7 Red Flags That May Predict Intimate Partner Violence

Here's a quick (yes/no) questionnaire about your romantic relationship:

• Does your partner often act arrogant or entitled?
• Have you and your partner disagreed about something sexual?
• Have you had sex with your partner even though you were not in the mood?
• Does your partner often create uncomfortable situations in public?
• Does your partner often disregard your reasoning or logic because it does not agree with theirs?
• Does your partner react negatively when you say no to something they want?
• Does your partner resent being questioned about how they treat you?

If you answered yes to all or most of these questions, then you may be at risk for intimate partner abuse.

Many people believe that the threat of violence and aggression comes mainly from strangers: the killer lurking in the back alley, the stalker in the bushes, the home invader, the terrorist. Unfamiliar people in the neighborhood or at the front door raise our threat antennae. We teach our children to be wary of strangers. Movies and TV shows both capitalize on and propagate this fear.

Yet the data are overwhelmingly clear that this "stranger danger" fear is by and large misguided. Whatever violence you encounter in your life is astronomically more likely to come from familiar people—your family, your colleagues, your spouse. The reason most murders are fairly easy to crack is that they are overwhelmingly committed by someone in the victim’s social sphere.

Specifically, intimate partners are a common source of abuse and violence.

Researcher Lynnmarie Sardinha and colleagues (2022) of the Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research of the World Health Organization used their organization's vast database to review 366 studies with over 2 million women from 161 countries and areas, covering 90 percent of the global population of women and girls (15 years or older). They found that: “Globally, 27 percent of ever-partnered women aged 15–49 years are estimated to have experienced physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence in their lifetime, with 13 percent experiencing it in the past year before they were surveyed. This violence starts early, affecting adolescent girls and young women, with 24 percent of women aged 15–19 years and 26 percent of women aged 19–24 years having already experienced this violence at least once since the age of 15 years.”

The consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) are dire. A recent review by Sarah White of the University of London and colleagues (2023) looked at 201 studies involving 250,599 women, primarily from high-income countries. They conclude: “Meta-analysis suggested increased odds for all mental health outcomes associated with IPV including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidality. Clinical and community populations were exposed to high prevalence of IPV and increased likelihood of depression, PTSD, and suicidality.”

Psychologists have long been interested in identifying warning signs of violence that may help professionals and individuals respond effectively to such threats. Research has identified several behaviors that tend to precede violence, including jealousy, checking on whereabouts, using extreme charm, and, most potently, past abuse. Yet the existing research is based mostly on retroactive interviews with survivors of violence and lacks longitudinal data that would allow us to draw cause-and-effect conclusions. The prevalent assumption that warning signs covary reliably with experiences of violence has not been well tested. Finally, similar behaviors may or may not constitute reliable warning signs, depending on context, frequency, and severity.

Source: tumisu/Pixabay

Recently (2023), University of Western Ontario researcher Nicolyn Charlot and colleagues conducted two studies looking to identify warning signs that may be reliably predictive of intimate partner abuse. In Study 1, the researchers presented participants (N = 147) with a list of 200 abusive and non-abusive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (based on an extensive review of the existing literature) and asked them to indicate how frequently each item had occurred since they had started dating their partner. Around 86 percent of the sample experienced at least one instance of abuse.

Analyses using machine learning techniques revealed 17 warning signs that together accounted for 61 percent of the variance in overall abuse. The most powerful were:

• “My partner and I had sex even though I wasn’t in the mood.”
• “I felt like I couldn’t say no to my partner.”
• “My partner compared me to other people.”
• “My partner did not admit when they were wrong.”

The number and frequency of warning signs were also related to the odds of experiencing abuse. As predicted, larger numbers and higher frequencies were more powerfully predictive of abuse.

Study 2 (355 participants) used a longitudinal design to explore which warning signs may prospectively predict future violence. First (Time 1), participants were asked to indicate how frequently each of the 200 abusive and non-abusive items had occurred within their romantic relationship since they began. Six months later (Time 2), participants were presented with a list of abusive behaviors and asked to report how frequently each behavior had occurred in the interim. Most participants (89 percent) experienced at least one instance of abuse. Analyses found 12 warning signs that prospectively predicted abuse 6 months later, explaining 54 percent of the variance in overall abuse. The most powerful warning signs were: "My partner disregarded my reasoning or logic because it did not agree with theirs"; "My partner refused to compromise on an important decision"; and "My partner had mood swings."

Domestic Violence Essential Reads

Denial for the Perpetrator and Survivor of Intimate Partner Abuse

Brain Injuries and Domestic Violence

The authors then conducted an analysis of whether abusive behaviors at Time 1 may predict overall abuse at Time 2. They identified four behavioral predictors (My partner... “treated me like I was stupid,” “tried to manipulate or control me,” “made me feel like I was crazy,” and “did things that harmed my mental health”) that together accounted for 53 percent of the variance in overall abuse. A second analysis combining the four abusive behavior variables and the 12 identified warning signs accounted for 59 percent of the variance in overall abuse (at Time 2). The authors conclude: “Findings suggest that abusive behaviors are the strongest predictors of future abuse, but, to a limited extent, warning signs can indeed predict abuse above and beyond prior experiences of violence.” In this study as well, the number and frequency of warning signs a person experiences are associated with increases in abuse over time.

Finally, the authors identified seven warning signs that were found to predict abuse across both studies, as follows:

• My partner acted arrogant or entitled.
• My partner and I disagreed about something sexual.
• My partner and I had sex, even though I was not in the mood.
• My partner created an uncomfortable situation in public.
• My partner disregarded my reasoning or logic because it did not agree with theirs.
• My partner reacted negatively when I said no to something they wanted.
• My partner resented being questioned about how they treated me

The authors note that their study contains several limitations: For one, the research took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the participants’ experience. Second, the study was based on self-reports, which are notoriously given to distortion. Third, the samples in both studies were not representative of the general population, with low proportions of men, people of color, and gender diverse individuals. Fourth, since similar levels of abuse were found at both time points in Study 2, the warning signs identified in the study were conflated with abuse itself, which muddies their predictive power. Finally, the authors note that “abuse frequency in both studies was relatively low, suggesting that these warning signs may be more indicative of situational couple violence (SCV), which is less severe, frequent, and controlling, opposed to coercive controlling violence (CCV), which is more frequent, severe, one-sided, and typically perpetrated by men.”

Still, the authors conclude: “Our findings are still informative because they identify non-abusive behaviors that on average precede abuse… are associated with abuse… and predict abuse 6 months later.”

Facebook image: Spectral-Design/Shutterstock