2015 Association for Women in Psychology Conference

Research shows that dating and sexual violence are prevalent problems that affects the lives of many adolescents, (e.g. Johnson et al., 2006 Haglund, Belknap, Garcia, 2012; Fredland, Ricardo, Campbell, Sharps, Kup, Yonas, 2008; Prospero, 2006; Reeves & Orpinas, 2012). Thus there is a need for research regarding dating and sexual violence prevention and intervention for adolescent populations. However, little research exists on adolescent reactions to participating in dating and sexual violence research. The research that does exist primarily examines survey reactions rather than reactions to participating in focus groups which are becoming more commonly used and could result in different reactions. The present study used a sample of high school youth (N=218) and a mixed methodology to examine high school students reactions to participating in focus groups and surveys that asked about dating and sexual violence style intimate partner violence research. Data analyses yielded that 1.5% (n= 3) of youth regretted participating in the study and 6% (n= 12) of students were upset by the study questions. Youth reported that reasons they upset were primarily related to personal experiences with dating and sexual violence and being disturbed by peers’ responses during the focus group. Despite a few youth being upset 49% (n=99) of youth reported feeling like they personally benefited from participating in the study for reasons such as learning ways to help friends in situations of dating and sexual violence and gaining an increased sense of community. Results offer implications for conducting future mixed methodological research on dating and sexual violence with youth.

Objective: There is a lack of research examining legislators’ attitudes towards and knowledge about domestic violence (DV) and sexual violence (SV) as well as their intended support of progressive DV and SV policies. The researchers used a mixed methodological design to examine this gap in the literature. Method: The sample included 76 legislators from New Hampshire who completed a survey with both close-ended and open-ended questions. Results: Legislators generally disagreed with DV and SV myths and expressed intended support for the majority of progressive DV and SV policies; however, the most legislators provided inaccurate local estimates of the prevalence of DV and SV. Associations among myths, knowledge, support for progressive policies, and demographic variables were mostly non-significant with the following exceptions: higher educational attainment was related to less DV myths; democrats endorsed more progressive policies and less DV myths than republicans; and accurate estimate of DV prevalence for women related to progressive policy endorsement. Content analysis of qualitative data identified the primary reasons for non-support of progressive DV and SV policies to be the belief the policies would do nothing to improve the issue and the belief that individual freedom should trump government mandates. Conclusion: Results suggest that educational and structural efforts are needed to increase local knowledge about DV and SV among legislators and address other barriers to supporting progressive DV and SV policies; research should rigorously evaluate the impact of such efforts.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a substantial public health problem in the United States: over 1.3 million women are physically assaulted by a romantic partner each year, and between 25 and 33% of women will be physically assaulted by a romantic partner in her lifetime. Women exposed to IPV are at risk for a wide range of physical and mental health consequences, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Recent research has highlighted the importance of a flexible and victim-centered approach to IPV victim advocacy and support, rather than a “one size fits all” response that may not meet the specific needs of each woman. Studies have utilized person-oriented methods such as latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroups of individuals who share similar patterns of PTSD symptom endorsement, but further study is needed among women exposed to IPV. By identifying latent subgroups, LPA may provide an empirical basis for practitioners to design and implement PTSD intervention efforts that are tailored to specific symptom profiles. In a sample of women exposed to police-reported IPV (N = 229), we identified five latent classes of PTSD symptom profiles stratified by symptom severity. Multinomial logistic regression models examined associations between latent classes and contextual variables (socioeconomic status, financial dependence, social support, prior trauma exposure, and arrest incident severity) and trauma appraisals (alienation, fear, and self-blame). The strongest independent predictors of PTSD latent profile membership were IPV-related trauma appraisals. Alienation and fear appraisals were consistently associated with increased likelihood of belonging to more symptomatic classes. We found a quadratic relationship between increased self-blame appraisals and PTSD symptom profile. Arrest incident severity was also independently associated with PTSD latent profile membership. These findings suggest the need for careful consideration of differences among IPV-exposed women within the larger context of PTSD research and clinical intervention.