1. Risk factors for adolescent dating violence Prof. Erica Bowen, Coventry University Inaugural VIA conference, October 24 th 2014

2. Overview Nature and prevalence of adolescent dating violence Policy context Issues of terminology Rationale Results Implications and Conclusions

3. Nature and prevalence of adolescent dating violence Countries (studies)Form of abuseGirls M %(range) Boys M% (Range) UK (5), Germany (1) Sweden (1) Physical20 (11-25)23 (15-40) UK (4) Switzerland (1) Germany (1) Netherlands (1) Sweden (1) Sexual24 (6-50)12 (2-40) UK (3) Sweden (1) Psychological48 (17-72)44 (24-51)

4. Policy context May 2011: Council of Europe Convention Includes those younger than 18 years of age Article 51 specifies that assessments of risk will be conducted for perpetration and victimisation September 20 th 2012: England and Wales Definition of domestic violence broadened to include: non-physical coercive control, AND individuals from age 16.

5. Issues of terminology Risk factor = statistically associated with outcome Kraemer et al (1997): Risk factor = precedes outcome Variable risk factor = precedes outcome & can be changed Fixed risk markers = precedes outcome & CANNOT be changed Causal risk factor = changeable, and changes lead to different likelihood of outcome Variable marker = precedes outcome & can be changed BUT change does not alter outcome

6. Rationale Vagi et al (2013) review of longitudinal perpetration risk factors; identified 53 separate risk factors, BUT  Not limited to adolescence (10 – 18 years);  Focus solely on USA/Canada studies  Focus on perpetration  Published 2000 - 2010 PRESENT STUDY  Perpetration & victimisation  Adolescence only (10 – 18 years)  Any country (English)  Published 2000 – May 2014

7. Results 30 studies; 13 perpetration, 5 perpetration AND victimisation (ADV involvement), 12 victimisation 56 risk factors for perpetration 39 risk factors for victimisation

8. Results: Perpetration Cultural Media influence Cultural Media influence Structural Ethnicity Low parent education Family structure Structural Ethnicity Low parent education Family structure Relationships Peer problems Peer delinquency Low social support Inter-parental Violence Parental hostility Low caring Previous ADV Prior sexual intercourse Relationships Peer problems Peer delinquency Low social support Inter-parental Violence Parental hostility Low caring Previous ADV Prior sexual intercourse Individual Substance Use Mental Health Emotional/Behaviou ral regulation Trauma Attitudes Individual Substance Use Mental Health Emotional/Behaviou ral regulation Trauma Attitudes

9. Results: Victimisation Cultural Media influence Watching x-rated movies Cultural Media influence Watching x-rated movies Structural ? Structural ? Relationships Peer problems Low social support Peer ADV Sexual harassment Inter-parental Violence Parental hostility Childhood maltreatment Low caring Previous ADV Previous sexual ADV Relationships Peer problems Low social support Peer ADV Sexual harassment Inter-parental Violence Parental hostility Childhood maltreatment Low caring Previous ADV Previous sexual ADV Individual Substance Use Mental Health Emotional/Behaviou ral regulation Trauma Attitudes Individual Substance Use Mental Health Emotional/Behaviou ral regulation Trauma Attitudes

10. Results: Summary & Limitations No evidence for causal risk factors Best evidence for variable risk factors: Perpetration: pro-ADV attitudes; alcohol use, drug use, depression Victimisation: alcohol use, depression Studies typically quite basic & huge variations in: ADV definition ADV measurement Relationship definition Follow up

11. Implications and conclusions Young people involved in ADV likely to experience range of other negative relationships & present with range of issues All services need to be aware and consider ADV Early intervention required