CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 54Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceAttachment and Relationship DynamicsBullying, Victimization, and Aggression

Intimate relationship aggression in college couples: family-of-origin violence, egalitarian attitude, attachment security

Open access
Karakurt, Günnur, Keiley, Margaret, Posada, German·2013·Journal of Family Violence
DOI 10.1007/s10896-013-9526-9PMC PMC3770311
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Dating violence among college aged couples has become a growing concern with increasing prevalence. The current study investigated the interplay among witnessing violence during childhood (both parental conflict and parent to child aggression), attachment insecurity, egalitarian attitude within the relationship, and dating aggression. Participants of this study included 87 couples. Results from the structural equation model indicated that the proposed model provided a good fit to the with a χ2 to df ratio of 1.84. In particular, both female and male participants who reported higher levels of attachment insecurity were more likely to be victim of dating aggression in their relationships. Furthermore, female participants who reported having witnessed parental conflict were more likely to be victimized by their partners. In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of intimate relationship violence with dyadic data showing, for both genders, attachment insecurity is a crucial factor in both victimization and perpetration of aggression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10896-013-9526-9

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Karakurt et al. (2013) found that the association between insecure attachment and physical victimization was significant only among male participants.

    “Interestingly, whereas these first evidences were brought by two studies focusing exclusively on females, Karakurt et al. (2013) successively found that such association was significant only among male participants.”

    From Exploring Relationships: A Systematic Review on Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment (2018) · cites this paper as Karakurt et al., 2013

    The Results (Hypothesized Model; page unavailable) report a significant association between attachment insecurity and relationship aggression for both female and male participants. The Discussion likewise says insecurely attached participants were more likely to be victimized regardless of gender. The paper does not support the claim that the association was significant only among males; its reported outcome is relationship aggression, not a separately identified measure of physical victimization. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Some studies found that the relationship between avoidant attachment and both physical and sexual IPV victimization was significant only among males.

    “some studies found that the relationship between avoidant attachment and both physical (Bond and Bond, 2004; Karakurt et al., 2013) and sexual (Sommer et al., 2017) IPV victimization was significant only among males.”

    From Exploring Relationships: A Systematic Review on Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment (2018) · cites this paper as Karakurt et al., 2013

    Karakurt et al. is cited for physical IPV victimization, not the separately cited sexual-victimization finding. In the Discussion (page unavailable), the paper reports a significant association between insecure attachment and relationship-aggression victimization for both female and male participants, contrary to the male-only characterization. Its finding concerns attachment insecurity and relationship aggression broadly, rather than a separate result for avoidant attachment and physical victimization. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Three studies merging anxiety and avoidance dimensions in a unique index of insecure attachment found that psychological IPV victimization was positively correlated with insecure attachment, with coefficients ranging from 0.31 to 0.53.

    “Three studies, merging the anxiety and avoidance dimensions in a unique index of insecure attachment, found that psychological IPV victimization was positively correlated with insecure attachment (Toews et al., 2005; Karakurt et al., 2013; Oka et al., 2016) with coefficient ranging from 0.31 to 0.53.”

    From Exploring Relationships: A Systematic Review on Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment (2018) · cites this paper as Karakurt et al., 2013

    The Results (Hypothesized Model; page unavailable) report a positive association between attachment insecurity and relationship aggression for both women and men, with reported r values of .59 and .37. The Method (Relationship Aggression Measures; page unavailable) shows that the aggression measure included psychological, physical, and sexual aggression, so the result is not specific to psychological IPV victimization. The reported .59 also exceeds the citing sentence’s stated range of .31–.53. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • All studies merging the avoidance and anxiety dimensions into a unique insecure one evidenced a positive and significant association with physical victimization.

    “Noteworthy, all studies merging the avoidance and anxiety dimensions into a unique insecure one, evidenced a positive and significant association with physical victimization (Toews et al., 2005; Higginbotham et al., 2007; Karakurt et al., 2013).”

    From Exploring Relationships: A Systematic Review on Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment (2018) · cites this paper as Karakurt et al., 2013

    The Results (Hypothesized Model; page unavailable) report a significant positive association between attachment insecurity and relationship aggression for both women and men. But the Method (Relationship Aggression Measures; page unavailable) defines that outcome using psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion, not physical victimization alone. The paper also measures anxiety and avoidance but does not describe its insecurity factor as simply merging those two dimensions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Two studies failed to find a significant association between sexual IPV victimization and anxious attachment.

    “In contrast, two studies failed to find significant association between sexual IPV victimization and anxious attachment (Weston, 2008; Karakurt et al., 2013).”

    From Exploring Relationships: A Systematic Review on Intimate Partner Violence and Attachment (2018) · cites this paper as Karakurt et al., 2013

    The Methods section measures attachment anxiety and sexual coercion, but the retrieved Results passages do not report whether those two measures were significantly associated. The Results instead report a significant association between overall attachment insecurity and relationship aggression; that broader finding does not settle the claim about sexual IPV victimization and anxious attachment specifically. Searched for sexual coercion, attachment anxiety, and their correlations; no page numbers were available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bandura A Walters RH 1959 Adolescent agression New York Ronald Press
  2. Straus MA Hamby SL Boney-McCoy S Sugarman DB 1996 The revised conflict tactics scales (CTSZ) Journal of Family Issues 17 283 316

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Karakurt, G., Keiley, M., & Posada, G.
Affiliations
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Auburn University (US)
Corresponding author
Karakurt, Günnur
ORCID
Karakurt, Günnur
Venue
Journal of Family Violence
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-06-19
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
561-575
ISSN
  • 0885-7482 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2851
DOI
10.1007/s10896-013-9526-9
PMC
PMC3770311
OpenAlex
W2025757971
Cited by
54
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Family Violence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000439)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Keywords
intimate partner violence, dating violence, parental conflict, witnessing violence, insecure attachment, egalitarian attitudes, gender differences, victimization, perpetration, childhood exposure to violence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review