The Victimization and Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence in Young Adults who Experienced an Attachment Injury in Their Romantic Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological and physical intimate partner violence (IPV) in young adult couples is a major public health concern with devastating consequences. IPV shatters fundamental assumptions of safety and trust and exerts profound consequences for emotional and relational well-being. Understanding the factors associated with IPV in young adults is therefore essential. One factor may be an attachment injury, a potentially serious stressful relational event that occurs when one partner feels betrayed or abandoned by the other during a critical moment of need, damaging trust and emotional security. An attachment injury can trigger or intensify couple distress, which may increase the risk for IPV. This study examined associations between variables related to a specific attachment injury (i.e., severity, onset, stress-related symptoms, and frequency of other such injuries in the current relationship) occurring at least 3 months prior to participation, and the perpetration and victimization of physical and psychological IPV within the past 3 months. In total, 347 young adults who identified as the injured partner completed questionnaires online. Controlling for IPV that did not occur in the past 3 months but did happen before in the relationship, greater attachment injury-related stress symptoms, and greater severity of the attachment injury were linked to increased perpetration of physical IPV. In addition, greater attachment injury-related stress symptoms were associated with increased victimization of physical IPV. These findings suggest that a more severely experienced attachment injury may contribute to situational physical IPV in young adults. Efforts to promote relational well-being in this population should prioritize enhancing attachment security by addressing unresolved attachment injuries, as this may help reduce vulnerability to situational IPV.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".