Typology of Perceived Causes of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to investigate the perceived causes of perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV) among young adults, to assess whether distinct profiles exist, and to investigate sex differences. Questionnaires and structured interviews were administered to 233 young French Canadian couples. Findings revealed that the perceived cause of anger was the most frequently provided explanation for partner aggression. In addition, women reported anger as a perceived cause of their violence more frequently than men, while men reported loss of control and revenge more often than women. Moreover, classification analyses resulted in three profiles of IPV perpetrators based on the perceived causes of their violence: (1) Reactive, (2) Common, and (3) Hostile. The Reactive profile is characterized by the perceived causes of self-defense and loss of control. Individuals in this profile also perpetrated the greatest number of different physically violent behaviors. Individuals in the Common profile did not report a particular perceived cause of violence significantly more than the other profiles. These individuals were the least violent. Finally, the Hostile profile is characterized by the perceived causes of alcohol or drugs, domination, provocation, jealousy, and intimidation. These individuals perpetrated the greatest number of psychologically and physically violent behaviors and perceived the impact of their violence the most negatively. Proposing a typology for IPV perpetrators in the young adult population contributes to a better understanding of perceived causes and high-risk situations, thus allowing for possible prevention of more serious acts of aggression in later years.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".