Safety in Numbers? Does Family Social Capital Moderate the Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Intimate Partner Violence?

Abstract

Research demonstrates a positive correlation between experiencing adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and negative outcomes in emerging adulthood. However, relatively little research has examined the potential effects of ACEs on a common experience in emerging adulthood: dating and establishing romantic relationships. This is especially true for troubled relationships. We extend this literature by examining a potential mechanism that might moderate the association between ACEs and intimate partner violence (IPV): family social capital. A large body of research establishes family social capital as a protective factor for positive child and youth development. We expand this research by examining how studying family systems might inform efforts to prevent IPV. However, the information, obligations, norms, and connections that make up family social capital may have more tenuous relationships with intimate partner violence, especially for people who have experienced ACEs. We developed a model to analyze this interaction using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Add Health is a nationally representative study from the United States that initially sampled 20,745 adolescents in Wave 1. We use demographic and data from Wave 1 and IPV measures from Wave 3 data when respondents are in emerging adulthood (ages 18–26) (n = 15,701). We examine whether family social capital is associated with exposure to IPV, as well as whether family social capital can moderate the relationship between experiencing ACEs and exposure to IPV. Our results suggest some protective effects of family social capital on the emergence of IPV for both maternal and paternal social capital, but that family social capital does not fully moderate the damaging effects of ACEs.

1. Introduction

Research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) suggests negative associations with developmental outcomes that last into adulthood (Babad et al. 2020; Petruccelli et al. 2019; Scott 2020). Oftentimes, these results can be observed within emerging adult relationships. A growing body of research demonstrates that ACEs are a common feature of growing up; for example, in the United States, from which the data we use here originates, as many 16.1% of adults having experienced 4 or more ACEs during childhood, while 60.2% of adults reported at least experiencing one ACE (Madigan et al. 2023). Additionally, exposure to ACEs is not equally distributed; Madigan et al. (2023) report that people with mental health conditions, substance abuse, low-income households, and minority racial/ethnic groups were populations at risk of reporting exposure to ACEs. One negative outcome associated with experiencing ACEs is exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV). However, debate stays as to whether there is a causal relationship between ACEs and IPV (Forster et al. 2021; Nikulina et al. 2017; Zhu et al. 2023).

In addition, relatively little research suggests mechanisms that might protect those who have experienced ACEs from exposure to or the negative effects of IPV. We investigate one such mechanism here: family social capital. Examining the possible positive effects of family social capital positions family science research as a possible tool for breaking intergenerational cycles of violence. Research has shown an association between specific kinds of social capital, such as family social capital and school social capital, and increased child development and well-being (Dufur et al. 2015; Poff et al. 2024; Yan et al. 2024). For example, close social connections to and shared social resources among children and youth, parents, teachers, and peers are protective factors for positive child development. Similarly, family social capital has protective effects against dangerous or antisocial behavior (Dufur et al. 2015), which may suggest its efficacy in protecting against IPV. However, what is less well established is whether the presence of family social capital can moderate the associations between ACEs and IPV in later life. We use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), a nationally representative survey of youth in the United States, to investigate this complex relationship. We predict that we will find a positive correlation between ACEs and emerging adult IPV. However, we predict youth who have access to greater family social capital will be less likely to experience IPV during emerging adulthood. Finally, we predict that family social capital will moderate the effect of ACEs on IPV.

1.1. Effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are stressful events and situations that occur during childhood, can impact physical and mental health, and have implications that last into adulthood (Scott 2020). Adverse childhood experiences include experiencing abuse (physical, sexual, emotional), neglect, or observing domestic violence, alcohol or substance abuse, or criminal behaviors. Much research on ACEs focuses on exposure to these experiences within children’s homes (Scott 2020; Yan et al. 2024). These stressful situations can alter childhood development, resulting in negative physical or mental outcomes. These outcomes can last into adulthood and affect different contexts of the individual’s life, such as physical health, mental illness, self-esteem, and relationships (Petruccelli et al. 2019; Yan et al. 2024).

For example, Morgan et al. (2021) reported that individuals with ACEs were 63% less likely to display resilience. This shows that adults who experienced childhood trauma are less likely to recover from hardships or adapt to change, which are critical skills during emerging adulthood. Further, various meta-analyses show that those who experience more ACEs report an association with problematic drug and substance use (Hughes et al. 2017; Sebalo et al. 2023). This reiterates the risk of experiencing multiple types of ACEs and how they alter an individual’s life course and decision making. ACEs are also found to affect maternal mental health (Racine et al. 2021). Racine et al. (2021) found a significant correlation between ACEs and prenatal and postpartum depressive symptoms along with prenatal anxiety. When an individual experiences a stressful or traumatic childhood experience, they are at a heightened risk of developing poor maternal mental health around childbirth, which in turn can have a deleterious effect on children’s mental health, social functioning, and general development. It also appears that these negative effects persist into adulthood. A study focusing on the implication of ACEs on emerging adults found those who reported ACEs also reported feeling less self-focused and experiencing an increase in negativity (Davis et al. 2017). Emerging adulthood is a time for experimentation and possibilities, yet those who experienced ACEs carry physical, emotional, and social scars that limit this exploration and adult development. Family scientists are uniquely positioned to examine the connections between ACEs and later negative outcomes because so many ACES are measured within family systems.

1.2. Correlation of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Intimate Partner Violence

Adverse Childhood Experiences can negatively impact relationship well-being through decreased relationship satisfaction and relationship confidence (Lloyd 2024). When children do not form secure attachments in childhood, they struggle to develop future romantic relationships with trust and satisfaction (Khalifian et al. 2022). Unsurprisingly, exposure to ACEs, especially in the home, can affect children’s ability to form secure attachments (Taunton et al. 2021).

A particularly damaging form of negative interpersonal interaction in romantic relationships is intimate partner violence (IPV). Intimate partner violence includes physical, sexual, or emotional harm toward one’s romantic partner (Zhu et al. 2023). Numerous studies have been conducted to observe the relationship between ACEs and the emergence of IPV, with mixed results. Nikulina et al. (2017) concluded that ACEs were correlated with physical aggression perpetrated by respondents, but that there was not a significant association between ACEs and experiencing IPV as a victim. However, other research concluded that a positive correlation exists between ACEs and IPV perpetration and victimization (Forster et al. 2021; Zhu et al. 2023). Given the severity of potential outcomes associated with both ACEs and IPV (Babad et al. 2020; Petruccelli et al. 2019; Scott 2020), additional research should be conducted to solidify knowledge about any associations between experiencing ACEs and IPV. Family science is ideally suited to examine this question both because ACEs are so often generated in the family, and because IPV takes place within a family system. In other words, family scientists can study both the antecedents and outcomes that connect ACEs and IPV.

1.3. Moderating Role of Family Social Capital

If a relationship between ACEs and IPV exists, what might help provide protection for those who experience ACEs as children? We propose that the social resources and connections people have, which have proven to have positive effects on other key outcomes, might provide such protection. We investigate here the potential benefits of social capital, which refers both to the social connections and networks a person makes and to the exchange of resources across those connections that facilitate desired outcomes (Coleman 1988; Coleman 1990). Social capital can be defined as connecting individuals to institutions (Weiss et al. 2019) or individuals to each other in networks (Lin 2017); we focus on the latter type of social capital here. A robust literature demonstrates that the resources that pass across social connections can be exchanged to facilitate a range of social outcomes (Dufur et al. 2019; Parcel and Bixby 2015; Parcel et al. 2010).

Social capital is like financial or human capital, where individuals can invest in and stockpile useful resources that can be exchanged for other needs or wants. Individuals, then, can be motivated to invest in social ties to receive resources or benefits (Lin 2017; Parcel et al. 2010). While potentially using similar measures to related concepts in family science such as, family cohesion, or parental control, family social capital is distinct in that it addresses actors’ purposeful investments (Hoffmann and Dufur 2018). In addition, social capital theory, and, in particular, family social capital, extends previously used concepts such as parental warmth or contact to theoretically cohesive networks of both actors and resources that flow from node to node across those actors (Hoffmann and Dufur 2018; Parcel et al. 2010). Social capital theory, then, does not just measure family concepts like parental warmth or communication, but addresses such concepts as mechanisms by which adults socialize children (Dufur et al. 2015; Hoffmann and Dufur 2018). Thus, both the ties that derive from warmth or connection and the resources such as information obligations or norms that travel across those connections (Coleman 1988), compose assets in which parents can invest to ensure good outcomes for their children.

For example, in addition to being connected to positive outcomes, individuals with more social capital appear to enjoy protective effects against negative outcomes, such as delinquent behaviors, drug, and alcohol abuse, and promoting resilience (Dufur et al. 2015; Åslund and Nilsson 2013; Lecerof et al. 2016. We propose that based on the previous protective effects of social capital, it may have a positive protective effect on other key developmental outcomes.

In this study, we focus specifically on social capital derived within family systems. We refer to this as family social capital and examine capital generated by parental social investments in children. Family social capital is of particular interest in promoting outcomes like lowering IPV because it provides a mechanism through which parental actions can provide a protective buffer for their offspring (Dufur et al. 2015). In addition, family social capital is an intriguing mechanism both because of how it allows for adult actions to have benefits for children who have fewer opportunities for any kind of personal investment, and because it is possible that social investments can be made in equal amounts by families who lack financial and human capital (Parcel et al. 2010). Because such families may be more vulnerable to ACEs (Madigan et al. 2023), if family social capital is effective in moderating any relationship between ACEs and IPV, this form of social capital might be an important, yet accessible, investment for families who are otherwise resource poor.

Family social capital focuses on the bonds between parent and child that are important for promoting child socialization and increasing exchange of resources (Parcel and Dufur 2001). Family social capital reflects the time and energy that parents give and spent interacting with their children by increasing child well-being and promoting social adjustment (Coleman 1990). Therefore, family social capital is dependent on the parental resources used in the socialization process (Parcel and Dufur 2001). Early research by family scientists on family social capital demonstrated ties between both networks parents create around their children and positive environments parents create in the home, including parental engagement such as the warmth of parental interaction, the safety or cleanliness of the home environment, or having an intact two-parent family structure (Parcel and Menaghan 1994). Subsequent research has confirmed these associations and extended them to the ties parents make to other adults outside the household, including teachers, neighbors, and congregants (Dufur et al. 2024b; Parcel et al. 2010). One useful example is social closure, where social capital created when parents know their children’s friends and their children’s friends’ parents allows for the valuable flow of information, obligation, and norms that improve offspring’s development and life chances (Carolan and Lardier 2018). Collectively, these factors highlight the pertinence of parental engagement and household context in the emergence of family social capital.

Increasing family social capital involves being actively engaged and having strong relationships with those in an individual’s family, school, and community. Increased family social capital can have lasting benefits for children and their development. Previous research in family science has established a strong negative relationship between social capital and delinquent behavior (Dufur et al. 2015). Social capital also decreases externalizing problems, which is associated with poorer mental health outcomes (Poff et al. 2024). Research also shows that familial social capital is positively associated with childhood adjustment and cognitive development (Parcel and Bixby 2015). Pertinent to our questions about how family social capital might be protective against experiencing IPV, recent research has demonstrated that family social capital, even investments made during adolescence, have benefits that stretch into emerging adulthood. For example, Dufur et al. (2024a) show that family social capital generated from social investments parents made during their children’s high school year are still influential in helping their children graduate from college years later. Leppard and Dufur (2024) find linkages between family social capital and later young adult career achievement. These studies suggest potential relationships between early family social capital and outcomes in emerging adulthood that might protect against IPVs, and young adults mature into serious romantic relationships.

Additionally, and key to this inquiry, social capital may have associations with both ACEs and negative outcomes, such as mediating the negative effect observed between experiencing ACEs and low self-esteem (Yan et al. 2024). Similarly, social capital may moderate symptoms of anxiety among women who experienced ACEs (Goodman et al. 2022), a finding that suggests mechanisms through which social capital might help people who experienced ACEs find ways to leave abusive romantic relationships. These previous results provide evidence that social capital has the potential to moderate the emergence of IPV among those who experienced ACEs. However, family science approaches have not yet established whether such a link exists.

1.4. Too Much of a Good Thing? Familial Social Capital and Adverse Childhood Experiences

While the strong associations between family social capital and other outcomes are suggestive that family social capital may help blunt the negative associations between ACEs and IPV, it is possible that the specific nature of IPV and the contexts in which it happens might mean that family social capital will not serve as an effective deterrent. Social capital involves having trust and cooperation within relationships (Cozzolino 2011), and research has shown that familial social capital is one of the most protective types of social capital (Dufur et al. 2015; Parcel and Bixby 2015). However, exposure to ACEs may reduce the amount of family social capital available, particularly the types of social capital associated with deep trust and reciprocal obligations. ACEs experienced in the home or at the hands of family members may be especially problematic as they cut children and youth off from family sources of social capital, a form of capital research has shown to have stronger relationships with positive outcomes than other forms of capital (Dufur et al. 2015; Poff et al. 2024). Similarly, exposure to ACEs may be associated with a form of family social capital that transmits negative or damaging norms to children who experience them. If this is the case, we would not expect family social capital to moderate the damaging effects of ACEs on exposure to IPV. Family science has not yet determined whether family social capital can protect against IPV emergence, either as perpetrator or victim, among those with ACEs, when exposure to ACEs might in fact reduce access to family social capital or create negative family social capital. This gap needs to be studied to better understand the relationship between the contradicting childhood experiences of having resources with familial social capital while experiencing stressful situations within ACEs.

