949153

research-article2020
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260520949153Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceEdwards et al.

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Parents Matter: A
1­–19
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Descriptive Study of sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260520949153
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520949153
Parental Discussions journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

With Teens About

Violence Prevention
and Related Topics

Katie M. Edwards, PhD,1 

Victoria L. Banyard, PhD,2
and Anne Kirkner, PhD3

Abstract
In the current article we examined the extent to which parents and
caregivers engage in violence prevention and related discussions with
their youth and the correlates (i.e., demographics, confidence, modeling
of emotion regulation) of these experiences. We also examined the ways
in which parents access prevention-related information to aid in these
discussions with their youth. Participants were 142 parents/caregivers of a
middle or high school-aged youth. Results suggested that adults reported
speaking with youth about less sensitive prevention topics (e.g., bullying)
more often than more sensitive topics (e.g., sexual violence). Whereas
there were no demographic correlates for the level of confidence in
discussing prevention topics with youth, emotion regulation modeling was
positively correlated with confidence discussing prevention with youth.
Also, parents who identified as White were less likely to discuss more

1
University of Nebraska–Lincoln, USA
2
Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA
3
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Chicago, USA

Corresponding Author:
Katie M. Edwards, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 160 Prem S.
Paul Research Center at Whittier School, Lincoln, NE 68583-0858, USA.
Email: katie.edwards@unl.edu
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

sensitive topics with youth while parents who identified as American Indian
were more likely to discuss more sensitive topics with youth and model
emotion regulation. Having more confidence discussing prevention with
youth positively correlated to discussing more sensitive and less sensitive
topics with youth. These results underscore the need for engaging parents
in prevention programming. More specifically, these data suggest that
programs that builds parents’ confidence and comfort in having prevention-
related conversations with their youth, especially about more sensitive
topics is needed in addition to programming that enhances parents’ ability
to model emotion regulation skills for their children.

Keywords
prevention, sexual assault, dating violence, bullying, parents, caregivers,
children

Researchers have documented that youth are exposed to a great deal of vio-
lence-prevention education (Finkelhor et al., 2014). The effects of these edu-
cational strategies are enhanced when they are of higher quality (Fagan &
Catalano, 2013; Nation et al., 2003), including the engagement of parents and
caregivers (Randolph et al., 2009). Indeed, some violence-prevention pro-
grams have directly engaged parents, caregivers, and teachers in program-
ming to enhance the effectiveness of programming efforts on youth outcomes
(Edwards et al., 2018; Fosco et al., 2013; Foshee et al., 2012; Stormshak
et al., 2010). To date, however, there is a paucity of research examining the
extent to which parents and caregivers engage in conversations with their
youth about violence-prevention topics (e.g., sexual assault and harassment,
dating violence, bullying) outside of the context of formalized programming.
Moreover, we know little about the ways in which parents wish to receive
more information on prevention topics.
The purpose of the current study was to address these gaps in the litera-
ture to inform violence-prevention programming that seeks to engage par-
ents and caregivers. Of note, although our main focus of this article is to
determine the extent to which parents and caregivers engage in conversa-
tions with their youth about violence-prevention topics, we were also inter-
ested in the extent to which parents and caregivers discuss other topics with
their youth that intersect with violence prevention (Foshee et al., 2012;
Tharp, 2012) such as dealing with stress as well as and family values and
traditions to gauge the extent to which these conversations occur with more
or less frequency than violence-prevention topics. The focus on family
Edwards et al. 3

values and traditions is especially important given that the current study
took place in a community with a large presence of American Indians. The
exploration of the extent to which parents and caregivers engage in preven-
tion-related conversations with their youth and the correlates of these con-
versations is of critical importance to prevention science researchers and
practitioners.

Theoretical Framework
The present study is grounded in several theoretical frameworks. First, the
health belief model (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, 1974), which asserts
that the engagement in health-related behavior results from the desire to
avoid an illness as well as the belief that engaging in specific actions will
prevent or cure an illness. Applied to parent engagement in violence preven-
tion, Randolph et al. (2009) suggest that parents are likely to take “preventive
action for their children when their perceptions of both child susceptibility
and severity of experiencing a problem condition are relatively high.”
Randolph et al. (2009) further suggest that parents’ confidence in their ability
to take action (i.e., self-efficacy) is an important consideration in determining
the extent to which parents will engage in violence prevention. Thus, it is
likely that parents who possess more confidence in their ability to talk to their
youth about prevention topics are engaging in more actual prevention con-
versations with their youth.
Moreover, grounded in social learning theories, it is likely that parents
who are engaging in violence-prevention discussions with their youth are
also modeling healthy attitudes and behaviors, including emotion regulation
skills, which in turn could reduce the likelihood that their teen would experi-
ence violence (Basile et al., 2016). This assertion is consistent with the
“mindful parenting” framework which suggests that parents listen to their
children with full attention, nurture emotional awareness and self-regulation,
and ensure that their parenting is characterized by compassion and nonjudg-
mental acceptance (Duncan et al., 2009). This type of parenting practice not
only models emotion regulation strategies for youth but also likely provides
a safe space in which parents and youth can engage in violence prevention–
related discussions. Furthermore, inoculation theory, which originates from
the substance abuse prevention literature, highlights ways that family com-
munication can promote messages that reduce risky behaviors and promote
healthy ones (Compton & Craig, 2019). To date more of the research on
parental communication related to prevention has focused on substance use
and risky/safe sexual behaviors and more work is needed on aspects of vio-
lence prevention.
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Finally, the current study is grounded in the theory of planned behavior

