Young people’s approaches to coping with experiences of domestic violence have been insufficiently studied, even though adolescence and domestic violence have a considerable effect on how coping strategies develop and are used (Lepistö et al, 2010). This neglect is, in part, due to a teenager’s ability to physically leave or be emotionally distant from domestic violence by spending more time in their room or away from home, which are coping strategies themselves (Mullender et al, 1998; Rogers, 2009).
Teenagers are considered more likely to use non-productive coping strategies such as self-blame, ignoring the problem or worrying (Lepistö et al, 2010; Lewis and Frydenberg, 2002; 2004). Teenagers can try to cope with their reactions through distracting themselves from the problem, termed mental or emotional disengagement (Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986). This can involve ‘tuning out’ by listening to music or having the TV volume turned up. Some may become involved in criminal activity or use alcohol or drugs to escape their situation and cope with their emotions (Cunningham and Baker, 2004; Goldblatt, 2003; Jaffe et al, 1990; Mullender et al, 2002; Rogers, 2009; Weinehall, 1997; 2005). Alternatively, anger may be directed at the abuser for the violence or at the mother for perceived failure to protect, inability to leave, or returning to the abuser (Holt, 2013; Mullender et al, 2002). Mothers in Buckley et al’s (2007:
70
302) study detailed how their teenage children demonstrated ‘very challenging behaviour’ after leaving the domestic violence situation including: drinking, stealing, physical aggression, and refusal to attend school. Some mothers noted that they had to call the police to manage their behaviour.
Young people can feel physically and emotionally responsible for younger siblings or their mother (Buckley et al, 2006; McGee, 2000b) and may take on a protective role (Cleaver et al, 2011; Gorin, 2004). Whilst these caring responsibilities may provide self-esteem or satisfaction, they can be a source of worry, isolate them from their peers, and distract them from schoolwork (Becker et al, 1998). Goldblatt (2003) cautions that the cost of over-parentification is a lost childhood and the likelihood of severe emotional distress. Katz (2013) criticises research which assumes such support is negative and suggests that protective behaviour is more complex. She applies advances in parent–child relationship theory (Kuczynski, 2003; Kuczynski et al, 1999) to promote a shift from a unilateral to bilateral model when considering the mother-child relationship in the context of domestic violence. In doing so, she conceptualises agentic children and mothers supporting each other reciprocally (Katz, 2013). However, further evidence of this model is required for its application within the context of domestic violence. Whilst negative impact may not be the case for all young people, participants in Buckley et al’s (2006) and Stanley et al’s (2010) studies communicated some resentment about being forced to ‘grow up’ and assume adult responsibilities.
71
‘Older children’ may use physical coping strategies to try to intervene when abuse occurs or challenge the abuser in order to protect the other parent or their siblings, develop a sense of control or reduce feelings of helplessness (Hester et al, 2007; McGee, 2000a). Whilst these might be natural reactions, they can place the young person at risk of being abused or assaulted themselves (Rogers, 2009). Studies from both the UK and USA (Buckley et al, 2006; Christian et al, 1997; Hester et al, 2000; Rees and Stein, 1997) have found that teenagers are more likely to try to prevent violent incidents and get hurt through intervening than younger children. Trying to gain a sense of control could explain the increased likelihood of teenagers intervening in violent incidents.
As an alternative coping mechanism, teenagers may physically remove themselves from the violence by leaving home early, ultimately putting themselves at risk of homelessness as this is perceived to offer a better, safer option than staying at home (Abrahams, 1994; Rogers, 2009). Domestic violence is a contributory factor for young people under the age of 18 running away from home (Diaz, 2005; Randall and Brown, 2001; Bruegel and Smith, 1999). Homelessness exposes young people to increased risk of victimisation, such as physical and sexual assault and to other risks such as substance abuse, self-injurious behaviours, involvement in unsafe sexual practices and neglect of medical and self-care needs (National Crime Prevention, 1999). Lepistö et al (2010) found that young people experiencing domestic violence do not seek help and therefore active measures should be taken to help them.
