Considering Gender in Intimate Partner Violence Prevention for Youth

Considering Gender in Intimate Partner Violence

Prevention for Youth

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

In the United States, Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) estimated that 25% of women

were victims of violence perpetrated by their intimate partners, making intimate partner

violence (IPV) an urgent public health concern (Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention [CDC], 2015). In contrast to women, Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) reported

7.6% of males were victims of IPV, and Eckhardt, Samper, Suhr, and HoltzworthMunroe

(2012) reported more were likely compared to women to perpetrate such violence,

illustrating the gendered nature of this problem. In response to this crisis, leaders have

implemented numerous programs involving education as a response to aggression

between partners. Due to insights from the literature regarding the commonality of

aggression in adolescent relationships, creators have aimed many programs at

adolescents; these programs have involved three main approaches: (a) school

interventions, (b) family-based interventions targeted at high risk adolescents, and (c)

group-based interventions targeted toward high risk youth (National Institute of Justice,

2014).

However, few researchers have investigated the differences between adolescent

males and females in their receptivity to programs aimed at preventing intimate partner

violence, as well as the particular components of the program related to gendered

reactions to these components. The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative,

case study on the Love Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints

of the counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw

improvements among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge

of ways the program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness);

and to determine suggestions for future practices. I ascertained whether certain

components of the program were more effective compared to others, as perceived by the

leaders of the program who worked closely with these adolescents, and whether

effectiveness correlated with gender-specific content and gender of the students by

interviewing these leaders. This study expanded knowledge presented in existing

literature by utilizing these professionals’ valuable observations and knowledge of the

program to understand the methods used in the program that helps this vulnerable

population. Separating the effective components of such programs from ineffective ones

might improve the effectiveness of such programs, and therefore could be linked to the

norms and ultimate behavior exhibited in intimate partner relationships.

The severity of intimate partner violence includes repercussions, such as

homelessness, psychological problems, unhealthy relationship patterns, physical injuries,

and even death (Temple, Le, Muir, Goforth, & McElhany, 2013). Therefore, any attempt

aimed at improving efforts to prevent this problem was necessary and could cause

positive social change. In this chapter, the background surrounding IPV is discussed,

followed by the problem of focus, the purpose of the current study, and research

questions. Next, the theoretical framework (social learning and feminist theories) is

described, followed by the nature of the study, definitions of terms used, assumptions, the

scope, and delimitations of the present study. Chapter 1 then concludes with a discussion

of the limitations, significance, and an overall summary of the chapter.

Background

Women and men, yet significantly fewer men, are often victims of violence from

their intimate partners. The CDC (2015) defined IPV as harm of a sexual, physical, or

psychological nature inflicted by a current or previous intimate partner. Cornelius and

Resseguie (2007), Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Capaldi (2012), and O’Leary and Slep

(2012) stipulated the many controversies and inconsistencies regarding gender in IPV

research and prevention. Brown, Bowen, Brown, and Sleath (2015) found that most

school-based programs derived from feminist and social cognitive theory; however, these

programs varied greatly in content, duration, delivery styles, training, and overall rigor,

thereby urging the need for more comprehensive research on the influence of IPV

programs assisting victims.

Due to the pressing concern of IPV and its effect on society, leaders have

implemented numerous programs involving education as a response to aggression

between partners. Foshee et al. (2004); Temple et al. (2013); and Whitaker, Murphy,

Eckhardt, Hodges, and Cowart (2013) provided evidence that leadership employed

effective comprehensive, school-, and community-based IPV prevention programs to

prevent IPV among youth. However, Edwards and Hinsz (2014) found that the

multicomponent nature of most school-based programs and the lack of a clear operational

definition found in these programs made program evaluation difficult. Whitaker et al.

(2013) noted that many researchers who studied comprehensive, multicomponent

programs did not investigate the efficacy of specific elements. Therefore, this study

expanded the knowledge presented in existing literature by utilizing the teachers’ or

counselors’ valuable observations and knowledge of the program to understand the

methods used in the program that helped this vulnerable population.

Problem Statement

The CDC (2015) acknowledged IPV as a pressing public health concern. The

CDC (2015) defined IPV as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or

former partner or spouse” (p. 1). Moreover, adolescent victims of IPV are at risk of

suicidal ideation, substance use, risky sexual behavior, teen pregnancy, disordered eating,

and injury, which can lead to poorer academic performance, relationship problems, and

being revictimized by or perpetrating IPV later in life (Temple et al., 2013). According to

Eckhardt et al. (2013), many researchers discovered “significant increases in safety

behaviors” (p. 196) from adults who participated in IPV programs; however, these results

contrasted with a lack of “enhanced use of community resources” (p. 196) and failed to

acknowledge any adolescent IPV programs. Moreover, researchers have also shown that

adolescent males have reacted to IPV in a more violent manner and may have turned to

IPV themselves in older age; hence, this evidence has lent necessity to exploring an IPV

program that has specifically helped male adolescent victims of IPV (Eckhardt et al.,

2012).

To influence these negative, reactive traits that male adolescents have or may

express in the future from IPV experiences, leadership (e.g., counselors, administrators,

and teachers) have implemented adolescent IPV programs at schools to provide beneficial

support to these suffering students. Researchers have proven that male adolescents

usually express these negative, reactive traits (Eckhardt et al., 2012) and that IPV

programs seem beneficial to the adult population (Eckhardt et al., 2013). However, I

intended to conduct a case study of the perceptions of counselors, teachers, and

administrators who led the all-male, adolescent IPV program of Love Doesn’t Hurt, about

ways IPV programs assisted these adolescent males to cope with IPV.

Some comprehensive and multifaceted school-based programs have helped

prevent IPV (Edwards & Hinsz, 2014; Temple et al., 2013; Whitaker et al., 2013). The

Love Doesn’t Hurt program equates to one of these IPV programs, which

counselors/teachers have implemented across the state of Kansas in middle and high

schools (Jana’s Campaign, 2015). Other programs tended to vary in content, duration,

delivery styles, training, and overall rigor, making evaluation difficult (Bowen & Walker,

2015; Edwards & Hinsz, 2014; Whitaker et al., 2013); however, the Love Doesn’t Hurt

program ran on a strict curriculum that occurs over a 12 week period. Thus, I focused on

this program and its strict guidelines (e.g., timeline) to control for many of the variations

suffered in other evaluations.

Controversies also exist regarding gender in terms of defining IPV and prevention

approaches (Bowen & Walker, 2015; Ross & Babcock, 2010). Researchers found that

males reacted negatively to a gender-specific, adolescent IPV prevention program

(Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007); however, little else was known regarding IPV prevention

programs and ways these actually assisted adolescent males experiencing IPV, especially

from the viewpoints of the professionals who worked closely with this vulnerable

population. For example, according to the Love Doesn’t Hurt Program’s website:

We utilize evidence-based prevention strategies and practices that illustrate the

greatest impact. Our educational programs are designed to raise awareness, reduce

risk factors while supporting protective measures, engage bystanders, promote

healthy and respectful relationships, and encourage the development of new social

norms. (Jana’s Campaign, 2015, para 4)

Despite this claim, no researchers focused on Love Doesn’t Hurt, the methods

used by this specific program, and the effectiveness of this intervention tactic amongst

this vulnerable population, especially through interviewing leadership who facilitated and

implemented the program. Therefore, I intended to conduct a qualitative, case study of

Love Doesn’t Hurt to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements

seemed influential or problematic by interviewing the counselors/teachers associated with

the program to understand their perceptions of the effectiveness of the program. Their

perceptions expanded knowledge by utilizing valuable observations and knowledge of the

program and its students to extend the assessment to ways the program worked for male

adolescents in Love Doesn’t Hurt. Their interviews also opened the conversation among

these professionals, who had not previously been interviewed about the validity and

quality of their program; researchers tended to focus on the victims themselves and not

the implementers of such programs.

I sought to interview these counselors/teachers because they represented the

leaders in the program. They had adult perceptions and emotional detachment, which the

victims might lack, which they could add to existing literature (see Cater & Øverlien,

2014). The literature contained investigations that directly studied adolescent or parental

victims’ viewpoints only, avoiding the detached opinions of those working with them

(see Cater & Øverlien, 2014). The emotions that might have derived from victims

discussing IPV might have hindered previous researchers who interviewed this vulnerable

population (e.g., Feeny, Juniper, Ferrie, Griffith, & Guyatt, 1998).

IPV represented a sensitive subject; therefore, directly interviewing the

adolescents in Love Doesn’t Hurt might pose an issue (see Feeny et al., 1998). Their

young minds might not allow them to feel comfortable or express honesty when

answering questions about whether the program assisted them or would assist them in the

future (Feeny et al., 1998). Hence, I chose to only interview adult counselors/teachers

associated with the program to protect this vulnerable population and obtain professional

opinions regarding the effectiveness of the program. The intention of this study was to

conduct a qualitative, case study of counselors/teachers, who facilitated and implemented

all program activities, to (a) add to existing literature on IPV programs that interviewed

only victims and avoided professional opinions; (b) avoid any bias in the results deriving

from emotional reactions; (c) obtain their rarely sought after viewpoints; and (d) avoid

any ethical issues that might arise from interviewing a vulnerable population, such as

adolescent males exposed to IPV.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative, case study on the Love

Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints of the

counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw improvements

among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge of ways the

program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness); and to

determine suggestions for future practices. This study expanded knowledge presented in

existing literature by utilizing these professionals’ valuable observations and knowledge

of the program to understand the methods used in the program that helped this vulnerable

population.

Case study researchers expand existing knowledge by observing a specific case,

such as the Love Doesn’t Hurt Program, to add to already existing literature to broaden

available information on a given subject, such as determining effectiveness of

genderbased IPV programs by interviewing professionals who lead these programs (see

Yin,

2015). The Love Doesn’t Hurt program and similar programs represent new, widespread

phenomena occurring in over 100 schools in Kansas. Few researchers have interviewed

professionals associated with such programs, as previous researchers have usually

focused on victim interviews (Eckhardt et al., 2013; Izaguirre & Calvete, 2015; Pernebo

& Almqvist, 2016). Thus, a gap existed in the literature regarding counselors/teachers’

perceptions, who implemented an adolescent, gender-specific IPV program, to obtain

their professional opinions about the effectiveness of methods used in the program. To

address this gap, I conducted a qualitative, case study. The rationale for this choice was

that this study’s purpose was to interview counselors/teachers in a specific program, Love

Doesn’t Hurt, to determine their professional opinions about the effectiveness of methods

used in gender-based, IPV programs on this vulnerable population of students.

Additionally, I examined the effectiveness of the program by discussing the methods

used in the program by leadership, evaluating their perceptions of the efficacy of the

various stages of the curriculum, collecting their observations of how reactions to those

elements differ between genders, and studying concepts fundamentally qualitative in

nature. Izaguirre and Calvete (2015) and Pernebo and Almqvist (2016) studied IPV

programs but only interviewed victims of IPV who participated in the program; hence,

these researchers did not include opinions from the professionals who facilitated and

implemented such programs. To address this gap, I interviewed the leaders (i.e.,

counselors or teachers) who implemented an IPV program for male youth to develop an

understanding of the effectiveness of various program components through their

professional, detached insight on this vulnerable population.

Research Questions

RQ. What experiences and reactions do Kansas middle school students have

while participating in the Love Doesn’t Hurt program?

SQ1. Do students seem to be changing their knowledge, skills, or attitudes related

to IPV?

SQ2. Does the gender-specific component of this program affect the students

who participate positively?

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation for this study was social learning (Bandura, 1969; Lee,

Reese-Weber, & Kahn, 2014; Mihalic & Elliott, 1997) and feminist theory (Bowen,

2011; Pence & Paymar, 1993). Bandura’s (1969) social learning theory was one of the

primary frameworks in understanding and preventing IPV. Mihalic and Elliott (1997)

maintained, “Violence is learned, through role models provided by the family. . . as a

coping response to stress or a method of conflict resolution” (p. 21). Researchers could

apply Bandura’s (1969) theory to understanding how helpers in programs could model

positive behaviors to prevent interpersonal violence. According to Bandura (1969), “The

provision of social models is . . . an indispensable means of transmitting and modifying

behavior in situations where errors are likely to produce costly or fatal consequences” (p.

213).

Feminist theorists view IPV as fundamentally a product of sexism and patriarchy

(Bowen, 2011). I used the feminist theory to inform this study. Pence and Paymar (1993)

first applied feminist theory to domestic violence. In their framework, the goal of

treatment was to teach men how to change behaviors and values that reinforced

patriarchal privilege and power (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Social learning and feminist

theory represented the foundations of most school-based IPV prevention programs

(Whitaker et al., 2013); thus, I used these theories to guide this case study to evaluate

counselors’/teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of a gender-based, adolescent IPV

program on this vulnerable population of students related to preventing IPV. The

theoretical framework is discussed in Chapter 2.

Nature of the Study

The nature of this study was a qualitative case study. Such an approach was best

when the researcher sought to understand a specific object, program, or issue (Yin, 2015);

in this study, the specific issue included studying a gender-based, adolescent IPV

program, Love Doesn’t Hurt, through the viewpoints of those who facilitated and

implemented the program (i.e., teachers/counselors). Case study research is appropriate

when the researcher wishes to obtain an in-depth understanding of how a

phenomenon/experience influences, has influenced, or has brought about significant

change in a group (Yin, 2015). The case study methodology allows for the collection of

rich, detailed, and nuanced data from multiple perspectives (Yin, 2015). To elucidate how

students experienced and responded to Love Doesn’t Hurt, I conducted unstructured

interviews with those who facilitated and implemented Love Doesn’t Hurt regarding their

perceptions of the effectiveness of this program among such a vulnerable population.

Definitions

Feminist theory: Bowen (2011) defined feminist theory as focusing on the link

between intimate partner violence, patriarchy, and sexism. The link is relevant to IPV

prevention programs. For example, components of the program teaches males ways they

can counteract values and behaviors that bolster patriarchal privileges and power

dynamics (Pence & Paymar, 1993).

Gender: Gender refers to the cultural, behavioral, and psychological

characteristics associated with a particular sex (Helgeson, 2016).

Intimate partner: An intimate partner refers to “a current or former partner or

spouse” (CDC, 2015, para. 2).

Intimate partner violence: The CDC (2015) defined IPV as physical,

psychological, and/or sexual harm perpetrated by a current/prior spouse or partner.

Love Doesn’t Hurt program: The Love Doesn’t Hurt program is an intimate

violence prevention program targeted toward middle school and high school students in

Kansas. This program involves three main components in its educational strategies aimed

at the prevention of teen dating violence: (a) the self, involving self-awareness and

reflection; (b) peers, involving the recognition of relationship “red flags;” and (c) the

community, which is aimed at social change (Jana’s Campaign, 2015).

Patriarchy: Patriarchy refers to the disproportionate control of power by men in a

society (Messerschmidt & Messner, 2018).

Sexism: Sexism refers to sex-based prejudice and/or discrimination, particularly

against women, and involves behavior, attitudes and/or conditions that foster sex-based

stereotypes and normative perceptions of social roles (Sloan, 2017).

Social learning theory: Social learning theory is a theoretical framework that

focuses on the role of observational learning on behavior (Bandura, 1969). Bandura

(1969) defined the process of social learning as involving observation and recreation of

behavior; for example, individuals exposed to violence are more likely to engage in

violence themselves.

Assumptions

One assumption in the study was that the perceptions of the program

administrators and educators generally would reflect the behavior of children in the

classroom in response to the Love Doesn’t Hurt campaign. The perceptions of the

students might differ from the perceptions of educators and program administrators;

however, I assumed that significant insights could still be gained based on their

interactions with and observations of students who participated in the Love Doesn’t Hurt

program. In addition, although actual behavior related to IPV was not a part of the study,

I assumed that the behaviors and attitudes exhibited by students when discussing IPV

indicated their actual behaviors. These assumptions were necessary because it was

difficult to observe actual behavior relating to intimate partner violence, due to it

commonly occurring in private. These assumptions were also necessary because this was

not a longitudinal study over many years that could measure actual intimate partner

violence-related behavior.

Scope and Delimitations

In exploring the impact of IPV programs aimed at adolescents, I chose a single

program for evaluation due to its recent proliferation in Kansas. Education regarding IPV

was difficult to explore if approached generally (rather than focusing on a specific

program); thus, I chose a single program to study. Therefore, the results of this research

were most applicable to the Love Doesn’t Hurt campaign. I sought to evaluate the

impacts of this specific program on adolescents’ values, attitudes, and behaviors relating

to IPV, as observed by program administrators and educators; I also focused on the

gender differences in reactions to components of the Love Doesn’t Hurt program. This

approach to the problem of IPV was taken because O’Leary and Slep (2012)

demonstrated that IPV as manifested in adolescents differed from that of adults, and

Cornelius and Resseguie (2007) found gender-specific prevention programs might

negatively influence males involved in the program. Therefore, I focused on studying

adolescents (middle and high school students) through perceptions/observations of

program administrators and educators.

