INTRODUCTION:

Dating violence is a pattern of assaultive and controlling behaviors that one person uses against another in order to gain or maintain power and control in the relationship. The abuser intentionally behaves in ways that cause fear, degradation and humiliation to control the other person. Forms of abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional and psychological In the past decades dating violence has emerged as a significant social and public health problem. Dating violence is a significant problem not only because of its alarming prevalence and physical and mental health consequences but also because it occurs at a life stage when romantic relationships are beginning and interactional patterns are learned that may carry over into adulthood. The most popular definition, modeled around the article by Sugarman and Hotaling stated that dating violence is "the perpetration or threat of an act of violence by at least one member of an unmarried couple on the other member within the context of dating or courtship (same sex or opposite sex) [1].

The Centers for Disease Control and prevention-Intimate partner violence surveillance [2], further divided the acts of violence into four categories;

1. Physical violence:

The intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury or harm.

2. Sexual violence:

This has again been divided into three types

a. Use of physical force to compel a person to engage in a sexual act against his or her will, whether or not the act is completed.

b. Attempted or completed sex involving a person who is unable to understand the nature or condition of the act to decline participation or to communicate unwillingness to engage in the sexual act e.g because of illness, disability or the influence of alcohol or other drugs or because of intimidation or pressure

c. Abusive sexual contact.

3. Threat of physical or sexual violence:

Use words, gestures or weapons to communicate the intent to cause death, disability, injury or physical harm

4. Psychological and emotional violence:

Although any psychological/emotional abuse can be measured by the intimate partner violence surveillance system, the expert panel recommended that it only be considered a type of violence when there has also been prior physical or sexual violence, or the prior threat of physical or sexual violence.

WARNING SIGNS OF DATING VIOLENCE:

· Checking cell phones, emails or social networks without permission

· Extreme jealousy or insecurity

· Constant belittling or put-downs

· Explosive temper

· Isolation from family and friends

· Making false accusations

· Erratic mood swings

· Physically inflicting pain or hurt in any way

· Possessiveness

· Telling someone what to do

· Repeatedly pressuring someone to have sex

Table 1. Prevalence of Dating Violence in Various Studies

Author	Study Design	Study settings	Subjects	Age groups	Prevalence
Yan FA, 2010 [3]	cross-sectional survey	USA	(149 boys and 167 girls),	11 to 13 years of age.	13.5% of youth reported being victims of physical dating violence within the past year; 14.4% of girls and 12.9% of boys disclosed physical dating violence victimization
Swahn MH 2008 [4]	cross-sectional survey	Georgia	(398 boys and 419 girls),	7^thgraders	35.2% of boys and 24.1% of girls reported physical dating violence victimization in the past 12 months. Nearly one-quarter of girls (24.9%) and 21.2% of boys reported perpetrating physical violence in a dating relationship in the past 12 months.
Wolitzky Taylor K.B. 2008 [5]	Telephone-based interview	Nationally representative sample (United states)	3614	12-17 year olds	2.7% girls and 0.6% boys reported as victims of dating violence
Hebert M,2008 [6]	cohort study	Canada	929 girls with annual follow-ups that started in kindergarten until age 12 and then a follow-up at age 15.	12-15 years	Nearly 1 out of 10 (9.5%) of teenage girls disclosed physical dating violence victimization, 10% reported sexual coercion by a dating partner, and 25.3% disclosed psychological dating violence victimization.
O’Leary KD 2008 [7]	cross-sectional survey	Asia	N=2363	15-18 years old	26% of females and 22% of males reported that they had been injured by their partners; 33% of females and 22% of males reported that they injured their partners
Rivera-Rivera 2007 [8]	Cross-sectional survey	Mexico	7960 57.63% F 42.37% M	12-21 years	Victims: 9.37% (female) and 8.57% (male) for psychological violence; 9.88% (female) and 22.71% (male) for physical violence
Marquart 2007 [9]	Cross sectional survey	National sample (United States)	20,274	Rural adolescents	16% adolescents reported as victims
Decker M.R. (2005) [10]	Cross sectional survey	Massachusetts	1641	9'th to 12th Female graders	51.6% girls diagnosed with STD/HIV reported dating violence
Smith P.R. (2003) [11]	Longitudinal survey	University of North Carolina	1569	18-19 year old women entering college	Women who were physically assaulted as adolescents were at greater risk for revictirnization during their freshman year
Ackard (2003) [12]	Cross-sectional survey	Nationally representative sample of United States	3533	9'h to 12'h graders	17% girls and 9% boys reported as victims; nearly 50% of victims reported staying in the relationship out of fear of physical harm
Swart (2002) [13]	Cross-sectional survey using questionnaires	Eldorado Park, South Africa	928	9'h-12'h graders	35.3% males and 43.5% females reported as perpetrators; 37.8% males and 41.7% females reported as victims
Spencer 2000 [14]	Retrospective study	2 rural, 1 suburban and 2 urban schools of upstate New York	2094 497(rural) 441 (suburban) ll56 (urban)	7'h,9'h and 11 •h graders	Rural students were more prone to dating violence (18% ), female students being at increased risk