72
Coping strategies are not static and vary according to the situation or time. A 17 year old in Hague et al’s (1996) study explained how initially she felt she had to stay with her mother at all times to protect her, but her way of coping changed during her teenage years with her spending more time away from home. Coping strategies also develop according to the individual (Hague et al, 1996; McGee, 2000a; Mullender et al, 2002; Templeton et al, 2009). This might mean that a young person’s behaviour is misinterpreted and judged negatively if they do not conform to expected strategies or display behaviours designed to manage their experiences. Alternatively, it may be that they require individual support to develop their coping strategies and to deal with their experiences of domestic violence and abuse.
Resilience
Resilience emerged as a relevant concept when reviewing the data and findings from interviews for this research. There are varying definitions and critiques as to whether resilience is a process, a goal/outcome or an individual characteristic (Graham-Bermann et al, 2009). Resilience refers to ‘positive adaptation and development in the context of significant adversity’ or trauma (Newman, 2004: 6) (see also Luthar et al, 2000; Masten and Obradović, 2006; Rutter, 2006; Ungar, 2011; 2013). A resilient child is ‘one who bounces back having endured adversity, who continues to function reasonably well despite continued risk to exposure’ (Gilligan, 2000). Individual factors associated with more positive outcomes include temperament, talents or abilities, cognitive ability, self- esteem, active coping style, and social skills (Daniel and Wassell, 2002; Guille, 2004; Kashani and Allan, 1998).
73
There has, however, been a move away from a narrow child-centred approach to a broader systemic view of resilience. Although not specifically referring to experiences of domestic violence, Ungar (2008: 225) defines resilience as:
‘both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural and physical resources that sustain their well-being, and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided and experienced in culturally meaningful ways’.
This socio-ecological understanding shifts the focus from the individual to the varied and multiple systems with which an individual interacts. Ungar (2015) proposes that assessment of resilience should therefore refer to a range of factors. These factors should include: the severity and chronicity of risk of exposure to adversity; individual and contextual dimensions of resilience; and the temporal and cultural influences of promotive and protective factors needed to do well (Ungar, 2015). Consequently, interventions should apply this assessment in practice and focus on the promotion of wellbeing (Ungar, 2015). In this thesis, promoting socio-ecological resilience for teenagers will be considered as an objective for refuge services. In examining those factors that can contribute to resilience, I will explore the interaction of individual characteristics, relationships with others such as family, friends or a support worker (inter-personal factors), and environmental and community resources (macro/structural and meso factors). These factors will now be outlined with specific reference to domestic violence research to provide context for the later findings.
74
Resilience and Domestic Violence and Abuse
Some children are shown to be remarkably resilient to the effects of domestic violence (Graham-Bermann and Edleson, 2001; Grych et al, 2000; Hughes and Luke, 1998; Kitzmann et al, 2003). Luthar (2003: 4) defines resilience as ‘patterns of positive adjustment in the context of significant risk or adversity’. Stanley (2011) points out that there is less knowledge about how to influence resilience-building processes. Criticisms are aimed at the ways in which research focuses on the damage children and young people have sustained, serving to marginalise their experiences, perceive them as passive, and ignore their coping strategies (Katz, 2013; Mullender et al, 2002; Øverlien and Hydén, 2009). Such research maintains the position of children and young people as incomplete and vulnerable. A resilience approach recognises that whilst future adversity cannot be prevented, increasing a young person’s resilience can enhance the likelihood of better long term outcomes (Daniel and Wassell, 2002). This approach can be used as a framework to inform service provision for young people who have experienced abuse (Gilligan, 1997).
