Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chiabuneg

Research article

Childhood maltreatment and intimate partner violence

T
victimization: A meta-analysis
⁎
Sen Lia, Fengqing Zhaob, Guoliang Yuc,
a
School of Education, Renmin University of China, No. 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100872, China
b
School of Education, Zhengzhou University, No. 100 Science Street, Zhengzhou, 450001, China
c
Institute of Psychology, Renmin University of China, No. 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100872, China

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords:
Childhood maltreatment
Intimate partner violence victimization
Intergenerational transmission of violence
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization is a serious public health problem in
the world. It is imperative to examine risk factors for IPV victimization.
Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to explore the relationship between childhood maltreatment
(CM) and IPV victimization and investigate the moderating effects of gender and marital status.
Participants and Setting: Examination of the literature produced a sample of 56 effect sizes (N =
23,127) for review.
Methods: PsycINFO, PsycArticles, EBSCO-ERIC, Medline, Google Scholar, and ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses databases were systematically searched until March 31, 2018. Forty-six
eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Random effects model was used for meta-
analysis of the studies.
Results: Results indicated a significant association between total CM and IPV victimization (r =
.18, p < .001). Further subgroup analyses revealed that all four types of CM (childhood physical
abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect) were positively related to IPV victimi-
zation (r = .19, .18, .17, and .12, respectively). Moreover, the moderation analyses revealed that
the association between CM and IPV victimization was stronger for dating couples than for
married ones. However, this relation did not show significant difference between males and
females.
Conclusions: There is an association between CM and IPV victimization, and it is moderated by
marital status.

1. Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization is a serious and prevalent public health problem in the world (Centers for Disease
Control & Prevention, 2013). One out of every three females and one out of every five males will be the victim of IPV at some point in
their lives (Black et al., 2011). In addition, IPV victimization is associated with many adverse health consequences, including post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, depression, substance use, and suicidal behaviors (Costa & Gomes, 2018; Iverson, Dardis,
& Pogoda, 2017; Peltzer & Pengpid, 2017; Temple & Freeman, 2011). Therefore, it is imperative to examine risk factors for IPV
victimization that can be detected and intervened upon earlier in life.
According to the intergenerational transmission of violence theory (Kalmuss, 1984), childhood maltreatment(CM) is a predictor of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 1447123652@qq.com (S. Li), susanfair@163.com (F. Zhao), yugllxl@sina.com (G. Yu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.11.012
Received 26 May 2018; Received in revised form 13 November 2018; Accepted 22 November 2018
0145-2134/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

later IPV victimization. However, many empirical studies have produced inconsistent findings (Iverson, McLaughlin, Adair, &
Monson, 2014; Renner & Whitney, 2012; Sunday et al., 2011). Moreover, it is less clear whether there are differences in the re-
lationships between different CM types and IPV victimization, and whether the association between CM and IPV victimization can be
moderated by gender and marital status. Given these questions, the time is ripe for a meta-analysis of the research on CM and IPV
victimization.

2. CM and IPV victimization

2.1. The definitions of CM and IPV victimization

Childhood maltreatment is a common form of violence against children perpetrated by a parent or caregiver. It includes acts of
commission, such as physical, sexual and psychological abuse, as well as neglect (Leeb, Paulozzi, Melanson, Simon, & Arias, 2008).
IPV victimization refers to physical, psychological, or sexual harm inflicted by a current or former intimate partner, including a
spouse or a dating partner (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2013). Accordingly, the IPV in current study includes both
dating violence and marital violence.

2.2. The relationship between CM and IPV victimization

The intergenerational transmission of violence phenomenon suggests that the maltreatment in childhood heightens the likelihood
of repeating violence in intimate relationships (Kalmuss, 1984). The possible reasons may be manifold: generally, it implies social
learning as an important way in explaining this cycle of violence (Bandura, 1977). Those experiencing frequent CM may learn to
perceive abusive interactions as normal and appropriate (Wareham, Boots, & Chavez, 2009). They may thus justify the acceptance of
violence in intimate relationships. Indeed, an important consequence of CM involves its interference with the ability to develop
adaptive coping styles. It in turn leads to IPV victimization (Berzenski & Yates, 2010). Therefore, being a victim of IPV can be
considered as a “learned” behavior and generalized from the parent- or caregiver-child relationship to the intimate partner re-
lationship (Ehrensaft et al., 2003). What’s more, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) introduced the concept of target vulnerability to
explain how certain characteristics may make an individual susceptible to IPV victimization. According to this theory, the quality of
parent-child relationship is one of the factors influencing victimization vulnerability. Individuals maltreated in childhood tend to feel
inferior, unlovable, helpless, and low self-worthy (Cascardi, 2016). All these attributes will weaken their capacity to resist or detect
victimization, and make an individual appear to be weak. Thus, they seem to be an easy target for IPV (Brooks-Russell, Foshee, &
Ennett, 2013).
Empirical research has demonstrated that victims of CM would experience more difficulties and dissatisfaction in their intimate
relationships (Nguyen, Karney, & Bradbury, 2017). More importantly, the positive association between CM and IPV victimization was
identified in a great number of studies (Fiorillo, Papa, & Follette, 2013; Jennings, Richards, Tomsich, & Gover, 2015; Richards,
Tillyer, & Wright, 2017). For example, a recent cross-sectional study examined the relationship between CM and IPV victimization
with a representative sample of 1239 participants aged between 18 and 97. Results revealed that CM was associated with a greater
risk of IPV victimization (Yan & Karatzias, 2016). Furthermore, all types of CM, such as childhood physical abuse (Fiorillo et al.,
2013), psychological abuse (Obasaju, Palin, Jacobs, Anderson, & Kaslow, 2009), sexual abuse (Jennings et al., 2015), and neglect
(Villodas et al., 2012) were risk factors for IPV victimization. In addition, these cross-sectional findings were addressed in some
longitudinal studies as well (Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2014; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2008). For instance, a longitudinal study of 477
females found that the risk for revictimization was nearly three times greater for females with a history of CM, compared to those
without a history of CM (Parks, Kim, Day, Garza, & Larkby, 2011). However, the existing findings regarding the relationship between
CM and IPV victimization still have not reached agreement. Some studies observed no significant effects of CM on IPV victimization
(Renner & Whitney, 2012; Sunday et al., 2011). Therefore, a meta-analysis is in need to clarify this inconsistency.

