Asian American Women’s Victimization History and In-The-Moment Responses to Partner Violence

Abstract

Between 20% and 50% of Asian American women report experiencing partner violence (PV). Furthermore, nearly half of PV victims experience their first assault between the age of 18 and 24 years, suggesting that Asian American college women may be particularly at risk of PV. Experiencing childhood abuse (CA) may impair women’s capacity to perceive risk during a potential PV situation, increasing their risk for revictimization. The purpose of the current study was to examine differences among Asian American college women’s (N = 324) in-the-moment behavioral intention, risk perception, and likelihood to stay in an abusive relationship during a progressively threatening PV scenario, based on victimization history and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. We tested three path models, each assessing the relations among CA, PV, PTSD, current and future risk perception, likelihood of staying in the relationship, and one of three behavioral intentions (soothe the perpetrator, escape, and escalation/resistance). As hypothesized, CA history positively predicted PV history and PTSD symptoms. Furthermore, CA and PV predicted more in-the-moment soothe behavioral intentions and fewer escape behavioral intentions which, in turn, predicted diminished current and future risk perception. CA and PV also predicted stronger escalation/resistance behavioral intentions, such that escalation/resistance intentions were associated with higher risk perception during a more violent part of the scenario but lower risk perception during a less violent part of the scenario. Finally, higher risk perception predicted lower likelihood of staying in the relationship. Findings indicate that victimization history is associated with increased risky behavioral intentions among Asian American college women and suggest that targeted interventions to improve assault-exposed Asian American women’s awareness of risk cues may be warranted.

Keywords

domestic violence cultural contexts revictimization sexual assault Hx of child abuse PTSD

Introduction

Prevalence of Partner Violence (PV) Among Asian/Pacific Islander Americans

Partner violence (PV), defined as physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former dating partner or spouse (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelley, 2002), occurs at high rates among college women in the United States. Approximately, 25% of women will experience a completed or attempted rape, and 13% will experience being stalked by a dating partner or spouse during their college career (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000), with even higher rates of victimization for nonstudent women between the age of 18 and 24 years (Department of Justice, 2014). National surveys of Asian American adult women indicate that up to 50% have experienced PV (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Published data on Asian American college women’s exposure to PV are limited; however, they suggest that PV exposure among Asian American college women is also prevalent. In one survey, 37% of Asian American college students reported psychological abuse by an intimate partner and 15% reported sexual abuse (Porter & Williams, 2011).

Childhood Abuse (CA), PV, and Mental Health Consequences

Exposure to CA is a strong risk factor for revictimization in adulthood for women (Noll, 2005). Filipas and Ullman (2006) found that college women exposed to childhood sexual abuse (CSA) were 3 times more likely to experience sexual assault in adulthood compared with women with no CSA history. Rates of revictimization among survivors of PV are alarming. Matlow and Deprince (2013) showed that 57% of their sample reported experiencing multiple perpetrations by the index partner, and 31% reported multiple perpetrations by different perpetrators. Published data specific to revictimization rates among Asian American college women are limited, highlighting the need for additional research in this area. However, among South Korean and U.S. college students, those who have experienced childhood physical abuse or witnessed parental violence during childhood were more likely to experience psychological and physical violence in college (Gover, Jennings, Tomsich, Park, & Rennison, 2011; Gover, Park, Tomsich, & Jennings, 2011).

Women who have experienced CA or PV are at risk of posttraumatic stress, anxiety, and depression (Beck, McNiff, Clapp, Olsen, Avery, & Hagewood, 2011; Becker, Stuewig, & McCloskey, 2010; Lang, Stein, Kennedy, & Foy, 2004; Shorey et al., 2011). CA has also been shown to predict mental health consequences through PV. Lindhorst, Beadnell, Jackson, FIeland, and Lee (2009) found that experiences of CA perpetrated by a parent was associated with chronic psychological distress, lasting from the time of occurrence into adulthood, as well as a higher risk of PV—leading to a cumulatively high level of chronic distress. In another study, this one assessing CSA and adult sexual assault revictimization among female college students, results showed that participants who indicated being revictimized also endorsed stronger current self-blame, were more likely to use drugs or alcohol to cope, were more likely to withdraw from people, and were more likely to act out sexually compared with those who endorsed having experienced CSA only (Filipas & Ullman, 2006). Furthermore, endorsement of these dysfunctional coping strategies was associated with more severe posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Taken together, these findings indicate that women who have experienced CA are at greater risk of experiencing PV in adulthood, and that experiences of PV and CA may independently or synergistically contribute to mental and behavioral health challenges.

PV and Psychological Correlates of Revictimization

Perpetrators are culpable for causing PV, and research focusing on interventions for perpetrators is crucial to rehabilitate offenders, prevent recurring abuse, and reduce suffering experienced by victims (for a review, see Eckhardt et al., 2013). However, focusing research and interventions solely on perpetrators may not adequately address the epidemic of PV, as many perpetrators do not seek help or desire to change their behaviors. Thus, it is important to also focus research on survivors’ experiences, to better understand how women can best protect themselves against such violence.

One hypothesized pathway by which PV may place women at risk of revictimization is through their risk perception and behavioral intentions during potential revictimization situations. In one study utilizing a video scenario paradigm, women who had experienced PV were less likely than nonvictims to report that the progressively violent interaction in the video “has gone too far” (i.e., indicating threat of assault; Witte & Kendra, 2010). In another study that used a written scenario paradigm, women who had experienced sexual assault were willing to stay in a progressively threatening scenario longer than nonvictims. Women’s willingness to remain in the hypothetical scenario predicted victimization or revictimization in the following 8 months (Messman-Moore & Brown, 2006). These findings indicate that, compared with nonvictims, women with a PV history may have impaired risk perception and compromised behavioral intentions which, in turn, may compromise their ability to identify and respond to potential risk situations.