Table 2: Dating Violence and its Correlates/Risk Factors

Author	Study Design	Study settings	Subjects	Age groups	Risk factors
Champion H 2008 [15]	cross-sectional study	North Carolina	n=2090; White: 61.1%; Black: 30.0%).	9^thto 12^thgrade	Two risk behaviors were associated with girls perpetrating physical dating violence cigarette use and drinking and driving. Riding with a drinking driver was associated with physical dating violence victimization for boys and girls
Raiford JL 2007 [16]	longitudinal study	Georgia.	522 African American females	aged 14-18 years	girls who experienced physical or verbal dating violence by a boyfriend were 2.0 times more likely to report using drugs at one-year follow-up
Eaton DK 2007 [17]	cross-sectional survey	USA	Over 2000 females	grades 9 through 12	physical dating violence victimization was greater among female students who initiated alcohol use at 13 or older compared to students who never had a drink
Megan E. Patrick, [18]	Longitudinal survey	USA	16 332	high school youth	a total of 20.2% of high school seniors reported 5+ binge drinking, 10.5% reported 10+ extreme binge drinking, and 5.6% reported 15+ extreme binge drinking in the last 2 weeks.
Jay G. Silverman 2001 [19]	cross-sectional survey	Massachusetts	n = 1977 and 2186,	Female 9th through 12th-grade students	1 in 5 female students (20.2% in 1997 and 18.0% in 1999) reported being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner and associated with increased risk of substance use

Dating Violence and Mental Health:

Cross-sectional survey data from the 2004 Youth Violence Survey was analyzed to examine the associations between dating violence, peer violence, and suicide among students in the 7^th, 9^th, 1^th, and 12^thgrades who had dated in the past year (high-risk, urban school district; N=2888). Involvement in any physical violence victimization or perpetration in dating relationships or with peers increased the odds of attempting suicide compared to students who did not report peer or dating violence. The intersection between involvement in dating and peer violence was consistent for boys and girls. [20]

In a national telephone interview survey (2005 National Survey of Adolescents; N=3,614) of ethnically diverse youths, ages 12-17 years, symptoms of PTSD were associated with an increased risk of serious dating violence victimization (physical assault in which participant was badly injured or beaten up and/or threatened with a weapon, sexual assault, and/or drug/alcohol-facilitated rape) for both genders after adjusting for demographic variables, other traumatic stressors, and stressful events. Having experienced a previous or recent stress life event was also associated with an increased risk of having been a victim of serious dating violence for boys and girls. Stressful life events included parental divorce or separation. [21] According to data from the 2005 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, boys who reported sad/hopeless feelings were nearly two and half times more likely (OR=2.42) to experience physical dating violence victimization. .[22] Based on cross-sectional survey data from the national 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey of U.S. high school students, girls who considered suicide were 1.5 times more likely to report physical dating violence victimization. Other risk factors for physical dating violence victimization among girls included having sad/hopeless feelings (odds ratio=1.42) and considering suicide (odds ratio=1.55). Dating violence was measured with the following question: “During the past 12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose?” [23] Initial sexual experience at age 13 or earlier and unwillingness of initial sexual experience were the strongest predictors of dating violence in a cohort intervention study with 590, predominantly Hispanic adolescent girls (average age 15) in the juvenile justice system. [24]

In a cross-sectional survey with 196 Canadian girls (ages 12-18) in the care of child protective services, the age of first sexual relationship, number of sex partners, and having been pregnant were related to having experienced severe physical dating victimization. Having been pregnant increased the odds of severe physical abuse by a dating partner more than threefold (3.60). Dating violence was measured with the Conflict Tactics Scale and severe physical violence as defined as “My dating partner kicked, bit or hit me” and “My partner punched or hit me with something that could hurt.” [25] According to dating from the 1997-2003 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Surveys, girls who reported having ever had sexual intercourse were significantly more likely to have experienced physical and/or sexual dating violence victimization compared with girls who reported not having had sex.[26]

Dating Violence and Academic Performance:

In a cohort intervention study, predominantly Hispanic adolescent girls (average age 15; N=590) in the juvenile justice system, school attendance was negatively correlated with dating violence (poor school attendance was associated with an increased risk of dating violence). The negative correlation between dating violence and school attendance was limited to bivariate analyses. [27] Analysis of longitudinal data from the Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study (Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio), indicated an association between academic difficulties in early adolescence (10-15 years old) and higher rates of dating violence perpetration six years later for Hispanic males (this association was not found for African American boys or girls). Dating violence perpetration was measured with the Conflict Tactics Scale.[28]

