Abstract
Purpose:
We examined associations between parental IPV exposure, perceived social support, and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) victimization specifically in a group of marginalized youth.
Methods:
Data were drawn from surveys administered to marginalized youth as part of the Healthy Allegheny Teen Survey. Logistic regression examined: 1) the association between IPV exposure and social support; and 2) how social support influences the association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization.
Results:
IPV-exposed youth reported lower perceived social support (aOR: 0.54; CI: 0.31, 0.96). There was a significant association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization (OR: 3.5; CI: 1.5, 8.1). However, among youth with higher social support, the association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization attenuated and lost significance (OR: 1.9; CI: 0.57, 6.5).
Conclusions:
IPV-exposed youth reported less social support; however, social support may buffer the association between IPV exposure and ARA. Interventions may consider bolstering social support for IPV-exposed youth.
Childhood exposure to parental intimate partner violence (IPV), affecting nearly one in four adolescents aged 14–17,1 has detrimental emotional, physical, and developmental health impacts.2 Adolescents exposed to parental IPV are more likely to experience violence in their own dating relationships (adolescent relationship abuse; ARA).3–4 Proposed theoretical links between IPV-exposure and ARA include social learning theory (i.e., learned behavior from observing parental IPV)3 and polyvictimization (i.e., exposure to one type of violence makes one more likely to be exposed to other forms of violence).4 Having a source of social support is protective for adolescents exposed to childhood adversities, including IPV.5 However, there is a dearth of literature focused on how social support impacts the relationship between IPV exposure and experiencing ARA among marginalized youth (e.g., youth experiencing homelessness, in the foster care system, or incarcerated youth), who may be at higher risk for violence victimization6 and are unlikely to be represented in school-based or digit-dial surveys.
The objectives of this exploratory study include examining, in a sample of marginalized youth: 1) the association between IPV exposure and perceived social support; and 2) how social support influences the association between IPV exposure and physical and sexual ARA victimization.
Methods
Data source
We conducted a secondary data analysis of a sample of marginalized youth, collected as part of the Healthy Allegheny Teen Survey (HATS) from August to December 2014.7 HATS engaged six community-based agencies to recruit a convenience sample of marginalized youth (n=262) who were incarcerated, in residential homes, independent living programs, or in shelter. HATS was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board with the secondary data analysis deemed non-human subjects.
Measures
Exposure to parental IPV was defined as answering affirmatively to youth-reported lifetime exposure of any of the following: 1) a parent getting pushed, slapped, hit, punched, or beat up by another parent or by a boyfriend or girlfriend; 2) one parent threatening to hurt another parent; and 3) one parent, because of an argument, breaking or ruining anything belonging to another parent, punching the wall, or throwing something. Questions were taken from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV).1
Social support was measured on a 5-point Likert scale through three items adapted from the Sarason social support measure (cronbach’s alpha=0.84 in this sample): 1) having someone who cares about you; 2) having someone who makes you feel better; and 3) having someone on whom you can depend.8 To create a social support score, we calculated the mean of the three items, dichotomized into lower (< median) and higher social support (≥ median).
Exposure to ARA: Participants who reported one or more episodes of either physical or sexual ARA victimization in the past 12 months were labelled as “experiencing ARA victimization.” Questions about ARA (from the Youth Risk Behavioral Survey; YRBS)9 were asked to participants who reported dating someone in the past 12 months.
Data analyses
262 participants completed the HATS survey; due to missing data the analytic samples differed slightly between objectives. For objective one, participants who completed at least one IPV-exposure question were included (n=246/262; 94% of the total sample). For objective two, participants who answered at least one IPV-exposure question and at least one ARA question were included (n=198/262; 76% of the total sample).
Data analysis:
Descriptive statistics were used to examine the prevalence of IPV exposure, social support, and ARA victimization. For objective one, we examined unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models of social support as a function of IPV exposure. Covariates in the adjusted model included race, sex, age, and past year homelessness. For objective two, we examined bivariate logistic regression models of ARA victimization as a function IPV exposure, for the total sample and stratified by social support. Small sample sizes precluded inclusion of covariates.
