The 'twin pandemics'? modelling and predicting the trajectories of IPV perpetration during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Australia.
Saved in:
| Title: | The 'twin pandemics'? modelling and predicting the trajectories of IPV perpetration during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Australia. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Karantzas, Gery C., Romano, Daniel A., Chesterman, Susan, Marshall, Emma M., Knox, Laura, Mullins, Ellie R., Lawless, Nicholas, Ferguson, Elizabeth, Miller, Peter G., Eckhardt, Christopher I., Pilkington, Pam, Patel, Anshu, Simpson, Jeffry A. |
| Source: | British Journal of Social Psychology. Jul2025, Vol. 64 Issue 3, p1-19. 19p. |
| Subjects: | Risk assessment, Statistical power analysis, Goodness-of-fit tests, Intimate partner violence, Conceptual models, Victim psychology, Control (Psychology), Descriptive statistics, Psychology, Longitudinal method, Stay-at-home orders, Cisgender people, Data analysis software, COVID-19 pandemic, Social distancing, Social isolation |
| Geographic Terms: | Victoria, Australia |
| Abstract: | Initial research suggested that intimate partner violence (IPV) increased over COVID‐19 due to social restrictions. This IPV increase during COVID‐19 has been termed the 'twin pandemics'. Closer inspection of the evidence, however, challenges this notion. In this study, Australian residents (N = 608) who were either exposed to strict, prolonged lockdown orders (Victorian residents) or not (non‐Victorian residents) completed 10 waves of IPV perpetration assessment online over five months and baseline assessments of instigating factors (situational factors that increase IPV perpetration), impelling factors (personal characteristics that increase IPV perpetration) and inhibiting factors (personal and situational factors that diminish IPV perpetration). Latent profile analysis and conditional latent growth curve modelling revealed that lockdown alone did not predict IPV trajectories. However, individuals whose profiles evidenced higher instigating and impelling factors and lower inhibiting factors (i.e. perfect storm profile) demonstrated elevated physical and psychological IPV over time compared to those whose profiles evidenced lower instigating and impelling factors and higher inhibiting factors (i.e. low‐risk profile). Those with a perfect storm profile also evidenced steeper acceleration in physical and psychological IPV over time. The findings call into question the 'twin pandemics' notion and suggest that IPV over COVID‐19 is best predicted by a specific risk profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Initial research suggested that intimate partner violence (IPV) increased over COVID‐19 due to social restrictions. This IPV increase during COVID‐19 has been termed the 'twin pandemics'. Closer inspection of the evidence, however, challenges this notion. In this study, Australian residents (N = 608) who were either exposed to strict, prolonged lockdown orders (Victorian residents) or not (non‐Victorian residents) completed 10 waves of IPV perpetration assessment online over five months and baseline assessments of instigating factors (situational factors that increase IPV perpetration), impelling factors (personal characteristics that increase IPV perpetration) and inhibiting factors (personal and situational factors that diminish IPV perpetration). Latent profile analysis and conditional latent growth curve modelling revealed that lockdown alone did not predict IPV trajectories. However, individuals whose profiles evidenced higher instigating and impelling factors and lower inhibiting factors (i.e. perfect storm profile) demonstrated elevated physical and psychological IPV over time compared to those whose profiles evidenced lower instigating and impelling factors and higher inhibiting factors (i.e. low‐risk profile). Those with a perfect storm profile also evidenced steeper acceleration in physical and psychological IPV over time. The findings call into question the 'twin pandemics' notion and suggest that IPV over COVID‐19 is best predicted by a specific risk profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 01446665 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjso.12911 |
