【24h】

Investigating whether controlling and aggressive relationship behaviors are discriminant

机译:调查控制和侵略性关系行为是否是判别的

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Control is theorized as central to intimate partner aggression (IPA). Tools measuring nonphysical "controlling behaviors" in relationships have therefore been developed to identify the latent construct of control. However, the underlying assumption that "controlling behaviors" form a distinct subset of IPA has not been validated. This study investigates the divergent validity of acts considered as "controlling behaviors" against other aggressive acts used in relationships. The IPA and relationship literatures were reviewed to identify 1,397 items involving "controlling," physical, sexual, and psychologically aggressive acts perpetrated and/or experienced by an intimate partner. In total, 101 item pairs were identified and used to measure IPA tactics across these categories. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis in a community sample (N = 561) found no evidence of a distinct factor of "controlling behaviors." Behaviors labeled as "controlling" in existing measures were distributed across other factors, including "eclectic aggression," "direct psychological aggression," and "monitoring acts." In Study 2A (N = 424 students), confirmatory factor analysis replicated the results of Study 1 and established configural measurement invariance (Study 2B), indicating no evidence for psychometric differences between samples. These results indicate that behaviors described as "controlling" in existing measures were not statistically distinguishable from other forms of IPA, and suggest that future research should investigate motivational, rather than behavioral, differences in the use of IPA. The findings challenge research to confirm whether a set of discrete behaviors can be used to accurately identify control in relationships and question the validity of tools that adopt this methodology.
机译:控制被视为亲密的合作伙伴侵略(IPA)的核心。因此,已经开发出测量关系中的非物质“控制行为”的工具,以确定控制的潜在构建体。但是,“控制行为”形成不同IPA的不同子集的潜在假设尚未得到验证。本研究调查了被视为“控制行为”的行为对与关系中使用的其他侵略性的行为的发散有效性。审查了IPA和关系文献,以确定涉及“控制”的物理,性和心理侵略性行为的1,397项,受私密伴侣犯下和/或经验。总共确定了101项对,并用于衡量这些类别的IPA策略。在研究1中,社区样本中的探索因子分析(n = 561)发现没有证据表明“控制行为”的不同因素。标记为“控制”现行措施的行为分布在其他因素,包括“折衷主义侵略”,“直接心理侵略”和“监督行为”。在研究2a(n = 424名学生)中,确认因子分析复制了研究的结果1并建立了配置测量不变性(研究2b),表明样品之间没有表现出心理差异的证据。这些结果表明,现有措施中的“控制”的行为与其他形式的IPA没有统计上可区分,并建议未来的研究应该调查励志,而不是行为,使用IPA的差异。调查结果挑战研究以确认一组离散行为是否可用于准确识别关系中的控制,并质疑采用该方法的工具的有效性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号