2. The Aim of the Study

This study aims to examine the correlations between ACEs and IPV development (Forster et al. 2021; Nikulina et al. 2017; Zhu et al. 2023). We predict that there will be a positive correlation between exposure to ACEs and exposure to IPV in romantic relationships during emerging adulthood.

This study also aims to research the role of social capital derived from families on the emergence of IPV in those who experienced ACEs during childhood. We hypothesize that emerging adults who experienced ACEs but have greater access to family social capital during adolescence, are less likely to report engaging in or being a victim of IPV.

Finally, we examine two competing hypotheses concerning the potential moderating role of family social capital on the relationship between ACEs and IPV (see Figure 1). The first hypothesis predicts that greater access to family social capital may be more beneficial for youth who have experienced higher levels of ACEs. In contrast, the second hypothesis predicts that youth exposed to more familial-based ACEs experience fewer benefits from increased family social capital, as the quality of the capital may be compromised or the norms passed along their social ties may be negative or damaging. We test all these hypotheses concerning any general exposure to IPV, as well as exposure to specific kinds of IPV, including physical, verbal, sexual abuse, and injury.

3. Data and Methods

We use data from multiple waves of the restricted-use version of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) (Harris et al. 2019). These data are a nationally representative survey of youth in the United States. The study was initiated in 1994 to create an extensive longitudinal study of adolescents and their health outcomes. The initial wave surveyed adolescents in grades 7–12, and subsequent waves occur every 2–7 years; a main parent was also surveyed in Wave 1 and, for a small subsample, Wave 5. In this study, we used data from Wave 1 (1994–1995, n = 20,745) to collect demographic information and family social capital. We used data from Wave 3 (2001–2002, n = 15,197) to code for a broader set of retrospective ACE exposures and for IPV exposure. We used data from Wave 4 (2008–2009, n = 15,701) to code additional retrospective ACEs variables. All respondents in our sample must be in romantic relationships to be at risk of reporting IPV (n = 8663). To examine our specific hypotheses, we require nationally representative longitudinal data from a setting in which ACEs are common, that asks ample questions about childhood ACEs and family social capital, and that measures potential exposure to IPV during emerging adulthood. Add Health meets all of these requirements. We acknowledge that the Add Health respondents were initially sampled in the mid-1990s, so our findings represent young adults who were in romantic relationships during the early 2000s. Ideally, we would examine more contemporary data to more clearly make claims about contemporary relationships, but to our knowledge Add Health has the most robust sample and the highest quality variables for all ACEs, family social capital, and IPV across different points of the life course of any extant data set, especially for US data. Add Health is also sufficient to examine the theoretical arguments concerning social capital we make here. While we cannot address whether the relationships between ACEs, family social capital, and IPV might have changed over time, we note that it is unclear whether the prevalence of IPV has changed since the Add Health data were collected (Ali et al. 2016). We look forward to additional data collection efforts that can apply the models and arguments we examine here to more contemporary data.

3.1. Outcome Variable: Intimate Partner Violence

To measure the independent variable of IPV, we focused on Wave 3, which is the study’s age of interest of emerging adults ages 19–26. We use eight variables that best capture the emergence of IPV victimization and perpetration. The questions assessed how often the respondent has ever either threatened their partner with violence (pushed or shoved them, thrown something at them that could hurt, or “violence”) or how often those same situations have happened to the respondent (in other words, how often the respondent has been the victim of IPV). We also measure how often the respondent has slapped, hit, or kicked their partner, and how often those situations have happened to the respondent. We asked how often the respondent had insisted that their partner have sexual relations with them when they did not want to, and how often those situations happened to the respondent. Lastly, we asked how often the individual had injured their partner from a fight, and how often they were injured by their partner. The respondent’s options ranged from 0 = never, 1 = once, 2 = twice, 3 = 3–5 times, 4 = 6–10 times, 5 = 11–20 times, 6 = more than 20 times, 7 = or not in past year, but before. We recorded the final category into 1 to account for any exposure to ACEs.

We additionally recoded categories 1–7 = 1 “Yes” and 0 = 0 “No” to make a binary variable tapping if they have ever experienced IPV. We then combined these variables to make an overall exposure to IPV variable (1 “Yes”, 0 “No”).

It is possible that family social capital might have different associations with various kinds of IPV. To account for this, we repeat these processes to create variables to measure exposure to specific kinds of IPV. First, we used the variable for threatening to push, shove, or throw to indicate exposure to verbal IPV. Then, we used the variable for slapping, hitting, or kicking to indicate exposure to physical IPV. We used the variable for insisting on sexual relations to indicate exposure to sexual abuse. Lastly, we used the variable about experiencing injury to indicate exposure to injury and harm.

3.2. Baseline Predictor Variable: Adverse Childhood Experiences

To code for exposure to ACEs, we use items previously used in ACEs research that used Add Health data (Brumley et al. 2016). Respondents answered questions during Waves 3 and 4 about retrospective childhood experiences. While we acknowledge the potential weaknesses in relying on retrospective data, we note that respondents may be more willing to disclose ACEs with distance from them and that ethical issues surrounding asking minors about some activities and abuse make it difficult to obtain accurate data, while ACEs might be ongoing. The variables we used to measure ACES here have been successfully used in the previous literature examining the effects of ACEs (Brumley et al. 2016; Hawkins et al. 2021). First, we included ACE items that tapped respondents’ answers on how often their parents or other adult caregivers had physically abused them, sexually abused them, or neglected their basic needs. Respondents answered on a scale of 1–6, 1 = one time, 2 = two times, 3 = 3–5 times, 4 = 6–10 times, 5 = more than 10 times, or 6 = this has never happened. We recoded the final category to zero. We also coded responses to whether respondents reported if their parents (either mother or father) had ever been incarcerated, if they ever saw someone shoot or stab someone else, if they themself had ever been shot or stabbed, or if someone had pulled a knife or gun on them. These response options ranged from 0 = no to 1 = yes. We used these variables to measure the various aspects of ACEs, including physical and sexual abuse, neglect, observing violence, and criminal behaviors in the household (Hawkins et al. 2021).

ACE variables are highly right skewed. To account for this, we recoded the ACE variables that ranged from 0 to 7 to 1–7 = 1 “Yes” and 0 = No to make individual binary ACEs variables. We then used row totals to make an index from 0 to 8 on how many types of ACEs they experienced during their childhood. We used the count ACEs variable to make a binary variable that measured any lifetime exposure to any ACE (1 “Yes”, 0 “No”).

