Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration in a Turkish Female Sample: Rejection Sensitivity and Hostility

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is one of the most alarming social problems all over the world. Recently, IPV research focuses on the bidirectional nature of the phenomenon, which underlines that both women and men can equally be victims and perpetrators of IPV, especially in community samples. The cycle of violence theory asserts that child abuse and neglect (CAN) is a vulnerability factor for being both a victim and perpetrator of IPV while developmental mechanisms perspective assesses mediators explaining this association. The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether CAN and each type of CAN (emotional maltreatment, physical abuse and neglect, and sexual abuse) would be associated with victimization of and perpetration by women via the multiple mediator roles of rejection sensitivity and hostility after controlling for co-occurring CAN types. The sample (N = 288) included Turkish women who were currently married or in a romantic relationship or in one of these statutes in the past year. Participants were recruited via online survey to fill out the related questionnaires. The results of Bootstrap analyses showed that the total CAN scores were associated with being a victim and perpetrator of IPV in the past year. Rejection sensitivity mediated the association between CAN and being a victim of IPV while hostility was a mediator between CAN and perpetration of IPV. Childhood emotional maltreatment (CEM) was the only trauma type which predicted victimization by rejection sensitivity and perpetration by hostility above and beyond the effects of co-occurring trauma types. The present study findings contributed to the growing literature that women exposed to childhood traumas can also be perpetrators of violence that was a demonstrated risk factor for the repeated victimization. Results implied that developmental and process variables should be taken into account rather than a strict gendered analysis of IPV in research and clinical practice.

Keywords

intimate partner violence perpetration victimization childhood trauma rejection sensitivity hostility

Bidirectional Nature of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

IPV is one of the most pervasive social problems all over the world. IPV encompasses physical, sexual, and/or psychological harm by men and by women toward a romantic partner (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; Murphy, Elklit, & Shevlin, 2017). Globally, about one third (30%) of all women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner although prevalence percentages have increased to 38% when regional statistics were used (World Health Organization, 2013). According to national statistics, 35.5% of women in Turkey were the subject of physical violence during their life time, initiated by their spouse or cohabitating partner (Turkish Statistical Institute, 2014). Given that prevalence rates of IPV toward women were higher than men (Stöckl, March, Pallitto, & Garcia-Moreno, 2014) and the devastating effects of IPV on women’s mental and physical health were more serious (e.g., Foa, Cascardi, Zoellner, & Feeny, 2000), IPV toward women has been in the interest of scholars, policy makers, and practitioners. In addition, there has been a recent shift in IPV research, focusing on the bidirectional nature of IPV (Kuijpers, van der Knaap, & Winkel, 2012; Renner & Whitney, 2012; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2014). In this perspective, both women and men can equally be victims and perpetrators of IPV specifically in nonclinically abusive relationships (Archer, 2000), though empirical research indicated that the impact of IPV on women was more serious and the annual prevalence rates of IPV were higher for women especially in clinically abusive relationships (Black et al., 2011; Jonas et al., 2014). Furthermore, the risk of revictimization for women would increase if they also perpetrated violence toward their partner, which would create a cycle of violence (Widom, 1989) or a cycle of revictimization in intimate relationships (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). These findings implied that there is a need and paucity of research to assess IPV among women both in terms of victimization (IPV-V) and perpetration (IPV-P) experiences in intimate relationships, the ultimate aim of the present study.

Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) and IPV among Women

CAN has been one of the commonly identified distal risk factors for IPV-V and IPV-P among women (e.g., Atmaca & Gençöz, 2016; Capaldi et al., 2012; Linder & Collins, 2005; White & Widom, 2003). In a recent comprehensive study (Renner & Whitney, 2012), compared with controls, females who were neglected in their childhood were more likely to report perpetration, victimization, and bidirectional IPV while childhood physical abuse was only associated with bidirectional IPV. In this community sample, bidirectional IPV was the most frequently reported IPV type (54% of the sample) compared with victimization only (24.6%) and perpetration only (21.4%). In another large-scale representative study, women who were the victims of childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, and family violence had 3.5 times more risk for later victimization and perpetration of IPV (Whitfield, Anda, Dube, & Felitti, 2003). In terms of the specific types of CAN and IPV association, some of the studies highlighted the powerful role of childhood sexual abuse, or rape (Hamby, Finkelhor, & Turner, 2012; Trickett, Noll, & Putnam, 2011), while others stressed the significant role of a general maltreatment factor in childhood (McMahon et al., 2015), or emotional abuse and neglect (Berzenski & Yates, 2010; Fulu et al., 2017; Widom et al., 2014). Although research findings were not conclusive to specify the type of CAN and IPV-V/IPV-P association, it was noted that each type of maltreatment with varying degrees was related to IPV experiences in intimate relationships (Murphy et al., 2017). On the other side, though CAN was emphasized as a general distal risk factor for IPV-V and IPV-P among women, IPV research showed a low to moderate relationship between CAN and IPV based on meta-analysis findings (e.g., Stith et al., 2000) or intense literature reviews on risk factors for IPV-V and IPV-P (e.g., Capaldi et al., 2012). Hence, a mediational perspective was suggested for studies assessing CAN and IPV association by paying specific attention to gender effect in that the effect of CAN on IPV can be mediated by different process variables for men and women (White & Widom, 2003).

Processes Linking CAN and IPV

Rejection sensitivity is one of the proximal variables associated with both CAN and IPV (Bungert et al., 2015; Feldman & Downey, 1994). Rejection sensitivity was formulated as a tendency to defensively expect, readily perceive, and overreact to interpersonal rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996). According to Feldman and Downey (1994), “Sensitivity to rejection is an internalized legacy of early rejection experiences that mediates the impact of such experiences on interpersonal relationships” (p. 232). Therefore, it is a highly related construct to CAN that already involves rejection by significant others. Scholars noted that rejection sensitivity might elicit cognitive, affective, and behavioral overreactions like violence in intimate relationships (e.g., Downey, Feldman, & Ayduk, 2000). From this point of view, Downey et al. (2000) suggested rejection sensitivity as a mediator between exposure to family violence and perpetration of violence in later romantic relationships, which was supported by empirical research (e.g., Volz & Kerig, 2010). However, research findings also showed that high rejection sensitivity might make individuals vulnerable to being victims of violence to avoid possible rejection (Brenick, Flannery, & Rankin, 2017; Hafen, Spilker, Chango, Marston, & Allen, 2014; Volz & Kerig, 2010; Young & Furman, 2008). As rejection sensitivity was linked to both victimization and perpetration of IPV among women in separate research, it would contribute to the literature to assess whether it mediated the link between CAN and IPV-V/IPV-P in a female sample.

Hostility is another commonly researched construct that is related to CAN and IPV (Stover & Kiselica, 2015; White & Widom, 2003). Hostility was conceptualized as an attitudinal construct leading to the dislike and negative evaluation of others (Buss, 1961). Historically, the definition of hostility included a predisposition to experience and express anger which either motivates aggression or creates aversive situations that increase the possibility of aggression (Spielberger, 1988). Hostility may develop by inconsistent and hazardous relationships with attachment figures, and as a result, a hostile world view may dominate close relationships (Ainsworth, 1989), which may express itself as violent acts toward romantic partner. Recent research showed the predictor role of hostility on perpetration of physical and psychological IPV toward women by their husbands (Stover & Kiselica, 2015). In their prospective research, White and Widom (2003) revealed that past childhood trauma and later IPV-P was mediated by hostility among females. In the literature, hostility has been predominantly examined and displayed as a proximal risk factor for IPV-P by males (Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005; Schumacher, Feldbau-Kohn, Slep, & Heyman, 2001). Consequently, research on whether hostility was also influential on IPV-P, and further on IPV-V in a female sample, would contribute to the literature.

The Current Study

In the light of reviewed literature, rejection sensitivity and hostility might represent developmental mediating processes connecting CAN and IPV including victimization of and perpetration by women. The aims of the current study were twofold. The first purpose was to examine multiple mediator roles of rejection sensitivity and hostility on the relationship between total CAN scores and IPV-V/IPV-P in a female sample. Due to the fact that types of CAN co-occur commonly (Hoertel et al., 2015), the second objective was to link each type of CAN (childhood emotional maltreatment [CEM], physical abuse, physical neglect, and sexual abuse) with IPV-V/IPV-P via hostility and rejection sensitivity after controlling for the effects of co-occurring CAN types. The findings were also adjusted for age, education status, perceived socioeconomic status, and a current mental health problem based on prior research (Taşkale & Soygüt, 2017; Widom, 1989). As recent research indicated that CAN is a distal risk factor for IPV among women (Murphy et al., 2017), it was hypothesized that total CAN scores would be associated with increase in IPV-V and IPV-P. Findings of the empirical research also suggested that maltreated women who were sensitive to rejection could be both victims and perpetrators of violence (Hafen et al., 2014; Volz & Kerig, 2010). Therefore, rejection sensitivity would mediate the association between CAN and IPV-V/IPV-P in the current study. On the contrary, hostility was more related to perpetration of violence by maltreated women in childhood (e.g., White & Widom, 2003), and accordingly, hostility would mediate only CAN and IPV-P. There was no specific hypothesis for the second purpose which was exploratory in nature.

In the current IPV literature, strictly gendered analysis of IPV has been criticized (e.g., Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011). Scholars have argued for a gender-inclusive approach in that women can be both victims and perpetrators of violence in intimate relationships (e.g., Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015). This shift in IPV literature requires accumulating empirical evidence. The current study would contribute to accumulating evidence showing that women were not only victims of IPV but also perpetrators of it. Furthermore, although studies revealed CAN as a developmental risk factor for IPV (Renner & Whitney, 2012), there is a gap in the literature about which type of CAN is more prominent in IPV. Thus, the present study aimed at contributing to the literature by showing those developmental aspects of IPV. Scholars have also called for research investigating the victim and perpetrator-related mechanisms that were amenable to change in clinical practice (e.g., Kuijpers et al., 2012). For this purpose, rejection sensitivity and hostility were examined as constructs proximal to IPV and amenable to change.

Method

Participants

A total of 307 individuals filled out the questionnaires online via the social network platforms; however, the analyses were run for 288 of them. Five participants who stated their gender as male and seven participants who were not currently married or in a romantic relationship or in one of these statutes in the last year were excluded. The outlier analysis showed that there were seven univariate outliers to be excluded, which led to the total of 288 participants in the final analyses. This final sample was composed of Turkish women who were presently married, dating or involved in a romantic relationship, or in one of these statuses at any time during the past year. The mean age of the sample was 26.31 (SD = 6.63) with an age range between 18 and 60. The majority of the sample was single (72.2%) while the remaining (27.8%) was married. Eighty-five percent of the single participants (n = 176) were currently in a romantic relationship. Other single participants were in a romantic relationship in the last year. The sample was predominantly highly educated (91.6% had a college or higher education degree). The perceived socioeconomic status was dominantly middle (78.8%). Thirty-five participants stated a current mental health problem diagnosed by a mental health professional. This condition was controlled in the statistical analyses. The descriptive statistics for the sociodemographic features of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for the Sociodemographic Variables.

Variable	M	SD
Age	26.31	6.63
Variable	n	%
Marital status
Single	208	72.2
Married	80	27.8
Current relationship status
Yes	176	85
No	31	15
Past year relationship status
Yes	31	100
No	—	—
Education status
Primary school	1	0.3
Secondary school	1	0.3
High school	15	5.2
Technical school	7	2.4
College	160	55.7
Graduate school	103	35.9
Socioeconomic status
Low	40	13.9
Middle	227	78.8
High	21	7.3
Mental health problem
Yes	35	12.2
No	253	87.8

Instruments

Demographic Information Form

This form assessed the sociodemographic information including age, gender, education level, working status, marital status, and perceived socioeconomic status. As the main purpose of the study was to reach female participants who were currently married or in a romantic relationship, or in one of these statutes in the past year, the questions asking marital and relationship status were included in this form. The duration of marriage and romantic relationship were also asked. The participants evaluated their socioeconomic status on a question with the three response-category scale including low, middle, and high. They also stated whether they had a current mental health problem diagnosed by a mental health professional on this form.

The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire–Short Form (CTQ-SF)

The CTQ-SF CTQ-SF (Bernstein et al., 2003) is a 28-item retrospective self-report measure with five subscales: Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Emotional Neglect, and Physical Neglect. Each subscale assesses each subtype of childhood maltreatment on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = never true to 5 = very often true) and gives a score ranging from 5 to 25 points. The reliability and validity study of the Turkish version of the CTQ was conducted by Şar, Öztürk, and İkikardeş (2012). For the Turkish CTQ, the Cronbach’s alpha and the test–retest correlation coefficients were .93 and .90, respectively. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total score of the CTQ was .91. The subscale total scores of Emotional Abuse and Emotional Neglect were summed to create a measure of CEM score in the present study. Recent studies follow such an approach (Goodman, Fertuck, Chesin, Lichenstein, & Stanley, 2014) as Emotional Abuse and Emotional Neglect are highly embedded constructs.

The Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)

The AQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) is a 29-item self-report questionnaire assessing four different aspects of the aggression: anger, hostility, verbal aggression, and physical aggression. The Hostility subscale was only used regarding the aims of the current study. The participants are asked to rate each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me). The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the AQ was conducted by Demirtaş Madran (2013). In this adaptation study of the Turkish version, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .71 and the test–retest correlation coefficient was .85 for the subscale of hostility. The significant correlation between the total score of the AQ and anger-related behaviors showed the evidence for the criterion validity of the Turkish version of the AQ. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of Hostility subscale was .82 in the present study.

The Adult Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (ARSQ)

The ARSQ (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Berenson et al., 2009) includes nine hypothetical situations that evaluate both rejection concern/anxiety and rejection expectancy from significant others in each situation. Each situation was evaluated for the rejection concern/anxiety and rejection expectancy on a 6-point Likert-type scale. The ratings of the rejection concern/anxiety and rejection expectancy were multiplied and averaged to compute a rejection sensitivity score. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the ARSQ was .74 and further evidence for the criterion and discriminant validity were also provided in the original study (Berenson et al., 2009). The Turkish adaptation of the ARSQ was conducted by Bozkuş and Araz (2015). In the Turkish adaptation study, confirmatory factor analysis showed the construct validity of the ARSQ and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .62. In the current study sample, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the ARSQ was .84.

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS-2)

The CTS-2 (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) is a 78-item scale measuring victimization and perpetration of violence in dating, cohabiting, or married partners. The even numbered items measure victimization experiences while the odd numbered items measure perpetration of violence. The Physical Assaults (24 items), Psychological Aggression (16 items), Sexual Coercion (14 items), Injury (12 items), and Negotiation (12 items) are the subscales of the CTS-2. The participants rate the items on an 8-point response category (0 = this has never happened, 1 = once in the past year, 2 = twice in the past year, 3 = 3-5 times in the past year, 4 = 6-10 times in the past year, 5 = 11-20 times in the past year, 6 = more than 20 times in the past year, 7 = not in the past year, but it did happen before) to state how many times they experienced the violent acts and how many times they directed these behaviors to their partners in the past year. The Turkish reliability and validity study of the CTS-2 was recently conducted by Aba and Kulakaç (2016). The internal consistency coefficient of the Turkish version of the CTS-2 was between .76 and .89 for the total scale and subscales while the test–retest coefficient was between .97 and 1.00. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the total scale was found to be .87. The internal consistency coefficient of the Psychological Aggression, Physical Assaults, Sexual Coercion, and Injury subscales were .81, .80, .57, and .30, respectively. For the purposes of the current study, the subscale scores of the negotiation were not computed. There are different approaches to scoring of the CTS-2 items. In the current study, Category 7 was scored as 0 as the violence in the past year was the basic interest of the study while a midpoint approach was followed for the Categories between 3 and 6 (Straus et al., 1996). Both a prevalence (0-1 dichotomy) and a chronicity variable (the number of times the acts occurred) of violence were computed although the chronicity scores were only used in the main statistical analyses of the current study.

Procedure and Data Analysis

The ethical approval of the present study was obtained from Hacettepe University Ethical Committee. Turkish women who were presently married, dating, or involved in a romantic relationship, or in one of these statutes at any time during the past year were reached through the online social network platforms in Turkey. The data were collected via www.surveey.com. The first page of the online data set included the informed consent form. If the participants gave their consents, the questionnaire set continued. It took about 30 to 40 min to fill out the online questionnaire set.

The statistical analyses were conducted by using SPSS software, Version 23. For the main statistical analyses of the current study, Parallel Multiple Mediation Analyses (PROCESS, Model 4) were run via SPSS macro with 5,000 bootstrap re-samples provided by Hayes (2013). In the first two-mediation model, the indirect effect of the total CAN scores on IPV-V and IPV-P via rejection sensitivity and hostility were tested. In addition, eight more mediation models were tested to evaluate the indirect effects of CEM, physical abuse, physical neglect, and sexual abuse on IPV-V and IPV-P via rejection sensitivity and hostility. The indirect relationship between each CAN type and IPV-V/IPV-P was assessed after controlling for the shared effects of co-occurring CAN types. CEM was the only significant direct and indirect predictor of both IPV-V and IPV-P after statistically controlling for co-occurring CAN types. Although childhood sexual abuse had a significant direct effect on IPV-V, the total and indirect effects were nonsignificant. Consequently, detailed findings were reported only for the indirect effect of CEM on IPV-V and IPV-P via rejection sensitivity and hostility.

Results

Descriptive Results on the Study Variables

The descriptive statistics for and bivariate correlations among the study variables are presented in Tables 2 and 3. According to the prevalence findings of IPV-V, 83.3% of the women stated at least one psychological violence victimization, 31% of them one sexual violence victimization, 14.6% of them one physical violence victimization, and 2.1% of them one injury case following the violent act in the last year. On the contrary, 86.8% of the women reported at least one IPV-P toward their partner in the psychological violence domain, 25.3% of them in the physical violence domain, 23.6% of them in the sexual violence domain, and 4.5% of them in the injury domain in the last year. In addition, most of the participants reported some form of emotional abuse (62.5%) and neglect (82.6%). Physical (22.6%) and sexual abuse (34%) were relatively reported less frequently. Physical neglect was reported by about half of the sample (46.5%). In terms of the correlations, the total CAN scores were significantly correlated with both IPV-V and IPV-P total scores in a positive direction. Strikingly, IPV-V and IPV-P were highly correlated (r = .73), meaning that victimized women might also be perpetrators of violence toward their partners. Hostility and rejection sensitivity scores showed positive low correlations with the total scores of CAN, IPV-V, and IPV-P.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for the Study Variables.

Variables	M	SD	n	%
CAN	35.97	10.98	270	93.8
CEM	17.24	6.67	254	88.2
EA	7.71	3.49	180	62.5
EN	9.53	3.95	238	82.6
PA	5.84	2.26	65	22.6
PN	6.21	1.85	134	46.5
SA	6.68	3.36	98	34
IPV-V	14.94	22.75	246	85.4
PsycV-V	10.47	15.64	240	83.3
PhysV-V	0.96	4.22	42	14.6
SV-V	3.36	9.25	91	31.6
I-V	0.14	1.56	6	2.1
IPV-P	16.59	20.19	259	89.9
PsycV-P	13.55	16.85	250	86.8
PhysV-P	1.69	5.28	73	25.3
SV-P	1.23	3.46	68	23.6
I-P	0.12	0.67	13	4.5
RS	8.13	4.12	—	—
H	23.92	6.07	—	—

Note. CAN = child abuse and neglect; CEM = childhood emotional maltreatment; EA = emotional abuse; EN = emotional neglect; PA = physical abuse; PN = physical neglect; SA = sexual abuse; IPV-V = intimate partner violence–victimization; PsycV-V = psychological violence victimization; PhysV-V = physical violence victimization; SV-V = sexual violence victimization; I-V = injury victimization; IPV-P = intimate partner violence–perpetration; PsycV-P = psychological violence perpetration; PhysV-P = physical violence perpetration; SV-P = sexual violence perpetration; I-P = Injury perpetration; RS = rejection sensitivity; H = hostility.

Table 3.

Bivariate Correlations among the Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. CAN	—	.93***	.71***	.57***	.64***	.26***	.30***	.40***	.31***
2. CEM		—	.60***	.45***	.39***	.25***	.29***	.42***	.32***
3. PA			—	.27***	.31***	.19**	.21***	.26***	.22***
4. PN				—	.22***	.05	.15**	.24***	.13*
5. SA					—	.20**	.18**	.15**	.17**
6. IPV-V						—	.73***	.29***	.26***
7. IPV-P							—	.30***	.32***
8. RS								—	.59***
9. H									—

Note. CAN = child abuse and neglect; CEM = childhood emotional maltreatment; PA = physical abuse; PN = physical neglect; SA = sexual abuse; IPV-V = intimate partner violence–victimization; IPV-P = intimate partner violence–perpetration; RS = rejection sensitivity; H = hostility.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results on the Processes Linking CAN and IPV-V/IPV-P

The first bootstrap analysis examined the mediator roles of rejection sensitivity and hostility on the relationship between CAN and IPV-V (Figure 1). According to the results, the total effect of CAN on IPV-V (B = .515, SE = .123, p < .001) was significant after controlling for age, education status, socioeconomic status, and current mental health problem. The analyses revealed that CAN was a significant predictor of rejection sensitivity (B = .133, SE = .020, p < .001) and hostility (B = .136, SE = .030, p < .001). When the direct effects of mediators on IPV-V were examined, rejection sensitivity (B = .960, SE = .404, p < .05) had a significant direct effect on IPV-V, but not hostility. As the direct effect of CAN on IPV-V (B = .333, SE = .129, p < .05) was significant, the relationship between CAN and IPV-V was partially mediated by rejection sensitivity (B = .128, SE = .067, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.014, .280]). Hostility was not a significant mediator between CAN and IPV-V because the bootstrap CI included zero 95% CI = [–.009, .137]. The mediational model explained 12.74% of the variance in IPV-V, R² = .1274, F(7, 279) = 5.82, p < .001.

Figure 1.

Rejection sensitivity and hostility as mediators in the relationship between CAN and IPV-V after controlling for age, education status, socioeconomic status, and a current mental health problem.

The second bootstrap analysis aimed to assess whether the relationship between CAN and IPV-P was also mediated by rejection sensitivity and hostility (see Figure 2). The findings demonstrated that the total effect of CAN on IPV-P (B = .520, SE = .108, p < .001) was significant after controlling for age, education status, socioeconomic status, and a current mental health problem. In addition, CAN was a significant predictor of rejection sensitivity (B = .134, SE = .021, p < .001) and hostility (B = .136, SE = .031, p < .001). Hostility (B = .672, SE = .234, p < .01) had a significant direct effect on IPV-P while rejection sensitivity did not. The bootstrap analysis demonstrated the significant mediator role of hostility (B = .092, SE = .039, 95% CI = [.030, .185]). Rejection sensitivity did not have a significant mediator role on the relationship between CAN and IPV-P, 95% CI = [–.007, .216]. The results of the bootstrap analysis also indicated a significant direct effect of CAN on IPV-P (B = .343, SE = .112, p < .01), which showed that hostility partially accounted for the relationship between CAN and IPV-P. The total model explained 16.44% of the variance in IPV-P, R² = .1644, F(7, 279) = 7.84, p < .001.

Figure 2.

Rejection sensitivity and hostility as mediators in the relationship between CAN and IPV-P after controlling for age, education status, socioeconomic status, and a current mental health problem.

Results on the Processes Linking Each CAN Type and IPV-V/IPV-P

Further bootstrap analyses were run to examine the relationship between specific CAN types and IPV-V/IPV-P via the roles of rejection sensitivity and hostility. CEM, physical abuse, physical neglect, and sexual abuse were predictors of IPV-V and IPV-P while rejection sensitivity and hostility were mediators. The separate bootstrap analyses were conducted for the mediational models of IPV-V and IPV-P for each CAN type. Additional to the control variables of age, education status, socioeconomic status, and a current mental health problem, the shared effects of co-occurring CAN types were controlled for each trauma type in the analyses. Accordingly, the results showed that CEM was the only specific trauma type significantly associated with IPV-V and IPV-P after controlling for physical abuse and neglect, sexual abuse, age, education status, socioeconomic status, and current mental health problem. Therefore, detailed findings were reported only for CEM and IPV-V/IPV-P association as the specific effects of physical abuse, physical neglect, and sexual abuse on IPV-V and IPV-P were nonsignificant after controlling for co-occurring childhood trauma types.

The total effect of CEM on IPV-V (B = .796, SE = .274, p < .01) and IPV-P (B = .657, SE = .243, p < .01) was significant after removing the effects of the control variables. In addition, CEM was a significant predictor of rejection sensitivity (B = .246, SE = .046, p < .001) and hostility (B = .264, SE = .069, p < .001) in both IPV-V and IPV-P mediational models. It was rejection sensitivity that had a significant direct effect on IPV-V (B = 1.065, SE = .408, p < .01) and fully mediated the relationship between CEM and IPV-V (B = .263, SE = .137, 95% CI = [.043, .589]). The total mediational model accounted for 14.71% of the variance in IPV-V, R² = .1471, F(10, 276) = 4.76, p < .001. On the contrary, only hostility had a direct effect on IPV-P (B = .666, SE = .237, p < .01) and fully mediated the relationship between CEM and IPV-P (B = .176, SE = .085, 95% CI = [.048, .394]). The explained variance in IPV-P was 16.47%, R² = .1647, F(10, 276) = 5.44, p < .001 (see Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3.

Rejection sensitivity and hostility as mediators in the relationship between CEM and IPV-V after controlling for physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, age, education status, socioeconomic status, and a current mental health problem.

Figure 4.

Rejection sensitivity and hostility as mediators in the relationship between CEM and IPV-P after controlling for physical abuse, physical neglect, sexual abuse, age, education status, socioeconomic status, and a current mental health problem.

Discussion

The current study was composed of a highly educated women sample. In this community sample, CAN constituted a developmental risk factor to being a victim and perpetrator of IPV. This finding was compatible with a recent prospective study which demonstrated that histories of child abuse and/or neglect increased the risk of being victimized by an intimate partner (Widom et al., 2014). Furthermore, results of a meta-analysis pointed out that childhood maltreatment predicted a two- to threefold increase in the risk of both IPV-V and IPV-P (Whitfield et al., 2003). In this regard, the findings of the current study added to empirical supports for the notion of “cycle of abuse” in which child abuse or neglect was associated with later revictimization and perpetration of interpersonal violence (Widom, 1989). Furthermore, mechanisms influential on victimization and perpetration were different even though victimization and perpetration scores were highly interrelated in the present study. While the indirect effect of CAN on IPV-V was mediated by rejection sensitivity, CAN predicted IPV-P via only hostility. The first hypothesis was partially supported in that being abused or neglected in childhood was associated with rejection sensitivity that was in turn related with only being a victim, but not a perpetrator of violence. Although the literature suggested that rejection sensitivity might be associated with perpetration in the format of an overreaction to a perceived rejection (Downey et al., 2000; Feldman & Downey, 1994) as well as victimization of IPV (Hafen et al., 2014), the present findings were supportive of its more prominent role on the victimization among females. Generally, this finding is in line with the perspective that women whose emotional needs were repeatedly rejected as children, and as a result who were sensitive to rejection may comply with their partner’s violent acts to prevent a possible breakup of the relationship (Levy, Ayduk, & Downey, 2001). Gender of the participants can be another explanation for this finding. The current study included only females, and so, they may cope with their rejection sensitivity by being more submissive to the violent acts to prevent a perceived abandonment, which may hinder curtailing violence. Rather, if the sample would include men, rejection sensitivity might also predict perpetration of violence. They would have acted aggressively when rejection sensitivity triggered in intimate relationship, which needs future research.

As hypothesized, CAN resulted in more hostility that predicted perpetration of violence. Other research also showed that hostility among women was one of the mechanisms linking CAN and perpetration of IPV (e.g., White & Widom, 2003). It is critical that a moderate relationship between hostility and IPV-P was noted in samples including both females and males (Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015; Norlander & Eckhardt, 2005), which suggests hostility as a gender symmetry construct in relation to IPV-P. Finkel and Eckhardt (2013) postulated “I³ Theory” to explain the general process-level predictors of IPV-P: situational factors that potentiate an urge for aggression (i.e., provocation), dispositional or situational factors that promote a strong urge to aggress (i.e., anger, hostility, etc.), and factors that increase the possibility that an urge to aggress will be overcome (i.e., self-control). In “I³ Theory,” all factors interact to predict IPV though each individual factor can be separately related with it. The findings of the current study provided support for one factor in “I³ Theory,” namely, hostility as a dispositional characteristic that might be a mechanism to be a perpetrator of IPV in women. Further research can investigate all the factors to model interactions among them and provide a comprehensive explanation to IPV-P.

In the present study, only emotional abuse and neglect in childhood predicted IPV above and beyond the effects of co-occurring CAN types (physical abuse, sexual abuse, and physical neglect). In this regard, women who experienced CEM were more vulnerable to develop rejection sensitivity and hostility. However, trajectories of rejection sensitivity and hostility were different as in the total CAN experiences. CEM with rejection sensitivity led to victimization of women, but CEM with hostility led to perpetration of violence. For the total CAN experiences, rejection sensitivity and hostility were partial mediators to IPV while they fully mediated the association between CEM and IPV. As the mechanisms that determined the IPV type were the same for CAN and CEM which had the strongest link to IPV among other CAN types, emotional messages in childhood traumas might be more influential on IPV rather than the abusive acts themselves (Feldman & Downey, 1994). On the contrary, this interpretation should be taken with caution. CEM had the highest mean score in comparison with other trauma types and it was the most frequently reported childhood trauma type in this sample. There was also a .93 correlation between CAN and CEM scores in the present study, which may result in that total CAN scores were highly representative of emotional abuse and neglect construct relative to physical abuse, physical neglect, and sexual abuse. Even so, the specific role of CEM on IPV has been increasingly highlighted by recent research findings. Renner and Whitney (2012) reported that only neglect among other maltreatment types predicted all IPV outcomes in a female sample. In another study, neglect in childhood increased the number of acts of psychological abuse and variety of acts of psychological abuse and physical violence by an intimate partner (Widom et al., 2014). Being highly comparable with the present study findings, Berzenski and Yates (2010) found that childhood emotional abuse was the most robust predictor of violence victimization and perpetration after controlling for childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, and domestic violence exposure. The authors interpreted this finding as such that victimization and perpetration were 80% overlapping constructs, and for this reason, emotional abuse and neglect in childhood could be thought as a general core underlying risk factor that affect some developmental processes that might themselves lead to later IPV (Berzenski & Yates, 2010). These developmental processes were rejection sensitivity and hostility that were shown to be influential on IPV in the present study.

The differential long-term effects of CEM on IPV via rejection sensitivity and hostility can be explained by drawing on attachment theory (Downey, Feldman, Khuri, & Friedman, 1994; Dutton, 2010). Based on Bowlby’s attachment theory, Downey et al. (1994) stated that when children’s expressed needs were met with rejection, they became sensitive to rejection. This sensitivity might make individuals vulnerable to either withdrawal or aggression toward others, and this process was affected by attachment style (London, Downey, Bonica, & Paltin, 2007). The evidence from the present study support the idea that early emotional maltreatment and rejection sensitivity did not lead to perpetration of aggression, but insecure attachment style could act as a moderator to change how rejection sensitivity would express itself in relation to IPV. Dutton (2010) proposed a model for perpetration of IPV by referring to the traumatic origin of hostility, anger, and anxiety in terms of fearful attachment style. Accordingly, children exposed to early rejecting and/or abusive caregivers develop a constant fear of being abandoned in close relationships and trauma-related anger or rage. Romantic conflicts may activate this fearful attachment style that result in angry expressions, actions, and other coercive behaviors to overcome a possible abandonment and put control on their partner and instable self. Supportively, the current study findings indicated that trauma and hostility that is developed by the trauma itself may generate the perpetration of violence in intimate relationships.

The present study has some limitations. The childhood trauma and IPV were investigated retrospectively by the self-report measures, and the study design was cross-sectional. Therefore, the present findings are open to memory bias and only correlational in nature. The sample was composed of highly educated women, which might limit the generalizability of the results to other women from different educational backgrounds and socioeconomic backgrounds. This is especially critical in IPV research area because scholars underline that women in community samples and women in clinically abusive relationships who might probably differ on socioeconomic backgrounds had unique violence experiences (Archer, 2000; Brown, 2012). Moreover, when the effect of gender is eliminated in findings, environments, culture, and individual characteristics become new levels of explanations in IPV research (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). The present study included Turkish women. It was highlighted in the literature that IPV prevalence rates varied across different countries or cultures (García-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006). Therefore, it is important to investigate whether the present findings generalize to culturally diverse Western countries. There might be also variations in IPV across different socioeconomic backgrounds within the same culture as mentioned above. Normally, patriarchal gender beliefs are dominant in Turkey which may make violence toward women by their partners more legitimate (Boyacıoğlu, 2016), but women in this sample were highly educated and their victimization and perpetration experiences were highly correlated. This finding may imply a cultural transformation regarding violence toward women in Turkey, but at the same time, results may be different for Turkish women who have low educational backgrounds. Further research is needed to generalize these findings across women from different socioeconomic backgrounds in Turkey. Besides, this sample included women who were married or in a romantic relationship. This might underestimate the rates of IPV because women with previous experiences were not included. In this study, IPV was examined by depending on the perspective of only one partner. However, it is a dynamic and interpersonal process (Taşkale & Soygüt, 2017). For this reason, future work should examine the experiences of both partners with regard to IPV.

In future studies, gender differences should be investigated to see whether the associations shown in this study would be valid for males. The IPV literature indicated that violence perpetration rates of community women were similar to or even higher than men (Archer, 2000, 2002). Meanwhile, some scholars discuss that violence perpetration of women can be the result of self-defense (O’Keefe, 1997) and the devastating effect of violence on women were heavier than men (Black et al., 2011). In light of this, the consequences, the context, and the function of IPV in addition to the rates of it among men and women should be the focus of future IPV research.

Conclusion

The past and recent literature has repeatedly showed that being a female is a risk factor to be a victim of IPV (e.g., Murphy et al., 2017). Some distal and proximal characteristics could make women more prone to IPV-V, such as childhood trauma and rejection sensitivity according to the present findings. But, the present findings contribute to the literature by drawing attention to the perpetrator role of women who were exposed to childhood traumas and had hostile attitudes. Recently, strictly gendered analysis of IPV was criticized in that the understanding of IPV only by men toward women and investigating the risk factors based on gender-themed issues did not get much empirical evidence (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011; Felson & Lane, 2010). This argument was further supported by the evidence that interventions including solely men batterers pointed to the mixed results to prevent or curtail IPV (Feder & Wilson, 2005). The current study provide evidence for these arguments, and the need for a gender-inclusive approach to distal and proximal factors in IPV research (Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015). Although individual, interpersonal, and contextual risk factors preceding IPV may change according to gender, future IPV research needs to go beyond the gender perspective and inquiry constructs that reflect mutual IPV perspective. Due to the fact that both partners increase the risk of IPV (Moffitt, Robins, & Caspi, 2001), research, policy, and interventions prepared with mutual IPV perspective can be more promising to prevent future IPV.

The findings of the current study implied that women victims of violence should also be assessed for their perpetrator roles and the factors making them vulnerable to this role in clinical practice. Although the factors may differ in making women vulnerable to being victims and perpetrators of violence, intervention or treatment goals should be inclusive of empowering the victim and ceasing the perpetrator (Stith et al., 2004). The reality of the past trauma cannot be changed, but ongoing trauma can be stopped through clinical services that focus on proximal factors of IPV. Maltreated women in childhood can be protected against IPV if the process variables predicting IPV are addressed in clinical practice. Such candidates were rejection sensitivity and hostility in the current study. Future research may reveal the effect of other proximal factors on IPV, which may further inform clinical practice. In addition, as there are two parties in IPV phenomenon, treatment approaches that focus on the couple, nongendered but intimacy-based issues might be more effective in the treatment of IPV (Allison, Bartholomew, Mayseless, & Dutton, 2008).

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yasemin Kahya

Author Biography

Yasemin Kahya is a PhD candidate in clinical psychology program at Hacettepe University and currently works as a research assistant at Ankara Social Sciences University. Her basic research and practice area is “interpersonal relationships” from a developmental perspective. Self-development, risk factors that hinder a healthy self-development, and consequently not forming healthy adult interpersonal relationships were basic areas she has been investigating and publishing nationally and internationally.

References

Aba

Y. A.

Kulakaç

. (2016). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Validity and reliability study. Medical Journal of Bakirköy, 12, 33-43.

Ainsworth

M. S.

(1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

Allison

C. J.

Bartholomew

Mayseless

Dutton

D. G.

(2008). Love as a battlefield: Attachment and relationship dynamics in couples identified for male partner violence. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 125-150.

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Archer

(2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313-351.

Atmaca

Gençöz

(2016). Exploring revictimization process among Turkish women: The role of early maladaptive schemas on the link between child abuse and partner violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 52, 85-93.

Berenson

K. R.

Gyurak

Ayduk

Ö.

Downey

Garner

M. J.

Mogg

. . . Pine

D. S.

(2009). Rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1064-1072.

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.

Berzenski

S. R.

Yates

T. M.

(2010). A developmental process analysis of the contribution of childhood emotional abuse to relationship violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 180-203.

10.

Birkley

E. L.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2015). Anger, hostility, internalizing negative emotions, and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 37, 40-56.

11.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . . Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

12.

Boyacıoğlu

. (2016). Violence against women and the past and present of women’s studies in Turkey: A call for psychological research. Turkish Psychological Articles, 19, 146-149.

13.

Bozkuş

Araz

(2015). The mediating roles of the rejection sensitivity and positive illusions in the relationship between narcissism and marital adjustment. Nesne Journal of Psychology, 3(6), 29-54.

14.

Brenick

Flannery

K. M.

Rankin

(2017). Victimization or entertainment? How attachment and rejection sensitivity relate to sexting experiences, evaluations, and victimization. In Wright

M. F.

(Ed.), Identity, sexuality, and relationships among emerging adults in the digital age. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

15.

Brown

(2012). Male perpetrators, the gender symmetry debate, and the rejection-abuse cycle: Implications for treatment. American Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 331-343.

16.

Bungert

Liebke

Thome

Haeussler

Bohus

Lis

(2015). Rejection sensitivity and symptom severity in patients with borderline personality disorder: Effects of childhood maltreatment and self-esteem. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 2(1), 1-13.

17.

Buss

A. H.

(1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY: John Wiley.

18.

Buss

A. H.

Perry

(1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

19.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.

20.

Demirtaş Madran

. (2013). [The reliability and validity of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ)-Turkish version]. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 124-129.

21.

Dixon

Graham-Kevan

(2011). Understanding the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice and policy. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1145-1155.

22.

Downey

Feldman

Ayduk

(2000). Rejection sensitivity and male violence in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 7, 45-61.

23.

Downey

Feldman

Khuri

Friedman

(1994). Maltreatment and childhood depression. In Reynolds

W. M.

Johnston

H. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of depression in children and adolescents (pp. 481-508). Boston, MA: Springer.

24.

Downey

Feldman

S. I.

(1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327-1343.

25.

Dutton

D. G.

(2010). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

Feder

Wilson

D. B.

(2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262.

27.

Feldman

Downey

(1994). Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of the impact of childhood exposure to family violence on adult attachment behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 231-247.

28.

Felson

R. B.

Lane

K. J.

(2010). Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology? Criminology, 48, 321-338.

29.

Finkel

E. J.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2013). Intimate partner violence. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452-474). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

30.

Foa

E. B.

Cascardi

Zoellner

L. A.

Feeny

N. C.

(2000). Psychological and environmental factors associated with partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1, 67-91.

31.

Fulu

Miedema

Roselli

McCook

Chan

K. L.

Haardörfer

Jewkes

(2017). Pathways between childhood trauma, intimate partner violence, and harsh parenting: Findings from the UN multi-country study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. The Lancet Global Health, 5(5), e512-e522.

32.

García-Moreno

Jansen

H. A.

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

C. H.

(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368, 1260-1269.

33.

Goodman

Fertuck

Chesin

Lichenstein

Stanley

(2014). The moderating role of rejection sensitivity in the relationship between emotional maltreatment and borderline symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 146-150.

34.

Hafen

C. A.

Spilker

Chango

Marston

E. S.

Allen

J. P.

(2014). To accept or reject? The impact of adolescent rejection sensitivity on early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 55-64.

35.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

(2012). Teen dating violence: Co-occurrence with other victimizations in the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV). Psychology of Violence, 2, 111-124.

36.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

37.

Hoertel

Franco

Wall

M. M.

Oquendo

M. A.

Wang

Limosin

Blanco

(2015). Childhood maltreatment and risk of suicide attempt: A nationally representative study. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76, 916-923.

38.

Jonas

Khalifeh

Bebbington

P. E.

McManus

Brugha

Meltzer

Howard

L. M.

(2014). Gender differences in intimate partner violence and psychiatric disorders in England: Results from the 2007 adult psychiatric morbidity survey. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 23, 189-199.

39.

Kuijpers

K. F.

van der Knaap

L. M.

Winkel

F. W.

(2012). Risk of revictimization of intimate partner violence: The role of attachment, anger and violent behavior of the victim. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 33-44.

40.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179-193.

41.

Levy

S. R.

Ayduk

Downey

(2001). The role of rejection sensitivity in people’s relationships with significant others and valued social groups. In Leary

M. R.

(Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 251-289). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

42.

Linder

J. R.

Collins

W. A.

(2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 252-262.

43.

London

Downey

Bonica

Paltin

(2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 481-506.

44.

McMahon

Hoertel

Wall

M. M.

Okuda

Limosin

Blanco

(2015). Childhood maltreatment and risk of intimate partner violence: A national study. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 69, 42-49.

45.

Moffitt

T. E.

Robins

R. W.

Caspi

(2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with implications for abuse-prevention policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 5-36.

46.

Murphy

Elklit

Shevlin

(2017). Child maltreatment typologies and intimate partner violence: Findings from a Danish national study of young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517689889

47.

Norlander

Eckhardt

(2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 119-152.

48.

O’Keefe

(1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568.

49.

Renner

L. M.

Whitney

S. D.

(2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 40-52.

50.

Şar

Öztürk

İkikardeş

(2012). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, 32, 1054-1063.

51.

Schumacher

J. A.

Feldbau-Kohn

Slep

A. M. S.

Heyman

R. E.

(2001). Risk factors for male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 281-352.

52.

Spielberger

C. D.

(1988). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

53.

Stith

S. M.

Rosen

K. H.

Middleton

K. A.

Busch

A. L.

Lundeberg

Carlton

R. P.

(2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640-654.

54.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

C. E.

Ward

D. B.

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98.

55.

Stöckl

March

Pallitto

Garcia-Moreno

(2014). Intimate partner violence among adolescents and young women: Prevalence and associated factors in nine countries: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14(1), Article 751.

56.

Stover

C. S.

Kiselica

(2015). Hostility and substance use in relation to intimate partner violence and parenting among fathers. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 205-213.

57.

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.

58.

Taşkale

Soygüt

(2017). Risk factors for women’s intimate partner violence victimization: An examination from the perspective of the schema therapy model. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 3-12.

59.

Trickett

P. K.

Noll

J. G.

Putnam

F. W.

(2011). The impact of sexual abuse on female development: Lessons from a multigenerational, longitudinal research study. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 453-476.

60.

Turkish Statistical Institute. (2014). The micro data set of domestic violence against women in Turkey [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/MicroVeri/KYAS_2014/ozet-tablolar/index.html

61.

Volz

A. R.

Kerig

P. K.

(2010). Relational dynamics associated with adolescent dating violence: The roles of rejection sensitivity and relational insecurity. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 587-602.

62.

White

H. R.

Widom

C. S.

(2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 332-345.

63.

Whitfield

C. L.

Anda

R. F.

Dube

S. R.

Felitti

V. J.

(2003). Violent childhood experiences and the risk of intimate partner violence in adults: Assessment in a large health maintenance organization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 166-185.

64.

Widom

C. S.

(1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3-28.

65.

Widom

C. S.

Czaja

Dutton

M. A.

(2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 650-663.

66.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

67.

Young

B. J.

Furman

(2008). Interpersonal factors in the risk for sexual victimization and its recurrence during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 297-309.