2.3. CM types

Although all types of CM are positively related to IPV victimization (Barrios et al., 2015; Fiorillo et al., 2013; Jennings et al., 2015;
Obasaju et al., 2009; Villodas et al., 2012). There are some differential cycle of violence effects by CM types (Fang & Corso, 2008;
Renner & Whitney, 2012). In some studies, childhood sexual abuse was evidenced to be more predictive of being victimized in
intimate relationships (Renner & Slack, 2006). However, in some other studies, it was found that childhood psychological abuse
(Berzenski & Yates, 2010) or neglect (Widom et al., 2008) predicted IPV victimization above the contribution of other CM types.
Furthermore, there was also evidence showing that the physical punishment by adult caregivers increased the odds of IPV victi-
mization by 174% (Hamby, Finkelhor, & Turner, 2012). Given these inconsistencies, a better understanding of the distinct effect of
different CM types may lead to more effective preventions of IPV victimization in adulthood.

2.4. Gender difference

When comes to the gender differences in the relation between CM and IPV victimization, there are two conflicting viewpoints. The
first view is associated with family violence theory, which demonstrates that there is gender symmetry in the association between CM
and IPV victimization (Foshee, Benefield, Ennett, Bauman, & Suchindran, 2004).

213
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

Nevertheless, another point of view disputes this claim and documents a gender difference (Smith, White, & Holland, 2003). It is
suggested that maltreated boys are more likely to become IPV perpetrators, while maltreated girls tend to be IPV victims (Smith-
Marek et al., 2015; Stith et al., 2000). This opinion is based on feminist theory, which considers IPV victimization as a gendered issue
(Archer, 2000). In virtually all cultures, females have less power and authority in the interaction with their male partners (Stark,
2006). They have an emphasis on intimate relationships in forming an identity, and less of an emphasis on establishing autonomy via
personal mastery independent of a relationship context (Wekerle et al., 2009). Meanwhile, females are typically smaller and weaker
than their male partners. Therefore, compared to maltreated boys, maltreated girls are more likely to internalize their pain (Friedrich,
Urquiza, & Beilke, 1986) and perceive the IPV victimization as frightening or hurtful (Hamby & Turner, 2013). This may in turn lead
them to become more tolerant of repeated victimization by partners (Smith et al., 2003). Thus, there is a need to examine the
moderating effect of gender on the association between CM and IPV victimization.

2.5. Marital status

Despite the similarities between dating violence and marital violence, each of them has unique features (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell,
2008). The factors influencing marital violence may not necessarily affect dating violence either (Follingstad, Bradley, Laughlin, &
Burke, 1999). It highlights the necessity of investigating the effects of CM on dating and marital violence victimization separately.
We assume that the influence of CM on IPV victimization would be stronger for dating couples than for married couples. First of
all, age has been consistently noted as a risk factor for IPV victimization, with a greater risk attached to youth (Jewkes, 2002).
Compared to married couples, the dating ones are relatively younger. Thus, they are more immature in dealing with intimate
relationships (Smith & Donnelly, 2001). For instance, young people tend to interpret the violence in dating relationships as an
indicator of love, but not inappropriate behaviors (Carlson, 1987). It reflects that dating couples are less capable of identifying
potential danger signs (Smith & Donnelly, 2001). Moreover, important differences exist between dating relationships and marital
relationships. Specifically, marital relationships are likely characterized by greater familial and economic bounds as compared with
dating relationships (Shorey et al., 2008). Additionally, Unlike dating relationships which are more accessible to alternative re-
lationships (Carlson, 1987), marital relationships are more stable. Married couples may work harder to maintain their intimate
relationships and reduce the incidence of IPV. Thus, the relationship between CM and IPV victimization may be moderated by marital
status, with a stronger effect size for dating violence than for marital violence.

2.6. Current study

In fact, two previous meta-analytic reviews have examined the effects of family-of-origin violence on IPV victimization (Smith-
Marek et al., 2015; Stith et al., 2000). However, both of these two meta-analyses only focused on the effects of physical CM and
merely demonstrated the effects on marital violence. Neither the differential effects of specific CM types, nor the moderating effects of
marital status were explored. Therefore, in current meta-analysis, we quantitatively examined the relationships between various CM
types and IPV victimization, and then compared the effect sizes with different gender and marital status. We anticipated that this
meta-analysis would address the following three research aims:

(1) Provide an overview of the relation between CM and IPV victimization and quantify the overall effect of this association.
(2) Explore different effect sizes between four CM types and IPV victimization.
(3) Determine how the moderators influence the effects of CM on IPV victimization.

3. Method

3.1. Literature search strategy

We used four methods to search for relevant studies. First, this study covered both published and unpublished studies in the
electronic databases PsycINFO, PsycArticles, EBSCO-ERIC, Medline, Google Scholar, and ProQuest Dissertations &Theses before
March 2018. Relevant publications were systematically searched with the following two groups of key words: (1) childhood mal-
treatment, childhood abuse, childhood violence, adverse childhood experience; (2) intimate partner aggression, intimate partner
violence, intimate partner abuse, dating aggression, dating violence, dating abuse, spouse aggression, spouse violence, spouse abuse,
intimate partner victimization, revictimization, romantic relationship, intimate relationship. Second, we searched the in-press or
online-first articles. Third, several dissertations, unpublished studies, and conference papers were obtained by contacting the authors
personally. Finally, we also searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles manually to identify additional relevant publications.

3.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Our search resulted in 4651 records for screening to identify eligible studies. After examining the titles and abstracts of all the
references and discarding irrelevant ones, 275 articles were identified as relevant. The 275 articles were included in or excluded from
our meta-analysis based on the following criteria: (a) the studies needed to be empirical and quantitative; (b) Pearson correlation
coefficients were provided; otherwise, sufficient information from which an effect size could be derived needed to be available; (c)
studies had to be published in English; (d) studies examining witnessing family violence or IPV perpetration were excluded; (e)

214
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

Fig. 1. Flowchart for the included studies in systematic review and meta-analysis.

studies that only reported “violence” in intimate relationships without differentiating results by victimization were excluded; (f)
studies violating the assumption of independent samples were excluded; (g) studies focused on homosexual couples were rejected. In
the end, 46 studies yielding 56 effect sizes met the criteria for inclusion, see Fig. 1.