Extant research indicates that posttrauma symptoms—including intrusive thoughts and emotions, avoidance, altered mood and cognitions, hyper-arousal, hypervigilance, and behavior that poses a danger to self or others—may be the mediating mechanisms between having experienced trauma (both PV and CSA) and responding protectively to potential revictimization situations (Marx, Heidt, & Gold, 2005; Orcutt, Erickson, & Wolfe, 2002; Risser, Hetzel-Riggin, Thomsen, & McCanne, 2006; Soler-Baillo, Marx, & Sloan, 2005). According to (Marx and colleagues’ (2005) theory of sexual revictimization, individuals with a CSA history are at increased risk for adult revictimization because they may engage in passive avoidance behaviors, such as substance use or dissociation, to manage emotional consequences from the victimization. These behaviors may distract them from perceiving danger cues and limit their cognitive and physiological resources to defend against potential perpetrators. In addition, potential perpetrators may observe and exploit these vulnerabilities, thereby further increasing risk of revictimization.

(Soler-Baillo and colleagues (2005) tested this model by examining participants’ responses and heart rate while they listened to a progressively violent date rape scenario. Individuals with a history of sexual assault, compared with nonvictims, waited longer before declaring that the perpetrator in the scenario had become threatening. Furthermore, victims of sexual assault exhibited significantly lower heart rates than nonvictims at the beginning of the scenario, thereby likely demonstrating less sympathetic (fight or flight) nervous system activation (Jansen, Nguyen, Karpitskiy, Mettenleiter, & Loewy, 1995), which suggests that victims were less able to perceive subtle danger cues. Victims also described the scenario as more upsetting and arousing than nonvictims, suggesting that they may have had a greater need to regulate negative emotions, resulting in lower physiological reactivity and defensive responding. PTSD symptoms, particularly hyper-arousal symptoms, may mediate the relationship between past and future sexual victimization (Risser et al., 2006). Individuals with PTSD may be more hypervigilant to threat, which would often result in false alarms. Experiencing frequent false alarms may lead to a disconnect between emotional arousal and behavioral response. Therefore, individuals meeting criteria for PTSD may show increased attention to threat and at the same time have deficits in self-protective behavioral response (Orcutt et al., 2002). Furthermore, PTSD symptoms may impair information processing such that individuals may perceive threat but are unable to process how best to respond to the threat, perhaps by impaired cognitive processing of danger cues and self-defense intentions (Twamley et al., 2009).

Purpose

The purpose of the current study was to assess predictors—including both historical and current scenario based variables—of in-the-moment behavioral intentions and risk perception during a written PV scenario among a sample of Asian American college women. We tested three hypothesized path models, each examining associations among historical CA, PV, and PTSD, as well as current and future risk perception, the likelihood of staying in the relationship, and one of three behavioral intentions—soothe the perpetrator, escape, and escalation/resistance. We hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Experiences of CA would positively predict experiences of PV, and CA would positively predict trauma symptoms directly and indirectly through PV.

Hypothesis 2: Earlier behavioral intentions would positively predict later behavioral intentions.

Hypothesis 3: Higher risk perception would predict less likelihood of staying in the relationship.

Hypothesis 4: Greater severity of trauma symptoms would be associated with more soothe behavioral intentions, fewer escape behavioral intentions, and more escalation/resistance behavioral intentions.

Hypothesis 5: Participants who endorsed greater soothe behavioral intentions at Times 3 and 4 (the more violent parts of the scenario) would have perceived less risk.

Hypothesis 6: Participants who endorsed greater escape behavioral intentions at Times 3 and 4 would report perceiving more risk.

Hypothesis 7: Participants who endorsed greater escalation/resistance behavioral intentions at Times 3 and 4 would report perceiving less risk.

Method

Participants and Recruitment

Female participants were recruited through a Psychology Department subject pool of undergraduates enrolled in psychology courses at a western U.S. university. After signing up for the study, described as “an examination of college students’ views on dating relationships,” participants followed a link to a website where they completed study questionnaires. This study was part of a larger study assessing PV among college students (N = 1,442).

For the current study, only data from Asian American women interested in dating men were examined (n = 324). The mean age for the study sample was 19.20 years (SD = 2.36 years), with 95.0% of participants between 18 and 21 years of age. Overall, 63% were in their first year of college, 17.9% in their second year, 13.0% in their third year, and 6.4% in their fourth or fifth year. Overall, 59% of the sample reported that they were single or not dating anyone exclusively, 34.8% were in an exclusive relationship, 3.7% were cohabiting with a partner, 0.9% were engaged, 0.9% were married, and 0.6% were divorced.

Procedures

All procedures were conducted online and approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board. Data were collected using Catalyst Web Q, a proprietary online survey software that offered encrypted data transmission using Secure Sockets Layer (SSL; https) and the ability to disable IP logging, which provided protection for participants’ confidentiality and their data. Participants first completed survey questionnaires, then read and responded to a story describing a PV scenario, and were debriefed with contact information of the investigators as well as other referral information for mental health assessment and treatment.

Measures

Demographics

Participants’ age, gender, racial identification, year in school, and relationship status were assessed.

Victimization history

The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein, Fink, Handelsman, & Foote, 1994; Bernstein et al., 2003) is a 28-item measure that assesses five domains of victimization experienced in childhood and adolescence: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect. Questions are answered on a scale of 1 = never true to 5 = very often true. The mean of the items were computed for an overall scale score (α = .92).

The 39-item Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) was used to measure physical, sexual, and psychological aggression by a romantic partner. Participants rated each item with answer options 0 (this has never happened), 1 (once in the past year), 2 (twice in the past year), 4 (3-5 times in the past year), 8 (6-10 times in the past year), 15 (11-20 times in the past year), and 25 (more than 20 times in the past year). The mean of the items were computed for an overall scale score (α = .99).

