Cited by 94Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceAttachment and Relationship DynamicsElder Abuse and Neglect

Differences in Social Network Structure and Support Among Women in Violent Relationships

Katerndahl, David, Burge, Sandra, Ferrer, Robert, Becho, Johanna, Wood, Robert·2013·Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Abstract

Social support is critical for women in abusive relationships. While social support may decrease the risk of getting into a violent relationship, it can also allow battered women to remain in violent relationships by reducing the negative impact of intimate partner violence (IPV). In addition to the social isolation that women in abusive relationships may experience, her social contacts appear to be important. The purpose of this study was to compare the size, structure, and composition of the social networks of women in abusive relationships with those of a matched cohort of nonabused women. The authors enrolled women from primary care clinics who reported abuse within the prior month, and a demographically matched comparison group of women in nonabusive relationships. Participants completed a social network analysis, and investigators compared social networks of abused with nonabused women. The networks of women in abusive relationships were smaller in size, but more efficient in their ability to reach their members, than those of nonabused women. Proportionally, networks of abused women had more women but fewer in-laws than those of comparison women. The women in these abusive relationships had higher measures of centrality, suggesting that they were more critical in holding their networks together. Yet, they had fewer social contacts, and provided more support than they received with fewer reciprocated ties. Thus, social networks of women in violent relationships are small and offer less support than those of comparison women. However, previous work on networks with weak ties and structural holes suggests that access to resources may be available through these networks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0886260512469103

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katerndahl, D., Burge, S., Ferrer, R., Becho, J., & Wood, R.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Published
2012-12-21
Volume
28
Issue
9
Pages
1948-1964
ISSN
  • 0886-2605 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6518
OpenAlex
W2146411712
Cited by
94
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Interpersonal Violence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
Keywords
intimate partner violence, battered women, social networks, social support, network structure, network size, network efficiency, centrality, in-laws, social isolation, weak ties, structural holes, reciprocity, primary care
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Social Isolation, Social Support, Domestic Violence, Battered Women

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