Life Domains, Constraints, Motivations, and Intimate Partner Violence - Assessing The Generality of Agnew's General Theory of Crime and Delinquency

1106951
research-article2022
CADXXX10.1177/00111287221106951Crime & DelinquencyNgo et al.
Article
Crime & Delinquency
Life Domains,
2024, Vol. 70(1) 29–63
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Constraints, Motivations, sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00111287221106951
https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221106951
and Intimate Partner journals.sagepub.com/home/cad
Violence: Assessing the

Generality of Agnew’s
General Theory of Crime
and Delinquency
Fawn T. Ngo1 , Taylor Fisher1,

and Rebecca A. Ruiz1
Abstract
Given the victim-offender overlap, it has been suggested that every theory
about offenders implies a corresponding theory of victimization. We assess the
above assertion concerning Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency
within the context of intimate partner violence (IPV). Drawing data from the
International Dating Violence Study, we examine the direct and indirect effects
of the self, family, school/work, and peer domains on IPV perpetration and
victimization. We found the four life domains significantly predicted both IPV
perpetration and victimization and their effects on both outcome variables
were mediated by the constraint and motivation factors. Our results indicate
that the mechanisms that account for offending posited in Agnew’s perspective
appear to be equally relevant and applicable for understanding victimization.
Keywords
Agnew’s integrated theory, life-domains, intimate partner violence, criminal
victimization, constraints, motivations
1
University of South Florida, Tampa, USA
Corresponding Author:
Fawn T. Ngo, Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences,
University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.
Email: fawnngo@usf.edu
30 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
Introduction
The relationship between victimization and offending, also known as the
victim-offender overlap, has been widely documented (Pratt & Turanovic,
2021). The discovery that offenders and victims are often the same individu-
als has been corroborated in studies involving the general population of
adults and juveniles (Lauritsen et al., 1991; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990) and
specialized populations of adult offenders and deviant youth (Whitbeck et al.,
2001). Scholars and researchers have applied theoretical concepts derived
from criminological perspectives originally developed to account for crime
and deviance, namely, self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), social
learning (Akers, 1998), general strain (Agnew, 1992), and control balance
(Tittle, 1995), to examine criminal victimization. Theoretical measures such
as low self-control (Schreck, 1999), imitation, differential association, dif-
ferential reinforcement (Cochran et al., 2011), anger (Hay & Evans, 2006),
and control imbalances (Fox et al., 2016) have been linked to risks of victim-
ization. Consequently, Berg and Schreck (2021) contend that every theory
about offenders implies a corresponding theory of victimization.
In this paper, we assess Berg and Schreck’s (2021) assertion by exploring
the victim-offender overlap using Agnew’s (2005) general theory of crime
and delinquency. Like other mainstream perspectives, Agnew’s theory was
developed to account for offending and has been employed to examine an
array of criminal and deviant behaviors (Choi & Kruis, 2019; Cochran, 2017;
Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftic et al., 2014; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014; Roh &
Marshall, 2018; Zhang et al., 2012). However, to date, only one study has
extended Agnew’s perspective to understand criminal victimization (Grubb
& Posick, 2018). To address this gap, we explore whether the underlying
processes concerning offending posited in Agnew’s perspective are equally
useful for explaining the underlying causes of victimization within the con-
text of intimate partner violence (IPV).
Our focus is on IPV because Agnew’s theory is well suited to examine this
multifaceted phenomenon. Agnew’s perspective not only incorporates the
key elements of crime and deviance derived from the dominant criminologi-
cal theories—namely, biological, psychological, control, strain, and social
learning—but also unifies risk factors and criminogenic characteristics
known to directly influence criminal offending, including IPV, into a unified
framework. Yet only one study has applied Agnew’s theory to examine IPV
perpetration focusing on gender differences (Ngo et al., 2022) and no study
has employed the perspective to understand IPV victimization. Hence, the
present study extends the work of Ngo et al.1 by investigating how IPV per-
petration and victimization may be inextricably linked. Given that IPV is a
Ngo et al. 31
crime of serious human and policy significance, findings generated from this
study are intended for researchers and scholars to build upon, elaborate on,
and extend in future inquiry to understand its root causes and advance appli-
cable intervention and prevention strategies.
The remainder of our paper is organized as follows. First, we summarize
Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency and provide a review of
prior tests of the perspective. We also summarize prior findings on the cor-
relates of IPV perpetration and victimization. Next, we describe our data and
methods and report our results. Lastly, we discuss the policy implications of
our findings and propose directions for future research.
Agnew’s Integrated Theory

At the heart of Agnew’s (2005) perspective is the proposition that crime is
more likely to occur when constraints against such behaviors are low and
motivations for them are high. Constraints are factors that deter or hinder a
person from engaging in crime and motivations are forces that lure people to
commit crime. The three main sources of constraint in Agnew’s perspective
are external control (the likelihood that others will detect and sanction crimi-
nal behaviors), stake in conformity (the likelihood that individuals will be
caught and punished by others if they deviate), and internal control (when
individuals refrain from committing crime albeit the likelihood of their crimi-
nal behavior being detected and punished is low). The two primary motiva-
tional forces in Agnew’s perspective include factors that entice/pull an
individual into crime (e.g., exposure to successful criminal models, being
taught beliefs favorable to crime) and factors that pressure/push an individual
toward crime (e.g., the need to alleviate negative emotions, the desire for
revenge). Recognizing that certain factors can either act as a constraint
against criminal behavior or motivation for it, Agnew (2005) groups these
correlates into five life domains: self, family, school, work, and peer.
Life Domains
Within the self domain, Agnew (2005) posits that the super traits of low self-
control and irritability are linked to criminal behavior. The super trait of low
self-control characterizes individuals who are impulsive, risk-seeking, gravi-
tate toward exciting and high-energy activities, lack ambition, motivation, or
perseverance, are not bound by conventional rules and norms, and have little
thought for the long-range consequences of their behavior. The super trait of
irritability refers to individuals who tend to have an antagonistic or adver-
sarial interactional style, respond to life events in an aggressive or antisocial
manner, attribute adverse experiences to the malicious behavior of others,

and show little concern for the feelings and rights of others.
Agnew (2005) also theorizes that the family plays a major role in either
supporting or controlling criminal and deviant behavior and a youth’s experi-
ence at school can either increase or decrease crime and delinquency. Within
the family domain, he maintains that poor family environments and behaviors
such as child abuse, child neglect, family violence, and overall poor parent-
ing practices, contribute to crime. Within the school domain, Agnew points to
empirical evidence that students who are attached to their teachers and com-
mitted to achieving high grades are more likely to avoid crime while students
who perform poorly, lack educational goals or aspirations, or are perceived as
being mistreated by teachers are more likely to offend.
Within the peer domain, Agnew (2005) asserts that youth who associate
with delinquent peers are more likely to report delinquent and deviant behav-
ior. Specifically, associating with delinquent peers in unstructured and unsu-
pervised activities increases the likelihood that a youth will learn criminal
behavior through negative role models and having criminal behavior posi-
tively reinforced. Finally, within the work domain, Agnew (2005) postulates
that those who experience poor working conditions, poor supervision, and
those who are less attached and committed to their jobs are more likely to
engage in crime.
Prior Tests of Agnew’s Integrated Theory

Agnew’s integrated theory has been applied to examine delinquency (Cho &
Lacey, 2021; Muftić et al., 2014; Roh et al., 2022; Roh & Marshall, 2018;
Zhang et al., 2012), recidivism (Ngo et al., 2011), substance use (Muftić et al.,
2014; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014), academic dishonesty (Cochran, 2017),
cyberbullying (Choi & Kruis, 2019; Kabiri et al., 2020), and IPV (Ngo et al.,
2022) using samples of both adults and juveniles. The theory has also been
tested in studies involving international samples (Cho & Lacey, 2021; Choi &
Kruis, 2019; Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftić et al., 2014; Roh et al., 2022; Roh &
Marshall, 2018), and with longitudinal data (Cho & Lacey, 2021; Choi &
Kruis, 2019; Roh et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2012). The lagged (Grubb &
Posick, 2018; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014) and interaction effects of the life
domains (Choi & Kruis, 2019; Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftić et al., 2014; Roh
et al., 2022), and mediating effects of constraint and motivation factors
(Cochran, 2017; Zhang et al., 2012) as theorized by Agnew have also been
examined. A recent study explored whether the proposed mechanisms out-
lined in Agnew’s framework about gender differences in crime and deviance
could account for sex differences in IPV (Ngo et al., 2022).
Ngo et al. 33
Overall, findings from prior research provide support for Agnew’s inte-
grated perspective in that the measures representing self, family, school, and
peer domains are associated with various delinquent and deviant behaviors,
occurring both online and offline (Cochran, 2017; Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftić
et al., 2014; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014; Roh et al., 2022). The hypothesized
mediating effects of the constraint and motivation factors (Cochran, 2017;
Zhang et al., 2012) and the efficacy of Agnew’s framework in accounting for
sex differences in offending, albeit preliminary, have also received some sup-
port (Ngo et al., 2022). On the other hand, the hypothesized lagged effects of
the life domains on crime and delinquency have shown less support in prior
research (Grubb & Posick, 2018; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014).
Notably, to date, only one study has applied Agnew’s theory to understand
criminal victimization. Employing three waves of data from the Project on
Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods Longitudinal Cohort Study
(PHDCNLCS), Grubb and Posick (2018) examined the contemporary and
lagged effects of the self, family, school, and peer domains on violent victim-
ization. They found while the different life domains influenced risks of crimi-
nal victimization, only measures in the self and peer domains retained their
significance once the offending measures were included. They also uncovered
that when all other variables in their analysis were taken into consideration,
prior victimization exhibited the greatest effect on current victimization.
Given the accumulating research assessing the generality of Agnew’s inte-
grated perspective, we seek to extend Grubb and Posick’s (2018) work by
applying Agnew’s theory to examine an outcome that has not been examined
in prior research: IPV victimization. Importantly, we also explore the mediat-
ing effects of constraint and motivation factors on the associations between
the life domains and IPV victimization. Before we present our hypotheses, we
provide a summary of the correlates of IPV perpetration and victimization.
Risk Factors of IPV Perpetration and Victimization

IPV encompasses physical, psychological, and sexual abuse by men and by
women toward romantic partners of the same or opposite sex (Capaldi et al.,
2012). Prevalence estimates for IPV perpetration in the general population
are 5.7% (4.2% in men and 7.0% in women), and approximately one in six
heterosexual cohabiting or married couples experience at least one act of IPV
every year (Schafer et al., 1998). IPV perpetration and victimization rates are
considerably higher in younger and dating samples, with reported rates of
physical perpetration ranging from 26% to 46%, physical victimization rang-
ing from 9% to 23%, sexual perpetration ranging from 3% to 12%, and sexual
victimization ranging from 5% to 15% (Archer, 2000).
IPV perpetration is significantly and inversely related to age, income, for-

mal education, heterosexual orientation, and White race/ethnicity. The odds
of engaging in IPV are elevated by prior drug use, alcohol consumption, and
among individuals with personality disorders, low self-control, greater levels
of perceived stress, and a lower perception of availability of potential social
resources (Okuda et al., 2015). It is noteworthy that in a study involving lon-
gitudinal data from a New Zealand birth cohort, the authors found the trait of
negative emotionality (the enjoyment of frightening others and irrational sus-
piciousness) predicted both partner abuse (violence perpetrated against inti-
mates) and general crime (violence perpetrated against non-intimates) among
male and female respondents (Moffitt et al., 2000). Incidents of childhood
maltreatment and neglect, childhood physical and sexual abuse, and exposure
to parental and family conflicts have also been linked to IPV perpetration
(Renner & Whitney, 2012).
IPV victimization is prevalent among perpetrators, thus, supporting the
victim-offender overlap conjecture (Whitaker et al., 2007). Findings from
prior studies suggest factors such as childhood maltreatment and neglect,
childhood physical and sexual abuse, exposure to parental and family con-
flicts, depressive symptoms and suicidality, and low self-control are salient
indicators in understanding the overlap between IPV perpetration and victim-
ization (Barnes et al., 2009; Eaton et al., 2007; Foshee et al., 2004; Renner &
Whitney, 2012).
Whereas the linkage between individual and familial characteristics and
IPV perpetration and victimization has received a considerable amount of
empirical attention, the number of research studies assessing the influence of
school, work, and peer context on IPV is more limited. Nevertheless, factors
such as school attachment/bonding and perceived school safety have emerged
as risk factors for IPV perpetration (Foshee et al., 2011; Schnurr & Lohman,
2008). Similarly, association with delinquent peers and peer deviance have
been found to increase the risk of dating violence (Foshee et al., 2004;
Schnurr & Lohman, 2008) and IPV perpetration (Ngo et al., 2022). Concerning
the impact of employment on IPV, to date, no study has explored the effects
of unemployment, work attachment, and poor working conditions on IPV.2
However, a handful of studies have reported a positive association between
IPV and employment status (unemployed) and a negative association between
IPV and work productivity (Alexander, 2011; Crowne et al., 2011).
Given the above evidence, Agnew’s theory appears both applicable and
well suited to explore IPV perpetration and victimization because it incorpo-
rates many—if not all—of the risk factors known to link to both phenomena.
As indicated previously, to date, only one study has applied Agnew’s per-
spective to examine IPV perpetration but focused primarily on gender
Ngo et al. 35
differences (Ngo et al., 2022) and no study has employed the theoretical
insights from Agnew’s theory to understand IPV victimization. This study
attends to these issues and is an important extension of Grubb and Posick’s
(2018) and Ngo et al.’s (2022) research.
Current Study
We are interested in determining whether the underlying processes concern-
ing offending posited in Agnew’s perspective are equally useful for explain-
ing the underlying correlates of victimization within the context of IPV.
Agnew’s integrated theory encompasses seven key propositions specifying
the direct, indirect, and reciprocal effects among the life domains on crime,
and the nonlinear and/or contemporaneous effects of the risk factors on crime
and one another. Given the complexity of the theory, Agnew (2005) suggests
that it is best examined by assessing specific hypotheses. We follow Agnew’s
recommendation and focus on two of the seven propositions. Premised on the
first proposition that crime is caused by five clusters of variables organized
into the life domains of self, family, school, peers, and work, we propose the
following hypotheses:
H1A: The self, family, school/work, and peer domain variables will be
significantly related to IPV perpetration.3
H1B: The self, family, school/work, and peer domain variables will be
significantly related to IPV victimization.
Drawing from the second proposition that the variables in each domain
increase crime by reducing the constraints against crime and increasing the
motivations for crime, we propose the following hypotheses:
H2A: Constraint and motivation factors will mediate the relationships

between the life domain variables and IPV perpetration.
H2B: Constraint and motivation factors will mediate the relationships
between the life domain variables and IPV victimization.
Methods
Data
Data for this research came from the International Dating Violence Study
(IDVS), a project involving a team of researchers from 68 universities in 32
nations gathering data on the prevalence, correlates, and consequences of
IPV among young adults worldwide (Graham et al., 2019; Sabina & Straus,
2008). After obtaining approval from each university’s internal review board
(IRB), the researchers administered a pencil-and-paper survey to young
adults enrolled in mostly criminal justice, sociology, and psychology courses
between the years 2001 through 2006. Before starting the survey, study par-
ticipants were given information about the nature and purpose of the study
and were assured that no identifying information will be collected.
Respondents were also instructed to think about their current partner, or, if
they were single at the time of the survey, to think about their last relationship
that lasted a month or more when answering items contained in the survey.
The response rates for the IDVS ranged from a low of 20% to as high as
100%, with 80% of researchers reporting a response rate of 65% or above.
IDVS data are nicely situated for testing Agnew’s integrated theory given the
data’s ability to measure key components of this theoretical framework. For
the current study, only the sample from the United States is employed to
focus on one single cultural context (n = 4,162). It is noteworthy that this is a
common practice among scholars who have used IDVS data (Graham et al.,
2019; Meade et al., 2017; Paat & Markham, 2016; Sabina et al., 2017; Sabina
& Straus, 2008).
The demographic characteristics for the sample are presented in Table 1.
As shown, the majority of the sample were females (68%) and the mean age
of the sample was 22 years. Many of the respondents (91%) were not married
(i.e., single, dating, engaged, or cohabitating), and an equal number of
respondents were married (10%) or lived with a partner (11%). Slightly more
than one-third (35%) of the sample indicated that they have engaged in IPV
perpetration while one-third (33%) of the sample reported that they have
experienced IPV victimization.
Dependent Variables
There are two main outcomes in this study, IPV perpetration (α = .79) and IPV
victimization (α = .82). IPV Perpetration was measured using 12 items asking
respondents if they have committed violent and aggressive acts towards their
intimate partners in the past 12 months. The same items were alternatively
presented in the context of the respondent being victimized by these acts to
measure the second variable, IPV Victimization. Two methods were used to
construct the dependent variables. First, responses were collapsed into a
dichotomous variable, where 1 represented the respondent perpetrated or
experienced at least one form of violence and 0 indicated that the respondent
did not commit or experience violence. Second, a simple summary score for
each outcome was created. Both outcome measures are used in their
Ngo et al. 37
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for All Variables in the Study (N = 4,162).
Variables M (%) SD Min Max VIF (tolerance)

