Risk for Revictimization of Intimate Partner Violence by Multiple Partners: a Systematic Review

Abstract

This work has involved valuable contributions from many people. First and foremost, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to my main supervisor, Professor Solveig Karin Bø Vatnar, for sharing her extensive scientific knowledge with me, for her patient guidance in large and small matters, for attending and supporting the work, and for thoughtful facilitation at crossroads. Years ago, she presented from her own PhD study results that stimulated my clinical work and academic curiosity. Later she guided my clinical inquiries into academic research and became the project leader and the best supervisor I could have wished for. The present work would have been neither initiated nor completed without her clear thought and kind heart. I am deeply grateful to all the women who volunteered to take part in this study. It took traveling, baby sitters, hours spent in an interview, and extensive recollection right in the middle of a demanding period of their lives. In addition to appreciating their participation, I admit to being encouraged by their support for more research in this field.

When Violence Can Appear With Different Male Partners: Identification of Resilient and Non-resilient Women in the European Union

“…Despite the growing interest that the study of IPV has generated in the last decades, a minor research effort has been dedicated to the study of the relationship between current IPV and the previous history of IPV. According to a recent review of studies conducted by Ørke et al (2018) on risk for victimization of IPV by multiple partners the most striking finding was the scarcity of studies on this topic. Improving our understanding of why some women are victimized by multiple partners while other victims seem to be able to create new intimate relationships free of IPV is a promising field of research.…”

“…There is empirical evidence coming from both retrospective and prospective studies that victims of child abuse are somewhat predisposed to also be victims of IPV in their adulthood (see Herrero et al, 2018 for an analysis). As Ørke et al (2018) have noted in their review of studies, women with IPV by multiple partners use to be exposed to more types of childhood violence and sexual abuse than women exposed to IPV by one partner. According to this, adverse experiences during childhood not only would predict higher IPV levels in adulthood but also a greater propensity to be victimized by different male partners.…”

“…Another set of risk factors identified by Ørke et al (2018) in their review of studies is the characteristics of women and/or the relationship. Although the evidence is not conclusive, it seems that the youngest women are more at risk of being victimized by multiple partners ( Testa et al, 2003 ; Alexander, 2009 ).…”

“…Although the evidence is not conclusive, it seems that the youngest women are more at risk of being victimized by multiple partners ( Testa et al, 2003 ; Alexander, 2009 ). Other sociodemographic characteristics such as income, education, ethnicity, or unemployment, seem to be unrelated to victimization by multiple partners (see Ørke et al, 2018 ) although there is empirical evidence of their relationships with IPV ( Herrero et al, 2016 , 2017b ). Length of the relationship with a new partner seems also to be positively related to IPV with a new partner ( Cole et al, 2008 ).…”

“…The literature has identified some characteristics of these resilient women: they suffered less child abuse, they have been less victimized in their adulthood (by the partner or ex-partner or by other adults), the consequences of IPV were less severe (fewer psychological difficulties), their new relationships are shorter, and tend to be older. The available evidence, however, is not conclusive ( Ørke et al, 2018 ) and, therefore, a greater research effort is needed to clarify both the risk factors and the protective factors. This lack of conclusive empirical evidence is partially explained by the great diversity of samples used in the investigations, sometimes of a small size and limited representativeness, which limits the generalizability of the results.…”