In this brief, authors Katie Edwards and Angela Neal discuss the results of a study examining how demographic characteristics such as sexual orientation, school characteristics such as the school poverty rate, and community characteristics such as the population density of the county relate to the possibility that a New Hampshire teen will be the victim of dating violence. The study included 24,976 high school students at least 13 years old who participated in the 2013 New Hampshire Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The authors report that nearly one in ten New Hampshire teens reported being the victim of physical dating violence during the past year, and more than one in ten New Hampshire teens reported being the victim of sexual dating violence during the past year. Being female, a racial/ethnic minority, or a sexual minority significantly increased the risk of sexual and physical dating violence victimization. They conclude that more research and community conversations are needed about how to ensure that all teens in New Hampshire have access to comprehensive violence prevention initiatives in all grade levels that include a focus on diversity and inclusivity, positive youth development (for example, the sense of mattering and purpose), and structural inequities (such as poverty)

Edwards, Katie

Neal, Angela

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

Teen Dating Violence in New Hampshire Who Is Most at Risk?K a t i e  M .  E d w a r d s  a n d  A n g e l a  M .  N e a lRegional Issue Brief #48  Winter 2017University ofNew HampshireCarsey School ofPublic PolicyCARSEY RESEARCHIntroduction: Dating Violence Among High School TeensDating violence, defined as physical abuse (such as hit-ting) or sexual abuse (such as forcible sexual activity) that happens within the context of a current or former relationship, leads to a host of negative consequences, including poor mental and physical health and academic difficulties.1 Therefore, it is important that researchers examine factors that increase or decrease risk for dating violence, and then use this research to create evidence-based prevention and risk reduction efforts. To date, researchers have primarily focused on individ-ual factors (for example, attitudes toward violence) and relational factors (such as peer group norms) that may be related to dating violence victimization.2 However, it is also important to examine school and community characteristics that may serve as risk or protective factors for dating violence3 and to understand which youth may be at the highest risk for dating violence victimization. The purpose of this study was to examine how demographic characteristics such as sexual orientation, school characteristics such as the school poverty rate, and community characteristics such as the population density of the county relate to the possibility that a New Hampshire teen will be the victim of dating violence.Overall Rates of Dating Violence Among Teens in New HampshireNearly one in ten teens (9.1 percent) in New Hampshire reported being the victim of physical dating violence during the past year; across the 71 schools studied, the range was zero to 15.0 percent. More than one in ten teens (10.9 percent) reported being the victim of sexual dating violence during the past year, and the range across schools was zero to 17.0 percent. Demographic Risk Factors for Dating Violence Among Teens in New HampshireBeing female, a racial/ethnic minority, or a sexual minority (including lesbian, gay, bisexual, or question-ing) significantly increased the risk of being the victim of sexual and physical dating violence. This finding is consistent with other research which has found that over-all rates of dating violence and IPV are similar across rural, urban, and suburban locales, although some types of IPV (for example, intimate partner homicide) are more com-mon in rural compared to urban and suburban locales.8Teens who reported participating in community groups (including sports groups and church groups) were more likely to report sexual dating violence victimization than teens who reported that they did not participate in community groups. This finding was unex-pected, and it will be important for future research to replicate and bet-ter understand it. Finally, teens who reported higher levels of community mat-tering reported lower levels of physical and sexual dating violence victimization. As Elliott et al. write, mattering is “the perception that, to some degree and in any of a variety of ways, we are a significant part of the world around us.”9 It is possible that in communities with higher levels of collective efficacy, teens may report higher levels of com-munity mattering and thus lower rates of dating violence. Indeed, research has demonstrated that an environment characterized by a lack of academic support10 is related to a greater likelihood of physical dating violence, whereas general school support—the feeling that teachers and students care about them—is a protective factor for physical dating violence.11 Of note, teens in more impoverished New Hampshire com-munities reported lower feelings of mattering than did teens in less-impoverished communities.Racial minority teens in New Hampshire were more likely than white teens to report physical dat-ing violence victimization (16.7 percent versus 9.7 percent) and more likely to report sexual dat-ing violence victimization (14.4 percent versus 8.4 percent) during the past year.Girls were more likely than boys to report physical dating violence victimization (11.0 percent versus 7.1 percent) and were more