Childhood Maltreatment and Relationship Quality: A Review of Type of Abuse and Mediating and Protective Factors
Abstract
Childhood maltreatment (CM) has long been recognized as a risk factor for good intimate relationships. Research on the effects of CM on relationship functioning has focused on sexual abuse in girls. However, CM also includes emotional and physical abuse and neglect and is also common in boys. Moreover, prior research has mostly focused on individuals in isolation, ignoring that marriage is a system in which two partners mutually influence each other. Questions also remain about mediating and protective factors for healthy relationships in the context of CM. This article reviews the literature on the link between different forms of CM and one's own and one's partner relationship quality. It reviews 43 empirical studies that assessed associations between CM in any form and relationship quality. Also, mediating and protective factors and major methodological topics are examined. The review indicated that CM (neglect, sexual, emotional, or physical abuse) is associated with lower relationship quality in men and women. Psychological distress, cognitive and behavioral problems, insecure attachment, and self-dysregulation were identified as mediating factors. Protective processes involve good coping strategies, emotion regulation, parental support, and early secure attachment, but not partner characteristics. The results regarding gender are inconclusive. It is crucial to broaden the research on the dyadic effects of CM of various forms on relationship quality and study mediating and protective factors. More studies on neglect and diverse populations are needed, as well as prospective studies. This will enable the development of prevention programs for couples with a partner exposed to CM.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
null (2016) · Philosophy Study · doi:10.17265/2159-5313/2016.09.003 · Cited by 28,317 · see citing works
The prevalence of child maltreatment across the globe: review of a series of meta-analyses
Stoltenborgh, M., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Alink, L. R. A., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2015) · Child Abuse Review · doi:10.1002/car.2353 · Cited by 1,542 · see citing works
Disorders of extreme stress: The empirical foundation of a complex adaptation to trauma
van der Kolk, B. A., Roth, S., Pelcovitz, D., Sunday, S., & Spinazzola, J. (2005) · Journal of Traumatic Stress · doi:10.1002/jts.20047 · Cited by 1,284 · see citing works
Childhood abuse and neglect and adult intimate relationships: a prospective study
Colman, R. A., & Widom, C. S. (2004) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.02.005 · Cited by 443 · see citing works
DiLillo, D., Peugh, J., Walsh, K., Panuzio, J., Trask, E., & Evans, S. (2009) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015708 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Childhood emotional abuse and attachment processes in the dyadic adjustment of dating couples.
Riggs, S. A., Cusimano, A. M., & Benson, K. M. (2011) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021319 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Maneta, E. K., Cohen, S., Schulz, M. S., & Waldinger, R. J. (2015) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.07.017 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Partner Effects of Childhood Maltreatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., Bussières, È.-L., Nolin, M.-C., & Daspe, M.-È. (2024) · Trauma, Violence, & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380231173427 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“For instance, in a systematic review on CM and relationship quality including 43 empirical studies, 9 studies employed dyadic data analysis that allow the examination of partner effect, but the results of these partner associations were not systematically reported (Zamir, 2021).”
BackgroundInfluentialRamamurthy, G., & Chen, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1548601 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zamir, O.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Zamir, Osnat
- ORCID
- Zamir, Osnat
- Venue
- Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-03-04
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1344-1357
- ISSN
- 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8324
- OpenAlex
- W3134489351
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10
- FWCI
- 1.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Keywords
- child abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, neglect, insecure attachment, self-regulation, emotion regulation, coping strategies, parental support, mediators, protective factors, dyadic effects, gender differences
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Child, Child Abuse, Female, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Sexual Partners, Protective Factors
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