The contagiousness and deadliness of COVID-19 have necessitated drastic social management to halt transmission. The immediate effects of a nationwide lockdown were investigated by comparing matched samples of New Zealanders assessed before (Nprelockdown = 1,003) and during the first 18 days of lockdown (Nlockdown = 1,003). Two categories of outcomes were examined: (a) institutional trust and attitudes toward the nation and government and (b) health and well-being. Applying propensity score matching to approximate the conditions of a randomized controlled experiment, the study found that people in the pandemic/lockdown group reported higher trust in science, politicians, and police, higher levels of patriotism, and higher rates of mental distress compared to people in the prelockdown prepandemic group. Results were confirmed in within-subjects analyses. The study highlights social connectedness, resilience, and vulnerability in the face of adversity and has applied implications for how countries face this global challenge. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

/pdf/effects-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-nationwide-lockdown-on-4a9bbrqyfo.pdf

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward government, and well-being.

One hotly debated topic within the field of intimate partner violence (IPV) is the degree to which IPV can be understood as primarily a unidirectional versus bidirectional phenomena; this topic forms a key component of the gender symmetry versus asymmetry of domestic violence debate. Resolution of this controversy has important prevention and intervention implications. In the current study, a comprehensive review of the literature was conducted, and 48 studies that reported rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional physical violence (male-to-female and female-to-male) were uncovered using a variety of search engines and key terms; one relevant meta-analysis and one seminal book chapter were also identified. Included empirical studies were published in 1990 or later, appeared in peer-reviewed journals, and contained empirical data directly related to bidirectionality of violence. Studies that only reported correlations between self-reported perpetration and victimization were excluded from these analyses. Qualifying studies were then categorized by the nature of the sample they assessed (i.e., large population samples; smaller community; purposive or convenience samples; clinical or treatment-seeking samples; legal/criminal justice-related samples; and samples assessing the relationships of gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual individuals). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence (male-toward-female vs. female-toward-male) were summarized directly as reported or were derived on the basis of data contained within the article. All obtained studies (48 empirical, 1 meta-analysis, 1 book chapter) were then entered into an online summary table for public review; however, additional results were specifically calculated for the current article. These results indicate that bidirectional violence was common across all types of samples (population-based to criminal justice). This suggests that the role of women in violent relationships is important to consider, even if all aspects of women’s perpetration of IPV are not symmetrical to men’s perpetration of IPV. A second finding to emerge was that the ratio of unidirectional female-to-male compared to male-to-female IPV differed significantly among samples with higher rates of female-perpetrated unidirectional violence found in four of the five sample types considered. Higher ratios of male-to-female unidirectional violence were found only in criminal justice/legal studies that relied on police reports of IPV perpetration and/or in samples drawn from the U.S. military. Competing explanations for the differing ratios were offered in the current discussion. These need to be tested empirically in order to fully understand the expression of IPV across samples and settings. Differences in the directionality of the expression of IPV were not found in samples of gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals; however, rates of bidirectional violence appear to vary by race/ethnicity with higher rates of bidirectional violence among Black couples. Overall, it is suggested that if one resolution of the gender symmetry/asymmetry debate is to argue that there are subtypes of male and female domestic violence perpetrators (Johnson, 2005; Johnson, 2006), or that there are different patterns of violence among different types of relationships characterized by IPV (Stets & Straus, 1989), researchers and clinicians will need to work together to determine how to reliably and meaningfully make these determinations in ways that will facilitate our ability to effectively prevent and treat all types of IPV.

Rates of Bidirectional Versus Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review

Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: a prospective investigation.

Times of economic uncertainty, civil unrest and disaster are linked to a myriad of risk factors for increased violence against women and children (VAW/C). Pandemics are no exception. In fact, the regional or global nature and associated fear and uncertainty associated with pandemics provide an enabling environment that may exacerbate or spark diverse forms of violence. Understanding mechanisms underlying these dynamics are important for crafting policy and program responses to mitigate adverse effects. Based on existing published and grey literature, we document nine main (direct and indirect) pathways linking pandemics and VAW/C, through effects of (on):(1) economic insecurity and poverty-related stress, (2) quarantines and social isolation, (3) disaster and conflict-related unrest and instability, (4) exposure to exploitative relationships due to changing demographics, (5) reduced health service availability and access to first responders, (6) inability of women to temporarily escape abusive partners, (7) virus-specific sources of violence, (8) exposure to violence and coercion in response efforts, and (9) violence perpetrated against health care workers. We also suggest additional pathways with limited or anecdotal evidence likely to effect smaller sub-groups. Based on these mechanisms, we suggest eight policy and program responses for action by governments, civil society, international and community-based organizations. Finally, as research linking pandemics directly to diverse forms of VAW/C is scarce, we lay out a research agenda comprising three main streams, to better (1) understand the magnitude of the problem, (2) elucidate mechanisms and linkages with other social and economic factors and (3) inform intervention and response options. We hope this paper can be used by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to help inform further evidence generation and policy action while situating VAW/C within the broader need for intersectional gender- and feminist-informed pandemic response.

Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children

Summary of the Research Literature on IPV AmongLGB PersonsIncidence and Prevalence Rates Sixty-two studies have reported on the incidence and/or preva-lence rates of IPV among LGB individuals. Rates of IPV rangefrom 1% (e.g., Turell [2000] measuring forced sex perpetration incurrent relationships among LGBT individuals) to more than 97%(i.e.,Hequembourg,Parks,V Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) find-ing that 33.3% of men in same-sex relationships reporting victim-ization (Craft & Serovich, 2005), and 9.5% of gay and bisexualmen reporting sexual victimization using author-created questions(Feldman, Ream, Diaz, & El-Bassel, 2008). Similar to the higherrates reported by Craft and Serovich (2005), these researchers alsofound that 27.5% of men in same-sex relationships reported sexualIPV perpetration (Craft & Serovich, 2005). Finally, research in-vestigating physical IPV has found that 41.0% of gay and bisexualmen report being the victim and 35.0% report being the perpetratorof at least one act of physical IPV in their lifetime (Bartholomew,Regan, White, & Oram, 2008), and Craft and Serovich (2005)found similar rates, with 45.1% of men in same-sex relationshipsreporting physical IPV victimization and 39.2% reporting perpe-tration. Although discrepancies appear to be a result of the differ-entformsofIPVbeingmeasuredandsomeresearchers’tendenciesto aggregate multiple forms of IPV when reporting rates, themeasures used can also influence rates. For instance, includingmilder forms of violence in IPV perpetration and victimizationscales can lead to higher rates of reported violence. Specifically,Miller, Greene, Causby, White, and Lockhart (2001) found that46.1% of the lesbians in their study reported some form of mod-erate physical IPV, whereas 14.1% reported severe physical IPV.As shown above, the gaping discrepancy in rates of IPV isattributable to variability in how IPV is defined (IPV victimizationand/or perpetration; physical, sexual, psychological, and/or stalk-ingIPV;lifetime,currentrelationship,lastyear,orsomeothertimeframe) and measured (standardized measurement, most commonlythe Conflict Tactics Scale Revised [Straus et al., 1996], or itemscreated for the individual study by researchers) as well as thesample used (e.g., demographic make-up, national vs. conveniencesample, clinical vs. community sample). Not surprising, the high-est rates of IPV are documented when the measures and definitionsused by researchers are more inclusive and include a longer timeframe. The highest rates of IPV victimization are also documentedin samples evidencing higher levels of IPV risk factors (e.g.,clinical and criminal justice system samples).IPV estimates ranging from 1% to more than 97% tell usextremely little about the scope of the problem. Consistent withother reviews (e.g., Finkelhor, 2011), herein we draw upon themost recent, nationally representative epidemiological data to pro-vide what we consider to be the most reliable and valid estimatesof IPV among LGB individuals, and how these estimates vary asa function of sexual orientation and gender. The CDC releasedsome of the most recent data from the National Intimate Partnerand Sexual Violence Survey, which documented that lifetimeprevalence rates of IPV (inclusive of physical, sexual, stalkingvictimization, but not psychological victimization) occurred atsimilar to higher rates among self-identified LGB adults (bisexualwomen: 61.1%; lesbian women: 43.8%; bisexual men: 37.3%; gaymen: 26.0%) than heterosexual adults (women: 35.0%; men:29.0%)(Walters,Chen,B lesbian women: 29.4%; gaymen: 16.4%) than heterosexual adults (women: 23.6%; men:13.9%). The findings reported by Walters et al. (2013) are some-what consistent with Messinger’s (2011) analysis of the NationalViolence Against Women Survey, in which Messinger docu-mented that means for all forms of IPV victimization (inclusive ofphysical, psychological, and sexual) were greater for LGB indi-viduals than heterosexual individuals. Messinger also documentedthat sexual minority women were most likely to be victims ofsexual IPV, followed by heterosexual women, sexual minoritymen, and heterosexual men. Further, bisexual individuals weremore likely to be victimized than all other groups, and bisexualwomen were more likely to be victimized than bisexual men for allforms of IPV, except psychological IPV.Data from the National Longitudinal Study of AdolescentHealth provide information on IPV among adolescents and youngadults as a function of gender and sexual orientation (Halpern,Young, Waller, Martin, & Kupper, 2004; Renner & Whitney,2010). Using Wave II, Halpern et al. (2004) found that 24% ofadolescents who were in same-sex relationships during the past 18months reported physical and/or psychological IPV victimization.Girls in same-sex relationships reported higher rates of physical

Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual Minority Populations: A Critical Review of the Literature and Agenda for Future Research

A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence was conducted. Inclusion criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a representative community sample or a clinical sample with a control-group comparison, a response rate of at least 50%, use of a physical or sexual violence outcome measure, and control of confounding factors in the analyses. A total of 228 articles were included (170 articles with adult and 58 with adolescent samples). Organized by levels of a dynamic developmental systems perspective, risk factors included: (a) contextual characteristics of partners (demographic, neighborhood, community and school factors), (b) developmental characteristics and behaviors of the partners (e.g., family, peer, psychological/behavioral, and cognitive factors), and (c) relationship influences and interactional patterns. Comparisons to a prior review highlight developments in the field in the past 10 years. Recommendations for intervention and policy along with future directions for intimate partner violence (IPV) risk factor research are presented.

/pdf/a-systematic-review-of-risk-factors-for-intimate-partner-2y58uo9joq.pdf

Naomi B. Knoble

Papers

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence: (621642012-252)