Dependent variable
IPV perpetration 2.69 5.80 0 58 —
IPV perpetration (1 = Yes; 35.20 0.48 0 1 —
0 = No)
IPV victimization 2.62 6.06 0 68 —
IPV victimization (1 = Yes; 33.00 0.47 0 1 —
0 = No)
Control variables
Sex (1 = Male; 0 = Female) 32.20 0.47 0 1 1.31 (0.77)
Age 21.66 4.93 18 45 1.45 (0.70)
Drug abuse 5.01 1.81 4 16 1.51 (0.66)
Prior violence 6.25 2.47 4 16 1.92 (0.52)
Self domain
Low self-control 12.09 3.33 7 28 2.25 (0.45)
Authoritarian personality 5.45 1.54 3 12 1.45 (0.69)
Negative attribution 7.73 2.27 4 16 2.01 (0.50)
Hostility towards men 10.47 2.43 5 20 1.40 (0.72)
Hostility towards women 9.42 2.66 5 20 1.58 (0.63)
Family domain
Married (1 = Yes; 0 = No) 9.50 0.29 0 1 1.50 (0.67)
Cohabitating (1 = Yes; 0 = No) 1.10 0.10 0 1 1.01 (0.99)
Partner attachment 25.28 4.55 9 32 2.15 (0.47)
Child neglect 12.82 1.81 6 21 1.24 (0.81)
Child sexual abuse 5.10 2.00 4 16 1.26 (0.80)
Work/school domain
Discontent with school/work 1.57 0.64 1 4 1.28 (0.78)
Peer domain
Criminal peers 2.54 0.95 1 4 1.22 (0.82)
Constraint variables
Relationship commitment 12.78 3.15 5 20 1.61 (0.62)
Religious involvement 5.33 1.96 2 8 1.09 (0.91)
Anger management 14.08 2.30 5 20 1.25 (0.80)
Motivation variables
Violent socialization 14.96 4.22 8 31 1.73 (0.58)
Life stress 13.94 3.00 7 25 1.90 (0.53)
No network support 1.30 0.64 1 4 1.17 (0.85)
Note. IPV = Intimate Partner Violence, SD = Standard Deviation, Min = Minimum,

Max = Maximum, VIF = Variance Inflation Factor.
continuous and dichotomous formats. The items and coding methods that
were employed to construct the dependent variables are listed in Appendix.
Life Domain Variables

Our life domain measures include variables posited by Agnew to directly
affect crime and deviance as well as represent risk factors of IPV as identified
in prior research. The self domain contains five measures (Low Self-Control,
Authoritarian Personality, Negative Attribution, Hostility toward Men, and
Hostility toward Women) representing the super traits of low self-control and
irritability. These variables have been linked to IPV in prior research (see,
e.g., Baker et al., 2018; Gover et al., 2008; Jennings et al., 2011; Kim &
Capaldi, 2004; Moffitt et al., 2000; Swinford et al., 2000; White & Widom,
2003). The family domain also contains five measures (Married, Cohabitating,
Partner Attachment, Child Neglect, and Child Sexual Abuse) denoting
respondents’ childhood experiences and adult relationship status. Similar to
the self-domain variables, the above family domain measures have been
linked to IPV in prior studies (Gelles & Straus, 1988; Swinford et al., 2000;
White & Widom, 2003).
The measure Discontent with School/Work was created to represent the
school and work domains. Although the IDVS does not include separate mea-
sures for the school and work domains—a limitation which we return to
later—the sample in our study consists of college students and there is evi-
dence that the majority of college students work. According to the U.S.
Department of Education, from 2001 through 2005 (this is the period when
IDVS data were being gathered), almost half (the percentages range from
47% to 49%) of all full-time undergraduate students and fourth-fifth (the per-
centages range from 79% to 85%) of part-time students were employed while
enrolled in courses (National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Finally,
the peer domain was represented by the measure Criminal Peers. It is note-
worthy that our school/work (Foshee et al., 2011; Schnurr & Lohman, 2008;
Spriggs et al., 2009) and peer (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Miller et al., 2009;
Schnurr & Lohman, 2008) domain variables are related to IPV in prior
research. The items and coding methods to construct the life domain vari-
ables, along with their Cronbach’s alpha, are provided in Appendix.
Constraint and Motivation Variables

For the constraint variables, we employed three measures to represent a stake
in conformity (Relationship Commitment), external constraint (Religious
Involvement), and internal control (Anger Management). For the motivation
Ngo et al. 39
variables, we also employed three measures to represent factors that entice

(Violent Socialization) or pressure (Life Stress and No Network Support) indi-
viduals to engage in crime were created for the study. The items and coding
methods employed to construct the constraint and motivation variables, along
with their Cronbach’s alpha, are listed in Appendix.
Control Variables
Our control variables include four measures, Sex, Age, Drug Abuse, and
Prior Violence. Sex was coded 1 for males and 0 for females and Age was
measured in years. The items and coding methods employed to construct
Drug Abuse and Prior Violence, along with their Cronbach’s alpha, are listed
in Appendix. The descriptive statistics for the life domain, motivation, con-
straint, and control variables, as well as the VIFs and tolerances, are provided
in Table 1. As shown, all VIFs are below 4 and all tolerances are above 0.25,
indicating that multi-collinearity is not a problem.
Analytic Plan
To examine the effects of the life domain measures on IPV perpetration and
victimization (Hypotheses 1A and 1B) and given that our dependent vari-
ables are count variables with a mean-variance inequality in favor of over-
dispersion (M = 2.69 and SD = 5.80; M = 2.62 and SD = 6.06, respectively), we
estimated two negative binomial regression models in which each of the out-
come variables (IPV perpetration and IPV victimization) was regressed on
the self (low self-control, authoritarian personality, negative attribution,
hostility toward men, and hostility toward women), family (married, cohabi-
tating, partner attachment, child neglect, and child sexual abuse), school/
work (discontent with school/work), and peer (criminal peers) domain mea-
sures while controlling for sex, age, drug abuse, and prior violence. All nega-
tive binomial models were estimated using SPSS version 27.
To explore the mediating effects of the constraint and motivation variables
on the relationships between the life domain measures and the outcome vari-
ables (Hypotheses 2A and 2B), we employed Preacher and Hayes’ (2008)
bootstrapped test of mediation, PROCESS. PROCESS is a computational tool
that integrates many of the existing statistical methods and techniques for
mediation and moderation analysis (Hayes, 2018). PROCESS encompasses
the bootstrapping method based on resampling with replacement (e.g., 5,000
times), and from each of these samples, the indirect effect is computed and a
sampling distribution is empirically generated (Cheung & Lau, 2008).
PROCESS uses ordinary least squares (OLS) regression when the outcome
variable is continuous and logistic regression when the outcome variable is

dichotomous. For the mediation analysis, we employed the dichotomous
dependent variables (IPV perpetration and IPV victimization) and estimated
two logistic regression models using Hayes’ PROCESS Version 3.5 for SPSS.4
Results
Life Domains, IPV Perpetration, and IPV Victimization
The results of the direct effects of the life domains on IPV perpetration
(Hypotheses 1A) and IPV victimization (Hypotheses 1B) are shown in Table 2.
According to Model 1 of Table 2 (IPV perpetration), all five self domain mea-
sures (low self-control, authoritarian personality, negative attribution, hostility
toward men, and hostility toward women) were significantly related to the out-
come variable. For a one-unit increase in low self-control, the incident rate of
IPV perpetration increased by 4%, for a one-unit increase in authoritarian per-
sonality the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by 6%, for a one-unit
increase in negative attribution the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased
by 22%, and for a one-unit increase in hostility toward men the incident rate of
IPV perpetration increased by 5%. Conversely, for a one-unit increase in hos-
tility toward women the incident rate of IPV perpetration decreased by 2%.
The results also reveal four of the five family domain variables and the
school/work domain measure were significant predictors of IPV perpetration.
Specifically, the incident rate of IPV perpetration for married respondents
was 27% greater than the rate for unmarried respondents, the rate for cohabi-
tating respondents was 38% greater than the rate for un-cohabitating respon-
dents, for a one-unit increase in child sexual abuse, the incident rate of IPV
perpetration increased by 6%, and for a one-unit increase in discontent with
school/work the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by 8%. On the
other hand, for a one-unit increase in child neglect the incident rate of IPV
perpetration decreased by 4%. The peer (criminal peers) domain variable
was not related to the outcome variable. Among the control variables, sex,
age, and prior violence were significantly related to IPV perpetration.
Respondents with high levels of prior violence had an elevated risk of engag-
ing in IPV while male respondents and older respondents had a reduced risk
of perpetrating IPV against their partner (Models 1 of Table 2).
Shifting our attention to Model 2 of Table 2 (IPV victimization), the results
indicate that four of the five self domain variables (low self-control, negative
attribution, hostility toward men, and hostility toward women) were signifi-
cant predictors of IPV victimization. For a one-unit increase in low self-con-
trol the incident rate of IPV victimization increased by 3%, for a one-unit
Ngo et al. 41
Table 2. Negative Binomial Regression of Life Domain, Constraint, and Motivation

Variables on IPV Perpetration and Victimization (N = 4,162).
Model 1 Model 2
Variables IPV Perpetration IPV Victimization