3.3. Coding

Studies that met the inclusion criteria were coded for sample characteristics (see Table 1). The first author developed a coding
manual which specified the coding categories and possible codes to be used for each study. Following the coding manual, the first
author and another doctoral student coded all information contained in the 46 studies. Agreement was reached in 96% of the two
coders’ coding. All disagreements were resolved through discussion.

3.4. Statistical methods

All analyses were completed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. First, we meta-analyzed the magnitude of the effect size
between CM and IPV victimization. Then, the effect sizes of four subgroups were also examined. Finally, we explored the moderating
effects of gender, marital status, and other study-related variables. Cohen (1992) suggested criteria were used to interpret the mean
effect sizes, which demonstrated that r < .01 means trivial, r = .10 means small, r = .30 means medium, and r = .50 means large.
Based on existing literature which has a broad spectrum of sample and study characteristics, we expected that the true effect sizes
would differ across channels. Random-effects models were thus used for all analyses (Card, 2015). What’s more, following the
standard practice for testing publication bias in meta-analysis, we applied trim and fill method to check possible bias. We also visually
checked the funnel plots of effect size. Finally, we applied the p-curve technique to examine the publication bias.

4. Results

4.1. Sample description

The data set included 56 independent effect sizes between CM and IPV victimization from 23,127 participants. From these, 53
came from published articles and 3 from unpublished articles; 16 were from married participants and 19 from dating ones; 33 came
from females and 11 from males. The sample sizes ranged from 56 to 1861 participants.

215
 Table 1
Original studies included in meta-analysis.
S. Li et al.

Author (Year) Participants N Publication status Gender Marital status Method CM measures IPV measures r

Nguyen et al. (2017)a newlywed couples 414 Y male married longitudinal Self-designed CTS 0.07
Nguyen et al. (2017)b newlywed couples 414 Y female married longitudinal Self-designed CTS 0.06
Berzenski and Yates (2010) undergraduates 1175 Y both unmarried cross-sectional CMIS CTS 0.122
Gay et al. (2013) undergraduates 396 Y female unmarried cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.17
Busuito, Huth-Bocks, and Puro, (2014) women 120 Y female married cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.21
Feiring et al. (2009) 118 Y both longitudinal A checklist CIRQ −0.02
Novak, Smith, and Sandberg, (2015)a younger participants 177 Y male cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.19
Novak et al. (2015)b younger participants 177 Y female cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.175
Lamis et al. (2017) women 141 Y female married cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.173
Cascio et al. (2017) women 78 Y female married cross-sectional CECA CTS 0.415
Van Bruggen (2009) undergraduates 267 N female unmarried cross-sectional PANS; Self-designed PMWI-SF; ABI-PA 0.173
Bender, Cook, and Kaslow, (2003) women 293 Y female married cross-sectional CTQ ISA 0.026
Simonelli, Mullis, Elliott, and Pierce, (2002)a undergraduates 61 Y male unmarried cross-sectional SNFI CTS 0.247
Simonelli et al. (2002)b undergraduates 59 Y female unmarried cross-sectional SNFI CTS 0.23
Wekerle et al. (2001)a high school students 558 Y male unmarried cross-sectional CTQ CIRQ 0.25
Wekerle et al. (2001)b high school students 771 Y female unmarried cross-sectional CTQ CIRQ 0.14
Wekerle et al. (2001)c high school students 101 Y male unmarried cross-sectional CTQ CIRQ 0.27
Wekerle et al. (2001)d high school students 123 Y female unmarried cross-sectional CTQ CIRQ 0.28
Murphy and Blumenthal (2000) undergraduates 207 Y female cross-sectional CTS CTS 0.2
Zurbriggen, Gobin, and Freyd, (2010) undergraduates 184 Y both cross-sectional BBTS SES 0.127
Zamir and Lavee (2014) undergraduates 425 Y female cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.098
Alexander, Moore, and Alexander, (1991) undergraduates 380 Y both cross-sectional CTS CTS −0.018

216
Riggs and Kaminski (2010) undergraduates 285 Y both cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.032
Cascardi (2016) adolescents 411 Y female unmarried longitudinal CTS CTS 0.187
Dietrich (2007)a 135 Y female cross-sectional CMIS MCMIS 0.19
Dietrich (2007)b 87 Y male cross-sectional CMIS MCMIS 0.29
Bell and Higgins (2015) women 232 Y female married cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.21
Rosen, Bartle-Harng, and Stith, (2001) undergraduates 277 Y both unmarried cross-sectional CTS CTS 0.26
Iverson et al. (2014) young adults 670 Y both unmarried cross-sectional CTS CTS 0.203
Arata and Lindman (2002) undergraduates 341 Y female unmarried cross-sectional CTQ Self-designed 0.148
Gagné, Lavoie, and Hébert, (2005) high school students 622 Y female unmarried cross-sectional CTS VIFFA 0.2
Ornduff, Kelsey, and O’Leary, (2001) undergraduates 56 Y female unmarried cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.185
Zhang et al. (2015) 192 Y both cross-sectional CTQ ISA 0.112
Zerubavel, Messman-Moore, DiLillo, and Gratz, (2018) young adults 348 N female unmarried cross-sectional CTS CTS 0.14
Barrett (2010) mothers 483 Y female married cross-sectional Self-designed CTS 0.123
Cui, Durtschi, Donnellan, Lorenz, and Conger, (2010) youth 213 Y both unmarried longitudinal Self-designed Self-designed 0.655
Shorey, Zucosky, Febres, Brasfield, and Stuart, (2013) undergraduates 193 Y male unmarried cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.44
Popescu, Dewan, and Rusu, (2010) church goers and undergraduates 1823 Y both cross-sectional Self-designed CTS 0.238
Mair, Cunradi, and Todd, (2012)a couples 1861 Y male married cross-sectional ACE CTS 0.04
Mair et al. (2012)b couples 1861 Y female married cross-sectional ACE CTS 0.08
Cort, Toth, Cerulli, and Rogosch, (2011) couples 104 Y female married cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.27
Maas, Fleming, Herrenkohl, and Catalano, (2010)a 503 Y male longitudinal CTQ Self-designed 0.32
Maas et al. (2010)b 438 Y female longitudinal CTQ Self-designed 0.22
Baker and Stith (2008) undergraduates 474 Y both unmarried cross-sectional Self-designed CTS 0.23
Smagur, Bogat, and Levendosky, (2017) women 206 Y female cross-sectional CTQ SVAWS 0.24
Banyard, Williams, Saunders, and Fitzgerald, (2008) mothers 283 Y female married longitudinal CTS CTS 0.128
Chan (2004) women 107 Y female married cross-sectional PRP CTS 0.212
Clark and Foy (2000) women 78 Y female married cross-sectional SAEO; AEIII CTS 0.11
Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

(continued on next page)

 Table 1 (continued)
S. Li et al.

Author (Year) Participants N Publication status Gender Marital status Method CM measures IPV measures r

Rosen, Parmley, Knudson, and Fancher, (2002) soldiers 488 Y male cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.13
Buchanan (2007) 135 N female cross-sectional ABI ABI 0.152
Fergusson, Boden, and Horwood, (2008)a 391 Y male longitudinal Self-designed CTS 0.115
Fergusson et al. (2008)b 437 Y female longitudinal Self-designed CTS 0.12
Sullivan, Cavanaugh, Buckner, and Edmondson, (2009) women 212 Y female married cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.153
Sullivan, Ashare, Jaquier, and Tennen, (2012) women 143 Y female cross-sectional CTQ CTS 0.213
Messing, La Flair, Cavanaugh, Kanga, and Campbell, (2012) nurses 1150 Y female married longitudinal Self-designed AAS 0.175
Kwong, Bartholomew, Henderson, and Trinke, (2003) adults 1249 Y both cross-sectional Self-designed CTS 0.129

Note. CTQ = The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; CTS = The Conflict Tactics Scale; CIRQ = Conflict in Relationships Questionnaire; CMIS = The Childhood Maltreatment Interview Schedule;
MCMIS = Modified Version of Child Maltreatment Interview Schedule; PANS = Psychological Abuse and Neglect Scales; ISA = The Index of Spouse Abuse; SNFI = Scale of Negative Family Interactions;
BBTS = The Brief Betrayal Trauma Survey; SES = Sexual Experiences Survey; VIFFA = Violence faite aux Filles dans les Fr´equentations `a l’Adolescence; ACE = The Adverse Childhood Experiences
Scale; SVAWS = The Severity of Violence Against Women Scale; PRP = Personal and Relationship Profile; ABIPF = Abusive Behavior Inventory-Partner Form; ABI-PA = Abusive Behavior Inventory-
Physical Abuse; PMWI-SF = Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory-Short Form; SAEQ = The Sexual Abuse Exposure Questionnaire; AEIII = The Assessing Environments III.

217
Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

Table 2
Effect sizes for the relationship between CM and IPV victimization.
Variable k Mean r 95%CI

Overall CM and IPV victimizationa 56 .18*** [.15, .21]

Physical abuse 27 .19*** [.15, .23]
Psychological abuse 16 .18*** [.13, .24]
Sexual abuse 22 .17*** [.13, .21]
Neglect 4 .12* [.01, .23]

Note. * p < .05, *** P < .001.

a
For overall effect size, each study was the unit analysis, but subgroups were not independent.

4.2. Effect sizes of the IPV victimization

4.2.1. Total effect size

The Q statistics were significant in our sample and I2 (77.21%) were over 75%, suggesting that the high levels of heterogeneity
were due to real differences among the selected samples as opposed to sampling error (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003).
This warranted the use of a random effects model. For the 56 independent samples between CM and IPV victimization, the average
effect size was .18 for the random-effects with the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) from .15 to .21 (see Table 2). According to Cohen
(1992), this is a small effect size. Please see Fig. 2 for further information.

4.2.2. Subgroup analyses

Effect sizes of different CM types were also meta-analyzed, and results indicated that the average effect size between childhood
physical abuse and IPV victimization was .19 with the 95% CI from .15 to .23; the effect size between childhood psychological abuse
and IPV victimization was .18 with the 95% CI from .13 to 024; the effect size for the relationship between childhood sexual abuse
and IPV victimization was .17 with the 95% CI from .13 to .21; finally, the effect size was .12 for childhood neglect and IPV
victimization with the 95% CI from .01 to .23 (see also Table 2). Although the sample of participants who experience four CM types
were not independent, we ran a between-category test of homogeneity to examine trends (see Stith et al., 2000). No significant
differences were found between various CM types (Q = 1.75, p = .627).

4.3. Moderation analyses

In the analysis, we examined whether there were systematic differences in effects sizes between gender and different marital
status (see Table 3). Specifically, we conducted a Mixed Effects Model (MEM) for a moderator variable analysis.

4.3.1. Gender as a moderator

Moderation analyses revealed that the correlation between CM and IPV victimization was positive both among males (r = .21,
95% CI = .13–.29, p < .001) and females (r = .16, 95% CI = .14–.18, p < .001). The two effects were not significantly different
(Q = 1.44, p = .231).

4.3.2. Marital status as a moderator

Table 3 indicated that the effect size of CM on IPV victimization was stronger for dating people (r = .24, 95% CI = .18–.29, p <
.001) than for married ones (r = .13, 95% CI = .09–.17, p < .001). These two effect sizes had significant difference (Q = 10.03,
p = .002).

4.3.3. Study-related moderators

Moderation analyses were also performed based on the methodological designs and instrument types (different measures of CM
and IPV). Testing results demonstrated that the effect sizes had no significant difference (Q = .28, p = .600) between cross-sectional
designs (r = .17, 95% CI = .14–.20, p < .001) and longitudinal designs (r = .20, 95% CI = .10–.29, p < .001). There was also no
significant difference among various CM measures (Q = 0.64, p = .727), (CTQ: r = .19, 95% CI = .15–.23, p < .001; CTS: r = .16,
95% CI = .11–.22, p < .001; other scales: r = .17, 95% CI = .12–.22, p < .001) and different IPV measures (Q = 2.74, p = .098),
(CTS: r = .16, 95% CI = .13–.19, p < .001; other scales: r = .21, 95% CI = .15–.27, p < .001). Therefore, none of these study-
related variables significantly influenced effect sizes.

