Dispositional and communicated dyadic perspective-taking during conflicts and intimate partner violence perpetration in young adult couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding others’ thoughts and feelings (i.e., perspective-taking) has consistently been recognized as a crucial protective factor against intimate partner violence (IPV). However, previous research has predominantly focused on dispositional perspective-taking, assessed through self-report measures, and has often overlooked communicated perspective-taking, assessed through observational measures, even though it may play a critical role in preventing romantic conflicts from escalating into violence. The current study used a dyadic observational design to examine the associations between (1) self-reported dispositional and (2) observed communicated dyadic perspective-taking during an actual couple conflict discussion and psychological, physical and sexual IPV perpetration in an inclusive sample of young adult community couples ( n = 178). Findings revealed distinct associations between dispositional and communicated perspective-taking across IPV forms. Both dispositional and communicated perspective-taking were negatively associated with the individual’s own and their partner’s psychological IPV perpetration. Dispositional perspective-taking was negatively associated with the individual’s own physical IPV perpetration, while communicated perspective-taking was negatively associated with the partner’s physical IPV perpetration. Dispositional perspective-taking was negatively associated with one’s own and their partner’s sexual IPV perpetration. Secondary analyses also showed significant interactions between partners’ perspective-taking in association with IPV. Our findings highlight the overlapping yet unique and inherently dyadic contributions of dispositional and communicated perspective-taking to IPV dynamics in young adult couples.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".