3.3. Moderating Variable: Family Social Capital

Family social capital variables were guided by referencing previous work that studied social capital using Add Health (cf. Hoffmann and Dufur 2018; Dufur et al. 2015). These studies include 12 variables that best represent the aspects of familial social capital. Consistent with past research we code for five variables during Wave 1 where youths responded to how close they feel to their mothers, how much they believe their mother cares about them, how much they agree they their mother is warm and loving towards them, how satisfied they are with their communication with their mothers, and how satisfied they are with their relationship with their mother. These responses ranged on a scale of 1 = not close at all/strongly agree to 5 = extremely close/strongly disagree. The youth were asked the same questions based on their relationships with their fathers, and we coded the responses in the same manner. We used row totals to make a general parental emotional social capital variable that ranged from 0 to 10, a maternal emotional social capital variable, and a paternal emotional social capital variable that each ranged from 0–5.

Additionally, we used variables where the youth responded to questions about whether they performed various activities within the past four weeks with their mother and father (separately) (cf. Hoffmann and Dufur 2018; Dufur et al. 2015). The activities included: shopping with your mother, playing sports with your mother, going to church with your mother, talking about someone you are dating or a party you attended with your mother, watching a movie with your mother, talking about a personal problem with your mother, having a serious argument with mother, talking about school work or grades with mother, working on a project with mother, and talking about other things you are doing with mother. The response options were on a scale of 0 = no to 1 = yes. The argument with your mother was reverse coded so 1 = No and reflects the other questions with 1 meaning higher social capital. Each respondent answered the 10 individual questions about their mother and the same 10 questions with their father. We used row totals to make overall variables, looking at “activities with mother” and “activities with father” that ranged from 0 to 10. A potential weakness in these data is that the best family social capital measurements occur in Wave 1, so in effect, we are measuring whether important family social capital that occurred during adolescence has protective effects during emerging adulthood.

3.4. Covariates

Lastly, we included parent and child demographic characteristics as control variables. These variables were selected by referencing previous literature that observed ACEs using the Add Health data set (Brumley et al. 2016; Hawkins et al. 2021). These variables included sex, age, race, household income, the mother’s, and father’s highest education level obtained, and the adult respondents’ income and highest level of education achieved to that point. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, and parental education levels were determined during a self-reported measure in Wave 1. We measured the respondents’ age at Wave 3 by adding 7 years to the original age variable. The individual’s sex was determined by the interviewer from 1 = male and 2 = female. While restrictive, these were the only two gender options provided at the start of the surveys. The youth selected the race/ethnicity that best described them, 1 = white, 2 = Black/African American, 3 = American Indian/Native American, 4 = Asian/Pacific Islander, and 5 = other race/ethnicity. We also created a category for mixed-race respondents of 6 = 2+ races and 7 = 3+ races. Parental education was measured on a scale of 1–12 with 1 = completed Eighth grade or less, 2 = completed more than 8th grade but did not graduate high school, 3 = attended business or trade school but did not complete high school, 4 = graduated high school, 5 = obtained a GED, 6 = went to business or trade school after completing high school, 7 = went to college but did not graduate, 8 = graduated from college, 9 = attended some profession training beyond a 4-year college, 10 = never went to school, 11 = parent went to school but respondent doesn’t know to what level, and 12 = respondent doesn’t know if parent went to school. We recoded 10, 11, and 12 to 1 to reflect low levels of education. Lastly, household income was obtained through the parent survey as they recorded household income in US dollars during the previous calendar year from Wave 1 (1994). We decided to use the Wave 1 responses of parental income to analyze in which class respondents grew up.

Because our respondents are in emerging adulthood (ages 19–26) at Wave 3 when we measure IPV, we also include similar demographic variables concerning socioeconomic status for the individual respondents in Wave 3. These controls include educational attainment and income. Respondents’ education was obtained during Wave 3 and was measured on a scale of 1–17, with 1 being 6th grade and 17 being 5 years of graduate school. Respondents’ income was recorded in Wave 3 as the highest level of income they earned up until that point. These variables are used to see if the relationship between ACEs, IPV, and family social capital is still significant when accounting for demographic differences.

4. Models

To address missing data, we first use Stata 18’s MICE protocol for missing data imputation to create 25 complete data sets. In our models, we apply logistic regression to predict associations among ever experiencing IPV exposure, ACEs, and family social capital.

For all our models, we perform nested models. The first model was designed to test our first hypothesis, that there is a correlation between ACEs and IPV in emerging adult romantic relationships (Forster et al. 2021; Nikulina et al. 2017; Zhu et al. 2023). In the second model, we test our second hypothesis that family social capital will have a negative association with IPV by adding general parental emotional social capital to the model. In Model 3 we test whether the source of family social capital, mothers or fathers, is important by specifically looking at maternal social capital (maternal emotional social capital and activities performed with mother). Model 4 repeats this strategy but looks at paternal social capital instead of maternal. Finally, it is possible that any relationships between ACEs, family social capital, and IPV are statistically artifacts that reflect resource and demographic differences across families (Madigan et al. 2023). Model 5 adds demographic controls to observe if any relationships among ACEs, general parental emotional social capital, and IPV persist when factoring in those variables. Lastly, we test the interactive hypotheses concerning whether family social capital would moderate or exacerbate the relationship between ACEs and IPV by adding interactions between ACEs and social capital.

We then repeated this approach to examine associations between individual types of IPV, ACEs, and family social capital. The specific subsets of IPV were physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, and injury occurrence. We tested these with all five types of family social capital along with all the demographic controls.

