亲密伴侣凶杀案:葡萄牙凶杀案和自杀凶杀案的比较。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-02 DOI:10.1177/08862605231198007
Mariana Gonçalves, Eduardo Gomes, Marlene Matos
{"title":"亲密伴侣凶杀案:葡萄牙凶杀案和自杀凶杀案的比较。","authors":"Mariana Gonçalves, Eduardo Gomes, Marlene Matos","doi":"10.1177/08862605231198007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a tragic event. Studies involving the comparison between IPH and intimate partner homicide-suicide (IPH-S) are scarce, with few studies in Portugal about this issue. The current study aims to compare IPH and IPH-S perpetrators, the victim-perpetrator relationships dynamics, and homicide circumstances. The data was collected through the analysis of 78 judicial processes of IPH that occurred in Portugal, between 2010 and 2015. Of the cases, 51 were IPH, 20 were IPH-S cases, and seven were attempted suicide cases, being perpetrated in 84.6% (<i>n</i> = 66) for male perpetrators. Suicide after intimate homicide were all committed by men. All judicial processes analyzed refer to heterosexual relationships. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare the groups concerning perpetrator and victim sociodemographic characteristics, victim-perpetrator dyadic dynamics, and crime circumstances. The results show mostly common trends between the two groups with some differentiating factors when compared individually (e.g., perpetrator professional status, criminal records). Regression logistic analysis showed no differences between IPH and IPH-S.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":" ","pages":"519-540"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10775648/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intimate Partner Homicide: Comparison Between Homicide and Homicide-Suicide in Portugal.\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Gonçalves, Eduardo Gomes, Marlene Matos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08862605231198007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a tragic event. Studies involving the comparison between IPH and intimate partner homicide-suicide (IPH-S) are scarce, with few studies in Portugal about this issue. The current study aims to compare IPH and IPH-S perpetrators, the victim-perpetrator relationships dynamics, and homicide circumstances. The data was collected through the analysis of 78 judicial processes of IPH that occurred in Portugal, between 2010 and 2015. Of the cases, 51 were IPH, 20 were IPH-S cases, and seven were attempted suicide cases, being perpetrated in 84.6% (<i>n</i> = 66) for male perpetrators. Suicide after intimate homicide were all committed by men. All judicial processes analyzed refer to heterosexual relationships. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare the groups concerning perpetrator and victim sociodemographic characteristics, victim-perpetrator dyadic dynamics, and crime circumstances. The results show mostly common trends between the two groups with some differentiating factors when compared individually (e.g., perpetrator professional status, criminal records). Regression logistic analysis showed no differences between IPH and IPH-S.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"519-540\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10775648/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231198007\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231198007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

亲密伴侣杀人案是一起悲剧事件。关于IPH和亲密伴侣杀人自杀(IPH-S)之间比较的研究很少,葡萄牙很少有关于这个问题的研究。目前的研究旨在比较IPH和IPH-S犯罪者、受害者-犯罪者关系动态和杀人情节。数据是通过分析2010年至2015年间葡萄牙发生的78起IPH司法程序收集的。其中51例为IPH,20例为IPH-S,7例为自杀未遂,占84.6%(n = 66)针对男性犯罪者。亲密杀人后的自杀都是男性所为。所分析的所有司法程序都涉及异性恋关系。进行了双变量和多变量分析,以比较犯罪者和受害者的社会人口特征、受害者-犯罪者二元动力学和犯罪情况。结果显示,这两组人之间的趋势大多是共同的,但在单独比较时有一些不同的因素(例如,犯罪者的职业地位、犯罪记录)。回归逻辑分析显示IPH和IPH-S之间没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intimate Partner Homicide: Comparison Between Homicide and Homicide-Suicide in Portugal.

Intimate partner homicide (IPH) is a tragic event. Studies involving the comparison between IPH and intimate partner homicide-suicide (IPH-S) are scarce, with few studies in Portugal about this issue. The current study aims to compare IPH and IPH-S perpetrators, the victim-perpetrator relationships dynamics, and homicide circumstances. The data was collected through the analysis of 78 judicial processes of IPH that occurred in Portugal, between 2010 and 2015. Of the cases, 51 were IPH, 20 were IPH-S cases, and seven were attempted suicide cases, being perpetrated in 84.6% (n = 66) for male perpetrators. Suicide after intimate homicide were all committed by men. All judicial processes analyzed refer to heterosexual relationships. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare the groups concerning perpetrator and victim sociodemographic characteristics, victim-perpetrator dyadic dynamics, and crime circumstances. The results show mostly common trends between the two groups with some differentiating factors when compared individually (e.g., perpetrator professional status, criminal records). Regression logistic analysis showed no differences between IPH and IPH-S.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
期刊最新文献
Role of Maternal Adverse Childhood Experiences on Infant Neglect: A Multi-Perspective Approach. Emerging Trends in Intimate Partner Rape and Marital/Spousal Rape During the Biennium 2020 and 2021, Including the COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece. The Spatial Scale and Spread of Child Victimization. When Is Teasing Abuse? A Grounded Theory of Teasing Among Mexican American Adolescent Dating Couples. Co-Existence Patterns of Social Norms and Positive Defending Intention Among Adolescents as School Bullying Bystanders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1