(Ajzen, 1991), specifically the role of self-efficacy, or confidence, in engag-
ing a specific behavior. The theory of planned behavior asserts that an indi-
viduals’ confidence about engaging in a behavior predicts the likelihood that
they will engage in that behavior. Thus, it is likely that parents who feel more
confident in engaging in violence prevention–related discussions are more
likely to engage in these discussions with their youth. Although some studies
have examined the extent to which the theory of planed behavior relates to
parent–child communication about other topics such as children’s healthy
food consumption (Andrews et al., 2010; Yee et al., 2019), we are not aware
of any research that has examined parents’ confidence relates to their engage-
ment in violence prevention–related discussions with their youth.

Literature Review
Little research has examined prevention conversations that parents have with
their children in relation to violence prevention (i.e., sexual harassment, bul-
lying, suicide, sexual assault, dating violence) and related topics that can
serve as protective factors against violence such as plans for the future,
healthy relationships, dealing with stress, being respectful to others who are
different, and values/beliefs/traditions that are important to one’s family.
These specific topics were selected based on research suggesting that various
forms of violence are interconnected (Hamby & Grych, 2013; Wilkins et al.,
2014) in addition to research documenting that aspects of positive youth
development can serve as protective factors against various forms of violence
(Allison et al., 2011; Dymnicki et al., 2017; Zeldin, 2004). Indeed, research
suggests that a critical component of parent–child relationships is communi-
cation and that the ways in which parents and youth communicate has impor-
tant implications for youths’ and the ways in which they are influenced by
their peers (Offrey & Rinaldi, 2017).
Despite the dearth of research on the extent to which parents engage in
conversations with their youth in violence prevention–related conversa-
tions, several studies have shed light on this important topic. For example,
in a study of 120 parent–son dyads, results suggested that parent–son
dyads who reported that they had more discussions on how to handle prob-
lems in relationships reported less dating violence (Manning et al., 2019).
In this same study, researchers documented that children had better use of
emotion regulation strategies in parent–son dyads who reported having
more discussion bout managing emotions (Manning et  al., 2019).
Furthermore, a recent article on adolescent sexuality found that sexuality-
specific parent–teen conversations had important protective effects when
Edwards et al. 5

compared with the effects of warm and positive parent–child relationship

more broadly (Verbeek et al., 2020). Several studies have also examined
the impact of parent–child communication regarding bullying finding that
parents frequently engage in conversations with their youth about both
bullying perpetration and victimization (Smith & Norris, 2020) and that
parent–child communication was associated with the effectiveness of
strategies generated (Offrey & Rinaldi, 2017). This work suggests that it is
not only the presence of parent conversations, but the specificity of the
topics discussed. As such, engaging in prevention-specific conversations
with youth is likely a key protective factor against experiencing violence.
To date, however, we are not aware of any research other than the Manning
et al. paper that examined the extent to which parents engage in conversa-
tions about sexual assault and dating violence with their children. We are
also not aware of research that has examined the extent to which parents
engage in conversations about sexual assault and dating violence in com-
parison with topics that included plans for the future, healthy relation-
ships, dealing with stress, being respectful to others who are different, and
values/beliefs/traditions that are important to one’s family, all of which are
pillars of positive youth development. Given that topics including suicide
and substance use are strongly related to violence prevention, it also
seemed important to understand more about those topics as well.
In addition to engaging in prevention conversations with youth, parents
play an important role in modeling healthy attitudes and behaviors. There is
a growing focus in the violence-prevention literature on the critical role that
social emotional skills play in the prevention of violence (Basile et al., 2016;
Espelage et al., 2013). A key component of social emotional skills is emotion
regulation, which is the ability to effectively respond to and manage a range
of emotions. Consistent with the mindful parenting framework (Duncan
et al., 2009) previously discussed, research suggests that parents’ modeling
of emotion regulation plays an important role in children’s development of
this skill (Bariola et al., 2011; Cui et al., 2014; Frankel et al., 2012). However,
no research to our knowledge has examined how parents’ modeling of emo-
tion regulation relates to parents’ engagement in prevention-related discus-
sions with their children. Presumably, parents who are engaging in the
modeling of healthy attitudes and behaviors, such as emotion regulation,
would be more likely to engage in prevention-related discussion with their
children, although this speculation requires empirical examination. More
specifically, parents who possess greater emotion regulation skills, and model
these skills for their youth, may feel both more comfortable with and confi-
dent in their abilities to empathically and intentionally engage in violence-
prevention conversations with their youth than parents who do not possess or
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

