Adolescent/Young Adult Prevention/Education

Concurrent Sessions 5
Session ID#: 
205

Presider: Joan Jurich

Date: 
November 1, 2012
Time: 
8:30 am - 9:45 am
Session Location: 
Remington B/C
Session Type: Paper
Sponsoring Section(s): 
Education & Enrichment

About the Session

  • 205-01 - Ending Psychologically Aggressive Relationships: Does College-based Relationship Education Work?
    Presented by: Sesen Negash, Preston Brown, Frank Fincham
  • 205-02 - Variations in the Impact of Youth-focused Relationship Education
    Presented by: Tara Sutton, Ted Futris
  • 205-03 - Engaging Early Adolescents and School Staff in Dating Violence Prevention
    Presented by: Jodie Hertzog, Cassandra LeBrun, Rebecca Rodriguez, Trent Smith
  • 205-04 - Online Program Development: Engaging Older Adolescents in Online Outreach Efforts
    Presented by: Jill Bowers, Aaron Ebata, Mikki Meadows, Jeremy Kanter

Abstracts

Ending Psychologically Aggressive Relationships: Does College-based Relationship Education Work?

Presented by: Sesen Negash, Preston Brown, Frank Fincham

The present study evaluated the effectiveness of a relationship education program, delivered as part of a college course curriculum, among students (n= 152) that reported experiencing psychological aggression in their exclusive dating relationship. As compared to those in the control group those in the relationship education treatment group were significantly more likely to end their dating relationship, even after controlling for relationship satisfaction.  Further, of those in psychologically aggressive relationships who broke up, those in the intervention group were significantly more likely to attribute the breakup to their participation in the treatment as compared to those in the control group.

Variations in the Impact of Youth-focused Relationship Education

Presented by: Tara Sutton, Ted Futris

Based on data from 344 adolescents who completed a youth-focused relationship education program, analyses examined variations on short-term indicators of impact across six educational dimensions of RME: intensity, content, timing, setting, target, and delivery. Overall, the findings reinforce the positive influence that RME can have on adolescents, and showed variations in outcomes based on the audience served as well as the timing, setting and intensity of the program. The implications of these findings for informing future youth-focused RME will be highlighted during the presentation.

Engaging Early Adolescents and School Staff in Dating Violence Prevention

Presented by: Jodie Hertzog, Cassandra LeBrun, Rebecca Rodriguez, Trent Smith

Understanding how adolescents perceive violence and whether these perceptions influence adolescents' responses to violence is important for developing means to promote prosocial behaviors (Prospero, 2006).  The aim of the current study is to explore one form of prosocial behavior, bystander engagement, among middle school youth and school staff from two metropolitan middle schools engaged in dating violence prevention.  Pre-test analysis investigate potential gender differences, the role of relationship status, and student-staff comparisons in regards to relational entitlement norms, exposure to teen dating violence, and precursors to bystander engagement.  Implications of family life educators will be discussed.  

Online Program Development: Engaging Older Adolescents in Online Outreach Efforts

Presented by: Jill Bowers, Aaron Ebata, Mikki Meadows, Jeremy Kanter

There are opportunities to reach older adolescents through online programming. In this study, we employed a qualitative grounded theory design to contribute to a comprehensive theory that does not currently exist about engaging this digitally connected population in Internet-based programs. Data reveals that older adolescents’ preferences for instructional design depend on the content or topic covered.  Further, participants’ preferences for online program content and instructional design play a key role in online program exposure and participation, and a number of factors (e.g., individual characteristics, resources, and context) influence their preferences. Implications about engaging youth in online programs will be discussed.