ArticlePloS one2019
Ideal and actual partner assessments in male batterers with different attachment styles.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research analyzing male batterers' views of what constitutes an ideal partner is scarce, and rejected features have not been tested. Analyzing the association of attraction and rejection patterns with attachment could help us understand how these men choose their female partners and the biases that make violence against these women more likely. The objective of this study was to analyze these patterns in male batterers with different attachment styles, considering both their ideal and actual partner assessments and the discrepancies between the two. Participants were 108 male offenders who were serving sentences in Colombian prisons for violence against women. In addition to identifying their attachment styles (secure, dismissive, preoccupied, and fearful), the study had participants assess their ideal and actual partners. The results showed significant differences in their actual partner assessments and in ideal-actual partner discrepancies, but not in their ideals. Secure attachment was related to the best partner assessments (higher scores in positive features and lower scores in negative ones), whereas the fearfully attached participants stood out for showing the worst assessments (higher scores in negative features and lower scores in positive ones). The findings provide evidence of the association of attachment styles with attraction and rejection patterns and offer suggestions for tailoring interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.