No abstract

Scientific advances can improve the lives of adults with intellectual disability, yet concerns that research participation may impose harm impede scientific progress. What counts as harmful can be subjective and perceptions of harm may vary among stakeholders. We studied perspectives on the harmfulness of research events among adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board members. We found considerable variance. For example, adults with intellectual disability see exclusion from research as more harmful, but most psychosocial harms as less significant than others. All stakeholders agree that having someone else make the participation decision is harmful. Findings provide insights into the concept of harm and ethical research with adults with intellectual disability.

Including adults with intellectual disability in research promotes direct benefits to participants and larger societal benefits. Stakeholders may have different views of what count as benefits, and their importance. We compared views on benefits in research with adults with intellectual disability among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board members. We found that adults with intellectual disability value direct and indirect research benefits, and want to participate in research that offers them. Other stakeholders generally see less value in direct benefits and predict more tempered interest in research participation as compared to adults with intellectual disability. To promote respectful research participation, research policy and practice should incorporate the views of adults with intellectual disability.

Human subjects research has a core commitment to participant well-being. This obligation is accentuated for once exploited populations such as adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about the public’s views on appropriate safeguards for this population. We surveyed adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members to compare views on safeguards. We found many points of convergence of views, particularly for decision-making and participation. One trend is that adults with intellectual disability perceive greater safety in being engaged directly in recruitment, and recruitment by specific individuals. Researchers and IRB members need to consider community views to facilitate the safe and respectful inclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

Objective: To use latent class analysis (LCA) techniques to identify the sex-specific structure of college student dating violence typologies and to examine the shared and sex-specific background-situational correlates of college student dating violence typologies. Method: Sample consisted of 3,344 North American college students (2,323 females and 1,021 males) between 18 and 25 years in heterosexual dating relationships. Data were drawn from the International Dating Violence Study. Results: Five college student dating violence typologies defined by both perpetration and victimization behaviors were indicated for both sexes: no dating violence, physical assault-psychological aggression-sexual coercion, physical assault-psychological aggression, psychological aggression, and psychological aggressionsexual coercion. Findings indicated sex-specific variations in the college student dating violence profiles. Psychological aggression perpetration and victimization behaviors were characteristic of all dating violence typologies (except the no dating violence typology). Antisocial personality symptoms, violence approval, criminal history, and length of relationship were generally characteristic of males and females in different college student dating violence typologies. Gender hostility to men and women and stressful conditions were characteristic of females in different college student dating violence typologies. Childhood violent socialization and sexual abuse history were not characteristic of males and females in different college student dating violence typologies. Conclusions: Results point to the complexity of college student dating violence behavior presentations with shared and sex-specific backgroundsituational correlates. Findings could inform the development of intervention programs designed to help young adult males and females in different dating violence typologies.

This study problematizes the literature's conceptualization of sexual compliance, predominantly defined as willing participation in, and consent to, unwanted sexual activity in the absence of immediate partner pressure. Using a feminist theoretical framework, we argue that covert forms of social coercion, including normalized expectations for heterosexual women to participate in sexual activity and maintain relationship satisfaction, ultimately pressure women into participating in unwanted sexual activity. In other words, immediate partner pressure is not necessary for a sexually coercive experience to occur. Results of the current study indicate that relationship control and media influence significantly predict sexual acquiescence, and women acquiesce to unwanted sexual activity in an effort to maintain relationships and partner satisfaction as well as to avoid negative outcomes. Women cite various forms of social coercion, such as fulfilling sexual scripts and relationship obligations, as primary reasons for participating in unwanted sexual activity without resisting their partners.

In this study, we explored patterns of violence and coercive control in young adult dating relationships by testing and extending Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence. Young adults ( N = 398) between 18 and 27 years old completed an online survey about experiences of violence and coercive control in current and past dating relationships. Using cluster analysis, we classified relationships as no/low coercive control and high coercive control. We then categorized relationship types according to Johnson’s typology using the coercive control clusters and the absence/presence of violence. In total, 35% of relationships were abusive (i.e., violent and/or high coercive control), with 24% of all reported relationships including violence with and without high coercive control, and 11% including nonviolent coercive control. Among violent relationships, situational couple violence was more common than other types of dating violence, and two additional types of violence were found: (a) violence toward a nonviolent coercive controlling partner and (b) nonviolent coercive control toward an intimate terrorist, both of which are potentially types of resistance distinct from Johnson’s concept of violent resistance. Additionally, victims of intimate terrorism and victims of nonviolent coercive control were significantly more fearful of their partners than victims of situational couple violence, and victims of situational couple violence did not differ in their fear of partners compared to respondents in nonabusive relationships. These findings identify additional abusive relationship types and elucidate the importance of extending Johnson’s typology to more comprehensively capture the complex dynamics of coercive control and/or violence in young adult dating relationships.

No abstract