Childhood Interpersonal Trauma and Relational Functioning in Adolescent Romantic Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood interpersonal trauma represents a significant public health concern, affecting over half of adolescents, with many experiencing multiple forms of trauma. Such trauma contributes to various adverse mental health outcomes that extend beyond childhood, impacting overall psychological well-being throughout lifespan. However, limited research examines the specific relationship between the form and frequency of childhood interpersonal trauma experienced and adolescents’ relational functioning in romantic relationships. This study explored the association between childhood interpersonal traumas and conflict management and relational skills in adolescence. Data were drawn from the SPARX program, involving youth in grades 9 and 10, aged 14 to 19 years. The sample consisted of 1,108 adolescents (Mage = 14.89, SD = .80) who reported having a romantic or intimate relationship within the past 12 months. Descriptive analyses revealed that 43.9% of adolescents reported experiencing one or more than one form of childhood interpersonal trauma, with peer bullying being the most common. Factorial multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) revealed that different forms of childhood trauma impacted relational skills and conflict management strategies within romantic relationships. Specifically, exposure to partner violence was associated with poorer conflict resolution skills and lower levels of individuality and offered support. Peer bullying experiences were linked to higher levels of offered support and problem-solving strategies. Additionally, the number of traumas experienced, and adolescents’ gender significantly influenced specific conflict management strategies and relational skills. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of addressing childhood trauma and promoting healthy relational functioning skills among adolescents to mitigate the long-term consequences of interpersonal trauma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".