F eminism

&
Article
Psychology
Feminism & Psychology

A feminist approach to 2020, Vol. 30(2) 143–164

! The Author(s) 2019

dating violence prevention:

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Creating change
DOI: 10.1177/0959353519882462
journals.sagepub.com/home/fap

towards safety,
equality and mutuality
Anil Ozge Ustunel
Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey

Abstract
The effectiveness of dating violence prevention programs in changing behaviors,
attitudes and knowledge related to perpetration and victimization has been well docu-
mented in the literature. However, little attention has been paid to the question of how
such positive outcomes have been obtained, and the debate continues as to their
underlying theoretical rationale. The present study aimed to fill this gap by designing
a dating violence prevention program from a feminist approach and to investigate the
processes of change with a constructivist grounded theory methodology. Towards this
goal, 56 Turkish college students completed the program and later participated in semi-
structured individual interviews. The analysis showed that the program initiated a grad-
ual move towards safety, equality and mutuality in dating and intimate relations through
four processes: changing perspectives and norms, learning from peers, reflecting on self, and
acting differently. Some of the processes were experienced differently depending on
the nature of prior or current dating experiences and the strength of sexist beliefs.
The present study argues that a feminist approach proves to be a useful framework for
dating violence prevention efforts and concludes with recommendations for future
preventive work.

Keywords
dating violence prevention, constructivist grounded theory, college students, Turkey,
feminist psychotherapy approaches

Corresponding author:
Anil Ozge Ustunel, Istanbul Bilgi University, santralistanbul, Kazim Karabekir Cad. No. 2/13 34060 Eyupsultan/
Istanbul, Turkey.
Email: anil.ustunel@gmail.com
144 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

Dating violence is defined as a pattern of behaviors which aim to take control of

the partner, harm him/her in a physical, sexual or psychological way, and threaten
his/her integrity and development (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007). Research shows
that it is a serious psychological and social issue, influencing the lives of many
adolescents and young adults (Murray & Kardatzke, 2007). Young women are
particularly at risk of experiencing violence by a dating or intimate partner
(World Health Organization [WHO], 2010), and consequently suffering academic,
psychological, physical and sexual problems (Oswalt, Wyatt, & Ochoa, 2018;
Teten, Ball, Valle, Noonan, & Rosenbluth, 2009). Research shows high rates of
dating violence perpetration and victimization among young people across many
countries (WHO, 2010), including Turkey (Husnu & Mertan, 2017; Toplu-
Demirtaş, Hatipoğlu-Sümer, & White, 2013). In the international arena, preventive
work has been suggested as a promising strategy to tackle this problem (Violence
Prevention Alliance, 2012; WHO, 2010) and shown to be effective in changing
behaviors, attitudes and knowledge related to dating violence (Ball, Kerig, &
Rosenbluth, 2009; Ball et al., 2012; Foshee et al., 1998, 2005; Wolfe et al., 2003,
2009). Although the positive outcomes documented in the literature are reassuring,
little attention has been paid to the question of how they have been obtained and
the debate continues as to their underlying theoretical rationale. The present study
aims to fill this gap by adopting a feminist approach to dating violence prevention
and developing a grounded theory of change towards safety, equality and mutu-
ality in dating and intimate relations in a sample of Turkish college students.

Adopting a feminist approach

There is no single feminist approach to understand violence against women and to
devise strategies to prevent it. Some feminist researchers focus on men’s violence
against women and explain it by the patriarchal social structures which create,
reinforce and justify men’s superiority and women’s subordination (Dobash,
Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Dobash & Dobash, 2004). In their analysis,
men’s violence is defined as a strategy to establish and sustain dominance in the
domestic sphere (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). Since its beginnings in the late
1980s, feminist movement in Turkey has similarly drawn upon gender-based social
and structural inequalities to define violence against women as a political rather
than a private issue and strived to ensure women’s safety by pressing for legal
reforms and social change (Altınay & Arat, 2009; Boratav, 2011).
Originally developing as a response to the problem of domestic violence, this
analysis has been applied to dating relations and stimulated research on the inter-
plays among gender, power and violence in young people’s dating experiences.
Many studies showed that adolescents and college students tend to endorse patri-
archal norms and gendered ideologies in their dating relations (Noonan & Charles,
2009; Stein, Tran, & Fisher, 2009), define controlling and possessive behaviors as
normative aspects of heterosexual intimacy (Johnson et al., 2005; Towns & Scott,
2013), and normalize and justify those behaviors in the name of love (Jackson,
2001; Wood, 2001). An extensive body of research also established that the
Ustunel 145

internalization of patriarchal gender roles and sexist beliefs are risk factors for
dating violence perpetration and victimization among young people (Dardis,
Dixon, Edwards, & Turchik, 2015; Husnu & Mertan, 2017; Reyes, Foshee,
Niolon, Reidy, & Hall, 2016).
In light of the accumulating evidence, most prevention programs address young
people’s attitudes towards gender roles and aim to create opportunities to challenge
and redefine them in order to promote safe and healthy relationships (Cornelius &
Resseguie, 2007; Meyer & Stein, 2004; O’Leary, Woodin, & Fritz, 2006). To date,
the impact of feminist perspectives has been limited to these interventions on
gender stereotypes, and feminist ideas have not been fully utilized in preventive
work. One reason for this is the misconceptions which portray feminists as focusing
single-mindedly on patriarchal social structures and ignoring the relevance of indi-
vidual and interpersonal skill deficits in intimate partner violence (Johnson, 2011).
These misconceptions are perpetuated by ‘‘gender-neutral’’ approaches which
argue that preventive efforts should primarily target psychological and dyadic
processes in relationships (i.e. self-regulation, conflict resolution) and depart
from the feminist emphasis on gender and power (Capaldi & Langhinrichsen-
Rohling, 2012; Dutton, 2012; Reed, Raj, Miller, & Silverman, 2010).
In fact, besides analyzing patriarchal social systems and structures, many fem-
inist practitioners have investigated how couples manage to establish equal and
non-violent relationships and resist gender-power dynamics in the interpersonal
domain. For example, Knudson-Martin and colleagues (Knudson-Martin &
Mahoney, 1996, 1998, 2005) have studied the notion of power equality in intimacy
and documented that shared responsibility for taking care of and maintaining the
relationship, mutuality in accommodating to and influencing each other, and reci-
procity in emotion sharing and accepting mistakes are the defining elements of
equal relationships. Their work illuminated how couples put equality into practice
as an ongoing process rather than endorsing it as an abstract ideal and showed that
learning to manage conflicts, convey emotions and recognize each other’s needs
were key steps in this effort. Similarly, other feminist psychologists have high-
lighted the emotional and dyadic skills needed to establish and sustain power
equality and showed that the capacity for mutuality and negotiation, emotional
awareness and containment, and self-monitoring are vital psychological resources
(Fishbane, 2011; Goldner, 1999; Haddock, Zimmerman, & MacPhee, 2000; Rabin,
1994; Skerret, 1996).
To summarize, the works of feminist practitioners indicate that learning to
establish power equality and to resist patriarchal gender-power dynamics can be
antidotes to violence in dating and intimate relations, and they provide an invalu-
able guiding framework for which skills to target among young people. Thus, one
goal of the present study is to utilize this approach to design a dating violence
prevention program in a college campus in Turkey. This approach is considered to
be particularly relevant in the present context, because patriarchal hierarchy organ-
izes family life and sets gendered norms in heterosexual relationships in Turkey
(Fişek, 1995; Sunar & Fişek, 2005). In marriage, most men tend to assume a more
dominant and authoritarian position while women’s roles are characterized by
146 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

caretaking responsibilities, tolerance and dependence (Boratav, Fişek, & Ziya,

2014; Sunar & Fişek, 2005). In social life, men and women tend to socialize in
separate sex-segregated networks (Delaney, 1991), and women’s social activities are
closely monitored by their husbands (Altınay & Arat, 2009). Despite the extent of
social change and diversity, these discourses and practices continue to frame the
socialization processes of young people and shape their meaning-making perspec-
tives with respect to gender, power and dating.

Exploring processes of change

Many researchers in the field of dating violence prevention have called attention to
the question of how available programs work and have criticized the lack of empir-
ical research on the processes of change (O’Leary et al., 2006; Whitaker et al.,
2006). Very few studies have set out to explore the subjective experiences of
young people in prevention programs and their accounts of transformation. For
example, in a previous research, Rosen and Bezold (1996) found that young het-
erosexual women attending a support group later reported feeling more self-con-
fident in setting limits when faced with abusive behaviors and becoming more
informed about their rights in dating relations. They explained that the emotionally
safe atmosphere of the group encouraged them to reflect on relationships from a
new perspective and to become aware of violence and control dynamics. In another
qualitative study, Ball and colleagues (2009) investigated how heterosexual adoles-
cents who had previously experienced domestic or sexual violence were impacted
by support groups designed to promote resilience and healthy relationship skills.
Girls in their study reported an improved ability to assert themselves and to protect
their personal boundaries, while boys emphasized gaining new skills, such as emo-
tion expression and anger control, after the group. Their accounts revealed several
factors which facilitated these changes, such as empathizing with those who were
mistreated, fostering hope for future relationships and having positive interactions
in the group.
Although these results provide some initial insight into the nature of transform-
ations that young people report after a preventive group program, how such change
takes place remains to be explored. Therefore, a second goal of the present study is
to develop a grounded theory of change following participation in a feminist dating
violence prevention program.

Method
The program
Informed by an array of feminist practices used in couples counseling (Enns, 1992a;
Haddock et al., 2000; Knudson-Martin, 2013; Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 1998,
2005; Parker, 2009) and domestic violence interventions (Goldner, Penn,
Sheinberg, & Walker, 1990; Goldner, 1998, 1999, 2004), the present program
aimed to introduce a relationship ethics based on the notions of safety, equality
Ustunel 147

and mutuality. Specific goals were: a) increasing awareness and knowledge

about various forms of dating violence and relational dynamics of power imbal-
ance, b) defining and introducing the characteristics of equal relationships, c)
supporting the development of emotional and relational skills needed to estab-
lish power equality in dating and intimate relations, more specifically emotion
awareness and regulation, communication and conflict resolution. In the present
research, dating and intimate relations were broadly defined as any long or
short-term romantic and/or sexual involvement with a partner (Murray &
Kardatzke, 2007). In developing the program, the first step was to carry out
pilot interviews with 19 college students to understand their experiences and
perspectives on dating violence and how it could be prevented. The students
were invited to participate in these interviews via email and received extra
course credits for their participation. The data from these interviews informed
later decisions on the program content and structure, and ensured that young
people’s own voices guided the designing phase. None of the students in the
pilot study took part in the main study. The second step involved undertaking a
review of existing dating violence prevention programs (Köberlein et al., 2010;
Wolfe et al., 1996), as well as other resources for effective preventive work
(Nation et al., 2003) and group activities (Brown, 2013; Elliot, 1994). In the
last step, various activities were selected, revised or designed on the basis of the
following: reflecting feminist goals of the program, integrating young people’s
suggestions from the pilot interviews, minimizing didactic teaching and inviting
various modes of creative expression. The final program involved eight sessions
which were held on a weekly basis in a small group format and facilitated by
the author and two male co-facilitators who were pursuing a graduate degree in
clinical psychology. Each session, lasting 1.5 to 2 hours, covered a different
topic related to dating violence (see Table 1).
The research was approved by the Ethics Committee at the university where the
study was carried out. To recruit participants, the program was announced via
an email sent to students registered to introductory level psychology courses.
The email provided brief information about the content and the length of the
program and invited interested students to an information session. In this session,
the author provided more information about the topics to be covered and
explained the significance of regular attendance in order to minimize the number
of drop-outs. The participants were also offered extra course credits in exchange for
their completion of the program. Those applicants who were willing to commit
their time signed informed consent forms and were accepted regardless of their
dating history, current dating status or sexual orientation, since the present study
was designed with a preventive framework.
The program was facilitated with one woman-only and five mixed-sex groups in
a college campus located in Istanbul, Turkey. A total of 63 students (21 men,
42 women) with an age range of 18 to 22 started to attend the program, and
seven young women dropped out from the study. The majority of the group mem-
bers were heterosexual (85%) and nearly half of them (49%) were in a dating
relationship at the beginning of the program.
148 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

Table 1. Topics, goals and aims of the present dating violence prevention program.
Session Main Topic Goals Activities

1 Intimacy and  Defining safe and unsafe behaviors Small group discussion
Personal Rights in relationships
 Introducing personal rights in
relationships
2 Psychological  Promoting the notion of accountability Small group discussion,
Violence vs.  Providing information about verbal abuse role play
Accountability  Examining anger as an emotional reaction
 Exploring safe and unsafe ways of
expressing anger
3 Psychological  Promoting the notion of mutuality in Small group discussion,
Violence vs. intimate relationships role play
Mutuality  Providing information about psychological
violence
 Raising self-awareness about ways of
regulating and expressing anger
 Practicing safe ways of expressing anger
4 Power Imbalance  Exploring the signs of power imbalance in Video discussion, poster
and Control vs. intimate relationships design, case
Autonomy  Providing information about coercive discussion
control
 Discussing the steps involved in estab-
lishing and maintaining a balance of power
in intimate relationships
5 Physical Violence vs.  Promoting the notion of Drawing, role play
Non-Violent non-violent conflict
Conflict  Providing information about physical
violence and cycle of violence
 Identifying and setting personal
boundaries
 Practicing how to draw personal
boundaries
6 Jealousy and Control  Exploring the meaning of autonomy and Drawing, role play
vs. Personal personal boundaries
Boundaries  Examining jealousy as an
emotional reaction
 Exploring safe and unsafe ways of
expressing jealousy
 Practicing safe ways of regulating and
expressing jealousy
7 Sexual Violence vs.  Promoting the notion of consent in Video discussion, case
Consent intimate relationships discussion, role play
 Providing information about sexual
violence and coercion
 Raising self-awareness about sexual pref-
erences and decision-making in the sexual
domain
8 Overview  Reflecting on and terminating the Small group discussion,
group process drawing, making a
sculpture
Ustunel 149

Interviews
Data for the present analysis came from individual interviews conducted with a
total of 56 group members (21 men, 35 women) who completed the program. The
author conducted the interviews on a one-to-one basis within one week after the
final session. The interviews inquired into the group members’ subjective experi-
ences and feelings about the program and its impact on their lives, relationships
and ways of thinking. The interviews progressed in a semi-structured format after
obtaining informed consent and took 30 to 45 minutes to complete. They were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Analysis
The present analysis was informed by a constructivist grounded theory (GT)
approach which focuses on developing an in-depth and contextualized understand-
ing of a social process and answering the question of how (Charmaz, 2004, 2006,
2008, 2017). The constructivist GT offers a systematic way of analyzing qualitative
data and generates ‘‘an abstract theoretical understanding of the studied experience’’
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 4). This approach was considered as suitable for the present
purposes firstly because the goal was to explain how transformation took place
after the program and to identify the mechanisms and processes enabling it.
Secondly, the constructivist GT integrates well with feminist research in that
both value research participants’ own voices and subjective experiences, attend
to the contextual and social processes involved in constructing meaning, and gen-
erate knowledge which can facilitate social change towards equality (Fassinger,
2005; Plummer & Young, 2009; Wuest, 1995).
The present analysis was carried out in three steps outlined by Charmaz (2006).
The first step was open coding which involved examining each sentence in an inter-
view and developing initial codes to describe and frame their meaning. During
focused coding, the codes which repeated frequently throughout the interviews
and provided a conceptual grasp into the processes of change were selected for
more intensive exploration. The selected codes and segments of data were continu-
ously compared across the interviews to identify the similarities, differences and
patterns in the group members’ experiences. The last step of the analysis was theor-
etical coding which involved grouping together the selected codes into abstract cate-
gories and constructing the links between these categories in order to develop an
explanatory account of change grounded in the group members’ experiences.
The MAXQDA was used to manage the coding of 56 interviews. To ensure ano-
nymity, pseudonyms were assigned to each participant by the author. The pseudo-
nyms matched the participants’ actual names in terms of sex. None of the actual
names in the data set were used as pseudonyms in reporting the analysis.

Reflexivity
Reflecting on the research process is necessary both in constructivist GT and fem-
inist research (Plummer & Young, 2009; Wuest, 1995). As a feminist researcher and
150 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

psychologist, I adhere to the idea that both research and clinical practice can be
vehicles for social change and transformation (Plummer & Young, 2009).
Reflecting this, the present study was deliberately designed to generate knowledge
which can inform future efforts to enhance young women’s safety and to increase
young people’s commitment to equality. Since attention to power dynamics is a key
element of feminist research (Gringeri, Wahab, & Anderson-Nathe, 2010) and
practice (Dankoski, 2000), care was taken to foster a non-hierarchical relationship
with the group members by adopting a collaborative and non-judgmental stance
throughout the program and the interviews. However, the group members often
positioned me as an expert in relational problems. From time to time, I utilized this
expert position to offer guidance about how to make sense of relationship problems
and what course of action to take. The guidance I provided was in the form of
tentative suggestions, questions and links with the discussions around safety, power
equality and gender in the program.
The college campus culture in the present research was characterized by a strong
commitment to gender equality and an acceptance of social diversity. This privileged,
urban and egalitarian setting stood in sharp contrast to traditional socio-cultural dis-
courses which set patriarchal hierarchy as a norm (Sunar & Fişek, 2005). Institutional
support for the messages and goals of the program facilitated and strengthened my
practice, and supported group members’ commitment to the program.

Findings
The analysis revealed four processes which initiated a gradual move towards safety,
equality and mutuality in dating and intimate relations after the program: changing
perspectives and norms, learning from peers, reflecting on self, and acting differently.
These four processes reciprocally interacted with each other to produce changes in
attitudes, beliefs, feelings and actions with regard to violence, intimacy, gender and
self (see Figure 1). Some of the processes were experienced differently depending on
two conditions: the nature of prior or current dating experiences and the strength
of sexist and patriarchal beliefs. The first condition pertained to whether the group
members experienced violence and control in their present or past dating relations.
Those group members, particularly young women, who had relevant personal
experiences engaged more deeply with the program, adopted an open and reflective
stance, and reported significant transformations in their lives and relationships.
The second condition was related to the extent to which the group members
endorsed or questioned sexist and patriarchal beliefs prior to the program.
Those group members, particularly young men, who strongly identified with patri-
archal gender roles adopted a more defensive and dismissive attitude at times and
reported more attitudinal rather than behavioral changes.

Changing perspectives and norms

Changing perspectives and norms indicated a gradual transformation in how the
group members interpreted and created meaning out of relationships and their
Ustunel 151

Changing Perspectives
and Norms

-Reframing the meaning

of love and intimacy
-Redefining violence
and safety
Reflecting on Self Acting Differently
-Observing self
-Negotiating boundaries
-Realizing inconsistencies
-Collaborating
-Realizing consequences
-Regulating emotions
Learning from Peers

-Feeling validated
-Establishing contact
with the other

Figure 1. The processes of transformation towards safety, equality and mutuality in dating
and intimate relations.

partner’s behaviors, and what they deemed as significant, acceptable, desired and
normative in dating relations. This transformation involved reframing the meaning
of love and intimacy and redefining violence and safety.
Reframing the meaning of love and intimacy meant challenging the romanticized
gender-based notions of love and developing a new perspective on what intimacy
entailed. Most young women shared personal stories about their partner’s control
and restrictions, particularly with respect to their appearance and friendships with
men. They explained that throughout the program they learnt to differentiate love
from control and to incorporate an understanding of autonomy and personal space
into dating norms. This change in perspective helped some women to enjoy a sense
of freedom and entitlement to have personal interests and likes, and influenced how
they viewed their relationships. Elif explained her decision to break up with her
partner after evaluating his behaviors in a new light:

I’ve realized that I do not have to comply with his wishes just because I am a woman
. . . I believe it was easier to interpret his behaviors as love before. In the group, I’ve
realized that he wasn’t listening to me when I said no. I’ve realized that my friends
weren’t important, but his friends were . . . I was ignoring all this, thinking that he
wanted to spend more time with me, because he missed me. I was ignoring that this
decreased my own value as a human being.

Redefining violence and safety involved developing a new perspective on violence

and safety in dating and intimate relations. In the program, the group members
engaged in a joint effort to discuss what counted as violence and collectively rede-
fined its forms. Finding a new language to name disturbing relational experiences
brought a new perspective on safety and decreased confusion about acceptable
behaviors in dating relations. Some young women, particularly those who were
152 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

in controlling relationships, expressed that being able to identify their partner’s

behaviors as one form of violence helped them to feel less guilt and self-doubt.
For example, Muge explained:

It’s not always about hitting, screaming, shouting. I’ve realized that putting pressure
on someone by playing on words is a form of violence. Realizing this helped me to see
that I wasn’t the only one to blame, he is not that innocent.

Asli ended her two-year relationship after adopting a new way of understanding
jealousy in the group:

I knew that something was off, but I couldn’t interpret it. He was very jealous.
I thought there was jealousy in all relationships. I tried to find excuses, but after
I came here, I clearly understood unsafe relationships.

Learning from peers

Learning from peers covered the social and collective experiences and processes
mobilized in the program. These processes created an emotionally supportive con-
text for sharing and reflection, and provided a unique opportunity for socialization.
They involved feeling validated and establishing contact with the other.
Feeling validated meant deriving a sense of social support and validation from
the group. Some young women, particularly those who were in controlling rela-
tionships, reported that their friends outside the group either minimized or justified
their partner’s restrictive and controlling behaviors when offering advice about
relational issues. This attitude, in turn, increased their self-doubt and silenced
their voice. They contrasted this experience with the sense of not being alone
that gradually developed in the group. For example, Dilek explained how the
group provided an alternative socialization experience which encouraged her to
confront her partner:

When I talked to my friends about his controlling behaviors, they said ‘‘that’s life,
don’t exaggerate’’ . . . I’ve realized that people in this group shared similar opinions
with me . . . I felt like I was not the only one . . . Then I said ‘‘we need to sort out this
problem’’.

A couple of young men reported that the group’s support and validation was
critical for their struggle with the dominant patriarchal beliefs about masculinity,
control and power. Cem reported that with the group’s support he felt like he was
on the right track in his non-compliance to patriarchal norms:

There is this model of the classic Turkish man. In fact, I try to define myself outside of
this model. Let’s say my partner does an activity on her own or she goes out with her
friends, I always respect that. I think it’s not my place to say anything. Now, I’ve
Ustunel 153

realized that I am doing the right thing. I feel more at ease . . . In the past, my friends
used to say ‘‘how could you let her!’’ and I couldn’t help but listen to them.

Establishing contact with the other involved a process of engaging in an open

exchange of ideas in a diverse setting and reexamining prior preconceptions and
stereotypes about the ‘‘other’’. For heterosexual group members, the other repre-
sented the opposite sex. Those in mixed-sex groups shared that they cherished the
opportunity to communicate directly with young men and women in a social group
setting because of limited contact with opposite-sex peers and involvement in sex-
segregated activities prior to college. They reported that working in the groups
made them more aware of the similarities between sexes, and prevented further
polarization. For example, Bilge stated that socializing in the group changed his
views about women:

In an all-male context, one cannot see the other as similar to oneself. One can picture
the other in his mind as if she is something superficial, someone different or not a
human being. But in this setting, one can realize that she is no different than me.

Similarly, Melis explained the value of direct communication in challenging gender

stereotypes:

You can only understand the other in a setting where you are together . . . The group
would not be that beneficial if only women or only men were involved. There is this
general idea that men are more dominant and women are naı̈ve. By talking here, we
understand that both sides can be dominant or naı̈ve.

Those heterosexual members in the woman-only group expressed their disappoint-

ment over not being able to directly communicate and exchange ideas with young
men in the program and defined it as a missed opportunity.
For non-heterosexual group members, talking to young people from different
backgrounds, regardless of their sex, and exploring multiple perspectives on dating
norms were valued aspects of the group. They explained that this experience helped
to expand their thinking and to acknowledge the diversity among their peers.

Reflecting on self
Reflecting on self involved an active, directed and ongoing effort to explore and
observe oneself in the context of the discussions around love, intimacy, gender and
violence. This effort operated through observing self, realizing inconsistencies
and realizing the consequences of one’s actions, and helped to raise self-awareness.
Observing self meant reflecting on one’s personal story and engaging with it in a
focused and active manner. Most group members turned to their personal history
or current relationships to find and analyze examples from their own life.
This effort turned abstract concepts like safety, autonomy and power into identi-
fiable and concrete actions and helped them to establish personal relevance to the
154 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

program. Umut described this process as ‘‘looking at oneself in the mirror’’. Aysel
also shared how the group motivated her to reflect on her experiences:

There were some aspects of the group which made me face the fact that one is worthy
on her own . . . There were some parts that made me tell myself ‘‘become aware of
yourself and see what you are doing’’. I think this helped me both to learn a lesson
from the past and also to know myself.

Realizing inconsistencies meant gaining an increased awareness of the conflicts and

discrepancies between one’s beliefs and actions in dating and intimate relations.
Some young men and women started to compare and note the difference between
adhering to an abstract value such as equality and practicing it in daily life, and this
awareness created a sense of responsibility to make personal and relational change.
Nazli shared the questions she posed to herself throughout the program:

The group made me question myself. What are my actions? What are my words? To
what extent do my behaviors reflect my beliefs?

Realizing the consequences of one’s actions involved reflecting on one’s behaviors,

reactions and expectations in dating and intimate relations, and examining their
impact on the partner and the relationship. Some group members explained that
this reflective practice challenged their habit of acting without thinking and made
them more aware of the potentially harmful impact of their behaviors. A couple of
young women who shared their personal experiences of being mistreated by their
dating partners facilitated this awareness for other group members. Aygun talked
about a shift in her attitude towards her partner as a result of increased self-
awareness:

I’ve realized that I focus on the things that I want, I want this or that, but I don’t think
about what that means for the other person, its impact on the other.

Acting differently
Acting differently involved new behaviors which shifted power dynamics towards
equality and addressed recurrent relational problems. Those new behaviors indi-
cated a momentary break from typical and repeated patterns, and positioned self in
a different role in relation to the partner. They took the form of negotiating bound-
aries, collaborating and regulating emotions, and reinforced a view of self as capable
of and responsible for change.
Negotiating boundaries involved a process of questioning gender-power dynam-
ics, problematizing restrictive behaviors and assertively protecting one’s personal
autonomy. Those young women who had controlling or violent partners conveyed
that this process of negotiation served as a milestone which helped them to adopt
new behaviors such as talking more openly about their discomfort with the
Ustunel 155

partner’s restrictions and expressing their expectations for acceptance and under-
standing. Although some of these attempts failed due to a lack of flexibility on the
part of the partner, they nonetheless contributed to an experience of self as agent
and capable. Meryem explained how she tried a new way of communication with
her partner in order to protect her individuality:

I’ve lived under his pressure for a long time. I became very passive in my social life.
Then I realized that I didn’t have to stop living my life just because he did. I didn’t
have to lose myself . . . I’ve realized that I’ve restricted so many things for myself . . .
After I came here, I started to talk more openly. If there was anything that made me
uncomfortable, I started to tell . . . This made it possible for me to break up with him.
Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to do that.

Collaborating meant working through a relational problem openly and jointly by

exploring emotional reactions, identifying problems and generating solutions
together. Particularly when both partners were flexible and attentive towards
each other, such practices worked to strengthen the relationship, enhanced mutu-
ality and decreased emotional reactivity and anger. This change was, in part, due to
the realization that suppressing anger and disappointment resulted in emotional
distance, self-blame or psychological pain. For example, Duygu talked about how
she and her partner adopted a more collaborative approach to problem-solving
after the program:

I was ignoring all problems . . . Although there was something disturbing, I pretended
as if there was not. Now I know how to handle them. I know how to explain myself . . .
Before, I was doing harm to myself because I ignored my anger. I wasn’t aware of it
. . . Now, putting it into words gives me confidence . . . Now we know how to approach
each other’s feelings.

Regulating emotions indicated a transformation in how some group members

viewed and worked with emotions. Strong feelings which were characterized as
uncontrollable turned into experiences to be understood, explored and regulated.
Some young men and women adopted practices such as observing their internal
world, reflecting on the source of their anger, thinking about different ways of
expression, and temporarily distracting themselves. These practices cultivated a
more reflective attitude towards strong feelings and prevented acting on an imme-
diate impulse. Cem mentioned gaining a new emotional skill after the program:

The ability to think calmly is one of my greatest gains from the program.

Discussion
The present research adopted a feminist approach to dating violence prevention
and revealed four processes that initiated a move towards safety, equality and
156 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

mutuality in dating and intimate relations in a sample of Turkish college students,

namely changing perspectives and norms, learning from peers, reflecting on self and
acting differently. Prior or current dating experiences with controlling and violent
partners facilitated this transformation, particularly for young heterosexual
women, while strong patriarchal ideologies hindered reflection and limited
change. In light of these results, the following recommendations are made for
future prevention efforts.

Challenging the romantic discourse on love

Group members’ reports clearly showed that changing perspectives on love and
intimacy played a significant role in their transformation. Most members expressed
that they gained a new perspective on love and started to differentiate it from
controlling and abusive behaviors. The shift in perspective was particularly notable
for those young heterosexual women who were in controlling relationships at the
time of the program. They explained that they used to interpret their partner’s
restrictive behaviors as a sign of love and commitment, and consequently tried
changing their personal characteristics to fulfill their partner’s expectations.
This finding is consistent with research showing that romantic discourses where
women’s passivity, compliance and tolerance are defined as idealized expressions of
love reinforce patriarchal norms and increase the risk of victimization in dating
relations (Jackson, 2001; Papp, Liss, Erchull, Godfrey, & Waaland-Kreutzer, 2017;
Wood, 2001).
For the young people in this study, engaging in discussions about what intimacy
meant and learning an alternative definition with a foundation on power equality
and mutuality facilitated a change in relationship norms. The notions of autonomy
and personal boundaries gradually gained more significance and exerted an influ-
ence on relational expectations. As a result, some group members began to reflect
on their past or present relationships and behaviors with a new lens. This process is
similar to Rosen and Bezold’s (1996) finding that raising awareness about personal
rights motivated young women to critically evaluate their relationships and to
recognize their partner’s abusive behaviors. One recommendation on the basis of
these results is to challenge romanticized notions of love in dating violence preven-
tion programs and defining what love looks like from a feminist perspective. In the
absence of such an effort, violence, control and love intertwine in young people’s
meaning-making perspectives.

Addressing psychological violence

Group members in the present study reported developing a broadened perspective
on violence and enjoyed discussing its physical, psychological, sexual and digital
forms. Most group members particularly emphasized psychological violence and
expressed the need to discuss this issue more deeply because of its elusive and
invisible nature. They mentioned that naming certain behaviors as psychologically
abusive helped them to articulate vaguely disturbing relational experiences and
Ustunel 157

offered a lens to make meaning out of conflictual feelings of attachment, love,

confusion and discomfort. This finding is consistent with previous research
which points at the benefits of awareness-raising interventions, such as adopting
a critical perspective on dominance and power dynamics in dating and intimate
relations, feeling more confident to recognize warning signs of abuse, and taking
steps to change one’s harmful behaviors (Ball et al., 2009; Rosen & Bezold, 1996).
Increased knowledge of psychological violence reduced self-blame, self-doubt and
a feeling of isolation for some group members. Framing psychological violence as
rooted in patriarchal norms and gender-power dynamics was particularly effective,
because this strategy helped to define it as a commonly experienced problem and
challenged the view that it is a private and individual matter. This finding is parallel to
McGirr and Sullivan’s research (2017) which showed that raising consciousness about
domestic violence and its roots in patriarchy increased women’s sense of confidence in
themselves and in their ability to cope with challenging experiences. Similarly, feminist
practitioners have long advocated for an examination of relational issues in the con-
text of social and structural inequalities (Enns, 1992a, 1992b, 1993; Evans, Kincade,
Marbley, & Seem, 2005; Israeli & Santor, 2000). In light of the present evidence, one
suggestion for future preventive efforts is to foster a contextualized definition of
dating violence, exposing its social and patriarchal origins.

Creating a context for re-socialization

Present results highlighted the significance of group interactions and relations in
facilitating change towards safety, equality and mutuality. Group members valued
the supportive and emotionally-safe context of the group and positive interactions
they had with their peers. Their accounts demonstrated that learning group mem-
bers’ views on dating and violence, hearing their personal stories and receiving
support and acceptance for one’s views played a key role in their transformation.
This finding is in line with previous research which demonstrates that a cohesive
group setting and close relationships among group members provide unique learn-
ing opportunities for young people in dating violence prevention programs
(Ball et al., 2009; Nation et al., 2003; Rosen & Bezold, 1996).
Group members’ comments indicated that the group setting contrasted sharply
with usual socialization experiences in two respects. Firstly, some members men-
tioned that their friends outside the group, through relationship advice they
offered, usually fostered compliance to the ideals of feminine submissiveness and
masculine dominance. These interactions with friends increased self-doubt and
discouraged any resistance, as opposed to the sense of emotional support
and validation received in the group. Secondly, almost all heterosexual members
talked about their lack of experience in interacting with the opposite sex prior to
the program. Since sex-segregation in social life is a common cultural practice
in the Turkish social context (Delaney, 1991; Sunar & Fişek, 2005), working
in a mixed-sex setting provided an opportunity to practice new social skills and
get to know ‘the other’ through direct and structured contact. Thus, the program
initiated alternative socialization processes which differed strikingly from
158 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

previous experiences in other peer contexts and facilitated transformation. This

finding confirms the need for feminist-informed contextual interventions which
create a re-socialization experience within a culture of safety, equality and collect-
ive engagement (Almeida & Durkin, 1999; Parker, 2008, 2009).
Consistent with previous research (Cruwys, Haslam, Fox, & McMahon, 2015;
Reyes et al., 2016), one implication of these results for future preventive efforts is to
target peer socialization processes on dating norms and address how conformity to
patriarchal gender-power dynamics is fostered in day-to-day interactions among
young people.

Encouraging reflection and self-development

Group members’ reports showed that the program initiated a process of reflection on
self and influenced their self-related thoughts, feelings and actions. Some members
became actively engaged with the group topics and analyzed their own lives, which
turned the group into a personally meaningful endeavor and fostered an open and
flexible attitude. These practices were critical in creating an experience of self as agent,
capable and responsible, and paved the way for later behavioral changes. The trans-
formations in actions usually involved developing and practicing new skills which
broke away from internalized patriarchal gender roles. For most young women, trans-
formation meant drawing boundaries, asserting self and communicating one’s needs,
while for men it indicated a change towards accepting emotions, engaging in open
communication and respecting autonomy. These behavioral changes manifest a move
towards conscious and mutual negotiation which is defined as a key process in estab-
lishing and maintaining power equality in the private domain by Knudson-Martin and
colleagues (Knudson-Martin, 2013; Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 1996, 1998).
In their work, this process was characterized by a willingness to engage in conflict,
share emotions and search for mutually satisfying solutions. In light of these results,
one last recommendation for future preventive work is to create opportunities for self-
reflection and to incorporate skills-building components in order to support personal
and relational change towards safety, equality and mutuality.

Strengths and limitations

The present study aimed to develop an explanatory account of transformation
on the basis of group members’ subjective experiences throughout the program.
The constructivist grounded theory approach used in this study served to iden-
tify processes which facilitated change towards safety, equality and mutuality.
These processes can be utilized to design more effective prevention programs
from a feminist perspective in the future. In addition, the program designed for
this research was one of the first systematic attempts to prevent dating violence
among college students in Turkey and to explore their perspectives qualitatively.
Although the effectiveness of the program needs to be tested more vigorously in the
future, the present results are intended to initiate more research and practice to
prevent dating violence in the present context.
Ustunel 159

Some important limitations of the study need to be addressed. Firstly, very few
non-heterosexual young people participated in the program. Although the analysis
indicated similar processes in their accounts and some of them provided very
positive feedback about the program, their experiences could not be adequately
represented in the present research. Future work should explore the needs of non-
heterosexual college students in dating relations and more extensively investigate
what they need in preventive programs. Secondly, data collection for this
study was carried out within one week after the program ended. This was partly
due to working within a limited time frame between the beginning of the academic
semester and the finals. Nonetheless, this allowed for exploring the group members’
experiences only in the short-run. A follow-up study would contribute to the
understanding of the processes of transformation over a longer period of time.
Thirdly, some group members who strongly held sexist beliefs and adhered to patri-
archal gender roles presented an ambivalent account and expressed concerns about
some of the processes reported in this study. Although this issue is beyond the scope
of this paper, future work should explore this ambivalence and effective ways for
addressing it in preventive programs. Lastly, the present program was designed for
college students at this university, because it offered a unique setting to experiment
with dating and provided a supportive context for this type of work. However, the
results pointed out the significance of gender-based socialization processes before
college and indicated the need for an earlier and contextual intervention. Thus,
future work should explore further opportunities for feminist preventive work
with younger adolescents and children in the Turkish context.

Conclusion
The present study indicates that preventive groups can be a medium to introduce and
disseminate a feminist understanding of love and intimacy, change patriarchal gender-
power dynamics in young people’s dating relations and create an alternative social-
ization experience. In the future, making a feminist understanding and practice of love
more visible and accessible to young people will likely contribute to establishing a
culture of equality and eliminating dating violence from young people’s lives.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof. Guler Okman Fisek and Prof. Hale Bolak
Boratav, for their guidance throughout the research.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey.
160 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

ORCID iD
Anil Ozge Ustunel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1983-6372

References
Almeida, R. V., & Durkin, T. (1999). The cultural context model: Therapy for couples with
domestic violence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 313–324.
Altınay, A. G., & Arat, Y. (2009). Violence against women in Turkey: A nationwide survey.
Istanbul, Turkey: Punto Publishing.
Ball, B., Kerig, P. K., & Rosenbluth, P. (2009). ‘‘Like a family but better because you can
actually trust each other’’: The Expect Respect Dating Violence Prevention Program for
at-risk youth. Health Promotion Practice, 10, 45–58.
Ball, B., Tharp, A. T., Noonan, R. K., Valle, L. A., Hamburger, M. E., & Rosenbluth, B.
(2012). Expect respect support groups preliminary evaluation of a dating violence pre-
vention program for at-risk youth. Violence Against Women, 18, 746–762.
Boratav, H. B. (2011). Searching for feminism in psychology in Turkey. In A. Rutherford,
R. Capdevila, V. Undurti, & I. Palmary (Eds.), Handbook of international feminisms
(pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Springer.
Boratav, H. B., Fişek, G. O., & Ziya, H. E. (2014). Unpacking masculinities in the context of
social change: Internal complexities of the identities of married men in Turkey. Men and
Masculinities, 17, 299–324.
Brown, N. (2013). Creative activities for group therapy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Capaldi, D. M., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2012). Informing intimate partner violence
prevention efforts: Dyadic, developmental, and contextual considerations. Prevention
Science, 13, 323–328.
Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting
the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 976–993.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. London, UK: SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory. In J. A. Holstein, & J.
F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412). New York,
NY: The Guildford Press.
Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry.
Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 34–45.
Cornelius, T. L., & Resseguie, N. (2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for
dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 364–375.
Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Fox, N. E., & McMahon, H. (2015). ‘‘That’s not what we do’’:
Evidence that normative change is a mechanism of action in group interventions.
Behavior Research and Therapy, 65, 11–17.
Dankoski, M. E. (2000). What makes research feminist?. Journal of Feminist Family
Therapy, 12, 3–19.
Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Turchik, J. A. (2015). An examination of
the factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and
associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence and
Abuse, 16, 136–152.
Delaney, C. L. (1991). Relatives and relations. In C. L. Delaney, The seed and the soil
(pp. 147–200). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships:
Working on a puzzle. The British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324–349.
Ustunel 161

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry
in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.
Dutton, D. G. (2012). The prevention of intimate partner violence. Prevention Science, 13,
395–397.
Elliot, S. (1994). Group activities for counselors. Spring Valley, CA: Interchoice Publishers.
Enns, C. Z. (1992a). Dilemmas of power and equality in marital and family counseling:
Proposals for a feminist perspective. In R. L. Smith, & P. Stevens-Smith (Eds.), Family
counseling and therapy: Major issues and topics (pp. 338–358). Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC
Counseling and Personnel Services Clearinghouse.
Enns, C. Z. (1992b). Self-esteem groups: A synthesis of consciousness-raising and assertive-
ness training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 7–13.
Enns, C. Z. (1993). Twenty years of feminist counseling and therapy: From naming biases to
implemented multifaceted practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 3–87.
Evans, K. M., Kincade, E. A., Marbley, A. F., & Seem, S. R. (2005). Feminism and feminist
therapy: Lessons from the past and hopes for the future. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 83, 269–277.
Fassinger, R. E. (2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems and promise: Grounded theory in
counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 156–166.
Fishbane, M. D. (2011). Facilitating relational empowerment in couple therapy. Family
Process, 50, 337–352.
Fişek, G. O. (1995). Gender hierarchy: Is it a useful concept in describing family structure?
In J. van Lawick, & M. Sanders (Eds.), Family, gender and beyond (pp. 63–72).
Heemstede, the Netherlands: LS Books.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R. W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F.
(1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates: An adolescent dating violence prevention program.
American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45–50.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F.
(2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program ‘‘Safe Dates’’
using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6, 245–258.
Goldner, V. (1998). The treatment of violence and victimization in intimate relationships.
Family Process, 37, 263–286.
Goldner, V. (1999). Morality and multiplicity: Perspectives on the treatment of violence in
intimate life. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 325–336.
Goldner, V. (2004). When love hurts: Treating abusive relationships. Psychoanalytic Inquiry,
24, 346–372.
Goldner, V., Penn, P., Sheinberg, M., & Walker, G. (1990). Love and violence: Gender
paradoxes in volatile attachments. Family Process, 29, 343–364.
Gringeri, C. E., Wahab, S., & Anderson-Nathe, B. (2010). What makes it feminist?:
Mapping the landscape of feminist social work research. Affilia, 25, 390–405.
Haddock, S. A., Zimmerman, T. S., & MacPhee, D. (2000). The power equity guide:
Attending to gender in family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26,
153–170.
Husnu, S., & Mertan, B. E. (2017). The roles of traditional gender myths and beliefs about
beating on self-reported partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32,
3735–3752.
Israeli, A. L., & Santor, D. A. (2000). Reviewing effective components of feminist therapy.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13, 233–247.
Jackson, S. (2001). Happily never after: Young women’s stories of abuse in heterosexual love
relationships. Feminism & Psychology, 11, 305–321.
162 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