Dating Violence and its Prevention:

Twelve focus groups (ethnically diverse; segmented by sex and grade level) were conducted with middle school age students (11-14 years old) in the Atlanta area. Focus group participants described healthy teen relationships as following some form of gender role conformity; examples included that boys should provide material support or gifts while girls are expected to provide social/emotional support. They distinguished dating relationships from friendship by gender restrictions on behaviour—for example, boys are nicer to a dating partner compared to others and girls should restrain their appetite for food and loud expression when they are with their boyfriends. Themes that emerged relative to prevention included:

• Building skills to promote problem solving and bystander behaviour particularly during the middle school years when dating is just

• The need to tailor efforts to age, race/ethnicity, and gender due to how dating violence was perceived differently by these factors

• Creating appropriate messengers such as peer educators; most youth rejected the option of approaching teachers, parents or counsellors for help.[29]

The 4th R, a 21-lesson, school-based curriculum that addresses healthy relationships, sexual health, and substance abuse, was evaluated with 1722 Canadian 9th grade students in a cluster randomized trial. At 2.5 years follow-up (end of 11^thgrade), the prevalence of physical dating violence perpetration was higher in controls versus intervention students (9.8% vs. 7.4%). Sex by group analyses revealed that 3% of boys in the intervention group reported physical dating violence perpetration compared to 7% of boys in the control group; however, the intervention had no effect on girls. Physical dating violence was measured with the Adolescent Dating Relationship Inventory. Boys who received the curriculum were also more likely to use condoms than boys in the control group. The cost of the program averaged $16 (Canadian) per student.[30] The effectiveness of a high school marriage education curriculum (“Connections: Relationships and Marriages”) designed to teach students about healthy relationships and marriage was evaluated with a small sample (n=72) of predominantly female (80.6%) high school students in a nonrandomized, longitudinal study with a control group. While most of the immediate effects of the curriculum (attitudes, communication skills etc.) faded within 4 years of follow-up, students who received the curriculum reported a reduction in using physical or verbal aggression to resolve a conflict in a dating relationship, an increase in self-esteem, and an increase in family cohesion over the 4-year follow-up period. The study findings are based on the 1-year and 4-year follow-up questionnaires which had a very low response rate (20%). Physical and verbal aggression were measured with the Conflict Tactics Scales. [31] An evaluation of Break the Cycle’s Ending Violence curriculum with Latino youth indicated improved knowledge, less acceptance of female-on-male aggression, and enhanced perception of the helpfulness and likelihood of seeking assistance from a number of sources immediately after the program. Improved knowledge and perceived helpfulness from an attorney were maintained 6 months later but there were no differences in recent dating violence victimization or perpetration.[32] Randomized clinical trial design was used to evaluate five waves of data from the Safe Dates Project. Results indicated reductions in psychological, moderate physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and moderate physical dating violence victimization. Marginal effects were found for sexual victimization.[33]

CONCLUSION:

This literature review may aid in the prevention of future domestic violence in the society. The government agencies will be aware of the prevalence of dating violence among unmarried couples and allocate resources for further research in the field. This will be more useful for the development and implementation of community level awareness and intervention programs.

REFERENCES:

1. Sugarman DB, Hotaling GT. Dating violence: A review of contextual and risk factors. In: Levy B, editor. Dating violence: Young women in danger. Seattle, W A: Seal Press, 1991: 100-18.

2. Saltzman LE. Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements: Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers Dis Control Prev, Natl Center lnj Prev Control, 2002.

3. Yan FA, Howard DE, Beck KH, Shattuck T, Hallmark-Kerr M. Psychosocial correlates of physical dating violence victimization among Latino early adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2010; 25(5):808-831.

4. Swahn MH, Simon TR, Arias I and Bossarte RM. Measuring sex differences in violence victimization and perpetration within date and same-sex peer relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2008; 23(8):1120-1138.

5. Wolitzky-Taylor KB, Ruggiero KJ, Danielson DK, Resnick HS, Hanson RF, Smith DW, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG. Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008; 47(7):755-762.

6. Hebert M, Lavoie F, Vitaro F, McDuff P and Tremblay RE. Association of child sexual abuse and dating victimization with mental health disorder in a sample of adolescent girls. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2008; 21(2):181-189.

7. O’Leary KD, Slep AM, Avery-Leaf S, Cascardi M. Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2008; 42:473-479.

8. Rivera-Rivera L, Allen-Leigh B, Rodriguez-Ortega G, Chavez-Ayala R, Lazcano-Ponce E. Prevalence and correlates of adolescent dating violence: baseline study of.a cohort of 7, 960 male and female Mexican public school students. Prev Med 2007; 44(6):477-84.

