Abstract
Despite the increasing influence of peers during adolescence, adults continue to play a significant role in impacting the lives of adolescents. Adolescents’ relationships with caring adults are associated with a host of positive outcomes, including improved psychosocial, educational, and behavioral outcomes, and reduced problem behaviors. However, research has not explored the influence of relationships with caring adults on adolescent interpersonal violence (AIV) risk. The aim of this paper was to examine the associations between the presence of an important adult (i.e., an adult youth can go to if they need help with a problem or decision) and youth reports of AIV victimization and perpetration. Participants included 2,173 youth (53.5% female, 76.0% White) in grades 7-10 who participated in a multiple baseline study of a youth-led sexual violence prevention project. Data from the second baseline survey were used to conduct eight binary logistic regression models to test the association between the presence of an important adult and each of the victimization and perpetration types (i.e., any, bullying, sexual harassment, sexual and dating violence). Results showed that youth who reported having an important adult reported significantly lower likelihood of reporting any victimization and perpetration, bullying victimization and perpetration, and harassment victimization and perpetration. There were no significant associations between the presence of an important adult and sexual and dating violence victimization and perpetration. Given the potential for relationships with important adults to protect against some forms of AIV victimization and perpetration, prevention strategies should include connecting youth with important, caring adults and training such adults to help promote attitudinal and behavior shifts that foster AIV prevention.
One in four adolescents report bullying victimization, one in eight report physical dating violence victimization, and one in ten report sexual violence victimization in the past year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Adolescent interpersonal violence (AIV) is influenced by the interplay between multiple levels of youth’s ecology, which includes factors at the individual (e.g., substance use), interpersonal (e.g., peers’ aggressive behavior), and community levels (e.g., low neighborhood monitoring; Banyard et al., 2006; Garthe et al., 2017). While existing research on AIV often focuses on adolescents’ relationships with their peers (Doucette et al., 2021), there is a dearth of research exploring the potential for important adults (e.g., caring adults, natural mentors) to play a role in AIV prevention (David-Ferdon et al., 2016). Despite this lack of research, the majority of adolescents report having an important adult in their lives and these relationships are associated with a range of academic, psychosocial, and behavioral outcomes (Bruce & Bridgeland, 2014; Raposa et al., 2019; Van Dam et al., 2018).
Although adolescent development literature often emphasizes the influence of adolescent peer culture, research finds that adults continue to play a significant role in influencing the lives of adolescents (Chu et al., 2010). Adults serve as role models for adolescents and can provide social support that promotes adolescent well-being (Chu et al., 2010). Influential adults can include both formal and informal mentors. While formal mentors involve relationships where youth are paired with a mentor through a program, natural mentorship is defined as supportive relationships between youth and adults in their lives (e.g., extended family, coaches, teachers) that develop organically over time (Van Dam et al., 2018). Formal mentoring relationships are shown to promote positive youth development, including benefits to academic outcomes, psychological well-being, and physical health (DuBois et al., 2002, 2011; Raposa et al., 2019). Similarly, natural mentoring relationships are associated with positive outcomes, including educational, behavioral, psychosocial, and vocational outcomes, and are related to improved social relationships and reporting closer friendships (Hagler & Rhodes, 2018; Miranda-Chan et al., 2016; Van Dam et al., 2018). Adolescents with mentoring relationships report reduced problem behaviors, including aggression, hurting others in physical fights, and delinquency (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b; Tolan et al., 2008, 2014). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called for more research on relationships between youth and caring adults and reduced risk for AIV (David-Ferdon et al., 2016).