Johnson, M. P. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-
feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 289–296.
Johnson, S. B., Frattaroli, S., Campbell, J., Wright, J., Pearson-Fields, A. S., & Cheng, T. L.
(2005). ‘‘I know what love means’’: Gender-based violence in the lives of urban adoles-
cents. Journal of Women’s Health, 14, 172–179.
Knudson-Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support
in couple relationships. Family Process, 52, 5–18.
Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (1996). Gender dilemmas and myths in the con-
struction of marital bargains: Issues for marital therapy. Family Process, 35, 137–153.
Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (1998). Language and processes in the construction
of equality in new marriages. Family Relations, 47, 81–91.
Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A. R. (2005). Moving beyond gender: Processes
that create relationship equality. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31,
235–258.
Köberlein, L., Toth, G., Sartingen, P., Hahn, S., Krohe-Amann, A., & Gaiser, H.Staff of
TENDER (2010). Heartbeat: Relationships without violence. Preventing violence in teen-
age relationships: An education manual for schools and other youth settings. Stuttgart,
Germany: Der Paritatische Baden-Württemberg.
McGirr, S. A., & Sullivan, C. M. (2017). Critical consciousness raising as an element of
empowering practice with survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Social Service
Research, 43, 156–168.
Meyer, H., & Stein, N. (2004). Relationship violence prevention education in schools:
What’s working, what’s getting in the way, and what are some future directions.
American Journal of Health Education, 35, 198–204.
Murray, C. E., & Kardatzke, K. N. (2007). Dating violence among college students: Key
issues for college counselors. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 79–89.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K. L., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E.,
et al. (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs.
American Psychologist, 58, 449–456.
Noonan, R. K., & Charles, D. (2009). Developing teen dating violence prevention
strategies: Formative research with middle school youth. Violence against Women, 15,
1087–1105.
O’Leary, K. D., Woodin, E. M., & Fritz, P. A. T. (2006). Can we prevent the hitting?:
Recommendations for preventing intimate partner violence between young adults.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 13, 121–178.
Oswalt, S. B., Wyatt, T. J., & Ochoa, Y. (2018). Sexual assault is just the tip of the iceberg:
Relationship and sexual violence prevalence in college students. Journal of College
Student Psychotherapy, 32, 93–109.
Papp, L. J., Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., Godfrey, H., & Waaland-Kreutzer, L. (2017). The dark
side of heterosexual romance: Endorsement of romantic beliefs relates to intimate partner
violence. Sex Roles, 76, 99–109.
Parker, L. (2008). The cultural context model: A case study of social justice-based clinical
practice. Social Justice in Context, 3, 25–39.
Parker, L. (2009). Disrupting power and privilege in couples’ therapy. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 37, 248–255.
Plummer, M., & Young, L. E. (2009). Grounded theory and feminist inquiry: Revitalizing
links to the past. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 32, 305–321.
Rabin, C. (1994). The egalitarian alternative: A feminist model for couples and group inter-
ventions. The Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 18, 109–122.
Ustunel 163

Reed, E., Raj, A., Miller, E., & Silverman, J. G. (2010). Losing the ‘‘gender’’ in gender-based
violence: The missteps of research on dating and intimate partner violence. Violence
against Women, 16, 348–354.
Reyes, H. L. M., Foshee, V. A., Niolon, P. H., Reidy, D. E., & Hall, J. E. (2016). Gender
role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as
moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 350–360.
Rosen, K. H., & Bezold, A. (1996). Dating violence prevention: A didactic support group for
young women. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 521–525.
Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Bell, K. M. (2008). A critical review of theoretical frame-
works for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 13, 185–194.
Skerret, K. (1996). From isolation to mutuality: A feminist collaborative model of couples’
therapy. Women & Therapy, 19, 93–106.
Stein, A. L., Tran, G. Q., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Intimate partner violence experience and
expectations among college women in dating relationships: Implications for behavioral
interventions. Violence and Victims, 24, 153–162.
Sunar, D., & Fişek, G. O. (2005). Contemporary Turkish families. In J. L. Roopnarine, & U.
P. Gieler (Eds.), Families in global perspective (pp. 169–183). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn
and Bacon.
Teten, A. L., Ball, B., Valle, L. A., Noonan, R., & Rosenbluth, B. (2009). Considerations for
the definition, measurement, consequences, and prevention of dating violence victimiza-
tion among adolescent girls. Journal of Women’s Health, 18, 923–927.
Toplu-Demirtaş, E., Hatipoğlu-Sümer, Z., & White, J. W. (2013). The relation between
dating violence victimization and commitment among Turkish college women: Does
the investment model matter? International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 7, 203–215.
Towns, A. J., & Scott, H. (2013). ‘‘I couldn’t even dress the way I wanted.’’ Young women
talk of ‘‘ownership’’ by boyfriends: An opportunity for the prevention of domestic vio-
lence?. Feminism & Psychology, 23, 536–555.
Violence Prevention Alliance. (2012). Global campaign for violence prevention: Plan of action
for 2012–2020. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/
global_campaign/gcvp_plan_of_action.pdf?ua=1.
Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M.,
et al. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration
of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 151–166.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., et al. (2009).
A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating violence: A cluster randomized
trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine Journal, 163, 692–699.
Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Gough, R., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Grasley, C., et al. (1996). The youth
relationships manual: A group approach with adolescents for the prevention of women abuse
and the promotion of healthy relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A. L., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D.
(2003). Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome evaluation.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 279–291.
Wood, J. T. (2001). The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships:
Women’s narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18,
239–261.
World Health Organization. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence
against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Retrieved from http://www.who.
int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/9789241564007_eng.pdf.
164 Feminism & Psychology 30(2)

Wuest, J. (1995). Feminist grounded theory: An exploration of the congruency and ten-
sions between two traditions in knowledge discovery. Qualitative Health Research, 5,
125–137.

Author Biography
Anil Ozge Ustunel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at
Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey. Her research interests include intimate partner
violence, gender and couple relations, and feminist approaches to mental health,
psychological treatment and prevention.