Borderline Personality and Dating Violence among College Students: A Path Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borderline personality (BP) is an understudied risk factor for dating violence. Based on indications that BP may be an important predictor in non-clinical samples, this study explored theoretically derived pathways in the etiology of college student dating violence (CDV) through BP. Data were collected from a convenience sample of 783 college students from a large Midwestern American university. Participants completed a paper-and-pencil survey that included measures of CDV, childhood maltreatment, maternal relationship quality, attachment insecurity and BP. A fully recursive path model was estimated using the maximum likelihood estimator in Mplus 7.4 to simultaneously examine the pathways to CDV perpetration and victimization. One quarter of the sampled college students reported perpetrating and/or experiencing dating violence in the year prior to the study, with a large proportion of these participants (85%) indicating that they were both perpetrators and victims. BP was positively associated with both CDV perpetration (β = .17; p ≤ .01) and victimization (β = .20; p ≤ .01). Results showed that a lower quality of relationship with one’s mother while growing up was strongly associated with the risk of CDV through developmental pathways involving attachment insecurity and BP. While these findings would not be surprising in a clinical sample of batterers, they are particularly interesting in the context of a non-clinical, generally well-adjusted sample of college students that typically involve less severe forms of situational couple violence. Future research on the etiology of situational couple violence, including CDV, should consider the role of BP and its antecedents.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it