Results
IPV-exposure and social support (objective one)
Forty-four percent of participants (n=108/246) reported lifetime exposure to parental IPV (Table 1). Compared with those not exposed to IPV, IPV-exposed participants reported lower social support (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.54; confidence interval (CI): 0.31, 0.96 Table 2).
Table 1:
Participant demographic characteristicsa
| All participants (n=246) n (%) | Participants exposed to parental IPV (n=108) n (%) | Participants not exposed to parental IPV (n=138) n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||
| 14–15 years old | 71 (29%) | 31 (29%) | 40 (29%) |
| 16–17 years old | 90 (37%) | 39 (36%) | 51 (37%) |
| 18–19 years old | 83 (34%) | 37 (34%) | 46 (33%) |
| Missing | 2 (1%) | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) |
| Biological Sex | |||
| Male | 139 (57%) | 51 (47%) | 88 (64%) |
| Female | 106 (43%) | 56 (52%) | 50 (36%) |
| Intersex | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) |
| Other | 0 (0%)_ | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Race | |||
| Black | 162 (66%) | 58 (54%) | 104 (75%) |
| White | 41 (17%) | 28 (26%) | 13 (9%) |
| Other | 43 (17%) | 22 (20%) | 21 (15%) |
| Past year homelessness (2+nights) | |||
| Yes | 102 (41%) | 59 (55%) | 43 (31%) |
| No | 140 (57%) | 47 (44%) | 93 (67%) |
| Missing | 4 (2%) | 2 (2%) | 2 (1%) |
| Parent/guardian education | |||
| Some high school or less | 71 (29%) | 30 (28%) | 41 (30%) |
| Graduated high school | 74 (30%) | 33 (31%) | 41 (30%) |
| Some college or technical school | 37 (15%) | 17 (16%) | 20 (14%) |
| Finished college | 57 (23%) | 25 (23%) | 32 (23%) |
| Missing | 7 (3%) | 3 (3%) | 4 (3%) |
| Social support | |||
| Lower | 107 (43%) | 55 (51%) | 52 (38%) |
| Higher | 136 (55%) | 53 (49%) | 83 (60%) |
| Missing | 3 (1%) | 3 (2%) | |
| All participants (n=198)b n (%) | Participants exposed to parental IPV (n=95) n (%) | Participants not exposed to parental IPV (n=103) n (%) | |
| Past year physical or sexual ARA victimization | |||
| Yes | 33 (17%) | 24 (25%) | 9 (9%) |
| No | 165 (83%) | 71 (75%) | 94 (91%) |
This table includes demographic characteristics for participants who answered at least one of the three IPV-exposure questions, for all row except the last row (past year physical or sexual ARA victimization).
The total sample sizes for this row only include participants who answered at least one of the three IPV-exposure questions and one of the two ARA victimization questions.
Table 2:
Exposure to parental IPV, perceived social support, and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) victimization
| Objective 1: IPV exposure and perceived social support | ||
| Higher perceived social support | ||
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) | |
| IPV exposureb | 0.60 (0.36, 1.008) | 0.54 (0.31, 0.96) |
| Objective 2: IPV exposure and ARA victimization, stratified by social support | ||
| ARA victimization | ||
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI)c | |
| IPV exposureb | ||
| Total sample | 3.5 (1.5, 8.1) | N/A |
| Lower perceived social support | 5.1 (1.5, 16.7) | N/A |
| Higher perceived social support | 1.9 (0.57, 6.5) | N/A |
adjusted for race, age, past year homelessness and biological sex
compared with participants not exposed to IPV
unable to conduct multivariate regression due to small sample
IPV-exposure and ARA victimization, stratified by social support (objective two)
Seventeen percent of youth (n=33/198) reported experiencing either physical or sexual ARA victimization in the past year. A significant direct association emerged between IPV exposure and ARA victimization (OR: 3.5; CI: 1.5, 8.1). Among youth with lower social support, IPV exposure was associated with significantly increased odds of ARA victimization (OR: 5.1; CI: 1.5, 16.7). Conversely, among youth with higher social support, there was no significant association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization (OR: 1.9; CI: 0.57, 6.5; Table 2).
Discussion
In a cross-sectional sample of marginalized youth, we examined differences in perceived social support between parental IPV-exposed and unexposed youth, and how social support may influence the relationship between IPV-exposure and ARA victimization. We found a significant association between IPV exposure and social support, where IPV-exposed youth were more likely to report lower social support. This is concerning as social support is helpful in protecting IPV-exposed youth from experiencing negative sequalae.
