Childhood Family Attachment and Physical Abuse: The Moderating Role of Gender

Childhood Family Attachment and Physical Abuse: The Moderating Role of Gender | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Childhood Family Attachment and Physical Abuse: The Moderating Role of Gender Mohd Shahidan Shaari, Faiz Masnan, Mohd Juraij Abd Rani, Amri Sulong, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8846037/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Childhood physical abuse has lasting implications for individual well-being, yet empirical evidence on protective family factors and their gendered effects during emerging adulthood remains limited. This study offers novel insight by examining gender as a moderating factor in the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse among emerging adults. The objective of this study is to assess whether stronger childhood family attachment reduces experiences of childhood physical abuse and to determine whether this protective effect differs by gender. Data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire distributed to university students through academic networks, with lecturers assisting in disseminating the survey to their students. A total of 416 responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and regression-based moderation analysis. The findings indicate that childhood family attachment is significantly and negatively associated with childhood physical abuse, confirming its protective role. Gender is found to be a significant predictor and moderator, with results showing that the buffering effect of childhood family attachment against physical abuse is stronger for males than for females. From a policy perspective, the results emphasise the need for attachment-based and gender-sensitive family interventions. Policies should prioritise strengthening parent–child relationships, promoting non-violent disciplinary practices, and incorporating gender-responsive approaches in child protection and parenting programmes to prevent childhood physical abuse effectively. Health sciences/Health care Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Attachment childhood physical abuse gender emerging adults Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Childhood family relationships play a foundational role in shaping individuals’ emotional, psychological, and social development. The family environment is often the first context in which children learn to regulate emotions, develop a sense of security, and form expectations about relationships (Wang, et al., 1995). Positive and supportive caregiving experiences foster healthy development, whereas adverse family conditions may have enduring negative consequences that extend into adolescence and adulthood (Don et al., 2025; Boat et al., 2024; Pertiwi et al., 2025; Pollak & Gunnar, 2025). Among such adverse experiences, childhood physical abuse represents a significant threat to healthy development, particularly in relation to attachment to caregivers (Zhu et al., 2025; Russell et al., 2024; Mekuriaw et al., 2025; Xie et al., 2025). From a global perspective, child abuse remains a critical public health and social concern affecting millions of children worldwide. According to the World Health Organization (2024), approximately six in ten children, or about 400 million children under the age of five, are routinely exposed to physical punishment and or psychological violence by their parents or caregivers. This alarming statistic highlights the widespread nature of violence within the home environment, where children are expected to experience safety and protection. In addition, evidence from high-income countries further illustrates the seriousness of this issue. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2025) reported that more than 200,000 offences related to child physical abuse were recorded by police in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland during the 2023/24 period, with 3.11 percent of these cases attributed directly to parents. These findings indicate that parental involvement in child abuse remains a persistent problem even in regions with established child protection systems. Moreover, regional disparities in the prevalence of child abuse by parents have been observed across the world. Whitten et al. (2023) reported that West Asia and Africa recorded the highest prevalence of child abuse perpetrated by parents, at 42.8 percent and 38.3 percent, respectively. Such figures reflect the influence of social, cultural, and economic factors that may contribute to higher risks of violence against children in certain regions. This is attributed to the issue that the consequences of child abuse extend beyond individual victims and families, and also affect the reputation and standing of a nation as a whole. When cases of child abuse, particularly those involving parents or caregivers, become prevalent or widely reported, they can undermine public trust in a country’s social institutions, child protection systems, and governance structures (Park et al., 2026; Ekici, 2025; Mahmoodi et al., 2026). Internationally, high rates of child abuse may draw negative attention from global organizations, human rights bodies, and foreign media, which leads to raised concerns about a nation’s commitment to safeguarding the rights and well-being of children. Such perceptions can damage a country’s image as a safe and ethical society, especially in an era where global rankings, human rights reports, and international assessments play a significant role in shaping diplomatic relationships and international cooperation (Linadi & Ayubi, 2025; Neville et al., 2022). Moreover, the persistence of child abuse reflects systemic weaknesses in law enforcement, social welfare, education, and healthcare systems, which can further erode national credibility (Phattanasin et al., 2025). In addition, child abuse contributes to long-term societal costs, including increased healthcare expenditure, reduced human capital development, and intergenerational cycles of violence, all of which can hinder national progress and economic competitiveness (Bullinger et al., 2025). Collectively, these consequences demonstrate that child abuse is not solely a private or familial matter but a national concern, as its prevalence and handling directly influence how a country is viewed on the global stage and its capacity to uphold fundamental human rights and social responsibility. Malaysia makes considerable efforts to safeguard its international reputation (Shukri et al., 2025). Therefore, the issue of child abuse needs to be given serious attention through more in-depth research, particularly as statistics from the Department of Social Welfare have shown an increase in child abuse cases from 1989 to 2021, as depicted in Figure 1. Most concerning is the severe consequences of parental physical abuse, which in extreme cases has resulted in the death of children (The U.S. Department of Justice, 2002). Childhood physical abuse is commonly defined as the intentional use of physical force by a caregiver that results in, or has the potential to result in, physical injury to a child (Garza et al., 2026). Such experiences represent a profound violation of the caregiving relationship, as the caregiver who is expected to provide protection and safety becomes a source of fear and harm. Although existing literature has established a robust association between childhood physical abuse and insecure attachment outcomes (Ritz et al., 2025; Nejad et al., 2025; Talmon & Tsur, 2024; Desbiens et al., 2025; Maçkalıet al., 2025; Kascakova et al., 2025), an important gap remains in understanding how this relationship may differ across gender. Despite increasing scholarly interest in gender differences in developmental and psychological outcomes, relatively few studies have explicitly examined gender as a moderating variable in the relationship between childhood physical abuse and family attachment. The moderating role of gender suggests that the strength or direction of the association between physical abuse and attachment may vary for males and females, potentially due to differences in socialization processes, emotional expression, coping mechanisms, and caregiver expectations. This lack of clarity limits the explanatory power of attachment theory and impedes the development of gender-sensitive prevention and intervention approaches. In response to this gap, the present study aims to examine the relationship between childhood family attachment and experiences of physical abuse, with a specific focus on the moderating role of gender. Theoretical Background Attachment theory, initially developed by John Bowlby (1969, 1988), explains how emotional bonds formed between infants and their primary caregivers serve a fundamental biological and evolutionary function. These bonds motivate children to seek closeness to caregivers in times of distress, thereby promoting safety, protection, and survival. Attachment is therefore not merely a learned or social behaviour, but an innate regulatory system that supports emotional security and healthy development from early life. When children experience consistent, responsive, and sensitive caregiving, they are more