» Articles » PMID: 38962161

Evaluation of Traditional Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youth

Overview
Date 2024 Jul 4
PMID 38962161
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Sexual and gender minority youth assigned female at birth (SGM-AFAB) experience higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) than heterosexual and cisgender youth. To inform efforts to reduce these disparities, we explored whether IPV risk factors identified in the general population are associated with IPV among SGM-AFAB young people.

Method: Using multiwave longitudinal data from a 400 SGM-AFAB youth (ages 16-20 at baseline), we estimated between- and within-persons effects of demographic/contextual characteristics (gender, sexual identity, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status), developmental/background factors (childhood violence), and psychological/behavioral factors (antisocial behavior, depression, problematic alcohol and cannabis use) on a range of IPV experiences (victimization and perpetration of psychological, physical, sexual, and SGM-specific IPV).

Results: In this SGM-AFAB sample, IPV experiences were associated with many traditional risk factors identified in the general population, including race, economic stress, childhood violence, antisocial behavior, depression, and use of substances (particularly cannabis). In contrast to previous research, we did not find that SGM youth with transgender or gender nonbinary identities, or with bi- or pan-sexual identities, were at greater risk for IPV than other SGM youth. Very few putative risk factors were associated with SGM-specific IPV.

Conclusion: Findings suggest SGM youth could benefit from IPV prevention approaches that target common risk factors at multiple ecological levels (policies to reduce poverty and racism, parenting programs, interventions to reduce mental health and substance use problems). Continued research is needed to explore how risk for IPV among SGM-AFAB youth may vary by gender identity, sexual identity, and stigma-based experiences.

Citing Articles

Factors affecting the risk of gender-based violence among 2SLGBTQIA+ adolescents and youth: a scoping review of climate change-related vulnerabilities.

Parzniewski S, Luo X, Ru S, Ozbilge N, Breen K, Wu H Front Sociol. 2025; 10:1541039.

PMID: 40012865 PMC: 11861036. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2025.1541039.


Causal and common risk pathways linking childhood maltreatment to later intimate partner violence victimization.

Patrizia P, Pingault J, Eley T, McCrory E, Viding E Res Sq. 2024; .

PMID: 38883746 PMC: 11177992. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4409798/v1.


A global call for adolescent intimate partner violence prevention.

Johnson S, Mootz J, Waller B, Fortunato Dos Santos P, Jaguga F, Giusto A Lancet Psychiatry. 2024; 11(4):238-239.

PMID: 38280384 PMC: 11003822. DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00435-2.

References
1.
Ellsberg M, Jansen H, Heise L, Watts C, Garcia-Moreno C . Intimate partner violence and women's physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet. 2008; 371(9619):1165-72. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60522-X. View

2.
Greene B . Lesbian women of color. J Lesbian Stud. 2014; 1(1):109-47. DOI: 10.1300/J155v01n01_09. View

3.
Lehrer J, Buka S, Gortmaker S, Shrier L . Depressive symptomatology as a predictor of exposure to intimate partner violence among US female adolescents and young adults. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006; 160(3):270-6. DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.160.3.270. View

4.
OLeary K, Slep A, OLeary S . Multivariate models of men's and women's partner aggression. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007; 75(5):752-64. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.752. View

5.
Bowleg L, Huang J, Brooks K, Black A, Burkholder G . Triple jeopardy and beyond: multiple minority stress and resilience among black lesbians. J Lesbian Stud. 2014; 7(4):87-108. DOI: 10.1300/J155v07n04_06. View