PTSD

The 18-item PTSD Symptoms Scale: Self Report (PSS-SR; Foa, Riggs, Dancu, & Rothbaum, 1993) was used to assess posttraumatic stress symptoms as measured by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Primary symptom clusters assessed include re-experiencing symptoms, avoidance symptoms, and arousal symptoms. Participants rate each item on a scale of 1 (not at all or only one time) to 4 (5 or more times a week/almost always). The mean of the items were computed for an overall scale score (α = .93)

PV scenario

Participants were asked to project themselves into the story as the protagonist and respond to questions throughout the story as though the events were actually happening to them. The scenario was written in second person (e.g., “You are at a party . . . ”) to maximize the likelihood of eliciting real-life reporting responses. This approach has been used successfully in previous studies (e.g., Davis et al., 2009; Schacht et al., 2010). The scenario depicted a PV situation between the protagonist and a hypothetical male partner (Eric) whom she’s been dating for more than 2 months. Eric’s race was not specified so that the participants could project their usual dating partner’s race onto him. In the scenario, Eric and the protagonist attend a party, where they consume “drinks” of unspecified content. Eric becomes jealous and pushes the protagonist’s male classmate, who falls (Question Break 1). Later, Eric yells at the protagonist (Break 2) and shoves her against a wall (Break 3). The story ends with the protagonist feeling scared of Eric. She asks him to calm down and let her go, and he does (Break 4).

At each of the four question breaks during the story, participants were prompted to answer questions about three different behavioral intentions (soothe, escape, escalation/resistance) in response to the PV situation on a scale of 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (very likely). Soothe behavioral intentions consisted of seven items (e.g., “At this point, how likely are you to keep trying to reassure Eric?”). Escape behavioral intentions consisted of 10 items (e.g., “At this point, how likely are you to leave?”). Escalation/resistance behavioral intentions consisted of six items (e.g., “At this point, how likely are you to stay and fight with him?”). At the final question break, current risk perception was measured with one item: “How likely is Eric to physically hurt you tonight?” and future risk perception was measured with two items: “How likely is Eric to physically hurt you at another time?” and “How likely is Eric to get angry like this again?” Participants were also asked: “How likely would you be to stay in a relationship with Eric if he hit you?” Participants rated the story on two items (1-5 scale): how realistic it was (M = 3.81, SD = 1.07), and how easy it was to project themselves into the story and respond like it was happening to them (M = 3.49, SD = 1.25).

Data Analytic Approach

To test the hypotheses, we analyzed three path analysis models, one for each behavioral intention (soothe, escape, escalation/resistance) in Mplus 6 (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). All measures were assessed for skew and kurtosis, missing data, and outliers (West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). Missing data accounted for 1% to 10% of the dataset, and maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) was used for missing data. Descriptive statistics showed a significant positive skew in the distribution of the PV variable (CTS), which was corrected through a square root transformation of this variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Means, standard deviations, and range of participants’ responses for each variable included in the three models are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Scenario Variables Used in Models.

Variable	M (SD)	Range
Escalate Time 1	3.96 (0.87)	1.00-5.00
Soothe Time 1	2.10 (0.82)	1.00-4.50
Escape Time 1	2.37 (0.94)	1.00-5.00
Escalate Time 2	3.27 (1.38)	1.00-5.00
Soothe Time 2	2.13 (1.23)	1.00-5.00
Escape Time 2	4.25 (0.98)	1.00-5.00
Escalate Time 3	3.51 (1.41)	1.00-5.00
Soothe Time 3	2.72 (0.92)	1.00-5.00
Escape Time 3	4.43 (1.09)	1.00-5.00
Escalate Time 4	1.37 (0.76)	1.00-5.00
Soothe Time 4	2.05 (1.10)	1.00-5.00
Escape Time 4	3.30 (0.84)	1.00-5.00
Current risk perception	3.66 (1.23)	1.00-5.00
Future risk perception	4.20 (1.04)	1.00-5.00
Stay in relationship	1.18 (0.59)	1.00-5.00

To assess model fit, we used the chi-square test of independence (χ²), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the comparative fit index (CFI). Because the χ² test has been shown to be sensitive to sample size, which may lead to rejecting adequate models or retaining inadequate models, we also used the normed χ² (NC) index to assess model fit. The following criteria were used to conclude acceptable model fit (nonsignificant χ², NC < 3.0, RMSEA < 0.06, SRMR < 0.08, CFI ≥ 0.95; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005). In assessing model fit, if the hypothesized model did not have good fit, modification indices were assessed to test alternative models.

Results

Prior Victimization

In the context of experiencing PV within the past year, 23% of the sample reported prior sexual victimization, 18% reported prior physical assault, 51% reported prior psychological aggression, and 4% reported prior injury from an assault by a partner. In terms of CA, 72% reported childhood emotional abuse, 53% reported childhood physical abuse, 14% reported CSA, 73% reported childhood emotional neglect, and 44% reported childhood physical neglect. Of the sample, 5% reported having experienced PV alone without CA, 38% reported having experienced CA without PV, and 51% reported to have experienced both CA and PV.