likely to report sexual dating violence victimization (15.7 percent versus 5.2 percent) during the past year.Compared to heterosexual youth, sexual minority teens reported higher rates of physical dating violence victimization (24.7 percent versus 7.5 percent) and sexual dating violence victimization (26.1 percent versus 8.9 percent). Among sexual minority youth, questioning boys were the most likely to report being the victim of dating violence: 35.1 percent of boys who were unsure of their sexual orientation reported physical dating violence victimiza-tion and 32.9 percent reported sexual dating violence victimization. The higher rates of dating vio-lence victimization among racial and sexual minority teens can perhaps be explained by minority stress, caused, for example, by dis-crimination among racial minor-ity youth and feelings of shame among sexual minority teens. Experiences of minority stress among sexual minority teens may contribute to the risk of dating violence victimization by increas-ing self-blame for the victimiza-tion, which in turn fuels a lack of self-efficacy to leave a relationship and a perception of a lack of alter-natives to the current relationship.School and Community Characteristics and Dating Violence Teens who lived in more impov-erished New Hampshire com-munities reported higher rates of physical dating violence than teens who lived in less-impoverished communities. Although we did not measure variables that may explain these relationships, we can draw on previous research for insight. First, high poverty in a community may increase stress among couples, and stress is tied to intimate partner violence (IPV). Further, high poverty rates may also be associated with distrust in and cynicism toward the justice system, feelings that may decrease the likelihood that victims will seek help for IPV (thus increas-ing the risk for re-victimization).4 In addition, living in a disadvan-taged community may lead to weak ties between community residents, also referred to as low collective efficacy (that is, lack of social cohesion among community members). These weak ties can leave residents more vulnerable to violence within their relation-ship,5 as other residents are less likely to intervene on behalf of the victim and victims are less likely to seek help from neighbors6 or from more formal supports (such as police or shelters7).The population density of the towns in which youth went to school was unrelated to both physical and sexual victimization. In other words, teens who lived in rural communities experienced dating violence victimization at rates similar to teens who lived in urban and suburban communities.   2  C A R S E Y  S C H O O L  O F  P U B L I C  P O L I C YImplicationsBased on the findings presented in this brief and the broader research on dating violence among teens, we suggest the following:• Initiatives that focus on reduc-ing poverty and improving teens’ experiences of community mat-tering could be important com-ponents of more comprehensive efforts to reduce the incidence and prevalence of dating vio-lence in New Hampshire.• Initiatives that focus on reduc-ing minority stress are a key component to effective dating violence prevention and pre-sumably would reduce other health inequities (for example, poorer physical health status among minorities). • Dating violence is prevent-able. Several evidence-based programs (such as Green Dot, Safe Dates) have demonstrated reductions in dating violence.12 • More research and community conversations are needed about how to ensure that all teens in New Hampshire have access to comprehensive violence pre-vention initiatives in all grade levels that include a focus on diversity and inclusivity, posi-tive youth development (for example, the sense of mattering and purpose), and structural inequities (such as poverty).DataThis study included 24,976 high school students at least 13 years old who participated in the 2013 New Hampshire Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), reported dating histories (presented to youth as “dating or going out with”) during the 12 months prior to the survey, and had no missing data on vari-ables used in all analyses (such as demographic variables or dating violence victimization). Although 38,181 high school students partici-pated in the survey, only those who had dated were included in order to provide the most accurate estimates of dating violence (since students who had not dated would not have the opportunity to be exposed to dating violence). Also, teens 12 and younger were removed; a small portion of individuals were over the age of 18. See Table 1 for partici-pant demographic characteristics. The YRBS is part of a multi-decade Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) project that monitors health risk behaviors (for more information, see http://education.nh.gov/instruction/school_health/hiv_data.htm). The data presented herein are derived from 71 New Hampshire public high schools (out of 83 in the state) that volunteered to administer the YRBS survey to all students in the school during the spring of 2013. Of the 71 schools participating, the YRBS response rate was 81 per-cent. Parental consent was obtained through local parental permission procedures. Students completed the self-administered question-naire during one class period. The CDC’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.E n d n o t e s1. L. Kann, S. Kinchen, and S.L. Shanklin, “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2013,” MMWR Surveillance Summaries 63, Suppl. 