Control Variables
Sex 0.74 (.05)* 0.65 (.05)*
Age 0.97(.01)* 0.98 (.01)**
Drug Abuse 1.00(.01) 1.01 (.01)
Prior Violence 1.09(.01)* 1.08 (.01)*
Self Domain
Low Self-Control 1.04(.01)* 1.03 (.01)*
Authoritarian Personality 1.06(.01)* 0.99 (.01)
Negative Attribution 1.22(.01)* 1.26 (.01)*
Hostility toward Men 1.05(.01)* 1.03 (.01)**
Hostility toward Women 0.98(.01)*** 0.98 (.01)***
Family Domain
Married 1.27(.08)* 1.35 (.08)*
Cohabitating 1.38(.17)** 1.58 (.17)*
Partner Attachment 1.00(.01) 0.96 (.01)*
Child Neglect 0.96(.01)** 0.99 (.01)
Child Sexual Abuse 1.06(.01)* 1.06 (.01)*
School/Work Domain
Discontent with School/Work 1.08(.03)*** 1.04 (.03)
Peer Domain
Criminal Peers 1.04(.02) 1.02 (.02)
Constant 0.26(.37)* 1.05 (.36)
Model X2 1663.98* 1906.07*
Note. Entries are Incidence Rate Ratios; Standard errors are in parentheses.
*p < .001. **p< .01. ***p < .05.
increase in negative attribution the incident rate of IPV victimization increased

by 26%, and for a one-unit increase in hostility toward men the incident rate of
IPV victimization increased by 3%. Conversely, for a one-unit increase in hos-
tility toward women the incident rate of IPV victimization decreased by 2%.
Further, four of the five family domain variables (married, cohabitating,
partner attachment, and child sexual abuse) were significantly related to IPV
victimization. The incident rate of IPV victimization among married respon-
dents was 35% greater than the rate for unmarried respondents, the rate for
cohabitating respondents was 58% greater than the rate for un-cohabitating
respondents, and for a one-unit increase in child sexual abuse, the incident
rate of IPV victimization increased by 6%. On the other hand, for a one-unit
increase in partner attachment the incident rate of IPV victimization decreased
by 4%. The school/work (discontent with school/work) and peer (criminal
peers) domain variables were not related to IPV victimization. Among the
control variables, sex, age, and prior violence were significantly related to
the outcome variable in that respondents with high levels of prior violence
had an increased risk of falling victim to IPV while male respondents and
older respondents had a decreased risk of experiencing this type of victimiza-
tion (Model 2 of Table 2).
Mediating Effects of Constraints and Motivations

The results of the mediating effects of the constraint and motivation variables
for IPV perpetration (Hypothesis 2A) are presented in Table 3 and the results
for IPV victimization (Hypothesis 2B) are shown in Table 4. According to
Table 3, four of the five self domain (low self-control, authoritarian person-
ality, hostility toward men, and hostility toward women) and the work domain
variables (discontent with school/work) that were significantly related to IPV
perpetration in the previous IPV perpetration model became insignificant
after the constraint and motivation variables were added to the model. On the
other hand, the self domain measure of negative attribution and the four fam-
ily domain variables (married, cohabitating, child neglect, and child sexual
abuse) that predicted IPV perpetration in the previous model retained their
significance in the current model. Also, while the peer domain variable (crim-
inal peers) was not related to the outcome variable in the previous IPV per-
petration model, it became a significant predictor of the outcome variable in
this model (compare Model 1 of Table 2 with Table 3).
The results from Table 3 also reveal evidence of mediating effects by the
constraint and motivation measures. Specifically, except for the relationship
between cohabitating and IPV perpetration, the relationships between all
five self domain variables and IPV perpetration were mediated by anger
management (low self-control, authoritarian personality, and negative attri-
bution) and life stress (hostility toward men and hostility toward women), the
relationships between four of the five family domain variables and IPV per-
petration were mediated by religious involvement (married), anger manage-
ment (partner attachment) and violent socialization (child neglect and child
sexual abuse), the association between the school/work domain and IPV per-
petration was mediated by life stress (discontent with school/work), and the
association between the peer domain and the outcome variable was mediated
by religious involvement (criminal peers).
Table 3. Mediating Effects of Constraints and Motivations on the Relationships between Life Domain Measures and IPV
Perpetration (n = 4,162).a
Effect of life domain on mediatorb
Variables Direct effect Indirect effect (mediator) b SE 95% CI
Sex (−) Significant — — — —

Age N/S — — — —
Drug abuse (−) Significant — — — —
Prior violence (+) Significant — — — —
Low self-control N/S Anger management –0.122 0.014 [–0.149, –0.094]
Authoritarian personality N/S Anger management –0.139 0.025 [–0.188, –0.090]
Negative attribution (+) Significant Anger management –0.169 0.019 [–0.207, –0.131]
Hostility toward men N/S Life stress 0.129 0.016 [0.097, 0.161]
Hostility toward women N/S Life stress 0.143 0.016 [0.111, 0.174]
Married (+) Significant Religious involvement −0.566 0.121 [0.329, 0.802]
Cohabitating (+) Significant — — — —
Partner attachment N/S Anger management 0.088 0.010 [0.068, 0.108]
Child neglect (−) Significant Violent socialization 0.351 0.030 [0.292, 0.410]
Child sexual abuse (+) Significant Violent socialization 0.300 0.028 [0.246, 0.354]
Discontent with school/work N/S Life Stress 0.529 0.060 [0.411, 0.647]
Criminal peers (+) Significant Religious involvement –0.174 0.034 [–0.239, –0.108]
Relationship commitment N/S — — — —
Religious involvement (−) Significant — — — —
Anger management (−) Significant — — — —
Violent socialization (+) Significant — — — —
Life stress (+) Significant — — — —
No network support N/S — — — —
R2 .21
a
Because the regression coefficient for X in a model of dichotomous Y without the mediators included is not equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects of X, the
total effects option is not available with a dichotomous Y.
b
Entries are log-odds metric. Significant effects include values within the 95% CI that do not include zero. PROCESS (the statistical software that was employed to
43
analyze the data) does not provide the levels of significance (i.e., 001, .01, etc.). Significance is determined when the values within the 95% C.I. do not include zero. I
provided a note explaining significance at the bottom of the table.
Table 4. Mediating Effects of Constraints and Motivations on the Relationships between Life Domain Measures and IPV
44
Victimization (n = 4,162).a
Effect of life domain on mediatorb
Variables Direct effect Indirect effect (mediator ) b SE 95% CI
Sex N/S — — — —
Age N/S — — — —
Drug abuse N/S — — — —
Prior violence (+) Significant — — — —
Low self-control N/S Anger management –0.122 0.014 [–0.149, –0.094]
Authoritarian personality N/S Anger management –0.139 0.025 [–0.188, –0.090]
Negative attribution (+) Significant Anger management –0.169 0.019 [–0.207, –0.131]
Hostility toward men N/S Life stress 0.129 0.016 [0.097, 0.161]
Hostility toward women (−) Significant Life stress 0.143 0.016 [0.111, 0.174]
Married N/S Religious involvement –0.566 0.121 [0.329, 0.802]
Cohabitating N/S — — — —
Partner attachment (−) Significant Life stress –0.049 0.011 [–0.070, –0.028]
Child neglect N/S Violent socialization 0.351 0.030 [0.292, 0.410]
Child sexual abuse N/S Violent socialization 0.300 0.028 [0.246, 0.354]
Discontent with school/work N/S Life stress 0.529 0.060 [0.411, 0.647]
Criminal peers N/S Religious involvement –0.174 0.034 [–0.239, –0.108]
Relationship commitment N/S — — — —
Religious involvement (−) Significant — — — —
Anger management (−) Significant — — — —
Violent socialization (+) Significant — — — —
Life stress (+) Significant — — — —
No network support N/S — — — —
R2 .20
a
Because the regression coefficient for X in a model of dichotomous Y without the mediators included is not equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects of X, the
total effects option is not available with a dichotomous Y.
b
Entries are log-odds metric. Significant effects include values within the 95% CI that do not include zero.
Ngo et al. 45
Shifting our focus to the mediating effects of the constraints and motivations
for IPV victimization (Table 4), the results reveal two of the four self domain
(low self-control and hostility toward men) and three of the four family domain
variables (married, cohabitating, and child sexual abuse) that were signifi-
cantly related to the outcome variable in the previous IPV victimization model
became insignificant after the constraint and motivation variables were added
to the model. The school/work and peer domain measures continued to be unre-
lated to IPV victimization in this model as in the previous model (compare
Model 2 of Table 2 with Table 4). Notably, similar to the mediation results for
IPV perpetration, the results from Table 4 reveal evidence of mediating effects
by constraint and motivation measures on the relationships between the life
domains and IPV victimization. In particular, the relationships between the five
self domain variables and IPV victimization were mediated by anger manage-
ment (low self-control, authoritarian personality, and negative attribution) and
life stress (hostility toward men and hostility toward women), the relationships
between four of the five family domain measures and the outcome variable
were mediated by religious involvement (married), life stress (partner attach-
ment) and violent socialization (child neglect, and child sexual abuse), the
association between the school/work domain (discontent with school/work)
and IPV victimization was mediated by life stress, and the association between
the peer domain (criminal peers) and the outcome variable was mediated by
religious involvement. None of the constraint and motivation variables medi-
ated the relationship between cohabitating and IPV victimization (Table 4).
Discussion and Conclusion

Following Schreck’s (1999) application of the main theoretical concept in
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory as a source of vulnera-
bility for victimization, interests in the potential “generality” of other crimi-
nological theories in accounting for victimization ensue. However, to date,
the bulk of the work in this area still involves examining the linkage between
an individual’s level of self-control and his/her risk of becoming a crime
victim (Pratt et al., 2014). In this study, we move beyond the self-control
tradition and present the first empirical test that assesses the generality of
Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency within the context of
IPV—with a specific focus on his constraint/motivation mediation hypothe-
ses. We are interested in examining whether the underlying processes for
offending posited in Agnew’s framework are equally useful for understand-
ing the underlying causes of victimization. Overall, our results provide strong
support for the “generality” of Agnew’s integrated perspective in that the
mechanisms that account for IPV perpetration appear to be equally relevant
and applicable for understanding IPV victimization. Before we discuss the

policy implications of our results and outline future research directions for
Agnew’s theory, we present several key findings worth further discussion.
Life Domains, IPV Perpetration, and IPV Victimization

We found measures within the self, family, and school/work domains signifi-
cantly predicted both IPV perpetration and victimization. On offending
(Hypothesis 1A), as theorized by Agnew and consistent with prior research, we
found that low self-control and irritability (authoritarian personality, negative
attributions, and hostility toward men), being married or living with a partner
(married and cohabitating), negative childhood experiences (child neglect and
child sexual abuse), and negative attachment to school/work (discontent with
school/work) was related to IPV perpetration (Model 1 of Table 2). Concerning
IPV victimization (Hypothesis 1B), we found the same measures that were sig-
nificantly associated to IPV perpetration (low self-control, negative attribution,
hostility toward men, married, cohabitating, and child sexual abuse) predicted
the outcome variable while having positive relationship experiences (partner
attachment) decreased the risk of being victimized by IPV (Model 2 of Table 2).
We also uncovered several unexpected results. We found hostility toward
women and child neglect decreased the risk of experiencing IPV perpetration
and victimization (Models 1 and 2 of Tables 2). Given prior evidence that the
relationship between childhood emotional abuse and IPV perpetration is
mediated by hostility toward women (Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2013) and to
explore this conjecture with our data, we estimated two negative binomial
regression models in which IPV perpetration was regressed on child neglect
and the control variables in the first model and on child neglect, hostility
toward women, and the control variables in the second model (results not
shown). We found evidence of a mediating effect of hostility toward women
on the relationship between child neglect and IPV perpetration in that albeit
child neglect was positive and significantly related to IPV perpetration in the
first model, but after hostility toward women was added to the model child
neglect did not predict IPV perpetration in the second model).5 We replicated
the analysis for IPV victimization and found that although child neglect
retained its significance to the outcome variable in the second model, the
magnitude of the effect decreased slightly (results not shown).
Mediating Effects of Constraints and Motivations

We also found some support for Agnew’s proposition that the variables in
each domain increase crime by reducing the constraints against it
Ngo et al. 47
and increasing the motivations for it. Except for the relationships among
cohabitating, IPV perpetration, and IPV victimization, we found the effects
of the self (low self-control, authoritarian personality, negative attribution,
hostility toward men, and hostility toward women), family (married, partner
attachment, child neglect, and child sexual abuse), school/work (discontent
with school/work), and peer (criminal peers) domains on IPV perpetration
and victimization were mediated by two constraint (anger management and
religious involvement) and two motivation (violent socialization and life
stress) variables. Respondents with the ability to control their anger had a
decreased risk of perpetrating and falling victim to IPV, while respondents
who were less involved in religious activities, socialized or exposed to vio-
lent behavior as a child, and reported high levels of life stress had an elevated
risk of engaging in and being a victim of IPV (Tables 3 and 4).
We also uncovered the effects of two self domain (negative attribution and
hostility toward women) and all five family domain (married, cohabitating,
partner attachment, child neglect, and child sexual abuse) measures on the
outcome variables (IPV Perpetration and IPV Victimization) were only par-
tially mediated by the constraint and motivation factors (i.e., they retained their
significance to the outcome variables in the full model; Tables 3 and 4).
According to Agnew (2005), the effects of the constraint and motivation factors
on crime and delinquency can be long-lasting (such as in the enduring con-
straints of believing that crime is wrong, or in having a strong emotional bond
to one’s partner) or situational (as in motivation stemming from the presence of
attractive targets for crime or in provocations by others). Unfortunately, the
cross-sectional nature of our data precludes us from exploring the above sup-
position. Hence, we encourage future research to employ longitudinal data and
examine the mediating effects of constraint and motivation factors on the rela-
tionships between the life domains and IPV perpetration and victimization. We
also encourage future research to consider alternative intervening mechanisms
not included in our study since Agnew (2005) maintains that his integrated
perspective “. . . not only incorporates all of the variables commonly associ-
ated with the leading crime theories but also incorporates all of the intervening
mechanisms associated with these theories” (p. 208).
Policy Implications
The findings generated from our study suggest that targeting anger and life
stressors is crucial for treating and preventing IPV. Violent behavior is gener-
ally seen as a momentary outburst of anger and thus, the focus in treatment
tends to be on managing emotions (Burton, 2018). In anger management
workshops and education, the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy appears to
be effective in helping participants feel more in control of their anger (Sax,

2012). Relatedly, problem-focused coping strategies aimed at reducing daily
stress could be fruitful in combating IPV. Unlike emotion-focused coping
which focuses on negative emotional responses associated with stress, prob-
lem-focused coping targets the causes of stress or a stressful situation that is
causing stress, consequently directly reducing the stress (Lokhmatkina et al.,
2015). Results from a meta-analysis revealed emotion-focused strategies are
often less effective than using problem-focused methods concerning health
outcomes (Penley et al., 2002). In addition to therapies such as relaxation
techniques and problem-solving strategies, solution-focused therapy, a form
of therapy that focuses on solutions to problems or issues and discovering the
resources and strengths a person has rather than focusing solely on the prob-
lem as traditional talking therapies do, is a promising technique in treating
relationship problems (Bond et al., 2013).
Even with the positive programmatic evidence noted above, we believe
the best approach to combat and prevent IPV is by promoting healthy, respect-
ful, nonviolent relationships. Prevention strategies such as Teach Safe and
Healthy Relationship Skills that focus on promoting social and emotional
competency among youth which in turn helps build healthy relationships
among young couples are key strategies. Similarly, programs such as Disrupt
the Developmental Pathways toward Partner Violence that emphasize parent-
ing and interpersonal skills, preschool enrichment with family engagement,
and home visitation are promising strategies for curbing IPV (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2020; Piquero et al., 2009). Additionally,
given that different types of violence are connected and often share the same
root causes, addressing and preventing one form of violence such as IPV will
have an impact on preventing other forms of violence.
Study Limitations
Our study is not without weaknesses. First, our study involved cross-sectional,
quantitative, and self-reported data, and hence, definitive causal relationships
cannot be established and no information on contextual factors was available to
aid with the interpretation of the results. Second, our dependent variables only
encompass physical aspects of IPV, so replication of our results with other forms
of abuse is important, particularly psychological abuse like stalking. Similarly,
other life domain variables, such as more detailed information about respon-
dents’ employment and school experiences, were also not available in the IDVS.
We encourage future research to incorporate measures capturing a variety of
IPV victimization types as well as representing different aspects of the life
domains in their study. Third, the influences of and manifestations regarding
Ngo et al. 49
IPV perpetration and victimization may be age-graded and may involve a series
of different types, such as physical and emotional violence, and also include
relatively new spaces for it, primarily social media. Understanding how these fit
within Agnew’s theory, and other criminological theories, for that matter, would
be a relevant scope for future inquiry.
Future Research Directions

Finally, we offer three considerations to help expand the potential applicability of
Agnew’s theory across crime types. First, it seems crucial that the conceptualiza-
tion and operationalization of the life domain, constraint, and motivation mea-
sures align with findings generated from prior research. In the current study, we
inferred from Agnew’s description of the irritability personality and conceptual-
ized hostility toward women as an element of this individual characteristic.
However, according to the extant evidence on IPV, hostility toward women is a
mediator between childhood emotional abuse and violence perpetration (Vivolo-
Kantor et al., 2013), a finding that we corroborated in our subsequent analysis
(results not shown). Further, in our mediation analysis, while hostility toward
women and child neglect were partially mediated by violent socialization and life
stress, respectively, the direct effects of both measures on the outcome variables
were not in the expected directions (Tables 3 and 4). According to Agnew (2005),
“A theory of crime, however, does more than simply list the variables that cause
crime and describe the reasons why they do so; it also describes the relationships
between these variables” (p. 61). On this point, it behooves future research to not
only draw from the theoretical insights of Agnew’s framework but also incorpo-
rate prior research findings when identifying and measuring key concepts to test
the perspective and specify the relationships among the variables.
Second, in terms of prevention and treatment programs, Agnew (2005)
maintains that “The best way to control crime is to address the direct causes of
crime embodied in the five life domains” (p. 196). In the field of criminal jus-
tice, risk factors are routinely employed to assess risks of reoffending and
develop intervention programs aimed at modifying the characteristics of indi-
viduals and their environments associated with crime (Andrews & Bonta,
2010). Further, it has been noted that the theoretical legitimacy of incorporating
risk factors into the domain of treatment depends on their causal status. Hence,
assessing whether the key theoretical variables outlined in Agnew’s perspective
can serve explanatory functions in addition to their risk predictive roles is war-
ranted. That is unless it can be demonstrated that a specific variable, individu-
ally or collectively, can serve an explanatory role as well as a predictive one,
the variable should not be regarded as an intervention target or employed to
monitor treatment changes (Ward & Fortune, 2016). As an example, given our
finding that life stress (experiencing peer pressure, having financial difficulty)
is a risk factor for both IPV perpetration and victimization, a useful undertaking
for future research is to move beyond demonstrating this variable as a risk for
crime and instead, establish it as a potential risk that if effectively targeted, will
lead to a reduction in reoffending and victimization.
Third, the relevance and applicability of Agnew’s conceptual framework to
crime and victimization occurring in cyberspace remain unexplored. The emer-
gence of cybercrime (i.e., illegal activities committed using a computer, net-
worked device, or a network) has occupied researchers and scholars in the past
decade. To date, the application of mainstream criminological theories to
understand cybercrime and cybercrime victimization has been characterized as
superficial, occurring with little consideration for changes in criminal context
and processes (Steinmetz & Nobles, 2017). Hence, an essential topic for future
exploration is whether the causal processes theorized by Agnew to understand
offending—and by extension victimization—in the physical world are appli-
cable and useful for explicating crime and victimization occurring in the virtual
environment. Future work in this area could help expand the scope of Agnew’s
framework and determine its contemporary application.
Appendix
Survey Scales and Items
Dependent variables1
IPV Perpetration (Cronbach’s α = .79; Factor loadings > .38)
Have you committed the following acts towards your intimate partners in
the past 12 months:
1. Thrown something at them 7. Slammed them against a wall
that could hurt
2. Twisted their arm or hair 8. Beat them up
3. Pushed or shoved them 9. Grabbed them
4. Used a knife or gun on them 10. Slapped them
5. Punched or hit them with 11. Burned or scalded them
something that could hurt
6. Choked them 12. Kicked them
IPV Victimization (Cronbach’s α = .82; Factor loadings > .40)
Have your intimate partner committed the following acts towards you in
the past 12 months:
Ngo et al. 51
1. Thrown something at 7. Slammed you against a wall

you that could hurt
2. Twisted your arm or hair 8. Beat you up
3. Pushed or shoved you 9. Grabbed you
4. Used a knife or gun on you 10. Slapped you
5. Punched or hit you with 11. Burned or scalded you
something that could hurt
6. Choked you 12. Kicked you
Self domain measures2

Low Self-Control (Cronbach’s α = .75; Factor loadings > .54)
1. There is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner

hassles me
2. It’s all right to break the law as long as you don’t get hurt
3. I often lie to get what I want
4. I often do things that other people think are dangerous
5. I have trouble following the rules at work or in school
6. I don’t think about how what I do will affect other people
7. I often get hurt by things that I do
Authoritarian Personality (Cronbach’s α = .62; Factor loadings > .61)
1. Sometimes I have to remind my partner of who’s boss

2. I generally have the final say when my partner and I disagree
3. My partner needs to remember that I am in charge
Negative Attribution (Cronbach’s α = .70; Factor loadings > .62)
1. It is usually my partner’s fault when I get mad

2. My partner does things just to annoy me
3. My partner likes to make me mad
4. When my partner is nice to me I wonder what my partner wants
Hostility toward Men (Cronbach’s α = .69; Factor loadings > .53)
1. Men are rude 4. Men are more dishonest than women

2. Men treat women badly 5. Men respect women (reverse coded)
3. Men irritate me a lot
Hostility toward Women (Cronbach’s α = .77; Factor loadings > .60)
1. Women are rude 4. I often feel resentful of women

2. Women treat men badly 5. I am easily frustrated by women
3. Women irritate me a lot
Family domain measures3

Partner Attachment (Cronbach’s α = .85; Factor loadings > .44)
1. My partner is basically a good person 2. My partner treats me well

3. My sex life with my partner is good 4. I have a good social life with
my partner
5. My partner and I have a very good relationship
6. My relationship with my partner is worth the effort I put into it
7. I wish my partner and I got along better than we do (reverse coded)
8. There are more bad things than good things in my relationship with my
partner (reverse coded)
Child Neglect (Cronbach’s α = .74; Factor loadings > .50)
1. My parents did not help me to do my best in school

2. My parents did not care if I did things like shoplifting
3. My parents did not care if I got into trouble in school
4. My parents did not comfort me when I was upset
5. My parents did not keep me clean
6. My parents helped me when I had trouble understanding something
(reverse coded)
7. My parents helped me when I had problems (reverse coded)
8. My parents gave me enough clothes to keep me warm (reverse coded)
Child Sexual Abuse (Cronbach’s α = .74; Factor loadings > .73)
Before I was 18, . . .

1. An adult in my family made me look at or touch their private parts or
looked at or touched mine
2. An adult in my family had sex with me
3. Another kid in my family made me look at or touch their private parts
or looked at or touch mine
4. Another kid in my family did things to me that I now think was sexual
abuse
Ngo et al. 53
School/work domain measure4

Discontent with School/Work (Cronbach’s α = .335; Factor loadings > .78)
1. People at work or school don’t get along with me 2. I don’t like my

work or classes
Peer domain measure6

Criminal Peers (Cronbach’s α = .75; Factor loadings > .89)
1. I have friends who have committed crimes

2. I spent time with friends who have been in trouble with the law
Constraint measures7
Relationship Commitment (Cronbach’s α = .70; Factor loadings > .51)
1. My relationship with my partner is the most important relationship I

have
2. I would give up almost anything for my partner
3. Caring for my partner means more to me than caring for myself
4. Sometimes I have doubts that my relationship with my partner will
last (reverse coded)
5. I have considered leaving my partner (reverse coded)
Religion Involvement (Cronbach’s α = .82; Factor loadings > .92)
1. I attend a church, synagogue, or mosque once a month or more

2. I rarely have anything to do with religious activities (reverse
coded)
Anger Management (Cronbach’s α = .61; Factor loadings >.50)
1. I can calm myself down when I am upset with partner

2. Before I let myself get really mad at my partner, I think about what
will happen if I lose my temper
3. I can set up a time up a time out break during an argument with my
partner
4. When I feel myself getting angry at my partner, I try to tell myself to
calm down
5. When I’m mad at my partner, I say what I think without thinking
about the consequences (reversed coded)
Motivation measures8
Violent Socialization (Cronbach’s α = .74; Factor loadings >.50)
1. When I was a kid, I was spanked or hit a lot by my mother or father

2. When I was less than 12 years old, I was hit a lot by my mother or
father
3. When I was a kid, people (adults or kids) who were not part of my
family told me to hit back if someone hit me or insulted me
4. When I was a teenager, I was hit a lot by my mother or father
5. My father or mother told me to hit back if someone hit me or insulted
me
6. When I was a kid, I often saw kids who were not in my family get into
fights and hit each other
7. When I was a kid, I saw an adult in my family who was not my mother
or father push, shove, slap, or throw something at someone
Life Stress (Cronbach’s α = .61; Factor loadings > .49)
1. My partner often nags me

2. I don’t have enough money for my daily needs
3. I get hassled because of who I am
4. Finding time for meals is hard for me
5. People often interrupt me when I’m trying to get things done
6. My housing is not satisfactory (e.g., too much noise, heating prob-
lems, and run-down, problems with neighbors)
7. My friends pressure me to do things I don’t want to do
Control variables9
Drug Abuse (Cronbach’s α = .69; Factor loadings >.45)
1. In the past, I used coke, crack, or harder drugs more than once or
twice
2. I worry I have a drug problem
3. I have overdosed on drugs or had a severe health problem because of
taking drugs
4. I have been treated for a drug problem
Prior Violence (Cronbach’s α = .73; Factor loadings > .63)
1. Before age 15, I physically attacked someone with the idea of seri-
ously hurting them
Ngo et al. 55
2. Before age 15, I hit or threatened to hit my parents

3. Since age 15, I have physically attacked someone with the idea of
seriously hurting them
4. Since age 15, I have hit or threatened to hit someone who is not a
member of my family
Appendix Notes
1. The original response categories for the dependent variables consisted of an
8-point Likert-type scale: 1 = Once in the past year, 2 = Twice in the past year,
3 = 3 to 5 times in the past year, 4 = 6 to 10 times in the past year, 5 = 11 to 20
times in the past year, 6 = More than 20 times in the past year, 7 = Not in the past
year but it did happen before, and 8 = This has never happened. Two methods
were used to construct IPV Perpetration and IPV Victimization. First, a simple
summary score for each variable was created in which the original responses
were recoded to 0 = This has never happened, 1 = Not in the past year but it did
happen before, 2 = Once in the past year, 3 = Twice in the past year, 4 = 3 to 5
times in the past year, 5 = 6 to 10 times in the past year, 6 = 11 to 20 times in the
past year, and 7 = More than 20 times in the past year. And the above items were
summed together with higher scores indicating higher levels of IPV perpetra-
tion or victimization. Second, the responses were collapsed into a dichotomous
variable, where 1 represented the respondent perpetrated or experienced at least
one form of violence (i.e., the original responses 1 through 7 = 1) and 0 indicat-
ing that the respondent did not commit or experience violence (i.e., the original
response 8 = 0).
2. The response categories for the items used to measure the self domain variables
include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to
4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with a higher score
indicating a higher level of a particular self domain measure (i.e., higher levels
of Low Self Control, higher levels of Authoritarian Personality).
3. Married and Cohabitating were measured using a single item asking the respon-
dents about their relationship status. The response categories for Married and
Cohabitating were 1 = single, 2 = dating, 3 = engaged, 4 = married, and 5 = cohab-
itating. For the former measure, Married, the responses were recoded to cre-
ate a dichotomous variable where 1 = the respondent was married (the original
response 4 = 1) and 0 = =the respondent was not married (all other responses = 0).
Likewise, for the latter measure, Cohabitating, the responses were recoded to
create a dichotomous variable where 1 = the respondent was living with a part-
ner (the original response 5 = 1) and 0 = the respondent was not living with a
partner (all other responses = 0). The response categories for the items used to
measure Partner Attachment, Child Neglect, and Child Sexual Abuse include a
4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly
Agree. The responses were summed together with a higher score indicating a
higher level of a particular family domain measure (i.e., higher levels of Partner
Attachment, higher levels of Child Neglect).
4. The response categories for the items used to measure Discontent with School/
Work include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree
to 4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with higher scores
indicating higher levels of discontent with school/work.
5. The Cronbach’s alpha for the school/work measure is low (.33) but results from
the principal component exploratory reveal all the items loaded on a single factor
with all loadings were >0.78 (see Appendix). The bivariate correlation between
the two items was, r = .203, p < .001. Also, per Streiner (2003), it is not always
the case that Cronbach’s alpha is an appropriate measure of internal consistency,
depending on whether the measure is a scale or an index. The school/work mea-
sure employed in the current study is not a scale.
6. The response categories for the items used to measure Criminal Peers include a
4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly
Agree. The responses were summed together with higher scores indicating
greater associations with criminal peers.
7. The response categories for the items used to measure the constraint variables
include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to
4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with a higher score
indicating a higher level of a particular constraint (i.e., higher levels of Anger
Management, higher levels of Religion Involvement).
8. No Network Support was measured using the statement, “I have family members
who would help me out if I had a problem.” The response categories for all the
items used to measure the motivation variables include a 4-point Likert-type
scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree. The responses
were summed together with a higher score indicating a higher level of a particu-
lar motivation measure (e.g., higher level of no network support, higher levels of
violent socialization, and higher levels of life stress).
9. The response categories for the items used to measure Drug Abuse and Prior
Violence include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with a
higher score indicating higher levels of drug abuse and prior violence.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and Alex Piquero for many
helpful comments, which greatly improved the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Ngo et al. 57
ORCID iD
Fawn T. Ngo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-4004
Notes
1. It is noteworthy that Ngo et al. (2022) also applied Agnew’s integrated theory
and employed the same dataset (the International Dating Violence Study) in their
study. However, the focus of their work was on examining gender differences in
IPV perpetration. Specifically, Ngo et al. (2022) explored Agnew’s proposition
that group differences in crime rates, including sex differences, are either due to
differences in the standing on the life domains between the groups or differences
in the effects of the life domains on crime among the groups. Our focus in this
study is on assessing the “generality” of Agnew’s theory, or whether the life
domain measures proposed in Agnew’s theory could account for both IPV perpe-
tration and victimization. We also explore the mediating effects of the constraint
and motivation variables on the relationships between the life domains and IPV
perpetration and victimization, a task that Ngo et al. (2022) did not undertake
in their study. For the current project, we examine two propositions that Ngo
et al. (2022) did not explore in their study: (1) crime is caused by five clusters of
variables organized into the life domains of self, family, school, peers, and work
and (2) the variables in each domain increase crime by reducing the constraints
against crime and increasing the motivations for crime.
2. In their study examining gender differences in IPV perpetration, Ngo et al.
(2022) employed a combined measure of school and work attachment because
a separate measure was not available in the International Dating Violence Study
dataset. Their combined measure of school/work attachment was not related to
IPV perpetration.
3. The data employed in this study do not include a separate measure for the school
and work domains. Hence, a combined measure of school/work domain was cre-
ated for the study. While this fact represents a limitation of our research, it is
noteworthy that Agnew postulates that the school domain primarily applies to
adolescents and not adults, the sample included in our study.
4. It is noteworthy that with multiple predictors, PROCESS estimates a series of
simple mediation models, one for each of the predictor variables.
5. The correlation between hostility toward women and child neglect is (r = .216,
p < .01)
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.
Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminal offend? A general theory of crime and delin-
quency. Roxbury.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime
and deviance. Northeastern University Press.
Alexander, P. C. (2011). Childhood maltreatment, intimate partner violence, work

interference and women’s employment. Journal of Family Violence, 26(4), 255–
261.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.).
Routledge.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651–680.
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescents
follow in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19(2), 162–184.
Baker, E. A., Klipfel, K. M., & van Dulmen, M. H. (2018). Self-control and emotional
and verbal aggression in dating relationships: A dyadic understanding. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 33(22), 3551–3571.
Barnes, J. E., Noll, J. G., Putman, F. W., & Trickett, P. K. (2009). Sexual and physical
revictimization among victims of severe childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 33(7), 412–420.
Berg, M. T., & Schreck, C. J. (2021). The meaning of the victim–offender over-
lap for criminological theory and crime prevention policy. Annual Review of
Criminology, 5, 277–297.
Bond, C., Woods, K., Humphrey, N., Symes, W., & Green, L. (2013). Practitioner
review: The effectiveness of solution focused brief therapy with children and
families: A systematic and critical evaluation of the literature from 1990–2010.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(7), 707–723.
Burton, K. (2018). Anger management versus domestic violence—What’s the differ-
ence? https://centralargroup.com/angermanagementversusdomesticviolence
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic
review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020) Preventing intimate partner vio-
lence. Author. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/
fastfact.html
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of
latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational
Research Methods, 11(2), 296–325.
Cho, S., & Lacey, B. (2021). The Impact of life domains on developmental trajecto-
ries of peer delinquency among Korean adolescents: A partial test of Agnew’s
general theory of crime and delinquency with a group-based trajectory model-
ing approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F03066
24X211016326
Choi, J., & Kruis, N. E. (2019). The effects of life domains on cyberbullying and bul-
lying: Testing the generalizability of Agnew’s integrated general theory. Crime
& Delinquency, 65(6), 772–800.
Cochran, J. K. (2017). The effects of life domains, constraints, and motivations on
academic dishonesty: A partial test and extension of Agnew’s general theory.
Ngo et al. 59
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,

