↓ Skip to main content

Secure Base Narrative Representations and Intimate Partner Violence: a Dyadic Perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Family Violence, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Secure Base Narrative Representations and Intimate Partner Violence: a Dyadic Perspective
Published in
Journal of Family Violence, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10896-015-9778-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gunnur Karakurt, Kristin E. Silver, Margaret K. Keiley

Abstract

This study aimed to understand the relationship between secure base phenomena and dating violence among couples. Within a relationship, a secure base can be defined as a balancing act of proximity-seeking and exploration at various times and contexts with the assurance of a caregiver's availability and responsiveness in emotionally distressing situations. Participants were 87 heterosexual couples. The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model was used to examine the relationship between each partner's scores on secure base representational knowledge and intimate partner violence. Findings demonstrated that women's secure base representational knowledge had a significant direct negative effect on the victimization of both men and women, while men's secure base representational knowledge did not have any significant partner or actor effects. Therefore, findings suggest that women with insecure attachments may be more vulnerable to being both the victims and the perpetrators of.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 17%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Unspecified 6 7%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 23 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 41%
Social Sciences 11 13%
Unspecified 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 23 28%