model these skills. They may also be more aware of the need or motivated to
have conversations about mental health–related topics including a range of
prevention topics.
Beyond the modeling of emotion regulation skills, demographic factors could
also play an important role in parents’ engagement in prevention-related discus-
sions, which is especially important in the current study given the large presence
of American Indians in the community in which this project took place. For
example, consistent with the health belief model, given that American Indians
have a lifetime prevalence of violent victimization more than twice the national
average (Perry, 2004), American Indian parents may engage in more prevention-
related discussions with their children compared with families with other racial
identities. Furthermore, parents with greater educational attainment may have
more exposure to prevention-related messaging and skills themselves, and thus
may be more likely to engage in prevention-related discussion with their chil-
dren. Conversely, we know that violence often disproportionally impacts low-
income youth (Edwards & Neal, 2017; Fagan & Wright, 2012). As such, parents
of low-income youth may have more opportunities and a greater need to engage
in prevention-related topics with youth. Understanding the demographic corre-
lates of prevention-related discussions is important as it can help identify signifi-
cant adults in the lives of youth who may be the most in need of formal engagement
with youth violence prevention (e.g., those engaging in less violence prevention–
related discussions with their children) in addition to identifying youth who may
be especially in need of other adults that can engage in these discussions with
them. This type of research can also help us better understand how we may need
to adapt our prevention communication efforts to reach different groups of care-
givers who may have different readiness or frameworks for thinking about pre-
vention (see for example, discussions of the need to engage more men in violence
prevention work (Barker et al., 2007; Fabiano et al., 2003; International Center
for Research on Women, 2007; Ricardo & Verani, 2010).
In addition to examining the rates and correlates of parents’ engagement in
prevention-related topics with their youth, there is a need to better understand
the ways in which parents wish to obtain information about prevention-
related topics. Understanding more about how parents want to learn about
prevention topics may help engage these potentially important prevention
partners. Although little is known specific to violence prevention, research on
how to talk with parents about sensitive topics like childhood obesity reveal
many challenges (Mikhailovich & Morrison, 2007). Furthermore, a recent
study on child sexual abuse revealed that there were often significant gaps
between parents’ awareness and their communication behaviors (Rudolph &
Zimmer-Gembeck, 2018). Taken together, asking parents about how they
would like to receive information may be one way to improve engagement.
Edwards et al. 7

In sum, parents play a critical role in the prevention of youth violence.

To date, however, we know little about the extent to which parents engage
in violence prevention–related discussions, especially those specific to sex-
ual assault and dating violence, with their youth and the correlates (i.e.,
confidence, emotion regulation, demographics) of these experiences. We
also know little about the ways in which parents access prevention-related
information to aid in violence-prevention discussions with their youth as
well as how parent–child communication about violence-prevention topics
relate to parent–child communication about plans for the future, healthy
relationships, dealing with stress, being respectful to others who are differ-
ent, and values/beliefs/traditions that are important to one’s family. In the
current study, we addressed these gaps in the literature. Specific aims and
hypotheses are as follows:

Aim 1: Document the extent to which parents engage in violence preven-

tion–related conversations with their children as well as conversations
specific to plans for the future, healthy relationships, dealing with stress,
being respectful to others who are different, and values/beliefs/traditions
that are important to one’s family. Given the dearth of research on this
topic, we ventured no a priori hypotheses.
Aim 2: Identify the correlates of confidence and frequency in engaging in
violence-prevention conversations. We hypothesized that parents who
possess greater confidence and modeling of emotion regulation strategies
would report higher frequencies of engaging in violence-prevention con-
versations with their children than parents with less confidence and less
frequent modeling of emotion regulation strategies. We further hypothe-
sized the American Indian parents as well as parents with higher educa-
tional attainment would report engaging in more violence prevention–related
conversations with their children.
Aim 3: Understand the ways in which parents seek out information on
violence prevention–related topics and the factors that relate to the ways
in which parents seek out this information. Given the dearth of research,
we ventured no a priori hypotheses.

Method
Participants
These data are part of a larger multiple baseline study to evaluate a youth-led
sexual violence-prevention project. Researchers collected data in 2018 prior
to the implementation of any prevention activities. The convenience sample
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics.

