Romantic Attachment and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrated by Men: The Role of Affect Dysregulation and Gender Hostility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health problem, associated with considerable consequences for the victims. Among the risk factors associated with the perpetration of male IPV, attachment insecurities (avoidance, anxiety) and affect dysregulation (AD) have received strong empirical support. A few studies showed that hostility toward women (HTW) is a correlate of IPV perpetration, but none have explored hostility toward men (HTM). This study's aim was to test direct and indirect associations between romantic attachment insecurities and IPV perpetration (psychological, physical, and sexual coercion) through AD in men seeking help, and to examine the moderator role of HTW and HTM in theses links. A sample of 1,845 men aged between 18 and 88 years and from a diverse population (e.g., cultural background, education, and sexual orientation) were recruited through 18 community organizations providing IPV services in a Canadian province. As part of the systematic assessment protocol of each organization, participants answered a series of online questionnaires. Results from a path analysis model showed indirect associations between attachment insecurities (avoidance and anxiety) and IPV perpetration (psychological, physical, and sexual coercion) through AD. Beyond these links, attachment avoidance was also directly associated with psychological violence, attachment anxiety with sexual coercion, and HTM with sexual coercion. The results revealed two moderation effects: higher HTW amplified the link between AD and physical IPV, whereas higher HTM amplified the link between AD and sexual coercion. Results highlight the relevance of assessing attachment, AD, and gender hostility in IPV programs. They also highlight the relevance of targeting HTM as a risk marker for IPV perpetration in men.
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 | 0.002 | 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".