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1. Variable Description and Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Description	Mean	SE
Dependent Variables
IPV Exposure	Dichotomous variable reporting whether the respondent has ever been a victim or perpetrator of IPV. (0 = No, 1 = Yes)	0.278
Physical Abuse	Dichotomous variable reporting whether the respondent has ever been a victim or perpetrator of Physical Abuse in a romantic relationship. (0 = No, 1 = Yes)	0.162
Verbal Abuse	Dichotomous variable reporting whether the respondent has ever been a victim or perpetrator of Verbal Abuse in a romantic relationship. (0 = No, 1 = Yes)	0.210
Sexual Abuse	Dichotomous variable reporting whether the respondent has ever been a victim or perpetrator of Sexual Abuse in a romantic relationship. (0 = No, 1 = Yes)	0.095
Injury	Dichotomous variable reporting whether the respondent has ever been a victim or perpetrator of Injury in a romantic relationship. (0 = No, 1 = Yes)	0.063
Independent Variables
ACEs Exposure	Eight questions relating to adverse childhood experiences (e.g., being hit by parents, being touched sexually by an adult, seeing someone get shot, etc.) Range: 0–8	0.849	0.012
Moderating Variable
Emotional Parental Social Capital	Ten questions relating to both mother’s and father’s emotional social capital (e.g., how close do you feel to your mother, how satisfied are you with your communication with your father, etc.) Range: 0 to 10.	8.267	0.025
Maternal Emotional Social Capital	Five questions relating to mother’s emotional social capital. Range: 0 to 5.	4.415	0.012
Paternal Emotional Social Capital	Five questions relating to father’s emotional social capital. Range: 0 to 5.	3.854	0.020
Activities with Mother	Ten questions relating to activities done with mother in the past four weeks (gone shopping, gone to church, etc.). Range: 0 to 10.	4.386	0.020
Activities with Father	Ten questions relating to activities done with father in the past four weeks (gone shopping, gone to church, etc.). Range: 0 to 10.	3.273	0.022
Control Variables
Respondent Age	Current age in years at Wave 3, ranges from 19–26	22.432	0.018
Respondent Biological Sex	1 = ‘Male’ 2 = ‘Female’	1.544
Respondent Race	Self-reported race of respondent. 1 = ‘White’ 2 = ‘Black’ 3 = ‘Native American’ 4 = ‘Asian/Pacific Islander 5 = ‘Other’ 6 = ‘Mixed; 2 Races’ 7 = ‘Other 3+ Races’	58.1% 17% 0.6% 4.6% 0.7% 17% 2%
Parents Income	0–999 in hundred thousand USD Dollars	47.938	0.562
Respondents Income	0–500,000 in USD Dollars	14,160	318.1
Mother Education	Scale from 0 to 9 where respondent reported on Mother’s education from 0 = ‘Eight grade or less’ to 9 = ‘professional training beyond a four-year degree’	5.764	0.027
Fathers Education	Scale from 0 to 9 where respondent reported on Father’s education from 0 = ‘Eight grade or less’ to 9 = ‘professional training beyond a four-year degree’	5.899	0.030
Respondents Education	Measured in years.	13.280	0.021

Notes: All measures are from 1994 to 1995, except the 2001–2002 measures of respondent education, all IPV variables, and 4 of the 8 questions regarding ACE exposure. n = 8663.

provides descriptive statistics for the sample. IPV is reported as a dichotomous variable of ever experiencing IPV in the last year. About one-quarter of the sample reports such exposure (0.278). The scale for ACE exposure ranges from 0 “None” to 8 “Eight”, with a mean of 0.849 experiences. Parental emotional social capital has a mean value of 8.267 on a scale of 0–10, with 10 being higher social capital. Maternal emotional social capital has a mean of 4.415, and paternal emotional social capital has a mean value of 3.854, both using a scale of 1–5, with 5 being higher social capital. The average child in the sample is roughly 22 years old when surveyed during Wave 3, and there are more women than men (54% women, 46% men). The race distribution is reflective of Add Health sampling frame (Harris et al. 2019). The average household income of the family of origin at Wave 1 is $47,000; 54.07% of fathers reported at least attending a business or trade school after high school, whereas 54.03% of mothers reported the same category. Respondents’ average income at Wave 3 is $14,000. 58.58% of respondents reported completing at least one year of post-secondary education by Wave 3 when IPV questions were asked.

5.2. Logistic Regression of ACEs and Family Social Capital on Any Exposure to IPVs

Table 2. Logistic Regression of ACEs and Family Social Capital on Any Exposure to IPVs (Odds Ratios and Standard Errors).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
ACEs Exposure
ACEs	1.335 *** (0.028)	1.310 *** (0.029)	1.324 *** (0.029)	1.315 *** (0.029)	1.263 *** (0.030)
Parental Social Capital
Emotional Parental Social Capital		0.919 *** (0.011)			0.946 *** (0.012)
Maternal Social Capital
Maternal Emotional Social Capital			0.895 *** (0.019)		0.935 ** (0.023)
Activities with Mother			0.992 (0.014)		0.990 (0.016)
Paternal Social Capital
Paternal Emotional Social Capital				0.925 *** (0.018)	0.959 * (0.020)
Activities with Father				0.961 ** (0.014)	0.996 (0.017)
Parental Social Capital with Controls
Respondent’s Age					1.014 (0.016)
Respondent’s Race
Black					1.725 *** (0.118)
Native American					0.906 (0.334)
Asian/Pacific Islander					1.143 (0.148)
Other					0.804 (0.283)
Mixed (2+)					1.205 * (0.088)
Other (3+)					1.088 (0.205)
Respondent’s Biological Sex
Female					1.725 *** (0.095)
Parents’ Income					0.999 (0.000)
Respondent’s Income					0.999 (0.000)
Mother’s Education					0.982 (0.013)
Father’s Education					1.006 (0.013)
Respondent’s Education					0.877 *** (0.014)
Constants	0.295 *** (0.009)	0.596 *** (0.061)	0.498 *** (0.051)	0.455 *** (0.034)	1.411 (0.569)

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note: Reference groups are white and male. Data source is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) 1994–1995 and 2001–2002 cohorts. n = 8663.

provides results for logistic regression models predicting any exposure to any kind of IPV. Model 1 demonstrates the association between ACEs and IPV. Our findings suggest that for every additional ACE experienced, respondents were 33.5% more likely to report experiencing IPV. Further, our findings suggest that for every additional unit of parental emotional social capital, respondents were 8.1% less likely to report experiencing IPV. Both are statistically significant relationships. However, respondents were slightly more advantaged by having specific social capital with their mother compared to their father (10.5% vs. 7.5% less likely to report per every unit of social capital, respectively, both p < 0.001). While there was no significant effect of engaging in more activities with the mother, there was a 3.9% reduction in reporting IPV for every activity performed with father (p < 0.01). Model 5 adds all controls and returns to using overall parental emotional social capital; exposure to more ACEs continues to be positively and significantly associated with reporting IPV experiences, while parental emotional social capital remains statistically significant and negatively associated with IPV exposure. Turning to controls, Black respondents were 70.3% more likely to report experiencing IPV compared to white participants, whereas mixed-race respondents were 19.3% more likely. Further, women are 71.8% more likely to report IPV compared to males. For every additional year of respondents’ education at Wave 3, respondents are 12.2% less likely to report IPV exposure. These findings provide mixed evidence for our ideas about family social capital moderating the damaging effects of ACEs on IPV. We note that, while most forms of family social capital are indeed protective, the coefficients for exposure to ACEs are still strong and significant in Models 2–5, regardless of how we measure social capital and net of other controls.

5.3. Logistic Regression of ACEs and Family Social Capital on Exposure to IPV Subtypes

Table 3. Logistic Regression of ACEs and Family Social Capital on Exposure to IPV Subtypes (Odds Ratios and Standard Errors).

	Physical Abuse	Verbal Abuse	Sexual Abuse	Injury
ACEs Exposure
ACEs	1.244 *** (0.034)	1.275 *** (0.033)	1.258 *** (0.041)	1.392 *** (0.051)
Parental Social Capital
Emotional Parental Social Capital	0.937 *** (0.014)	0.936 *** (0.013)	0.955 * (0.018)	0.945 * (0.021)
Maternal Social Capital
Maternal Emotional Social Capital	0.934 * (0.027)	0.941 * (0.025)	0.910 ** (0.031)	0.899 * (0.037)
Activities with Mother	0.979 (0.020)	0.992 (0.018)	0.995 (0.025)	1.027 (0.031)
Paternal Social Capital
Paternal Emotional Social Capital	0.953 (0.025)	0.934 ** (0.022)	1.009 (0.034)	0.966 (0.038)
Activities with Father	0.986 (0.022)	1.002 (0.020)	0.964 (0.026)	1.005 (0.033)
Parental Social Capital with Controls
Respondent’s Age	1.006 (0.020)	1.022 (018)	1.009 (0.025)	1.019 (0.031)
Respondent’s Race
Black	1.531 *** (0.125)	1.765 *** (0.130)	1.739 *** (0.172)	1.320 * (0.163)
Native American	1.175 (0.482)	1.163 (0.444)	1.677 (0.763)	2.704 * (1.188)
Asian/Pacific Islander	1.255 (0.195)	1.029 (0.154)	1.741 ** (0.302)	1.169 (0.286)
Other	0.776 (0.345)	0.917 (0.348)	0.708 (0.426)	0.648 (0.475)
Mixed (2+)	1.241 * (0.108)	1.214 * (0.097)	1.351 ** (0.145)	1.217 (0.155)
Other (3+)	1.375 (0.290)	1.071 (0.221)	1.069 (0.302)	1.000 (0.328)
Respondent’s Biological Sex
Female	1.586 *** (0.108)	1.839 *** (0.115)	1.331 ** (0.112)	1.452 *** (0.150)
Parents’ Income	0.999 (0.001)	0.999 (0.001)	0.999 (0.001)	1.000 (0.001)
Respondent’s Income	0.999 (0.000)	0.999 (0.000)	0.999 (0.000)	0.999 (0.000)
Mother’s Education	0.996 (0.016)	0.993 (0.014)	0.975 (0.019)	0.972 (0.023)
Father’s Education	0.994 (0.015)	0.995 (0.014)	1.024 (0.019)	0.970 (0.022)
Respondent’s Education	0.865 *** (0.016)	0.865 *** (0.015)	0.911 *** (0.021)	0.861 *** (0.025)
Constants	1.249 (0.611)	0.980 (0.439)	0.286 * (0.174)	0.344 (0.255)

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Note: Reference groups are white and male. Data source is National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) 1994–1995 and 2001–2002 cohorts. n = 8663.

provides results for logistic regression models predicting exposure to four individual subsets of IPV: physical, verbal, sexual, and injury occurrence. As was true for models examining any exposure to IPV, we see looking across the first row that exposure to ACEs exerts a negative statistically significant association on all subtypes of IPV, even net of family social capital and demographic controls. For example, in the first column of coefficients, our findings show that for every ACE experienced, respondents were 24.4% more likely to report experiencing physical abuse (p < 0.001). Additionally, per every unit of parental emotional social capital, respondents were 6.3% less likely to report experiencing physical abuse (p < 0.001) whereas per every unit of maternal emotional social capital, respondents were 6.6% less likely to report these experiences (p < 0.05). When looking at control variables, results of physical abuse were aligned with general IPV experiences. Black respondents were 53.1% more likely to report physical abuse compared to white participants. Mixed-race respondents were 24.1% more likely, and women were 58.6% more likely to report physical abuse. For every additional year of respondents’ education at Wave 3, they are 13.5% less likely to report physical abuse.

Like the model representing physical abuse, when looking at verbal abuse in Column 2, Table 3 shows that respondents with increased ACEs were more likely to report verbal abuse. Additionally, both parental emotional social capital and maternal social capital reduced the reporting rate of verbal abuse. However, unique to verbal abuse, per every unit of paternal emotional social capital, the verbal abuse reporting rate reduced by 6.6% (p < 0.01). The control findings were aligned with physical abuse, with Black, Mixed-race, and female respondents reporting more verbal abuse, and respondents’ educational attainment reducing the reporting rate. As was true for physical abuse, however, the coefficient for ACEs remains statistically significant net of family social capital variables and controls.

Additionally, Column 3 of Table 3 shows the regression models predicting the reporting rates of sexual abuse. This model follows similar trends from both physical and verbal abuse, where per every ACE experienced, the reporting rate increases; and, per every unit of parental emotional social capital and maternal emotional social capital, the reporting rate decreases. The demographic information again stays consistent, with Black, Mixed-Race, and female respondents reporting more sexual abuse, and higher education of respondents reporting less. However, one interesting finding the model showed is that Asian/Pacific Islander Respondents were 74.1% more likely to report sexual abuse (p < 0.01). Similar to the findings for physical and verbal abuse, the effects of ACEs remain statistically significant even after taking into account family social capital variables and controls.

Lastly, Column 4 presents the regression results predicting the reporting rate of injury occurrence in an intimate relationship. The results stayed consistent as ACEs increased the reporting rate, and both parental and maternal emotional social capital decreased the reporting rate. In the demographic results, Black respondents were still more likely to report experiencing injury, but Mixed-race respondents were no longer more likely to report injury. However, Native Americans were 170.4% more likely to report injuries (p < 0.05). Females’ increased reporting rates stayed consistent along with the decreased reporting rate per ever-increasing year of respondents’ educational attainment. Generally, maternal emotional social capital reduced the odds of exposure to any of these types of IPV. While paternal forms of social capital were associated with fewer IPV outcomes, they were protective against verbal abuse. However, as was true for models examining the overall exposure to IPV, ACEs remain a significant predictor of exposure to any of these IPV types, suggesting that family social capital is not sufficient to ameliorate effects of ACEs.

5.4. Interaction Effects

As a final test of the moderating effects of family social capital, we analyzed interactions between all five family social capital variables with ACEs across experiencing IPV and the individual subsets of IPV. The results showed that there was no significant interaction, meaning any protective effect of family social capital is the same no matter how many ACEs are experienced. Our prediction that family social capital would moderate the effects of ACEs on the exposure of IPV is not supported by these results. While family social capital exerts protective effects, it does not fully moderate relationships between ACEs and negative outcomes in early adult romantic relationships.

6. Discussion

Research in family sciences has continually found that ACEs are associated with negative outcomes that last into adulthood (Babad et al. 2020; Petruccelli et al. 2019; Scott 2020). One possible outcome of ACEs is the emergence of IPV in emerging adult relationships; however, this relationship has mixed evidence (Forster et al. 2021; Nikulina et al. 2017; Zhu et al. 2023). Additionally, family social capital is known to have a protective influence on positive child development (Dufur et al. 2015; Poff et al. 2024; Yan et al. 2024). Nevertheless, there is little research on whether family social capital can moderate the potential relationship between ACEs and IPV exposure in emerging adulthood, during a time when youth are often moving away from their families of origin and creating their own families with romantic partners with whom they might experience IPV. This paper adds to the research on the emergence of IPV by analyzing the relationship between ACEs and IPV and looking into the moderating powers of parental emotional social capital. If family social capital has a protective effect against IPV in the presence of ACEs, this could be an especially important mechanism in fighting IPV, as social capital is theoretically just as available to the kinds of families most vulnerable to ACEs as to other families.

Our findings suggest that those who were exposed to violence at an early age are more likely to report being a part of violence during emerging adulthood. We found that every additional ACE experienced made respondents more likely to report experiencing IPV. We found this relationship to be true throughout all models, including various social capital variables and controls. Our findings, therefore, provide additional support to previous literature that argues that the negative effects of ACEs stretch well into adulthood, years after they were experienced, and are connected to problematic behaviors in intimate romantic relationships in emerging adulthood. Our findings also link IPV to research that demonstrates an intergeneration cycle of abuse (Badenes-Ribera et al. 2019) to relationships that go beyond the family of origin. Because many ACEs measures look at traumatic experience that occur within the family of origin, tying those experiences to violence with romantic partners strengthens the literature showing how intergenerational cycles of abuse are passed on to children of those who experience ACEs. When healthy relationships are not modeled, children often grow up engaging in or maintaining unhealthy relationships, such as ones with IPV (Scott 2020). These findings highlight the need for early intervention efforts and parental support programs that promote healthy relationship models to help decrease the intergeneration violence cycle.

Additionally, our findings extend the understanding of how social capital theory can contribute to family sciences. By focusing specifically on social capital derived from families, we add to the scholarly and theoretical understanding of the protective effects of family social capital, both for additional outcomes and stretching into emerging adulthood. Investment in family social capital allows individuals connections and resources that they can use to build trusting attitudes and relationships (Prandini 2014). This parental investment also allows for modeling of healthy romantic relationships and the transmission of norms demanding respectful treatment in those relationships. Therefore, by having an increase in family social capital, individuals develop positive relationship attitudes and are less at risk of IPV behaviors. These findings extend our understanding of how family social capital provides protective effects against other forms of violence or antisocial behavior to how intimate family relationships and resources can benefit intimate romantic relationships (Dufur et al. 2015; Poff et al. 2024; Yan et al. 2024). Our findings that family social capital derived from both mothers and fathers is associated with less exposure to IPV also adds to our understanding of how powerful family social capital can be regardless of source, given previous research that finds differences in how mothers and fathers parent (Nikiforidis et al. 2017; Yaffe 2023). In doing so, we extend the family sciences literature on mothering and fathering to provide additional evidence to encourage parental investment in key social resources for both mothers and fathers. Policymakers should advertise community parent–child activities that focus on both mothers and fathers and promote social structure organization to help foster family interactions to minimize the damaging effects of ACEs. These damaging effects are not limited to individuals who experience IPVs but resonate throughout societies. Peterson et al. (2018) reported a $3.6 trillion population economic burden that stems from the effects of IPV. This paper shows that when parents increase their investments in family social capital, their child has lower odds of experiencing IPV in the future. If policymakers are hoping to minimize the costly effects IPV has on society, they should encourage and allow flexible work schedules and spaces to encourage parents to spend more time with their children during the important years right before they establish their own households and romantic relationships.

With that said, it is important to note that finer examinations of the type of IPV someone experiences reveal major differences between maternal and paternal social capital. Maternal emotional social capital reduces the odds of reporting any of the four IPV subtypes. Mothers are often the primary source of emotional support and connection in childhood. This may create models of healthy relationships that are passed as norms to their children, reducing respondents’ willingness to perpetrate or tolerate negative relationship dynamics. By contrast, paternal emotional social capital is only significant at decreasing the reporting odds of verbal abuse. Our findings, therefore, mirror similar debate within the family sciences literature as to how distinct mothering and fathering behaviors are. One explanation of this finding is that, because men are stereotypically less emotionally involved and communicative, fathers who invest in this type of communication with their children model improved communication for their children’s future relationships. Alternatively, some research shows that children are more willing to discuss intimate matters such as sexual or relationship issues with their mothers (Nikiforidis et al. 2017). Because we look at family social capital during adolescence here, we may be identifying patterns where social capital with fathers did not include communication about these intimate matters, and therefore paternal emotional social capital is not attached to potential future outcomes that include sexuality or other highly personal details such as physical abuse. However, youth may have sufficient communication and emotional investment with fathers about less intimate issues, and this may be reflected in how they shape communication and discussions with their partners during early adulthood. While our current variables cannot distinguish between these ideas; this result is intriguing, and future research should investigate why paternal emotional social capital is not protective against other kids of IPV. Additionally, the findings point to a need for parenting strategy programs that specifically encourage fathers to make investments in social capital, such as building more sincere connections and deeper communication with their children when they are young. Such programs that play into men’s feelings about fatherhood or the kinds of romantic relationships they would like to see their children have in the future might be particularly useful in encouraging them to build the family social capital that would protect their children from IPV.

We note that even when we consider any type of emotional social capital, the damaging effects of ACEs persist. Family social capital does not have a moderating influence in protecting those with ACEs against the emergence of IPV. This shows the strength of ACEs’ impact and how there is a cycle of victimization through intergenerational violence. While investments such as family social capital are in fact protective against later IPV, they are not sufficient to overcome the mechanisms through which ACEs pass down norms and expectations about family violence (Badenes-Ribera et al. 2019). It is imperative that family scientists devote attention to finding an intervention or mechanism that protects children from negative experiences during their early years. Future research should exploit different arenas of family science to build not only theoretical connections but to design and implement practical interventions or investments beyond family social capital, apart from family social capital that could counteract the strength of ACEs on IPV victimization, offering direction for policymakers to promote healthier relational outcome in emerging adulthood. One possibility might be investments in other kinds of social capital. While previous research suggests much stronger associations between family social capital and college completion that other forms of social capital (Dufur et al. 2024a), it is still true that non-family forms of social capital are significant predictors of early adulthood attainment. It is possible, for example, that strong social capital with peers might be more helpful in fully moderating the relationships between ACEs and IPVs if family social capital passed down pro-violence norms, or if youth are embarrassed to talk about victimization with their parents.