Variable M/N(%) SD Range

Age 42.9 8.3 23–73
Female 113 (79.6%)  
Male 29 (20.4%)  
White 116 (82.2%)  
American Indian or Alaska Nat. 29 (20.5%)  
American Indian and White 8 (5.7%)  
Black/African American 2 (1.4%)  
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 (1.4%)  
Asian 1(0.22%)  
Hispanic/Latino 5 (3.5%)  
College degree 60 (42.3%)  
Graduate degree 43 (30.3%)  
Some college 23 (16.2%)  
High school or GED 14 (9.9%)  
Some high school 2 (1.4%)  
Number of children <18 years 2 (modal category) 1–5+
Emotion regulation modeling 3.21 0.59 1–4
Civic engagement for youth 3.23 0.47 1–4
PCAT 3.40 0.61 1–4
Prevention talk 1 3.87 0.95 1–5
Prevention talk 2 2.58 1.04 1–5

Note. GED = general education development; Prevention talk 1 = frequency discussing less
sensitive topics with youth; Prevention talk 2 = frequency discussing more sensitive topics
with youth; PCAT = perceived confidence (talking with youth about prevention).

was initially comprised of 442 adults ranging in age from 18 to 78. Participants
were asked two screening questions (after completing the consent form) to
ensure they were 18 years of age or older and the parent or guardian of a
middle or high school-aged youth, which resulted in a final sample size of
142 parents. Participants were asked, “Are you the parent/guardian of a mid-
dle or high school child?” and those who responded “Yes” were included in
the sample for this study. The sample was mostly female, White, and college-
educated with two children (see Table 1 for participant demographic informa-
tion). The categories for race were “check all that apply” and one participant
did not identify their race, thus the percentages total over 100.
Our sample is similar to the profile of the city in the Great Plains region
where the study took place. The census reports about 80% of the population
is White, 11.4% American Indian and Alaska Native, 1.5% Asian, 1.2%
Black or African American, and less than 1% Native Hawaiian and Other
Edwards et al. 9

Pacific Islander. According to the census, 5% of the population identifies as

Hispanic or Latino (our sample was 3.5%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). In
the city, 31% of adults have a bachelor’s degree or more while the figure was
42% in our sample. Therefore, participants who identified as White, as
American Indian/Alaska Native, and who have a college degree are more
represented in our sample compared with the overall city population.

Recruitment
Researchers offered adults in the community online and paper surveys. We
obtained a convenience sample using a number of recruitment strategies.
Research team members handed out flyers with the online survey link address
at community events. The survey was also advertised on the project website
and social media accounts on a weekly basis (Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram); some community organizations, like the local police department,
shared our social media posts. Recruitment began and the survey opened
April 12, 2018, and the survey closed June 1, 2018. The majority of adults
completed the survey online via Qualtrics (n = 133, 94.6%) and nine adults
completed paper surveys. Adults who completed the survey were entered to
win one of six US$50 gift cards.

Measures
Demographics.  A brief measure was included to assess sex, age, race, ethnic-
ity (asking participants to answer Y/N to identifying as Hispanic or Latino),
education, parent/guardian status, and number of children under 18 (from
five categories ranging from one to five or more). The categories for race
were “check all that apply” and are displayed in Table 1.

Talking to youth about prevention-related topics.  We created a 10-item measure

asking adults,

How many times have you talked to youth/students about each of these things
in the past 6 months?: sexual harassment, bullying, suicide, sexual assault,
dating violence, plans for the future, healthy relationships, dealing with stress,
being respectful to others who are different, and values/beliefs/traditions that
are important to one’s family.

These were adapted from scales used by Foshee et al.’s evaluation of

Families for Safe Dates (Foshee et al., 2012) and the CDC’s evaluation of
the Dating Matters program (Tharp, 2012). Adults rated how often they
talked about each item in the past 6 months, from 1 = never, 2 = 1–2 times,
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

3 = 3–5 times, 4 = 6–9 times, 5 = 10+ times, and 6 = I’m not sure (we
recoded as missing for analysis). Exploratory factor analysis revealed items
loading onto two distinct components. Based on the items that comprised
each subscale, we conceptualized one subscale to be comprised of “More
Sensitive” topics and “Less Sensitive” topics. More sensitive topics included
sexual harassment, suicide, sexual assault, and dating violence. Less sensi-
tive topics were bullying, plans for the future, healthy relationships, dealing
with stress, being respectful, and family values/traditions. After splitting the
measure into two subscales, we then computed average scores so that higher
values indicated more frequent discussion of the topics. The More Sensitive
subscale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .85 while the Less Sensitive subscale
had an alpha of .87.

Confidence in discussing prevention-related topics with teens.  We asked parents

to rate their confidence levels in discussing various prevention-related top-
ics with youth. This five-item scale was adapted from Families for Safe
Dates (Foshee, 2012). Adults were asked, “How confident are you that you
can have a good talk/communicate with youth/students about: sexual harass-
ment, bullying, healthy relationships, racism, and mental health issues?.”
They rated their confidence from 1 = not at all confident to 4 = very confi-
dent. Means were computed so that higher scores indicate more confidence
in talking to youth about prevention-related topics. Factor analysis was per-
formed and all items loaded onto one component. The Cronbach’s alpha for
this measure was .87. Taken together, the adapted scale is appropriate for
measuring the construct of confidence discussing prevention-related topics
with teens.