Path Analysis

Soothe model

The hypothesized model (see Figure 1) did not adequately fit the data, χ²(31) = 126.48, p < .01, RMSEA = .10, CFI = .75, and SRMR = .10. Paths were added based on modification indices, and the final model (see Figure 2) fits the data well, χ²(26) = 30.93, p = .23, NC = 1.19, RMSEA = .03, CFI = .99, and SRMR = .05. Table 2 presents the covariance matrix for all the variables included in the final model. The squared multiple correlations indicate that a moderate amount of variance was accounted for in this model by PV (R² = .08), PTSD (R² = .08), soothe at Time 1 (R² = .00), soothe at Time 2 (R² = .03), soothe at Time 3 (R² = .03), soothe at Time 4 (R² = .32), current risk perception (R² = .04), future risk perception (R² = .08), and likelihood of staying in the relationship (R² = .05). Standardized coefficients and standard errors in the final path analysis model are presented in Figure 2, and all paths shown are significant.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model of the relations among child abuse, partner violence, posttraumatic stress symptoms, soothe behavioral intentions, current and future risk perception, and likelihood of staying in the relationship.

Figure 2.

Final model with standardized estimates of the relations among child abuse, partner violence, posttraumatic stress symptoms, soothe behavioral intentions, current and future risk perception, and likelihood of staying in the relationship.

Table 2.

Covariance Matrix for Final Fit Models.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Final model for soothe behavioral intentions
PV	0.26	—
PTSD	0.06	0.25	—
Soothe 1	0.01	0.01	0.67	—
Soothe 2	0.07	0.01	0.17	1.51	—
Soothe 3	0.07	−0.01	0.06	0.13	0.84	—
Soothe 4	0.14	0.02	0.19	0.64	0.31	1.20	—
Current risk perception	−0.02	0.05	−0.17	−0.24	0.02	−0.24	1.52	—
Future risk perception	−0.03	0.04	−0.12	−0.29	0.02	−0.30	0.89	1.07	—
Stay in relationship	0.04	0.00	0.08	0.15	0.07	0.12	−0.03	−0.08	0.35	—
Childhood abuse	0.08	0.06	0.05	0.04	−0.01	0.03	−0.02	−0.01	0.02	0.29
Final model for escape behavioral intentions
PV	0.27	—
PTSD	0.06	0.25	—
Escape 1	−0.07	−0.01	0.88	—
Escape 2	−0.01	−0.01	0.21	0.96	—
Escape 3	0.02	−0.01	0.12	0.30	1.18	—
Escape 4	−0.03	0.02	0.23	0.48	0.20	0.70	—
Current risk perception	−0.02	0.05	0.21	0.38	0.19	0.47	1.51	—
Future risk perception	−0.03	0.04	0.13	0.37	0.29	0.37	0.89	1.07	—
Stay in relationship	0.04	0.00	0.02	−0.09	−0.07	−0.04	−0.03	−0.08	0.35	—
Childhood abuse	0.08	0.06	−0.02	−0.09	−0.09	−0.03	−0.01	−0.01	0.02	0.29
Final model for escalation/resistance behavioral intentions
PV	0.27	—
PTSD	0.06	0.26	—
Escalation/Resistance 1	0.03	0.02	0.75	—
Escalation/Resistance 2	0.13	0.05	0.33	1.92	—
Escalation/Resistance 3	0.15	0.07	0.32	1.19	2.00	—
Escalation/Resistance 4	0.04	0.05	−0.06	0.22	0.20	0.58	—
Current risk perception	−0.02	0.05	0.11	0.31	0.24	0.04	1.52	—
Future risk perception	−0.03	0.04	0.14	0.19	0.17	−0.08	0.89	1.07	—
Stay in relationship	0.05	0.00	−0.07	−0.04	−0.03	0.09	−0.03	−0.08	0.35	—
Childhood abuse	0.08	0.06	−0.04	0.03	0.03	0.09	−0.02	−0.01	0.02	0.29

Note. PV = partner violence; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.

Significant indirect effects were found for CA predicting PTSD symptoms through PV such that more CA was associated with more intense PTSD symptoms (β = .05, SE = .02). PV significantly predicted current and future risk perception through soothe at Time 4 such that more PV was associated with less current (β = −.03, SE = .01) and future risk perception (β = −.05, SE = .02). Furthermore, CA significantly predicted current and future risk perception through its effects on PV and soothe at Time 4 such that more CA was associated with less current (β = −.01, SE = .01) and future risk perception (β = −.01, SE = .01).

Escape model

The hypothesized model (see Figure 3) did not adequately fit the data, χ²(31) = 155.54, p < .01, RMSEA = .11, CFI = .75, and SRMR = .10. Paths were added based on modification indices, and the final model (see Figure 4) fits the data well, χ²(28) = 32.19, p = .27, NC = 1.15, RMSEA = .02, CFI = .99, and SRMR = .04. Table 2 presents the covariance matrix for all the variables included in the final model. An examination of the squared multiple correlations indicates that a moderate amount of variance was accounted for in this model by PV (R² = .08), PTSD (R² = .08), escape at Time 1 (R² = .00), escape at Time 2 (R² = .07), escape at Time 3 (R² = .08), escape at Time 4 (R² = .37), current risk perception (R² = .21), future risk perception (R² = .21), and likelihood of staying in the relationship (R² = .02). Standardized coefficients and standard errors in the final path analysis model are presented in Figure 4, and all paths shown are significant.

Figure 3.

Hypothesized model of the relations among child abuse, partner violence, posttraumatic stress symptoms, escape behavioral intentions, current and future risk perception, and likelihood of staying in the relationship.

Figure 4.

Final model with standardized estimates of the relations among child abuse, partner violence, posttraumatic stress symptoms, escape behavioral intentions, current and future risk perception, and likelihood of staying in the relationship.

Significant indirect effects were found for CA predicting PTSD symptoms through PV such that experiencing more CA was associated with more PTSD symptoms (β = .05, SE = .02). CA significantly predicted escape at Times 3 and 4 through its effects on escape at Time 2, such that experiencing more CA was associated with less escape behavioral intentions at Time 3 (β = −.04, SE = .02) and Time 4 (β = −.08, SE = .03). Furthermore, CA significantly predicted current and future risk perception through its effects on escape at Times 2 and 4 such that experiencing more CA was associated with less current (β = −.04, SE = .02) and future risk perception (β = −.03, SE = .01). Finally, escape at Time 1 negatively predicted likelihood of staying in the relationship through its effects on escape at Time 2, escape at Time 4, and future risk perception such that higher escape behavioral intentions were associated with lower likelihood of staying in the relationship (β = −.01, SE = .01).

