Adolescent Judgments of Intimate Partner Aggression and Factors Associated With Active Bystander Intervention

• In Event: Poster Session 11
  In Poster Session: PS 11 Topic - Social Relationships

Abstract

Research on adolescent cognition and experiences with intimate partner aggression (IPA) is especially important as individuals engage in their first experiences with romantic relationships. Most studies surrounding adolescent experiences with IPA explore childhood maltreatment and family dynamics as risk factors for dating violence in youth (Foshee et al., 2015; Wolfe et al., 2009). One possible factor that might decrease the occurrence of IPA in adolescence is bystander intervention. However, our knowledge is still limited about adolescent moral judgments regarding IPA and factors associated with active bystander intervention.

This study compares adolescent moral judgments of IPA (heterosexual) to other forms of peer aggression and considers individual, and school climate factors as predictors to intervention when one observes IPA. Participants included 6th and 9th graders (N= 830, 50.8% female) in the Southeastern U.S. To evaluate moral judgments, participants evaluated scenarios detailing distinct forms of peer aggression and were asked to rate how okay or not okay each scenario was. The IPA scenario involved both verbal and physical aggression (“says mean things, sometimes yells at or pushes”); therefore, moral judgments of IPA were compared to that of physical aggression (“pushed and hit”) and social aggression (“put down, always told what to do”). Following the presentation of each scenario, participants indicated their likelihood of active bystander responses (say something to the bully, get help from a friend/adult, talk to the victim). Participants also responded to peer nomination (Rodkin & Ahn, 2009), empathy (Vossen et al., 2015), school climate (Zullig et al., 2015), and demographic measures.

A 2 (gender) x 2 (grade) x 3 (aggression) ANOVA revealed significant differences in moral judgments across physical, partner, and social aggression, F (2, 1638) = 50.97, p < .001, ηp2 = .059. While participants judged all forms of aggression as wrong, adolescents viewed physical aggression as significantly less acceptable than IPA and IPA as significantly less acceptable than social aggression (see Table 1). A main effect was found for gender such that girls judged peer aggression as less acceptable than boys. This was qualified by a significant story x gender x grade interaction, F (2, 1638) = 4.81, p = .008, ηp2 = .006.

Four hierarchical regressions were used to identify factors associated with active bystander intervention strategies for IPA (see Table 2). Girls were significantly more likely than boys to use all four strategies. Higher levels of empathy (cognitive or affective), and sympathy predicted higher rates of all four strategies. Significant negative associations between being popular and seeking help from adults and friends indicates that popular kids are less likely to seek help from others when witnessing IPA. Surprisingly, positive student-teacher relationships predicted talking to the victim and seeking help from a friend, but not from an adult. The only school climate predictor for seeking adult help was school connectedness.

Taken together, this study reveals new insights into adolescent cognition regarding IPA. These results can inform school-based interventions and practices aimed at promoting healthy romantic relationships and active bystander intervention in IPA.

Authors

• Jacqueline Cerda-Smith, North Carolina State University
  Presenting Author

• Secil Gonultas, North Carolina State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kelly Lynn S Mulvey, North Carolina State University
  Non-Presenting Author