Emotion regulation modeling (ERM).  We created the ERM for the current study.
The ERM scale consisted of three items (e.g., “I talk with youth/students
about how to make sense of strong feelings”). Response options ranged from
1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. Means were computed so that
higher numbers indicate more ERM with youth. The Cronbach’s alpha for
this measure in the current study was .85.

Learning more about prevention topics.  We also asked four questions regard-
ing what and how adults wanted to learn more about regarding discussing
prevention with youth. The first question asked: “How interested are you
in learning more about how adults can help prevent sexual assault, bully-
ing, and other forms of aggression?” with respondents choosing from 1
(not at all interested) to 4 (very interested). The second, third, and fourth
questions asked,
Edwards et al. 11

Do you want to learn about . . . Information about what sexual assault is?
Discussion guides for talking to youth about sexual assault, bullying, and other
forms of violence? Resources in the community that help deal with sexual
assault, bullying, and other forms of violence?

and had respondents check all that applied to their interests. Another series of
questions asked adults to rate their likelihood of using specific types of
resources (with 1–4 Likert-type scale items of Not at all Likely to Very Likely)
including information from the school district, in-person workshops, an app,
text messages, or social media.

Data Analysis
Using SPSS 26 we ran a frequency analysis and generated a matrix of Pearson
and point-biseral (for categorical variables) correlations to understand the
relationships between participants’ demographic characteristics and levels of
confidence and frequency of discussing prevention-related topics with youth,
followed by t tests to understand demographic differences among our out-
come measures. We generated descriptive statistics for variables related to
how parents wanted to receive prevention messages.

Results
Aim 1
Adults reported speaking with youth about less sensitive prevention topics
more often than more sensitive topics. More specifically, adults spoke with
youth about less sensitive topics (bullying, plans for the future, healthy rela-
tionships, dealing with stress, being respectful, and family values/traditions)
an average of nearly six to nine times per month while they spoke about more
sensitive topics (sexual harassment, suicide, sexual assault, and dating vio-
lence) only three to five times per month. Average levels of confidence dis-
cussing prevention-related topics with youth were 3.4 (with four being the
most confident); thus, on average, most adults reported confidence in speak-
ing with their children about these topics. Average levels of ERM were 3.24
(with four being the highest).

Aim 2
There were no demographic correlates (Table 2) for the level of confidence in
discussing prevention with youth. ERM (p < .01) was positively correlated
with confidence discussing prevention with youth.
12
Table 2.  Correlates of Confidence and Frequency Speaking With Youth About Prevention Topics.
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

 1.  White  
  2.  Black or African American −.22**  
  3. American Indian or Alaska −.77** −.05  
Native
  4. Native Hawaiian or Other −.27** −.01 −.06  
Pacific Islander
  5.  Asian or Asian American −.16* −.01 −.03 .57**  
 6.  Hispanic/Latino −.06 −.02 −.02 .20** −.01  
 7.  Sex −.14* .05 .13 −.04 .04 .03  
 8.  Age .13 .06 −.04 −.09 −.15* −.13 −.16*  
 9.  Education .25** .11 −.36** .06 −.01 −.08 .21**  
10.  Number of children <18 −.12 −.02 .15* −.10 −.08 −.09 .11 −.14* −.23**  
11.  Child in middle or high school −.05 .07 .08 −.01 −.10 .01 .05 .45** −.05 .22**  
12.  Mean PCAT −.10 .04 .14 −.03 .06 −.02 .02 −.04 .14 .15*  
13.  Mean Talk_1 −.07 −.03 .04 .06 −.01 −.01 .18* .16* .07 .18* .27**  
14.  Mean Talk_2 −.18* −.06 .15* .07 .07 .03 .20** .04 .06 .24** .32** .60**  
15. Mean emotion regulation −.14 −.04 .15* .02 .02 .12 .06 .04 .10 .06 .35** .37** .37**
modeling

Note. PCAT = perceived confidence (talking with youth about prevention); Talk 1 = frequency discussing less sensitive topics with youth; Talk_2 = frequency discussing
more sensitive topics with youth.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Edwards et al. 13

