Open Access Peer-reviewed Review

Explaining ADVA and TAADVA: Risk factors and correlates

Main Article Content

Karlie Emma Stonard corresponding author


While research regarding the correlates and risk factors of Adolescent Dating Violence and Abuse (ADVA) has been established, less research has explored what factors that might be associated with adolescents’ involvement in Technology-Assisted Adolescent Dating Violence and Abuse (TAADVA). This paper therefore reviews the literature to have reported on risk factors for ADVA and correlates of TAADVA in order to assess the current state of this knowledge base and look for similarities and differences between factors identified. A range of factors were identified that were important in ADVA and TAADVA victimisation and/or instigation and these are considered in terms of the level of theory that they can support in terms of their ability to explain ADVA and TAADVA, in addition to where they sit within an ecological framework. Due to research on TAADVA being relatively recent in comparison to ADVA, only correlates were identified in studies investigating associated factors whereas longitudinal risk factors have been well established with regard to ADVA that has been researched more extensively. Future research should attempt to standardise measures of risk factors and correlates in order to make comparisons more accurate and move research forward by developing a comprehensive theory of ADVA and TAADVA. 

adolescent, Dating Violence and Abuse, Technology-Assisted

Article Details

How to Cite
Stonard, K. (2019). Explaining ADVA and TAADVA: Risk factors and correlates. Advances in Developmental and Educational Psychology, 1(1), 23-66.


  1. Stonard KE, Bowen E, Lawrence TR, et al. The Relevance of Technology to the Nature, Prevalence and Impact of Adolescent Dating Violence and Abuse: A Research Synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2014, 19(4): 390-417.
  2. Leen E, Sorbring E, Mawer M, et al. Prevalence, Dynamic Risk Factors and the Efficacy of Primary Interventions for Adolescent Dating Violence: An International Review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2013, 18(1): 159-174.
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012, Understanding Teen Dating Violence., viewed June 6, 2015.
  4. Stonard KE. The Prevalence and Overlap of Technology- Assisted and Offline Adolescent Dating Violence. Current Psychology, 2018, 1-15.
  5. World Health Organization. 2015, Adolescent Development, viewed July 24, 2015.
  6. Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, et al. Coming to Terms With the Terms of Risk. Archies of General Psychiatry, 1997, 54(4): 337-343.
  7. Straus MA. Prevalence of Violence Against Dating Partners by Male and Female University Students Worldwide. Violence Against Women, 2004, 10(7): 790-81.
  8. Barter C, McCarry M, Berridge D, et al. 2009, Partner Exploitation and Violence in Teenage Intimate Relationships, NSPCC, London, viewed June 6, 2015.
  9. Orpinas P, Hsieh HL, Song X, et al. Trajectories of Physical Dating Violence from Middle to High School: Association with Relationship Quality and Acceptability of Aggression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013, 42(4): 551-565.
  10. Brooks-Russell A, Foshee VA and Ennett ST. Predictors of Latent Trajectory Classes of Physical Dating Violence Victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013, 42(4): 566-580.
  11. Johnson WL, Giordano PC, Manning WD, et al. The Age- IPV Curve: Changes in the Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2014, 44(3): 708-726.
  12. Wekerle C and Wolfe DA. Dating Violence in Mid- Adolescence: Theory, Significance, and Emerging Prevention Initiatives. Clinical Psychology Review, 1999, 19(4): 435-456.
  13. Carlson BE. Dating violence: A Research Review and Comparison with Spouse Abuse. Social Casework, 1987, 68(1): 16-23.
  14. Giordano PC, Soto DA, Manning WD, et al. The Characteristics of Romantic Relationships Associated with Teen Dating Violence. Social Science Research, 2010, 39(6): 863- 874.
  15. Girlguiding. 2013, Care Verses Control: Healthy Relationships. A Report From Girlguiding, Girlguiding, London, viewed March 3, 2015.
  16. Shorey RC, Cornelius TL and Bell KM. A Critical Review of Theoretical Frameworks for Dating Violence: Comparing the Dating and Marital Fields. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2008, 13(3): 185-194.
  17. Draucker CB and Martsolf DS. The Role of Electronic Communication Technology in Adolescent Dating Violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 2010, 23(3): 133-142.
  18. Johnson MP. Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1995, 57(2): 283-294.
  19. Johnson MP. Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women, 2006, 12(11): 1003-1018.
  20. Johnson MP, 2008, A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence, Northeastern University Press, Boston.
  21. Kelly JB and Johnson MP. Differentiation Among Types of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update and Implications for Interventions. Family Court Review, 2008, 46(3): 476-499.
  22. Pence E and Paymar M, 1993, Education Groups for Men who Batter: The Duluth Model, Springer, New York.
  23. Johnson MP and Leone JM. The Differential Effects of Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 2005, 26(3): 322-349.
  24. Leone JM, Johnson MP and Cohan CL. Victim Help Seeking: Differences Between Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence. Family Relations, 2007, 56(5): 427- 439.