Weighing Risk Factors for Adolescent Victimization in the Context of Romantic Relationship Initiation

Abstract

Research has paid little attention to the link between the characteristics of the relational context where adolescents are likely to initiate their romantic relationships and teen dating violence (TDV). Hence, the findings are still scattered. This study examined different risks in the female teenagers' relational context (peer group characteristics, participants' risky activities, and pressure to start dating) and their TDV victimization, which had not been previously studied in the Spanish population. The moderating role of parental monitoring strategies was also analyzed. Participants were 1,248 Spanish female teenagers who completed measures of the aforementioned factors. Highly victimized girls reported having more deviant and older male peers, receiving more pressure to start dating, and using more alcohol and drugs than participants with low victimization did. High parental monitoring was only effective to prevent TDV victimization in low-risk relational contexts. The findings extend prior research by providing evidence of the risk of pressure to start dating and low effectiveness of parental monitoring

Evidence of Gender Violence Negative Impact on Health as a Lever to Change Adolescents’ Attitudes and Preferences towards Dominant Traditional Masculinities

“…This event can negatively affect girls’ psychosocial wellbeing, for instance, when the peer group pressures them to start a relationship [ 15 ], related to later relational victimization [ 16 ]. Previous research has found evidence of peer group pressure on girls to start a relationship [ 17 ] and of the mirage of upward mobility in the Spanish context. It consists of girls’ mistaken perception of having an intimate relationship with boys responding to dominant traditional masculinity and raising their attractiveness and status.…”

Social Norms About Dating and Relationship Violence and Gender Among Adolescents: Systematic Review of Measures Used in Dating and Relationship Violence Research

“…Database and Google Scholar searches identified 7,347 unique records (Figure 1), of which 477 were retained to screen on full text and 21 were eligible for inclusion (Aizpitarte et al, 2017; Antônio et al, 2012; Enosh, 2007; Flisher et al, 2007; Foshee et al, 2001; Gagné et al, 2005; Gonzalez-Mendez et al, 2019; Hébert et al, 2019; Helland, 1998; Hopper, 2011; Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Peskin et al, 2017; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Price, 2002; Reed et al, 2011; Reyes et al, 2016; Shamu et al, 2016; Shorey et al, 2018; Van Ouytsel et al, 2020; Wesche & Dickson-Gomez, 2019), reporting on 21 unique studies. Two reports presented analyses of different social norms measures from the same randomized controlled trial (Foshee et al, 2001; Reyes et al, 2016) and were therefore treated as two unique studies.…”

“…Of the included studies, 11 were conducted in the United States (Foshee et al, 2001; Helland, 1998; Hopper, 2011; Hunt et al, 2022; Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Peskin et al, 2017; Reed et al, 2011; Reyes et al, 2016; Shorey et al, 2018; Wesche & Dickson-Gomez, 2019), three in Canada (Gagné et al, 2005; Hébert et al, 2019; Price, 2002), three in South Africa (Flisher et al, 2007; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Shamu et al, 2016), three in Spain (Aizpitarte et al, 2017; Gonzalez-Mendez et al, 2019; Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022), one in Belgium (Van Ouytsel et al, 2020), one in Brazil (Antônio et al, 2012), one in Israel (Enosh, 2007), and one in Niger (Shakya et al, 2022). All studies were observational, and seven (Enosh, 2007; Foshee et al, 2001; Peskin et al, 2017; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Reyes et al, 2016; Shakya et al, 2022; Shamu et al, 2016) analyzed data collected as part of an evaluation.…”

“…Most studies included a single eligible social norms measure assessing a single domain of interest ( N = 15) (Aizpitarte et al, 2017; Antônio et al, 2012; Enosh, 2007; Foshee et al, 2001; Hébert et al, 2019; Helland, 1998; Hunt et al, 2022; Kernsmith & Tolman, 2011; Peskin et al, 2017; Price, 2002; Reed et al, 2011; Reyes et al, 2016; Shorey et al, 2018; Van Ouytsel et al, 2020; Wesche & Dickson-Gomez, 2019). Six studies included two eligible measures (Flisher et al, 2007; Gonzalez-Mendez et al, 2019; Hopper, 2011; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Pöllänen et al, 2021; Shakya et al, 2022) and one study included three (Shamu et al, 2016). In addition, one study included a single measure for which half the items assessed one social norms domain and half assessed another (Gagné et al, 2005), and a second study included four such measures (Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022).…”

“…The review identified 19 eligible measures of descriptive DRV norms from 14 included reports (Table 1) (Aizpitarte et al, 2017; Antônio et al, 2012; Foshee et al, 2001; Gagné et al, 2005; Gonzalez-Mendez et al, 2019; Hébert et al, 2019; Helland, 1998; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Nardi-Rodríguez et al, 2022; Peskin et al, 2017; Price, 2002; Reed et al, 2011; Reyes et al, 2016; Shorey et al, 2018). Measures ranged from 1 to 26 items (mean = 6, median = 4).…”