Escalation/resistance model

The hypothesized model (see Figure 5) did not adequately fit the data, χ²(31) = 69.10, p < .01, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .91, and SRMR = .07. Paths were added based on modification indices, and the final model (see Figure 3) fits the data well, χ²(28) = 44.96, p = .02, NC = 1.61, RMSEA = .04, CFI = .96, and SRMR = .05. Table 2 presents the covariance matrix for all the variables included in the final model. An examination of the squared multiple correlations indicates that a moderate amount of variance was accounted for in this model by PV (R² = .08), PTSD (R² = .08), escalation/resistance at Time 1 (R² = .002), escalation/resistance at Time 2 (R² = .10), escalation/resistance at Time 3 (R² = .37), escalation/resistance at Time 4 (R² = .07), current risk perception (R² = .02), future risk perception (R² = .03), and likelihood of staying in the relationship (R² = .05). Standardized coefficients and standard errors in the final path analysis model are presented in Figure 6, and all paths shown are significant.

Figure 5.

Hypothesized model of the relations among child abuse, partner violence, posttraumatic stress symptoms, escalation/resistance behavioral intentions, current and future risk perception, and likelihood of staying in the relationship.

Figure 6.

Final model with standardized estimates of the relations among child abuse, partner violence, posttraumatic stress symptoms, escalation/resistance behavioral intentions, current and future risk perception, and likelihood of staying in the relationship. All paths shown are significant (p < .05).

We found significant indirect effects for CA predicting PTSD symptoms through PV such that experiencing more CA was associated with more PTSD symptoms (β = .05, SE = .02). PV significantly predicted escalation/resistance at Time 3 through its effects on escalation/resistance at Time 2, such that more experiences of PV were associated with higher ratings of escalation resistance behavioral intentions (β = .10, SE = .04). CA also significantly predicted escalation/resistance at Time 3 through its effects on PV and escalation/resistance at Time 2 such that more experiences of CA were associated with higher escalation/resistance behavioral intentions (β = .03, SE = .01). Finally, CA indirectly predicted likelihood of staying in the relationship through its effects on escalation/resistance at Time 4, such that more experiences of CA were associated with higher likelihood of staying in the relationship (β = .04, SE = .02).

Discussion

To explore victimization history as a predictor of Asian American college women’s in-the-moment responses to PV, we tested three path models, each examining the associations among CA, PV, PTSD, current and future risk perception, the likelihood of staying in an abusive relationship, and one of three behavioral intentions in response to a PV scenario—soothe, escape, escalation/resistance.

The prevalence of both CA and PV in the sample was high. Rates of experiencing at least one incident of sexual, physical, or psychological victimization in an intimate relationship among Asian American college women in our sample were 56%, which is comparable with those among White college women (Fisher et al., 2000; Miller, 2011). These results support limited existing research indicating that Asian American college women are at risk of PV (Choi-Misailidis, Hishinuma, Nishimura, & Chesney-Lind, 2008). Furthermore, 90% of our sample reported at least one experience of CA, which is higher than nationally representative rates (Hussey, Chang, & Kotch, 2006), indicating that Asian American college women may be at particularly high risk for CA victimization.

As hypothesized, we found that having a history of CA predicted PV, and CA predicted PTSD directly and indirectly through PV across all three models, which is consistent with past research (Filipas & Ullman, 2006; Lindhorst et al., 2009). However, contrary to our hypothesis and past research, we found that PTSD symptoms did not predict behavioral intentions or serve as a mediator between victimization history and risk perception in any of the models. Instead, behavioral intentions, rather than PTSD symptoms, were found to be the critical factor linking previous victimization history to risk perception in the moment and the decision to stay in the relationship. Thus, perhaps women with a victimization history were responding in a risky manner to PV situations because of learned attitudes and beliefs, rather than impaired cognitive processing resulting from managing PTSD symptoms such as hypervigilance and altered mood and cognitions. According to the theory of planned behavior, post-victimization behavioral intentions to leave an abusive relationship are impacted by beliefs about whether the behavioral response would lead to a desired outcome, is approved by the social network, and could be successfully completed based on the available resources (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). As such, women with a history of victimization in our study may have had more experience with engaging in certain tactics such as soothe or escalate/resist and, thus, may have been more comfortable using these tactics, particularly if they had proved useful in the past. Therefore, participants’ victimization history may have shaped their response patterns and beliefs that certain behavioral intentions are acceptable and effective for resolving problems, whereas others such as seeking help are less effective (Hindman, 1989).

Our findings indicate that women with a history of CA and PV may be at greater risk for victimization because of impaired risk perception during a risky situation. Consistent with our hypotheses, having experienced CA and PV predicted higher soothe behavioral intentions, and having experienced CA uniquely predicted lower escape behavioral intentions. Higher soothe and lower escape behavioral intentions in turn predicted less robust risk perception, which predicted higher likelihood of staying in the relationship. Furthermore, CA indirectly predicted more soothe and less escape behavioral intentions at Time 4, which was when the perpetrator had released the victim in the scenario. This indicates that CA may decrease intentions to escape a PV situation, even perhaps at the most opportune time to leave.