likely to develop secure attachment relationships that foster emotional regulation, stress management, and confidence in exploring their environment. Within this theoretical framework, caregivers play a pivotal role as sources of comfort, protection, and emotional support. Conversely, disruptions in caregiving, such as emotional unavailability, harsh discipline, or chronic stress, can undermine the formation of secure attachment bonds. Empirical evidence supports this perspective. For example, Madigan et al. (2016) reported that children with insecure attachment patterns are more likely to exhibit both internalising and externalising problems compared to securely attached children. These findings suggest that insecure attachment reflects broader difficulties in emotional regulation and behavioural adjustment, which may emerge in environments characterised by inconsistent or harmful caregiving practices. Importantly, caregivers’ awareness of their role in nurturing attachment has been shown to promote more positive outcomes. Muntean and Ungureanu (2012) demonstrated that when parents actively support and prioritise secure attachment, children are more likely to develop stable and secure emotional bonds. This highlights the protective role of strong family attachment in reducing maladaptive parenting behaviours, including harsh or physically punitive discipline. More recent longitudinal evidence further strengthens the relevance of attachment theory to childhood maltreatment. Zhai et al. (2025) found that childhood maltreatment is associated not only with lower initial levels of parent–child attachment but also with negative changes in attachment trajectories over time. Similarly, Haim-Nachum et al. (2024) showed that experiences of maltreatment can lead to persistent disruptions in emotional bonding, resulting in unstable or progressively deteriorating attachment relationships across development. Taken together, attachment theory provides a strong conceptual foundation for the present study by explaining how weaknesses in childhood family attachment may increase children’s vulnerability to physical abuse. In families where attachment bonds are insecure, caregivers may struggle to regulate their emotions, respond sensitively to children’s needs, or adopt non-violent disciplinary strategies. As a result, physical punishment may become more likely, reflecting breakdowns in the caregiver–child relationship rather than isolated disciplinary decisions. This study, therefore, draws on attachment theory to examine how variations in childhood family attachment are systematically related to the risk of childhood physical abuse. Literature Review Previous studies consistently show that childhood maltreatment and attachment play important roles in shaping emotional, behavioral, and psychological outcomes later in life. Across different populations and research designs, scholars agree that negative childhood experiences increase the risk of maladaptive outcomes, while secure attachment often acts as a protective factor that can reduce these negative effects (Lowell et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2023; Turgeon et al., 2023; Zhai et al., 2025; Papalia & Widom, 2024; Silva et al., 2026). Although the outcomes examined vary—ranging from emotional problems and depression to narcissistic traits, aggression, and violent behavior—these studies collectively highlight attachment as a key mechanism that explains how childhood maltreatment affects development over time. In addition, several studies emphasise that emotional maltreatment is particularly harmful and that supportive parent–child relationships can buffer, though not always fully eliminate, its long-term consequences. Lowell et al. (2014) examined how attachment influences the relationship between childhood maltreatment and later emotional and behavioral problems. Using data from 424 participants, they found that childhood maltreatment, especially emotional abuse, was strongly linked to poorer emotional and behavioral outcomes in young adulthood. Attachment to mothers and peers was also a strong predictor of these outcomes. Importantly, attachment explained additional differences in outcomes beyond the effects of maltreatment alone, suggesting that secure attachment can protect individuals even when they have experienced childhood abuse. Similarly, Wang et al. (2023) explored the relationship between childhood maltreatment, attachment security, and narcissism among 718 participants. Their findings showed that childhood maltreatment—particularly emotional maltreatment—was closely associated with vulnerable narcissism, such as fragile self-esteem and entitlement-related anger. In contrast, maltreatment had little or no relationship with grandiose narcissism. Attachment security played a key role in linking emotional maltreatment to narcissistic traits, reinforcing the idea that attachment processes help explain how early adversity shapes later personality features. Turgeon et al. (2023) focused on attachment disorganization in young adulthood by examining childhood maltreatment and mother–child emotional communication. Using a small longitudinal sample of 66 individuals from low-income families, the study found that childhood maltreatment increased the risk of hostile–helpless attachment states in adulthood. However, positive emotional communication between mothers and children during early childhood reduced this risk, highlighting the protective role of early relational quality despite adverse experiences. Zhai et al. (2025) investigated the longitudinal effects of childhood maltreatment on depression among 1,030 children in China. Their results showed that higher levels of maltreatment were associated with increased depression over time. Early analyses suggested that attachment to both fathers and mothers partially explained this relationship. However, more advanced analyses indicated that although maltreatment clearly predicted depression, the protective effects of attachment were not statistically stable across time. This suggests that while attachment is important, its buffering role may vary across contexts and developmental stages. Papalia and Widom (2024) extended this literature by linking childhood maltreatment, adult attachment, and violent behavior. Following participants from childhood into their late forties, they found that childhood abuse and neglect increased the risk of violent behavior in adulthood. Adult attachment insecurity also raised this risk and partly explained why maltreated individuals were more likely to engage in violence. In particular, attachment anxiety—not avoidance—played a key role, suggesting that fear of abandonment and emotional dependence are important pathways linking early abuse to later violence. In contrast, Sirparanta et al. (2024) examined whether parents’ own histories of childhood maltreatment affect their children’s attachment outcomes. Based on a meta-analysis of 25 studies involving 2,592 children, the authors found only weak evidence that parental maltreatment history predicts children’s attachment insecurity and no clear effect on attachment disorganization. These findings suggest that although intergenerational effects exist, children’s attachment outcomes are influenced more strongly by other factors, such as current parenting practices and environmental conditions. Finally, Silva et al. (2026) demonstrated how childhood maltreatment, attachment insecurity, and alcohol use interact to influence aggressive behavior in adulthood. Their study showed that early abuse and neglect increase insecure attachment and alcohol consumption, which together raise the risk of aggression later in life. This highlights how attachment insecurity can combine with maladaptive coping behaviors to intensify the long-term effects of childhood trauma. From a prevention and intervention perspective, Cyr and Alink (2017) emphasised that the child–parent attachment relationship is central to preventing maltreatment and improving developmental outcomes. They argued that attachment-based interventions should be prioritised for vulnerable families and that parenting capacity assessments should focus more on parents’ ability to change, particularly their sensitivity to children’s needs. Using an attachment framework, they suggest, can improve decisions about child placement and support more effective child protection practices. The reviewed literature highlights the critical role of attachment in shaping the experiences and consequences of childhood maltreatment, while also revealing important gaps related to specific forms of abuse, gender differences, and cultural context. Although attachment is widely recognised as a protective factor, its relationship with childhood physical abuse remains underexplored, particularly in non-Western settings. Moreover, the moderating role of gender in this relationship has received limited empirical attention. These gaps underscore the need for research that directly examines how attachment relates to childhood physical abuse and whether this relationship differs between males and females. In response, the present study investigates the association between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse, with gender