{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032388663967611336, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024291497975708503, 'mean_word_length': 5.943820224719101, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Single, Repeat, and Poly Intimate Partner Violence Victimization among Women at a College Campus: Extending Research Through the Inclusion of Technology-Facilitated Violence and Examining Key Social Determinants for Intimate Partner Violence Prevention

This study examines intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization (i.e., technology-facilitated and in-person psychological, physical, and sexual) and polyvictimization, along with the role of social support and other factors in influencing these experiences. Using a sample of college women in intimate relationships in the past year (n  = 265), findings revealed that social support was important in predicting IPV victimizations, with less prosocial support contributing to more frequent victimization for specific IPV forms and polyvictimization. The same support features emerged as significant for repeat technology-facilitated and repeat psychological IPV (i.e., social network relationship support), and for repeat physical and repeat sexual IPV (i.e., family connectedness), suggesting certain forms share commonalities. In the polyvictimization model, both social support measures were significant. The implications for IPV research and violence prevention are discussed.