Need for closure is linked with traumatic bonding among victims of intimate partner violence: A mediation approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an increasingly prevalent problem in most parts of the world, including Nigeria. Very little is known about why persons who experience IPV sometimes decide to remain in the abusive relationships. In this study, we investigate whether the need for closure (NFC) may play significant roles in the association of IPV and the decision to stay in abusive relationships (traumatic bonding). Specifically, we tested if NFC would mediate the relationship between IPV and traumatic bonding (TB) among victims of IPV in Nigeria. Participants were 345 women, purposively selected from female clients who visited the Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SART) in Awka, Anambra State ( n = 145) and the Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Response Team, Lagos ( n = 200). Their age ranged from 18–61 years (M = 35.79; SD = 8.6 years). They responded to the Composite Abuse Scale, the Need for Closure Scale, and the Stockholm Syndrome Scale. Results of data analysis using the Hayes regression-based PROCESS macro showed that IPV was not significantly associated with traumatic bonding while NFC was positively associated with increased traumatic bonding. Estimates of indirect effects indicated that NFC mediated the relationship of IPV and TB serving as a pathway through which IPV was linked to dimensions of TB. This shows that NFC may engender tendencies that increase the likelihood of traumatic bonding. The implications of these findings were discussed across policy, research and psychotherapeutic practice.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".