We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Investigate the prevalence of adverse childhood experience (ACE) and intimate partner violence (IPV) using a large representative Chinese sample, explore the association mechanism between ACE and adult exposure to IPV and to examine gender differences.
Methods
A total of 21,154 participants were included in this study. The ACE scale was used to assess participants’ exposure to ACE before the age of 18. Participants were evaluated for IPV experienced after the age of 18 using the IPV Scale. Logistic regression model was used to analyse the association between ACE and the risk of IPV exposure in adulthood. Principal component analysis was used to extract the main patterns of ACEs in the Chinese population. Network analyses were employed to identify the most critical types of ACE and IPV, analyse the association mechanisms between ACEs and IPVs, explore gender differences in this association and compare gender differences in the severity of IPVs experienced in adulthood.
Results
Participants with at least one ACE event faced a 215.5% higher risk of IPV compared to those without ACE experiences. In population-wide and gender-specific networks, The ACE and IPV nodes with the highest expected influence are ‘ACE1 (Verbal abuse + physical abuse pattern)’ and ‘IPV5 (Partner compares me to other people and blatantly accuses me, making me feel embarrassed and unsure of myself)’. Positive correlations were found between ‘ACE1 (Verbal abuse + physical abuse pattern)’–‘IPV3 (Partner does not care about me when I am in bad shape [not feeling well or in a bad mood])’, ‘ACE4 (Violent treatment of mother or stepmother + criminal acts in the family pattern)’–‘IPV1 (Partner has ever directly assaulted or hurt me with the help of an instrument)’ and ‘ACE2 (Exposure to sexual assault pattern)’–‘IPV2 (Partner would have physical or sexual contact with me against my will)’, which were the three edges with the highest edge weight values in the ACE pattern and IPV edges. ‘ACE1 (Verbal abuse + physical abuse pattern)’–‘IPV3 (Partner does not care about me when I am in bad shape [not feeling well or in a bad mood])’, ‘ACE2 (Exposure to sexual assault pattern)’–‘IPV2 (Partner would have physical or sexual contact with me against my will)’, ‘ACE4 (Violent treatment of mother or stepmother + criminal acts in the family pattern)’–‘IPV1 (Partner has ever directly assaulted or hurt me with the help of an instrument)’ in the male network and ‘ACE1 (Verbal abuse + physical abuse pattern)’–‘IPV3 (Partner does not care about me when I am in bad shape [not feeling well or in a bad mood])’, ‘ACE4 (Violent treatment of mother or stepmother + criminal acts in the family pattern)’–‘IPV1 (Partner has ever directly assaulted or hurt me with the help of an instrument)’, ‘ACE3 (Substance abuse + mental illness + violent treatment of mother or stepmother pattern)’–‘IPV1 (Partner has ever directly assaulted or hurt me with the help of an instrument)’ in the female network are the three edges with the highest edge weights among the ACE and IPV edges in their networks, respectively, all displaying positive correlations. The strength of ‘IPV3 (Partner does not care about me when I am in bad shape [not feeling well or in a bad mood])’ was higher in the male network than in the female (male = 0.821, female = 0.755, p = 0.002). The edge weight values of ‘ACE3 (Substance abuse + mental illness + violent treatment of mother or stepmother pattern)’–‘IPV1 (Partner has ever directly assaulted or hurt me with the help of an instrument)’ (P = 0.043) and ‘ACE4 (Violent treatment of mother or stepmother + criminal acts in the family pattern)’–‘IPV1 (Partner has ever directly assaulted or hurt me with the help of an instrument)’ (P = 0.032) are greater for females than males.
Conclusions
The most common type of ACE in the Chinese population is verbal violence combined with physical violence, while the predominant type of IPV is verbal violence. Males experience higher levels of emotional neglect from their partners compared to females. The association between witnessing physical violence in childhood and experiencing physical violence from a partner in adulthood is stronger in females than in males. The homotypic continuum between ACE and IPV is a crucial mechanism in understanding intergenerational domestic violence. Enhance economic and educational levels, promote correct parenting concepts, reduce child abuse, establish accurate perceptions of intimate relationships, eliminate shame about violence and further advance gender equality. These efforts are vital for reducing IPV prevalence and breaking the cycle of violence in victims’ lives.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.