Being a White parent was negatively correlated with discussing more

sensitive topics with youth while being American Indian was positively
correlated (both at the p < .05 level). Having more confidence discussing
prevention with youth positively correlated to discussing more sensitive
(p < .01) and less sensitive topics with youth (p < .01).
Comparing parents by the demographic group of race/ethnicity, we con-
ducted independent t test analyses for our four dependent variables: dis-
cussing more and less sensitive violence-prevention topics, ERM, and
confidence discussing violence-prevention topics. We examined differ-
ences among the three most numerous racial and ethnic categories in our
sample: Latino/Hispanic (vs. non-Latino) parents, white (vs. non-White)
parents, and American Indian/Alaska Native (vs. non-Native) parents.
There were no significant differences on any of the dependent variables for
Latino and non-Latino parents. White parents (vs. those who did not iden-
tify as white) reported lower frequency of discussing more sensitive vio-
lence-prevention topics with youth (M = 2.64, SD = 0.96) than non-White
parents (M = 3.20, SD = 0.98), t(129) = 2.50, p = .012. American Indian/
Alaska Native parents were more likely to discuss sensitive prevention
topics with youth (M = 3.12, SD = 0.91) compared with their non-Native
counterparts (M = 2.65, SD = 0.98), t(129) = −2.30, p = .02. American
Indian/Alaska Native parents also had higher ERM scores (M = 3.47,
SD = 0.47) compared with non-Native parents (M = 3.18, SD = 0.55),
t(129) = −2.52, p = .01.

Aim 3
We also surveyed adults on what and how they want to learn about discuss-
ing prevention topics with youth. Seventy-four percent of parents responded
they were either somewhat interested or very interested in learning more
about how adults can prevent sexual assault, bullying, and other forms of
aggression. The most common response to what kinds of information par-
ents wanted was “information about what sexual assault is” (N = 34). When
asked how likely they were to use different ways of getting information
about things like bullying, sexual violence, and substance use, the most
prevalent response was “a website I could visit on my own” (44% said very
likely), followed by “an in-person workshop” (41% very likely), “informa-
tion sent home in an email from the school district” (27% very likely),
“information given to me by a community leader” (26% very likely),
“Facebook page” (23% very likely), “text messages with links to informa-
tion sent home by the school” (21% very likely), “an app that could direct me
to resources” (20% very likely).
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Crosstabs were computed to examine differences in how parents would

like to receive more information by race and gender. Women were signifi-
cantly more interested in using Facebook to receive information about vio-
lence-prevention topics (66.3% responded “somewhat” or “very” likely)
compared with their male counterparts (48% of men responded Not at all
likely and 24% “somewhat” or “very” likely), X2(4, N = 142) = 21.2,
p > .01. There were no differences by race or ethnicity regarding the ways
parents preferred to receive information and no other differences were
found with gender and ways of receiving information (community leader,
text messages, an app, a website, an in-person workshop, or information
emailed by the school district).

Discussion
In the current article we examined the extent to which parents/guardians
engage in prevention-related discussions with their youth and the correlates
of these experiences. We also examined the ways in which parents access
prevention-related information to aid in these discussions with their youth.
Consistent with the theory of planned behavior, parents with more confidence
in discussing prevention-related topics were more likely to actually engage in
these types of conversations. This finding suggests that programming with
parents needs to increase their confidence in having these discussions. It may
be beneficial for programs to provide parents with information on what to say
and give them time to practice what they will say and receive feedback. Also,
programming that teaches parents to model emotion regulation is important
as it builds confidence in speaking to youth about prevention-related topics as
well as the extent to which they actually engage in these discussions. Parents
may need training themselves on managing strong emotions so that they can
effectively model this skill for their youth.
Not surprising as well, parents reported more confidence and more time
spent discussing less sensitive prevention topics. It is interesting that bullying
is among these topics. There has been an increased focus on bullying over the
past decade both in the media and in schools, and thus it is likely that it is
becoming a more common and comfortable topic for parents to discuss with
their children. More work is needed to help parents develop comfort and see
the importance of talking about more serious topics such as sexual and dating
violence and suicide.
Results suggested that American Indian parents were more likely to engage
in some forms of prevention-related discussions because violence is impacting
their children more so than White families (Perry, 2004). This finding under-
scores the need for culturally tailored programming for different communities
Edwards et al. 15

that considers cultural values and traditions, as well as historical considerations