4.4. Publication bias analysis

The funnel plot was symmetrical (Fig. 3). Duval and Tweedie (2000) trim and fill procedure also showed no bias. In addition, p-
curve analysis confirmed that the above finding was not a result of publication bias (Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2014). Fig. 4
showed a shape that is right skewed and not flatter than 33%, suggesting that the data for this meta-analysis has evidential value and
that p-hacking is unlikely to have occurred.

218
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

Fig. 2. Meta-analysis of CM and IPV victimization.

5. Discussion

This meta-analysis addressed an overall question concerning the relationship between CM and IPV victimization. A small effect
size of CM on IPV victimization was confirmed, which was consistent with previous meta-analyses (Smith-Marek et al., 2015; Stith
et al., 2000). According to social learning theory, individuals with CM experiences are more likely to view violent behaviors as
normal and acceptable (Ehrensaft et al., 2003). They are inclined to evince a “learned helplessness” response to the violence over
time (Walker, 1983). Therefore, instead of developing adaptive coping strategies to solve conflicts, these people tend to produce
attitudes of tolerating violence from their partners (Ehrensaft et al., 2003). In addition, the CM experiences often lead to emotion
dysregulation (Berzenski & Yates, 2010), insecure attachment (Gay, Harding, Jackson, Burns, & Baker, 2013), self-blame (Feiring,
Simon, & Cleland, 2009), and depression (Feiring et al., 2009). In line with target vulnerability theory, all these characteristics make

219
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

Table 3
Moderation analyses of the effect sizes.
Variable k Mean r 95% CI Qb

Marital status
Married 16 .13*** [.09, .17] 10.03**
Unmarried 19 .24*** [.18, .29]
Gender
Male 11 .21*** [.13, .29] 1.44
Female 33 .16*** [.14, .18]
Methodological designs
Cross-sectional designs 45 .17*** [.14, .20] .28
Longitudinal designs 11 .20*** [.10, .29]
CM measures
CTQ 24 .19*** [.15, .23] .64
CTS 8 .16*** [.11, .22]
Others 24 .17*** [.12, .22]
IPV measures
CTS 37 .16*** [.13, .19] 2.74
Others 19 .21*** [.15, .27]

Note. k = number of effect sizes; r = point estimate of the effect size; CI = confidence interval; Qb = heterogeneity of between-group differences
with k-1 degrees of freedom.
** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Fig. 3. Funnel plot for publication bias.

Fig. 4. P-curves for meta-analyses of CM and IPV victimization.

220
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

them more vulnerable to violence (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996). Thus, a promising approach to deterring adult IPV victimization may
involve the prevention of CM. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the effect of CM on IPV victimization is not strong. The small
effect size indicated that being maltreated in childhood does not necessarily lead to IPV victimization. It could be partially explained
by the role of social environment (Cascio et al., 2017) and individual resilience (Walklate, 2011). For example, despite being exposed
to adverse life events, people with high resilience may do well in their lives (Walklate, 2011). Therefore, the contributions to IPV
victimization are complicated and multi-determined, and CM is not the only determinant.
We are also curious about the differential effects of four CM types on the likelihood of becoming victims of IPV. Although many
studies have found a relationship between CM and IPV victimization, most of them either focused on only one or two experiences of
CM (e.g., Fiorillo et al., 2013; Jennings et al., 2015; Renner & Slack, 2006) or combined these various forms into a single CM variable
(e.g., Yan & Karatzias, 2016). Little is known about the differential effects of various CM types on IPV victimization. This meta-
analysis, as far as we know, is the first to examine whether this difference exists. The results revealed that all types of CM were
positively related to IPV victimization, and there were no significant differences among them. However, we suggest that this study
cannot compare the relative strength of various CM types precisely. The reasons are as follows: firstly, as has been noted, the effect
sizes for various CM types were not independent in current meta-analysis (e.g., some participants experienced both physical abuse
and psychological abuse). Therefore, the result of the between-category tests of homogeneity should be interpreted with caution.
Secondly, as with any meta-analysis, our findings are limited by the available evidence. More research is needed, especially to
illuminate different effects of various CM on IPV victimization. Thirdly, different types of CM may occur simultaneously. For ex-
ample, physical abuse in childhood may also be accompanied by psychological abuse (Wekerle et al., 2009). Therefore, it is quite
difficult to determine whether there is a true difference in the strength of associations among various CM types. More work is needed
to clarify this issue.
Furthermore, we explored the moderating role of gender in the relation between CM and IPV victimization, but found no sig-
nificant differences. Three possible reasons may account for this gender symmetry result: firstly, most data in our meta-analysis were
from representative samples. As with Johnson (1995) viewpoint, there were differences between IPV studies using representative
samples and clinical samples. Specifically, studies using clinical samples tended to measure serious IPV. It was a form of “terroristic
control” of females by their male partners. In contrast, studies with representative samples researched on “common couple violence”.
It was an occasional outburst of violence from their partners, which was not gendered. Secondly, most studies in current meta-
analysis used the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) to measure IPV victimization. Although commonly used, it has been criticized for not
taking context, motivations, and consequences of IPV into account (Dobash & Dobash, 2004). The ignorance of these factors may
favor the finding of gender symmetry in violence prevalence (Archer, 2000). For instance, if the consequences of violence were
considered, nearly all victims would be females (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992). Thirdly, unlike prior meta-analyses which
only measured physical IPV victimization (Smith-Marek et al., 2015; Stith et al., 2000), the IPV victimization in our meta-analysis is a
combination of various IPV types. It is worth noting that there are some differences in distinct forms of IPV victimization between
males and females (McHugh, Rakowski, & Swiderski, 2013; Smith-Marek et al., 2015; Stith et al., 2000). Thus, the combination of
various IPV forms may cover the distinct gender difference.
Finally, this meta-analysis shed light on the moderating effect of marital status on the relation between CM and IPV victimization.
Our results showed that the effect size of CM was stronger for dating violence than for marital violence. It may be due to certain
characteristics of the dating participants. To be specific, dating couples are relatively younger than married ones. They appear to be
more immature compared to those involved in marital relationships (Rodríguez Franco, Antuna Bellerin, López-Cepero Borrego,
Rodríguez Díaz, & Bringas Molleda, 2012). For example, the salience of jealousy may be a major precipitant to dating violence
(Carlson, 1987). What’s more, there are less familial and economic bounds in dating relationships (Shorey et al., 2008), making them
more accessible to alternative relationships (Carlson, 1987). Therefore, compared with married couples, these dating couples have
higher vulnerability to falling into violent intimate relationships. Indeed, some researchers found that victims in intimate relation-
ships were greater in youth than in adult population (Rodríguez Franco et al., 2012). However, it is still unclear whether there are any
other factors influencing the effects of CM on dating violence and marital violence. More research is needed to clarify why and how
CM influence dating violence and marital violence distinctly.