Due to the focus on adolescents, it would be difficult to generalize the findings of

this study to adults. In addition, due to this research occurring in the United States, it

would be difficult to generalize the findings of this study to developing countries where

different patterns of gender relations and gender violence might be exhibited in

adolescents. I excluded two relevant theories from this analysis: the evolutionary theory

of male aggression against females (Muller & Wrangham, 2009) and Bronfenbrenner’s

(1992) ecological systems theory. The evolutionary theorist focuses on evolutionary

reasons that drive male violence against females (Muller & Wrangham, 2009). However,

I did not use the evolutionary theory because the purpose of this study was not to explain

the behavior but to determine the impact of an IPV program on adolescents. The reason

for excluding Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) ecological systems theory, which explained

behavior due to multi-level influences (e.g., at the individual, familial, community, and

societal levels), was due to the purpose of the study focusing on the impacts of the Love

Doesn’t Hurt program on adolescents rather than an explanation of intimate partner

violence, which was investigated in the literature.

Limitations

To meet the goals of this study, I employed open-ended, unstructured interviews

at specific time intervals with teachers, school administrators, and community advisors

involved in teaching and delivering Love Doesn’t Hurt in schools and communities

throughout Kansas. Because of the limited sample size (20 to 30 participants), as well as

limitations associated with qualitative research, care was taken when transferring the

results of the current study to other populations (e.g., adults) in other geographical

locations with cultural differences (e.g., developing countries or countries with laws that

systematically targeted women and protected perpetrators of violence).

Due to the nature of qualitative research, the results of the current study could not

answer questions regarding how many adolescents were generally receptive to such

programs in a given population. Qualitative researchers might struggle to find

commonalities across interviews due to the open-ended nature of the interview questions;

however, this approach reduced my influence (and associated biases related to leading

questions and existing beliefs) by allowing the interviewees to discuss their perceptions

freely of the issue at hand.

Significance

I interviewed the leaders of the Love Doesn’t Hurt program to improve the

understanding of the effectiveness of these gender-based, IPV intervention programs by

obtaining their detached and professional opinions. These counselors/teachers knew their

students best and provided a more detached, unemotional, and professional view of the

effectiveness of such a program, which remained previously unstudied in the literature

(see Izaguirre & Calvete, 2015; Pernebo & Almqvist, 2016). These participants

represented the leaders of the program; therefore, the present work was designed to

understand their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the program because they

established the program and worked closely with this vulnerable population.

These program implementers noticed issues with the students that even the

students did not notice or might feel too emotional to express properly, especially when

addressing such a sensitive subject matter as IPV (see Eckhardt et al., 2012, 2013; Feeny

et al., 1998). Many people who have experienced IPV feel uncomfortable answering

questions that may cause unwanted, negative memories to arise (Eckhardt et al., 2012,

2013; Edwards & Hinsz, 2014; Feeny et al., 1998). Consequently, conducting a study on

those (i.e., counselors, teachers, and administrators) who have a more removed and

professional opinion about the subject yet remain closely involved with the victims added

insight into the effectiveness of these IPV programs that prior researchers did not explore.

This study was unique in terms of interviewing the leaders of the program to

understand the efficacy of specific program components involved in a gender-based, IPV

program. To date, little research focused on the relative efficacy of the specific

components within comprehensive, gender-specific, and school-based IPV prevention

programs for adolescents, especially from the viewpoints of those professionals who

implemented such programs (Edwards & Hinsz, 2014; Whitaker et al., 2013).

Researchers suggested that adolescent IPV exhibits gender patterns of perpetration and

abuse that varied from adults (O’Leary & Slep, 2012) and gender-specific prevention

might have negative impacts on male learners (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007). The Love

Doesn’t Hurt program’s implementers claimed the opposite remains true (Jana’s

Campaign, 2015). Hence, insights from this study could inform the design and evaluation

of future adolescent IPV prevention programs in ways that addressed gender issues in a

more nuanced fashion to improve program effectiveness. Moreover, the findings could

add insights into whether leadership perceive effectiveness in their program associated

with the gender-specificity of implementation in this school-based IPV program.

Eckhardt et al. (2013) extensively studied IPV programs and the effectiveness of

these programs; however, even these researchers failed to include any professional

opinions of those closely working in the program with the victims. Eckhardt et al. (2013)

determined, “Several studies have found significant increases in safety behaviors, but

enhanced use of community resources is often not found” (p. 196). Despite this finding,

they could not determine why the situation occurred; hence, the findings might explain

why or why not such a program was effective through interviewing professionals who

had working knowledge of the program and the vulnerable population in the program.

This new approach might lend understanding of the effectiveness behind conducting

adolescent, gender-based IPV programs that previous research did not establish, which

might encourage more school leaders to implement such programs.

Summary

As discussed in this chapter, the focus of the current study was an evaluation of

the impacts of the Love Doesn’t Hurt campaign on adolescents who participated in the

program. In particular, the purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative, case study

on the Love Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints of the

counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw improvements

among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge of ways the

program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness); and to

determine suggestions for future practices. Understanding which components of the

program were effective in reaching their goals, as well as aspects of the program that

were counter-productive, enabled a better understanding of similar programs targeting

IPV, as well as ways these programs could be made more effective. The findings showed

why or why not such a program was effective through interviewing professionals who

had working knowledge of the program and the vulnerable population in the program.

This new approach might lend effectiveness levels to conducting adolescent, genderbased

IPV programs that previous research did not establish, which might encourage more

schools to implement such programs. In Chapter 2, the relevant literature is outlined to

inform the efforts of the current study, and Chapter 3 describes the methodology.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

IPV is a pressing public health concern (CDC, 2015). There are controversies

regarding gender in terms of defining IPV and prevention approaches (Bowen & Walker,

2015; Ross & Babcock, 2010). The premise is that males, particularly adolescent males,

may often be predisposed to commit IPV or be more likely to commit IPV compared to

females (Eckhardt et al., 2012). However, this predisposition may be more due to

upbringing and inculcated cultural values than any inherent male violent tendencies

(Theobald & Farrington, 2012). However, Dutton (2012a) disputed the traditional view of

gender in the cases of IPV. Dutton (2012a) conducted a series of longitudinal studies and

found that gender had only weak correlations with the phenomenon of IPV. Due to these

discrepancies, I believed that while there was little scholarly consensus on whether males

were more predisposed to IPV than females, the two genders probably did react

differently to situations that could produce cases of IPV. This study expanded knowledge

presented in existing literature by utilizing these professionals’ valuable observations and

knowledge of the program to understand the methods used in the program that helped this

vulnerable population.

The first section of the literature review provides an introduction to the chosen

theoretical framework. I used the framework of social learning theory, developed by

Bandura (1969), and feminist theory, first applied to IPV by Pence and Paymar (1993).

Social learning theorists have posited that children learn behaviors by observing the

behaviors and actions of their parents and others (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). Feminist

theorists, or the feminist model, have viewed IPV as fundamentally from a woman’s

unequal position within sexist and patriarchal societies (Pence & Paymar, 1993). This

section also discussed the rationale for choosing these theories for the present research.

The second section provided an exhaustive review of relevant studies, which are

organized in categories, progressing from general themes to the specific research problem

studied. In this process, three major sections are discussed: intimate partner violence and

its causes, prevention programs, and gender issues related to IPV. The third section of the

chapter focuses on the gap in the literature based on the reviewed literature and the need

for conducting the present study. Finally, the review ends with a summary of the findings

of the chapter.

I used the following databases to conduct a search for studies related to the topic:

Google Scholar, Science Direct, Taylor and Francis, PubMed, Educational Resource

Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, and JSTOR. To carry out the search for relevant

literature, I used the following search terms: intimate partner violence, dating violence,

intimate partner violence and gender, and domestic violence prevention programs. The

use of these keywords, either individually or in combination, yielded relevant studies

from the preceding databases. Those deemed relevant to the present study were included

in the literature review.

Out of the literature included in this chapter, most studies were taken from those

published in and from 2012 to 2015 to ensure only the latest and most relevant

developments and insights were included in the review. However, a number of older

studies were used to add foundational studies on the theoretical framework of the present

research alone with other seminal studies on the topic of research. The total percentage of

studies published before 2012 formed 9.20%. The total percentage of studies published in

and after 2012 formed 90.80% of the whole reviewed literature.

Theoretical Framework

The chosen theoretical framework for conducting the present study comprised of

two theories: social learning theory, developed by Bandura (1969); and feminist theory,

first applied to IPV by Pence and Paymar (1993). The problem that the present study

addressed had a number of constructs that became significant based on these theories.

The first was the extent to which males and females differed in their predisposition to

commit IPV, if any. The second was the extent to which upbringing and inculcated values

mattered in this regard. Feminist theorists have viewed IPV as fundamentally due to

women’s unequal position within sexist and patriarchal societies (Pence & Paymar,

1993). Thus, the theory was significant in relation to the former construct. Social learning

theorists have posited that children have learned behaviors by observing the behaviors

and actions of parents and others (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). Thus, this theory was

significant in relation to the latter construct. The present section provides an overview of

these two theories, focusing on the origin and development, while showing the rationale

for choosing these theories to form the theoretical framework for the present study.

Social Learning Theory

Bandura (1969) developed the social learning theory, which researchers later

defined as one of the most significant frameworks for exploring IPV, as well as for

preventing IPV. According to this theory, violence is a learned behavior, which enters the

life of an individual through his or her authority figures in the family, as well as role

models (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Shafer & Silverman, 2013). This trait is learned by the

individual from these role models and interpreted as a mechanism for responding to

stress, as well as for bringing resolution to conflicts (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). According

to Rutherford-Hemming (2012), researchers can use this theory to examine how

prevention program helpers create affirmative behaviors to stop the occurrence of

violence between individuals.

Bandura (1969) noted that a social model could prove the most significant

medium regarding influencing and changing behaviors in situations where, as in the cases

of IPV, mistakes could result in fatal or risky consequences. As a social model, social

learning theory becomes an important tool in a study exploring an interpersonal issue

(e.g., IPV, as in the present study). Further, I sought to conceive the extent to which

upbringing and inculcated values mattered in this regard. As these were social constructs,

learned most significantly from the family, especially role models and authority figures,

the significance of social learning theory in the context of the present study was

established. The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative, case study on the

Love Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints of the

counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw improvements

among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge of ways the

program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness); and to

determine suggestions for future practices. Hence, one construct, the extent to which

upbringing and inculcated values matter in this regard, was an important theme to study

from the perspective of social learning theory, based on the insights found so far.

Therefore, the significance of the social learning theory in the context of the present study

was established.

Social learning theory was built on the basis of works conducted in the field of

sociology and psychology (Bingham & Conner, 2015). Building on these works, Bandura

(1969) noted that it would be extremely hard, as well as dangerous, to build behavior

based only on negative and known behaviors as sources of guidance. However, Bingham

and Conner (2015) posited that individuals could learn despite the difficulties presented.

Bandura (1969) pointed out that most behavior was learned through observation

(Bingham & Conner, 2015). The basic tenant of Bandura’s (1969) social learning theory

is that individual behaviors are results of and are continued through a person’s interaction

with the environment to which he or she is exposed (Grusec & Lytton, 1988). Further, the

psychological framework of an individual stems from a constant two-way interaction

between functions of the environment and of the individual. According to social learning

theory, almost all behavior related to learning in an individual is due to observing the

behavior of people and its impact on an individual (Rutherford-Hemming, 2012).

According to social learning theory, despite that human behavior is highly influenced by

the environment that people find themselves in, there is a capacity in people to modify

their behaviors, as well as their perceptions (Rutherford-Hemming, 2012). For instance,

victims of bullying can change their actions by modifying their thought patterns about

their actions (Rutherford-Hemming, 2012).

These insights were important in the context of the present study in two ways.

First, as social learning theory asserted that behavior was learned through environment, it

helped in understanding one of the themes the present study was concerned with: the

extent to which upbringing and inculcated values mattered in IPV-related behavior

among males and females. The goal of the dissertation was to conduct an exploratory

study of “Love Doesn’t Hurt” to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program

elements were particularly impactful or problematic, specifically in relation to gender

considerations and how male and female students might respond differently to the various

components. The different upbringing that males and females were exposed to, along

with the installation of different values in terms of gender in them, could be understood

through social learning theory; males and females were brought up with different values

and expectations. What was tolerable for one was unacceptable for the other, and vice

versa; these behaviors were observed by the individuals in their family and through their

role models. Thus, social learning played a significant part in understanding the

feasibility of studying which program elements were particularly impactful or

problematic.

Secondly, the social learning theory asserted that although the behavior of an

individual derived from his or her environment, he or she could change said behavior by

modifying thoughts and perceptions. Therefore, this theory indicated that cases of IPV

could also be prevented through the same method. One of the most important assertions

of social learning theory was that it was impossible to study either environment or

thought in isolation to each other (Rodela, 2013). Both were interconnected; hence, a

productive discussion must consider both (Brauer & Tittle, 2012; Rosenthal, 2014). The

goal of the present study was to provide insights to strengthen the IPV prevention

programs. Hence, based on insights found from the present study, with social learning

theory as part of the theoretical framework, important recommendations were suggested

for strengthening the IPV prevention programs.

Social learning theory presents an interaction between the behavior of an

individual, the environment, and the individual himself (Hanna, Crittenden, & Crittenden,

2013). This interaction is always reciprocal, as all influence each other (Freeman,

Mahoney, Martin, & Devito, 2004). Therefore, to understand a particular behavior, I

considered a number of factors while conducting the investigation (see Freeman et al.,

2004). I considered the upbringing of the individuals as well as the values instilled in

them through their environment, while exploring the constructs of IVP, both in terms of

its occurrence as well as in terms of its prevention.

Mihalic and Elliott (1997) described social learning theory as one of the most

significant frameworks, as well as the most famous among researchers conducting studies

on IPV. In the context of intimate partnership and family, researchers have used the

theory to assert that the behaviors of individuals are shaped by the conditions that they

were exposed to in their childhood (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). Thus, Mihalic and Elliott

(1997) viewed violence based on this theory as a learned behavior, which was learned by

the individual through family. In this regard, family includes parents, relatives, siblings,

and even romantic partners (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). As I examined constructs related to

IPV, this view of social learning theory was valuable, which made its use a part of the

theoretical framework of the present study justified.

Social learning theorists further stated that violent behavior was learned through

different sources in the family through direct and indirect means in childhood; these

continued in adulthood as a way to fight against stress and resolve conflict (Mihalic &

Elliott, 1997). The individual learns what is acceptable behavior in an intimate

relationship based on what he or she has been exposed to during childhood through the

behavior of the family member (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). Thus, seeing the father

expressing violent behavior against the mother makes the boy see this as an acceptable

behavior, which he later performs in his own relationship (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012).

The same applies to females (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012). Seeing violence as a

method of ending arguments, fighting against stressors, and expressing frustration in

parents leads the child to perform the same behavior in adulthood (Mihalic & Elliott,

1997). Consequently, children brought up in such an environment are at a higher risk of

IPV (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). This insight was important to the study as an adequate

view for analyzing IPV. The constructs of the problem that I addressed became

significant based on this theory. Thus, I used social learning theory as part of the

theoretical framework to understand the extent upbringing and inculcated values mattered

in IPV behavior, as well as its prevention among males and females.

Feminist Theory

Feminist theorists have viewed IPV as a product of sexism and patriarchy; I used

this theory to inform this study. Pence and Paymar (1993) were among the first to apply

feminist theory to domestic violence. In their framework, the goal of treatment was to

teach men how to change behaviors and values that reinforced patriarchal privilege and

power (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Pence and Paymar (1993) defined social learning and

feminist theory as the foundations of most school-based IPV prevention programs; thus, I

used the feminist theory to guide this exploratory study to evaluate how students learned

knowledge, beliefs, skills, and behaviors related to the prevention of IPV through the

implementors’ viewpoints.

Donovan (2012) defined feminist theory as a development of feminism in the

realm of theoretical studies and discussions. Donovan defined the goal of feminist theory

as exploring the concept of inequality in the realm of gender. Researchers could use

feminist theory to explore roles, duties, interests, politics, and experiences of women in

different fields, such as sociology, psychology, domestic economics, philosophy,

education, and literature (Donovan, 2012). Researchers could use the theory to analyze

the phenomenon of gender inequality (Donovan, 2012). Hence, researchers used the

theory to examine and understand related constructs, such as gender discrimination,

patriarchy, sexual and other types of objectification, art, oppression, and aesthetics

(Donovan, 2012).

