The review, led by Marisol Lila, Enrique Gracia, Cristina Expósito-Álvarez and Rocío Pérez-Sabater of the University of Valencia, draws together systematic reviews, meta-analyses and methodologically rigorous primary studies, with particular emphasis on findings from samples of known male perpetrators rather than community surveys alone. The authors argue that understanding individual-level psychological processes is essential for improving prevention and intervention, even though violence ultimately arises from interacting influences across multiple social and ecological levels. Their synthesis organizes the evidence into two broad domains: developmental and clinical vulnerabilities on one hand, and cognitive-affective drivers on the other.

In the first domain, the reviewers examine childhood trauma exposure, personality disorders, insecure attachment and substance use. Meta-analyses consistently show that men who experienced maltreatment in childhood, whether abuse, neglect or witnessing violence between their own parents, face elevated odds of becoming violent toward their partners in adulthood. The association is reliable but not deterministic; most survivors of childhood adversity never perpetrate violence. Studies of probation samples and batterer intervention programs further indicate that cumulative trauma predicts offending severity, and that post-traumatic stress symptoms among perpetrators are linked to treatment engagement difficulties and higher recidivism. Recent work also highlights the role of masculine discrepancy stress, the distress some men feel when they perceive themselves as falling short of masculine ideals, in linking childhood trauma to later violence through emotion dysregulation.

Personality pathology emerges as another robust thread. A meta-analysis in Clinical Psychology Review found that personality disorders, particularly borderline and antisocial configurations, predict intimate partner violence perpetration. Related research on narcissism and psychopathy shows that these traits not only raise the risk of violence but also forecast worse treatment outcomes, including dropout and repeated reassault among program participants. The classic typology of male batterers proposed by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart in the 1990s, which distinguished subtypes differing in severity and generality of violence, continues to find empirical support, with subtypes differing in treatment completion and recidivism. Attachment insecurity adds a further layer: meta-analytic work shows that both anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions are associated with perpetration, often operating through psychological distress, substance use and affect dysregulation.

Substance use occupies a prominent place in the review. Meta-analyses confirm that alcohol problems are among the most consistent correlates of partner violence, and event-based diary studies show that physical aggression is far more likely to occur on days when men drink. The reviewers describe mechanisms such as alcohol myopia, in which intoxication narrows attention to immediate provocations and impairs inhibitory control, while noting that antisocial personality traits and trait jealousy can moderate the alcohol-violence link. Illicit drug use, including marijuana and opioids, shows similar associations in samples of men arrested for domestic violence. Importantly, substance use also predicts treatment attrition, meaning that offenders with alcohol and drug problems are less likely to complete the very programs designed to change their behavior, although those who do complete can show meaningful gains.

The second broad domain concerns cognitive-affective drivers: cognitive dysfunctions, anger and hostility, empathy deficits, and sexist or otherwise violence-supportive attitudes. Neuropsychological research summarized in the review points to subtle but reliable deficits in executive functioning among perpetrators, including impulsivity, poor attention switching and impaired working memory, which together undermine the capacity to inhibit aggressive responses during conflict. Meta-analytic evidence on anger and hostility confirms that these emotional states are among the strongest psychological correlates of perpetration, and clinical studies show that anger disturbances predict long-term criminal recidivism. The reviewers emphasize shared mechanisms that cut across domains: emotion dysregulation, hostile attribution of intent to a partner’s behavior, and impaired inhibitory control appear repeatedly as pathways through which childhood trauma, personality pathology, attachment insecurity and intoxication are translated into violence.

Empathy and related social-cognitive capacities also feature prominently. Studies of court-mandated offenders reveal deficits in emotional decoding, perspective taking and empathic concern, and some work documents atypical facial responses to others’ suffering, with low sadness and even elevated happiness displayed toward victims’ distress. Alexithymia, the difficulty identifying and describing one’s own emotions, is associated with impulsivity and cognitive and empathic dysfunction in perpetrators and offers new targets for intervention. Neuroimaging studies add biological texture, linking coercive partner behavior to lower brain volume in emotion-regulation regions and altered resting-state connectivity in social mentalizing networks, although the authors caution that such findings describe correlates rather than proven causes.

