**1. Introduction**

Violence in intimate relationships is a pervasive social problem that has persisted for several decades and continues to show high prevalence indicators in several European countries (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights FRA), including Portugal (e.g., Azambuja et al. 2013; Lisboa et al. 2009; Lisboa 2016). Lisboa et al. (2009) conducted one of the most important studies on violence against women and men, having found that 38% of interviewed women aged 18 or more had experienced at least one type of physical, psychological or sexual violence, with 41.7% of the offenses being perpetrated by the husband/partner. The results of this important Portuguese research revealed that violence in intimate relationships was a hidden reality, strongly conditioned by the dominant system of values, norms and social models, thus increasing a progressive interest on the part of the scientific community to explore this problem. Since then, several additional Portuguese (e.g., Machado et al. 2010; Neves et al. 2016; Santos and Caridade 2017) studies were developed, documenting the higher prevalence of dating violence (DV), and demonstrating that it is a widespread problem. Other international studies (e.g., Hamby and Turner 2013; Haynie et al. 2013; Jennings et al. 2017; Straus 2004) and important

international organizations—such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2016) and the World Health Organization (2016)—recognize DV as a serious social and public health issue. DV is defined in this study as the use or threat of violence, in its most varied typologies, i.e., physical, emotional/psychological and sexual, over another person, with whom the subject maintains a relationship of proximity and intimacy (Caridade 2016).

One of the largest intercultural studies on DV, conducted by Straus (2004), and involving 31 universities from 16 countries, reported that the indicators of physical violence in dating relationships may range from 17% to 45% in the last year of dating participants. Another study on the prevalence of DV, developed by Haynie et al. (2013), and based on a representative sample of 2203 students, found values of victimization (35%) and perpetration (31%) of concern. Equally disturbing are the data collected by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2016) in the United States, estimating that one in five girls and one in seven boys suffered some form of intimate violence between 11 and 17 years of age. A systematic review by Jennings et al. (2017), involving 169 studies and conducted with young people aged 15 to 30 years old, found lower prevalence estimates among younger (<10%), when compared to older people (between 20% and 30%), with women reporting higher indicators of victimization. In Portugal, a study conducted with young people, involving a large sample of 4665 participants (Machado et al. 2010), found that one in four young people reported having experienced at least one episode of DV throughout life. In another study developed by Guerreiro et al. (2017), carried out with a sample of 2500 young people aged between 12 and 18 years old, 7% of the participants acknowledged to having been the target of DV, at least once.

The literature also shows that young adults tend to experience and perpetrate more than one type of DV (e.g., psychological, verbal, sexual violence) in the same or in different situations (Hamby and Turner 2013). Nevertheless, within the context of DV, psychological violence has been identified as the most prevalent type of abuse, when compared to others abusive typologies. A study developed by Fernandéz-González et al. (2014), Spain, found high rates of DV, concluding that psychological violence is the most prevalent abusive typology (90%), followed by physical violence (40%) and finally, by sexual abuse (reported by 27.1% males and 10.9% females). In Portugal, Guerreiro et al. (2017) found that psychological violence emerged as having been the most prevalent type of violence in dating relationships (8.5%), followed by physical violence (5%) and by sexual violence (4.5%). These results corroborate the ones from Machado et al. (2010) study, in Portuguese context. Another relevant study conducted in the Portuguese context by the Alternative Women's Union and Response (UMAR) (2019), with a large sample of 4938 young people from all districts of Portugal, concluded that 67% of the total of young people legitimize at least a behaviour of violence, and 58% of young people reported having experienced at least one of the forms of violence listed in the study's questionnaire.

The international scientific research has also been documenting the adverse impacts of DV on young people's development. Several studies (e.g., Exner-Cortens et al. 2013; Foshee et al. 2013; Shorey et al. 2012) have shown that DV is positively associated with a wide range of behavioural, emotional and mental health problems in the long-term, which may include substance use, depression and anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, poor academic performance or even involvement in antisocial and risky sexual behaviours, along with other forms of interpersonal violence. These consequences may differ, according to the gender of the victim, with girls tending to exhibit more internalization problems (e.g., eating disorders, low self-esteem and emotional distress, panic attacks, alcohol consumption, depressive symptomatology, suicidal thoughts or smoking) (e.g., Ackard et al. 2007; Romito and Grassi 2007) and boys expressing more externalizing problems (e.g., involvement in antisocial behaviour, suicidal ideation, panic attacks or substance use) (Romito and Grassi 2007).

DV help-seeking is of crucial importance to mitigate the risks associated with young people's mental health, improving conflict negotiation and anger managemen<sup>t</sup> skills, as well as to develop strategies for self-protection and prevention of future violence (Caridade 2018). The decision to leave an abusive relationship implies that victims of DV identify and recognize the existence of relational problems, and seek external assistance that could involve the choice of formal (e.g., Criminal Police Authorities, health professionals and teachers) or informal (e.g., family, peers) (Liang et al. 2005) support. The literature demonstrates that young people show a reluctance to ask for help (e.g., Gallopin and Leigh 2009; Moore et al. 2015), anticipating possible barriers to e ffective support. It has been argued that victims can anticipate a negative response (e.g., judgment, overvaluation or devaluation, depreciation, blaming the victim, suggestion to end the relationship) from the source of disclosure to which they intend to seek help (Gallopin and Leigh 2009). A systematic review of Moore et al. (2015) that sought to identify the supports and barriers inherent to the disclosure of the abusive situation concluded that, in general, there are actually few resources/suppor<sup>t</sup> services available for victims of DV, which may partially explain the fact that young people mainly resort to informal support, that is, parents, peers and other educators. The stigma associated with DV, as well as the absence of screening and assistance protocols for young people involved in abusive dating relationships, are other barriers in accessing formal support services. Another systematic review developed by Pinheiro and Caridade (2019) about request for help in young adults who have experienced DV concluded that victims prefers to use informal sources to disclose DV, thus favouring peers. In the same review, female victims emerged as those showing a greater trend to disclose DV, while also emerging as those who provide more support to victims. Furthermore, in the same review, multiple barriers were identified to disclose DV (e.g., legitimacy of violence, fear of losing partner, shame and self-su fficiency to solve the situation). Other authors (e.g., Sabina and Ho 2014) report the trend for young people to favour the use of informal sources, rather than more formal sources of disclosure, with the request for help essentially focusing on peers. Victims of DV rarely reveal violence to their parents, preferring to do it with peers, for fear of judgment and shame associated with exposing the abuse situation to their parents (Gallopin and Leigh 2009). In a qualitative study, Shen (2011) interviewed ten Taiwan female victims of DV, in order to identify and understand the cultural meanings and barriers that may interfere with help seeking behaviours and six main factors were found: (i) self-reliant culture, (ii) personal and family shame, (iii) secretive and sexual dating relationships, (iv) fear of negative reactions from others, (v) unfamiliarity with available resources, and (vi) revictimization in seeking help. Another qualitative study by Baley (2010) with only six participants found that the participants' reports tend to reflect aspects of broader susceptible cultural or social discourses, with some of them (e.g., discourses of romance and femininity such as the importance of the woman's nurturing role in sustaining the relationship) promoting the maintenance in abusive relationship and others (e.g., discourses of self-reliance and responsibility for one's own actions and needs) helping participants to leave such relationships. The same study concluded that participants report di fferent indicators of strength and agency in dealing with the abusive situation, thus reflecting di fferent forms of intervention at di fferent times. Enander and Holmber (2008) also emphasize the resistance of battered women in the description of the violent dynamics of the relationship, however this does not necessarily leading to leaving the relationship. They identify three overlapping leaving processes: (i) breaking up, involving the physical breakup action; (ii) becoming free, which covers emotion (e.g., love, hate, compassion, hope) and involving release from the strong emotional bond to the batterer, and (iii) understanding, which is related to cognition, in which the woman perceives and interprets the abusive situation in which she was involved. Finally, it is important to highlight that the victim's decision to stay or leave is a multidimensional one (Barnett 2000), involving a complex process usually characterized by a leave/return cycle consisting of several phases, such as: (i) resistance and managemen<sup>t</sup> of abusive situations; (ii) recognizing abuse and reformulating/reinterpreting behaviours as abusive or not; (iii) "break free", disengage, focusing on the victim's own needs (Anderson and Saunders 2003).
