Getting In,Being In,Staying In,and Getting Out

The Present Study

Several studies have discussed “normal” or “typical” adolescent romantic relationship development (Kuttler & La Greca, 2004; Shulman & Seiffge-Krenke, 2001; Toscano, 2007; Zimmer-Gembeck, 2002). Some studies also have shed light on what happens when relationships deviate from this path, with findings showing the challenges of initiating a relationship without resorting to unhealthy strategies as well as ending an abusive one (Amar & Alexy, 2005; Chung, 2007; Ismail et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2005; Jouriles et al., 2009; Rhatigan & Street, 2005; Williams & Frieze, 2005). However, the details of what happens at different points throughout these relationships are not well established. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand teens’ descriptions of dating, starting with their ideas of when and how to initiate a relationship, followed by their descriptions of what happens after this initiation (including healthy vs. unhealthy behaviors), and finally, the challenges of getting out of a relationship that is no longer healthy or wanted. Ultimately, we believe that this line of research is needed to fill the gap in knowledge of when to intervene to reduce both the prevalence and consequences of dating problems and violence, and to stop the potential continuation of unhealthy relationships in teens’ lives.

In addition, because our sample included youth from underrepresented populations within the research literature (i.e., Samoans and Filipinos), we also explored whether there were cultural patterns in how teens described their experiences. Other studies hint at the influence of culture in dating experiences. For example, stereotypes persist for some groups, including widespread perceptions that Filipino youth are hypersexualized (particularly Filipino girls who were referred to as “hoochie mamas”) and that Samoan youth are violent (Helm & Baker, 2011; Mayeda, Chesney-Lind, & Koo, 2001).

The importance of culture in adolescent dating and TDV has been discussed in research with African American and Latino youth (Adams & Williams, 2014; Gonzalez-Guarda et al., 2014; Harper, Gannon, Watson, Catania, & Dolcini, 2004). For example, Mexican American girls suggested that aspects of their culture are protective against dating violence, such as strict parenting and an emphasis on educational attainment (Haglund, Belknap, & Garcia, 2012). Furthermore, for teens who experience dating violence, studies suggest that culture may influence help-seeking efforts (Black & Weisz, 2003; Ocampo, Shelley, & Jaycox, 2007).

Focus Group Participants

Data collection took place at a large public school serving an urban and ethnically diverse community, where a large proportion of the school population was of either Filipino or Samoan ancestry. Participant recruitment was conducted in collaboration with the school’s administrative team. Specifically, school counselors referred Filipino and Samoan students who they thought would be able to participate in a focus group interview appropriately, meaning counselors thought that the referred students would be willing to speak among their peers, and would be able to hold the conversation confidential. Approximately 75 students were referred to an afterschool presentation facilitated by our research staff. Staff explained the purpose of the study and passed out parent permission and youth assent forms. Students who were interested in participating obtained written parental consent, and also provided written youth assent.

Students were not asked to report their ages, rather just their level in school. Students also were not asked to report their generation or migration status, although based on the focus group discussions, participants seemed to identify as “local,” meaning they are from Hawai’i as opposed to the Philippines or Samoa. A total of 35 students (19 girls and 16 boys) in grades 9 through 12 participated. There were two all-girls groups, two all-boys groups, and two mixed-sex groups (girls and boys together). Groups were organized this way to elicit the dynamic views of both boys and girls in same-sex and mixed-sex groupings. Among the girls who participated, 13 were in all-girl groups and 6 were in the mixed-sex groups. Among the boys who participated, 11 were in all-boy groups and 5 were in mixed-sex groups. All participants self-identified as either of Samoan (9 girls, 9 boys) or Filipino (10 girls, 7 boys) descent.

Interview Protocol and Data Collection Procedures

This study was reviewed and approved by the governing institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Students were asked to describe their perceptions of youth violence, with a specific focus on dating violence. Participants were not asked to describe personal experiences with violence, rather to describe what they thought about violence among their peers. Question topics included the following: general youth violence, TDV, ethnocultural or gender-related factors in youth violence and dating violence, substance use as a factor in violence, and suggestions for supports and services. At the beginning of each focus group, participants were reminded of research procedures and protections (e.g., all information would be kept confidential). Interviews were facilitated by trained faculty and research associates from the Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center, and note-taking was conducted by the center’s research associates. Interviews were designed to last 60 to 90 minutes (average of 73 minutes).

Data Management and Analytic Procedures

Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software was used to aid in data management and analysis (NVivo software, QSR International, 2013). The analysis was conducted in stages. The first and second authors (the primary coders) read transcripts several times and coded a priori categories that included questions from the interview protocol related to dating and dating violence. Specifically, participants were asked to describe how they defined dating and what it was like to be in a dating relationship. They were asked to describe problems they had seen in the dating relationships of their peers (it is important to note that although participants were not asked about their own experiences, participants across all groups did, in fact, share personal experiences with dating and dating problems). During this initial analysis, the coders noticed a difference in how teens described dating relationships. These differences appeared to be reflective of distinct stages in the relationship (although there was some overlap), and at a certain point, there seemed to be a shift from being in a healthy relationship to staying in an unhealthy one.

Using grounded theory, the data were explored more deeply through open coding of these emergent patterns across the narratives (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Ponterotto, 2010). We elucidated these patterns further through axial and selective coding, by which we sought to clarify the participants’ statements related to the different stages of a relationship, as well as their connections with other phenomena of interest from our a priori categories (e.g., TDV). It is important to note that participants did not discuss dating relationships in terms of stages, rather the primary coders determined the distinction between the stages based on behaviors that could be identified as healthy versus unhealthy, even though they were not identified as such by participants. Narrative segments that were not identically coded by the primary coders were discussed until consensus was reached. Constant comparison and domain analyses (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011) yielded four distinctions as reported in the results: (a) getting in a relationship, (b) being in a healthy relationship, (c) staying in an unhealthy relationship, and (d) getting out of a problematic relationship. Finally, data were explored within these stages to identify cultural patterns in how Samoan and Filipino youth described their dating and TDV experiences.

Getting In

The getting-in narratives were distinct from the next three stages in two ways. First, getting-in narratives reflected the period before the dating started, and so were often hypothetical situations posed by teens about getting into a relationship; whereas being-in, staying-in, and getting-out narratives described periods when dating was occurring. Second, getting-in narratives emphasized the youths’ ideas of the concepts of adolescent romance and relationships by highlighting the social value that teens place on romantic relationships. By contrast, being-in, staying-in, and getting-out narratives indicated the youths’ descriptions of what the dating experience was like in the real life of teens in their social milieu.

Getting-in narratives focused on the age at which dating is appropriate (not too young) and acceptable age differences in dating partners (not too much). Although participants felt that kids should not start dating too young because “they don’t really know anything about love,” they acknowledged overwhelmingly that kids are interested in dating early and need to know about it starting in middle school. As one boy stated, “that’s when everything sprouts up.” Given this, participants felt that formal education (e.g., health classes) should introduce the topic of healthy dating “to teach ’em how to talk” early on, because waiting until high school is “too late already!”

In terms of how to initiate a relationship, several getting-in narratives focused on using social media as a way to meet people, and more generally, “how to pick up girls” or how “girls drop hints on the guys” as a way to initiate dating. Within this discussion, gender differences were noted, such as whether girls can ask out boys (generally no, “it’s wrong”). This issue was discussed in one of the girls groups:

Because you don’t know . . . if a guy asks out a girl then she knows that the guy likes her. But if she asks out a guy, it’s kinda hard because—it’s a guy. You know, he can . . . like someone else.

In addition to gender differences, getting-in narratives indicated a cultural pattern. Specifically, dating restrictions were discussed in all Samoan groups as something that is consistent with Samoan culture. Samoan girls unanimously agreed that there would be severe consequences for them if their parents found out they were dating. Samoan boys and girls described that this restriction was related to parents wanting their children to succeed, to “think about the future,” and deterring pregnancy. One girl explained, “School comes first. Well, after God. It is God and then school.” Nevertheless, boys and girls admitted to dating behind their parents’ backs; in fact, the girls jokingly referred to themselves as “single.” The Filipino girls group also discussed dating restrictions; but the tone was very different. According to girls in this group, although parents might not want them to date, parents did not object strongly when it happened.

Being In

Narratives were coded as “being in” when adolescents described aspects of healthy relationships. Both girls and boys described “being in” a relationship, although primarily in the all-girls and all-boys groups. There were three sub-themes regarding being in a healthy relationship: (a) what youth do in a relationship, (b) exclusivity, and (c) the importance of trust and respect for each other.

First, participants defined instrumental aspects of being in a healthy relationship in terms of what you do together (e.g., talk, go to beach) and publicly visual indicators of dating, such as “hold hands, smooching.” In fact, the Filipino girls group discussed how public displays of affection were expected among couples who were dating. Conversely, Samoan girls explained that they could not “fool around” in public; it had to be done “like on the down low.” One girl described (and others agreed) that even this would not last more than 2 weeks because, “once we get caught [by parents], we gotta break it off.” Thus, the duration of relationships for Samoan girls was generally short.

Second, adolescents seemed somewhat preoccupied with defining a relationship as exclusive or not, and, by extension, the need to understand and navigate expectations of one’s self and the partner, because “there are rules”:

Dating is different than having a relationship right? . . . Relationship is like you’re tied down to a person . . . you guys know stuff about each other, what makes you mad, sad. . . . Relationship is like official, you guys are together, just like a one-on-one.

Expectations were self-imposed, as well as derived from the partner, friends and other peers, family, and societal norms. Furthermore, expectations and questions regarding exclusivity and commitment in relationships were perceived to be complicated by expectations about sexual activity. One participant expressed feeling put off by her classmate, whom she did not know very well, because the classmate assumed she was having sex simply because she was in a relationship:

[the girl said to me] “Oh, you had sex already with him.” Oh, it was like something common . . . So I guess that’s what [people] expects you to do, like all this stuff for the guy.

Finally, participants seemed to agree that being in a relationship means getting to know, trust, and respect each other. In addition, these narratives began to hint at a transition from being in a healthy relationship to staying in an unhealthy one. In fact, youth acknowledged that a shift often occurs in relationships “3 months after . . . [or] when they like turn crazy and don’t trust you.” It is at this point when adolescents explicitly or implicitly feel things are becoming “unacceptable.” As one of the youth explained, “Like sometimes he can be so cute, but so [expletive] irritating, like oh my God!” Overall, this stage represents a time for clarifying feelings of angst and tension about the “rules” (e.g., cheating is wrong) for being in a healthy relationship. It also represents a time when feelings of angst can become unhealthy if they are not resolved properly. One of the boys offered an example of trust in a relationship which revealed this transitional dynamic:

. . . your friends come up and ask if you want to go movies or something. Like guarantee the first thing the girl gonna think about is that, oh is this guy really gonna go movies or is he gonna go look for some other girl? . . . [if] my girl’s thinking I’m out planning on cheating on her . . . I’m just gonna tell ’em the truth and if she don’t believe me, just let her go and just let it happen.

Staying In

In contrast to being-in narratives, staying-in narratives were those in which youth described unhealthy dating and dating violence. Youth described what it was like to stay in a relationship they believed to be problematic or irritating, but generally would be deemed by professionals as dating violence. In fact, these narratives were noteworthy in that youth seemed to normalize staying in an unhealthy relationship, rather than seeing the need to end it. Four sub-themes emerged in the staying-in narratives: (a) examples of bad relationships, (b) causes of bad relationships, (c) consequences of bad relationships, and (d) rationales for staying in bad relationships.

First, participants gave examples of bad relationships. Their evidence included seeing couples at school “just yelling at each other,” arguments in general, and other “dramas.” Participants described relationships characterized by frequent verbal and, in some cases, physical fights over “stupid things,” but without the notion of breaking up. These relationships had disintegrated, but had not moved toward dissolution, and did not seem to be moving in that direction. When asked how common fights are between romantic partners, one boy stated that dating conflicts happen “all the time” to which the others agreed, and he elaborated as follows:

Once or twice a week [we argue] over something stupid. I think mine was waking up late and not going to school on time. She got mad and started yelling at me . . . I’m just talking regular. “Why you yelling for?”

Second, participants identified causes of bad relationships. Substance use was perceived to be a cause of bad relationships, but a problem that partners seemed to minimize to stay in the relationship. Substance use problems included cheating when drunk, behaving differently or violently when under the influence, peer pressure from the partner to use drugs, and wanting the partner to stop using drugs. In one example, a boys group discussed being at parties without their girlfriends, and due to being drunk they would be accused of cheating:

Like if her friends were there, and her friends tell her stuff, like [you were] talking [to other girls], you f— up, you f—ed up right there man.

Substance use was cited as a contributor to violence in a mixed-sex group where teens were discussing what situations might lead to an abusive relationship. One of the girls described her friend’s experience with a boyfriend who “drank a lot” and “liked to party”:

He was cool when he wasn’t drinking that much. But when he did, kinda you know, people usually change when they are drinking. She didn’t get hurt that much, but he did say stupid things that leads to arguments, and bad stuff too [implying physical violence].

Another cause of unhealthy relationships was related to a lack of trust and jealousy, which would lead to monitoring behaviors, such as when “he calls you 20 times a day” or is “waiting outside of your work or your house.” All groups acknowledged that insecurities may lead to one partner becoming “over protective.” When asked to give an example of how boys can be paranoid, one boys’ group described how they would check up on their girlfriends:

Say she’s like going to the mall. I would call her, “Oh, what you doing?” “Looking at clothes.” I would go like, “OK, bye.” And then 10 minutes later, “What you doing?” call her back up again.

Although youth agreed that both girls and boys are “irritating” and “paranoid,” they sometimes expressed bewilderment with their peers for staying in these relationships.

Third, participants described what would be considered by professionals as consequences to staying in an unhealthy relationship. Examples of threats of self-harm, acts of self-harm, and suicide, as well as violence escalation and homicide were shared based on experiences with partners and peers at school and in the community. For example, participants described instances when one partner threatened suicide to keep the other in the relationship:

They’re insecure like they don’t want you to leave them, they’ll do anything to like keep you with them, even like threatening or try killing themselves.

Finally, participants explained that adolescents stay in bad relationships because they feel tied either to the person or the relationship. Some youth talked about how “love is blind,” not knowing how to “let go,” “true love [means that] no matter what you stay together,” or “waiting for that change that might never come.” The next two quotes elaborate on two rationales for staying in a bad relationship. It should be noted that the youth did not necessarily agree with these rationales, rather they were offered as explanations for why some youth might stay, rather than break up:

If she thinks that she loves him, course she’s gonna stay, or if she thinks she needs him or he needs her.

I think that [sexual activity] causes like ties you know. It makes it hard to break up. . . . if you are in a really bad relationship, you don’t really want to let it go because there’s that intimate tie, and then there’s also the pregnant thing going around.

Getting Out

Of the four stages, getting out of a bad relationship was discussed the least. Only three of the six focus groups discussed breaking up. Overall, getting out of a bad relationship was perceived as very challenging. One group talked about breaking up, then going back:

Like the guy I went out with, like he gets angry real fast. And he gets really irritated. And then there were times where like I didn’t like what he did so I would break it off, and get back together.

Generally, getting out was perceived as an individual act requiring significant peer, family, school, and community support, including the police when restraining orders might be needed. A cultural pattern emerged regarding help-seeking. Filipino youth were ambivalent about seeking help, although they did mention that support from friends is important. Filipino youth were reluctant to get involved in a friend’s problematic dating relationship because it likely would lead to more arguments. In contrast, within the Samoan boys group, youth described how they would seek help from friends and provide it to a friend who was in a problematic relationship:

You gotta help a friend, right? So for instance if [boy sitting next to him] needs help, when I look at it and he’s not doing well. Like I’m a good friend, so if he asks for it, I’m gonna help him out some, yeah . . . good friends, that’s the kind, when you get problems, “oh, break it up already.”

In addition to relying on friends, Samoan youth described the pivotal role of family in helping them get out of a bad relationship because “they’re always gonna butt in.” Samoan youth conveyed that they could not hide what was going on even if they wanted to; someone in the family was bound to find out and try to help, including “cousins, brothers, sisters.” One Samoan girl described how she came to the aid of her younger sister who was being stalked by a boyfriend:

He followed her everywhere. So, this one time I had to get into it with him. I told him “Stay the hell away from my sister. She don’t like you.”

The deeper challenge of getting out of a bad relationship was expressed through stories in which the victim did not leave. Again, a sense of bewilderment is evident in the following quote in which a girl is sharing about her friend who stayed in a physically abusive relationship:

She would get beaten up like almost every day, but she still stuck in the relationship. But I didn’t understand why. But usually it’s the girls; they can’t break up with a guy even though whatever the guy’s doing to them, they still won’t [leave, break up]. Something holding them back.

Practice Implications

There are practice implications for each stage of the dating experience. To start, these results suggest that high school students grapple with the concepts of healthy and unhealthy dating, and in fact, may have been doing so since middle school “because that’s when everything sprouts up.” Therefore, it is necessary to introduce healthy dating and TDV prevention topics earlier to pre-teens in the hopes of altering a potential pattern of unhealthy relationships. In support of starting TDV prevention in middle school, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have developed curricula for sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade youth (i.e., Dating Matters) and are now in the process of evaluating these curricula (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013).

In addition to introducing these discussions earlier, it will be important for prevention programs to consider the different stages of teen relationships. Findings from prior research have shown that persistence behaviors may be a part of the getting-in stage. Findings presented here suggest that these types of monitoring behaviors occur early in the being-in stage of the relationship, when youth are establishing themselves as a couple. Of concern is that for teens who continue relationships with the “persistent” partner, there are implications for a potentially swift shift from being in to staying in, which has consequences for getting out of the relationship unharmed (Williams & Frieze, 2005). Raising awareness among teens of warning signs during this early stage of the relationship may increase their ability to navigate the relationship safely.

On a positive note, the “being-in” narratives are encouraging in that adolescents define healthy dating as characterized by trust and respect. However, often teens reported that they and their friends/peers were not able to achieve these standards in their relationships. It appears that teens would benefit from programs that emphasize skills for establishing healthy relationships, and respectful communication and behaviors within these relationships. As an example, distrust, and the subsequent monitoring and controlling behaviors that come with distrust, could be highlighted for discussion to help teens learn new ways of being in a relationship without resorting to these behaviors.

Together, the getting-in and being-in narratives support the utility of implementing universal health promotion and prevention in schools and community settings (Helm, Baker, Morales Diaz, Rodriguez Del Toro, & Colón-Castillo, 2013). Considering the depth and breadth of challenges expressed in the “staying-in” narratives, it seems that selective and indicated prevention is warranted as well. Our findings corroborate those of other studies indicating that substance use and TDV are related risk factors (Rothman, McNaughton Reyes, Johnson, & LaValley, 2012; Zaha, Helm, Baker, & Hayes, 2013). The present study sheds light on possible explanations. Participants believed that substance use caused relationship problems because partners cheated when they were drunk, behaved differently or violently when under the influence, and argued when one partner wanted the other to stop using drugs. Although future research into the context of substance use and TDV may be necessary to fully understand the link, at a minimum, prevention practices need to highlight this intersection.

The present study suggests that youth are capable of perceiving problems in relationships, but apparently they are not defining these problems as dating violence. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that teens often describe acts of violence (e.g., harassment, monitoring, and controlling behaviors) as irritating (Baker & Helm, 2010) and physically abusive behavior as “playing around” (Foshee, Bauman, Linder, Rice, & Wilcher, 2007; Jouriles et al., 2009). As a result, adolescents appear to be staying in problematic and violent relationships rather than getting out. This practice may contribute to the heightened risk for experiencing a cycle of violence not only in the current relationship but also in future relationships. Longitudinal studies have shown that youth who have experienced dating abuse in one relationship are more likely to experience abuse in other relationships. (Martsolf, Draucker, Stephenson, Cook, & Heckman, 2012; Timmons-Fritz & Slep, 2009; Whitaker, Le, & Niolan, 2010). Therefore, prevention and intervention programs will need to improve adolescents’ skills for identifying their own and their peers’ relationships as unhealthy, and not simply as irritating or playing around. Specifically, programs that teach adolescents how to move toward relationship dissolution safely and respectfully are needed.

Practice implications derived from the cultural patterns found in the present study highlight family dating restrictions. Samoan youth were adamant that they were not allowed to date, and that there would be consequences if their parents found out. The degree of parent intervention is important, and, in fact, other research has suggested that strict parenting regarding dating may serve as a protective factor against TDV (Haglund et al., 2012). Yet, some Samoan youth dated anyway. Interestingly, girls’ dating experiences may have been limited by parents finding out about it, which typically occurred within 2 weeks of the relationship’s initiation. Among girls who were able to hide it longer than 2 weeks, their experiences seemed similar to those mentioned across the other focus groups: distrust and jealousy, followed by monitoring and abuse. In these cases, girls went to their family for help. This finding contradicts much of the research on help-seeking in that teens often seek help from their friends (Ocampo et al., 2007; Sabina, Cuevas, & Rodriguez, 2014; Weisz, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, & Black, 2007). Both Samoan boys and girls described how their family could not help but “butt in.”

However, there were disadvantages to the centrality of family, especially when it came to dating. It was clear that girls appreciated the opportunity to talk about their experiences in focus groups because this was not possible to do with their family. Girls generally did not talk to their friends because their family might find out; by contrast, they expressed feeling comfortable talking in the focus groups because of the expectation of confidentiality. Although some girls eventually sought help from family for dating problems, it was only after the relationship had become abusive. With these findings, culture-specific programs should be explored to provide Samoan youth with a venue to discuss dating and other adolescent development issues (Helm & Baker, 2011).

Future Research

These four dating stages represent emergent themes that will need to be validated. It will be important to integrate these findings with recent research that has explored the context of teen relationships. Draucker et al. (2012) described patterns of dating violence in relationships as well as the regularity and directionality of the violence. To inform program development, future research should explore how the regularity and directionality of violence change throughout the different stages of a relationship, especially with regard to staying in and getting out.

Moreover, it would be particularly helpful to understand how adolescents dissolve relationships independently as well as with assistance from friends, family, and school and community supports. Related to this point is the need to explore the utility of bystander interventions (e.g., Stueve & O’Donnell, 2004), as there is a growing body of literature on the role of bystanders in intervening in intimate partner violence, sexual violence, bullying, and other forms of violence in schools and communities (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004; Moynihan, Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein, & Stapleton, 2010).

Although the results of bystander interventions with college-aged students are positive (Banyard et al., 2004), their effect with high school–aged youth has yet to be determined. And, it may be that peers who could become helpful bystanders are instead promoting violence between the couple rather than preventing it. There is evidence that peers may play a destructive role in a couple’s dating relationship, which creates unsafe spaces in schools and communities (Guerra, Williamson, & Sadek, 2012; Helm, Baker, & Iskandar, 2013). Furthermore, studies have suggested that there is a belief among some minority youth that peers should not intervene in incidents of violence between dating partners (e.g., Weisz & Black, 2008). This belief was expressed by Filipino youth in the present study, who were hesitant to get involved in their friends’ problematic relationships. This ambivalence seemed to extend to their help-seeking behaviors as well. Given that bystander programs teach the importance of intervening to support friends who have been victimized (help-giving), these programs may also promote help-seeking. Future research on bystander education is needed to determine the utility of this strategy in mitigating TDV and increasing help-seeking, especially among minority youth (Sabina et al., 2014).

Limitations

This study represents the perceptions and experiences of a small group of boys and girls in a single high school (N = 35). Similar focus group studies with additional high schools or with youth from other communities are warranted to corroborate and expand on these findings. In addition, these youth were not recruited because they had dating experience or had been in problematic relationships. Rather, the sampling framework used a participatory approach in that counselors referred youth who they felt would be able to participate in a focus group on youth and dating violence in a respectful and confidential manner. There may have been recruitment bias in the types of students referred, and these students may not have been representative of the population of students who attended the school.

Furthermore, the themes from this study were emergent. We did not initiate the interviews with the explicit intent to identify these four stages. In using grounded theory for analyzing and understanding the narratives, the four stages became evident. Therefore, focus group facilitators did not fully probe these stages during the focus groups. As a result, it is likely that some of the details of teens’ experiences were not captured. Similarly, although cultural patterns emerged during data analysis, there was no opportunity to explore these patterns with participants during data collection, and therefore must be considered with caution.