Attitudes complete the cognitive picture. The review examines ambivalent sexism, distinguishing hostile sexism, which protects men’s power, from benevolent sexism, which guards traditional gender roles, and cites meta-analytic evidence linking both to violence-against-women attitudes and behaviors. Perpetrators commonly deploy denial, minimization, justification and victim-blaming, and validated scales now measure the perceived severity, acceptability and responsibility attribution surrounding intimate partner violence against women among both the general population and offenders. Implicit attitudes toward violence have even been shown to predict treatment outcomes, suggesting that conscious beliefs capture only part of the attitudinal architecture sustaining abuse.

Crucially, the reviewers stress that these psychological drivers show small-to-moderate but reliable associations with perpetration and predict clinically relevant outcomes, including violence severity, treatment engagement and dropout, and recidivism. No single factor is sufficient, and the drivers rarely operate in isolation; instead they interact through shared mechanisms. This convergence leads the authors to argue that psychological explanations should be understood as complementary to, not competing with, broader ecological accounts of intimate partner violence. The practical payoff is a case for assessment-guided, responsivity-based interventions tailored to each perpetrator’s individual risk profile, consistent with the risk-need-responsivity model of offender rehabilitation.

Evidence for such tailoring is already accumulating. Randomized controlled trials of the Strength at Home program, which addresses trauma-related emotional dysregulation, have reduced partner violence in military and civilian samples. Integrated treatments combining cognitive behavioral therapy with substance abuse care have shown efficacy for substance-dependent offenders, and motivational enhancement therapy for alcohol problems among partner-violent men has produced promising results. Pilot trials of cognitive training designed for perpetrators have improved cognitive flexibility and reaction time, while individualized motivational plans within batterer intervention programs have improved completion rates. The Valencia group’s own randomized trial of integrated motivational strategies for perpetrators with substance use problems adds further support. Together, these findings suggest that the era of one-size-fits-all batterer programs may be giving way to a more precise, psychologically informed science of intervention, one that treats the wounded boy behind the violent man not as an excuse for abuse, but as a clinical target in the service of safety for women.

Subject of Research: Psychological drivers of men's perpetration of intimate partner violence against women

Article Title: Psychological drivers of men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence against women

Article References: Lila, M., Gracia, E., Expósito-Álvarez, C., & Pérez-Sabater, R. (2026). Psychological drivers of men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence against women. Nature Reviews Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-026-00616-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s44159-026-00616-4

Keywords: intimate partner violence, perpetrators, childhood trauma, personality disorders, attachment insecurity, substance use, anger and hostility, empathy deficits, sexism, emotion dysregulation, recidivism, batterer intervention programs

Utilizing a robust cross-sectional dataset comprising a nationally representative sample of 846 youth aged 11 to 21, the study employed advanced ordinal regression statistical models to assess victimization and perpetration linked to conditions spanning anxiety, depression, PTSD, oppositional defiant and conduct disorders, bipolar disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and learning disabilities. This comprehensive approach allowed for nuanced insights into how mental health and neurodevelopmental disorders intersect with intimate partner violence risks among young people.

The implications of this study resonate deeply within public health and social services domains, given that approximately 15% to 20% of the global population is categorized as neurodivergent, encompassing neurological differences such as autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, dyslexia, and dyspraxia. These are not pathologies but natural variations in brain functioning that require tailored support systems. Dr. Rothman emphasizes, “Adolescents and young adults with certain mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions demonstrate heightened vulnerability to interpersonal violence, underlining urgent needs for inclusive prevention strategies.”