Feminist theorists have analyzed the dominance of men, especially through the

norms in culture that have provided support, thus perpetuating the superiority of males

(Caldwell, Swan, & Woodbrown, 2012). Caldwell et al. (2012) defined this superiority as

existing in all types of interactions men had with women, which included intimate and

romantic relationships. Donovan (2012) stated that feminist theorists posited that women

were not born but were made. In this characterization, feminist theory mirrors social

learning theory because young girls learn how to be “feminine” by observing and

learning from female family members, who serve as their role models (Donovan, 2012).

Thus, this similarity indicated a link between the two theories, which further justified the

use of both these theories together to form the theoretical framework of the present study.

Caldwell et al. (2012) posited that the socialization of gender almost universally

provided rights to men as figures of authority over their female partners, as well as in

their families. Additionally, men are physically stronger and larger compared to women,

which ensures their higher power in matters related to women (Caldwell et al., 2012).

Caldwell et al. (2012) suggested that due to this power, women participants usually

reported higher fear of violence from their partners when compared to males. This insight

helped in understanding the cases of IPV where women were at a higher risk of becoming

a victim compared to men (Caldwell et al., 2012). Thus, feminist theory provided an

important view in exploring gender differences while examining the phenomenon of IPV,

as well as for strengthening its prevention programs. I found the feminist theory most

significant while exploring the extent, if any, to which males and females differed in their

predispositions to commit IPV. The insights found in feminist theory indicated that

women were at a higher risk of becoming victims of IPV. Further, there were social and

biological reasons behind the vulnerability of women in interpersonal relationships. As I

examined gender-based predisposition to IPV among young people, feminist theory was

an important and significant theory as a part of the theoretical framework.

Regarding aggressive behavior, research in feminist theory has indicated a number

of insights. Mardorossian (2002) noted that in feminist theory, researchers had not

focused on IPV and sexual violence. Instead, researchers have examined other issues

related to the domination of men, such as sexual harassment and pornography

(Mardorossian, 2002). Mardorossian (2002) stated that when researchers focused on IPV,

they only identified the sources, as well as its effects. Mardorossian noted that detailed

attention was lacking in this domain. Mardorossian pointed out that this lack of attention

was even more significant when considering that domestic violence increased.

I used feminist theory as a part of the theoretical framework to examine the extent

to which males and females differed in their predispositions to commit IPV. The findings

contributed insights on gender-based predispositions toward IPV among young people,

thereby making this study significant. The goal of feminist theory was to analyze

society’s viewpoints and explore deeper layers within these (Mardorossian, 2002).

Theorists can analyze societal issues by asking new questions and providing different

contexts (Mardorossian, 2002; Prati, 2012). Mardorossian (2002) suggested that feminist

theorists explored relationships in society through a self-conscious mind. Mardorossian

defined the goal as not only showing the facts but also exploring the ways these were

understood. Understanding feminist theory based on these notions, I used the theory not

only to justify its use as a part of the theoretical framework for examining IPV and its

constructs but also to contribute to research on IPV in the literature on feminist theory.

A significant theme of feminist theory relevant to the present study was

patriarchy. For instance, Wagers (2015) defined patriarchy as the notion that the primary

motives of the batterer (i.e., in cases of IPV) were based on control and power. Wagers

posited that many researchers had accepted this explanation to define the occurrence of

IPV. Likewise, Perilla, Serrata, Weinberg, and Lippy (2012) associated the perspective of

feminist theory on domestic violence with patriarchy; domestic violence was viewed as

deriving from gender inequality due to the patriarchic system of society. Perilla et al.

viewed the subordinate role of women to men as the cause of physical, psychological, and

sexual violence inflicted toward women. Perilla et al. defined this view as having historic

roots that perpetuated as beliefs in society. According to feminist theory regarding

domestic violence, men are perpetrators, and women are victims of IPV (Perilla et al.,

2012).

The views of feminist theory on domestic violence have similarities to social

learning theory. For instance, the feminist theory of domestic violence indicated that male

children learned the phenomenon of violence by seeing their male authority figures and

role models using it to show their power and keep their control over women in their

families (Perilla et al., 2012). Researchers used this idea, similar to social learning theory,

to posit that violence was a learned behavior; thus, one could unlearn the behavior

(Perilla et al., 2012). As a consequence of this belief, social learning theorists did not

accept the presence of IPV among lesbian couples (Perilla et al., 2012). However, this

issue was beyond the scope of the present study, as the participants were heterosexual. I

used the insights from the feminist theorists regarding IPV while conducting the present

study. Feminist theorists viewed domestic violence as deriving from patriarchy. I

considered this insight when examining the extent, if any, to which males and females

differed in their predispositions to commit IPV. Thus, using feminist theory as part of the

theoretical framework for the present study, which examined gender-based predisposition

to IPV among young people, was justified.

As noted before, Pence and Paymar (1993) were among the first to apply feminist

theory to domestic violence. Pence and Paymar noted that the tactics that batterers used in

IPV had striking similarities to those used by people in powerful positions. The former

also had similarities to the tactics used by individuals who wished to dominate other

people (Pence & Paymar, 1993). These tactics were similar to those used by people who

wished to continue the practice of racism, classism, anti-Semitism, ageism, and so on

(Pence & Paymar, 1993). Further, these tactics were taught mainly to men in society,

especially in the family, as well as through the culture of male dominance (Pence &

Paymar, 1993). At this point, the phenomenon of IPV and feminist theory intersect. The

culture of dominance is similar between IPV and other aspects of society where

individuals and groups try to dominate other individuals and groups. Thus, this view

justified the use of feminist theory in the present study, as I examined IPV and its

constructs, specifically through gender differences.

Regarding dominance, feminist theorists defined culture based on a community’s

acceptance of dominance. Pence and Paymar (1993) defined dominance in a culture as an

unwritten assumption that due to some differences, a particular group of people could

dominate other groups. Weldon and Gilchrist (2012) posited that some viewed the right to

dominance as a plan of God, where the dominating groups viewed it as their roles to raise

the oppressed groups, which they viewed as underdeveloped. Further, Pence and Paymar

(1993) observed that, in cases of IPV, most aggressors were men, and the victims were

women. Pence and Paymar (1993) noted that all data, from hospital emergency rooms to

police reports, showed a gap in terms of gender regarding aggressors and victims. This

finding indicated that IPV was an issue deeply attached to gender. Therefore, I used

feminist theory as a part of the theoretical framework to examine gender-based

predispositions to IPV among young people.

Review of the Literature

Intimate Partner Violence

Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, and Mahendra (2015) identified IPV as an

important problem for public health. Each year, more than 10 million U.S. people,

including both men and women, become victims of physical violence through either

present or previous intimate partners (Breiding et al., 2015). At some point in their lives,

1 out of 5 women and 1 out of 7 men experience IPV (Breiding et al., 2015). The

incidence of stalking from an intimate partner was measured at 9.2% and 2.5% among

women and men, respectively (Breiding et al., 2015). At some point in their lives, one out

of 11 women reported being raped by previous and present intimate partners (Breiding et

al., 2015). These numbers were alarming, especially when considering that IPV had not

only immediate consequences in the lives of the victims but also consequences with

lifelong influences (Breiding et al., 2015).

Breiding et al. (2015) stated a victim of IPV would experience several negative

outcomes, from acute stress to engagement in risky health behaviors to the worse effects

of IPV, such as death and injury. As I aimed to examine the significance of an IPV

prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt, to ascertain the feasibility of studying which

program elements were influential or problematic, specifically regarding gender

considerations and how male and female students might respond differently to the various

components, I first evaluated the current state of IPV, as well as its causes. This

evaluation indicated the severity of the issue, while providing a conceptual understanding

about the motivations that led to cases of IPV among men and women.

Stover and Lent (2014) defined IPV as consisting of violence in physical,

psychological, or sexual form; and stalking by a present or previous intimate partner,

such as a partner in dating, girlfriend or boyfriend, sexual partner, spouse, and so on.

Stover and Lent defined intimate partner as an individual that another had a personal,

close relationship with, as understood in terms of emotional closeness, continued sexual

and physical closeness, familiarity, contact on a regular basis, and knowledge of each

other’s lives. Stover and Lent explained that it was not necessary for the relationship to

have all these factors). Further, the couple might be living together, and they could be of

the same or opposite sex (Stover & Lent, 2014).

Stover and Lent (2014) defined physical violence as a person intentionally using

force to cause harm, injury, or death through physical means. Physical violence may

consist of biting; throwing; slapping; punching; burning; pulling hair; and using a harmful

weapon, such as gun, against someone (Stover & Lent, 2014). Stover and Lent (2014)

further defined physical violence as involving forcing someone to do any of these

activities.

Stover and Lent (2014) defined sexual violence as acts of sexual nature

undertaken or attempted by someone without the consent of the victim. These may

consist of penetrating the victim by force, forcing someone to use alcohol or drugs to do

so, or forcing the victim to penetrate someone by force or by the use of alcohol or drugs

(Stover & Lent, 2014). Sexual abuse may also include the forceful sexual act facilitated

by the aggressor to a victim toward a third party (Stover & Lent, 2014). The most

significant characteristic of sexual violence is lack of consent by the victim who is

capable of giving such consent (Stover & Lent, 2014). Many conditions exist where the

victim is incapable of giving consent, such as age, disability, and lack of consciousness

(Stover & Lent, 2014). Stover and Lent (2014) stated that a person committed sexual

violence when the victim was incapable of refusing the aggressor’s advances to sexual act

due to blackmailing, threats, and use of a gun. Stover and Lent categorized sexual in two

types: attempted or completed.

A characteristic part of IPV is using physical tactics that are aggressive in nature

over disagreements (Capaldi & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012). These are used by men,

as well as women (Capaldi & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012). Researchers have

described IPV as a heterogeneous act; some cases of IPV have higher symmetry in terms

of gender when compared to others (Gómez & Montesino, 2014). Desmarais, Reeves,

Nicholls, Telford, and Fiebert (2012a) noted symmetry in terms of gender when

conducting a large scale study regarding IPV.

Gómez and Montesino (2014) defined situational IPV as deriving from

disagreements; Gómez and Montesino found this type of IPV as lesser in severity and

free from control and coercion. These cases usually start through arguments among

couples (Gómez & Montesino, 2014). Conversely, Gómez and Montesino (2014) studied

data from police reports, women’s shelters, and emergency rooms. The researchers found

that the violence involved in IPV was influenced primarily by control and coercion, from

which violence emerged. In this form of IPV, Gómez and Montesino found that the

aggressors were mostly men, and they were motivated primarily by control and power.

This power also usually resulted in the injury of more women (Gómez & Montesino,

2014). Regarding cases of IPV, the prevalence of situational violence is usually higher

when compared to coercive violence (Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Turner, 2012). Thus,

regarding studies on the topic, the former was researched more (Langhinrichsen-Rohling

& Turner, 2012).

Insights emerged from the research conducted on IPV so far. Researchers

established two categories when establishing unidirectional form of IPV

(Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Turner, 2012). These consisted of male aggressors and

female victims, and female aggressors and male victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling &

Turner, 2012). This categorization referred to those cases of IPV where only one

aggressor existed among the couple, the other being the victim (Langhinrichsen-Rohling

& Turner, 2012). Conversely, in cases where males and females both were aggressors and

victims, Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Turner (2012) defined the situation as mutual

violence. Researchers termed these cases as “both-violent,” although the term

“bidirectional violence” remained used by many (Lewis et al., 2015).

In the field of IPV, researchers focused on psycho-physiological reactions among

the individuals involved in IPV (Stare & Fernando, 2014). Clarifying the previous beliefs

that emphasized the similarities between antisocial tendency among individuals in general

and the phenomenon of IPV, later researchers pointed out the differences between these.

For example, Stare and Fernando (2014) showed the psycho-physiological indicators

previously associated with IPV were more likely to be predictors of antisocial behavior.

Following these findings, modern researchers concluded many reactions existed within an

individual that would result in different types of IPV (Stare & Fernando, 2014). Stare and

Fernando (2014) noted that men who got involved in higher levels of physical violence

had qualitative differences when compared to those who got involved in lower level of

physical violence. Most importantly, Stare and Fernando realized that more severe cases

of IPV showed a desire in the aggressor to get and keep control of the victim. Conversely,

lower levels of IPV resulted from a disagreement between a couple where violence was

seen by them as a way of resolving the conflict when no other solution was available

(Stare & Fernando, 2014). As the present research was a qualitative study, I contributed

important insights about the constructs of IPV and its prevention qualitatively, thereby

contributing important findings in this research field.

I examined the significance of an IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt,

through the viewpoints of teachers, counselors, and school administrators. I aimed to

ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements were influential or

problematic, specifically regarding gender considerations and how male and female

students might respond differently to various components. IPV among adolescents has

been a significant area of interest among researchers. Researchers have mostly focused on

IPV in dating, an activity more common among adolescents that involves intimate

relationships (Lee et al., 2014). Researchers have also focused on IPV in relation to

emerging adulthood, a period understood by researchers as the one occurring after

adolescence between the ages of 18 and 25; individuals are then more concerned with

issues related to identity regarding their work, views, and love (Lee et al., 2014).

Regarding love, Lee et al. (2014) analyzed dating hand found that this activity

would start as a recreational activity in the middle of adolescent years; from there, dating

evolved into static relationships during emerging adulthood. In this period, romantic

relationships provided the individuals the chance to have experiences creating and

continuing relationships. Individuals can use these experiences to predict the quality of

future relationships, especially their marriages (Lee et al., 2014). Students make up a

large part of this population, as most are still pursuing their education (Lee et al., 2014).

This finding was significant in the context of the present study. As described by Lee et al.

(2014), this period consisted of learning experiences that helped students predict the

quality of relationships, especially marriages, in life. Thus, it was a critical period in the

life of individuals regarding their intimate relationships. I examined the significance of an

IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt, by qualitatively studying leadership in the

program. I provided important insights about the development and attitude of these

populations on intimate relationships, thereby contributing findings to the literature on the

topic. The qualitative nature of the present study made me capable of providing deeper

and more and multidimensional insights about adolescents and their intimate relationships

regarding the sources of their attitudes and the outcomes. Thus, the study was an

important contribution to the existing literature on the topic regarding the modern

development of the literature on the topic.

Further, as noted before, experience of romantic relationship through dating

provides adolescent individuals with the opportunity to learn lessons that help them

strengthen their future relationships (Lee et al., 2014). They learn how to resolve conflicts

through compromise and communication (Lee et al., 2014). However, these experiences

may also lead to violence (Bowen & Walker, 2015). Bowen and Walker (2015) noted that

the rate of adolescent violence was increasing. Further, despite the image that violence

between dating partners is usually started by men, Bowen and Walker found that, among

adolescents, females were more likely, when compared to men, to utilize aggression in

physical form, and they utilized it more when compared to males.

Kann et al. (2014) found that when it came to reporting behaviors related to

violence, males were more likely to report them in as much as six types of behavior they

identified, including the carrying of weapon in school. Conversely, regarding females,

they showed higher chances of reporting safety concerns, being forced to have sex,

experiencing sexual and physical dating violence, and experiencing online bullying

(Kann et al., 2014). Regarding IPV, gender differences have varied sources and

motivations; therefore, researchers should analyze these qualitatively to attain a better

understanding. Therefore, I conducted a qualitative study to provide important insights on

the gender differences related to IPV-related behavior among students through the

viewpoints of leadership of the program; these findings contributed important information

to the existing literature.

Researchers have noted that IPV among young males and females in intimate

relationships has become an important issue in public health because of the higher

occurrence and long-term, negative mental and physical consequences on health (Shortt,

Capaldi, Kim, & Tiberio, 2013). I examined the significance of an IPV prevention

program to contribute significant insights on the issue to facilitate debate and provide

empirical, qualitative data. These data could be used to strengthen prevention programs,

thus reducing the occurrence of IPV among young individuals. The findings also

contributed important insights about the sources of IPV.

Regarding dating, Edwards and Hinsz (2014) reported that one among three

teenagers said they experienced emotional, sexual, physical, or verbal abuse from the

person they dated. Approximately 1.5 million individuals who were the age of high

school students were reported as having experienced violence in dating (Bowen &

Walker, 2015). The age of females among these individuals ranged from 16 to 24 (Bowen

& Walker, 2015). Edwards and Hinsz (2014) noted dating violence as a significantly

common category of violence among youth. Statistics showed an increase when

compared to those of the previous decade on similar population (Edwards & Hinsz,

2014). More importantly, adolescents who are engaged in dating violence are more likely

to experience violence even later in their lives and relationships (Edwards & Hinsz,

2014). They are at a higher risk of developing eating disorders, as well as addiction to

drugs (Edwards & Hinsz, 2014). The future violence among these individuals tends to

increase with time (Edwards & Hinsz, 2014). Thus, Edwards and Hinsz (2014) described

IPV among adolescents as a significant issue that needed further examination through

different constructs.

