Cited by 7Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceAttachment and Relationship DynamicsLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relationship risk factors for intimate partner violence among sexual and gender minorities: A multilevel analysis

Open access

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is alarmingly prevalent among sexual and gender minority youth assigned female at birth (SGM‐AFAB), making it important to identify risk factors that can be targeted in prevention efforts for this population. Although several relationship‐level risk factors for IPV have been identified in different‐sex couples, research on SGM‐AFAB is sparse and predominantly cross‐sectional. The present study used seven waves of data from a longitudinal cohort study of SGM‐AFAB youth (n = 463) to explore relationship factors (relationship quality, destructive conflict, and self‐ and partner‐jealousy) as risk factors for perpetration and victimization of three types of IPV (physical, psychological, and coercive control). At each wave, participants reported on relationship factors and IPV for up to three romantic partners in the past 6 months. Multilevel models tested for associations between the relationship factors and IPV at three levels: between‐persons, within‐persons across time (wave), and within‐persons across relationships. Relationship quality was associated with IPV mostly at the between‐persons and within‐persons (wave) levels. Couple conflict was associated with all IPV outcomes at all levels. Partner jealousy was more consistently associated with IPV victimization; participant jealousy was more consistently linked with IPV perpetration. These novel findings suggest that, within SGM individuals, IPV may be influenced by relationship quality, destructive conflict, and jealousy as they fluctuate within individuals from relationship to relationship and within individuals over time. As such, these relationship factors represent promising potential targets for interventions to reduce IPV among SGM‐AFAB youth.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/famp.12941

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. 10.1080/10522158.2011.616482 · DOI
  2. 10.1037/0022‐3514.80.5.754 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.003 · DOI
  4. Capaldi D. M., 2004, Duke series in child development and public policy, 223
  5. 10.1891/1946‐6560.3.2.231 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Capaldi D. M., 2005, Family psychology: The art of the science
  7. 10.1007/s10964‐013‐9975‐8 · DOI
  8. 10.1037/tra0001041 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/jmft.12552 · DOI
  10. 10.1037/vio0000275 · DOI
  11. 10.1177/0886260519846856 · DOI
  12. 10.1037/a0038656 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00026.x · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s10896‐013‐9558‐1 · DOI
  15. 10.1037/a0012584 · DOI
  16. 10.2307/353683 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/jmft.12178 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1111/jomf.12160 · DOI
  19. 10.1037/vio0000036 · DOI
  20. 10.1007/s10826‐017‐0734‐4 · DOI
  21. 10.1037//0022‐006x.61.1.70 · DOI
  22. 10.1177/104973150201200205 · DOI
  23. McKay T., 2020, Responding to intimate partner violence in relationship programs: Adult study summary. OPRE report 2020‐100
  24. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.341 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/1524838015603551 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101924 · DOI
  27. 10.1007/s10461‐017‐1674‐0 · DOI
  28. 10.1037/0022‐006X.75.5.752 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1111/famp.12696 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/15332691.2011.562844 · DOI
  31. 10.1037/vio0000466 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.avb.2018.10.009 · DOI
  33. 10.1177/1524838020925776 · DOI
  34. 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.00659.x · DOI
  35. 10.1007/s10896‐007‐9137‐4 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.012 · DOI
  37. 10.1177/019251396017003001 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1300/J137v08n02_10 · DOI
  39. 10.1007/s11121‐012‐0307‐0 · DOI
  40. 10.1891/0886-6708.14.1.25 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1080/019261899262023 · DOI
  42. Walters M. L., 2013, The National Intimate Partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation
  43. Whitton S. W., 2018, The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships, 297
  44. 10.1177/0886260516646093 · DOI
  45. 10.1177/0146167214528988 · DOI
  46. 10.1037/fam0000337 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sarno, E. L., Swann, G., Newcomb, M. E., & Whitton, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
Sarno, Elissa L.
Venue
Family Process
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-09-15
Volume
63
Issue
2
Pages
983-1000
ISSN
  • 0014-7370 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-5300
OpenAlex
W4386796171
Cited by
7
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Family Process (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD086170)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Keywords
intimate partner violence, sexual and gender minorities, lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, relationship quality, destructive conflict, jealousy, physical violence, psychological violence, coercive control, IPV perpetration, IPV victimization, romantic relationships
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual and Gender Minorities, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Jealousy, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Risk Factors, Sexual Partners, Crime Victims, Multilevel Analysis, Young Adult

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