Teens’ self-efficacy to deal with dating violence as victim, perpetrator or bystander

Abstract

Multiple studies have demonstrated that adolescent dating violence is highly prevalent and associated with internalizing and externalizing problems. A number of prevention initiatives are being implemented in North-American high schools. Such initiatives do not only aim to raise awareness among potential victims and offenders but also among peer bystanders. Since teenagers mainly reach out to their peers when experiencing adversity, it is important to address adolescents' efficiency to deal with witnessing dating violence or with friends disclosing dating abuse, in addition to increasing ability to deal with experienced dating violence victimization or perpetration. The aim of this study is to explore adolescents' self-efficacy to deal with dating violence victimization and perpetration in their relationships and those of their peers. A paper-andpencil questionnaire was completed by 259 14-18 years olds in Quebec, Canada. The data allows building insight into adolescents' confidence to reach out for help or to help others in a situation of dating violence victimization and perpetration. We also considered the impact of gender and dating victimization history. Results suggest that dating violence prevention can build on teens' self-efficacy to deal with dating violence and offer them tools to do so efficiently. KeywordsSelf-efficacy; adolescents; dating violence; bystander; help-seeking The issue of intimate partner violence has received considerable and much deserved attention over the past decades. Most of these studies address perpetrated or endured violence among young adults in the context of intimate relationships or dating. Recently the focus has shifted to adolescents as victims or perpetrators of dating violence (DV). Henton et al. (1983) first described the co-occurrence of romance and violence in early dating relationships. Adolescent DV is a significant issue due to its high incidence and potential serious consequences, such as internalizing and externalizing problems and an increased risk for revictimization (Antle et al., 2011;Hébert et al., 2012 A number of reports suggest that there are no significant differences in prevalence between boys and girls regarding physical and emotional DV victimization (Bélanger et al., 2010;Tucker Halpern et al., 2001). Although both male and female high school students report experiences of forced sexual activity in heterosexual relationships (Geiger et al., 2008;Poitras and Lavoie, 1995), girls are more likely to do so. Eaton et al. (2010) found that in a representative nationwide sample of American youth, 10% of the girls and 4% of the boys report having been physically forced to have sexual intercourse. Very few studies offer information as to possible motives for DV. Some studies found gender-related differences in motives (girls using DV out of self-defense and boys out of anger or to control) (Barter, 2009), while in other studies the empirical findings were inconclusive (Foshee et al., 2007;O'Keefe, 1997).Such incidence rates underline the need for ef...

Bystander Action in Situations of Dating and Sexual Aggression: A Mixed Methodological Study of High School Youth

“…Interestingly, many of the barriers and facilitators of bystander action in situations of dating and sexual aggression we documented are similar to barriers and facilitators of bystander action documented in the bullying literature (Ferrans et al 2012;Pozzoli and Gini 2010a, b;Pozzoli et al 2012). Girls were more likely than boys to intervene in situations of dating and sexual aggression, which is consistent with previous research (Jaffe et al 1992;Van Camp et al 2014). Extending previous research, we found that boys and girls also used different methods of intervention (e.g., girls were more likely to talk to the victim whereas boys were more likely to use physical aggression with the perpetrator), suggesting that gender-specific educational messages may be needed in bystander prevention programming with youth.…”

“…Further, although Van Camp et al (2014) found that a history of dating aggression victimization was unrelated to likelihood of intervening in situations of dating aggression among Canadian high school youth, McCauley et al (2013) found that as likelihood to intervene in dating aggression situations increased among high school athletes, the likelihood of perpetrating dating aggression decreased.…”

“…Among the limited studies with youth to date, research generally finds that boys are less likely to intervene in dating aggression situations than girls (Jaffe et al 1992;Van Camp et al 2014). Further, although Van Camp et al (2014) found that a history of dating aggression victimization was unrelated to likelihood of intervening in situations of dating aggression among Canadian high school youth, McCauley et al (2013) found that as likelihood to intervene in dating aggression situations increased among high school athletes, the likelihood of perpetrating dating aggression decreased.…”

“…However, far less research has focused on dating and sexual aggression bystander action among high school youth (e.g., McCauley et al 2013;Noonan and Charles 2009;Van Camp et al 2014), and no research has specifically examined dating and sexual aggression bystander actions using a mixed methodological approach with high school youth, which was the focus of the current study. A better understanding of the facilitators and barriers to bystander action in situations of dating and sexual aggression among high school youth as well as the specific situations in which helping happens and the methods used could be useful for creating and tailoring dating and sexual aggression prevention programming.…”

Who, When, How, and Why Bystanders Intervene in Physical and Psychological Teen Dating Violence

“…Some studies found differences in bystander intervention based on youth demographic characteristics. Three studies showed that female youth are more likely to intervene and more optimistic about their intervention abilities (Edwards et al, 2015; Fry et al, 2014; Hébert, Van Camp, Lavoie, Blais, & Guerrier 2014; Van Camp et al, 2014). Moreover, Fry and colleagues (2013) and Sargent and colleagues (2017) found that Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use bystander intervention than non-Hispanic adolescents.…”