(e.g., historical trauma). Furthermore, American Indian parents were more
likely to report modeling emotion regulation skills than non-American Indian
parent. Linking healthy expression of emotions with cultural traditions and
practices may help to further bolster American Indian parents’ confidence and
ability to talk with their youth about violence prevention–related conversations.
This is a preliminary and interesting finding that fits with recent research show-
ing that the effects of prevention programs are different by demographic
groups. For example, Coker et al. (2020) found an evidence-based bystander
training did not have a positive impact on sexual minority high school students.
We often focus on individual differences in parenting and in prevention, but we
may increase program effectiveness by better understanding how some cultural
or demographic groups may engage in prevention conversations differently. In
the case of the current study, a foundation of positive cultural practices related
to intergenerational storytelling and storytelling may have contributed to
American Indian parents’ greater confidence and frequency of conversations.
This preliminary finding is a reminder that we need to be sensitive to evaluating
the cultural responsiveness of our prevention efforts.
Several limitations should be noted. First the sample was small and the
extent to which the findings are generalizable to other communities is unknown.
Indeed, caregivers who were more involved with their children may have been
more likely to participate in the survey which likely inflates the extent to which
caregivers are engaging in prevention-related conversations with their children.
Replication work in other communities is needed. There was also likely selec-
tion bias such that more involved parents were perhaps more likely to partici-
pate in the survey. We also did not collect details on the ways in which parents
engage in prevention-related discussions with their children, which is an
important area for future investigation. Furthermore, we did not measure the
modeling of other attitudes and skills such as bystander intervention and norms
intolerant of violence which are important violence-prevention strategies.
Finally, we were not able to measure the impact that prevention-related discus-
sions have on children, and thus this should be a focus of future research.
In sum, results suggested that parents are engaging in prevention-related
discussions, especially about less sensitive topics, with their children.
Important correlates of these conversations were also identified underscoring
the need for programming that builds’ parents’ confidence and comfort in
having these conversations as well as parents’ ability to model emotion regu-
lation skills for their children. Although future research is needed to replicate
and expand on these analyses, this study provides some of the first data avail-
able on parents’ prevention-related discussion with their children, a critical
topic in prevention science.
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Acknowledgments
The authors owe a great deal of gratitude to our school and community partners and
project staff, especially Ramona Herrington. Without these individuals, this project
would not have been possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by
the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC), National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, Grant #U01-CEO02838. The findings and conclusions
in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official
position of the CDC.

ORCID iD
Katie M. Edwards https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1888-7386

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Allison, K. W., Edmonds, T., Wilson, K., Pope, M., & Farrell, A. D. (2011).
Connecting youth violence prevention, positive youth development, and commu-
nity mobilization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1–2), 8–20.
Andrews, K. R., Silk, K. S., & Eneli, I. U. (2010). Parents as health promoters: A
theory of planned behavior perspective on the prevention of childhood obesity.
Journal of Health Communication, 15(1), 95–107.
Bariola, E., Gullone, E., & Hughes, E. K. (2011). Child and adolescent emotion regu-
lation: The role of parental emotion regulation and expression. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 14(2), 198–212.
Barker, G. T., Ricardo, C., & Nascimento, M. (2007). Engaging men and boys in
changing gender-based inequity in health: Evidence from programme interven-
tions. World Health Organization.
Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K., Dills, J., Smith, S. G., & Raiford, J. L.
(2016). STOP SV: A technical package to prevent sexual violence. https://www.
cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-prevention-technical-package.pdf
Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J., & McCauley, H. L. (2020).
Bystander program effectiveness to reduce violence and violence acceptance
within sexual minority male and female high school students using a cluster RCT.
Prevention Science, 21, 434–444.
Edwards et al. 17

Compton, J., & Craig, E. A. (2019). Family communication patterns, inoculation the-
ory, and adolescent substance-abuse prevention: Harnessing post-inoculation talk
and family communication environments to spread positive influence. Journal of
Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 277–288.
Cui, L., Morris, A. S., Criss, M. M., Houltberg, B. J., & Silk, J. S. (2014). Parental
psychological control and adolescent adjustment: The role of adolescent emotion
regulation. Parenting, 14(1), 47–67.
Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of mindful
parenting: Implications for parent–child relationships and prevention research.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 12(3), 255–270.
Dymnicki, A. B., Osher, D., & Zimmerman, M. (2017). Promoting positive youth
development in community wide efforts as an approach to prevent and reduce
violence. In P. Sturney (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of violence and aggression
(Vol. 3, pp. 1-14). John Wiley.
Edwards, K. M., Banyard, V. L., Sessarego, S. N., Mitchell, K. J., & Chang, H. (2018).
Preventing teen relationship abuse and sexual assault through bystander training:
Intervention outcomes for school personnel. American Journal of Community
Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12379
Edwards, K. M., & Neal, A. (2017). School and community characteristics related to
dating violence victimization among high school youth. Psychology of Violence,
7(2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000065
Espelage, D. L., Low, S. K., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2013). The impact of
a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual vio-
lence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(2), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2013.02.021
Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003).
Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence
for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52(3), 105–
112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480309595732
Fagan, A. A., & Catalano, R. F. (2013). What works in youth violence prevention:
A review of the literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 141–156.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512465899
Fagan, A. A., & Wright, E. M. (2012). The effects of neighborhood context on youth
violence and delinquency does gender matter? Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 10(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204011422086
Finkelhor, D., Vanderminden, J., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014).
Youth exposure to violence prevention programs in a national sample. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.01.010
Fosco, G. M., Frank, J. L., Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2013). Opening the
“Black Box”: Family Check-Up intervention effects on self-regulation that
prevents growth in problem behavior and substance use. Journal of School
Psychology, 51(4), 455–468.
Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Cance, J. D., Bauman, K. E., & Bowling,
J. M. (2012). Assessing the effects of Families for Safe Dates, a family-based teen
dating abuse prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(4), 349–356.
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Frankel, L. A., Hughes, S. O., O’Connor, T. M., Power, T. G., Fisher, J. O., & Hazen,
N. L. (2012). Parental influences on children’s self-regulation of energy intake:
Insights from developmental literature on emotion regulation. Journal of Obesity,
2012, Article 327259
Hamby, S. L., & Grych, J. (2013). The web of violence: Exploring connections among
different forms of interpersonal violence and abuse. Springer Science & Business
Media.
International Center for Research on Women. (2007). Engaging men and boys to
achieve gender equality: How can we build on what we have learned? https://
promundoglobal.org/resources/engaging-men-and-boys-to-achieve-gender-
equality-how-can-we-build-on-what-we-have-learned/#
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health
Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1–47.
Manning, M., Doucette, H., Hood, E., Bala, K., Houck, C., & Rizzo, C. J. (2019). The
link between parent child discussions about critical relationship topics and dat-
ing violence in a sample of early adolescent boys. Poster presented at the Society
for Prevention Research Conference in San Francisco, CA.
Mikhailovich, K., & Morrison, P. (2007). Discussing childhood overweight and obe-
sity with parents: A health communication dilemma. Journal of Child Health
Care, 11(4), 311–322.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-
Kane, E., & Davino, K. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective
prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 449–456.
Offrey, L. D., & Rinaldi, C. M. (2017). Parent–child communication and adolescents’
problem-solving strategies in hypothetical bullying situations. International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22(3), 251–267.
Perry, S. W. (2004). American Indians and Crime: A BJS Statistical Profile, 1992-
2002. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203097
Randolph, K. A., Fincham, F., & Radey, M. (2009). A framework for engaging par-
ents in prevention. Journal of Family Social Work, 12(1), 56–72.
Ricardo, C., & Verani, F. (2010). Engaging men and boys in gender equality and
health: A global toolkit for action. United Nations Population Fund.
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health
Education & Behavior, 2(4), 328–335.
Rudolph, J., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2018). Parents as protectors: A qualitative
study of parents’ views on child sexual abuse prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect,
85, 28–38.
Smith, A. U., & Norris, A. E. (2020). Parent communication and bullying among
Hispanic adolescent girls. The Journal of School Nursing, 36, 222–232.
Stormshak, E. A., Fosco, G. M., & Dishion, T. J. (2010). Implementing interven-
tions with families in schools to increase youth school engagement: The Family
Check-Up model. School Mental Health, 2(2), 82–92.
Tharp, A. T. (2012). Dating Matters(TM): The next generation of teen dating violence
prevention. Prevention Science, 13, 389–401.
Edwards et al. 19

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/rapidcitycitysouth-

dakota
Verbeek, M., van de Bongardt, D., Reitz, E., & Deković, M. (2020). A warm nest or
“the talk”? Exploring and explaining relations between general and sexuality-
specific parenting and adolescent sexual emotions. Journal of Adolescent Health,
66, 210–216.
Wilkins, N., Tsao, B., Hertz, M., Davis, R., & Klevens, J. (2014). Connecting the
dots: An overview of the links among multiple forms of violence. https://www.
cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/connecting_the_dots-a.pdf
Yee, A. Z., Lwin, M. O., & Lau, J. (2019). Parental guidance and children’s healthy
food consumption: Integrating the theory of planned behavior with interpersonal
communication antecedents. Journal of Health Communication, 24(2), 183–194.
Zeldin, S. (2004). Preventing youth violence through the promotion of commu-
nity engagement and membership. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(5),
623–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20023

Author Biographies
Katie M. Edwards is an associate professor in the Nebraska Center for Research on
Children, Youth, Families at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Dr. Edwards inter-
disciplinary program of research focuses broadly on better understanding the causes,
consequences, and prevention of interpersonal violence, primarily intimate partner
violence and sexual assault among adolescents and emerging adults. Dr. Edwards
work has been funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National
Institute of Health, the Department of Justice, and the National Science Foundation.
Victoria L. Banyard is a professor in the School of Social Work at Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey. She is also the associate director of the Center on Violence
Against Women and Children. Dr. Banyard’s research examines the role of bystanders
in interpersonal violence prevention. She has also been the PI or co-PI on numerous
grants to evaluate the effectiveness of bystander prevention programs in educational
and community settings. She is the author of over 150 publications on these topics.
Anne Kirkner manages the Center for Victim Studies at the Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority. Her research focuses on understanding the experiences and
recovery outcomes of survivors of interpersonal violence and finding better responses
to victims across the social ecology.