Psychological and cyber abuse emerged as the predominant forms of maltreatment, affecting 66% and 56% of victims respectively, while physical and sexual abuse were reported by 28% and 33% of neurodivergent youth. These statistics highlight the multifaceted nature of dating violence and expose the often-invisible digital and emotional harms that accompany physical aggression. The research calls for urgent attention from schools, community organizations, and policy makers to mobilize effective prevention and intervention efforts tailored for neurodivergent populations.

Shari Krauss, director of The Autism Program at Boston Medical Center, underscored the significance of this dataset, noting the absence of prior nationally representative research examining adolescent dating violence among youths with mental health or neurodevelopmental differences. This gap has stymied development of evidence-based resources, leaving a vulnerable demographic underserved in public health planning and resource allocation.

The economic ramifications of dating violence are staggering, with partner violence in the United States annually costing an estimated $11.2 billion. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has consequently prioritized prevention of adolescent dating abuse under its Healthy People 2030 objectives, targeting reductions in sexual and physical dating violence among youth. Dr. Rothman’s findings inject critical urgency into these goals, particularly the imperative to address the unique risks neurodivergent youth face.

Central to the discourse is the stark reality that many neurodivergent adolescents are systematically excluded from sexual and relationship education programs. This exclusion often stems from their placement outside mainstream classrooms or curricula that are ill-equipped to accommodate diverse learning needs and cognitive processing styles. Inequities in educational content accessibility exacerbate vulnerability and hinder these youth from acquiring essential knowledge about healthy relationships and personal safety.

In response, research-based interventions have begun to emerge, with Dr. Rothman’s own Healthy Relationships on the Autism Spectrum (HEARTS) program standing at the forefront. This NIH-funded, rigorously tested randomized controlled trial intervention addresses gaps in relationship education specific to neurodivergent young people, equipping them with skills to identify, prevent, and navigate abusive situations. Coverage in popular media, including a recent article in The New York Times, has catalyzed heightened public interest and advocacy for tailored educational programming.

Moreover, the study underscores the vital importance of training for domestic and sexual violence service providers to enhance their competence in working with neurodivergent clients. Such specialized training can ensure that services are both accessible and responsive to the nuanced needs of this population, fostering safer, more inclusive support ecosystems.

Dr. Rothman’s multidisciplinary research team included experts from Rutgers University, the City University of New York, Northeastern University, and NORC at the University of Chicago. Their collaborative effort, financially supported by the National Institute of Justice under the U.S. Department of Justice, reflects a concerted commitment to addressing intimate partner violence through an equity lens that respects neurological diversity.

Looking ahead, the study’s findings signal a transformative shift in intimate partner violence prevention, emphasizing that without deliberate, inclusive strategies and resource allocation, the vulnerability of neurodivergent youth to dating abuse will persist unchecked. This research challenges stakeholders across education, healthcare, and social services sectors to rethink, redesign, and implement interventions rooted in a profound understanding of neurodivergent experiences.

In sum, this comprehensive study alerts society to a critical, previously under-recognized public health crisis: the elevated risk of dating violence among neurodivergent youth. Bridging research with actionable community responses, it charts a pathway toward empowerment, protection, and health equity for one of today’s most underserved adolescent populations.

Subject of Research: People

Article Title: Elevated Odds of Dating Violence Among U.S. Youth with Mental Health and Neurodevelopmental Conditions: Estimates from a Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Study

News Publication Date: 30-Jan-2026

Web References:

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605251319010
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7732033/
• https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6302a4.htm
• https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/violence-prevention/reduce-sexual-or-physical-adolescent-dating-violence-ivp-18
• https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934295/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/12/health/autism-dating-ucla-love-on-the-spectrum.html

References:
Rothman, E. et al. (2026). Elevated Odds of Dating Violence Among U.S. Youth with Mental Health and Neurodevelopmental Conditions: Estimates from a Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. DOI: 10.1177/08862605251319010.

Keywords:
Developmental disorders, Mental health, Domestic violence