4 (2014):1–168; V.L. Banyard and C. Cross, “Consequences of Teen Dating Violence: Understanding Intervening Variables in Ecological Context,” Violence Against Women 14, no. 9 (2008): 998–1013; J.G. Silverman et al., “Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unheathly Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality,” Journal of the American Medical Association 286 (2001): 572–79.2. C.M. Dardis et al., “An Examination of the Factors Related to Dating Violence Perpetration Among Young Men and Women and Associated Theoretical Explanations: A Review of the Literature,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 16 (2014): 136–52; K.J. Vagi et al., “Beyond Correlates: A Review of Risk and Protective Factors for Adolescent TABLE 1. SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHIC  CHARACTERISTICSVARIABLENUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (N = 25,693)Age     13 years old      14 years old      15 years old      16 years old      17 years old      18 years old or olderSex     Male     FemaleSexual orientation     Heterosexual     Gay, lesbian, bisexual,      or questioningRace     White/Caucasian     Racial minorityN (%)46 (0.2)2,278 (9.1)5,927 (23.7)6,507 (26.1)6,446 (25.8)3,772 (15.1)12,270 (49.1)12,706 (50.9)23,603 (90.5)2373 (9.5)21,996 (88.1)2,980 (11.9)                                                                                                                                                         C A R S E Y  S C H O O L  O F  P U B L I C  P O L I C Y      3 The Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire is nationally recognized for its research, policy education, and engagement. The school takes on the pressing issues of the twenty-first century, striving for innovative, responsive, and equitable solutions.Huddleston Hall • 73 Main Street • Durham, NH 03824(603) 862-2821TTY Users: dial 7-1-1 or 1-800-735-2964 (Relay N.H.)carsey.unh.eduUniversity of New HampshireCarsey School of Public PolicyDating Violence Perpetration,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42, no. 4 (2013): 633–49.3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The Social Egological Model: A Framework for Prevention” (Atlanta, GA: CDC, 2013).4. G.M. Pinchevsky and E.M Wright, “The Impact of Neighborhoods on Intimate Partner Violence and Victimization,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 13, no. 2 (2012): 112–32; C.E. Ross and J. Mirowsky, “Neighborhood Disorder, Subjective Alienation, and Distress,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 50, no. 1 (2009): 49–64; R.J. Sampson and D.J. Bartusch, “Legal Cynicism and (Subcultural?) Tolerance of Deviance: The Neighborhood Context of Racial Differences,” Law and Society Review (1998): 777–804; P.S. Plass, “African American Family Homicide: Patterns in Partner, Parent, and Child Victimization, 1985–1987,” Journal of Black Studies 23, no. 4 (1993): 515–38.5. J.E. Stets, “Cohabiting and Marital Aggression: The Role of Social Isolation,” Journal of Marriage and Family 53 (1991): 669–80.6. Pinchevsky and Wright, 2012; C.R. Browning, “The Span of Collective Efficacy: Extending Social Disorganization Theory to Partner Violence,” Journal of Marriage and Family 64, no. 4 (2002): 833–50; E.M. Wright and M.L. Benson, “Clarifying the Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage and Collective Efficacy on Violence ‘Behind Closed Doors,’” Justice Quarterly 28, no. 5 (2011): 775–98.7. Pinchevsky and Wright, 2012; Plass, 1993.8. K.M. Edwards, “Intimate Partner Violence and the Rural–Urban–Suburban Divide: Myth or Reality? A Critical Review of the Literature,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 16, no. 3 (2015): 359–73.9. G.C. Elliott et al., “Perceived Mattering to the Family and Physical Violence Within the Family by Adolescents,” Journal of Family Issues 32, no. 8 (2011): 1007–29.10. E. Reed et al., “Social and Environmental Contexts of Adolescent and Young Adult Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Study,” American Journal of Men’s Health 2, no. 3 (2008): 260–71.11. H. Champion et al., “Contextual Factors and Health Risk Behaviors Associated With Date Fighting Among High School Students,” Women & Health 47, no. 3 (2008): 1–22.12. E.I. Capilouto et al., “’Green Dot’ Effective at Reducing Sexual Violence,” 2014, https://works.bepress.com/anncoker/100/; V.A. Foshee et al., “The Safe Dates Program: 1-Year Follow-Up Results,” American Journal of Public Health 90, no. 10 (2000): 1619–22.A b o u t  t h e  A u t h o r sKatie Edwards is an assistant pro-fessor of psychology and women’s studies and faculty affiliate at the Prevention Innovations Research Center and the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. Angela Neal is an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina Lancaster. A c k n o w l e d g m e n t sThe authors would like to thank Jeffrey Metzger and the New Hampshire Department of Education for providing them with the New Hampshire YRBS data. The authors would also like to thank Kara Anne Rodenhizer for her assistance with collection of community-level data and Dr. Hong Chang for his assistance with analyses. Thanks to Michael Ettlinger, Michele Dillon, Curt Grimm, Amy Sterndale, Laurel Lloyd, and Bianca Nicolosi at the Carsey School of Public Policy and Patrick Watson for editorial contributions.  4  C A R S E Y  S C H O O L  O F  P U B L I C  P O L I C Y

Teen Dating Violence in New Hampshire: Who Is Most at Risk?

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1297&amp;context=carsey

Teen Dating Violence in New Hampshire: Who Is Most at Risk?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository