Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

TREAD: A Promising Change-Target for Partner Abuse Prevention with Adolescents

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Family Violence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is consensus in the partner abuse prevention education literature that a skills-focus is needed. However, appropriate instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of skills-focused programs do not exist. Against this background, and based on the dyadic slippery slope model of partner abuse, the Tendency to Resist or End Abusive Dynamics (TREAD) scale was developed. TREAD is defined as one’s tendency to respond assertively or protectively in situations involving warning-sign (potentially hurtful or controlling) behaviors by a partner. The scale’s development drew on the input of three Australian samples: mixed-gender adolescent focus groups, 426 young female respondents to an online survey, and 152 adolescent girls participating in a school-based program trial. When tested with the 152 adolescent girls, the TREAD scale had acceptable internal consistency and high inter-rater reliability. Principal components analysis identified three interrelated TREAD subscales (i.e., Conflict-Retaliation TREAD, Denigration TREAD, and Dominance-Possessiveness TREAD) all of which were negatively associated with frequency of exposure to warning-sign behaviors. This paper charts the preliminary development of the TREAD scale, presenting evidence supporting its validity as a change-target for partner abuse prevention education with adolescent girls and, potentially, boys.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Timko, C. (1986). Correspondence between health attitudes and behaviour. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, K., & Naugle, A. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1096–1107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bunker Rohrbaugh, J. (2006). Domestic violence in same-gender relationships. Family Court Review, 44, 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coker, A., Davis, K., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H., & Smith, P. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23(4), 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crime Research Center. (2001). Young people and domestic violence: National research on young people’s attitudes to and experiences of domestic violence. Canberra: Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L., Toal, S., Swahn, M., & Behrens, C. (2005). Measuring violence-related attitudes, behaviors, and influences among youths: A compendium of assessment tools (2nd ed.). Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. T., & Sturge-Apple, M. L. (2007). The impact of domestic violence on children’s development. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 165–190). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Few, A., & Rosen, K. (2005). Victims of chronic dating violence: how women’s vulnerabilities link to their decision to stay. Family Relations, 54, 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. (2010). The effects of intimate partner violence on health in young adulthood in the United States. Social Science & Medicine Volume, 70(1), 130–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood, M. (2008). Measures for the assessment of dimensions of violence against women: A compendium. Unpublished Manuscript. Australian Research Center in Sex, Health & Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

  • Flood, M., Fergus, L., & Heenan, M. (2009). Respectful relationships education: Violence prevention and respectful relationships education in Victorian secondary schools. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontes, D. (2007). Male victims of domestic violence. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 303–318). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Linder, G. F., Rice, J., & Wilcher, R. (2007). Identifying typologies of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 498–519.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Marks, M. J. (2005). The evolution and function of adult attachment: a comparative and phylogenic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 731–746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, H. (2008). In the name of love: Women’s narratives of love and abuse. Toronto: Women’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frieze, I. (2005). Hurting the one you love: Violence in relationships. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, C., Oslak, S., Young, M., Martin, S., & Kupper, L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1679–1685.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, C., Young, M., Waller, M., Martin, S., & Kupper, L. (2004). Prevalence of partner violence in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(2), 124–131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hickman, L. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Aronoff, J. (2004). Dating violence among adolescents: prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention program effectiveness. Violence & Abuse, 5(2), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T. A., Staiger, P. K., & Ricciardelli, L. A. (2000). Male domestic violence: attitudes, aggression, and interpersonal dependency. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & White, N. (2003). Gender and adolescent relationship violence: a contextual examination. Criminology, 41, 1207–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller-Johnson, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Sullivan, T., Orpinas, P., & Simon, T. R. (2009). Parent and peer predictors of physical dating violence perpetration in early adolescence: tests of moderation and gender differences. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 538–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (2009a). Safe at Heart: An empowerment approach to relationship abuse prevention. In Z. J. Hazelwood (Ed.), Connecting research and practice in relationships: Conference proceedings (pp. 28–34). Melbourne: Australian Psychological Society. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=203435761811048;res=IELHEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (2009b) Safe in romantic relationships project: Stage one survey results. Unpublished Manuscript. Discipline of Psychology, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria.

  • Murphy, K. (2011). Navigating healthy relationships: A skills-based empowerment approach to relationships education. Proceedings of the 27th ACHPER International Conference (pp. 282–292). Adelaide: ACHPER. Retrieved from http://www.achper.org.au/__files/f/27497/27th%20ACHPER%20International%20Conference%20Proceedings.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (2012a). Partner abuse prevention education: An integrated approach to program development and evaluation. Partner Abuse.

  • Murphy, K. (2012b). Skilling adolescent girls to resist abusive relationship dynamics: a pilot program evaluation. Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 28(2), 116–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (2012c). Girls at risk of chronic partner abuse: assertive tendency, warning signs, risk sensitivity, and self-confidence. Journal of Relationships Research, 2, 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K., & Smith, D. (2010a). Adolescent girls’ responses to warning signs of abuse in romantic relationships: implications for youth-targeted relationship abuse prevention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 626–647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K., & Smith, D. (2010b). Before they’re victims: rethinking youth-targeted relationship abuse prevention. Australian Psychologist, 45(1), 38–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C., & Graybeal, J. (2007). Methodological review of intimate partner violence prevention research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1250–1269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, K., & Jouriles, E. (1993). Psychological abuse between adult partners: Prevalence and effects on partners and children. In L. Abate (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology and psychopathology (pp. 330–349). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, K., & Maiuro, R. (2001). Psychological abuse in violent domestic relations. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, K., & Smith Slep, A. (2003). A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 314–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudner, L., & Schafer, W. (2002). What teachers need to know about assessment. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, L., McMahon, P., Chervin, D., Shelley, G., Lezin, N., Sloop, K., & Dawkins, N. (2000). Survivors’ identification of protective factors and early warning signs for intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 6, 272–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1104–1109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple, J., Weston, R., & Marshall, L. (2005). Physical and mental health outcomes of women in nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent relationships. Violence and Victims, 20, 335–359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisz, A., & Black, B. (2009). Programs to reduce teen dating violence and sexual assault: Perspectives on what works. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, D., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S., O’Neil, J., Nesius, A., et al. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 11, 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, D., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941–947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, D. L., & Hamerschlag, S. J. (2005). Situational determinants in intimate partner violence. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 10, 333–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstok, Z. (2007). Toward an interactional perspective on intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 12, 348–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, P.O. Box 71, 3083, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

    Kylie A. Murphy, David I. Smith & Sophia Xenos

Authors
  1. Kylie A. Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David I. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sophia Xenos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kylie A. Murphy.

Appendix

Appendix

Category 1 – Response is likely to fuel hostility or lacks any indication of objection

  • Aggressive: The response includes active retaliation in the form of a clear attempt to hurt or humiliate (but assign normative responses among youth, e.g., “fxxx off”, to category 2)

  • Accommodating: The response does not in any way discourage the WSB or may be received favorably by WSB instigator; e.g., reassurances that respondent won’t break-up with him/her

  • Reciprocating: The response matches or exceeds the instigating WSB

Category 2 – Response is vague or the protest does not address the WSB specifically

Category 1, 3, 4, or 5 must first be ruled out

  • “Don’t know” or vague or undecipherable response

  • Mildly or passively aggressive, or vague reference to “getting angry”

  • Does not address WSB or underlying issue specifically; i.e., response indicates some objection but does not identify the actual WSB as being the problem, or respondent “argues the details” rather than making it clear to the partner that the WSB is unacceptable

  • Tentative or dependent on the situation/person; e.g., “if x then y”, “would do x or y”, or “might break up”

  • “if it happens again/repeatedly, tell them to stop” – this implies that first-time occurrence of the WSB would be accepted

Category 3 – Response specifically and directly discourages the WSB

Category 1, 4, and 5 must first be ruled out

  • Direct, non-aggressive request to stop the specific WSB or not do it again

  • States that the specific WSB is unwanted or unacceptable

Category 4 – Response identifies a personal right/need or explains why WSB is a problem

Category 1 must be ruled out

  • Requests/suggests a specific alternative behavior relevant to the situation

  • Includes expression of a self-determination need or right – for confidence, choice, or connectedness (not just “I need you to trust me”)

  • Explains to partner the pertinent issue (i.e., identifies potential for secrecy, overdependence, anger, or power imbalance; identifies lack of respect for self-determination needs – for confidence, choice, or connectedness; or identifies bossiness, ownership, meanness, unfair arguing, or revenge, in these or other terms)

  • Conditional breakup; i.e., if it continues, breakup

  • Any category 5 response combined with category 2 aggression

Category 5 – Response is highly assertive or protective

Category 1 must be ruled out

  • Two or more category 3 or 4 responses are included in the response

  • Tell someone (e.g., parent, police), implied for help or protection (for self, not for partner); not “talk to a friend” in response to a putdown (assign this response to category 2)

  • Definitely break-up, with no aggression (if category 1 aggression is also present, assign to category 1; if category 2 aggression is present, assign to category 4)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murphy, K.A., Smith, D.I. & Xenos, S. TREAD: A Promising Change-Target for Partner Abuse Prevention with Adolescents. J Fam Viol 27, 345–356 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9424-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9424-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation