Dysfunctional Attitudes, Sociotropy–Autonomy, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization in Emerging Adulthood
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall this is a very interesting and informative article on the research done. The findings of the research are presented in a clear and detailed manner, providing insight into the occurrence of different manifestations of IPV.
Attention is needed to the following:
Line 33-34 “concerned”—not clear what is meant by this. Provide further explanation—is it that they are involved in IPV relationship, or worried about becoming involved in one?
Provide aims of the study earlier in the introduction. This will make the information in the introduction easier to understand and contextualize in relation to the study aims.
Discussion section is clearly written and provides clear information on the importance of the findings in this study and their implications—these findings seem to offer important insight into IPV in depth across a range of dimensions
Conclusion needs to be made more clear and definite. Avoid saying “attempted”( line 377) to expand knowledge—this reads as if the study has nothing of value to contribute and in that case would call into question why it should be published.
Lines 381-382—the finding on autonomy does not read clearly—this needs to be revised to be more clear in meaning.
There are a few areas where attention is needed to clarity of meaning as noted in the comments to authors. Attention to these will help with the clear communication of the article. There were only a few places where this was needed; overall the quality of English language was excellent.
Author Response
We have responded to all of the reviewer's feedback in the attached word file.Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
How did you estimate the sample size?
Please report the racial difference in the study
Were all participants in the study heterosexual?
What were the criteria for entering the study except romantic relationship in the last 12 months?
Were all participants in the study male and female in terms of gender identity?
Author Response
We have responded to all of the reviewer's feedback in the attached word file.Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This study investigates the relationships between dysfunctional attitudes and IPV victimization in emerging adulthood. However, the study as it is currently presented needs to be revised.
The following points need attention:
1. The first significant comment concerns the study's theoretical and empirical background. The authors of the article argued that this is an exploratory study because there are not enough studies on this topic. This claim is unsubstantiated, as previous studies have examined the relationship between dysfunctional attitudes and IPV. Please see the following review article:
Pilkington, P. D., Noonan, C., May, T., Younan, R., & Holt, R. A. (2021). Early maladaptive schemas and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 28(5), 1030–1042. https://doi.org/10.1002/CPP.2558
The introduction and the discussion sections should be enriched with relevant empirical and theoretical sources.
2. Please provide an updated definition of IPV. An explanation for "emerging adults" should also be provided (see Arnett, 2004).
3. Please double-check the rates of IPV presented in line 33. These rates cover a wide range and may also refer to IPV among teenagers, not only among young adults.
4. Line 47: " An insecure or violent family environment can impact the development of the individual, and therefore, these cognitive schemes" – this statement is not clear (which cognitive schemes are you referring to?); please rephrase and support it with empirical resources.
5. Participants and Procedure: What are the inclusion criteria for this study on emerging adults? Do subjects need to be of a certain age in order to be included in the study? This should be clarified in the "Participants and Procedure" section.
6. Line 116: provide information regarding the levels of education among the sample. Only the mean academic level is presented.
7. Instruments: Throughout this section, information about the number of items in each sub-scale in the questionnaire is lacking. Examples of sample items must also be provided at each sub-scale.
8. Line 182: the t-value presented in the text is not in accordance with the information in Table 1. Please double-check this information.
9. Multinomial Logistic Regression (Table 4): Please indicate the significance of the model as well as the model's goodness of fit indices.
Some language editing is required.
Author Response
We have responded to all of the reviewer's feedback in the attached word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. Overall I found the paper very interesting and well-crafted.
The authors made it clear why their study was needed, especially given the paucity of research examining the specific issues they outlined.
The methods were appropriate and made use of available data.
The conclusions were logical and well-supported.
The limitations analysis was sound.
The conclusions were reasonable as were the suggestions for further research.
I only found two places where things could have been improved, as I describe below.
1. Line 97: In the sentence about the Turkish study – it is unclear to me under what circumstances “the levels of sociotropy are significantly lower, …”.
Were the levels lower at baseline, or “after the program evaluation of sociotropy”? No doubt this is clear in the original paper, but it is not clear to me here.
2. Line 173 and Table 1: The term “IPV exposition” is used. The statistical definition for “exposition” is very clear in the Note for Table 1.
The French word for exposure is “exposition”. I think the French authors are referring to “exposure”, i.e. “exposure to IPV as a variable”.
This mistranslation could be confusing to non-French speakers.
Please see the above comments.
Author Response
We have responded to all of the reviewer's feedback in the attached word file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed many of the concerns raised in the previous review, thus strengthening the manuscript. However, I have attached some suggestions:
1. In line 159, there is unnecessary repetitiveness. I propose to formulate this paragraph as follows: Sample items for the psychological violence scale included “my partner insulted me or swore at me” for minor acts (four items) and “my partner destroyed something belonging to me” for severe acts (four items). A similar formulation is also proposed for the physical violence scale.
2. In the Data Analysis section, please provide information about the prevalence of missing data and how missing data were handled. Inappropriate handling of missing data will lead to strong bias and limit the reliability of your study.
3. Line 291: I suggest using the term "gender differences" and not "sex of the emerging adults" since you compare the results for men versus women.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for this second reading. We have responded to these comments in the attached word document.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