There are several reasons why important adults may protect against AIV. First, important adults may engage in more monitoring of youths’ activities, and research suggests that parental monitoring is a protective factor against AIV (Banyard et al., 2006; Low & Espelage, 2014; Sieving et al., 2017). Second, important adults may promote the development of healthy relationships and other assets (e.g., future orientation, mattering) that serve as protective factors against AIV (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a; Wesely et al., 2017). Important adults may also help youth learn appropriate and healthy behaviors, make healthy decisions, develop hopes and goals for the future, and enhance school engagement, all of which may reduce risk for AIV (David-Ferdon et al., 2016). However, no study to date has examined if the presence of an important adult reduces risk for multiple forms of AIV victimization and perpetration. Therefore, the aim of the present paper was to explore the association between the presence of an important adult in youths’ lives and youth reports of AIV victimization and perpetration. In addition to examining how the presence of an important adult relates to any interpersonal violence victimization and perpetration, we also sought to explore how the presence of an important adult relates to specific forms of violence, specifically bullying, sexual harassment, and sexual and dating violence.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 2,173 youth in grades 7-10 who took part in the second wave of the study. We removed 42 participants (1.9%) for failing attention checks (e.g., “Are you over 9 feet tall?”). The sample was 53.5% female (n = 1,139). 1 The mean age was 14.1 (SD = 1.23, range = 12-18). The majority (76.0%, n = 1,651) identified as White, 18.7% (n = 407) as American Indian or Native American, 5.4% (n = 159) multiracial, 4.8% (n = 105) Black/African American, 2.7% (n = 59) Asian, and 2.2% (n = 47) Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Moreover, 13.0% (n = 267) identified as Hispanic/Latino.
Procedures
These data are part of a larger multiple baseline study to evaluate a youth-led sexual violence prevention project that was implemented after the second baseline survey. Data for the present paper come from the second baseline survey collected in Spring 2018 because the important adult question was not added until after the first baseline survey. We invited all students (with written parental permission) in grades 7-10 (n = 4,513) at the beginning of the Fall 2017 semester to enroll in the study. Most students (n = 2,232; 83.6%) with guardian permission took the survey. The survey was administered on computers in school by trained research staff. Students received a small incentive (e.g., fruit snack, pencil) and were entered to win gift cards. See Edwards et al. (2021) for more study protocol details, eligibility and participation by wave, as well as detailed participation attrition analysis.
Measures
Presence of an important adult.
We examined youth report of the presence of an important adult with a single question. Youth were asked, “In my community, there is a teacher or some other adult who I can go to if I need help with a problem or decision.” Youth responded with 1 = yes or 0 = no.
Violence victimization and perpetration in the past six months.
Items are categorized into: (a) any violence, (b) bullying, (c) harassment, and (d) sexual and physical dating violence. Items for bullying included bullying on school property (e.g., “You were bullied on school property?”), and electronic bullying (i.e., “You were electronically bullied (count bullying through texting, Instagram, Facebook, or other social media)?”; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014; Eaton et al., 2012). For harassment, we used items from the American Association of University Women to assess for sexual harassment (i.e., sexual comments [e.g., “Another student made sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks about/to you?”], and sexual rumors [e.g., “Another student spread sexual rumors about you?”]). Six items assessing sexual assault and physical dating violence were drawn from Cook-Craig et al. (2014) and the Youth Risk and Behavior Survey (YRBS; e.g., “Another student had sexual activities with you although you did not really want to because either the student threatened to end your friendship or romantic relationship if you didn’t or you felt pressured by the student's constant arguments or begging?”; “Someone you were dating or going out with physically hurt you on purpose [count such things as being hit, slammed into something, or injured with an object or weapon]?”). Lastly, two items assessed homophobic and racial bullying (e.g., “Another student bullied or had someone be mean to you because of your race/ethnicity/skin color?”) and aggravated sexting victimization (e.g., “Another student threatened to share or actually shared a naked or nearly naked photo of you that you did not want shared [including by texting, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook or other way of sharing]?”). We used all items listed above to create two dichotomous variables to assess whether a student reported any victimization and any perpetration. Youths’ responses to the measures were recoded into 1 = yes, 0 = no for each form of violence victimization and perpetration.