A number of protective factors promoting resilience have been identified (Jaffe et al, 1990; Perkins and Jones, 2004). These include a secure base, self- esteem and a sense of self-efficacy and are categorised according to individual, family, and wider community factors (Gilligan, 1997; Jaffe et al, 1990). The sub- sections below address key elements of resilience in more depth. Rather than suggesting that young people do not therefore need support, further research is needed to provide improved understanding of these factors (Laing, 2000) which could then be incorporated into preventative and therapeutic efforts. It is understood that there should be an emphasis on building a protective support
75
network from the resources available and adding professional support where required (Daniel and Wassell, 2002).
Attributes of the Young Person
Rutter (1985) provided an early account of the key characteristics that promote resilience in the individual. These characteristics included a sense of self- esteem and confidence, belief in one’s self-efficacy and a range of problem- solving approaches (see also Grych et al, 2000; Graham-Bermann, et al 2009). Self-esteem is considered to be a significant aspect of resilience (Daniel and Wassell, 2002; Martin, 2002). It is regarded as fundamental to developing successful coping strategies and is found to be a key factor distinguishing between resilient and non-resilient young people (Guille, 2004; Kashani and Allan, 1998). Some young people can have high self-esteem in one area, such as education, and may therefore be able to focus on that domain as an escape to the violence at home (Lepistö et al, 2010). However, educational attainment can be affected by domestic violence with some young people missing large amounts of school and this emerged as a major issue for the young people participating in this study (see Chapter Four). Additionally, self-esteem may be damaged by experience of domestic violence including the feelings of shame induced (McGee, 2000a).
Support within the Family
A secure attachment to a non-violent parent or other significant carer is consistently cited as an important protective factor in mitigating the impact of domestic violence (Graham-Bermann et al, 2006; Mullender et al, 2002;
76
Osofsky, 1999). Much research identifies mothers as important to the resilience and wellbeing of children and young people (Levendosky and Graham- Bermann, 1998; 2001; Mullender et al, 2002; Osofsky, 1999; Radford and Hester, 2006; Sturge-Apple et al, 2010). However, Levendosky et al (2002; 2012) argue that domestic violence has implications for the bond between mother and child, with adolescents who experience domestic violence less likely to have a secure attachment and more likely to have an avoidant attachment. Young people with a secure attachment are considered more likely to make the transition to mature interdependence (Daniel and Wassell, 2002). Katz (2013) suggests that current evidence overlooks agency of the child and calls for a more sophisticated model of parent–child relationships to increase understanding of the ways children actively support their mothers and the subsequent effects. It is unclear then, how teenagers living with domestic violence maintain or develop their relationships with mothers and the impact this may have on informal relationships with others such as friends.
Support Outside the Family
Connected to family support is the importance of social support outside of the immediate family, including extended family or community members (Kashani and Allan, 1998; Ullman, 2003). Levendosky et al’s (2002) research with 111 adolescents aged 14 to 16 years and their mothers found that a supportive relationship with an adult family member served as a protective factor in a high- risk environment. However, McCloskey et al (1995) caution that when the family experiences severe violence, supportive family relationships may fail to adequately protect from negative effects, at least in the short term.
77
Support from friends or siblings is also important (Guille, 2004; McGee, 2000a; Mullender et al, 2002; Werner, 2000). Rosenthal et al (2003) indicate that it is easier for girls to seek support from friends rather than parents. However, Levendosky et al (2002) found that whilst social support moderates the impact of domestic violence on adolescent functioning, it has no influence on mental health functioning. Interestingly, other studies have found that not all the support young people receive from peers is positive in its effects (Barter et al, 2009; Levendosky et al, 2002).
When considering resilience, a balanced approach is required. In line with Coleman’s (2011) thinking, whilst it is extremely important to point out the adaptive abilities of young people, it would be wrong to underestimate the impact of stress and disadvantage, and therefore minimise difficulties and obstacles faced by some adolescents. The more difficulties a young person experiences, the more resources they need to deal with them (Coleman, 2011). For example, a young person dealing with moving school, going through puberty, losing friends, and a problem at home, faces more demands than someone who only has one stressor to manage (Coleman, 2011). This situation is similar to that experienced by teenagers who have to move to refuge accommodation, and will be considered further within the following chapter.