Intimate Partner Violence: Relationships Between Alexithymia, Depression, Attachment Styles, and Coping Strategies of Battered Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One of the most common forms of violence against women is the intimate partner violence (IPV). This term includes physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and controlling behaviors by an intimate partner. AIM: This exploratory study investigates the relationship between alexithymia, adult attachment styles, depression, and coping strategies in a group of female victims of IPV and a control group. METHODS: Participants were 80 female victims of IPV with an age range from 18 years to 54 years (mean 31.62; standard deviation 9.81). The control group included 80 women with no history of IPV with an age range from 19 years to 37 years (mean 25.05; standard deviation 3.67). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We administered the following self-report questionnaires: (i) 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20); (ii) Coping Orientation Problems Experienced; (iii) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)-II; and (iv) Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ). RESULTS: Compared with control group, the IPV group showed higher mean scores on TAS-20 (52.9 vs. 41.1, P < 0.001) and BDI-II (19.50 vs. 9.95, P < 0.001). In both groups, we found significant correlations between BDI-II and TAS-20 total scores (P < 0.001) and between BDI-II and the following dimensions of ASQ: confidence (P < 0.001), discomfort with closeness (P = 0.002), relationships as secondary (P < 0.001), need for approval (P < 0.001), and preoccupation with relationships (P < 0.001). Differently from the control group, in the IPV group, social support correlated significantly and positively (P < 0.001) with the dimension preoccupation with relationships on ASQ, but not with the secure attachment style. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the control group, alexithymia, depressive symptoms, and an insecure attachment style were negatively correlated with the ability to cope with stress for women in the IPV group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".