Similar to past studies, we found an association between exposure to parental IPV and ARA victimization.3–4 However, higher social support attenuated this association, suggesting that social support may help protect IPV-exposed youth from experiencing ARA. An evaluation of a mother-adolescent ARA prevention program for IPV-exposed youth found decreases in youth-reported psychological ARA, particularly for youth exposed to high levels of IPV.10 For IPV-exposed marginalized youth, some of whom may not have parental support, ARA prevention interventions may also consider leveraging social support from other sources such as peers, natural mentors, and educators.11
This sample was unique as it comprised a group of youth unlikely to be recruited using digit-dial methodology as used in NatSCEV1 or school-based surveys such as YRBS.9 A higher percentage of adolescents in this study (44%) reported IPV-exposure as compared with NatSCEV data (25–28%). Additionally, the 12-month prevalence of ARA victimization in this study (17%) was higher than what is reported in national YRBS data (7–8%)9 and in fact as high as previously described life-time reports of ARA.12
We recognize limitations to this study. Cross-sectional data with small sample sizes precluded examining temporality and conducting multivariate analyses for some models. Additionally, the survey did not measure psychological ARA or ARA perpetration, and thus we were unable to include these outcomes in our analyses. Despite these limitations, this exploratory study has important implications for future research. Researchers should consider exploring the types of social support (e.g., parent, natural mentor, friend) that best buffer IPV-exposed marginalized youth from ARA victimization. Further research using community-engaged methods to recruit participants who may be missed from national surveys is also merited.
Implications and Contribution.
Using data from a unique sample of marginalized youth, this exploratory study examined associations between parental intimate partner violence (IPV) exposure, perceived social support, and adolescent relationship abuse victimization. Findings suggest that bolstering social support may help protect marginalized IPV-exposed youth from experiencing violence in their own intimate relationships.
Acknowledgements:
Dr. Ragavan is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number KL2TR001856. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Health. We thank Scott Rothenberger, PhD for his assistance with the analyses.
Footnotes
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1).Hamby SL, Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R. Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence and other family violence. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; 2011. [Google Scholar]
- 2).Thackeray JD, Hibbard R, Dowd D. Intimate partner violence: The role of the pediatrician. Pediatrics. 2010; 125(5): 1094–1100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3).Black DS, Sussman S, Unger JB. A further look at the intergenerational transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood. J Interpers Violence. 2010; 25(6): 1022–1042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4).Hamby S, Finkelhor D, Turner H. Teen dating violence: Co-occurrence with other victimizations in the national survey of children’s exposure to violence (NatSCEV). Psychology of Violence. 2012; 2(2): 111–12 [Google Scholar]
- 5).Fergus D, Zimmerman MA. Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005; 26(1): 399–419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6).Taylor CA, Boris NW, Heller SS, Clum GA, Rice JC, Zeanah CH. Cumulative experience of violence among high-risk urban youth. J Interpers Violence. 2008; 23(11):1618–1635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7).Brooks MJ, Marshall MP, McCauley HL, Douaihy A, Miller E. The relationship between hope and adolescent likelihood to endorse substance use behaviors in a sample of marginalized youth. Subst Use Misuse. 2016; 51(3): 1815–1819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8).Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Shearin EN, et al. A brief measure of social support: practical and theoretical implications. J Social Personal Relationships. 1987;4:49751 [Google Scholar]
- 9).Kan L, McManus T, Harris W et al. Youth risk behavior surveillance---United States. MMWR. 2018; 67(8):1–114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10).Foshee VA, Benefield T, Dixon KS, et al. The effects of Moms and Teens for Safe Dates: A dating abuse prevention program for adolescents exposed to domestic violence. J Youth Adolesc. 2015; 44(5): 995–1010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11).Dang MT, Conger KJ, Breslau J, Miller E. Exploring protective factors among homeless youth: The role of natural mentors. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014; 25: 1121–1138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12).Taylor BG, Mumford EA. A nationally descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: Results from the national survey on teen relationships and intimate violence. J Interpers Violence. 2016; 31: 963–988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]