2015
DOI: 10.1002/pmh.1322
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Beyond passivity: Dependency as a risk factor for intimate partner violence

Abstract: Interpersonal dependency in male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) is an understudied phenomenon but one that has noteworthy clinical implications. The present investigation used meta-analytic techniques to quantify the dependency-IPV link in all extant studies examining this relationship (n of studies = 17). Studies were gathered via an extensive literature search using relevant dependency/IPV search terms in the PsychInfo, Medline and Google Scholar databases. Results revealed a small but stati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
1
9
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The results of this meta‐analysis support our hypothesis that dependency is both a predictor ( d = 0.36) and consequence ( d = 0.29) of child maltreatment: High levels of dependency in parents are associated with increased likelihood of perpetration, and children who are victimized show elevated levels of dependency later in life. These results confirm and extend the findings of Bornstein's () meta‐analysis, and they add to a growing body of research documenting links between high levels of dependency in adults and an array of harmful behaviors, including child abuse, self‐harm (i.e., suicide and parasuicide), and intimate partner violence (see Bornstein, , ; Kane & Bornstein, ). These results are consistent with evidence suggesting that high levels of interpersonal dependency and DPD may result in part from traumatic early experiences, including—but not limited to—abuse and neglect (see also Tardif, Auclair, Jacob, & Carpentier, ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The results of this meta‐analysis support our hypothesis that dependency is both a predictor ( d = 0.36) and consequence ( d = 0.29) of child maltreatment: High levels of dependency in parents are associated with increased likelihood of perpetration, and children who are victimized show elevated levels of dependency later in life. These results confirm and extend the findings of Bornstein's () meta‐analysis, and they add to a growing body of research documenting links between high levels of dependency in adults and an array of harmful behaviors, including child abuse, self‐harm (i.e., suicide and parasuicide), and intimate partner violence (see Bornstein, , ; Kane & Bornstein, ). These results are consistent with evidence suggesting that high levels of interpersonal dependency and DPD may result in part from traumatic early experiences, including—but not limited to—abuse and neglect (see also Tardif, Auclair, Jacob, & Carpentier, ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The DPQ does not allow severe dependent personality disorder to be identified because none of its questions address self-harm or aggression, even though these may sometimes be present in association with dependent personality. 34 As with the main study using ICD-11 diagnostic criteria for all personality disorders, most patients in the study had some degree of dependent personality disturbance at baseline, with women having more dependent traits than men ( Table 10). The generalised anxiety and depression scores were higher in those who were more dependent, although this was not the case for the HAI scores, and there was significantly greater social dysfunction in higher scorers (see Table 10).…”
Section: Effect Of Personality: Dependent Personality Traitsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Interviewees were told that the research was concerned with not only whether they had suffered physical abuse, but also psychological abuse, which is defined as being shouted at or talked to in a derogatory or threatening tone, being controlled and being subjected to prohibitions, having one's money controlled, not being valued or recognised for one's work, receiving constant refusals and, above all, receiving continuous blame, or being blackmailed financially or emotionally (Alberdi & Rojas Marcos , Sojo et al . , Sommerfeld & Shechory Bitton , Kane & Bornstein ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%