled girls and boys, four included only girls and three included only boys (Supplemental Appendices C and D provide further details of study and sample characteristics, respectively).…”

“…Six studies included two eligible measures (Flisher et al, 2007; Gonzalez-Mendez et al, 2019; Hopper, 2011; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Shakya et al, 2022) and one study included three (Shamu et al, 2016). In addition, one study included a single measure for which half the items assessed one social norms domain and half assessed another (Gagné et al, 2005), and a second study included four such measures (Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022). Since half of a measure’s items must assess a domain of interest for inclusion as a measure of that domain, each of these five measures was eligible for inclusion in two separate domains and therefore counted twice for this review.…”

“…Injunctive DRV norms. We identified 14 eligible measures of injunctive DRV norms from eight included reports (Table 1) (Enosh, 2007;Flisher et al, 2007;Hopper, 2011;Hunt et al, 2022;Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011;Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022;Pöllänen et al, 2021;Van Ouytsel et al, 2020). These ranged from two to 28 items (mean = 8, median = 6).…”