61(11), 1288–1308.
Cochran, J. K., Sellers, C. S., Wiesbrock, V., & Palacios, W. R. (2011). Repetitive
intimate partner victimization: An exploratory application of social learning the-
ory. Deviant Behavior, 32(9), 790–817.
Crowne, S. S., Juon, H., Ensminger, M., Burrell, L., McFarlane, E., & Duggan, A.
(2011). Concurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employ-
ment stability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1282–1304.
Eaton, D. K., Davis, K. S., Barrios, L, Brener, N. D., & Noonan, R. K. (2007).
Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-
occurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U.S. high school stu-
dents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 585–602.
Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C.
(2004). Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence
victimization during adolescence. Preventive Medicine, 39(5), 1007–1016.
Foshee, V. A., Reyes, H. L. M., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Mathias, J. P., Karriker-
Jaffe, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Benefield, T. S. (2011). Risk and protective fac-
tors distinguishing profiles of adolescent peer and dating violence perpetration.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 344–350.
Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Fisher, B. S. (2016). A multi-theoretical framework to
assess gendered stalking victimization: The utility of self-control, social learning,
and control balance theories. Justice Quarterly, 33(2), 319–347.
Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence. Simon & Schuster.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford
University Press.
Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence
in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693.
Graham, L. M., Jensen, T. M., Givens, A. D., Bowen, G. L., & Rizo, C. F. (2019).
Intimate partner violence among same-sex couples in college: A propensity score
analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(8), 1583–1610.
Grubb, J. A., & Posick, C. (2018). Applying Agnew’s integrated theory of crime and
delinquency to victimization risk: A contemporaneous and longitudinal examina-
tion. Criminal Justice Review, 43(3), 289–308.
Hay, C., & Evans, M. M. (2006). Violent victimization and involvement in delin-
quency: Examining predictions from general strain theory. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 34(3), 261–274.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation:
Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs,
85(1), 4–40.
Jennings, W. G., Park, M., Tomsich, E. A., Gover, A. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011).
Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among
South Korean college students: The influence of social learning and self-control.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 188–206.
Kabiri, S., Shadmanfaat, S. M. S., Choi, J., & Yun, I. (2020). The impact of life
domains on cyberbullying perpetration in Iran: A partial test of Agnew’s general
theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101633.
Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). The association of antisocial behavior and
depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in romantic rela-
tionships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 82–96.
Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and
victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29(2), 265–292.
Lokhmatkina, N. V., Agnew-Davies, R., Costelloe, C., Kuznetsova, O. Y., Nikolskaya,
I. M., & Feder, G. S. (2015). Intimate partner violence and ways of coping with
stress: Cross-sectional survey of female patients in Russian general practice.
Family Practice, 32(2), 141–146.
Meade, C. N., Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Richards, T. N. (2017). On the link-
age between sexual violence victimization and intimate partner violence out-
comes among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Conflict,
and Peace Studies, 9(4), 257–268.
Miller, S., Loeber, R., & Hipwell, A. (2009). Peer deviance, parenting and disrup-
tive behavior among young girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(2),
139–152.
Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and gen-
eral crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38(1),
199–232.
Muftić, L. R., Grubb, J. A., Bouffard, L. A., & Maljević, A. (2014). The impact of life
domains on juvenile offending in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Direct, indirect, and
moderating effects in Agnew’s integrated general theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 51(6), 816–845.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Percentage of college students 16 to
24 years old who were employed, by attendance status, hours worked per week,
and control and level of institution: Selected years, October 1970 through 2012.
Author. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_503.20.asp
Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2014). Contemporaneous and lagged effects of life
domains and substance use: A test of Agnew’s general theory of crime and delin-
quency. Journal of Criminology, 2014(3), 1–20.
Ngo, F. T., Paternoster, R., Cullen, F. T., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2011). Life domains
and crime: A test of Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 302–311.
Ngo, F. T., Zavala, E., & Piquero, A. R. (2022). Gender, life domains, and intimate
partner violence perpetration: An empirical test of Agnew’s general theory of
crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 59(4),
487–529.
Okuda, M., Olfson, M., Wang, S., Rubio, J. M., Xu, Y., & Blanco, C. (2015).
Correlates of intimate partner violence perpetration: Results from a National
Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(1), 49–56.
Ngo et al. 61
Paat, Y. F., & Markham, C. (2016). A gendered approach to understanding the roles of
social bonding, personal control, and strain on college dating violence in emerg-
ing adulthood. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(8), 793–811.
Penley, J. A., Tomaka, J., & Wiebe, J. S. (2002). The association of coping to physi-
cal and psychological health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 25(6), 551–603.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. G.
(2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior
and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 83–120.
Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2021). Revitalizing victimization theory: Revisions,
applications, and new directions. Routledge.
Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. (2014). Self-control and victim-
ization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52(1), 87–116.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Renner, L. M., & Whitney, S. D. (2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirec-
tional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect,
36(1), 40–52.
Roh, M., Cho, S., Nolasco Braaten, C. A., Kim, J., Kim, J., & Gentle-Genitty, C.
(2022). The impact of life domains on delinquent behaviors in five Caribbean
countries: A partial test of Agnew's general theory of crime and delinquency.
Violence and Victims, 37(1), 3–25.
Roh, M., & Marshall, I. (2018). A cross-cultural analysis of Agnew’s general theory of
crime and delinquency. Social Science and Humanities Journal, 2(1), 301–321.
Sabina, C., Schally, J. L., & Marciniec, L. (2017). Problematic alcohol and drug use
and the risk of partner violence victimization among male and female college
students. Journal of Family Violence, 32(3), 305–316.
Sabina, C., & Straus, M. A. (2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental
health among US college students. Violence and Victims, 23(6), 667–682.
Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and
the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 27(2), 110–139.
Sax, K. (2012). Intimate partner violence: A group cognitive behavioral therapy
model. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-49/publications/newsletter/group-
psychologist/2012/11/partner-violence
Schafer, J., Caetano, R, & Clark, C. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the
United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88(11), 1702–1704.
Schnurr, M. P., & Lohman, B. J. (2008). How much does school matter? An
examination of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37(3), 266–283.
Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and
test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16(3), 633–654.
Spriggs, A. L., Halpern, C. T., Herring, A. H., & Schoenbach, V. J. (2009). Family
and school socioeconomic disadvantage: Interactive influences on adolescent
dating violence victimization. Social Science & Medicine, 68(11), 1956–1965.
Steinmetz, K. F., & Nobles, M. R. (2017). Technocrime and criminological theory
(1st ed.). Routledge.
Swinford, S. P., DeMaris, A., Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2000). Harsh
physical discipline in childhood and violence in later romantic involvements: The
mediating role of problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2),
508–519.
Tittle, C. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Avalon
Publishing.
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., DeGue, S., DiLillo, D., & Cuadra, L. E. (2013). The medi-
ating effect of hostility toward women on the relationship between childhood
emotional abuse and sexual violence perpetration. Violence and Victims, 28(1),
178–191.
Ward, T., & Fortune, C. A. (2016). The role of dynamic risk factors in the explanation
of offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 79–88.
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in
frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal
and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health,
97(5), 941–947.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., Yoder, K. A., Cauce, A. M., & Paradise, M. (2001).
Deviant behavior and victimization among homeless and runaway adolescents.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(11), 1175–1204.
White, H. R., & Widom, C. S. (2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and
neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggres-
sion, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior:
Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 29(4),
332–345.
Zhang, Y., Day, G., & Cao, L. (2012). A partial test of Agnew’s general theory of
crime and delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 58(6), 856–878.
Author Biographies
Fawn T. Ngo is Associate Professor of Criminology at the University of South
Florida. Her research interests include criminological theory, interpersonal violence,
cybercrime, and predictive analytic applications in criminology and criminal justice.
Her work has appeared in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice
Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, Victims & Offenders:
The International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice, and
American Journal of Criminal Justice.
Taylor Fisher is a doctoral student at the University of South Florida. Her research is
related to cybercrime, digital and network forensics, and theory testing in a cyber
context.
Ngo et al. 63
Rebecca A. Ruiz is a current Master’s student of Criminology at the University of

South Florida. Her research interests include human trafficking with a focus in labor
trafficking, immigration, hate crimes/speech, critical criminological perspectives, and
social justice. She is a current Graduate Assistant for the Trafficking in Persons: Risk
to Resilience Lab (TiP) at USF St. Petersburg and for USF’s Cybercrime M.S.
program.

Life Domains, Constraints, Motivations, and Intimate Partner Violence - Assessing The Generality of Agnew's General Theory of Crime and Delinquency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Life Domains, Constraints, Motivations, and Intimate Partner Violence - Assessing The Generality of Agnew's General Theory of Crime and Delinquency

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Life Domains, Constraints, Motivations, and Intimate Partner Violence - Assessing The Generality of Agnew's General Theory of Crime and Delinquency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1106951

Violence: Assessing the

Fawn T. Ngo1 , Taylor Fisher1,

Agnew’s Integrated Theory

manner, attribute adverse experiences to the malicious behavior of others,

Prior Tests of Agnew’s Integrated Theory

Risk Factors of IPV Perpetration and Victimization

IPV perpetration is significantly and inversely related to age, income, for-

H2A: Constraint and motivation factors will mediate the relationships

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for All Variables in the Study (N = 4,162).

Variables M (%) SD Min Max VIF (tolerance)

Note. IPV = Intimate Partner Violence, SD = Standard Deviation, Min = Minimum,

Life Domain Variables

Constraint and Motivation Variables

variables, we also employed three measures to represent factors that entice

variable is continuous and logistic regression when the outcome variable is

Table 2. Negative Binomial Regression of Life Domain, Constraint, and Motivation

Variables IPV Perpetration IPV Victimization

increase in negative attribution the incident rate of IPV victimization increased

Mediating Effects of Constraints and Motivations

Variables Direct effect Indirect effect (mediator) b SE 95% CI

Sex (−) Significant — — — —

Variables Direct effect Indirect effect (mediator ) b SE 95% CI

Discussion and Conclusion

and applicable for understanding IPV victimization. Before we discuss the

Life Domains, IPV Perpetration, and IPV Victimization

Mediating Effects of Constraints and Motivations

be effective in helping participants feel more in control of their anger (Sax,

Future Research Directions

IPV Victimization (Cronbach’s α = .82; Factor loadings > .40)

1. Thrown something at 7. Slammed you against a wall

Self domain measures2

1. There is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner

Authoritarian Personality (Cronbach’s α = .62; Factor loadings > .61)

1. Sometimes I have to remind my partner of who’s boss

Negative Attribution (Cronbach’s α = .70; Factor loadings > .62)

1. It is usually my partner’s fault when I get mad

Hostility toward Men (Cronbach’s α = .69; Factor loadings > .53)

1. Men are rude 4. Men are more dishonest than women

Hostility toward Women (Cronbach’s α = .77; Factor loadings > .60)

1. Women are rude 4. I often feel resentful of women

Family domain measures3

1. My partner is basically a good person 2. My partner treats me well

Child Neglect (Cronbach’s α = .74; Factor loadings > .50)

1. My parents did not help me to do my best in school

Child Sexual Abuse (Cronbach’s α = .74; Factor loadings > .73)

Before I was 18, . . .

School/work domain measure4

1. People at work or school don’t get along with me 2. I don’t like my

Peer domain measure6

1. I have friends who have committed crimes

1. My relationship with my partner is the most important relationship I

Religion Involvement (Cronbach’s α = .82; Factor loadings > .92)

1. I attend a church, synagogue, or mosque once a month or more

Anger Management (Cronbach’s α = .61; Factor loadings >.50)

1. I can calm myself down when I am upset with partner

1. When I was a kid, I was spanked or hit a lot by my mother or father

Life Stress (Cronbach’s α = .61; Factor loadings > .49)