Abstract
Intimate partner violence against adolescent girls is of increasing political and social concern. This paper presents formative research on the reasoned action approach (RAA) to the prediction of boys’ perpetration and girls’ acceptance of four psychologically abusive behaviors. Our objectives were: (1) to identify the behavioral and normative modal beliefs behind males’ performance and girls’ acceptance of the behaviors and (2) to explore the relationship between attitudes, perceived social norm, intention and behavior. A total of 479 adolescents between 14 and 18 years of age completed questionnaires on the performance (boys) or acceptance (girls) of a specific behavior. We used a grouping process to identify modal beliefs and carried out eight exploratory multiple regression analysis (one per behavior) to study attitude and social norm as predictors of intention and behavior. Positive and negative behavioral beliefs coexist in boys’ and girls’ minds, which can reflect an unclear positioning against abusive behaviors. Positive outcomes seem to be influenced by socialization processes and love myths. Peers can be a risk factor whereas parents are a protective factor against the performance and acceptance of these behaviors. Results showed significant relationships between the constructs in the sense specified by the model. Prevention programs could benefit by: managing participants’ individual behavior, intervening separately with boys and girls, overcoming adolescents’ confusion regarding these behaviors, and targeting parents as a means of discouraging their performance and acceptance. The RAA appears a useful tool for explaining and predicting the performance and acceptance of abusive behaviors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939.
Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., & Daly, C. A. (2016). Personal standards for judging aggression by a relationship partner: how much aggression is too much? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000035.
Barter, C., McCarry, M., Berridge, D., & Evans, K. (2009). Partner exploitation and violence in teenage intimate relationships. NSPCC. Retrieved from https://www.nspcc.org.uk/.
Bosch, E., Ferrer, V. A., García-Buades, M. E., Ramis, M. C., Mas, M. C., Navarro, C., & Torrens, G. (2008). Del mito del amor romántico a la violencia contra las mujeres en la pareja. [From Love Myths to Intimate Partner Violence Against Women]. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer. Retrieved from: http://www.inmujer.gob.es/.
Casas, M. M. (2013). La prevención de la violencia de pareja entre adolescentes a través del programa: La máscara del Amor. [Preventing adolescent partner violence with the program: The mask of love]. PhD diss., Universidad de Valencia.
De la Rue, L., Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316632061.
Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4196-6.
European Agency for Fundamental Rights (2014). Violence against women: an EU wide survey. Main results. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/.
European Institute for Gender Equality (2014). Estimating the costs of gender-based violence in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://eige.europa.eu/.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior. The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 10(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334131.
Flysher, A. J., Myer, L., Mèrais, A., Lombard, C., & Reddy, P. (2007). Prevalence and correlates of partner violence among South African adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(6), 619–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01711.x.
Galliher, R. V., Welsh, D. P., Rostosky, S. S., & Kawaguchi, M. C. (2004). Interaction and relationship quality in late adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504041383.
GDGV (Government Delegation for Gender based Violence) (2015). Macroencuesta violencia contra la mujer 2015. Avance de resultados. [Macro Survey of Violence Against Women. Preliminary Results]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Retrieved from http://www.msssi.gob.es/.
Hlavaty, K., & Haselschwerdt, M. L. (2019). Domestic violence exposure and peer relationships: exploring the role of coercive control exposure. Journal of Family Violence, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00044-4.
INE (The Statistics National Institute) (2018). Statistic report of gender based partner violence and domestic violence. Madrid: INE. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/.
Kernsmith, P. D., & Tolman, R. M. (2011). Attitudinal correlates of girls’ use of violence in teen dating relationships. Violence Against Women, 17(4), 500–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211404312.
Lagarde, M. (2000). Claves feministas para la autoestima de las mujeres. [Feminist cues for women’s self-esteem]. Madrid: Horas y Horas.
Lehmann, P., & Pillai, V. K. (2012). The validation of the checklist of controlling behaviors (CCB): assessing coercive control in abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 18(8), 913–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212456522.
López-Soler, C., Alcántara-López, M., Castro, M., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Fernández, V. (2017). The association between maternal exposure to intimate partner violence and emotional and behavioral problems in Spanish children and adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 32(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9864-5.
