Subtypes of British Adolescents Involved in
Adolescent Dating Violence
Kate Walker & Erica Bowen
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
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
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
Research
593 adolescents
203 males (34.2%), 390 females (65.8%)
Mean age 14.33 years (SD = 0.90, range 12.00 to 16.42 years)
Mean age for first relationship 11.25 years (SD = 2.32)
Mean number of dating relationships 3.24 (SD = 3.10)
The Victimization in Dating Relationships (VDR) and
Perpetration in Dating Relationships (PDR; Foshee et al. 1996)
Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2: Straus, 1990; Straus,
Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996)
The Controlling Behaviours Scale (CBS: Graham-Kevan &
Archer, 2003)
Prevalence rates (victim perpetrator ) physical, psychological,
controlling behaviours
Cluster analysis (based on frequency scores on PDR and VDR)
Group comparisons (clusters) on controlling behaviours and
psychological violence
Prevalence
Total Sample
(N = 593)
Males
(n = 203; 34%)
Females
(n = 390; 68%)
Prevalence
Prevalence
Prevalence
Abuse Type
Any P*
n (%)
Any V**
n (%)
Any P
n (%)
Any V
n (%)
Any P
n (%)
Any V
n (%)
143 (24.1)
193 (32.5)
40 (19.7)
64 (31.5)
103 (26.4)
129 (33.1)
Psychological 285 (48.1)
281 (47.4)
72 (35.5)
74 (36.5)
213 (54.6)
207 (53.1)
Controlling
37 (53.5)
119 (58.6)
90 (44.3)
261 (66.9)
227 (58.2)
Physical
* Perpetrator
** Victim
380 (64.1)
Prevalence
Abuse Type
Total Sample
(N = 593)
Males
(n = 203; 34%)
Females
(n = 390; 68%)
Prevalence
Prevalence
Prevalence
P* Only
n (%)
V**
Only
n (%)
P&V
n (%)
P Only
n (%)
V Only
n (%)
P&V
n (%)
P Only
n (%)
V Only
n (%)
P&V
n (%)
Physical
18
(3.0)
68
(11.4)
124
(25)
3
(1.4)
40
(19.0)
37
(18.2)
15
(3.8)
41
(10.5)
88
(22.5)
Psychological
20
(3.4)
16
(2.7)
265
(44.7)
5
(2.5)
7
(3.4)
67
(33.0)
15
(3.8)
9
(2.3)
198
(50.8)
Controlling
86
(14.5)
23
(3.9)
294
(49.6)
39
(19.2)
10
(4.9)
80
(39.4)
47
(12.1)
13
(3.3)
214
(54.9)
* Perpetrator
** Victim
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.
Subtypes
• Examination of the frequency of roles within each behavioural
subgroup (victim, perpetrator, mutual)
• 5 subgroups developed
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Low frequency perpetrator
(LP)
(n = 18, 11.8%)
Moderate frequency mutual
(MM)
(n = 36, 90%)
High frequency mutual
(HM)
(n = 19, 100%).
Low frequency victim
(LV)
(n = 64, 42.1%)
Low frequency mutual
(LM)
(n = 70, 46.1%)
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)
Validation of Subtypes
Ranking 1-6▲ based on mean scores
Behaviour
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Group 4 Group 5 Control
(LP)
(LV)
(LM)
(MM)
(HM)
(C)
Physical P*
3
1
4
5
6
1
Physical V**
1
4
3
5
6
1
Psychological P
4
2
3
5
6
1
Psychological V
3
2
4
5
6
1
Controlling P
2
3
4
5
6
1
Controlling V
3
2
4
5
6
1
▲1<2<3<4<5<6
*Perpetration
**Victimisation
Conclusions
High proportion of adolescents have used and/or experienced physical and
psychological ADV
PERPETRATION
Physical Violence
24%
VICTIMISATION
Physical Violence
32%
Psychological
Violence
48%
Psychological
Violence
47%
Controlling
Behaviours
64%
Controlling
Behaviours
57%
Conclusions
Conclusions
High proportion of adolescents have used and/or experienced physical and
Adolescents who report ADV involvement were heterogeneous in
psychological ADV
relation to the nature of their involvement
PERPETRATION CLUSTERS:
VICTIMISATION
Physical Violence
Physical Violence
5 subtypes 32%
24%
Perpetration and victimisation co-occur
Psychological
Psychological
Of 5 subtypes
reported coViolence 60% participants
Violence
48%
occurrence 47%
Use ofControlling
control and psychological
abuse (P &
Controlling
Behaviours
Behaviours
V) distinguished groups
64%
57%
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)
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. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 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/S1054139X(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