Women with an assault history reported more intentions to continue engaging with the perpetrator even after he had released the protagonist, suggesting that these women either underestimated risk or missed the story’s escape cue compared to those with no assault history. Our findings are consistent with past research showing that women with a history of PV were more likely to perceive a hypothetical PV situation as less dangerous and remain in the situation longer than women without such history (Witte & Kendra, 2010). Our findings also showed that CA predicted less current and future risk perception through its effects on soothe and escape behavioral intentions which, in turn, predicted higher likelihood of staying in the relationship. This indicates that CA may not only increase women’s in-the-moment risk during an occurring PV episode by decreasing their escape intentions but also increase their risk for experiencing multiple PV episodes by decreasing their future risk perception and increasing their likelihood to stay in the relationship.

Our finding that CA uniquely predicted escape behavioral intentions has significant implications, as it shows that distal experiences of CA had an impact on in-the-moment decision making for women during a PV situation many years later. Furthermore, CA impacted behavioral intentions directly rather than through PV or PTSD. In fact, neither PV nor PTSD was associated with escape behavioral intentions in our model. Indeed, experiences of CA may change one’s belief system such that one may be more tolerant of violence, may perceive less risk, and may be more likely to remain in an abusive relationship (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Gover, Jennings, et al., 2011).

Our findings also showed that, as hypothesized, both CA and PV predicted stronger escalation/resistance behavioral intentions. Stronger escalation/resistance behavioral intentions at Time 4 (as hypothesized) but not at Time 3 predicted weaker future risk perception and stronger likelihood of staying in the relationship. CA predicting higher behavioral intentions to escalate/resist at Time 4 is consistent with research indicating that individuals who have experienced CA may normalize violence, believe that violent behaviors are acceptable means to resolve conflicts, and may engage in violent behaviors themselves (Bandura, 1973). Participants’ likelihood to have escalation/resistance behavioral intentions at Time 4 may have been particularly risky because this was the end of the scenario—when the perpetrator had already released the victim, she had no need to actively defend herself, and she was aware of the high level of violence that the perpetrator was capable of. Thus, having escalation/resistance behavioral intentions at this time point decreased her risk perception and increased her likelihood of staying and engaging with the perpetrator. Furthermore, engaging in escalation/resistance behavioral intentions at any point during a PV situation may increase women’s risk, given research indicating that the escalation of violence in PV situations often includes both people increasing violent behaviors (Winstok, 2008). Moreover, PV situations in which both partners are engaging in violent behaviors (i.e., reciprocal violence) compared to PV situations in which only one partner is engaging in violent behaviors have been shown to result in greater injuries (Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). Our findings also showed that women with more CA experiences were not only more likely to escalate/resist intentions at the end of the PV scenario (Time 4) but also more likely to perceive less risk and stay in the relationship. Thus, having intention to stay in the relationship after this episode of violence indicates that these women may be at risk of experiencing repeated, and perhaps more severe, victimizations in the future given that rates for PV recidivism even among perpetrators seeking treatment in rehabilitation programs range from 30% to 50% (Henning, Martinsson, & Holdford, 2009).

The relationship between victimization history and escalation/resistance behavioral intentions appears to be different for PV compared to CA. PV was associated with escalation/resistance behavioral intentions during Times 2 and 3, which corresponded to the most violent parts of the scenario, but not Time 4, a less violent part of the scenario. This indicates that women who have experienced more PV may have reacted with more escalation/resistance behavioral intentions during the most violent parts of the scenario in self-defense. Our model shows that escalation/resistance behavioral intentions during the most violent parts of the scenario were associated with higher risk perception and less likelihood of staying in the relationship. In other words, responding with escalation/resistance during these parts in the scenario may be somewhat protective as it may prompt women to leave the relationship. Thus, it appears that the relationship among victimization history and escalation/resistance behavioral intentions, risk perception, and likelihood of staying in the relationship is complex and changes based on the context and level of violence of the situation as well as the type of victimization history.

Limitations

Limitations of the study include the categorization of Asian Americans into one group instead of examining subgroups of Asian Americans, which are heterogeneous in terms of ethnicities, culture, customs, acculturation levels, socioeconomic status, and languages, limiting nuances in the findings. Furthermore, as it is not possible to include all predictors and correlates of behavioral intentions and risk perception (e.g., alcohol use), there are likely other variables that may impact our findings. Another limitation is that scenario simulated behavioral intentions and risk perception may not generalize to real life, although paradigms utilizing scenarios are frequently used in PV research and have been shown to predict actual behaviors (e.g., Flowe, Ebbesen, & Putcha-Bhagavatula, 2007; Mason, Riger, & Foley, 2004; Messman-Moore & Brown, 2006). Finally, given our nonclinical participant sample, the low levels of PTSD symptoms among the participants may have produced insufficient variance to predict behavioral intentions and risk perception. More research is needed to examine our model in a clinical sample to test the mediating role of PTSD. Despite these limitations, the current study provides unique information on Asian American college women’s experiences of historical CA, PV, and behavioral intentions in current PV situations.

Conclusion

Our findings offer support for the idea that a history of CA increases Asian American women’s likelihood for PV, and that both CA and PV victimization is associated with negative psychological consequences. Furthermore, prior victimization experiences may increase women’s risk during a PV situation by increasing soothe behavioral intentions and escalation/resistance behavioral intentions, and decreasing their escape behavioral intentions. As a consequence, these individuals exhibited lower risk perception and higher likelihood of staying in the relationship. Interestingly, we found that victimization experiences were indirectly associated with both higher and lower risk perception through escalation/resistance behavioral intentions at different time points. Thus, behavioral intentions predicted risk perception differently depending on the context of the situation, indicating that the associations among trauma variables, behavioral intentions, risk perception, and the likelihood of staying in the relationship are not static across time and context of the situation.

