Teen dating violence, also called abuse in adolescent relationships, is a common problem in the United States. An estimated 10 to 12 percent of teenagers report suffering physical abuse in the hands of their partners while 33 percent report suffering other forms of abuse (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). Despite the pervasiveness of this problem and its deleterious effects, teen dating abuse has hardly received adequate attention in public policy or as a public health concern. This is especially the case if compared to other forms of abuse like marital abuse and adult intimate partner violence that continue to receive extensive attention in the literature, policy, legal frameworks, and general public discourse (Pensak, 2015). Given the importance of teenage life as a formative stage, overlooking this challenge could come at a significant cost in both the short and long run. Although the last decade has seen this area receive more attention on the research and policy agenda, more headway can be made. Consequently, this paper assesses this phenomenon with special attention to its causes, prevalence and the mitigatory measures that may be adopted.
Defining the Problem
There is wide acceptance in the literature that teen dating violence bears a lot of semblance to domestic violence involving adults as a means of perpetuating control. Besides an emphasis on power assertion and interpersonal coercion rampant in most definitions, there has been a wide range of other definitions (Matud, 2007). Some researchers have tended to underscore employ of physical violence or threat to employ such force as the threshold for teenage dating violence (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). More common definitions have however tended to emphasize the wide-ranging nature of this violence. To this end, these broader definitions cover various aspects that range from violence to acts of control and domination that lead to harm. Typical of these definitions is to emphasize three kinds of abuse: physical abuse, sexual abuse and emotional/psychological abuse (Hamby, 2012) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Physical dating violence entails a broad spectrum of harmful activities such as slapping, scratching, slamming, pushing, biting, choking and using an assault weapon. The key difference between these forms of violence is the level of seriousness. For purposes of categorization, this form of violence has often been divided severe, moderate or mild based on likely level of injuries (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011).
Emotional/Verbal/physiological abuse entails a wide array of behaviors common in dating relationships such as criticizing, insulting, berating or humiliating a partner especially in the company of third parties. Threats, which tend to lead to psychological turmoil, also fall into this category. Common threats include those to harm the partner or their property, throwing objects at them, and stopping short of hitting them. Psychological abuse entails acts of emotional manipulation like ignoring the partner and threatening suicide or break-up. Other acts such as those meant to undermine their self-esteem and independence would ordinarily fall into this category such as trying to make a partner look stupid or crazy or isolating them from family and friends (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). The notion of ‘relational aggression’ has also been recently included into this category of abuse to denoted acts meant to undermine a person’s relationship with other people by for instance spreading rumors, revealing personal information, and generally smearing their character in the hands of friends and the general public. Psychological violence also extends to various forms of excessive monitoring activities and stalking like spying on their interactions or persistently seeking to know their whereabouts (Catherine S. Shaffer, Viljoen, Douglas, & Saewyc., 2018) .
More recent literature on psychological or emotional violence has sought to establish the linkages between these forms of abuse and the advent of information technology (Anderson, 2017). Given the extensive use of electronic devices by teenagers, instances of psychological abuse especially in the form of excessive monitoring and relational aggression become important concerns. It is generally accepted that information technology has aggravated rather than reduced this form of abuse.
The other type of abuse contained in conceptions of teen dating abuse is sexual violence. This may entail rape or attempted rape or any other form of sexual coercion. In the case of teenagers, the pressure to have sex when it is unwanted by the other partner or more sex than is desired counts as a major form of sexual violence. Sexual abuse, however, need not entail sexual intercourse (Hamby, 2012) . Events preceding or after sexual intercourse such as unprotected sex, sex done in a belittling way or sex without consent may count as sexual violence (Mendoza & Mulford, 2018) .
Prevalence
In light of the aforementioned forms of teen dating violence, there are numerous ways of measuring its prevalence. A compilation of the prevalence of the forms reveals that teen dating violence is high. A sizable proportion of high and middle school undergo teenage violence either as perpetrators or victims. Conservative estimates put the problem at 10 percent (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). For instance, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention biennual Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that at least 10 percent of school-going teenagers had undergone one or more forms of teen dating violence (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). Physical forms of abuse were especially high relative to other kinds of violence at between 20 and 40 percent. Some researchers have put the prevalence rates as high as 58% (Taylor et al., 2008).