However, due to the absence of a significant interaction between family social capital and the relationship between ACEs and IPV, decreasing ACE exposure may be more efficacious for addressing IPV risk than solely attempting to increase family social capital. Family science can have a special role in instructing and educating parents on the damaging effects of hitting, abusing, or neglecting their children in the interest of reducing ACEs and breaking intergenerational cycles of abuse. Policymakers should not only increase the amount of parental strategy resources but also make them more accessible to parents. One way would be through increasing the ACE screening protocol at pediatricians’ offices, so doctors are looking for potential ACEs and stepping in if necessary. Additionally, preschool or elementary school could have evening parental courses to educate parents on the best form of discipline and child interactions. Finally, given families with fewer resources are also more often exposed to ACEs, family scientists and policymakers should work together to target these groups with the above programs and to establish programs designed to support poverty alleviation and more equitable employment and education opportunities for underrepresented groups. These interventions would help decrease ACEs, thus minimizing the emergence of IPV in emerging adults.

7. Limitations

A common concern among family scientists studying IPV is the fear of inaccurate reporting due to the sensitivity of the questions analyzed. Due to social norms and stereotypes, some of the respondents we study here may have been less likely to admit that they have experienced an abusive romantic relationship. One interesting finding in our data is suggestive of this social desirability bias in reporting IPV: women were significantly more likely than men to report being in an abusive relationship. This result may be because gendered stereotypes encourage women to be more open about their relationship difficulties. Future research should analyze whether this gender difference is an artifact of the data or if men are more likely to inaccurately report their relationships. Addressing this potential reporting bias is important to developing effective approaches to IPV that encourage honest disclosure.

Additionally, there are potential limitations in what we could measure as IPV in these data. In this study, we analyzed four main scenarios of IPV: physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, and causing injury. One limitation is that the Add Health data only asked two questions for each of these IPV types. Increasing the number of questions for each type of IPV would increase the validity of the measures and capture the complexity of each of the subtypes. Additionally, the verbal abuse measure was centered on threatening one’s partner instead of asking about shouting or yelling between partners. While threatening one’s partner is a form of IPV, verbal abuse outside of threats is also very damaging. Therefore, future research should ask more questions about verbal abuse to encompass all aspects of the concept to avoid oversimplification and strengthen the interpretation. Lastly, in this paper, we only observed binary IPV variables, but future family science research should investigate continuous measures of IPV to see how the “dosage” or intensity of exposure to ACEs might be related to IPV, and whether and family social capital at higher or lower levels of ACEs exposure might influence the effects of ACEs on IPV. It is possible that family social capital might be more effective at lower levels of ACEs, indicating possible scenarios in which intergenerational cycles of abuse might be more likely to be disrupted.

Further, the Add Health data does not ask IPV questions about every partner that a respondent has had, leading to undercounting of IPV exposure. In addition, Add Health did not ask any IPV questions to respondents who are not currently in a romantic relationship. This means we did not account for previous partners individuals had, and it ignores the individuals who do not currently have a partner. This is an important limitation, as including previous partners would have provided more data on the relationship between ACEs, IPV, and family social capital. Further, by including all relationships that occurred during emerging adulthood, it would increase the sample size and give rise to more statistical power and generalizability. Future research should expand explorations such as ours into whether those who have previously experienced IPV are more or less likely to engage in, disrupt, or maintain a relationship with IPV and the role ACEs and family social capital play on that pattern.

It is also important to note that this paper used the Add Health data, which originated in 1994–1995. While this is one of the most extensive longitudinal datasets about growing up in the US, the data are somewhat dated. For example, family scientists increasingly understand that the ways gender identities operate in families are extremely complex. However, in the Add Health data the gender question only had two options of “male” or “female.” This is a limitation, as those with other gender identities are often at higher risks of experiencing and reporting IPV (Whitfield et al. 2018). We would ideally investigate the complexities of gender identity and whether family social capital is a larger protective factor for those populations but Add Health did not provide such data. Because society continues to experience changes in how gender and relationships operate, we look forward to more contemporary data to see if these patterns persist across generations and how intergenerational cycles of violence operate for gender and sexual minorities.

Another common limitation that comes from using any longitudinal data set is the risk of missing data and attrition. Between Wave 1 and Wave 3 of the Add Health data, the data lost 5044 respondents. While this paper used multiple imputation strategies to reduce the effects of attrition, there is a risk that the participants that remained differed systematically from those who dropped out. This is especially imperative in this study as the population of interest was those with ACEs. Individuals with traumatic childhoods may have less access to resources or means that would help them continue participating in Add Health. Similarly, respondents experiencing IPV might be less likely to participate in the survey or to answer questions about IPV. Future research should implement strategies to retain participants at greatest risk of dropping out when examining such sensitive questions.

Lastly, future research could apply the models we utilize here to observe relationships among older populations. Family science is increasingly attentive to a previous understudied group: youth during emerging adulthood, aged 18–26. We expand the family science literature by examining ACEs, family social capital, and IPV during this key part of the life course. Because of this, most respondents had not entered marriages or had children. However, both of these milestones could be associated with increased or decreased exposure to IPV. When individuals reach more serious milestones, the relationship commitment needed increases, which may only occur in healthier relationships with less IPV. However, both milestones add relationship stress, which may increase arguments or IPV exposure. Additional research should analyze the pattern of IPV in various relationship formats and the long-term patterns of those behaviors in older adults.

8. Conclusions

The possibility of an accessible, inexpensive mechanism to protect those who have experienced ACEs from additional trauma is an intriguing one but remains understudied. We examine one such mechanism, family social capital, here. We do find evidence that increased social capital from both mothers and fathers can help protect emerging adults from exposure to IPV. However, we found that while family social capital does decrease the risk of reporting IPV, it is not enough to uniformly buffer the effect and relationship between ACEs and IPV. This implies that children who experienced ACEs need parental emotional social capital, but also additional resources to help protect them against IPV in the future. Family scientists and policymakers should increase access to parenting support to encourage parent–child interactions and educate about the harmful effects of abuse and neglect. Additionally, our study provides valuable information for scholars using social capital theory about the limits of how family social capital can be built and used. Further research is needed to examine potential mechanisms that could buffer the relationship between ACEs and IPV exposure.