This study provides a number of significant contributions to the field of PV. Extant research has mostly examined the dichotomy of staying or leaving behaviors with regards to PV, and this was the first study to examine multiple in-the-moment behavioral intentions and risk perception during different time points in a PV situation. Understanding the changes in decision making based on context and threat levels among multiple behaviors in response to PV can assist in prevention and intervention efforts. Education about effective behavioral responses during different threat levels (e.g., verbal vs. physical) and context (e.g., public vs. private) may help women better protect themselves in PV situations. Furthermore, our findings regarding the riskiness of soothing behaviors may have specific implications for Asian American populations, as research has shown that Asian American survivors of violence may likely choose to engage in soothing behaviors to maintain social harmony during PV situations (Bhuyan, Mell, Senturia, Sullivan, & Shiu-Thornton, 2005). Thus, prevention and intervention efforts may need to address soothing behaviors specifically among this population in a culturally aware, sensitive, and appropriate manner. As this was the first research study to examine in-the-moment risk perception and behavioral intentions among Asian Americans, more research is needed to examine specific cultural factors that may impact women’s decision making and risk perception during PV situations in this population.

This study furthers understanding regarding the impact of victimization history on women’s in-the-moment responses to PV. Our findings indicate that for survivors of violence, learning history and cultural/sociocultural factors, perhaps more so than trauma symptoms, may play a significant role in women’s risk perception and protective responses to future victimization. Thus, addressing learning history and perception of behavioral norms regarding violence and conflict resolution may be important to help women identify risk and engage in self-protective behaviors. Furthermore, cultural and sociocultural variables, such as social face, gender-role adherence, socioeconomic status, immigration/citizenship status, and acculturation, may also be important considerations in prevention and intervention efforts for PV. Current interventions grounded in a feminist analysis of PV (Hollander, 2013, 2014; Marcus, 1992) do address some of these important factors. These interventions focus on promoting gender-egalitarian attitudes and behaviors to decrease violence while also using cognitive-behavioral therapy strategies to address emotion dysregulation and relationship skills deficits that are associated with PV perpetration (Eckhardt et al., 2013). As indicated by our study, Asian American women may be impacted by issues that intersect gender and race/ethnicity in PV situations, and as such more research on prevention and intervention programs that can address this intersectionality are needed.

Supplemental Material

Partner_Violence_Scenario_(2) – Supplemental material for Asian American Women’s Victimization History and In-The-Moment Responses to Partner Violence

Supplemental material, Partner_Violence_Scenario_(2) for Asian American Women’s Victimization History and In-The-Moment Responses to Partner Violence by Hong V. Nguyen, Rebecca L. Schacht, Joyce P. Yang, William H. George and David W. Pantalone in J Interpers Violence

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participants and research assistants at the University of Washington for their support and help with this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research reported in this publication was supported by the American Psychological Association under award number 1T06SM60563-38.

ORCID iD

Joyce P. Yang

Author Biographies

Hong V. Nguyen received her PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Washington. She is a clinical psychologist at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System.

Rebecca L. Schacht received her PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Washington. She is a clinical assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland.

Joyce P. Yang received her PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Washington. She is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and the National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) at VA Palo Alto Health Care System.

William H. George received his PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Washington. He is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington.

David W. Pantalone received his PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Washington. He is an associate professor of psychology and director of the clinical psychology doctoral program at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

References

Ajzen

Madden

T. J.

(1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4

Akers

R. L.

Sellers

C. S.

(2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bandura

(1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Beck

J. G.

McNiff

Clapp

J. D.

Olsen

S. A.

Avery

M. L.

Hagewood

J. H.

(2011). Exploring negative emotion in women experiencing intimate partner violence: Shame, guilt, and PTSD. Behavior Therapy, 42, 740-750.

Becker

K. D.

Stuewig

McCloskey

L. A.

(2010). Traumatic stress symptoms of women exposed to different forms of childhood victimization and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1699-1715.

Bernstein

D. P.

Fink

Handelsman

Foote

(1994). Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child abuse and neglect. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 1132-1136. doi:10.1176/ajp.151.8.1132

Bernstein

D. P.

Stein

J. A.

Newcomb

M. D.

Walker

Pogge

Ahluvalia

. . . Zule

(2003). Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 169-190. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00541-0

Bhuyan

Mell

Senturia

Sullivan

Shiu-Thornton

(2005). “Women must endure according to their karma”: Cambodian immigrant women talk about domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 902-921. doi:10.1177/0886260505277675

10.

Choi-Misailidis

Hishinuma

E. S.

Nishimura

S. T.

Chesney-Lind

(2008). Dating violence victimization among Asian American and Pacific Islander youth in Hawai’i. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 8, 403-422. doi:10.1080/10926790802480398

11.

Davis

K. C.

George

W. H.

Norris

Schacht

R. L.

Stoner

S. A.

Hendershot

C. S.

Kajumulo

K. F.

(2009). Effects of alcohol and blood alcohol concentration limb on sexual risk-taking intentions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 499-507. doi:10.15288/jsad.2009.70.499

12.

Department of Justice. (2014). Rape and sexual victimization among college-aged females, 1995-2013. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

13.

Eckhardt

C. I.

Murphy

C. M.

Whiatker

D. J.

Sprunger

Dykstra

Woodward

(2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4, 196-231. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.4.2.196

14.

Filipas

H. H.

Ullman

S. E.

(2006). Child sexual abuse, coping responses, self-blame, posttraumatic stress disorder, and adult sexual revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 652-672. doi:10.1177/0886260506286879

15.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

16.

Flowe

H. D.

Ebbesen

E. B.

Putcha-Bhagavatula

(2007). Rape shield laws and sexual behavior evidence: Effects of consent level and women’s sexual history on rape allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 159-175. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9050-z

17.

Foa

E. B.

Riggs

D. S.

Dancu

C. V.

Rothbaum

B. O.

(1993). Reliability and validity of a brief instrument for assessing post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 6, 459-473. doi:10.1002/jts.2490060405

18.

Gover

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Tomsich

E. A.

Park

Rennison

C. M.

(2011). The influence of childhood maltreatment and self-control on dating violence: A comparison of college students in the United States and South Korea. Violence and Victims, 26, 296-318. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.3.296

19.

Gover

A. R.

Park

Tomsich

E. A.

Jennings

W. G.

(2011). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1232-1263. doi:10.1177/0886260510368161

20.

Henning

Martinsson

Holdford

(2009). Gender differences in risk factors for intimate partner violence recidivism. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 623-645. doi:10.1080/10926770903103248

21.

Hindman

(1989). Just before dawn: Trauma assessment and treatment of sexual victimization. New York, NY: AlexAndria Associates.

22.

Hollander

J. A.

(2013). “I demand more of people”: Accountability, interaction, and gender change. Gender & Society, 27, 5-29. doi:10.1177/0891243212464301

23.

Hollander

J. A.

(2014). Does self-defense training prevent sexual violence against women? Violence Against Women, 20, 252-269. doi:10.1177/1077801214526046

24.

L.-T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

25.

Hussey

J. M.

Chang

J. J.

Kotch

J. B.

(2006). Child maltreatment in the United States: Prevalence, risk factors, and adolescent health consequences. Pediatrics, 118, 933-942. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-2452

26.

Jansen

A. S. P.

Nguyen

X. V.

Karpitskiy

Mettenleiter

T. C.

Loewy

A. D.

(1995). Central command neurons of the sympathetic nervous system: Basis of the fight-or-flight response. Science, 270(5236), 644-646. doi:10.1126/science.270.5236.644

27.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

28.

Lang

A. J.

Stein

M. B.

Kennedy

C. M.

Foy

D. W.

(2004). Adult psychopathology and intimate partner violence among survivors of childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1102-1118. doi:10.1177/0886260504269090

29.

Lindhorst

Beadnell

Jackson

L. J.

FIeland

Lee

(2009). Mediating pathways explaining psychosocial functioning and revictimization as sequelae of parental violence among adolescent mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 79, 181-190.

30.

Marcus

(1992). Fighting bodies, fighting words: A theory and politics of rape prevention. In Butler

Scott

J. W.

(Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 385-403). New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Marx

B. P.

Heidt

J. M.

Gold

S. D.

(2005). Perceived uncontrollability and unpredictability, self-regulation, and sexual revictimization. Review of General Psychology, 9(6), 67-90. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.1.67

32.

Mason

G. E.

Riger

Foley

L. A.

(2004). The impact of past sexual experiences on attributions of responsibility for rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1157-1171. doi:10.1177/0886260504269094

33.

Matlow

R. B.

DePrince

A. P.

(2013). The influence of victimization history on PTSD symptom expression in women exposed to intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5, 241-250. doi:10.1037/a0027655

34.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Brown

A. L.

(2006). Risk perception, rape, and sexual revictimization: A prospective study of college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 159-172. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00279.x

35.

Miller

L. M.

(2011). Physical abuse in a college setting: A study of perceptions and participation in abusive dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 71-80. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9344-2

36.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2007). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

37.

Noll

J. G.

(2005). Does childhood sexual abuse set in motion a cycle of violence against women? What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 455-462. doi:10.1177/0886260504267756

38.

Orcutt

H. K.

Erickson

D. J.

Wolfe

(2002). A prospective analysis of trauma exposure: The mediating role of PTSD symptomatology. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 259-266. doi:10.1023/A:1015215630493

39.

Porter

Williams

L. M.

(2011). Intimate violence among underrepresented groups on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3210-3224. doi:10.1177/0886260510393011

40.

Risser

H. J.

Hetzel-Riggin

M. D.

Thomsen

C. J.

McCanne

T. R.

(2006). PTSD as a mediator of sexual revictimization: The role of reexperiencing, avoidance, and arousal symptoms. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19, 687-698. doi:10.1002/jts.20156

41.

Saltzman

L. E.

Fanslow

J. L.

McMahon

P. M.

Shelley

G. A.

(2002). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements (Version 1.0). Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

42.

Schacht

R. L.

George

W. H.

Davis

K. C.

Heiman

J. R.

Norris

Stoner

S. A.

Kajumulo

K. F.

(2010). Sexual abuse history, alcohol intoxication, and women’s sexual risk behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 898-906. doi:10.1007/s10508-009-9544-0

43.

Shorey

R. C.

Sherman

A. E.

Kivisto

A. J.

Elkins

S. R.

Rhatigan

D. L.

Moore

T. M.

(2011). Gender differences in depression and anxiety among victims of intimate partner violence: The moderating effect of shame proneness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1834-1850. doi:10.1177/0886260510372949

44.

Soler-Baillo

J. M.

Marx

B. P.

Sloan

D. M.

(2005). The psychophysiological correlates of risk recognition among victims and non-victims of sexual assault. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 169-181. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.01.004

45.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

46.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.

47.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women (NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

48.

Twamley

E. W.

Allard

C. B.

Thorp

S. R.

Norman

S. B.

Cissell

S. H.

Berardi

K. H.

. . . Stein

M. B.

(2009). Cognitive impairment and functioning in PTSD related to intimate partner violence. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 879-887. doi:10.1017/S135561770999049X

49.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

Curran

P. J.

(1995). Structural Equation Models with Nonnormal Variables: Problems and Remedies. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

50.

Whitaker

D. J.

Haileyesus

Swahn

Saltzman

L. S.

(2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

51.

Winstok

(2008). Conflict escalation to violence and escalation of violent conflicts. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 297-310.

52.

Witte

H. T.

Kendra

(2010). Risk recognition and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2199-2216. doi:10.1177/0886260509354880

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB