Gendered Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence Normality: An Experimental Study.

Knowledge on young adults' perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV) is important as these are the ages at which most people form their first serious intimate relationships and begin to develop norms about how to communicate within a relationship. This study uses an experimental vignette design to examine whether the type of violence employed and the gender dynamics within the couple (male perpetrator and female victim vs. female perpetrator and male victim) affect young adults' perceptions of IPV normality. Gender differences in these perceptions are assessed and moreover, we explore whether these differences can be attributed to respondents' prior IPV experiences. Young adults (N = 599) were recruited from various schools and universities throughout the Netherlands. They were randomly assigned to one of 10 experimental vignettes. Findings demonstrate that, generally, scenarios describing more serious types of IPV as well as those describing a male perpetrator and a female victim received lower ratings of normality. Gender differences in perceptions were found and, moreover, the direction of these gender differences appeared to depend on the actual gender dynamics described in the IPV scenario. Prior IPV experiences increased perceptions of IPV normality among female respondents in particular. Moreover, the suggestion that respondents' prior IPV experiences may better explain respondents' IPV perceptions than respondents' gender, was only partly supported. Our findings suggest that this is true for respondents' prior psychological, but not physical IPV experiences and for the manipulations of the gender dynamics within the couple, but not so much for the type of violence employed. Implications of these findings are discussed. From a prevention perspective, greater insight into these perceptions is relevant as they have been shown to be related to help-seeking and reporting behavior in the case of experiencing or witnessing IPV.

Partner Disagreement on the Occurrence of Intimate Partner Violence Among a National Sample of Heterosexual Young-Adult Couples.

To assess the extent and patterns of partner disagreement on the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) among a young-adult couple sample, the Add Health Romantic Pairs data are used (N = 1,183 heterosexual couples). Among young-adult couples in which IPV is reported, substantial partner disagreement is the norm. Moreover, women are more likely to report their own perpetration of minor and physical IPV than men. For injurious and sexual IPV, no gendered patterns are observed. In conclusion, IPV prevalence rates vary depending on which partner's self-reports are being considered. Prior research may have suffered from a reporting bias and to obtain accurate estimates of IPV both partners of a couple should be included in future research.

PTSD symptoms as risk factors for intimate partner violence revictimization and the mediating role of victims' violent behavior.

Apart from being a consequence of intimate partner violence (IPV), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can also be a risk factor for IPV revictimization. The current study examined how each of 4 PTSD symptom clusters (reexperiencing, arousal, avoidance, and numbing) related to revictimization in a sample of 156 female help-seeking victims of IPV, recruited from various victim support services in the Netherlands. In addition, we hypothesized that victim-perpetrated IPV would mediate the relation between PTSD symptomatology and IPV revictimization. Our results show that victims' PTSD reexperiencing symptoms predict revictimization of partner violence (d = .45 for physical IPV revictimization; d = .35 for psychological IPV revictimization); the other 3 PTSD symptom clusters were not related to IPV revictimization. Furthermore, victim-perpetrated psychological IPV was found to partially mediate the relation between victims' PTSD reexperiencing symptoms and IPV revictimization (Z = 2.339, SE = 0.044, p = .019 for physical IPV revictimization, and Z = 2.197, SE = 0.038, p = .028 for psychological IPV revictimization). Findings indicate that IPV victims with higher levels of PTSD reexperiencing symptoms may be more likely to perpetrate psychological IPV themselves, which may put them at greater risk for receiving IPV in return. Based on these results, a focus on individual PTSD symptom clusters and victim behaviors seems relevant for practice and may contribute to a decrease in victims' risk for future IPV.

Risk of Revictimization of Intimate Partner Violence: The Role of Attachment, Anger and Violent Behavior of the Victim.

Victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) are known to be at high risk for revictimization. Yet, to date, the mechanisms explaining the link between victimization and revictimization of IPV have not been extensively studied. In the present prospective study involving 74 female help-seeking victims of IPV, we investigated victim-related psychological mechanisms that may underlie this link. With this study, we aim to contribute to the development of theory addressing these psychological mechanisms and their role in explaining risk for IPV revictimization. Hypotheses regarding possibly relevant psychological mechanisms were derived from two conflicting approaches to IPV: the gender perspective, and the mutual IPV perspective. Results lend further support to the mutual IPV perspective, since our final prediction model indicates that victim-perpetrated IPV is an important risk factor for physical and psychological IPV revictimization. An avoidant attachment style shows to be a strong predictor as well, in particular for victims with high and average anger levels. Findings provide clear indications for risk assessment and treatment of IPV victims, and moreover offer opportunities to empower these victims in order to prevent future violence.

Victims' influence on intimate partner violence revictimization: an empirical test of dynamic victim-related risk factors.

Research has reported that not only characteristics of the perpetrator but also characteristics of the victim influence risk for intimate partner violence (IPV). This would suggest that prevention of repeat abuse could benefit from a focus on both perpetrator and victim characteristics. Knowledge on factors that are within victims' sphere of influence is important because a focus on victim characteristics can help victims to take control of their situations and can thereby empower them. Dynamic victim-related factors are most relevant here as these are factors that can be changed or improved, in contrast to unchangeable static factors. Surprisingly, however, little is known about how victim-related factors affect risk for revictimization of IPV. The current study was conducted among a Dutch sample of 156 female, help-seeking IPV victims. The aim was to examine to what extent prior IPV and, in particular, dynamic victim-related factors influence risk for future IPV. In accordance with the models articulated by Foa, Cascardi, Zoellner and Feeny, we studied how the three key factors from their models-partner violence, victims' psychological difficulties, and victims' resilience-related to risk for IPV revictimization. Results provide support for several key factors (partner violence and victims' psychological difficulties) and, moreover, show which victim-related factors contribute to revictimization risk above and beyond the influence of prior violence committed by a partner against the victim (i.e., victims' prior IPV victimizations). Findings are discussed in terms of recommendations for practice and future research.

Victims' influence on intimate partner violence revictimization: a systematic review of prospective evidence.

Foa, Cascardi, Zoellner and Feeny developed two models of women's influence on intimate partner violence (IPV), which integrate victim-related variables associated with the cessation or continuation of partner violence (i.e., repeat IPV). One of the models focuses on psychological factors while the other centers on environmental factors. Central to both models are three key factors: partner violence; psychological difficulties; and resilience. Despite the appeal of these models, empirical, prospective research that specifically tests these models appears to be lacking. This article describes a systematic review of the available literature that examines the prospective link between the three key factors of the models and the risk of IPV revictimization. A synthesis of 15 studies reveals that Foa et al.'s models of revictimization are partly supported by prior prospective research. It is beyond doubt that the key factor partner violence (involving the severity and frequency of prior IPV) is a strong predictor for IPV revictimization; the evidence regarding victims' psychological difficulties and resilience is more mixed. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for practice and research and might enable practitioners to help victims to take control of their situations and to contribute to their empowerment. The importance of future prospective research into dynamic, victim-related variables is emphasized, in order to further support Foa's models of victims' influence on IPV revictimization.

Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention on psychological well-being and quality of life: is increased mindfulness indeed the mechanism?

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have reported positive effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) intervention on psychological well-being, it is not known whether these effects are attributable to a change in mindfulness. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare the effects of MBSR to a waiting-list control condition in a randomized controlled trial while examining potentially mediating effects of mindfulness. METHODS: Forty women and 20 men from the community with symptoms of distress (mean age 43.6 years, SD = 10.1) were randomized into a group receiving MBSR or a waiting-list control group. Before and after the intervention period, questionnaires were completed on psychological well-being, quality of life, and mindfulness. RESULTS: Repeated measures multiple analysis of variance (MANCOVAs) showed that, compared with the control group, the intervention resulted in significantly stronger reductions of perceived stress (p = 0.016) and vital exhaustion (p = 0.001) and stronger elevations of positive affect (p = 0.006), quality of life (p = .009), as well as mindfulness (p = 0.001). When mindfulness was included as a covariate in the MANCOVA, the group effects on perceived stress and quality of life were reduced to nonsignificance. CONCLUSION: Increased mindfulness may, at least partially, mediate the positive effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention.