Surveys of adolescents consistently find that a substantial minority report experiencing some form of abuse in a dating relationship — physical, sexual, emotional or digital.
Prevalence estimates vary widely with definition and method, and comparisons across studies are unreliable. What is consistent is that the figures are higher than most adults expect, and that the most common forms are not physical.
What the forms actually are
Emotional and controlling behaviours are the most frequently reported, and they are the least likely to be recognised as abuse by either party.
The behaviours identified in research on adolescent relationships include monitoring of communications and location, restricting contact with friends and family, pressure regarding sexual activity and images, repeated criticism, and controlling appearance or activities.
The digital versions are now central: demanding passwords, requiring location sharing, checking messages, demanding immediate responses, and pressure to send images.
These behaviours are frequently interpreted by adolescents — and sometimes by adults — as evidence of interest or commitment rather than as control. This misinterpretation is the main reason they persist.
Why adolescent relationships are different
Several features distinguish this from the adult picture.
Adolescents typically have less relationship experience against which to calibrate what is normal. Without a comparison, an unusual arrangement is not identifiable as unusual.
The relationship frequently exists within a shared social group and a shared school, meaning ending it does not produce separation.
Disclosure to adults is complicated by the possibility of the relationship itself being disapproved of, which creates a disincentive independent of the abuse.
And research on adolescent dating abuse finds higher rates of reciprocal violence than in adult samples, which complicates the perpetrator-victim framing that adult services are built around.
The signs that matter
Adults looking for indicators generally look for evidence of physical harm, which is the least common form.
The indicators identified more consistently in the research are: withdrawal from friends and previously valued activities; anxiety about responding to messages promptly; changes in appearance or behaviour attributed to a partner's preference; a partner's presence at all activities; and difficulty making arrangements without checking.
The reduction in independent social contact is the single most consistent marker, because isolation is functionally central to control.
The prevention programme with evidence
This field has one intervention with unusually good evidence, which is worth knowing about because most prevention programming does not.
School-based programmes combining classroom curriculum with school-wide environmental components have been evaluated in randomised trials with long-term follow-up, and several have found reductions in perpetration and victimisation sustained years after delivery.
The features shared by the programmes that worked: multiple sessions rather than one, delivery over an extended period, inclusion of bystander components addressing what peers do, and school-level components rather than classroom-only delivery.
Programmes consisting of a single session have not shown comparable effects, which is the same finding as everywhere else on this site.
The bystander component
This deserves separate mention because it addresses a specific mechanism.
Adolescent relationships are highly visible to peers. Friends generally know before adults do.
Bystander programmes work on what peers do with that knowledge, and the evidence suggests this is more tractable than changing the behaviour of the person perpetrating.
The programmes teach specific responses rather than general awareness — what to say, when to involve an adult, how to support without demanding that the relationship end, which is the request most likely to end the friendship and remove the last independent contact.
What an adult should and should not do
Should not: demand that the relationship end. This is the most common response and the research on disclosure suggests it reliably ends the conversation. It also removes the adult from the position of being told about future developments.
Should: describe specific behaviours rather than label the relationship. "He asks where you are a lot" is discussable in a way that "he is abusive" is not.
Should: maintain the independent activities and contacts that are being eroded, since isolation is the mechanism.
Should: state explicitly what will and will not happen if she discloses more, because uncertainty about the consequence is the main deterrent.
Should: get specialist advice. Adolescent dating abuse services exist in most countries and have expertise that general services do not, particularly around the shared-school problem.
What should be taught and mostly is not
Safety education concentrates overwhelmingly on strangers and on physical risk.
The more common experience is a known peer and non-physical control, and the specific behaviours involved — password demands, location requirements, response-time expectations — are ones that a substantial number of adolescents currently regard as normal features of a relationship.
Naming them explicitly, as behaviours rather than as a category, is the intervention most obviously missing from current provision.