It is evident from different research frameworks that there is huge variability in prevalence levels. This is attributable to a number of factors. Definitional differences across studies are the most central factor leading to this variability (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). Different studies consider different kinds of abuse when establishing prevalence levels, with some studies exhibiting a high degree of inclusivity than others. While some have paid attention to physical violence, due to its prevalence, others have considered sexual and psychological forms of abuse. The other major source of variability is the segment of the teenage population that is considered. Middle school and high school students will typically exhibit varying prevalence levels (Taylor et al., 2008). Furthermore, the samples used in most studies are convenience samples and rarely are representative of the entire nation. Additionally, different prevalence levels may be reflective of different periods (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). For instance, prevalence may be high during specific times of the year when opportunities for dating are more readily available. With respect to sexual violence, prevalence rates range from 3 to 11 percent though researchers agree these are conservative estimates given the propensity for underreporting.
Risk Factors
The literature on teen violence identifies multiple risks factors attributable to teen dating violence. It is, however, important to underscore from the outset that these factors are largely correlates and not causative factors (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). For instance, while drug and substance abuse increases the likelihood of perpetrating violence, it may also be an outcome of violence.
A cursory look at the literature reveals a wide range of risk factors that range from demographic considerations to the community level and family-based factors. The bulk of literature pays attention to familial, individual, peer and situational factors (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). It is important when studying these factors to separate the risks for perpetration and victimization to illuminate the distinct attributes of the victim from those of the perpetrator.
A prominent contextual factor that surfaces in the analysis of risk factors is the socioeconomic status of individuals. Generally, socioeconomic disadvantage, whether at school, family or neighborhood level, tends to increase the risk of perpetrating teen dating violence (O’Keefe, 2005) . Low socioeconomic status, at time proxied by levels of parental education, is one of the defining characteristic of youth at risk or ‘high-risk youth.’ Studies analyzing teen dating violence and domestic violence, in general, have however made little effort to explain how precisely how low socioeconomic status leads to violence. There is therefore little insight on the level of risk posed by specific socioeconomic factors or the extent to which mediating factors play an important role (National Judicial Education Program, 2015). To this end, it is unclear whether low socioeconomic status fuels the immediate risk factors like the interaction with corruptive peer influence or behavior modifying the environment. The same problem is suffered by studies that associate teen dating violence with ethnicity and race. A sizable number of studies have established that teen dating violence and domestic violence, in general, tend to be higher amongst blacks and the Hispanic community relative to the white community (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). A preponderance of studies has consistently found African American Youth to be at greater risk of perpetrating abuse closely followed by Hispanics. Irrespective of the study, their shared feature is a failure to broach the distinctive aspects of race or ethnicity that contribute to the high likelihood of abuse. The result is that they likely miss aspects accidentally related to race such low socioeconomic advantage with particular racial communities.
The ‘neighborhood effects’ approach that has increasingly gained dominance in the field of sociology is an influential departure from this approach through its focus on the distinctive aspects of neighborhoods that contribute to the disproportionate representation of specific behaviors in minority neighborhoods. Neighborhood literature strongly suggests that community disadvantages-represented by high levels of single-parent families, high rates of unemployment, high levels of insecurity and considerable residential instability- tend to detract families and communities ability to monitor and guide youth (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). It is this diminished capacity for monitoring, not race, that increases the likelihood of a dysfunctional and aggressive behavior amongst the youth manifested in such acts as teen dating violence.
Another strand has, while taking into account neighborhood factors, stressed the role of geography in influencing risk factors. In this regard, attention is drawn to the divide between the North and the South and the differences between urban and suburban areas. In this regard, a 2007 study found dating violence to be considerably higher in the American South (43.8%), the West (27.5), the Midwest (25.7%) and the East (22.8%) (Matud, 2007). The authors choked these differences to the culture of violence that has historically characterized the Southern states and the rather conservative views on gender in these areas. With respect to rural versus urban areas, a number of studies have found there is a higher likelihood of teenage dating violence in urban setting-specifically inner-city areas- compared to rural areas (Matud, 2007). A few studies have however sought to dispute this emerging consensus on the geographical distribution of risk factors (Taylor et al., 2008).
Studies that focus on immediate factors as opposed to the broader contextual issues like race and socioeconomic status have been greater in quantity and have generally yielded more definitive findings (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011) . The literature on dating violence suggests that violence, especially amongst teenagers and young adults, is influenced by family variables like parental or family violence. Children who undergo harsh punishment like corporal punishment are likely to be perpetrators or victims of violence even as teenagers. Similarly, children witnessing violence between parents are at greater risk of perpetuating similar acts of violence (Follette, 1992). Other risk factors at the familial level include the nature of the parent-child relationship, lax or overly stringent parental monitoring usually associated with single parent parenting (Murray, King, & Crowe, 2015) .
Beyond the family, street and peer influence are important predisposing factors. Evidence that has accumulated over the years shows that peer violence, manifested in such acts as fighting amongst peers, strongly predisposes adolescents to violence even in their relationship. Exposure to antisocial peers at an early age leads to acquired behaviors like violence being translated into young relationships between peers (Henton, Cate, Koval, Lloyd, & Christopher, 1983). Beyond peer-group behavior, another interesting extra familiar factor predisposing teenagers to violence is community levels or street violence. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that being exposed to community violence, including violent injury and weapons, tends to exacerbate the trauma caused by witnessing inter-parental evidence or violence between peers (Anderson, 2017) .
Other than the above factors, believes and norms constitute significant predisposing factors. This is because beliefs and attitudes legitimize or illegitimize recourse to violence. Cultural perspectives towards either gender often determine attitudes about the place of violence in relationships. Patriarchal ideas amongst males are likely to trigger sexist stereotypes that advocate the use of violence against women (Follette, 1992). Other than cultural proclivities that shape attitudes and norms, individual-level factors are also important. A teenager with mental health problems like depression, anger, suicidality, and low self-esteem is at higher risk of perpetrating teen dating violence (Matud, 2007). This is also true for low academic achievers, those with deficient communication skills and low-help seeking tendencies.
Consequences of Abuse
Teen dating violence has enormous consequences for individuals and considerable spillovers for society. The immediate and often underemphasized consequence is that of physical injuries. Young people are maimed for life in the case of violent abuses. This leaves not just physical injuries but also psychological ones. It is estimated that up to 25% of all cases of teenage violence end with physical injuries of one kind or the other. In unfortunate cases, teen dating violence leads to fatalities (National Judicial Education Program, 2015). Accidental or deliberate shootings, run-overs or injuries on sensitive body parts are some of the deadly consequences of teen dating violence. Such costly outcomes affect not just the concerned families that lose loved ones but also the nation that losses productive labor. Through demonstration effect, cases of physical abuse may also spread to the rest of the population (Hamby, 2012) .
The deleterious non-physical consequences have made up the bulk of research in this area and are now a vital public health issue. This focus may be justified given the propensity of violence in general to more adversely affect children and teenagers relative to girls. Further, psychological problems emanating from such abuse may not resolve in the short run implying the extension of trauma well into adult life. Paying attention to these more nuanced consequences is, therefore, a paramount concern for both the individual and the broader society.
Some of the well-known effects include Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. Nearly 50% of rape victims exhibit PTSD combined with other psychological problems. This is often combined with chronic pains and somatic complaints (Kilpatrick, Ruggiero, Acierno, Saunders, & Best, 2003). Rape Trauma Syndrome has been used to describe the wide variety of somatic, behavioral and psychological reactions taking place due attempted or actual rape (National Judicial Education Program, 2015). While behaviors like restlessness, sobbing or even smiling may characterize reactions to rape, they may also be as dichotomous as controlled behaviors like composure or subdued effects. Powerlessness, disbelief, depression, shame, denial, and loss of trust are some of the emotional reactions exhibited by teenagers. Persistence of these symptoms may lead to more enhanced symptoms like eating and sleeping disorders as well as sleep disturbance, phobia and increased dependence (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011).
For teenage girls, the dangers are even more pronounced. For instance, they are twice more likely to suffer from HIV and STDs and more likely to perceive themselves as having no control over their sexual life in both the short and long-term (Anderson, 2017). In addition, teenagers who suffer various forms of abuse exhibit high levels of deviant behaviors and therefore more likely to engage in drug and substance abuse as well as increased aggression towards peers and rebellion against parents. These effects, combined with other emotional disorders, eventually lead to spillovers for society especially in the form of crime (Matud, 2007). For instance, teenage victims of abuse are likely going to be perpetrators of abuse themselves in the future.
Recommendations
To reduce the number of teen dating violence cases, a number of measures can be adopted focusing on the individual, families, schools, and communities. Educational programs especially at the school level ought to focus on combating pernicious pro-violence beliefs and ill-timed gender stereotypes. This is an important step toward fostering accurate knowledge and promoting attitudinal shifts (O’Keefe, 2005). Shifts at this formative stage are a boon not just for teenage relationships but also adult relationships. Efforts ought also to be made to harmonize curriculum that incorporates teen dating violence to ensure best curriculum practices are incorporated across the country (Fifield, 2016) . Specific attention ought to be paid to conflict management techniques so that teenagers do not result to violence whenever they are having conflicts with those they are dating. Fostering communication strategies is an especially important intervention (Taylor et al., 2008). While schools can do quite a lot in this respect, parents have a more central role since they know their children better and tend to spend considerable time with them.
The importance of encouraging communication affects not just how teenagers in relationships resolve conflicts but also other the efficacy of precautionary measures. Evidence suggests that restraining orders, a major route through which people seek protection from abusive partners, significantly reduce instances of intimate partner violence (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011). Few homicide cases involving intimate partners have taken place in the presence of a restraining order. However, most teenagers cannot get restraining orders since the law requires one to be above 18 years. They, therefore, have to rely on adults and more so parents to secure such orders. At a time when teenagers tend to conceal most information about their life, making such strides presupposes enhance communication linkages especially with parents (Follette, 1992) .
For legal remedies to be effectively pursued, there must be a robust legal framework that addresses employee concerns. Policymakers must consequently adopt an appropriate legal framework that responds to the needs of even teenagers that face abusive relationships. Much of the legal framework today treats abuse in relationships as a peculiarly adult phenomenon. In this regard, local and state authorities have an especially important role since they are most competent in responding to unique local realities (Fifield, 2016). Advocacy groups, though already putting local governments on their toes for laxity in this area, ought to reinforce their support for policy frameworks and partner with other stakeholders like the media to draw greater attention to the issue of teen dating violence. A critical area of agitation for these groups is to ensure minor have greater access to the judicial system (O’Keefe, 2005) .
Conclusion
Violence in intimate relationships is not a peculiarly adult phenomenon. A significant by a number of teenagers suffer violence in the hands of partners. While attention to the issue has been scarce, a shift has taken place in the last ten years with parents, schools, and communities taking greater note of the matter. This paper has outlined various forms of teen dating violence and analyzed prevalence levels. It is found that teen dating violence is a major problem nationally though it is more concentrated in specific parts of the country. Subsequently, predisposing factors have been analyzed in broad and detailed terms. The paper concludes by considering the far-reaching effects of this form of violence on the individual and society and ends by proffering recommendations for parents, school, communities, advocacy groups, and policy actors.
References
Anderson, M. (2017). The preventable problem that schools ignore. The Atlantic , https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/12/the-preventable-problem-that-schools-ignore/547604/.
Catherine S. Shaffer, J. A., Viljoen, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Saewyc., E. M. (2018). Ten-year trends in physical dating violence victimization among adolescent boys and girls in British Columbia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence .
Fifield, J. (2016). To prevent teen dating violence, some states push education. Atlantic Broadband .
Follette, V. (1992). The effect of violence in the family of origin on problem-solving strategies in dating couples. Behavior Assess , 14 , 1-3.
Hamby, S. L. (2012). Teen dating violence often occurs alongside other abuse. American Psychological Association .
Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. J Fam Issues , 470-480.
Kilpatrick, D., Ruggiero, K., Acierno, R., Saunders, R. H., & Best, C. (2003). Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comorbidity: results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology , 691-699.
Matud, P. (2007). Dating violence and domestic violence. Journal of Adolescent Health , 298.
Mendoza, M., & Mulford, C. (2018). Relationship dynamic and teen dating violence. National Institute of Justice .
Murray, C. E., King, K., & Crowe, A. (2015). Understanding and addressing teen dating violence: Implications for family counselors. The Family Journal .
National Judicial Education Program. (2015). The dynamics and consequences of teen dating violence. National Judicial Education Program .
O’Keefe, M. (2005). Teen dating violence: A review of risk factors and prevention efforts. National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women , 1-13.
Offenhauer, P., & Buchalter, A. (2011). Teen dating violence: A literature review and annotated bibliography. The Library of Congress .
Pensak, R. (2015). Must be 18 or older: How Current domestic violence policies dismiss teen dating violence. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 21 (1).
Taylor, K., Ruggiero, K., Danielson, C., Resnick, H., Hanson, R., Smith, D., et al. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a national sample of adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry , 755-762.