I ascertained the feasibility of studying which program elements were particularly

impactful or problematic to provide significant research to tackle this public health issue.

Leaders could use the findings to strengthen IPV prevention programs, as the finding

showed what components of these programs were more effective among students. Given

the severity of the issue and the long-term negative health consequences that emerged, the

findings of the present study had significant implications on the overall problem.

Regarding the causes that lead to IPV, one must understand a number of insights

about adolescents engaging in IPV mentioned by Pepler (2012). To begin with, Pepler

mentioned that the adolescents who engaged in IPV experienced something

nontraditional in their lives in their youth that made them incapable of relating to other

people in a positive, nonaggressive way (Pepler, 2012). Based on an analysis of the

studies conducted on the topic, Pepler (2012) found that many abilities necessary to form

a healthy intimate relationship with a partner were not developed in those adolescents

who engaged in IPV. This finding indicated a need to conduct a qualitative study on these

factors connected with IPV in adolescents, which I aimed to find. Pepler (2012)

mentioned the need to carry out research on adolescents and their experiences with IPV to

analyze their behaviors and its causes. Therefore, I analyzed the components that related

to the sources of engagement in IPV, as well as its effects, to fill this gap in literature.

Regarding causes, researchers have studied adolescents engaged in IPV and have

provided important insights. Jouriles, Mueller, Rosenfield, McDonald, and Dodson

(2012) found that adolescents exposed to high IPV, especially through their parents,

showed a higher chance of becoming associated with IPV themselves. Another cause

among adolescents related to IPV was harsh parenting, which caused symptoms related to

anger that led them to be at a higher risk of being experiencing IPV (Jouriles et al., 2012).

Mainly among the females, sex in adolescent years had relation to being engaged in IPV

(Jouriles et al., 2012). A number of mechanisms led to developing IPV among

adolescents, such as lower social learning of positive forms and relationship

understandings, along with lack of knowledge about one’s worth in an intimate

relationship (Pepler, 2012).

Children brought up in an environment of violence may have issues with their

abilities to resolve conflict in relationships, thereby resulting in aggressive behavior for

conflict resolution (Pepler, 2012). Showing an association with one of the theories that

make up the theoretical framework of the present study, social learning theory, Pepler

(2012) discovered that children viewed their parents as primary role models, and violent

behavior among them was interpreted as natural reactions by children. These experiences

also influenced behavior through constructs related to reinforcement among the children

(Pepler, 2012). For instance, if a child acted aggressively, their parents might respond

harshly to this behavior (Pepler, 2012). However, when the children were compliant, their

behavior might go unnoticed by the parents because of their own stress (Pepler, 2012).

Seeing parents utilizing violent means during a conflict may lead the child to think

that relationships are naturally not reliable (Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012). Further, these

parents who experience IPV also report lack of satisfaction with their children (Ehrensaft

& Cohen, 2012). These factors lead the children to show higher aggression like their

parents as well as lack of self-worth in their own intimate relationships (Ehrensaft &

Cohen, 2012). Further, they also show a tendency to choose intimate partners who

behavior aggressively toward them, increasing the incidents of IPV (Ehrensaft & Cohen,

2012). Rejection from parents leads them to have insecurity in their relationships

(Ehrensaft & Cohen, 2012). One other source of IPV found among adolescents in

research literature consists of peers. This relates to having peers who show and encourage

aggression in intimate relationships (Pepler, 2012). This is another reflection of social

learning theory, one of the theories forming the theoretical framework of the present

study (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012). Further, antisocial adolescents associated

themselves with similar individuals, who encourage each other in their aggressive

behavior (Capaldi et al., 2012). This escalates IPV if it is already present in the individual

(Capaldi et al., 2012). Peers also encourage adolescent individuals’ view of relationship

(Capaldi et al., 2012). Thus, lack of good peers can lead to a deformed view of

relationships, resulting in IPV (Capaldi et al., 2012). Nature of one’s romantic partner

may also cause an individual to engage in IPV (Capaldi et al., 2012). It has been noted

that aggressive adolescents choose partners who are similar to them in terms of their

nature (Capaldi et al., 2012). A change in partner leads to higher chances of IPV (Pepler,

2012). Generally, it has been noted that IPV is more likely to occur among individual in

lower social and economic groups (Theobald & Farrington, 2012). Lower levels of

education, income, as well as unemployment lead to higher chances of IPV (Theobald &

Farrington, 2012). These individuals, unfortunately, also lack skills to cope with

aggression (Theobald & Farrington, 2012).

Thus, I noted that research on the topic of IPV so far yielded a number of

important and influential insights. The severity and prevalence of IPV among adolescents

was noted. A number of sources caused IPV among individuals. However, a lack of

interrelationships existed between the various factors related to IPV that helped in the

prevention of IPV among adolescents. Therefore, I found it important to qualitatively

establish the factors most likely to be responsive toward IPV prevention programs. With

this study, I contributed these insights in the literature; thus, this study had important

implication for research on this topic. The next subsection provides a review of literature

on prevention programs for IPV.

Prevention Programs

To understand the need to conduct the present research, a review of literature on

prevention programs for IPV is essential. Based on the current state of research on such

programs, a conclusion about the nature of contemporary IPV prevention programs can

be reached. This analysis also reveals whether the present prevention programs are

successful and, if not, the areas where these have failed. As the goal of the present

research was to examine the significance of an IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t

Hurt, this subsection shows the need to carry out such an investigation based on the

current status of research on IPV prevention programs.

The phenomenon of IPV affects millions of individuals each year, a population

that includes both children as well as adults (Arroyo, Lundahl, Butters, Vanderloo, &

Wood, 2015). The consequences of IPV take many forms, from homicide, emergency

care needs, legal interventions, to child welfare involvement (Arroyo et al., 2015).

Further, those who survive IPV are affected by its scars, which include somatic and

psychological trauma such as depression, anxiety, social and economic challenges, and so

on (Arroyo et al., 2015). To provide relief from these consequences, prevention programs

are required that can provide support before cases of IPV can emerge, during the presence

of IPV, as well as after incidents of IPV have taken place (Arroyo et al., 2015).

At present, many programs provide prevention assistance for IPV in various

different settings, from community in general to universities and schools (Heffernan,

Nurse, Habibula, & Sethi, 2013). For them to succeed in their goal, researchers should

study various constructs of these programs to establish whether these provide adequate

results that affect IPV prevention in the long run (Heffernan et al., 2013). Further, the

effectiveness of prevention programs is a major issue in the research, as Fellmeth,

Heffernan, Nurse, Habibula, and Sethi (2013) pointed out in their review on IPV

prevention programs. Based on an analysis of 38 IPV prevention-related studies, the

researchers found that these programs failed to show any convincing proof of reducing

IPV or positively modifying the behaviors, attitudes, and skills of the participants in the

context of IPV (Fellmeth et al., 2013). The only positive effect the researchers found was

a slight increase in knowledge of relationships among the participants (Fellmeth et al.,

2013). This is an important insight, as the review consisted of an analysis of many studies

on IPV prevention programs, which, though limited in number, does succeed in providing

an idea about the success rate of many IPV prevention programs. In the light of this fact, I

wanted to examine which program elements of IPV prevention programs were

particularly impactful or problematic. I wanted to ascertain the feasibility of studying

which program elements were particularly impactful or problematic, specifically in

relation to gender considerations and how male and female students might respond

differently to the various components.

Further, IPV prevention consists of a wide variety of techniques (Horst et al.,

2012). Regarding IPV-related research, there was a lack of proper consensus among

researchers about the feasibility, as well as effectiveness of IPV prevention program

constructs (Hackett, McWhirter, & Lesher, 2015). Study results on IPV prevention

programs ranged from “variable” to “unsuccessful” (Hackett et al., 2015). These findings

showed that there was a need to present a qualitative study that examined the significance

of an IPV prevention program to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program

elements were particularly impactful or problematic. As pointed out by Dutton (2012b),

IPV prevention programs, provided after incidents of IPV have occurred, were generally

known as being unsuccessful. IPV prevention programs that utilize psychology and

education, in the likeness of “Duluth” IPV prevention programs, have been consistently

shown as unsuccessful when it comes to treatment (Dutton, 2012b). Some IPV prevention

programs are based on psychological constructs currently being developed; however,

these constructs are limited by gender-related views; these assert that IPV among married

couples cannot represent a psychological issue (Dutton, 2012b; Lila, Oliver, Galiana, &

Gracia, 2013). Both of these facts provided a significant understanding for the need to

conduct the present study. I studied the significance of an IPV prevention program to

ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements were particularly impactful

or problematic, specifically in relation to gender considerations. The issue of gender

stereotype, where males were seen as violent and aggressive, while females were shown

as passive victims, was pointed out as an issue that hampers the understanding of IPV

prevention (Dutton, 2012b). This pattern was observed in only 4% of the surveys of

victims in cases of IPV in the study conducted by Dutton (2012b). I adopted a theoretical

framework made up of two theories, social learning theory and feminist theory, to

balance this stereotype and address the gap in literature.

Many reasons existed as to why there was a need to strengthen IPV prevention

programs, especially through studies on adolescents, as the present research aimed to do

(Bermudez et al., 2013). After this study was conducted and the effects of the Love

Doesn’t Hurt program was explored, further quantitative research would be needed to

determine the extent of its effectiveness. Firstly, Bermudez et al. (2013) showed that the

sources of IPV that occurred later in adulthood among individuals of both sexes could be

traced back to their teenage years. As I noted in the beginning of this chapter in the

theoretical framework section, these were caused by the psychological behavior of

parents, which developed into a source of transmission of violent behavior between two

generations (Bermudez et al., 2013). Exposure to violence is a critical function in the

development of IPV-related behavior in an individual, such as the use of alcohol and

violence in dating (Bermudez et al., 2013). Thus, examination of IPV prevention program

and its constructs among adolescents can result in significant positive implications on the

overall success of IPV prevention programs (Bermudez et al., 2013). These positive

implications can appear in the form of reduction in both perpetration of IPV, as well as

the process of IPV victimization (Bermudez et al., 2013). Positive results have been

suggested from studies on both adolescent populations, as well as IPV prevention before

cases of IPV have occurred (Bermudez et al., 2013). These results have also shown a

positive change in the relationship between parents and children, as well as better overall

wellness in family (Bermudez et al., 2013). The present study about IPV prevention

programs focused on students, thus fulfilling an important need for research on IPV

prevention programs. Gender was also an important part of the present study, as I focused

on gender considerations and how male and female students might respond differently to

the various components of IPV prevention programs. Thus, I contributed important

findings in the literature on IPV prevention programs.

Whitaker et al. (2013) estimated that the public cost per year due to becoming a

victim of IPV was $5.8 billion. Hence, prevention of IPV was not only an issue of health

and well-being of individuals but also of public health (Stover & Morgos, 2013). One of

the most significant constructs of IPV prevention was primary prevention (Whitaker et

al., 2013). Primary prevention refers to preventing IPV before it begins (Bair-Merritt et

al., 2014). IPV starts in the teenage years, when adolescents start forming intimate

relationships (Whitaker et al., 2013). Whitaker et al. (2013) stated that IPV reached its

peak in the early years of adulthood. Hence, prevention of IPV must start among students

(Ritchie, Nelson, Wills, & Jones, 2013). As noted by Whitaker et al. (2013), prevention

methods have been focused on students traditionally. However, lack of in depth studies

has resulted in a failure to provide conclusive findings about their effectiveness (Whitaker

et al., 2013). This aspect called for a more qualitative approach toward the evaluation of

different constructs of IPV prevention programs. As I examined the significance of an

IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt, I contributed important findings in this field

of research.

Prevention programs also include couple therapy; however, researchers are

skeptical about this method due to safety-related issues as well as its lack of effectiveness

(Todahl, Linville, Tuttle Shamblin, & Ball, 2012; Rhodes et al., 2015). In couple therapy,

couples showing violent behavior usually have bilateral violence, and among them, the

most common form of violence was situational violence (Madsen, Stith, Thomsen, and

McCollum, 2012). Other programs, such as batterer intervention, focus on gender

socialization, where the problems related to control and power are examined (Todahl et

al., 2012).

Additionally, researchers have examined group therapy in the context of IPV

prevention. For instance, Todahl et al. (2012) examined a group therapy program, CARE.

Todahl et al. found it an effective method, as the participants mentioned experiencing

positive results. Many reasons were mentioned for its success, such as the ability to know

about other people with similar experiences, which resulted in increase in knowledge

(Todahl et al., 2012). Todahl et al. (2012) mentioned the participants in the CARE

program found that it helped them combat their problems and increased their hopes.

Todahl et al. concluded that group therapy might help individuals externalize their

problems by seeing other people who suffered from similar problems.

Studies have also been carried out to assess the effectiveness of IPV prevention

programs specifically created for adolescent girls. For instance, Langhinrichsen-Rohling

and Turner (2012) conducted a study to measure the constructs of the IPV prevention

program, “Building a Lasting Love (BALL).” This program instructed adolescent girls

about skills necessary to create healthy relationships by showing the significance of

relationships that are not violent (Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Turner, 2012).

Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Turner (2012) found that the program showed some positive

changes in the participants in terms of their relationships. Conversely, a review of

literature did not show any similar study conducted to assess the IPV prevention program,

Love Doesn’t Hurt. As I examined the significance of an IPV prevention program, Love

Doesn’t Hurt, to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements were

particularly impactful or problematic, I provided new insights about this particular

program, as well as other factors of the study that could be generalized.

Adolescents formed the sample population of the present study. Researchers have

carried out studies focusing on adolescent IPV. For instance, Shorey et al. (2012)

conducted a review of studies on IPV prevention among adolescents. A significant, if

alarming, insight from this review was that a lack of evidence showed that these

programs succeeded in lowering IPV among adolescents (Shorey et al., 2012). Even

when contrary results were found, such as Safe Dates that showed the capacity to reduce

violent behavior over time, Shorey et al. (2012) concluded that this was an exception, and

most IPV prevention programs for adolescents had not succeeded. This program showed

success only in a rural population and was limited in its generalization abilities (Shorey et

al., 2012). Shorey et al. (2012) posited the reason for this failure was due to the limits of

methodology.

There was a lack of studies on IPV prevention programs specifically among

adolescent students (Shorey et al., 2012). I aimed to examine the significance of an IPV

prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt, to ascertain the feasibility of studying which

program elements were particularly impactful or problematic, specifically in relation to

gender considerations and how male and female students might respond differently to the

various components. The lack of success of IPV prevention programs required new

studies to provide qualitative insights about the strength and weaknesses of current IPV

prevention programs. Therefore, the findings of the present qualitative study contributed

to the literature to improve current IPV prevention programs.

Researchers have mentioned that most programs to prevent IPV have been

ineffective (Temple et al., 2013; Tharp, 2012; Wray, Hoyt, & Gerstle, 2013). Apart from

the reasons already mentioned that hinder the success of IPV programs, Capaldi and

Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2012) have asserted that this lack of success might be due to

these programs not taking into account the recent development in the research on IPV. In

the light of this fact, it becomes important to design and conduct a study that is capable of

providing practical insights and information for the practicing professionals as well as the

designers of these programs. The findings of the present study might provide important

information for these professionals. For instance, I examined the significance of an IPV

prevention program to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements were

particularly impactful or problematic. Thus, based on the findings of the present study, it

would be more helpful to see these elements and potentially reduce the less effective

ones, while increasing the more effective elements.

Based on the review of literature on IPV prevention programs, I concluded that so

far, the IPV prevention programs have been ineffective in reducing IPV among

adolescents. Further, there was no study in the literature that assessed the significance of

the IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt. Therefore, I examined the significance

of Love Doesn’t Hurt to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements

were particularly impactful or problematic, specifically in relation to gender

considerations and how male and female students might respond differently to the various

components. I contributed important findings in the body of literature on the topic.

Another important construct in research on IPV and its prevention programs is gender,

which is explored in the next subsection.

Gender Issues Related to Intimate Partner Violence

Regarding IPV and its prevention, gender becomes a significant construct, as

noted through the review of literature associated with feminist theory and social learning

theory in the context of IPV in this chapter. Norms in society that traditionally give more

power to men above women enhance the danger of violence carried out against women

(Wagman et al., 2015). These norms also lower the ability of females to manage

consensual sexual relationships and sexual safety, as well as their abilities to seek help

against abuse (Wagman et al., 2015). These factors are influential in the context of IPV,

as the cases of IPV include all these factors. This aspect shows the significance of gender

in the context of IPV, which is the focus of this subsection.

