美国全国自我报告调查中的胁迫性控制:亲密伴侣重复施暴的预测。

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
N Zoe Hilton, Dana L Radatz
{"title":"美国全国自我报告调查中的胁迫性控制:亲密伴侣重复施暴的预测。","authors":"N Zoe Hilton, Dana L Radatz","doi":"10.1037/ser0000881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Coercive, controlling behavior toward intimate partners correlates with physical intimate partner violence (IPV). We examined whether it also predicts subsequent IPV or other aggression. We conducted a secondary analysis of self-reports by 1,039 women and 509 men who participated in the first two waves of the Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution Study (Mumford et al., 2019). We defined coercive control as any reported perpetration at Wave 1 of threat to physically harm, threat to use information to control, or put down or disrespect their partner. The participants also reported perpetration of verbal abuse and physical or sexual aggression against intimate partners. We tested correlations of these behaviors with similar acts toward nonintimates (friends or unfamiliar persons) in Wave 1 and the prediction of physical violence in Wave 2, approximately 5 months later. Coercive control (14% of men, 26% of women) was correlated with physical or sexual IPV (8% of men, 15% of women) in both women and men and with physical violence and coercive control to nonintimates. In logistic regressions entering Wave 1 physical IPV on the first step, Wave 1 coercive control was a significant independent predictor of Wave 2 physical IPV overall, and for men but not women. Coercive control did not independently predict nonintimate physical violence. Coercive control toward an intimate partner is a unique predictor of physical IPV among men. Future research should use improved measures of coercive control and further examine coercive control as an indicator of general antisociality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20749,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coercive control in a national U.S. self-report survey: Prediction of repeated intimate partner violence.\",\"authors\":\"N Zoe Hilton, Dana L Radatz\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/ser0000881\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Coercive, controlling behavior toward intimate partners correlates with physical intimate partner violence (IPV). We examined whether it also predicts subsequent IPV or other aggression. We conducted a secondary analysis of self-reports by 1,039 women and 509 men who participated in the first two waves of the Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution Study (Mumford et al., 2019). We defined coercive control as any reported perpetration at Wave 1 of threat to physically harm, threat to use information to control, or put down or disrespect their partner. The participants also reported perpetration of verbal abuse and physical or sexual aggression against intimate partners. We tested correlations of these behaviors with similar acts toward nonintimates (friends or unfamiliar persons) in Wave 1 and the prediction of physical violence in Wave 2, approximately 5 months later. Coercive control (14% of men, 26% of women) was correlated with physical or sexual IPV (8% of men, 15% of women) in both women and men and with physical violence and coercive control to nonintimates. In logistic regressions entering Wave 1 physical IPV on the first step, Wave 1 coercive control was a significant independent predictor of Wave 2 physical IPV overall, and for men but not women. Coercive control did not independently predict nonintimate physical violence. Coercive control toward an intimate partner is a unique predictor of physical IPV among men. Future research should use improved measures of coercive control and further examine coercive control as an indicator of general antisociality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Services\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000881\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Services","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000881","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对亲密伴侣的胁迫和控制行为与亲密伴侣间的身体暴力(IPV)有关。我们研究了这种行为是否还能预测后续的 IPV 或其他攻击行为。我们对参加 "人际冲突与解决研究"(Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution Study,Mumford 等人,2019 年)前两波研究的 1039 名女性和 509 名男性的自我报告进行了二次分析。我们将胁迫性控制定义为在第一波中报告的任何威胁人身伤害、威胁使用信息控制、贬低或不尊重伴侣的行为。参与者还报告了对亲密伴侣的辱骂、身体或性攻击行为。我们测试了这些行为与第 1 波中对非亲密伴侣(朋友或不熟悉的人)的类似行为之间的相关性,以及第 2 波(大约 5 个月后)对身体暴力的预测。胁迫性控制(14% 的男性,26% 的女性)与女性和男性的身体或性 IPV(8% 的男性,15% 的女性)相关,也与对非亲密对象的身体暴力和胁迫性控制相关。在逻辑回归中,第一步输入第 1 波身体 IPV,第 1 波胁迫性控制是第 2 波身体 IPV 的重要独立预测因素,对男性而言如此,对女性而言则不然。胁迫性控制并不能独立预测非亲密关系中的身体暴力。对亲密伴侣的胁迫性控制是预测男性肢体 IPV 的独特指标。未来的研究应使用更好的胁迫性控制测量方法,并进一步将胁迫性控制作为一般反社会性的指标进行研究。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coercive control in a national U.S. self-report survey: Prediction of repeated intimate partner violence.

Coercive, controlling behavior toward intimate partners correlates with physical intimate partner violence (IPV). We examined whether it also predicts subsequent IPV or other aggression. We conducted a secondary analysis of self-reports by 1,039 women and 509 men who participated in the first two waves of the Interpersonal Conflict and Resolution Study (Mumford et al., 2019). We defined coercive control as any reported perpetration at Wave 1 of threat to physically harm, threat to use information to control, or put down or disrespect their partner. The participants also reported perpetration of verbal abuse and physical or sexual aggression against intimate partners. We tested correlations of these behaviors with similar acts toward nonintimates (friends or unfamiliar persons) in Wave 1 and the prediction of physical violence in Wave 2, approximately 5 months later. Coercive control (14% of men, 26% of women) was correlated with physical or sexual IPV (8% of men, 15% of women) in both women and men and with physical violence and coercive control to nonintimates. In logistic regressions entering Wave 1 physical IPV on the first step, Wave 1 coercive control was a significant independent predictor of Wave 2 physical IPV overall, and for men but not women. Coercive control did not independently predict nonintimate physical violence. Coercive control toward an intimate partner is a unique predictor of physical IPV among men. Future research should use improved measures of coercive control and further examine coercive control as an indicator of general antisociality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Services
Psychological Services PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
216
期刊介绍: Psychological Services publishes high-quality data-based articles on the broad range of psychological services. While the Division"s focus is on psychologists in "public service," usually defined as being employed by a governmental agency, Psychological Services covers the full range of psychological services provided in any service delivery setting. Psychological Services encourages submission of papers that focus on broad issues related to psychotherapy outcomes, evaluations of psychological service programs and systems, and public policy analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信