Cumulative Childhood Trauma, Communication Patterns, and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrated by Men Seeking Help
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a complex and multifactorial public health problem associated with important physical and psychological repercussions. Recent studies suggest that cumulative childhood trauma (CCT) may be related to higher IPV perpetration through dysfunctional communication patterns, but to our knowledge, no study has tested this proposition in a clinical population. This study aimed to explore the direct and indirect links between CCT and perpetrated IPV through dysfunctional communication patterns among 577 men seeking help from community centers specializing in IPV. Prior to receiving services, participants completed a battery of questionnaires including validated brief measures of CCT (sexual, physical, and psychological abuse; physical and psychological neglect; witnessing of physical and psychological parental violence; bullying), communication patterns (demand/demand, partner demands/man withdraws, man demands/partner withdraws), and IPV (psychological, physical, coercive control). Results from a path analysis reveal that having sustained a higher number of different forms of childhood trauma is directly related to men's higher risk of perpetrating psychological IPV. CCT is also indirectly related to higher perpetrated psychological and physical IPV and coercive control through a higher report of the demand/demand communication pattern and a higher report of the man demands/partner withdraws communication pattern. The tested model explains 23% of the variance in psychological IPV, 6% of the variance in physical IPV, and 12% of the variance in coercive control. Results highlight the importance of assessing, in therapy, both distal and proximal variables associated with IPV, including the accumulation of many forms of childhood interpersonal trauma, and to tailor trauma-informed interventions that promote constructive communication strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".