The contributions to this Special Issue have accumulated a broad spectrum of insights into the problem of teen dating violence. By focusing on evidence gathered in a range of European countries, they complement the existing knowledge base, derived largely from studies conducted in North America, by helping to identify both similarities and differences in the scale and correlates of dating violence in teen dating relationships. Together, (the review by Tomaszewska and Schuster 2021) and the original studies presented in this Special Issue show that experiencing and engaging in behavior intended to inflict harm on a romantic partner is a reality in the dating relationships of many teenagers, with a range of negative effects on their physical and mental well-being and the development of healthy intimate partnerships. The take-home message collectively presented by the papers in this issue is as clear as it is simple: Teen dating violence is a serious social problem that requires measures at the individual, interpersonal, and societal level to prevent its occurrence and highlight its norm-violating character. In this brief commentary, I attempt to outline promising avenues for intervention and the need for systematic policy responses to reduce the problem of teen dating violence. There is a broad consensus in the scientific literature that psychological interventions should be “evidence-based.” Realizing this claim involves at least three basic objectives. First, a solid knowledge base is needed about the scale of the problem at hand, in this case about the prevalence of different forms of teen dating violence perpetration and victimization. Second, we need to use our theoretical knowledge to identify the causes of the problem so that we know which factors are promising candidates to be modified and acknowledged by interventions at different levels, from the individual to the societal level. The third task involves a careful empirical evaluation of the efficacy of the interventions, using state-of-the-art evaluation designs and considering differences between target groups, before the intervention is applied on a larger scale. With respect to the first task, the current set of analyses joins a host of findings, including meta-analytic evidence, in demonstrating that teen dating violence is a widespread problem, yet findings vary widely as a function of differences in conceptual definitions, measures, and research designs. Moreover, as Tomaszewska and Schuster (2021) highlight, the available evidence from Europe—just as from North America—predominantly examined dating violence among heterosexual youth, neglecting youth with a LGBTQIA+ identity. Moreover, as shown by the individual studies, the issue of gender differences in teen dating violence victimization and perpetration is still far from being resolved, with higher prevalence rates for physical dating violence perpetration among females found in some studies (Baier et al., 2021; Bertok et al., 2021), but not in others (Schuster et al., 2021; Toplu-Demirtaş & Aracı-İyiaydın, 2021). Moreover, comparing perpetration rates for male and female adolescents may yield different conclusions for different forms of dating violence (Oyarzún et al., 2021). In all of these respects, the current findings tie in with the evidence generated by studies conducted in North America. Regarding the identification of modifiable risk factors of teen dating violence, the studies in this Special Issue contribute several promising results. Although mostly correlational and therefore awaiting confirmation through longitudinal designs, they present evidence that relationship features, such as conflict, passion, intimacy, and commitment, are linked to teen dating violence victimization and perpetration in complex ways (Bertok et al., 2021; Bianchi et al., 2021). They also suggest that dating violence is not an isolated phenomenon in the social relationships of adolescents. Instead, it shows overlap and parallels with other forms of aggression, such as school violence (Baier et al., 2021), and is predicted by broader normative beliefs about the acceptability of aggression over and above specific attitudes condoning physical aggression against a dating partner (Schuster et al., 2021). Moreover, the current evidence clearly shows that the occurrence of teen dating violence varies in relation to variables in adolescents’ social environment. Exposure to violence in the family (Toplu-Demirtaş & Aracı-İyiaydın, 2021), having friends who engage in violent behavior (Baier et al., 2021), and experiencing low levels of informal control in the family and school context (Bertok et al., 2021) were all identified as correlates of teen dating violence, again confirming established findings from previous research. The brief summary has shown what the present papers add to the international knowledge base about the factors that (a) are linked to differential probabilities of teen dating violence and (b) can potentially be changed through intervention efforts, providing a solid basis for the development of such interventions. Because potential risk factors are located at different levels, interventions also need to adopt a multi-level perspective (Rothman et al., 2015). Several widely used teen dating violence interventions have been developed in the North American context, most of which consist of a range of components addressing adolescents, parents and teachers, and local communities. Examples that have been subjected to systematic empirical evaluation comprise Dating Matters (Niolon et al., 2019), Fourth R (Wolfe et al., 2009), Safe Dates (Foshee, Dixon, et al., 2015), and Shifting Boundaries (Taylor et al., 2015). In terms of designing intervention content and evaluating intervention success, the most extensive research literature is available about interventions designed to change individual-level variables, most notably awareness, attitudes, and normative beliefs (Vagi et al., 2013). Many of these programs are implemented in a school context, and most are directed at male and female youth in the roles of both perpetrators and victims. A meta-analysis of school-based interventions that compared an intervention group with a control group found significant intervention effects on increasing knowledge and reducing positive attitudes about teen dating violence, the acceptance of rape myths, and the odds of victimization, whereas no effect was found on the odds of perpetration (De La Rue et al., 2017). Another meta-analysis confirmed the positive effects on attitudes, but not on the odds of victimization (Lee & Wong, 2020). Instead, this analysis yielded a significant effect size for reducing perpetration. A meta-analysis that included only more methodologically rigorous randomized control studies and examined different forms of teen dating violence separately found significant reductions of emotional, physical, and sexual dating violence perpetration and lower odds of emotional and physical victimization in the intervention groups (Russell et al., 2021). In one of the very few intervention studies from Europe, a Spanish study found intervention effects on dispelling myths about romantic love, improving self-esteem, and improving anger regulation, but not on the odds of dating violence perpetration or victimization (Sánchez-Jiménez et al., 2018). A key aspect of developing successful dating violence prevention measures is the recognition of the needs and challenges of specific groups. Rather than adopting a “one-size-fits-all” approach, it is increasingly recognized that programs need to take specific vulnerabilities and risk factors into account. For example, the meta-analytic finding that risk markers for the perpetration of dating violence differ for male and female adolescents as well as evidence that females may suffer more negative consequences of dating violence victimization than males call for interventions that reflect these differential factors (Spencer et al., 2021; Taquette & Monteiro, 2019). Moreover, interventions need to be adapted to the specific life situation of adolescents that may define them as high-risk groups for experiencing and/or engaging in dating violence. For example, specially adapted programs have been developed for adolescents with a history of exposure to domestic violence (e.g., Foshee, Dixon, et al., 2015; Rizzo et al., 2018), for teenage mothers (e.g., Herrman & Waterhouse, 2014; Kan et al., 2021), and for sexual and gender minority youth (e.g., Wesche et al., 2021). Because dating relationships are deeply embedded in cultural norms and scripts, interventions also need to consider adolescents’ ethnic and cultural background (Eaton & Stephens, 2018; Malhotra et al., 2015). Acknowledging the pivotal role of the family in laying the ground for the development of dating relationships, family-based interventions have been developed (Doucette et al., 2021). Examples are Families for Safe Dates (Foshee et al., 2012) or Mums and Teens for Safe Dates (Foshee, Benefield, et al., 2015). These programs are directed at changing caregivers’ awareness, attitudes, and responses regarding teen dating violence, and promising results regarding their efficacy have been demonstrated in systematic evaluations by the respective teams. Similarly, research on risk factors for teen dating violence has pointed to the influential role of peers (Cascardi & Jouriles, 2018; Ellis & Dumas, 2018). In adolescence, peer relationships become increasingly important, and peers’ tendency to show aggressive behavior was shown to have a contagious effect on initially less aggressive individuals through principles of direct reinforcement and observational learning (Busching & Krahé, 2018; Jung et al., 2019). Therefore, school-based interventions provide a good setting for changing peer norms about the acceptance of dating violence, and in line with the proposal for an integrated approach to prevention, norms about other forms of youth aggression (Joseph & Kuperminc, 2020). Furthermore, the consistent finding that dating violence is more likely to occur in relationships characterized by high levels of conflict and dysfunctional conflict resolution styles points to the importance of interventions promoting constructive ways of negotiating conflict (Bonache et al., 2017). Finally, interventions are needed that are located at the societal level. Evidence that teen dating violence is higher in disorganized neighborhoods with a lack of connectedness calls for creating structures, for example through supervised youth centers, that promote norms of non-violence in social interactions and safe spaces for developing respectful and responsible teen relationships (Johnson et al., 2015). Moreover, there is evidence of a significant positive association between gender inequality (defined at the level of States in the U.S.) and physical dating violence victimization reported by females (Gressard et al., 2015). The finding that no association was found in this study with female sexual victimization or with male sexual and physical victimization by a dating partner shows the complexity of societal-level variables that requires more systematic research. Despite the fact that most of the research on the risk factors and prevention of teen dating violence has focused on individual- and interpersonal-level variables, these studies have important implications for policy measures required to reduce the prevalence of violence in teen dating relationship. First, approaches are needed at the societal level to raise awareness of the problem of teen dating violence. As we have seen, attitudes condoning violence against dating partners and, more broadly, in social relationships, are linked to a greater likelihood of adolescents engaging in and experiencing violence in dating relationships and of parents failing to recognize and respond to warning signs that their children may be at risk. Therefore, campaigns designed to convey the message that different forms of harmful behavior against a dating partner are unacceptable are needed and have to be properly evaluated. Second, issues around teen dating violence need to be given a dedicated place in school curricula addressing sex and relationship education and should be part of every school's commitment to create a violence-free social environment and encourage bystander intervention (Banyard et al., 2020). Furthermore, schools and universities should be required to develop support systems to which victims of teen dating violence may turn and train teachers to recognize warning signs of teen dating violence among their students. Existing approaches in response to the problem of adolescent bullying may inform such initiatives, as the two forms of youth aggression were found to have similar risk factors, dynamics, and outcomes. Third, possible societal risk factors contributing to teen dating violence should be more closely monitored. This includes the identification of at-risk neighborhoods with a high level of community violence that may spill over into the dating relationships of adolescent residents. It also includes attention to the role of violent media, especially media with misogynous content, that may fuel the normative acceptance of violence against dating partners and was found to be related to men's engagement in dating and sexual violence in particular (Rodenhizer & Edwards, 2019). Accordingly, media awareness training should be incorporated into the contents of prevention programs (Friedlander et al., 2013). Adopting a bird's-eye perspective on the large field of teen dating violence research, it is clear that current theoretical and empirical knowledge on risk factors and effective interventions is based almost exclusively on studies from North America. While basic psychological mechanisms, such as social learning or peer influence, may hold in a general fashion, other aspects, such as patterns and norms of teen dating and relevant contextual features, such as drinking culture or gender roles, are more strongly culture-bound and may differ between countries. The studies in this Special Issue have contributed to the analysis of parallels as well as specifics of data from European countries with established findings from the North American literature. For example, they show the same inconclusiveness regarding gender differences in the prevalence of teen dating violence apparent in several previous meta-analyses, which requires further theorizing and empirical investigation. At the same time, it has to be stated that despite clear evidence of substantial prevalence rates, systematically evaluated interventions from Europe are notably absent from the research literature, calling for intensified research funding and efforts. A second summary observation is that analyses of risk and protective factors of teen dating variables and prevention efforts for which methodologically sound evaluation studies are available have focused almost exclusively on individual- and interpersonal-level factors. Very few studies have included systematic evaluations of changes in social context, for example, in the form of awareness-raising campaigns or introduction of formal or informal control. Addressing this shortcoming is clearly a challenge, but it is needed, not least to persuade policy makers that teen dating violence cannot be changed by focusing solely on the individual victims and perpetrators. Developing loving and trustful intimate relationships is a key task in adolescence, and it is our obligation as a society to create a supportive environment without violence in which this task can be accomplished.