9. Mar quart BS, Nannini DK, Edwards RW, Stanley LR and Wayman JC. Prevalence of dating violence and victimization: regional and gender differences. Adolescence. 2007; 168(42):645-657.

10. Decker MR, Silverman JG, Raj A. Dating violence and sexually transmitted disease/HIV testing and diagnosis among adolescent females. Pediatrics 2005; 116(2):e272-6.

11. Smith PH, White JW, Holland LJ. A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. Am J Public Health 2003; 93(7): 1104-9.

12. Ackard DM, Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan P. Dating violence among a nationally representative sample of adolescent girls and boys: associations with behavioral and mental health. J Gend SpecifMed 2003; 6(3):39-48.

13. Swart L-A, Seedat M, Stevens G, Ricardo I. Violence in adolescents' romantic relationships: findings from a survey amongst school-going youth in a South African community. J Adolesc 2002; 25(4):385-95.

14. Spencer GA, Bryant SA. Dating violence: a comparison of rural, suburban, and urban Health 2000; 27(5):302-5.

15. Champion H, Foley KL, Sigmon-Smith K, Sutfin EL and DuRant RH. Contextual factors and health risk behaviors associated with date fighting among high school students. Women and Health. 2008; 47(3):1-22.

16. Raiford JL, Win good GM and Di Clemente RJ. Prevalence, incidence, and predictors of dating violence: a longitudinal study of African American female adolescents. Journal of Women’s Health. 2007; 16(6):822-832.

17. Eaton DK, Davis KS, Barrios L, Brener ND and Noonan RK. Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-occurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2007; 22(5):582-602.

18. Megan E. Patrick; John E. Schulenberg, Meghan E. Martz, Jennifer L. Maggs, Patrick M. O’Malley, Lloyd D. Johnston, JAMA Pediatr. 2013; 167(11):1019-1025.

19. Jay G. Silverman, Anita Raj, Lorelei A. Mucci, Jeanne E. Hathaway, JAMA. 2001; 286(5):572-579.

20. Swahn MH, Simon TR, Hertz MF, Arias I, Bossarte RM, Gross LA, Iachan R, Hamburger ME. Linking dating violence, peer violence, and suicide behaviors among high-risk youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008; 34(1):30-38.)

21. Wolitzky-Taylor KB, Ruggiero KJ, Danielson DK, Resnick HS, Hanson RF, Smith DW, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG. Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008; 47(7):755-762

22. Howard DE, Wang MQ and Yan F. Psychosocial factors associated with reports of physical dating violence victimization among U.S. adolescent males. Adolescence. 2008; 43(171):449-460.

23. Howard DE, Wang MQ and Yan F. Psychosocial factors associated with reports of physical dating violence among U.S. adolescent females. Adolescence. 2007; 42(166):311-324.

24. Kelly, Cheng, Peralez-Dieckmann and Martinez E. Dating violence and girls in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2009; 24(9):1536-1551.

25. Manseau H, Fernet M, Hebert M, Collin-Vezina D and Blais M. Risk factors for dating violence among teenage girls under child protective services. International Journal of Social Welfare. 2008; 17:236-242.

26. Silverman JG, Decker MR and Raj A. Immigration-based disparities in adolescent girls’ vulnerability to dating violence. 2007; 11:37-43.

27. Kelly, Cheng, Peralez-Dieckmann and Martinez E. Dating violence and girls in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2009; 24(9):1536-1551.

28. Schnurr MP and Lohman BJ. How much does school matter? An examination of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2008; 37:266-283.

29. Noonon RK and Charles D. Developing teen dating violence prevention strategies: formative research with middle school youth. Violence Against Women. 2009; 15:1087-1105.

30. Wolfe DA, Crooks C, Jaffe P, Chiodo D, Hughes R, Ellis W, Stitt L, Donner A. A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: a cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2009; 163(8):692-699.

31. Garder SP and Boellaard R. Does youth relationship education continue to work after a high school class? A longitudinal study. Family Relations. 2007; 56:490-500.

32. Jaycox LH, McCaffrey D, Eisenman B, Aronoff J, Shelley GA, Collins RL, Marshall GN. Impact of a school-based dating violence prevention program among Latino Teens: randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2006; 39(5):694-704.

33. Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Ennett St, Suchindran C, Benefield T, Linder GF. Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science. 2005; 6(3):245-258.

Received on 07.06.2016 Modified on 15.07.2016

Asian J. Nur. Edu. and Research.2017; 7(2): 243-247.

DOI: 10.5958/2349-2996.2017.00051.9