Regarding gender, one of the most significant issues in IPV has been that of

gender symmetry (Ferraro, 2012). Ferraro (2012) provided an analysis of gender

symmetry in the context of IPV. Ferraro established that gender influenced many

significant aspects of people’s lives, from their psychology as individuals to society, its

institutions, and culture as a whole. The arguments concerning gender in IPV have

traditionally mixed the functions of gender and sex, overlooking conceptual

interpretations of violence as well as gender (Ferraro, 2012). However, these arguments

are not capable of including a number of constructs related to IPV that are established as

related to gender (Ferraro, 2012). For instance, gender symmetry is not able to include

rape in its framework, along with reproductive factors as well as pregnancy and the

violence associated with it (Ferraro, 2012). After providing this analysis, Ferraro (2012)

concluded that future studies on IPV, as well as the consequent policies of IPV

prevention programs, should consider the basic function of gender, as IPV was

significantly associated with gender. As gender was one of the main constructs driving

the present study and its research design, I fulfilled the need for research, as well as

findings, with gender in focus.

The traditional superiority of males finds its expression in virtually all forms of

associations between men and women, which includes romantic and intimate

relationships too (Caldwell et al., 2012). The socialization in the context of gender almost

universally provides rights to men as a figure of authority for their female partners as

well as in their families (Caldwell et al., 2012). Additionally, physically men are stronger

and larger than women, which ensures their higher power in matters related to women

(Caldwell et al., 2012). As a result of this, studies mostly find women in higher fear of

violence from their partners when compared to men (Caldwell et al., 2012). This insight

helps in understanding IPV where women are at a higher risk of becoming a victim when

compared to men (Caldwell et al., 2012). Conversely, Kimmel (2002) provided the

reasons why gender symmetry has been raised as an important factor in IPV by

researchers. Kimmel noted that debate about the place of gender in IPV led to a number

of studies focusing on this factor. Some researchers asserted that, regarding cases of IPV,

the risk of becoming a victim was equal between men and women (Kimmel, 2002). Thus,

in contrast to many studies that showed that in cases of IPV, usually the perpetrators were

male, while the victims were female, Kimmel (2002) showed that these roles were seen

among both genders equally. Regarding the United States, Kimmel found that both

genders of participants in the study equally mentioned hitting their partners. This finding

led to a debate concerning the policy about IPV prevention programs, suggesting that the

prevention programs of IPV that have traditionally focused entirely on the safety of

females may have been misdirected (Kimmel, 2002). This fining led to researchers

arguing that there was a gender symmetry in IPV (Kimmel, 2002).

An important contribution to this debate was to evaluate the rate of victimization

between genders in IPV. This was contributed by Desmarais et al. (2012b). Noting that

many studies have found that IPV is primarily directed against females, the researchers

also mentioned the increasing literature where males were found as victims (Desmarais et

al., 2012b). Desmarais et al. (2012) noted that, due to the serious negative consequences

that cases of IPV had, one must conduct studies on IPV and its prevention focused on

gender. As this was the goal of the present study, the study was an important contribution

in the body of literature on the topic. Further, in their own review of literature on the

issue, Desmarais et al. (2012b) found that one out of four women were victims of IPV,

while the statistics of men indicated the prevalence to be in one out of five men. The most

important finding from this review, in the context of the present study, was the fact that

when it came to studies with large samples such as colleges and communities, studies

found higher number of female victims (Desmarais et al., 2012b). Conversely, when the

studied sample was of higher school and middle school students, studies found higher

number of male victims (Desmarais et al., 2012b). Desmarais et al. (2012b) noted that the

issue of gender differed across countries. The study showed that the issue of gender

symmetry is a complicated phenomenon involving various different factors (Desmarais et

al., 2012b).

Gender symmetry is associated with victims and proprietors in IPV (Hamel,

2013). However, researchers have found that gender also plays a significant role when it

comes to people’s attitude toward violence (Valdez, Lilly, & Sandberg, 2012). In this

context, it was found that men with higher attachment anxiety were more likely to accept

the occurrence of IPV, perpetrated by either gender, when it was done due to

abandonment (Valdez et al., 2012). Conversely, men with higher attachment avoidance

showed this attitude of acceptance only toward IPV that was perpetrated by women

(Valdez et al., 2012). Regarding motivations for IPV, different behaviors were noted

between the two genders (Elmquist et al., 2014). For instance, among men, the most

common motivation for IPV was reported to be anger in early literature (Elmquist et al.,

2014). However, later research noted a number of reasons as motivations for IPV

(Elmquist et al., 2014). Researchers found that among men, the most common reason for

IPV was related to the behavior of the partner (Elmquist et al., 2014). Later researchers

also found control, desire, and suppressed anger to be central issues motivating men to

start IPV with their partners (Elmquist et al., 2014).

Different motivations were noted among women for IPV by researchers studying

the issue (Elmquist et al., 2014; Semiatin, Murphy, & Elliott, 2013). It was also noted that

the studies that explored constructs of IPV among women were few (Elmquist et al.,

2014). As the present study will examine how both male and female students may

respond to the various components of an IPV prevention program, the present study will

be an important contribution to the literature on the topic. The researchers who explored

the motivations of women have come across a number of reasons. The most significant

reasons stated by most female propagators of IPV included self-defense and intense anger

(Elmquist et al., 2014). Other researchers came across four main reasons for perpetrating

IPV, which included psychological motivations, violations of rules expected in intimate

relationships, the desire to restore one’s image, and the desire to get attention (Elmquist et

al., 2014). Female participants reported that aggression often seemed to be the only way

to gain the attention of their partners (Elmquist et al., 2014). Other researchers found lack

of proper regulation of emotion, retaliation, and provocation to be some of the primary

reasons motivating females to start IPV (Hamby & Turner, 2013). Further, those couples

who are directed by court to consult IPV prevention programs are usually involved in a

mutually abusive relationship (Hamel, 2012). Based on the literature on the issue, I

observed differences and similarities between men and women regarding motivations for

IPV. For instance, a pattern emerges based on related literature that for men, engagement

in IPV against their partners is often a way to stop themselves from becoming victims of

IPV (Elmquist et al., 2014). While women most frequently mention, as noted before, self-

defense as the primary motive for engaging in IPV (Elmquist et al., 2014). Conversely,

some studies have also found that there is a gender symmetry in IPV, and both women

and men report anger as a reason motivating them to perpetrate IPV against their partners

(Elmquist et al., 2014). Finally, even though studies have been conducted on both male

and female motivations for IPV individually, it has also been mentioned that there is a

lack of studies where the constructs of IPV were measured and compared between men

and women directly (Crane, Hawes, Mandel, & Easton, 2014;

Elmquist et al., 2014). I examined the significance of an IPV prevention program, Love

Doesn’t Hurt, to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements were

particularly impactful or problematic, specifically in relation to gender considerations and

how male and female students might respond differently to the various components.

IPV has historically been seen as a phenomenon where men conduct violence

against women (Mejdoubi et al., 2013). As a result of this, most of the research and

prevention programs for IPV have focused on women. Hence, there is a lack of balance

between examination of both male and female involvement in IPV (Mejdoubi et al.,

2013). However, some studies have found that the occurrence of IPV cases where the

proprietor were males, and those where they were females are equal (Stewart, Gabora,

Allegri, & Slavin-Stewart, 2014). There is a lack of studies where the examination of IPV

factors was conducted among both genders with equal attention (Kelley, Edwards,

Dardis, & Gidycz, 2015; O’Leary & Slep, 2012; Stewart et al., 2014). Emerging research

suggests considerable differences between male and female behavior in the context of

IPV (Stewart et al., 2014), and to assess them it is important to consider a more effective

methodology where both genders are examined equally to see how they may respond

differently to the various components of IPV prevention programs (Lothstein, 2013;

Stewart et al., 2014). I examined the significance of an IPV prevention program, Love

Doesn’t Hurt, to ascertain the feasibility of studying which program elements were

particularly impactful or problematic, specifically in relation to gender considerations and

how male and female students might respond differently to the various components.

Therefore, this study addressed the gap in research, as discussed in the following section.

Research Gap

The literature reviewed in the current chapter highlighted the prevalence and risks

associated with the phenomenon of IPV. Researchers have mentioned the phenomenon of

IPV as a public health issue (Breiding et al., 2015; CDC, 2015; Shortt et al., 2013). The

components of the present study contained two important factors. I studied participants

involving both genders to assess the reactions of both genders simultaneously regarding

the phenomenon of IPV. The review of literature showed the significance of this research

design. There were controversies regarding gender in terms of defining IPV and its

prevention approaches (Bowen & Walker, 2015; Ross & Babcock, 2010). Due to the

discrepancies regarding this theme in the present review of literature, I believed that

while there was little scholarly consensus on whether males were more predisposed to the

phenomenon of IPV than females, the two genders probably did react differently to

situations that could produce IPV. The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative,

case study on the Love Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints

of the counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw

improvements among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge

of ways the program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness);

and to determine suggestions for future practices. The issue of gender stereotype, where

males were seen as violent and aggressive, while females were shown as passive victims,

was pointed out as an issue that hampered the understanding of IPV prevention (Dutton,

2012b). I adopted a theoretical model made up of two theories, social learning theory and

feminist theory, to balance this stereotype. I examined the significance of an IPV

prevention program specifically regarding gender considerations to address this gap in

literature.

Further, Stare and Fernando (2014) noted that men involved in higher levels of

physical violence had qualitative differences when compared to those involved in lower

levels of physical violence. Based on an analysis of the studies conducted on the topic of

IPV, Pepler (2012) concluded that many abilities necessary to form a healthy intimate

relationship with a partner did not develop in adolescents engaged in IPV. A lack of

interrelationships between the various factors related to IPV that helped in the prevention

of IPV among adolescents also existed. Therefore, I sought to establish the factors more

likely to be responsive toward IPV prevention programs qualitatively.

The qualitative nature of the present study made it capable of providing deeper

and more multidimensional insights about adolescents and their intimate relationships in

terms of the sources of their attitudes and the outcomes in the context of IPV and its

prevention through teachers/counselors’ viewpoints. Thus, the qualitative research design

of the present study was an important contribution to the existing literature on the topic of

IPV. The lack of success of IPV prevention programs also required new studies to

provide qualitative insights about the strength and weaknesses of current IPV prevention

programs. Therefore, I contributed qualitative insights about the constructs related to IPV

and its prevention, thereby contributing important findings in this research field.

Regarding prevention, a number of other research gaps were found in the

reviewed literature. For IPV prevention programs to succeed, one must study various

constructs of these programs to establish whether these provide adequate results that

affect IPV prevention in the long run (Heffernan et al., 2013). Further, IPV prevention

consists of a wide variety of techniques (Horst et al., 2012). Therefore, regarding

IPVrelated research, there was a lack of proper consensus among researchers about the

feasibility and effectiveness of constructs related to IPV prevention programs (Hackett et

al., 2015). Further, the effectiveness of prevention programs was a major issue in the

research, as many researchers pointed out their failures in reducing IPV incidents. The

failure of current IPV prevention programs, along with the issue of gender mentioned

previously, provided a significant understanding for the need to conduct the present

study. I examines which program elements of IPV prevention programs were influential

or problematic as the goal of the present study. I examined the significance of an IPV

prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt, specifically in relation to gender considerations

and how male and female students might respond differently to the various components.

Studies have shown that the sources of IPV that have occurred later in adulthood

among individuals of both sexes can be traced back to their teenage years (Bermudez et

al., 2013). Examination of IPV prevention program and its constructs among adolescents

can result in significant positive implications on the overall success of IPV prevention

programs (Bermudez et al., 2013). I studied IPV prevention programs and focused on

students, thus fulfilling an important need for research on IPV prevention programs.

Thus, I contributed important findings on IPV prevention programs among adolescents to

the literature.

The review of literature showed a number of IPV prevention programs studied by

researchers. However, a review of literature did not show any similar study conducted to

assess the IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt. I examined the significance of an

IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt, to ascertain the feasibility of studying

which program elements were particularly impactful or problematic. Therefore, I

provided new insights about this particular program, as well as other factors of the study

that could be generalized.

Summary

The review of literature presented in this chapter gave an overview of existing

literature to show the gaps in literature on the topic, as well as the need for conducting the

present study. The first section of the literature review provided an introduction to the

chosen theoretical framework. I used the social learning theory, developed by Bandura

(1969), and feminist theory, first applied to cases of IPV by Pence and Paymar (1993).

Social learning theory posits that children learn behaviors by observing the behaviors and

actions of their parents and others (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997). Feminist theorists see IPV as

deriving from women’s unequal position within sexist and patriarchal societies (Pence &

Paymar, 1993).

This chapter also discussed the rationale for choosing these theories for the

present research. I sought to conceive the extent to which upbringing and inculcated

values mattered in occurrence of IPV among both genders. As these factors were social

constructs, learned most significantly from the family, the significance of social learning

theory in the context of the present study was observed. There were social and biological

reasons behind the vulnerability of women in interpersonal relationships for becoming

victims of IPV. As I examined gender-based predisposition to IPV among young people,

feminist theory was seen as an important and significant theory as a part of the theoretical

framework.

The second section of the review gave an exhaustive review of relevant studies,

which was organized in categories, progressing from general themes to the specific

research problem studied. Regarding intimate partner violence and its causes, I found that

IPV was a public health issue and its victims suffered from long-term health risks. The

inability to form healthy relationships due to a number of factors resulted in engagement

in IPV. Regarding prevention programs, I found that most studies concluded no

significant reduction in IPV cases through the current IPV prevention programs.

Regarding gender issues, I found that different factors between men and women

motivated them toward IPV. However, I also found that some similar factors motivated

both men and women for IPV.

The third section of the chapter focused on the gaps in the literature found on the

basis of the reviewed literature and the need for conducting the present study. I noted that

no previous study focused on the IPV prevention program, Love Doesn’t Hurt. Further,

the need for a qualitative study was found to examine the constructs of IPV and IPV

prevention programs more deeply. The need to conduct a study involving both genders

directly was also established. Based on these factors, the need for conducting the present

study was pointed out.

The next chapter focuses on the methodological plan for the present study. Based

on the problem, as well as the research gaps identified in this chapter, an exploratory

study of the Love Doesn’t Hurt program is conducted. The descriptions of the selection

process of participants, recruitment procedures, instrumentation, participation, data

collection, data analysis plan, and issues of trustworthiness are also provided in the next

chapter.

Chapter 3: Research Method

Introduction

To reiterate, the purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative, case study on

the Love Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints of the

counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw improvements

among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge of ways the

program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness); and to

determine suggestions for future practices. In this chapter, the methodology implemented

to answer the research questions is described. First, the design and rationale of the current

study are discussed, followed by the role of the researcher, logic of participant selection,

and instrumentation. I then outline the procedures relating to recruitment, participation,

and data collection. Next, the data analysis plan, issues of trustworthiness, and ethical

procedures relevant to the current study are included. Finally, the summary of the chapter

concludes Chapter 3.

Research Design and Rationale

To reiterate, the research questions of focus in the present study includes the

following:

RQ. How do Kansas middle school students experience and react to their

participation in the Love Doesn’t Hurt program?

SQ1. Are students changing their knowledge, skills, or attitudes related to IPV,

and in which way?

SQ2. How does the gender-specific component of this program affect the

students who participate positively?

Through this qualitative case study, the impact of the Love Doesn’t Hurt program

was estimated through dialogue with counselors or teachers who led the program

regarding their experiences with adolescents involved in the program, as well as their

professional viewpoints. I ascertained whether certain components of the program were

more effective compared to others, as perceived by leaders of the program who worked

closely with these adolescents, and whether effectiveness correlated with gender-specific

content and gender of the students by interviewing these leaders. For the purposes of this

study, CDC (2015) defined IPV as “physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current

or former partner or spouse” (p. 1).

The reason for choosing a qualitative study involving interviews was because of

the nature of the interview questions; the interview questions focused on the teachers,

administrators, and community advisors (i.e., leaders of the program) and their

experiences with the Love Doesn’t Hurt program, as well as gender differences observed

regarding the receptivity to the program. Conducting a qualitative case study allowed for

proper exploration of this study’s purpose by yielding deeper insights regarding the

perceptions of counselors/teachers on the success of the Love Doesn’t Hurt program.

More specifically, qualitative case studies allowed for the collection of rich, detailed, and

nuanced data from participants’ perspectives, which applied to this study (see Yin, 2015).

Hence, I sought to gain rich information on people’s (i.e., leaders of the program)

experiences and perceptions. Because of the in-depth nature of these interview questions,

use of surveys were deemed inadequate for the present study, and the research questions

of interest were not appropriate for quantitative methods. Next, the role of the researcher

is discussed.

Role of the Researcher

As an observer-participant in the current study, information gathered from the

unstructured interviews was triangulated with a content analysis of Love Doesn’t Hurt

program materials to identify gendered components of the program. No pre-existing

personal or professional relationships existed between the study participants and the

researcher; however, the role of the researcher in this case was to develop rapport with

study participants, as well as equal and open communication. Research alludes to males

being the primary aggressors in IPV (which could lead to a presence of bias in the

research); however, it is also recognized that females may be aggressive in relationships.

I recognized this information and that the adolescents taking part in the program would

not be directly interviewed to control bias in the present study.

In addition, the open-ended nature of the interview questions helped minimize my

bias. By approaching this research in an objective manner, the minimization of bias was

possible, as well as the establishment of equal power relationships between the

counselors or teachers taking part in the study and myself. These counselors or teachers

knew their students best and provided detached, unemotional, and professional views of

the effectiveness of such a program. This issue was previously unstudied in the literature

(see Izaguirre & Calvete, 2015; Pernebo & Almqvist, 2016). In the next section,

participant selection logic involved in the present study is discussed.

Participant Selection Logic

Leadership provided the Love Doesn’t Hurt program in 100 schools across the

state of Kansas (Jana’s Campaign, 2015). The school-based portion of the program was

taught within Family and Consumer Science (FACS) classes, and the community portion

consisted of community service projects completed through the Future Career and

Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) organization. Moreover, I selected three

school-community sites with one each from rural, suburban, and urban areas to interview

these leaders of the program about their perceptions. I used purposive sampling to select

five FACS teachers, three school administrators, and three FCCLA advisors from each of

the school-community sites.

Purposive sampling represents an ideal technique for a researcher to use to

achieve the main goal of qualitative inquiry, which includes yielding cases that can

provide rich and deep information regarding the phenomenon central to the study (Patton,

2002; Yin, 2015). The relatively small sample size parallels conventions of qualitative

case studies, where researchers have generally recommended using 20 to 30 participants

(Patton, 2002; Yin, 2015). Therefore, purposive sampling represented an ideal method to

achieve this target amount.

The FACS teachers, school administrators, and FCCLA advisors represented the

individuals with the closest relationship to the program and its participants because they

were the leaders associated with this program. Thus, they provided the most meaningful

and relevant information regarding the program’s impact on the students and its

effectiveness (see Mason, 2010). These program implementers noticed issues with the

students that even the students did not notice or might feel too emotional to express

properly, especially when addressing such a sensitive subject matter as IPV (see Eckhardt

et al., 2012, 2013; Feeny et al., 1998). People who experienced IPV might feel

uncomfortable answering questions that might breech the personal aspect of the program

or that might cause unwanted, negative memories to arise (see Eckhardt et al., 2012,

2013; Edwards & Hinsz, 2014; Feeny et al., 1998). Consequently, conducting a study on

those (i.e., counselors, teachers, and administrators) who have a more removed and

professional opinion about the subject, yet remain closely involved with the victims, may

add insight into the effectiveness of these IPV programs that prior researchers have failed

to explore.

Instrumentation

I collected data from three different school-community sites to explore the effects

of the Love Doesn’t Hurt program on middle school students through the perspectives of

the program leaders. I randomly chose one site from each of the three lists of

schoolcommunity locations where leadership delivered Love Doesn’t Hurt in the spring

2016 semester. Each list consisted of school-community sites that represented the

geographic, socioeconomic, and racial/ethnic diversity of the state. I randomly selected

interviewees from the roster of teachers, school administrators, and community advisors

(i.e., leaders of the program) in each site. I conducted unstructured interviews face-to-face

by using a protocol consisting of open-ended, unstructured questions, which lasted

approximately 30 to 45 minutes each. In addition to interviews, I gathered data from

curricular and cocurricular materials (e.g., lesson plans, reading materials, and activity

worksheets).

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative, case study on the Love

Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints of the

counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw improvements

among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge of ways the

program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness); and to

determine suggestions for future practices. I ascertained whether certain components of

the program were more effective than others, and whether effectiveness was correlated

with gender-specific content and gender of the students. This section describes the

methodology and discusses the chosen research approach, including the study design,

population, sampling strategy, data collection and data analysis techniques, and the

strategies to maintain the trustworthiness of the study. I used the case study method to

conduct the research. Case studies allow for the collection of rich, detailed, and nuanced

data from multiple perspectives (Yin, 2012). Hence, this study was a qualitative study; I

sought to gain rich information on people’s experiences and perceptions.

I conducted unstructured interviews with counsellors and teachers regarding their

perceptions of how students experienced and responded to Love Doesn’t Hurt. In

contrast, quantitative researchers seek to achieve a breadth of understanding by

identifying statistical relationships between phenomena (Patton, 2002). Furthermore,

other methods exist in qualitative research, such as phenomenology, grounded theory, and

ethnography. However, researchers use those methods to achieve/develop different

fundamental questions; whereas, researchers have traditionally used the case study to

assess programs and other activities for effectiveness, such as the Love Doesn’t Hurt

Program (see Merriam, 1998; Simons, 1980). I gathered the following data:

Safe Dates for The Love Doesn’t Hurt campaign was a 12-week curriculum with

10 sessions. Therefore, the work was designed to conduct open-ended, unstructured

interviews at specific time intervals with teachers, school administrators, and community

advisors involved in teaching and delivering Love Doesn’t Hurt in schools and

communities throughout Kansas. The present work was designed to interview these

potential participants at the beginning, middle, and end of this specific program. In this

manner, I interviewed them to determine whether they observed different outcomes

amongst their students at each interval in time. For example, at the start of the program,

leaders might view their students a certain way that drastically evolved by the end of the

program. This evolution of viewpoints might provide more information on the subject

under study; moreover, the finding might show the effectiveness of the program. I

researched, studied, and compared documents and other materials collected from the

Love Doesn’t Hurt program. These includes curricular and extra-curricular syllabi,

teaching guides, reading material, assignments, and worksheets.

Data Analysis Plan

I analyzes interview transcripts for content related to the central question and

subquestions and performed content analysis on the program materials to investigate

specific elements of Love Doesn’t Hurt for evidence of gender issues, presented from the

interviews of the leaders of the program. I performed initial, qualitative coding on the

data to discern key words, phrases, and topics that related to the research questions. In

turn, I analyzed these interviews for themes and concerns to show perceptions of

teachers, counselors, and administrators (i.e., leaders of the program) relating to the

effectiveness of gender-based, adolescent IPV programs (see Saldaña, 2011).

This process of analyzing data followed the case study approach (Moustakas,

1994), which posed several of the following steps:

•preparing the researcher’s self to remain as unbiased and nonjudgmental

as possible, which involved staying aware of existing prejudices and

assumptions throughout the research process;

•reducing the data to meaningful parts, labeling the content, and

summarizing meanings to generate themes and categories;

•generating imaginative variation, which identified common themes among

different participant perspectives; and

•developing a narrative from the data to represent the whole of the data,

focusing on the commonalities, and addressing the divergences.

Issues of Trustworthiness

To maintain the trustworthiness of the data, I completed the following steps. First,

I exercised continuous awareness of my own biases, perceptions, and judgements and

how these might influence data collection, analysis, and reporting (see G. Thomas, 2011;

E. Thomas & Magilvy, 2011). Second, I performed member checks by sharing

preliminary coded data with some participants, so they could help confirm the data

accurately reflects their perceptions (see Saldaña, 2011). Third, I compared data sets to

confirm that my interpretation of one set represents the data as a whole (see G. Thomas,

2011; E. Thomas & Magilvy, 2011).

To facilitate the transferability and external validity of the findings of this study to

other similar populations, the population of students and context was described. In

addition, the findings of the present study were only transferable to adolescent-focused

programs with similar program components in similar contexts (e.g., industrialized,

Western countries). Notes of the interviews, audio recordings (i.e. audit trails), and

triangulation of the data (through content analysis) were employed to enhance the

dependability of the present study. To establish the confirmability of the present study,

inter-rater reliability was assessed with the assistance of another coder, who coded 10%

of the interview data utilizing the categories that I identified through the initial process of

coding.

Ethical Procedures

To follow ethical research procedures, participants were informed of their rights

as a research participant, including an informed consent form that they received with the

contact information of the IRB, as well as that of myself (see Appendix B). Following

this process, participants were asked about whether they verbally consented to these

procedures, which were recorded with an audio recorder. In addition, IRB approval was

sought for the present study (IRB Approval # 05-04-18-0153146).

I used purposive sampling to select five FACS teachers, three school

administrators, and three FCCLA advisors from each of the school-community sites.

Potential barriers to implementing the study design included resistance from teachers,

school administrators, and community advisors who might perceive the study as intrusive

and disruptive to the program, and or they might simply be too busy doing their jobs to

spend time for the interview. I mitigated these concerns by reassuring them that data

collection occurred only outside of program delivery, and I worked diligently to schedule

interviews at their convenience. I did not collect data directly from students or any other

vulnerable populations. I avoided this situation because, as discussed earlier, IPV entailed

a sensitive subject matter; therefore, interviewing students directly might not have the

desired outcome needed to understand the purpose of this study.

In addition, I kept teachers, school administrators, and community advisors’

identities confidential by deidentifying their interview transcripts and all other documents

containing names of persons, schools, or other identifying information. I will store

research documents in a locked location that only I can access for up to 5 years. After this

period, I will destroy all documents via shredding.

Summary

This chapter discussed the methodology implemented to answer the research

questions of focus in the current study, which focused on the professional viewpoints of

the counselors/teachers who led the program. I aimed to determine whether they saw

improvements among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population to obtain knowledge of

ways the program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness) and to

determine suggestions for future practice. In short, the methodology included both a

content analysis of Love Doesn’t Hurt program materials, as well as a series of interviews

with program leaders in Kansas schools involving one school in an urban area, one in a

suburban area, and one in a rural area. To identify themes relating to the research

questions of interest, open coding was used. Throughout this process, issues of

trustworthiness, and ethical issues, were considered. Next, Chapter 4 describes the results

of the study identified using the methodology, followed by Chapter 5, which includes a

discussion of the results from this study and concludes the dissertation.

Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative, case study on the Love

Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints of the

counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw improvements

among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge of ways the

program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness); and to

determine suggestions for future practices. LDH was an IPV prevention program targeted

toward middle school and high school students in Kansas. One primary research question

and two subquestions were used to guide the study:

RQ. What experiences and reactions do Kansas middle school students have

while participating in LDH?

SQ1. Do students seem to be changing their knowledge, skills, or attitudes related

to IPV?

SQ2. Does the gender-specific component of LDH affect the students who

participate positively?

Chapter 4 includes a description of the setting of data collection, followed by a

description of the relevant demographic characteristics of the study participants. Next,

this chapter includes descriptions of the implementation of the data collection and data

analysis procedures described in Chapter 3. This chapter then proceeds with a discussion

of the evidence of the trustworthiness of the study’s results, followed by a presentation of

the results of the data analysis. The chapter concludes with a summary.

Setting

One-on-one, face-to-face interviews were conducted with participants in their

offices at their school-community sites. Interviews were conducted in offices because

privacy was available, and participants could give full and candid responses to the

interview prompts with the assurance that their identities would remain confidential.

Interviews were conducted at a time of each participant’s choice to ensure that

participants could give complete responses to the interview questions without feeling

pressured to attend to other obligations.

Demographics

Participants included nine Family and Consumer Science (FACS) teachers,

counselors, and school administrators from three school-community sites at which LDH

was conducted. Table 1 indicates the relevant demographics characteristics of study

participants. To ensure confidentiality, participants’ names were replaced with serial

designations (e.g., P1, P2, etc.), and school names were replaced with numbers (i.e.,

School 1, School 2, and School 3).

Table 1

Participant Demographics

Participant Gender School Position

P1 M School 1 Administrator

P2 F School 1 Teacher

P3 F School 1 Counselor

P4 F School 2 Counselor

P5 F School 2 Teacher

P6 M School 2 Administrator

P7 M School 3 Administrator

P8 F School 3 Teacher

P9 F School 3 Counselor

School 1

School 1 included Grades 7 through 12 and had a student population of 128. The

student population identified as approximately 95.5% Caucasian, 1.5% Hispanic, and 3%

from other races and ethnicities. Twenty-five percent of students were from homes

considered economically disadvantaged. School 1 had a 100% graduation rate in 2018,

and 100% of its teachers were fully licensed.

School 2

School 2 included Grades 9 through 12 and had a student population of

approximately 900. The student body identified as approximately 94% Caucasian, 3%

Hispanic, and 3% from other races or ethnicities. Approximately 35% of School 2’s

students were from economically disadvantaged homes. School 2 had an 89% graduation

rate in 2018, and 98% of the teachers were fully licensed.

School 3

School 3 had a student population of approximately 850 and included Grades 9

through 12. Approximately 80% of the students identified as Caucasian, 10% as

Hispanic, 3% as African American, and 7% as other races and ethnicities. About 26% of

the students were from economically disadvantaged homes. School 3 had a graduation

rate of approximately 91% in 2018, and 98% of its teachers were fully licensed.

Data Collection

One face-to-face interview was conducted with each participant at each

participant’s school-community site. Interviews were audio-recorded using a digital

recording device. The average duration of the interviews was approximately 30 minutes.

No unusual circumstances were encountered during data collection, and there were no

deviations from the data collection procedure described in Chapter 3.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed thematically according to the procedures described by

Saldaña (2011). After the recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim into MS Word

documents, the transcripts were uploaded into NVivo 12 software for analysis. I then

reduced the data to the smallest units that could be evaluated in a meaningful way (i.e.,

phrases or groups of phrases expressing a single idea, perception, or experience).

Different data units expressing a similar idea, perception, or experience were grouped

together into a child node in NVivo, and the node was labeled with a descriptive word or

phrase. The child nodes represented the codes from the initial, qualitative coding of the

data to discern key words, phrases, and topics that related to the research questions. In the

next phase, I grouped similar codes into themes, by grouping the child nodes together

under parent nodes, which were labeled with descriptive phrases. Table 2 indicates the

themes that emerged during data analysis and the number of data units grouped into each

theme (i.e., theme frequency).

Table 2

Data Analysis Themes

Theme N %

Students seem to communicate more openly

about IPV

21 27%

Students seem to have greater awareness related

to IPV

19 24%

Girls seemed more comfortable when separated

from boys, and seemed generally more

receptive to LDH curriculum

22 28%

Boys seemed more mature when they were

separated from girls, but they sometimes

seemed to perceive the curriculum as

“malebashing”

17 22%

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Trustworthiness of the results was enhanced through procedures designed to

establish the four elements of trustworthiness. These elements included credibility,

transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The following subsections include

descriptions of the procedures used to enhance each element.

Credibility

Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined credible results as the extent that results

accurately reflected the reality these were intended to describe. To enhance credibility in

the present study, I conducted member-checking and triangulation of different data

sources. Member-checking was conducted by emailing each participant the transcript of

his or her interview with a request that he or she should review it and suggest any

corrections that would allow the data to reflect his or her perceptions and experiences

more accurately. All participants responded, and no participants recommended changes.

Triangulation was conducted by comparing data from the three case sites. The

comparisons are given as part of the presentation of results below.

Transferability

Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined transferable results as the extent that results would

hold true in a different research context. To allow future researchers to assess

transferability, I included descriptions of the study sample, of the inclusion criteria, and

of LDH.

Dependability

Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined dependable results as the extent that results

would be replicated in the same research context at a different time. Dependability was

enhanced in the present study through triangulation and member-checking. Additionally,

methodological descriptions were provided to ensure that the study could be replicated

and the integrity of its procedures verified.

Confirmability

Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined confirmable results as the extent that results

would reflect the experiences and opinions of the participants, rather than biases of the

researcher. To enhance confirmability, I conducted member-checking. Additionally, I

prepared to remain as unbiased and nonjudgmental as possible, which involved staying

aware of existing prejudices and assumptions throughout the research process. Lastly,

quotations from the data are provided in the presentation of results below to allow the

reader to verify the integrity of the analysis.

Results

The primary research question used to guide the study was the following: What

experiences and reactions do Kansas middle school students have while participating in

LDH? The primary research question was answered by answering the two subquestions,

and this presentation of results was accordingly organized by subquestion. Results related

to Subquestion 1 indicated how participants perceived students changing their

knowledge, skills, or attitudes related to IPV due to LDH. Results associated with

Research Question 2 indicated how participants perceived the gender-specific component

of LDH positively affecting the students who participated. Within the presentation related

to each subquestion, results were organized by theme. A theme was identified when four

or more participants reported similar perceptions or experiences.

Subquestion 1

Subquestion 1 was the following: Do students seem to be changing their

knowledge, skills, or attitudes related to IPV? Two major themes emerged to answer the

subquestion. Table 3 indicates the major themes and the participants (by case) who

contributed to them.

Table 3

Subquestion 1 Themes

Participants contributing to theme (n = 9)

Theme School 1 (n = 3) School 2 (n = 3) School 3 (n = 3)

Students seem to

communicate more

openly about IPV

P1, P2 P4, P5, P6 P7, P8, P9

Students seem to

have greater

awareness related to

IPV

P2, P3 P5, P6 P7, P8

Theme 1: Students seem to communicate more openly about intimate

partner violence. Theme 1 included two related subthemes. Table 4 indicates the

subthemes included in Theme 1 and the participants who contributed to each. The

following discussion includes evidence of the subthemes in the form of quotations from

the data.

Table 4

Theme 1 Subthemes

Participants contributing to subtheme (n = 9)

Subtheme School 1 (n

= 3)

School 2

(n = 3)

School 3 (n

= 3)

Students seem to communicate more

openly with adults about IPV

P1, P2 P4, P5, P6 P7, P9

Students seem to communicate more

openly with peers about IPV

P1, P2 P8

Subtheme: Students seem to communicate more openly with adults about

intimate partner violence. Seven out of nine participants expressed the perceptions that

after LDH students seemed to communicate more openly about IPV with adults, such as

counselors, teachers, and school administrators. P1 reported that students had begun to

approach him during and after LDH:

I’d have a student come to me and say that so and so was--it wouldn't necessarily

be a student of ours, it could be a friend--and said that she told them that that

sounds like a red flag.

P2 said of students who had participated in LDH:

[Students are] more willing to have that conversation about what’s right, what's

wrong. Having the communication, I think that's the most important thing. ‘Cause

a lot of times kids just have the thoughts in their brain but they don’t really wanna

[sic] speak it out, . . . and so, with LDH, it allowed them to have an open

conversation with an adult.

P4 had been approached by a student who reported IPV in her home: “I had a

student come up and open up to me like she had never opened up before.” P5 had

observed an increase in students communicating to adults about IPV that had taken place

between adults at home:

I did have quite a few students who approached me, and they more discussed

situations that their friends were in or situations that they were living in at home,

which directly impacted them because normally it was the mom who was

involved in an unhealthy relationship, and so there were quite a few discussions.

Similar to P1, P6 had noticed an increase in students reporting IPV that had taken

place between peers: “I think there have been guys that have come to counselors or

principals to say, ‘this guy isn’t treating this girl right.’ And there had been girls saying,

‘this girl or this guy isn't treating another person right.’” P7 stated, “I think school-wide

our students feel more comfortable in sharing personal stories or reaching out for help

from staff, counselors, administrators.” P9 stated that during and after LDH, “I think

more students came down to the counselor's office if they were concerned about, you

know, were they in an unhealthy relationship.”

Subtheme: Students seem to communicate more openly with peers about

intimate partner violence. Three out of nine participants expressed the perceptions that

after LDH students seemed to communicate more openly about IPV with peers. P1

described an exercise used in LDH to increase communication among peers: “We did

practice how to help a friend. We did role-playing for that part.” P2 described

conversations she had heard between students during and after LDH:

The conversations that I did hear when we were in passing periods or in other

classrooms and I had observed, they would always say [in relation to other

students’ IPV], “That's not right.” Or, “That's inappropriate,” in conversations

with one on one. Or, “That's not how you're supposed to interact.” Or when

they're starting to date an individual, “Like how are you handling it? How are they

treating you?” Those types of questions were more relevant than [prior to LDH,

when] it was just like, “Oh, what'd you guys do?”

P8 said of students in her school who participated in LDH: “They were more open to talk

about [IPV]. They seemed more confident, educated, and equipped to know what they

can do for a friend, what they can do if they themselves are going through it.”

Theme 2: Students seem to have greater awareness related to intimate

partner violence. Six of nine participants expressed the perceptions that students seemed

to have greater awareness related to IPV after LDH. P2 described increased awareness

among students of the prevalence of IPV:

Going into the program, [students] didn't necessarily know what it was about . . .

When they came out of [LDH], they knew about stats [statistics], and especially

when it came to the amount of domestic violence that there is out there.

P3 described how discussions demonstrated students’ increased awareness of IPV:

Throughout the program, we had multiple discussions, small group discussions,

large group discussions, and the students really did participate well in that. I really

felt like they paid attention and they noted a lot of the stuff [from the LDH

curriculum] based on what they had to say during these class discussions.

P5 reported the perception that students were becoming increasingly aware of

what behaviors constitute IPV: “Probably the coolest thing is the students actually

recognizing behaviors that aren't necessarily appropriate, behaviors that they maybe have

definitely seen in the past and didn't think twice about, because that's how things have

been going.” P6 described how speakers were used in LDH to raise students’ awareness

of what behaviors constitute IPV:

The other day what we did was, we brought in a couple of victims that are now

adults in our community. That really much of their victim mentality and allowing

themselves to be abused without really even realizing they're in an abusive

relationship, is what many of our kids experience.

P7 reported that students seemed more aware of danger signals and support

resources after LDH:

I think students gained a greater understanding of some of the warning signs of

relationships that may be headed toward danger . . . I think students have become

more informed about that, more aware of those signs of an unhealthy relationship,

and also about resources to reach out to should they find themselves in that

scenario.

For P8, one of the most valuable aspects of LDH was making students aware that

they were not alone in witnessing or suffering from IPV:

The biggest thing was awareness . . . when I do a little tally, . . . and I have

[students] put their heads down and raise their hand, [and] when I put the little

numbers on the board and they see it later, then they realize [they’re] not the only

ones that observed that [IPV]. They’re not the only one in that class that has seen

this or heard this or been through something like this, and it becomes very real. So

I think it's a huge awareness.

Subquestion 2

Subquestion 2 was the following: Does the gender-specific component of LDH

affect the students who participate positively? Two themes emerged during data analysis

to answer the subquestion. Table 5 indicates the major themes and the participants (by

case) who contributed to each.

Table 5

Subquestion 2 Themes

Participants contributing to theme (n = 9)

Theme School 1 (n = 3) School 2 (n = 3) School 3 (n = 3)

Girls seemed more

comfortable when

separated from

boys, and seemed

generally more

receptive to LDH

curriculum

P1, P2, P3 P5 P7, P9

Boys seemed more P1

mature when they were

separated from girls, but

they

sometimes seemed

to perceive the

curriculum as “male-

bashing”

P6 P8, P9

Theme 3: Girls seemed more comfortable when separated from boys, and

seemed generally more receptive to Love Doesn’t Hurt curriculum. P1 expressed the

perception that girls were more willing to open up when they were separated from boys:

The conversation with the young ladies when you separate [boys from girls] is

awesome. They can talk freely and know that they're not going to be teased

because usually a fellow girl won't do something like that. The boys might.

P2 indicated that girls were empowered by the curriculum, in contrast to boys:

The girls, it empowered them more so to speak for themselves and stand up for

themselves . . . I think for the girls, they learned that they needed to make sure

they speak with one another and have that communication.

P2 also described girls as more receptive to LDH curriculum than boys:

I think the girls obviously take to [LDH] a little bit more so. Just based off of

what the campaign’s about, you know it connects to ‘em more, obviously.

Dealing with the person who is involved with the whole [IPV] situation. They

could see themselves in that type of area and kinda [sic] concern. And so, I think

the girls took to it a little bit more [than the boys].

P3 had noticed more participation from girls than from boys: “The levels of

participation pretty much varied, and like I said, the females did participate quite a bit

better than the males did.” P5 agreed that participation from female students was stronger

than participation from male students, particularly toward the beginning of LDH: “I feel

like the females participate stronger, and I feel like their attention span is better during the

programming . . . the females usually get more involved during the program and the role

playing and things like that.” However, P5 speculated that another possible explanation

for the apparent disparity between male and female students was that male students did

not signify their attentiveness as overtly as females did: “Males’ way of learning and

paying attention is completely different, and so just because they're not nodding like a

female, or eye contact or whatever, doesn't mean that they're not necessarily taking it in.”

P7 suggested that female students were more attentive and receptive because they

identified with victims of IPV:

I think the emotional tie was probably stronger with the female students because

this happened to a female. I think male students, while attentive and engaged with

the program, I'd say, if just a visual observation, it seemed you see more of the

emotional concerning looks on the girls' faces probably more so than the males.

And I think that was just because it happened to a female student.

Similar to P2, P9 described female students as “empowered” by LDH:

The girls, I felt they were a lot more empowered, and felt strong in a session with

[teacher] . . . just the in air activity of the girls talking to [teacher], asking

questions and speaking up and speaking out was tremendous.

Theme 4: Boys seemed more mature when they were separated from girls,

but they sometimes seemed to perceive the curriculum as “male-bashing.” P1

explained why boys and girls were separated for part of LDH:

Sometimes when the boys and the girls were together I feel like the boys were

kind of squirrely, for lack of a better term, not as serious as they should've been. I

think it's just to save face with the opposite sex there . . . with the boys [when]

they didn't have these young ladies present sometimes we talked about that and

then they seemed to behave better.

P6 expressed the perception that some freshmen boys were conspicuously immature in

general assemblies:

I think sometimes the freshman boys are just so immature that they struggle to

start with [in LDH], and . . . it takes until late spring before they stop acting like

eighth grade boys . . . They're still punching each other on the shoulders or

pinching them in certain places and pretty immature group.

P6 also expressed the perception that boys were less receptive to LDH curriculum

because it challenged their loyalty to their fathers, who may have been perpetrators of

IPV:

There've been one or two cases where guys have really kind of almost, taken

offense to the topic. And you just wonder what’s going on because they’re smart

enough to realize it's a problem. Right? But it’s almost a denial that they don’t

want to acknowledge that maybe my house needs change a little bit too. Or maybe

when I grow up probably shouldn't be like dad. And that conflicts with what his

loyalty to his dad is telling him.

P8 explained that her male students sometimes seemed to perceive the focus on IPV as

“male-bashing”:

The guys sit there and they feel like they're getting bashed . . . it makes the male

look bad, because we think of more physical things when we think about male,

when we think about abuse in a relationship, but females can be abusive too in a

relationship. So I make sure we bring that back to the surface of we're not bashing

males, and females can be this too even though statistics show it's usually the

male.

P9 perceived male students as feeling disproportionately burdened with the responsibility

for preventing IPV: “The feedback that I heard from the guys is they felt like they were

the villains and that other than just being a nice person, I think they felt like the onus was

on them.”

Summary

The research question was the following: What experiences and reactions do

Kansas middle school students have while participating in Love Doesn’t Hurt? The

research question was answered by answering the two subquestions. The first subquestion

was the following: Do students seem to be changing their knowledge, skills, or attitudes

related to IPV? Findings indicated that students at all three case sites seemed to

communicate more openly about IPV during and after LDH. Students at all three case

sites seemed to communicate more openly about IPV with counselors, teachers, and

administrators, and students at School 1 and School 3 seemed to communicate more

openly with peers about IPV. Students at all three case sites also seemed to develop more

awareness of the prevalence and warning signs of IPV.

The second subquestion was the following: Does the gender-specific component

of Love Doesn’t Hurt affect the students who participate positively? Findings indicated

that students at all three case sites were affected positively by the separation of boys from

girls during certain components of LDH. Boys were perceived as behaving more

maturely when they were separated from girls, although some boys also appeared to

interpret statistics indicating that IPV was more often perpetrated by men than by women

as “male-bashing.” Girls seemed to communicate more openly about IPV when they were

separated from boys, possibly because this process relieved them of anxiety about being

teased by boys. Girls also seemed more receptive to the curriculum and to participate

more than boys did, possibly because they identified with victims of IPV. Chapter 5

includes interpretation and implications of these findings.

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative, case study on the Love

Doesn’t Hurt program to understand the professional viewpoints of the

counselors/teachers who led the program; to determine whether they saw improvements

among this vulnerable, male, adolescent population; to obtain knowledge of ways the

program worked or did not work (i.e., opinions of program effectiveness); and to

determine suggestions for future practices. Such research was essential considering the

prevalence of IPV and its severe repercussions on both the physical and mental health of

the victims (Temple et al., 2013). Temple et al. (2013) purported that, although IPV

prevention program studies were scarce, evidence has shown that these programs at least

raised awareness and increased the knowledge of adolescents on IPV; these benefits

could outweigh the costs of implementing such programs in schools.

LDH has been implemented in many middle and high schools; however,

researchers had yet to examine it in today’s existing literature. Therefore, I raised the

following research questions and subquestions:

RQ. What experiences and reactions do Kansas middle school students have

while participating in Love Doesn’t Hurt?

SQ1. Do students seem to be changing their knowledge, skills, or attitudes related

to Love Doesn’t Hurt?

SQ2. Does the gender-specific component of Love Doesn’t Hurt affect the

students who participate positively?

After open-ended interviews on the LDH leaders in three different schools,

patterned after those research questions, four main themes emerged: Students seemed to

communicate more openly about IPV, students seemed to have greater awareness related

to IPV, girls seemed more comfortable when separated from boys and seemed generally

more receptive to LDH curriculum, and boys seemed more mature when separated from

girls but sometimes seemed to perceive the curriculum as “male-bashing.”

These findings are discussed in more detail and in line with existing literature in

the following interpretation section. That section is followed by a section on the

limitations of the study. Then, I present the recommendations for future research and the

implications of the current study. The chapter will conclude with a summary.

Interpretation of Findings

Openness to Communicate About Intimate Partner Violence

The first theme found in the interviews with the LDH leaders was that students

seemed to communicate more openly about IPV to both adults and their peers. This

finding was in line with other studies, showing that IPV prevention programs might

influence how people communicate about IPV (Drury, 2003). In this study’s interviews,

some LDH leaders reported how students would approach them or other school staff and

tell them about friends or family members experiencing IPV. This finding indicated that

the LDH program might have helped adolescents be more comfortable opening up to

adults about IPV, especially considering how the adolescent stage was known to

encompass numerous communication barriers with adult authority figures, such as

teachers and parents (Drury, 2003).

The goal of the LDH program was to foster a school environment and culture

where everyone could feel safe from IPV, and this type of cultural shift often showed a

problem existed to open discussion about the issue (Jana’s Campaign, 2019). Therefore,

the finding that students were openly communicating about IPV supported the LDH’s

intention to bring the problem of IPV into the open. Miller et al. (2015) found similar

results about another IPV prevention program, Start Strong, which was implemented on

middle school students. They found that students who underwent Start Strong showed

stable parent-child communication about their relationships, while their control group

students who did not undergo Start Strong showed a decrease in parent-child

communication. Just as LDH seemed to help students communicate more openly with

adults, such as teachers and staff, the Start Strong program appeared to do the same to

their students. The helpers aided students in communicating more with their parents than

their peers who did not undergo any program. This finding indicated that IPV prevention

programs might give students the inclination and confidence to communicate with adult

authority figures about IPV. Learning to and being comfortable enough to communicate

with adults regarding IPV was a necessary skill, as adolescents might not yet be fully

aware of how to handle these kinds of situations.

Another type of IPV prevention program that showed similar results, the

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), implemented mindfulness tactics. These

included meditation, mindful listening, mindful inquiry, and nonjudgmental acceptance of

one’s own experience. Bermudez et al. (2013) found the program helpers promoted

assertive communication, an empowering type of communication that allowed

participants to express their feelings properly. Assertive communication allowed victims

to speak freely about and share their experiences with others, similar to how the LDH

program allowed students to talk about their experiences on IPV with adults. This type of

communication worked the other way around as well, as participants learned to be more

mindful and communicate their pent-up feelings of anger instead of turning to IPV

(Bermudez et al., 2013). With programs, such as LDH, MBSR, and Start Strong,

adolescents learned to be more assertive, confident, and motivated to talk to adults about

issues, along with their feelings and experiences, regarding IPV.

Other than adult authority figures, adolescents are also influenced by their peers,

which means that peer discussion about IPV can influence students’ thoughts and

attitudes about them (Swanson, Edwards, & Spencer, 2010). This finding highlighted the

importance of this current study’s finding that students communicated more openly about

IPV with their peers after LDH. One part of LDH, the bystander intervention training,

which was used by several other programs, taught students how to identify red flags and

to best deal with issues (Jana’s Campaign, 2019). Bystander intervention is utilized in

programs, such as Bringing in the Bystander, and was found t effective in increasing

knowledge and behavior on preventing IPV, more so than traditional IPV awareness

programs. The program helped similar to the way LDH students in this current study

displayed more knowledge, bystander behavior, and intention to help by integrating IPV

prevention concepts in their conversations with peers (see Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante,

2007; Peterson et al., 2016).

Moynihan et al. (2014) found long-term effects of the bystander approach with

their experimental participants’ self-report of helping out their friends more in terms of

dealing with IPV. They noted that bystander training seemed to not only help participants

recognize danger signs but also gave them tools to intervene. This finding was also

evident in the way the LDH students in this current study not only talked about IPV with

their friends but also pointed out the inappropriate behaviors or red flags that their friends

were subjected to. These studies on the bystander approach support this current study’s

finding that the bystander intervention training part of the LDH program might have

positive influences on how students could communicate and intervene better with their

peers in terms of dealing with IPV. As they learned more about IPV and shared insights

and knowledge with each other, they created a more positive safer school environment

and culture (see De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2016).

Greater Awareness About Intimate Partner Violence

The second theme in this study was that students seemed to have greater

awareness related to IPV, as they participated more and showed greater interest during

LDH sessions. This finding was shared by several existing literatures that showed the

effectiveness of IPV prevention programs in raising awareness about IPV and assuring

students that they were not alone in experiencing some red flags of IPV. Gage, Honoré,

and Deleon (2016) conducted a study in Haiti that showed similar results; they assessed

the pre and posttest knowledge of high school students on dating violence. Applying the

Safe Dates curriculum, one of the most popular curricula in the United States, they found

that students showed significantly greater knowledge during post-test on IPV myths and

warning signs, on how to defuse their anger, on how to protect themselves, as well as on

how to help friends experiencing IPV.

Several meta-analyses also supported this study’s finding, showing how various

school-based IPV intervention programs increased knowledge and awareness of students

regarding IPV; however, most found that this increased awareness did not directly

translate to actual changed behavior (De La Rue et al., 2016; Fellmeth et al., 2013;

O’Leary & Slep, 2012). Comparing these extant data to the current study, I observed that

IPV prevention programs, such as LDH, raised IPV awareness and knowledge, but its

effect on actual changed behavior remained to be seen; the participants did not mention

changes in IPV perpetration and victimization rates. A couple of existing studies showed

a slight deterioration in IPV prevention attitudes after students were exposed to IPV

education (Edwards & Hinsz, 2014). In this current study, LDH leaders did not explicitly

state the actual IPV behavior changes of the students; however, positive IPV prevention

attitudes were present in the interest and participation of the students, and also in the way

they helped their friends experiencing IPV, which was already a changed behavior.

The problem of actual changed behavior was something that skills-based

intervention programs tried to address, such as how the bystander approach, which was a

part of LDH, allowed students to practice or role-play certain behaviors that helped IPV

victims (see Peterson et al., 2016). This study’s LDH leaders mentioned how participative

the students were in role-playing, which allowed them to become more aware of the

danger signs of IPV and some of the available resources that they could use in IPV

situations. This issue was addressed to by the first theme of this study, showing signs of

changed behavior in the form of increased participation, reporting, and communication.

However, actual IPV behavior changes regarding perpetration and victimization required

a more quantitative examination and was beyond the scope of this current study.

Girls’ Higher Participation and Receptivity Compared to Boys

Considering the gender-specific aspects of LDH, leaders found that girls felt more

comfortable and participated more in LDH sessions than boys. Moreover, girls seemed

generally more receptive to the LDH curriculum, showing how IPV prevention programs

had positive effects for females. This finding was shared by other previous studies. The

term “empowerment” was brought up multiple times, revealing a positive aspect of LDH

where girls could share and find strength in each other without fear of judgment or being

teased by boys. Going beyond creating a safe space for discussion, Perilla et al.’s (2012)

Caminar Latino program allowed their female participants to shape the program based on

their experiences and needs. Their group format used a communal method where all the

women, including the advocates and facilitators, were part of the sessions and contributed

to the conversations. This process increased the confidence level of the IPV survivors to

participate and feel empowered. This process enabled all the women to learn from each

other and provide guidance and support to one another, just as one of the participants in

this current study noted how the girls learned the importance of talking to each other

about their own experiences. This finding showed the empowering effect of IPV

prevention programs, such as LDH.

Bermudez et al. (2013) also found that their female participants were initially

hesitant to participate and share their experiences. However, they eventually found it a

positive experience. Participants said that the program allowed them to gain insights from

each other, similar to how the girls in this current study were willing to participate and

share insights with one another. These findings supported the positive influence of the

gender-specific aspect of IPV programs, such as LDH, on girls.

The gender-specific format allowed the girls in this study, and in the other studies

mentioned above, to feel more comfortable and safer. However, another study showed

how some women involved in IPV find conjoint therapy with their partners to be more

effective because of its dyadic nature, although they admitted that it was not for everyone

(Todahl et al., 2012). This result might appear contradictory to this current study’s

findings, but these women were older and voluntarily attended sessions; moreover, they

received options to withdraw anytime, which might account for their feeling safer than

the adolescent girls in this current study. Shorey et al. (2012) proposed similar ideas as

they suggested that younger couples, as is with this current study, had a higher risk of

breaking up and dating other people, which would make it difficult to employ and assess

conjoint sessions.

This current study’s finding that females seemed to participate more than males

was observable in other literature. Gage et al. (2016) found that females appeared to have

gained more knowledge about IPV than males after similar treatments, although they also

noted that the curriculum was taught by a female teacher, which might have affected the

outcome. Moynihan et al. (2014) found that their intervention program affected females

more significantly compared to males in terms of bystander prevention behaviors on

strangers experiencing IPV. However, they later raised questions on whether this finding

was because males were more resistant to their program or because certain genderspecific

contexts were not addressed by their program. In this current study, one participant

mentioned that males might have different, more subtle ways of paying attention and

participating than females.

Boys’ Maturity and Perception of “Male-Bashing”

Existing literature regarding gender-specific IPV prevention programs’ influence

on males were scarce and showed contrasting results. In this study, participants noted that

the boys seemed more mature when separated from girls, but they sometimes seemed to

perceive the curriculum as “male-bashing.” Although the gender-specific aspect of LDH

allowed the boys to take it more seriously, some leaders still attributed their lower

participation in LDH sessions to their immaturity or to the perception that they, the male

gender as a whole, were being treated as “villains.” While this “male-bashing” perception

was a prevalent theme in this study, some leaders stated that they attempted to remind the

boys that the roles could be reversed and that females could be perpetrators too. Indeed,

the presence of gender symmetry in existing literature supported the idea that both males

and females shared similar perpetration rates in IPV (see Desmarais et al., 2012a;

Kimmel, 2002), which was one of the concepts that the LDH leader in this current study

used to try to alleviate the “male-bashing”. However, Desmarais et al. (2012a) stated that

these rates only showed the quantity and not the severity of IPV, which showed that

gender-specific intervention might still be necessary. This finding was supported by

several studies’ findings that males and females differed in motives, attitudes, norms, and

power regarding IPV (Kelley et al., 2015; Lundgren & Amin, 2015).

The notion that boys seemed to take LDH more seriously in gender-specific

sessions showed a positive light on the program. One of the LDH leaders mentioned that

the absence of girls allowed the boys to be less conscious of their behavior, as males

often found it difficult to discuss sensitive topics, such as sexual behavior, with girls (see

Shorey et al., 2012). Research comparing the effectiveness of IPV intervention programs

between males and females was scarce, but some studies showed effective approaches for

male-only groups, such as the protherapeutic group approach. In this approach, positive

confirmation and encouragement to take responsibility for abusive acts were given by

both the therapists and other male participants in the group (Semiatin et al., 2013). Their

results indicated that these types of protherapeutic behaviors by male peers significantly

correlated not just with better participation but with positive behavior change as well.

One of this study’s LDH leaders similarly mentioned how boys behaved better and took

LDH more seriously in all-male sessions. Wolfe et al. (2009) displayed findings that their

program, Fourth R: Skills for youth relationships that tackled dating violence, substance

abuse, and risky sexual behavior, was found effective in reducing IPV for boys but not

for girls. This finding might seem contradictory to this current study’s findings but

supported the notion that males and females had different learning styles and needs,

which called for the gender-specific aspect of studies, such as LDH.

Themes in Relation to the Theoretical Frameworks

The first theoretical framework applied in this study was Bandura’s (1969) social

learning theory, which posited that behaviors, such as IPV, were learned from influential

role models. This theory was evident in what one of the LDH leaders mentioned, how

some students had conflicted feelings about the way their father, whom they considered a

role model, displayed IPV behaviors. Several studies supported this theory that exposure

to family violence correlated with IPV perpetration (e.g., Lee et al., 2014). However, This

theory could work both ways. The LDH leaders mentioned how they used role-playing to

display effective means of helping IPV victims, and although they were just pretending,

the students could experience and observe firsthand the proper behaviors they should be

doing. The program introduced to the students some victims who experienced IPV in the

past. These people gave important insights based on their past experiences and might

serve as good role models for students. While some students might learn violent

behaviors from their parents or even from some of their peers, programs such as LDH

could utilize this theory to help the students learn ways to prevent IPV.

The second theoretical framework, feminist theory, was even more prevalent in

this study’s findings. Based on feminist theory, Pence and Paymar (1993) endorsed

approaches that would change behaviors and values that reinforced cultural norms, such

as patriarchal privilege and power, which might serve as grounds for IPV. Leaders of

LDH applied this theory in the way that the curriculum helped empower female students

not just to communicate more openly but also to protect themselves and their friends, as

observed in the increased communication about IPV and the way that students warned

each other about red flags. Unfortunately, some male students were observed to take this

feminist approach negatively, as they considered it “male-bashing.” This way of thinking

might be a direct effect of feminism, placing more power on the females than males in

terms of IPV prevention, or it may put the limelight back on males instead of the larger

issue of IPV as a whole, thereby encouraging the very patriarchal norm that the feminist

theory goes against. One way that LDH tried to remedy this “male-bashing” viewpoint

was by presenting the male students as allies in their bystander intervention training,

placing equal responsibility on both males and females in preventing IPV (see Jana’s

Campaign, 2019).

Limitations

As mentioned earlier, the findings of this study were limited to the LDH program

and might not apply to other IPV prevention programs. Although LDH shared several

similarities with other programs, the intricacy of how the different parts of a program

worked together prevented this study’s findings from thoroughly describing other

programs as well, as was seen in the diverse results from various meta-analyses (e.g.,

Jewkes, Flood, & Lang, 2015; O’Leary & Slep, 2012). The sample in this study limited

the applicability of the findings to middle and high school students in Kansas. While

programs exceedingly similar to LDH might exist in other states or countries, the

reception, attitudes, and behaviors of the participants might vary because of the differing

culture (see Jewkes et al., 2015).

I utilized a qualitative, open-ended interview method to minimize interviewer bias

while gaining a deeper understanding on the subject; however, the findings were also

limited and could not be used as empirical data. The opinions of the study’s participants

could not be considered as factual effects of LDH. In line with this limitation, the LDH

leaders’ opinions might not reflect the students’ opinions of LDH, as well. Considering

these limitations, recommendations for future studies are discussed in the next section.

Recommendations

I utilized the qualitative method and interviewed the leaders of LDH to fill certain

gaps in the literature, such as the lack of studies on LDH and professional viewpoints.

That being said, several other gaps exist that need to be filled. The first of these include

the lack of longitudinal, quantitative, and experimental studies that may establish causal

effects of LDH on behavioral change. A more comprehensive study that involves

numerous IPV prevention programs, including LDH, in school and community settings as

well would be useful to observe which program works best. Although these kinds of

studies may prove difficult because of the sensitive and vacillating nature of IPV,

measures may be taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Mental

health professionals, such as couples’ therapists, may be consulted to assist in procuring

and maintaining eligible participants.

In addition, the gender-specific aspect of IPV prevention programs should be

considered due to the prevalent issues surrounding it (e.g., Kelley et al., 2015; Lundgren

& Amin, 2015). Jewkes et al. (2015) warned about how the separation of males and

females in IPV prevention programs might cause gender-inequality. As I found that male

students perceived the gender-specific sessions as “male-bashing,” deeper insights

coming from male students themselves might be necessary to understand how they felt

about each part of the program, or whether it was a matter of context or content, to obtain

suggestions from them on how to make it more suitable for them. A qualitative study

utilizing interviews and focus group discussions with male students as participants might

elicit these insights.

Other aspects that should also be considered include age, race, and presence of

IPV in family history, as these may be some variables influencing IPV. Quantitative

measures can be used to examine how these different variables mediate the effect of IPV

prevention programs on IPV attitudes and behaviors. Several studies have also discussed

how IPV prevention programs may increase awareness but not necessarily change

behavior (De La Rue et al., 2016; Edwards & Hinsz, 2014; Fellmeth et al., 2013; O’Leary

& Slep, 2012). Future researchers should consider investigating dependent variables that

show actual behavior change. As self-reports may contain bias, additional instruments

such as reports from partners and behavioral checklists may be utilized to show behavior

change.

Implications

I explored professional viewpoints to provide a more objective perspective on

LDH, imparting several implications for practice, theory, and social change. On a micro

level, the findings imply that LDH helped students become more aware of IPV and the

red flags associated with it. This increased awareness alerts them if they or someone they

know is being victimized, and they are more equipped with knowledge on how to handle

these situations or what resources are available around them, taking a step toward actual

behavior change. The LDH leaders already noticed how students warned their friends

about IPV, which could be considered a changed behavior; with the students’ increased

awareness on the issue, IPV perpetration and victimization in these adolescents might

lessen.

On a meso level, considering the interactions between students, their peers, and

adults, LDH created a friendlier campus and community, as students were talking about

IPV more openly within their peer groups and reporting inappropriate behaviors to

authority figures more frequently. However, the fourth theme also implies that the

gender-specific aspect of LDH may be creating an antagonizing impression on male

students. LDH leaders should then take extra care to make the male students feel more

like allies than villains regarding IPV prevention. Supported by the feminist framework,

the empowering effect of the gender-specific aspect on the female students, and the

finding that male students took the gender-specific sessions more seriously than general

assemblies, imply that the gender-specific aspect itself brings positive effects to both

genders. Teachers should consider the content of the program when examining the

“malebashing” perspective of the students. One of the LDH leaders mentioned how they

mentioned that females could be perpetrators as well. A sharing of best practices between

teachers and counselors could prove vital in obtaining strategies like this one. The gender

of teachers and facilitators may also be considered, so students may relate more to

teachers, as male students may feel less antagonized by male teachers and counselors

(Gage et al., 2016).

On a macro level, the implications of these findings are critical for policy makers.

As the LDH program was found to encourage open communication about IPV and

reporting IPV red flags or incidents to authorities, school policy makers may want to

extend this program and integrate it more permanently into their academic curriculum,

especially since longer sessions of IPV prevention programs seem to produce more

longterm effects (O’Leary & Slep, 2012). I found promising results for LDH; however,

other meta-analyses showed diverse and contrasting results for some other IPV

prevention programs with similar aspects as LDH. This aspect shows the need for more

scrutiny by school policy makers when choosing and designing their IPV prevention

programs. This disparity in results also calls for standardization in implementing

programs, as slight differences can produce some negative effects (Edwards & Hinsz,

2014; Jewkes et al., 2015).

Regarding the methodological implications of this study, the qualitative nature

and the use of a specific case study created a deeper understanding of the factors and

effects of LDH (see Yin, 2015). Utilizing unstructured interviews on professionals

provided a degree of impartiality, which resulted in more objective findings unbiased by

the interviewer, the proponents, or the students of the LDH program. The theoretical

frameworks were also mostly supported by the results, as explained earlier, indicating the

application of these frameworks in future research surrounding IPV prevention programs,

as well.

As practitioners, IPV prevention program developers should consider the themes

found in this current study to improve their programs further. As the gender-specific

nature of LDH proved mostly successful, practitioners should consider applying this

aspect to at least some sessions in their program. Practitioners should also encourage

open communication more and utilize role-playing, as these seemed effective ways for

students to rehearse their IPV prevention skills. Lastly, practitioners should consider the

“male-bashing” perspectives of some students to shape the content of their programs to

promote males as allies in the struggle against IPV.

Conclusion

IPV is an emerging concern that involves not just physical but psychological

health, as well (CDC, 2015; Temple et al., 2013). This concern was even more

pronounced considering the contrasting findings surrounding different IPV prevention

programs (De La Rue et al., 2016; Edwards & Hinsz, 2014; Jewkes et al., 2015; O’Leary

& Slep, 2012). With that, an in-depth understanding of the specific factors of IPV

prevention was essential to learn about the ways in which an IPV program worked or did

not work. I delivered such findings that introduced key factors surrounding one IPV

prevention program, the LDH. The four themes that emerged showed how LDH allowed

students to be more aware and communicate more openly about IPV, and the

genderspecific aspect of LDH empowered female students and allowed male students to

be more serious but also produced a “male-bashing” perspective.

These findings, along with the social learning theory and feminist theory, call for

more detailed evaluations of school-based IPV prevention programs to ensure that

adolescent students are being thoroughly informed about ways to prevent, and protect

themselves and their peers from IPV. Teachers and counselors should take extra care to

empower all students, especially considering the “male-bashing” perspective of the male

students. School policy makers should also consider the best practices of IPV prevention

programs and apply the most optimal program to their academic curriculum to enhance

the effects of the program further. I showed the importance of promoting awareness and

creating safe and comfortable environments for students regarding IPV.

Considering Gender in Intimate Partner Violence Prevention for Youth

Students also viewed