The Impact of Parent-Child Closeness and Romantic Attachment on Dating Violence Perpetration in Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has demonstrated that romantic attachment insecurity is a risk factor for dating violence in adolescence. However, few studies to date have longitudinally examined whether earlier relational experience, such as perceived closeness with parents, may serve as an antecedent of this relationship. To examine longitudinal associations among youths’ perceived closeness with parents, romantic attachment insecurity, and perpetration of dating violence in adolescence. Adolescents ( N = 1016) were recruited from seven public high schools in south Texas and reported on their perceived closeness with parents, romantic attachment styles, and perpetration of physical and psychological dating violence at three assessments between 2010 and 2014. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Adolescents’ romantic attachment anxiety, but not attachment avoidance, significantly mediated the relationship between low perceived closeness with parents and the perpetration of physical and psychological dating violence in late adolescence. Multi-group analyses showed the mediation model only held for females but not males, and for Hispanic youth but not for Non-Hispanic White, African American, and youth of other races and ethnicities. Through its link to romantic attachment anxiety, perceived closeness with parents could play an important role in the perpetration of dating violence in adolescence, especially for girls and Hispanic youth. Findings suggest that dating violence interventions may benefit from targeting aspects of parent–child relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".