Data Analysis Plan
A series of eight binary logistics regression models were used to test the association between the presence of an important adult and each of the victimization and perpetration variables (i.e., any, bullying, harassment, sexual and dating violence victimization/perpetration), controlling for socio-demographics (i.e., sex, age, race, ethnicity). In addition, because the data for the paper came from a larger, quasi-experimental program evaluation study, we also controlled for participant attendance at any event related to the program. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, significance was determined at the relatively conservative p < .01 level.
Results
Rates of Adolescent Interpersonal Violence Victimization and Perpetration.
Note. We present valid percentages; because some students selected “I decline to answer,” numbers do necessarily add to the total N.
Predicting Victimization and Perpetration Outcomes.
Note. CI = Confidence interval. Important adult: 1 = presence of an important adult; 0 = no important adult. In the logistic regressions, we controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and program event attendance.
Regarding AIV perpetration, youth who reported having an important adult had significantly lower likelihood of reporting any perpetration, bullying perpetration, and harassment perpetration than did youth who did not have an important adult (Table 2). The odds of reporting any perpetration for youth with an important adult were 35% less than the odds for youth without an important adult. The odds of reporting bullying perpetration for youth with an important adult were 43% less than the odds for youth without an important adult. Finally, the odds of reporting harassment perpetration for youth with an important adult were 40% less than the odds for youth without an important adult. The association between the presence of an important adult and sexual and dating violence perpetration was not statistically significant.
Discussion
The results of the present paper suggest that youth relationships with important adults can serve as a protective factor against some forms of AIV victimization and perpetration. The findings correspond to research showing that the presence of an important adult is associated with decreases in adolescents’ risky behaviors including aggression and hurting others in a physical fight (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005b; Tolan et al., 2008, 2014), but the first to document these associations specific to AIV. Findings revealed that relationships with important adults are associated with decreased odds of reporting AIV victimization and perpetration, in particular bullying and sexual harassment. Given the findings, practitioners and researchers should continue to find ways to connect youth to important adults as part of peer violence prevention. This strategy is consistent with the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions’ technical package to prevent youth violence, which includes connecting youth to caring adults as a prevention strategy (David-Ferdon et al., 2016). Such programs may include family-based programs that improve connections between youth and the adults in their family of origin (e.g., Strengthening Families Program; Kumpfer & Magalhães, 2018), or formal mentoring programs that create connections between youth and adults in the community (e.g., Big Brothers Big Sisters; DuBois et al., 2011).
Unlike bullying and sexual harassment, sexual and dating violence were not significantly associated with the presence of an important adult. Given that few youth in the study reported sexual and dating violence victimization and perpetration, our power to find such effects may have been limited. It is also possible that as youth age, and experiences of sexual and dating violence increase (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019), peers have a greater impact than adults in shaping attitudes and behaviors specific to these forms of violence (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004).
The results of this study are limited due to the single-item question used to assess the presence of a significant, important adult in youths’ lives, although similar single items have been used in previous research (Harris et al., 2009). Nevertheless, this is the first study to examine the relationship between important adults and various forms of AIV victimization and perpetration among youth. Another limitation is that we did not collect information on the details of the relationship (e.g., relationship length, perceptions of support, the extent to which the important adult modeled healthy relationships and behaviors for youth) and the sample was not particularly diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, which is an important avenue for future research. Further, we did not measure, in the current study, the potential mechanisms through which important adults may reduce risk for some forms of AIV victimization and perpetration, which represents a critical area for future research.
Despite the limitations of the current study, there are several important implications for practice. Primary and secondary prevention programs should be designed to specifically target adolescent’s relationships with important adults, help connect youth with important adults, and engage adults in training to help promote attitudinal and behavioral shifts in the adolescents they support to promote AIV prevention. Even in the absence of formal programs, it is important to find ways to provide adults brief psychoeducational information about the role that they can play in helping to prevent AIV and promote positive youth development as well as strategies on how to effectively form and maintain such relationships. In all, the current study supports calls in the literature to enhance youths’ connection to important adults as a protective factor against AIV.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We owe a great deal of gratitude to our school and community partners and project staff. Without these individuals, this project would not have been possible.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Grant #U01-CEO02838.
