University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
J Interpers Violence. 2022 Aug;37(15-16):NP13654-NP13684. doi: 10.1177/08862605211001475. Epub 2021 Apr 11.
Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is often conceptualized as occurring unilaterally, reciprocal or bidirectional violence is actually the most prevalent form of IPV. The current study assessed physical IPV experiences in couples and evaluated risk and protective factors that may be differentially associated with reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV concurrently and over time. As part of a multi-wave longitudinal study, women and men reported on the frequency of their IPV perpetration and victimization three times across the transition to parenthood. Participants also reported on risk factors related to personal adjustment, psychosocial resources, attitudes toward gender role egalitarianism, and sociodemographic characteristics at each wave. Participants were classified into one of four IPV groups (reciprocal violence, male perpetrators only, female perpetrators only, and no violence) based on their self-report and based on a combined report, which incorporated both partners' reports of IPV for a maximum estimate of violence. Women and men were analyzed separately, as both can be perpetrators and/or victims of IPV. Cross-sectional analyses using self-reported IPV data indicated that IPV groups were most consistently distinguished by their levels of couple satisfaction, across gender; psychological distress also appeared to differentiate IPV groups, although somewhat less consistently. When combined reports of IPV were used, sociodemographic risk markers (i.e., age, income, and education) in addition to couple functioning were among the most robust factors differentiating IPV groups concurrently, across gender. In longitudinal analyses, sociodemographic vulnerabilities were again among the most consistent factors differentiating subsequent IPV groups over time. Several gender differences were also found, suggesting that different risk factors (e.g., women's social support and men's emotion regulation abilities) may need to be targeted in interventions to identify, prevent, and treat IPV among women and men.
虽然亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）通常被认为是单方面发生的，但实际上互惠或双向暴力是最常见的 IPV 形式。本研究评估了夫妻之间的身体 IPV 经历，并评估了可能与互惠和非互惠 IPV 同时和随时间变化相关的风险和保护因素。作为一项多波纵向研究的一部分，女性和男性在向为人父母的过渡期间三次报告了他们的 IPV 实施和受害频率。参与者还在每一波报告了与个人适应、心理社会资源、性别角色平等主义态度以及社会人口特征相关的风险因素。参与者根据自我报告和合并报告被分为四组 IPV 之一（互惠暴力、男性施害者、女性施害者和无暴力），根据最大暴力估计纳入了双方对 IPV 的报告。女性和男性分别进行分析，因为他们都可能是 IPV 的施害者和/或受害者。使用自我报告的 IPV 数据进行的横断面分析表明，无论性别如何，IPV 组最一致地以其夫妻满意度水平来区分；心理困扰似乎也能区分 IPV 组，但有些不太一致。当使用合并报告的 IPV 时，除了夫妻关系外，社会人口学风险因素（即年龄、收入和教育）也是同时区分 IPV 组的最有力因素，无论性别如何。在纵向分析中，社会人口学脆弱性再次成为随时间区分后续 IPV 组的最一致因素。还发现了一些性别差异，这表明不同的风险因素（例如，女性的社会支持和男性的情绪调节能力）可能需要在干预措施中针对不同性别进行区分，以识别、预防和治疗女性和男性中的 IPV。