Lucero, J. L., Weisz, A. N., Smith-Darden, J., & Lucero, S. M. (2014). Exploring gender differences: socially interactive technology use/abuse among dating teens. Affilia, 29, 478–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109914522627.
Luzón, J., Ramos, E., Recio, P., & de la Peña, E. M. (2011). Andalucía Detecta. Sexismo y Violencia de Género en la Juventud. [Andalusia detects. Sexism and gender based violence among youth]. Sevilla: Instituto Andaluz de la Mujer. Retrieved from http://www.juntadeandalucia.es.
Nardi-Rodríguez, A., Pastor- Mira, M. A., López-Roig, S., & Ferrer-Pérez, V. A. (2019). Identifying Targets for Preventing Intimate Partner Violence against Adolescent Girls. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1986). Power and control: Tactics of men who batter. Duluth: Minnesota Program Development.
Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00159.x.
Reed, E., Silverman, J. G., Raj, A., Decker, M. R., & Miller, E. (2011). Male perpetration of teen dating violence: association with neighborhood violence involvement, gender attitudes, and perceived peer and neighborhood norms. Journal of Urban Health, 88(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9545-x.
Rodríguez, P. (2011). Masculine and feminine honor codes. Revista de Psicología Social, 26(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347411794078499.
Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Bell, K. (2008). Behavioral theory and dating violence. A framework for prevention programming. The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention, 1(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100452.
Taylor, K. A., Sullivan, T. N., & Farrell, A. D. (2015). Longitudinal relationships between individual and class norms supporting dating violence and perpetration of dating. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0195-7
Tolman, D. L., Davis, B. R., & Bowman, C. (2016). “That’s just how it is”: a gendered analysis of masculinity and femininity ideologies in adolescent girls’ and boys’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558415587325.
Vagi, K., Rthman, E., Latzman, N., Teten, A., Hall, D. M., & Brieding, M. J. (2013). Beyond correlates: a review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(4), 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9907-7.
World Health Organization/London School of Higiene and Tropical Medicine (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: taking action and generating evidence. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the secondary schools that participated in the study (IES Gran Vía, IES A.J. Cavanilles, IES Radio Exterior, Colegio CEU Colegio Jesús María and Colegio Santa Teresa Vistahermosa). The first author is supported by a pre–doctoral grant from “Consellería D’Educació, Cultura I Esport de la Generalitat Valenciana” (ACIF/2014/050).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Annex 1. Sample Questionnaire
Attitude scale
To me, checking my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks is:
Item 1 | Romantic | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Non- romantic |
Item 2 | Unnecessary | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Necessary |
Item 3 | Funny | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Boring |
Item 4 | Dry | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Tender |
Item 5 | Good | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Bad |
Item 6 | Useless | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Useful |
Item 7 | Beneficial | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Harmful |
Item 8 | Stressing | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Relaxing |
Item 9 | Passionate | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Cold |
Item 10 | Unpleasant | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Pleasant |
Item 11 | Intelligent | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Stupid |
Item 12 | Oppressive | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Protective |
Perceived Social Norm Scale
-
Prescriptive scale
Item 1: Most people that are important to me think I should check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
Item 2: It is expected of me that I check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
Item 3: Most people that are important to me support the fact that I check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
-
Descriptive scale
Item 1: Most men check on their girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
Item 2: Most boys in the same situation as me, check on their girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
Item 3: Most boys like me check on their girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
-
Intention scale
Item 1: I intend to check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks.
Item2: I expect to check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks.
Item 3: I will check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks.
Item 4: I plan to check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks.
Item 5: How frequently do you intend to check on my girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
-
Past behavior scale
Item 1: Have you checked on your girl’s mobile, emails or social networks:
Item 2: How often have you checked on your girl’s mobile, emails or social networks.
Annex 2. Descriptive of items and reliability of the scales
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nardi-Rodríguez, A., de los Ángeles Pastor-Mira, M., López-Roig, S. et al. What Do Adolescents Believe About Performing and Accepting Intimate Partner Violence Behaviors? A Reasoned Action Approach. J Fam Viol 34, 461–477 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00060-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00060-4