6. Limitations

Several limitations in the current study should be addressed. First, most studies included in this meta-analysis were based on
retrospective data, which is cross-sectional and correlational in nature. Therefore, the causality as implied by this study cannot be
firmly established. Second, we did not analyze whether there is a match between CM and IPV victimization types, given that only a
few studies have distinguished the unique effects of a specific CM type on various IPV victimization types. Third, although we aimed
to examine the effect of experiencing CM on IPV victimization in our study, it is possible that experiencing CM and witnessing
interparental violence co-occur in families (Smith-Marek et al., 2015). Thus, it is hard to rule out the influence of witnessing in-
terparental violence in current meta-analysis.

7. Suggestions for future studies

This meta-analysis highlights multiple areas for future research. Firstly, most studies included in our meta-analysis only examined
the relationship between total CM or one specific form of CM and IPV victimization. Future studies should include an investigation of
the potential accumulative effects of different forms of CM, and address other implications of CM on IPV other than victimization

221
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

(e.g., becoming a victim vs. an abuser in intimate relationships). Secondly, although all forms of CM in current meta-analysis had a
significant impact on IPV victimization, the underlying mechanisms may be complicated. There are some factors (e.g., emotional
dysfunction) mediating the relationships between more than one kind of CM and IPV victimization (Berzenski & Yates, 2010; Iverson
et al., 2014). It is essential to explore the unique and pervasive mediating mechanisms in the associations between various CM types
and IPV victimization. Finally, it should be noted that the effect size of CM on IPV victimization in this meta-analysis was not large.
Namely, despite the history of CM, individuals may also experience satisfying romantic relationships. Future studies need to actively
explore other possible factors (e.g., resilience) in reducing this adverse influence of CM on IPV victimization.

Acknowledgement

The present study was suported by the Outstanding Innovative Talents Cultivation Funded Programs 2018 of Renmin Univertity
of China and National Natural Science Foundation of China (81571337).

References1

*Alexander, P. C., Moore, S., & Alexander, E. R., III (1991). What is transmitted in the intergenerational transmission of violence? Journal of Marriage and the Family,
53(3), 657–667.
*Arata, C. M., & Lindman, L. (2002). Marriage, child abuse, and sexual revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(9), 953–971.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651–680.
*Baker, C. R., & Stith, S. M. (2008). Factors predicting dating violence perpetration among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 17(2), 227–244.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
*Banyard, V. L., Williams, L. M., Saunders, B. E., & Fitzgerald, M. M. (2008). The complexity of trauma types in the lives of women in families referred for family
violence: Multiple mediators of mental health. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(4), 394–404.
*Barrett, B. (2010). Childhood sexual abuse and adulthood parenting: The mediating role of intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
19(3), 323–346.
Barrios, Y. V., Gelaye, B., Zhong, Q., Nicolaidis, C., Rondon, M. B., Garcia, P. J., ... Williams, M. A. (2015). Association of childhood physical and sexual abuse with
intimate partner violence, poor general health and depressive symptoms among pregnant women. PloS One, 10(1), 1–18.
*Bell, K. M., & Higgins, L. (2015). The impact of childhood emotional abuse and experiential avoidance on maladaptive problem solving and intimate partner violence.
Behavioral Sciences, 5(2), 154–175.
*Bender, M., Cook, S., & Kaslow, N. (2003). Social support as a mediator of revictimization of low-income African American women. Violence and Victims, 18(4),
419–431.
*Berzenski, S. R., & Yates, T. M. (2010). A developmental process analysis of the contribution of childhood emotional abuse to relationship violence. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(2), 180–203.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., ... Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey
(NISVS): 2010 summary reportAtlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Brooks-Russell, A., Foshee, V. A., & Ennett, S. T. (2013). Predictors of latent trajectory classes of physical dating violence victimization. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 42(4), 566–580.
*Buchanan, S. J. (2007). Risk markers associated with physical and psychological abuse by intimate partners against women in substance abuse treatment. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. Seton Hall University.
*Busuito, A., Huth-Bocks, A., & Puro, E. (2014). Romantic attachment as a moderator of the association between childhood abuse and posttraumatic stress disorder
symptoms. Journal of Family Violence, 29(5), 567–577.
Card, N. A. (2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carlson, B. E. (1987). Dating violence: A research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68(1), 16–23.
*Cascardi, M. (2016). From violence in the home to physical dating violence victimization: The mediating role of psychological distress in a prospective study of female
adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(4), 777–792.
*Cascio, M. L., Guarnaccia, C., Infurna, M. R., Mancuso, L., Parroco, A. M., & Giannone, F. (2017). Environmental dysfunctions, childhood maltreatment and women’s
intimate partner violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517711176 Advance online publication.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). ). Intimate partner violence: Definitions. Atlanta, GA: Author Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violencepre-
vention/intimatepartner violence/definitions.html.
*Chan, K. L. (2004). Correlates of wife assault in Hong Kong Chinese families. Violence and Victims, 19(2), 189–201.
*Clark, A. H., & Foy, D. W. (2000). Trauma exposure and alcohol use in battered women. Violence Against Women, 6(1), 37–48.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
*Cort, N. A., Toth, S. L., Cerulli, C., & Rogosch, F. (2011). Maternal intergenerational transmission of childhood multitype maltreatment. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(1), 20–39.
Costa, E. C., & Gomes, S. C. (2018). Social support and self-esteem moderate the relation between intimate partner violence and depression and anxiety symptoms
among Portuguese women. Journal of Family Violence, 33(5), 355–368.
*Cui, M., Durtschi, J. A., Donnellan, M. B., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: A prospective longitudinal
study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 688–697.
*Dietrich, A. (2007). Childhood maltreatment and revictimization: The role of affect dysregulation, interpersonal relatedness difficulties and posttraumatic stress
disorder. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 8(4), 25–51.
Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. The British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324–349.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71–91.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2),
455–463.
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 741–753.
Fang, X., & Corso, P. S. (2008). Gender differences in the connections between violence experienced as a child and perpetration of intimate partner violence in young
adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 23(5), 303–313.
*Feiring, C., Simon, V. A., & Cleland, C. M. (2009). Childhood sexual abuse, stigmatization, internalizing symptoms, and the development of sexual difficulties and
dating aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 127–137.

1
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

222
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

*Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Developmental antecedents of interpartner violence in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Family
Violence, 23(8), 737–753.
Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyle/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11(1), 3–19.
Fiorillo, D., Papa, A., & Follette, V. M. (2013). The relationship between child physical abuse and victimization in dating relationships: The role of experiential
avoidance. Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy, 5(6), 562–569.
Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Laughlin, J. E., & Burke, L. (1999). Risk factors and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency and severity
levels in a college sample. Violence and Victims, 14(4), 365–380.
Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victi-
mization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39(5), 1007–1016.
Friedrich, W. N., Urquiza, A. J., & Beilke, R. L. (1986). Behavior problems in sexually abused young children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11(1), 47–57.
*Gagné, M. H., Lavoie, F., & Hébert, M. (2005). Victimization during childhood and revictimization in dating relationships in adolescent girls. Child Abuse & Neglect,
29(10), 1155–1172.
*Gay, L. E., Harding, H. G., Jackson, J. L., Burns, E. E., & Baker, B. D. (2013). Attachment style and early maladaptive schemas as mediators of the relationship between
childhood emotional abuse and intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22(4), 408–424.
Hamby, S., & Turner, H. (2013). Measuring teen dating violence in males and females: Insights from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. Psychology
of Violence, 3(4), 323–339.
Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., & Turner, H. (2012). Teen dating violence: Co-occurrence with other victimizations in the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence
(NatSCEV). Psychology of Violence, 2(2), 111–124.
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560.
Iverson, K. M., Dardis, C. M., & Pogoda, T. K. (2017). Traumatic brain injury and PTSD symptoms as a consequence of intimate partner violence. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 74, 80–87.
*Iverson, K. M., McLaughlin, K. A., Adair, K. C., & Monson, C. M. (2014). Anger-related dysregulation as a factor linking childhood physical abuse and interparental
violence to intimate partner violence experiences. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 564–578.
Jennings, W. G., Richards, T. N., Tomsich, E., & Gover, A. R. (2015). Investigating the role of child sexual abuse in intimate partner violence victimization and
perpetration in young adulthood from a propensity score matching approach. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(6), 659–681.
Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet (London, England), 359(9315), 1423–1429.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283–294.
Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46(1), 11–19.
*Kwong, M. J., Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A. J., & Trinke, S. J. (2003). The intergenerational transmission of relationship violence. Journal of Family Psychology,
17(3), 288–301.
*Lamis, D. A., Cavanaugh, C. E., Anastasiades, M. H., Garcia-Williams, A., Anderson, C., & Kaslow, N. J. (2017). Intimate partner sexual coercion mediates the
childhood sexual abuse–suicidal ideation link among African American women. The Journal of Black Psychology, 43(3), 305–324.
Leeb, R. T., Paulozzi, L., Melanson, C., Simon, T., & Arias, I. (2008). Child maltreatment surveillance: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements,
Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
*Maas, C. D., Fleming, C. B., Herrenkohl, T. I., & Catalano, R. F. (2010). Childhood predictors of teen dating violence victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(2),
131–149.
*Mair, C., Cunradi, C. B., & Todd, M. (2012). Adverse childhood experiences and intimate partner violence: Testing psychosocial mediational pathways among couples.
Annals of Epidemiology, 22(12), 832–839.
McHugh, M. C., Rakowski, S., & Swiderski, C. (2013). Men’s experience of psychological abuse: Conceptualization and measurement issues. Sex Roles, 69(3-4),
168–181.
*Messing, J. T., La Flair, L., Cavanaugh, C. E., Kanga, M. R., & Campbell, J. C. (2012). Testing posttraumatic stress as a mediator of childhood trauma and adult
intimate partner violence victimization. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21(7), 792–811.
*Murphy, C. M., & Blumenthal, D. R. (2000). The mediating influence of interpersonal problems on the intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression.
Personal Relationships, 7(2), 203–218.
*Nguyen, T. P., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2017). Childhood abuse and later marital outcomes: Do partner characteristics moderate the association? Journal of
Family Psychology, 31(1), 82–92.
*Novak, J. R., Smith, D. B., & Sandberg, J. G. (2015). The association between the report of abuse in childhood and perceptions of safety in current adult intimate
relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(5), 425–440.
Obasaju, M. A., Palin, F. L., Jacobs, C., Anderson, P., & Kaslow, N. J. (2009). Won’t you be my neighbor? Using an ecological approach to examine the impact of
community on revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(1), 38–53.
*Ornduff, S. R., Kelsey, R. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2001). Childhood physical abuse, personality, and adult relationship violence: A model of vulnerability to victimi-
zation. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(3), 322–331.
Parks, S. E., Kim, K. H., Day, N. L., Garza, M. A., & Larkby, C. A. (2011). Lifetime self-reported victimization among low-income, urban women: The relationship
between childhood maltreatment and adult violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1111–1128.
Peltzer, K., & Pengpid, S. (2017). Associations between intimate partner violence, depression, and suicidal behavior among women attending antenatal and general
outpatients hospital services in Thailand. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice, 20(7), 892–899.
*Popescu, M. L., Dewan, S., & Rusu, C. (2010). Childhood victimization and its impact on coping behaviors for victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 25(6), 575–585.
Renner, L. M., & Slack, K. S. (2006). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Understanding intra-and intergenerational connections. Child Abuse & Neglect,
30(6), 599–617.
Renner, L. M., & Whitney, S. D. (2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(1),
40–52.
Richards, T. N., Tillyer, M. S., & Wright, E. M. (2017). Intimate partner violence and the overlap of perpetration and victimization: Considering the influence of
physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 240–248.
*Riggs, S. A., & Kaminski, P. (2010). Childhood emotional abuse, adult attachment, and depression as predictors of relational adjustment and psychological aggression.
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(1), 75–104.
Rodríguez Franco, L., Antuna Bellerin, M.d.l. A., López-Cepero Borrego, J., Rodríguez Díaz, F. J., & Bringas Molleda, C. (2012). Tolerance towards dating violence in
Spanish adolescents. Psicothema, 24(2), 238–242.
*Rosen, K. H., Bartle-Harng, S., & Stith, S. M. (2001). Using Bowen theory to enhance understanding of the intergenerational transmission of dating violence. Journal of
Family Issues, 22(1), 124–142.
*Rosen, L. N., Parmley, A. M., Knudson, K. H., & Fancher, P. (2002). Intimate partner violence among married male US army soldiers: Ethnicity as a factor in self-
reported perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 17(5), 607–622.
*Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Bell, K. M. (2008). A critical review of theoretical frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 13(3), 185–194.
Shorey, R. C., Zucosky, H., Febres, J., Brasfield, H., & Stuart, G. L. (2013). Males’ reactions to participating in research on dating violence victimization and childhood
abuse. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 22(4), 348–364.
*Simonelli, C. J., Mullis, T., Elliott, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2002). Abuse by siblings and subsequent experiences of violence within the dating relationship. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17(2), 103–121.
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 143(2), 534–547.

223
S. Li et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 88 (2019) 212–224

*Smagur, K. E., Bogat, G. A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2017). Attachment insecurity mediates the effects of intimate partner violence and childhood maltreatment on
depressive symptoms in adult women. Psychology of Violence. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000142 Advance online publication.
Smith, D. M., & Donnelly, J. (2001). Adolescent dating violence: A multi-systemic approach of enhancing awareness in educators, parents, and society. Journal of
Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 21(1), 53–64.
Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public
Health, 93(7), 1104–1109.
Smith-Marek, E. N., Cafferky, B., Dharnidharka, P., Mallory, A. B., Dominguez, M., High, J., ... Mendez, M. (2015). Effects of childhood experiences of family violence
on adult partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 7(4), 498–519.
Stark, E. (2006). Reply to Michael P. Johnson’s conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11),
1019–1025.
Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(3), 640–654.
*Sullivan, T. P., Ashare, R. L., Jaquier, V., & Tennen, H. (2012). Risk factors for alcohol-related problems among victims of partner violence. Substance Use & Misuse,
47(6), 673–685.
*Sullivan, T. P., Cavanaugh, C. E., Buckner, J. D., & Edmondson, D. (2009). Testing posttraumatic stress as a mediator of physical, sexual, and psychological intimate
partner violence and substance problems among women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(6), 575–584.
Sunday, S., Kline, M., Labruna, V., Pelcovitz, D., Salzinger, S., & Kaplan, S. (2011). The role of adolescent physical abuse in adult intimate partner violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 26(18), 3773–3789.
Temple, J. R., & Freeman, D. H., Jr (2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 701–718.
*Van Bruggen, L. K. (2009). Romantic relationships in young women with a history of child maltreatment: Examining the role of mentoring relationships as a protective factor.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Victoria.
Villodas, M. T., Litrownik, A. J., Thompson, R., Roesch, S. C., English, D. J., Dubowitz, H., ... Runyan, D. K. (2012). Changes in youth’s experiences of child
maltreatment across developmental periods in the LONGSCAN consortium. Psychology of Violence, 2(4), 325–338.
Walker, L. E. (1983). The battered woman syndrome study. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.). The dark side of families: Current family
violence research (pp. 31–48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Walklate, S. (2011). Reframing criminal victimization: Finding a place for vulnerability and resilience. Theoretical Criminology, 15(2), 179–194.
Wareham, J., Boots, D. P., & Chavez, J. M. (2009). A test of social learning and intergenerational transmission among batterers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2),
163–173.
Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A. M., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M., Trocme, N., ... Waechter, R. (2009). The contribution of childhood emotional abuse to teen dating
violence among child protective services-involved youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(1), 45–58.
*Wekerle, C., Wolfe, D. A., Hawkins, D. L., Pittman, A. L., Glickman, A., & Lovald, B. E. (2001). Childhood maltreatment, posttraumatic stress symptomatology, and
adolescent dating violence: Considering the value of adolescent perceptions of abuse and a trauma mediational model. Development and Psychopathology, 13(4),
847–871.
Widom, C. S., Czaja, S. J., & Dutton, M. A. (2008). Childhood victimization and lifetime revictimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 785–796.
Widom, C. S., Czaja, S., & Dutton, M. A. (2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 650–663.
Yan, E., & Karatzias, T. (2016). Childhood abuse and current intimate partner violence: A population study in Hong Kong. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260516682521 Advance online publication.
*Zamir, O., & Lavee, Y. (2014). Psychological mindedness as a protective factor against revictimization in intimate relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(9),
847–859.
*Zerubavel, N., Messman-Moore, T. L., DiLillo, D., & Gratz, K. L. (2018). Childhood sexual abuse and fear of abandonment moderate the relation of intimate partner
violence to severity of dissociation. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 19(1), 9–24.
*Zhang, H., Pittman, D. M., Lamis, D. A., Fischer, N. L., Schwenke, T. J., Carr, E. R., ... Kaslow, N. J. (2015). Childhood maltreatment and PTSD: Spiritual well-being
and intimate partner violence as mediators. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(5), 501–519.
*Zurbriggen, E. L., Gobin, R. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2010). Childhood emotional abuse predicts late adolescent sexual aggression perpetration and victimization. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(2), 204–223.

224