as a moderating variable, within the Malaysian context, thereby contributing to a more nuanced and culturally grounded understanding of child maltreatment. Methodology i. Research Design This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional research design to examine the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse, as well as the moderating role of gender. The cross-sectional approach was deemed appropriate as it allows the assessment of associations between variables at a single point in time using retrospective self-reports. The target population comprised Malaysian young adults aged between 20 and 24 years, an age group considered suitable for recalling childhood experiences while having sufficient cognitive maturity to reflect on family relationships and disciplinary practices. ii. Participants and Sampling Procedure The population of Malaysian young adults aged 20-24 is estimated at 3,155,500 individuals . Using a non-probability convenience sampling technique , 416 respondents were recruited for this study. This sampling approach was selected due to practical constraints, including accessibility, time limitations, and the sensitivity of the research topic. Participants were recruited through online platforms, and voluntary participation was emphasized. Inclusion criteria required respondents to (i) be Malaysian citizens, (ii) fall within the specified age range of 20–24 years, and (iii) provide informed consent prior to participation. The final sample size exceeded the minimum recommended threshold for regression-based moderation analysis, thereby ensuring adequate statistical power for hypothesis testing. iii. Data collection instruments Data were collected using a self-administered structured questionnaire comprising three main sections: demographic information, childhood physical abuse, and childhood family attachment. All measurement items were adapted from established instruments and carefully modified to ensure cultural relevance and suitability for the Malaysian context and the study population. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale. For childhood family attachment, response options ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), while for childhood physical abuse, responses ranged from 1 ( never ) to 5 ( always ). A summary of the questionnaire items and their respective constructs is presented in Table 1. Table 1: Questionnaire Items Variable Items Childhood Physical Abuse (CPA) CPA1 CPA2 CPA3 CPA4 CPA5 When I was a child, my parents hit, slapped, or spanked me as a form of punishment. I was sometimes pushed, kicked, or beaten by my parents. My parents used objects such as belts, sticks, or hangers to discipline me. I experienced injuries, bruises, or pain after being punished by my parent. As a child, I often feared being physically hurt by my parents when I made mistakes. Childhood Family Attachment (CFA) CFA1 CFA2 CFA3 CFA4 I was happy being part of my family when I was a child. I would do anything necessary to help my parents. I felt emotionally close to one or both of my parent during my childhood. I enjoyed spending time with my parents when I was growing up. Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived childhood physical abuse and stronger childhood family attachment, respectively. iv. Procedure and ethical considerations Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) Ethics Committee (Approval No.: UNIMAS/NC-22.02/09-17(05) ). Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, their voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained. No personally identifiable information was collected, and all responses were used solely for academic research purposes. Given the sensitive nature of childhood abuse, participants were encouraged to respond honestly and were assured that their responses would be treated with the utmost confidentiality. v. Data analysis Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 23.0). The analysis proceeded in several stages to ensure the robustness and validity of the findings. First, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages) were computed to summarise the demographic characteristics of the respondents and the central tendencies of the study variables. Next, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the bivariate relationships between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. A correlation heatmap was generated to visually represent the strength and direction of associations among the variables. To test the study hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was employed. Model summary and ANOVA tests were conducted to evaluate the explanatory power of the regression models and their overall statistical significance. Linear regression analysis was then used to examine the magnitude, direction, and statistical significance of each predictor. Prior to interpretation, several diagnostic tests were performed to ensure that the assumptions of regression analysis were met. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and collinearity diagnostics were examined to assess potential multicollinearity among the independent variables; VIF values below the recommended threshold indicated no serious multicollinearity concerns. Case-wise diagnostics were also inspected to identify potential outliers or influential cases that could unduly affect the regression estimates. To examine the moderating role of gender, an interaction analysis was conducted by including the interaction term between childhood family attachment and gender in the regression model. All continuous variables were mean-centred prior to creating the interaction term to reduce multicollinearity. Where a significant interaction effect was observed, simple slope analysis was performed to further interpret the nature of the moderation effect by examining the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse at different levels of gender. vi. Reliability analysis Internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which measures the extent to which items within a construct are interrelated and consistently capture the same underlying concept. Cronbach’s alpha values range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater internal consistency among the items. In social science research, a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 or higher is generally regarded as acceptable, indicating that the items reliably measure the intended construct. In contrast, values above 0.80 reflect good reliability. As presented in Table 2, the Childhood Physical Abuse scale recorded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.820, suggesting good internal consistency and a high degree of coherence among the five items measuring experiences of physical abuse during childhood. Similarly, the Childhood Family Attachment scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.709, indicating acceptable reliability and confirming that the four items consistently reflect the construct of emotional closeness and attachment within the family context. Table 2: Reliability Analysis for Study Variables Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Number of Items Childhood Physical Abuse 0.820 5 Childhood Family Attachment 0.709 4 These results indicate that the measurement scales used in this study are reliable and suitable for further statistical analysis. Findings Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for childhood family attachment (CFA), gender, and childhood physical abuse (CPA) based on 416 respondents. Overall, the results suggest a sample characterised by relatively strong family attachment and low to moderate experiences of physical abuse during childhood. The mean score for CFA is 4.34 (SD = 0.77) on a five-point scale, with values ranging from 1 to 5. This indicates that, on average, respondents reported high levels of childhood family attachment, reflecting generally positive emotional bonds and supportive family relationships during childhood. The relatively small standard deviation suggests that most respondents shared similar perceptions of strong family attachment, with limited dispersion around the mean. For CPA, the mean score is 2.07 (SD = 0.84), also measured on a five-point scale. This relatively low mean implies that experiences of childhood physical abuse were generally infrequent among the respondents. Although the full range of responses (1 to 5) is observed, the lower average score and moderate variability indicate that severe or frequent physical abuse was not commonly reported. However, some respondents did experience higher levels of abuse. Regarding gender, the mean of 1.31 (SD = 0.46) reflects the coding of gender categories (e.g., 1 = male, 2 = female), suggesting the sample is skewed toward one gender. The limited variability is expected for a dichotomous variable and indicates a relatively unbalanced gender distribution in the sample. Taken together, these descriptive findings provide an important context for subsequent analyses by showing that the sample essentially experienced strong family attachment alongside relatively low levels of childhood physical abuse, allowing for meaningful examination of how variations in CFA may relate to CPA in later inferential models. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation CFA 416 4 1 5 4.34 0.77 Gender 416 1 1 2 1.31 0.46 CPA 416 4 1 5 2.07 0.84 Table 2 reports the correlation matrix examining the bivariate relationships among childhood physical abuse, childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. Overall, the correlations are minor to moderate, indicating that multicollinearity is unlikely to pose a problem and that each variable represents a distinct construct within the study. A moderate negative correlation is observed between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse (r = −0.268), suggesting that higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with lower levels of childhood physical abuse. This finding is consistent with theoretical expectations, as strong emotional bonds and supportive family environments are generally linked to reduced use of harsh or abusive disciplinary practices during childhood. The relationship between gender and childhood physical abuse is positive but weak (r = 0.159), indicating that experiences of childhood physical abuse differ slightly by gender. Although the strength of this association is limited, it suggests that one gender group may be marginally more exposed to physical abuse than the other, justifying further examination using multivariate and moderation analyses. Notably, the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender shows a very weak positive correlation with childhood physical abuse (r = 0.065). This indicates that, at the bivariate level, the combined influence of childhood family attachment and gender has only a minimal direct association with childhood physical abuse. However, this does not rule out a meaningful moderation effect, as interaction terms are intended to capture conditional relationships that are more appropriately assessed within a regression framework rather than through simple correlations. Furthermore, the correlations between the interaction term and its component variables are low (r = 0.149 with childhood family attachment and r = −0.069 with gender), which is desirable and indicates that the interaction term does not substantially overlap with the main effects. Taken together, these findings support proceeding with a moderation analysis to formally test whether gender moderates the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. Table 2: Correlation Heatmap CPA CFA Gender PAG CPA 1 -0.268 0.159 0.065 CFA -0.268 1 -0.087 0.149 Gender 0.159 -0.087 1 -0.069 CFA*G 0.065 0.149 -0.069 1 Table 3 presents the model summary for the regression analysis examining the effects of childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender on childhood physical abuse. The results indicate that the overall model provides a statistically significant explanation of variation in childhood physical abuse. The model yields an R value of 0.321, indicating a modest overall association between the predictors and childhood physical abuse. The R-square value of 0.103 shows that approximately 10.3 percent of the variance in childhood physical abuse is jointly explained by childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction. After adjusting for the number of predictors, the adjusted R-square remains similar at 0.097, suggesting the model's explanatory power is stable and not overstated. The standard error of the estimate of 0.80012 indicates the average distance between the observed values of childhood physical abuse and the values predicted by the model, reflecting an acceptable level of prediction accuracy for social and behavioural research. In addition, the change in the F statistic is statistically significant (p < 0.001), confirming that the inclusion of childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction significantly improves the model compared with a model without predictors. Although the proportion of variance explained is relatively modest, this magnitude is typical in studies examining complex family and psychosocial experiences. The results suggest that childhood family attachment and gender, together with their combined effect, contribute meaningfully to understanding variations in childhood physical abuse, supporting further interpretation of the regression coefficients and the moderation effect of gender. Table 3: Model Summary R R Square Adjusted R-Square Std. Error of the Estimate df2 Sig. F Change .321 0.103 0.097 0.80012 412 <.001 Table 4 presents the analysis of variance results for the regression model with childhood physical abuse as the dependent variable and childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender as predictors. The findings indicate that the overall regression model is statistically significant. The regression sum of squares (30.394) reflects the portion of variability in childhood physical abuse explained by the predictors included in the model. In contrast, the residual sum of squares (263.762) represents the unexplained variation. With three degrees of freedom for the regression and 412 degrees of freedom for the residual, the model yields an F statistic of 15.825, which is statistically significant at the 1 percent level (p < 0.001). This result indicates that the predictors, taken together, significantly improve the prediction of childhood physical abuse compared with a model that includes no explanatory variables. The relatively larger residual sum of squares suggests that, while childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction contribute meaningfully to explaining childhood physical abuse, a substantial proportion of variation remains attributable to other factors not included in the model. Nevertheless, the significant F value confirms that the model as a whole provides a better fit than the null model, supporting the inclusion of the predictors in subsequent interpretation of individual coefficients and the moderation effect of gender. Table 4: ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 30.394 3 10.131 15.825 <.001b Residual 263.762 412 0.64 Total 294.157 415 Table 5 reports the regression coefficients for the model predicting childhood physical abuse from childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. Overall, the results indicate that both the main effects and the interaction term contribute significantly to explaining variation in childhood physical abuse. The constant term is positive and statistically significant (B = 3.03, p < 0.001), indicating the expected level of childhood physical abuse when childhood family attachment and gender are at their reference or zero values. Although the constant itself is not of substantive interest, it provides the baseline against which the effects of the predictors are interpreted. Childhood family attachment shows a negative and highly significant effect on childhood physical abuse (B = −0.298, p < 0.001). This result indicates that higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with lower levels of childhood physical abuse, holding gender constant. Substantively, a one-unit increase in childhood family attachment is associated with a reduction of approximately 0.30 units in childhood physical abuse, highlighting the protective role of strong family attachment during childhood. The confidence interval does not include zero, further confirming the robustness of this negative relationship. Gender has a positive and statistically significant coefficient (B = 0.262, p = 0.002), suggesting that childhood physical abuse differs by gender. This finding implies that, on average, one gender group reports higher levels of childhood physical abuse than the other, after accounting for childhood family attachment. The confidence interval for gender is entirely positive, reinforcing the presence of a meaningful gender-based difference. Importantly, the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender is positive and statistically significant (B = 0.092, p = 0.015). This result provides evidence of a moderation effect, indicating that the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse varies by gender. Specifically, the positive interaction term suggests that the protective effect of childhood family attachment against childhood physical abuse is weaker for one gender compared with the other. In other words, while stronger family attachment reduces physical abuse for both genders, the magnitude of this reduction differs across gender groups. The confidence interval for the interaction term does not cross zero, supporting the reliability of this moderating effect. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that childhood family attachment plays a central role in reducing childhood physical abuse, that experiences of physical abuse differ by gender, and that gender significantly conditions the strength of the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. This underscores the importance of considering gender differences when examining family dynamics and childhood maltreatment outcomes. Table 5: Coefficients Variable Unstandardized Coefficients t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound C 3.03 0.262 11.583 <.001 2.516 3.545 CFA -0.298 0.052 -5.759 <.001 -0.4 -0.196 Gender 0.262 0.086 3.06 0.002 0.094 0.43 CFA*G 0.092 0.038 2.444 0.015 0.018 0.166 Table 6 reports the variance inflation factor values for childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. The results indicate that multicollinearity is not a concern in the regression model. All variance inflation factor values are very close to 1: 1.029 for childhood family attachment, 1.011 for gender, and 1.026 for the interaction term. These values are well below commonly accepted threshold levels (for example, 5 or 10), indicating that the predictors are not highly correlated with one another. The low variance inflation factor for the interaction term further suggests that including the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender does not distort the regression coefficient estimates. These findings confirm that the regression estimates are stable and reliable, and that the observed effects of childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction on childhood physical abuse can be interpreted with confidence. Table 6: Variance Inflation Factor Variable VIF CFA 1.029 Gender 1.011 CFA*G 1.026 Table 7 presents the collinearity diagnostics for the regression model predicting childhood physical abuse using childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. Overall, the diagnostics indicate that there is no serious multicollinearity in the model. The condition index values range from 1.000 to 14.794. According to commonly used guidelines, condition index values below 15 suggest weak or no multicollinearity, values between 15 and 30 indicate moderate multicollinearity, and values above 30 signal severe multicollinearity. In this model, the highest condition index is 14.794, which remains below the threshold of concern, indicating that multicollinearity is unlikely to distort the regression estimates. Further support comes from the variance proportions. Although the highest condition index (Dimension 4) shows large variance proportions for the constant and childhood family attachment, these high proportions do not coincide with similarly high variance proportions for multiple predictors within the same dimension. Multicollinearity is typically problematic only when two or more predictors exhibit high variance proportions (typically above 0.50) within a dimension with a high condition index. This pattern is not observed here. Additionally, the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender loads primarily on Dimension 2, while gender loads most strongly on Dimension 3, indicating that these variables contribute to distinct dimensions of the model rather than overlapping excessively. This separation further suggests that the interaction term does not introduce instability into the model. Taken together, the collinearity diagnostics confirm that childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction can be included simultaneously in the regression model without concern for multicollinearity. These results reinforce the findings from the variance inflation factor analysis and support the reliability and interpretability of the regression coefficients explaining childhood physical abuse. Table 7: Collinearity Diagnostics Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index Variance Proportions (Constant) CFA Gender CFA*G 1 2.911 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 2 0.992 1.713 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.970 3 0.085 5.869 0.020 0.090 0.850 0.010 4 0.013 14.794 0.980 0.910 0.130 0.020 Table 8 presents the casewise diagnostics for the regression model with childhood physical abuse as the dependent variable. The casewise diagnostics indicate the presence of a small number of outliers in the model predicting childhood physical abuse, as four cases exhibit standardized residuals greater than ±3.0. These cases represent respondents who reported the maximum level of childhood physical abuse, with observed values substantially higher than those predicted by the model. However, these outliers account for less than 1 percent of the total sample, suggesting that they are rare and not systematic. Importantly, the existence of these outliers does not imply a problem with the model or the data quality. In studies involving sensitive and complex experiences such as childhood physical abuse, extreme observations are expected and may reflect genuinely severe individual circumstances that are not fully explained by general predictors such as childhood family attachment and gender. Unless additional influence diagnostics (for example, Cook’s distance or leverage values) indicate that these cases exert disproportionate influence on the regression estimates, there is no strong justification for their exclusion. Table 8: Casewise Diagnostics Case Number Std. Residual CPA Predicted Value Residual 118 3.313 5 2.350 2.650 282 3.308 5 2.354 2.646 337 3.016 5 2.586 2.414 407 3.520 5 2.184 2.816 Figure 1 illustrates the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender in predicting childhood physical abuse, offering a clear visual interpretation of the moderation effect identified in the regression analysis. For both males and females, childhood physical abuse decreases as childhood family attachment increases, indicating that stronger family attachment is generally associated with lower levels of physical abuse during childhood. However, the magnitude of this protective effect differs by gender. The slope for males is steeper, showing a more pronounced reduction in childhood physical abuse when moving from low to high childhood family attachment. In contrast, the slope for females is flatter, suggesting that although higher childhood family attachment is also associated with lower physical abuse among females, the reduction is less substantial compared to males. Across both low and high levels of childhood family attachment, females consistently report higher levels of childhood physical abuse than males. This pattern visually confirms the significant interaction effect found in the regression results, demonstrating that gender moderates the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. In substantive terms, while childhood family attachment serves as a protective factor for both genders, its buffering effect against physical abuse is stronger for males than for females. Table 9 presents the simple slope analysis examining the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse separately for males and females. The results provide further insight into the moderating role of gender observed in the interaction analysis. For males, childhood family attachment has a negative and statistically significant effect on childhood physical abuse (β = −0.206, t = −3.257, p = 0.001). This indicates that higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with a substantial reduction in childhood physical abuse among males. In practical terms, as family attachment strengthens, the likelihood or intensity of physical abuse during childhood decreases significantly for males, highlighting a strong protective effect. In contrast, for females, the slope coefficient is also negative (β = −0.114), suggesting that higher childhood family attachment is associated with lower childhood physical abuse. However, this relationship is not statistically significant (t = −1.363, p = 0.174). This implies that although the direction of the association is consistent with expectations, the protective effect of childhood family attachment is weaker and less reliable in females than in males. Taken together, these findings confirm that gender moderates the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. Specifically, childhood family attachment significantly reduces physical abuse among males, whereas the same effect is not statistically evident among females. This pattern is consistent with the interaction plot and regression results, underscoring the importance of considering gender-specific mechanisms when examining the protective role of family attachment in childhood abuse outcomes. Table 9: Slope Analysis Gender Slope Coefficient (β) t-value p-value Male −0.206 −3.257 0.001 Female −0.114 −1.363 0.174 Discussion The findings of this study provide deeper insight into the protective role of childhood family attachment in shaping experiences of childhood physical abuse, while also highlighting important gender-based differences in this relationship. Consistent with attachment theory, higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with lower levels of physical abuse, underscoring the importance of secure emotional bonds, parental responsiveness, and a supportive family environment. Families characterised by warmth, trust, and open communication are more likely to adopt constructive discipline strategies and effective conflict resolution, thereby reducing children’s exposure to harsh or abusive practices. These findings are supported by previous research. Zhai et al. ( 2025 ) showed that the relationship between childhood maltreatment and child depression is partly explained by the quality of attachment with both fathers and mothers, reinforcing the role of parental attachment as a key protective mechanism. Similarly, Thompson et al. ( 2026 ) found that stronger attachment between children and their birth parents reduces dissociative symptoms, with this effect operating through caregiver–child attachment and placement stability. Together, these studies align with the present findings by demonstrating that secure attachment relationships play a critical role in buffering children against adverse psychological and behavioural outcomes. The significant effect of gender in the present study indicates that childhood physical abuse is not experienced uniformly by boys and girls. Meng and D’Arcy ( 2016 ) likewise reported that childhood abuse is strongly associated with gender and that men and women differ in their mental health outcomes later in life. These differences may reflect gendered socialisation practices, cultural norms, and parental expectations that influence disciplinary approaches. In many contexts, boys are more likely to be subjected to stricter or more physical discipline due to beliefs that they require firmer control or are more prone to behavioural problems. In contrast, girls may be more exposed to non-physical forms of maltreatment, such as emotional or psychological abuse, which are not fully captured by measures of physical abuse. This perspective is consistent with Liu et al. ( 2026 ), who found that girls are more emotionally affected by physical neglect and abuse, particularly in how they understand and express their emotions. These patterns help explain why gender emerges as an independent predictor of childhood physical abuse in the model. Most importantly, the significant interaction between childhood family attachment and gender indicates that the protective effect of family attachment operates differently for males and females. The stronger buffering effect observed among males suggests that high levels of family attachment substantially reduce the likelihood of physical abuse for boys. One possible explanation is that secure attachment helps reduce externalising behaviours among boys, which are often cited as triggers for physical punishment. In addition, strong emotional bonds may encourage parents to respond to boys with greater empathy and support, counteracting traditional norms that legitimise harsher discipline. However, this gendered pattern appears to be context-dependent. Wang ( 2017 ) showed that fathers’ harsh parenting is explicitly linked to boys’ aggressive behaviour, whereas mothers’ harsh parenting is associated with verbal aggression in both boys and girls. This suggests that parental roles and gender-specific parenting practices may shape how attachment translates into protection against abuse. Taken together, these findings highlight that while childhood family attachment is a crucial protective factor, its effectiveness varies by gender and parental context. Conclusion This study provides empirical evidence on the protective role of childhood family attachment in reducing experiences of childhood physical abuse among emerging adults. Consistent with attachment theory, the results demonstrate that stronger childhood family attachment is associated with lower levels of childhood physical abuse, highlighting the importance of secure emotional bonds, parental responsiveness, and a supportive family environment in shaping children’s early life experiences. Beyond this direct relationship, the findings reveal that gender plays a significant role in childhood physical abuse, both as an independent predictor and as a moderator. The interaction effect shows that the protective influence of childhood family attachment is stronger for males than for females, suggesting that secure attachment relationships are particularly effective in buffering boys against physical abuse. This gendered pattern underscores that childhood physical abuse is not experienced uniformly and that the mechanisms through which family attachment operates differ across genders. Thus, this study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that childhood family attachment remains a crucial protective factor well into emerging adulthood, while also emphasizing the need to consider gender-specific pathways in understanding and preventing childhood physical abuse. The findings offer several important policy implications for child welfare, family development, and violence prevention. First, policies and intervention programmes should prioritise strengthening family attachment and parenting practices from early childhood. Parenting education programmes that promote emotional warmth, positive communication, and non-violent discipline strategies can play a critical role in reducing the risk of physical abuse. Such programmes should be integrated into existing family and community services, particularly for families identified as at risk. Second, the significant role of gender suggests that gender-sensitive prevention strategies are essential. Policies should recognise that boys and girls may experience and respond to physical abuse differently. For example, interventions targeting boys may focus on managing externalising behaviours through positive reinforcement and emotional regulation, while ensuring that parents are supported in adopting empathetic, non-violent disciplinary approaches. At the same time, policies should not overlook girls, who may experience other forms of maltreatment that are less visible but equally harmful. Third, child protection agencies and schools should incorporate attachment-informed frameworks in their assessment and prevention efforts. Early identification of weak family attachment can serve as a warning signal for potential abuse, allowing timely intervention before maltreatment escalates. Strengthening collaboration between schools, healthcare providers, and social services can further enhance the effectiveness of such preventive measures. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the study relies on self-reported and retrospective data. Respondents were asked to recall their childhood experiences during emerging adulthood, which may not always be accurate. Memories can fade or change over time, and some respondents may be unwilling to report sensitive experiences such as physical abuse. As a result, the levels of childhood physical abuse and family attachment may be underreported or overreported. Second, the study's cross-sectional design limits the ability to identify cause-and-effect relationships. Although the findings show a clear association between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse, the study cannot confirm whether weak family attachment leads to higher abuse or whether abusive experiences weaken attachment. Longitudinal data would allow researchers to observe changes over time and better establish causal pathways. Third, the sample's gender distribution is unbalanced. This imbalance may affect the accuracy of gender comparisons and limit the generalisability of the findings. Some gender differences observed in the study may be due to unequal sample sizes rather than actual differences in experience. Fourth, the study focuses only on childhood physical abuse. Other forms of maltreatment, such as emotional abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect, were not examined. These forms of abuse may be more common, especially among females, and may also be closely linked to family attachment. Excluding them may underestimate the full impact of childhood adversity. Finally, cultural and social factors were not directly included in the analysis. Parenting styles, discipline practices, and views on physical punishment differ across cultures and social contexts. Without considering these factors, the findings may not fully apply to other populations or cultural settings. Future research should address these limitations. Longitudinal studies are recommended to track children and families over time and better understand how family attachment affects the risk of abuse across different stages of development. Future studies should also include multiple forms of childhood maltreatment to provide a more complete understanding of adverse childhood experiences. In addition, examining attachment to different caregivers, such as mothers and fathers, may help explain how specific parental roles influence abuse risk. Researchers should also consider cultural, socioeconomic, and family context factors, as these may shape parenting behaviour and attachment patterns. Finally, using larger, more representative samples would improve the generalisability of the findings and support the development of more effective and inclusive prevention policies. Declarations Ethics Approval: This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the American Psychological Association(APA) and relevant institutional research guidelines. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) Ethics Committee (Approval No.: UNIMAS/NC-22.02/09–17(05)). All participants were fully informed about the purpose and procedures of the study. They were assured that their participation was entirely voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Data collection procedures ensured anonymity and confidentiality, and no identifying or sensitive personal information was recorded. The research involved minimal risk to participants and was conducted in full compliance with established ethical standards for research. Consent All participants in this study provided written informed consent, either in online format, prior to their participation in the research. Conflict of Interest: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Author Contribution M.S.S. conceptualised the study, developed the research framework, supervised the overall research process, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. F.M. and M.J.A.R. contributed to data collection, questionnaire design, and preliminary data analysis. A.S. assisted with the literature review and methodological refinement. N.S.A. contributed to statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and manuscript editing. R.M.H. contributed to the discussion section and provided critical revisions to improve the intellectual content of the manuscript. All authors reviewed, revised, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors would like to express gratitude to Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) and Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP). Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study were generated from a questionnaire survey and contain sensitive personal information. Due to ethical and confidentiality considerations, the data are not publicly available. However, anonymised data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. No Funding References Boat, A. A., Hirano, K. A., & Roehlkepartain, E. (2024). Parent and adolescent perceptions of parent–child developmental relationships: The role of family routines. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, 74 (1), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13107 Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment . Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development . Basic Books. Bullinger, L. R., Raissian, K. M., Klika, B., Merrick, M., & Thibodeau, E. (2025). More than snuggles: The effect of paid family leave on infant maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 31 (1), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595251318939 Cyr, C., & Alink, L. R. A. (2017). Child maltreatment: The central roles of parenting capacities and attachment . Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.002 Desbiens, F., Brassard, A., Godbout, N., Savard, C., Daspe, M.-È., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Dugal, C. (2025). Therapeutic alliance with perpetrators of intimate partner violence: The roles of childhood interpersonal trauma and attachment insecurity. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 34 (4), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2025.2474606 Don, B. P., Simpson, J. A., Fredrickson, B. L., & Algoe, S. B. (2025). Interparental positivity spillover theory: How parents’ positive relational interactions influence children. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20 (4), 639–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231220626 Ekici, Ö. (2025). The role of media in creating an environment of trust in society. Journal of Education and Social Sciences Research, 6 (2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18099053 Garza, H. H., Piper, K. E., & Lawson, K. A. (2026). Physical abuse of young children reported by medical professionals in the United States, 2014–2023. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2025.1718486 Haim-Nachum, S., Lazarov, A., Zabag, R., Martin, A., Bergman, M., Neria, Y., & Amsalem, D. (2024). Self-stigma mediates the relationships between childhood maltreatment and symptom levels of PTSD, depression, and anxiety. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 15 (1), 2370174. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2370174 Kascakova, N., Furstova, J., Hasto, J., & Tavel, P. (2025). Associations of multiple adverse childhood experiences, attachment insecurity, and loneliness with physical and mental health difficulties in a representative Slovak sample. Preventive Medicine Reports, 50 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.102982 Lowell, A., Renk, K., & Havill Adgate, A. (2014). The role of attachment in the relationship between child maltreatment and later emotional and behavioral functioning . Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(9), 1436–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.006 Linadi, K. E., & Ayubi, D. (2025). Child abuse in Indonesia: A national trend analysis and health promotion response (2016–2024). In The 6th International Conference on Public Health for Tropical and Coastal Development (p. 193). https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202519300080 Liu, Y., Liu, S., Preece, D. A., Gross, J. J., Zhao, Z., et al. (2026). Childhood maltreatment and alexithymia: A network analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 343 , 120876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.120876 Maçkalı, Z., Gökdağ, C., & Toksoy, Ş. E. (2025). The structural associations among childhood traumas, attachment dimensions, and relational needs. Current Psychology, 44 , 13367–13377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08070-w Mahmoodi, M., Sharifi, H., Zahedi, R., Malekmohammadi, N., Sharafoddin, M., Salarpour, E., Bazrafshan, A., Jandaghi, A., Najafi, M., & Chegeni, M. (2026). Sexual abuse in street children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sexuality & Culture . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10497-z Madigan, S., Brumariu, L. E., Villani, V., Atkinson, L., & LyonsRuth, K. (2016). Representational and questionnaire measures of attachment: A meta-analysis of relations to child internalizing and externalizing problems. Psychological Bulletin, 142 (4), 367–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000029 Meng, X., & D’Arcy, C. (2016). Gender moderates the relationship between childhood abuse and internalizing and substance use disorders later in life: A cross-sectional analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 16 (1), 401. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1071-7 Mekuriaw, B. Y., Getnet, B., Seid, E., Teferi, T., Alemwork, A., Aschale, M., & Tsega, A. (2025). Prevalence and associated factors of psychological distress among caregivers of children with malnutrition: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 25 , 505. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21692-w Muntean, A., & Ungureanu, R. (2012). Adoptions of children in Romania: Applying attachment theory. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33 , 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.072 National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. (2025, July). Physical abuse statistics briefing . https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/statistics-briefings/physical-abuse Nejad, M. H., Damirchi, E. S., Sadeghi, M., & Homayoon, M. N. (2025). Developing a model of experiential avoidance based on childhood trauma and victimization, mediated by insecure attachment styles. European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2025.100513 Neville, S. E., Zidan, T., Williams, A., & Rotabi-Casares, K. S. (2022). Child maltreatment and protection in the Arab Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A scoping review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105924 Papalia, N., & Widom, C. S. (2024). Do insecure adult attachment styles mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and violent behavior? Development and Psychopathology, 36 , 636–647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579422001468 Park, K., Eastman, A. L., Gómez, A., & Courtney, M. E. (2026). Risks of incarceration: Impact of social support networks during the transition to adulthood. Social Work Research . https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svaf026 Pertiwi, Y. W., Triantoro, M., Indriyani, D., & Al-Amin. (2025). Character education from an early age: Family strategies in developing positive values. International Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3 (4), 343–354. Phattanasin, K., Yaseen, M., & Thummanitchayuth, D. (2025). Bridging the gap: International standards and domestic realities in Pakistan’s child protection laws. Journal of Posthumanism, 5 (6), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.63332/joph.v5i6.1990 Pollak, S. D., & Gunnar, M. R. (2025). What developmental science has to say about caregiving. Daedalus, 154 (1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02122 Ritz, L., Mauny, N., Montcharmont, C., Dessommes, N., Jacquet, D., & Lemercier-Dugarin, M. (2025). Indirect association between childhood maltreatment and food and alcohol disturbance through insecure attachment in university students. Journal of Eating Disorders . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-025-01321-y Russell, J. D., Heyn, S. A., Peverill, M., DiMaio, S., & Herringa, R. J. (2024). Traumatic and adverse childhood experiences and developmental differences in psychiatric risk. JAMA Psychiatry, 82 (1), 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.3231 Shukri, S., Batool, F., & Yilmaz, I. (2025). Civilisational chauvinism: Islamic heritage in the foreign policies of Mahathir, Sharif, and Erdoğan. In Instrumentalisation of religion in electoral politics . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2848-6_6 Silva, D., Fávero, M., Del Campo, A., Sousa-Gomes, V., Silva, C., Moreira, P., & Moreira, D. (2026). From victimization to aggression: The effect of adverse childhood experiences, attachment, and alcohol consumption on aggressors. European Psychologist . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000577 Sirparanta, A. E., Danner Touati, C., Cyr, C., & Miljkovitch, R. (2024). Parental History of Childhood Maltreatment and Offspring Attachment Insecurity and Disorganization: Two Meta-Analyses. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 26 (3), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241282995 Talmon, A., & Tsur, N. (2024). Intergenerational transmission of posttraumatic orientation to bodily signals following child maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40 . https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241285874 Thompson, J. N., Salazar, A. M., & Taussig, H. N. (2026). Parent–child attachment and trauma-related dissociation among youth in out-of-home care: The age-dependent roles of caregiver–child attachment and placement duration. Child Abuse & Neglect, 138 , 107883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.107883 Turgeon, J., Milot, T., St-Laurent, D., & Dubois-Comtois, K. (2023). Association between childhood maltreatment and attachment disorganization in young adulthood: The protective role of early mother–child interactions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 143 , 106281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106281 U.S. Department of Justice. (2002). Family violence statistics: Including statistics on strangers and acquaintances . Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/family-violence-statistics-including-statistics-strangers-and-acquaintances Wang, X., Yu, L., & Li, J. (2023). Relationships between childhood maltreatment, attachment security, and features of narcissism: A network analysis . Personality and Individual Differences, 200, 111890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111890 Whitten, T., Tzoumakis, S., Green, M. J., & Dean, K. (2023). Global prevalence of childhood exposure to physical violence within domestic and family relationships in the general population: A systematic review and proportional meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25 (2), 1411–1430. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231179133 World Health Organization. (2024, November 5). Child maltreatment . https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-maltreatment Wang, M. (2017). Harsh parenting and peer acceptance in Chinese early adolescents: Three child aggression subtypes as mediators and child gender as moderator. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63 , 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.017 Wang, M., Lin, Y., Xu, Q., Liu, H., Li, Y., & Duan, Q. (1995). Chinese parents’ education anxiety, parenting, and problem behaviors in preschool children: Child competence as moderator. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, 74 (2), 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13135 Xie, Z., Zhang, Z., Li, X., Thabrew, H., Bi, K., Tang, S., & Zhou, J. (2025). Risk or refuge? The dual role of affinity for solitude and deviant peer affiliation in the link between childhood maltreatment and youth depression: A mixed-methods study. Children and Youth Services Review, 178 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108518 Zhai, R., Yang, S., & Zhang, L. (2025). Does parent–child attachment play a role in the relationship between childhood maltreatment and depression? Evidence from a longitudinal study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 135 , 107643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107643 Zhu, J., Deneault, A.-A., Turgeon, J., & Madigan, S. (2025). Caregiver and child adverse childhood experiences: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 155 (2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-068578 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 09 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 02 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 06 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 06 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 26 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 26 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 17 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 16 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8846037","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":599418371,"identity":"6a2f8cbb-3e36-4ad8-910c-cacd4f58beac","order_by":0,"name":"Mohd Shahidan Shaari","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universiti Malaysia Sarawak","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohd","middleName":"Shahidan","lastName":"Shaari","suffix":""},{"id":599418372,"identity":"b552e1a1-8ba9-4ca3-bc20-0e47278572f6","order_by":1,"name":"Faiz Masnan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universiti Malaysia Perlis","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Faiz","middleName":"","lastName":"Masnan","suffix":""},{"id":599418374,"identity":"cd6641c7-03d5-4282-a856-a9c358bd7e33","order_by":2,"name":"Mohd Juraij Abd Rani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universiti Malaysia Perlis","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mohd","middleName":"Juraij Abd","lastName":"Rani","suffix":""},{"id":599418375,"identity":"cd1f35bb-b299-42ad-9dfa-7f93e22347d5","order_by":3,"name":"Amri Sulong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Seberang Perai Polytechnic","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amri","middleName":"","lastName":"Sulong","suffix":""},{"id":599418376,"identity":"b3c33431-1306-44b3-a15a-19c9259f1431","order_by":4,"name":"Nur Salimah Alias","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universiti Malaysia Perlis","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nur","middleName":"Salimah","lastName":"Alias","suffix":""},{"id":599418378,"identity":"20a1a5d2-b56d-4b89-8b9b-9b0b52804204","order_by":5,"name":"Rina Mandara Harahap","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Institut Agama Islam Negeri Pontianak","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rina","middleName":"Mandara","lastName":"Harahap","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-11 01:38:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8846037/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8846037/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104172034,"identity":"38a5d4b1-9e28-48ab-9c86-b94f0d5d3d97","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-08 14:58:38","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":38267,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChild abuse cases in Malaysia (1989-2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDepartment of Social Welfare\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8846037/v1/e4bd87c2dcf4e5627c09063d.png"},{"id":104172033,"identity":"190fc5f0-5d0d-49b2-9390-e08390ea8924","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-08 14:58:37","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":22057,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInteraction Analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8846037/v1/180c4601c2f64f0af1912b87.png"},{"id":104404034,"identity":"bc1ced5c-813a-4678-9286-66d7b1db65ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:19:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":735846,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8846037/v1/4cfb72b5-1e23-4fae-aff2-be82202687cc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eChildhood Family Attachment and Physical Abuse: The Moderating Role of Gender\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eChildhood family relationships play a foundational role in shaping individuals\u0026rsquo; emotional, psychological, and social development. The family environment is often the first context in which children learn to regulate emotions, develop a sense of security, and form expectations about relationships\u0026nbsp;(Wang, et al., 1995). Positive and supportive caregiving experiences foster healthy development, whereas adverse family conditions may have enduring negative consequences that extend into adolescence and adulthood (Don et al., 2025; Boat et al., 2024; Pertiwi et al., 2025; Pollak \u0026amp; Gunnar, 2025). Among such adverse experiences, childhood physical abuse represents a significant threat to healthy development, particularly in relation to attachment to caregivers (Zhu et al., 2025; Russell et al., 2024; Mekuriaw et al., 2025; Xie et al., 2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a global perspective, child abuse remains a critical public health and social concern affecting millions of children worldwide. According to the World Health Organization (2024), approximately six in ten children, or about 400 million children under the age of five, are routinely exposed to physical punishment and or psychological violence by their parents or caregivers. This alarming statistic highlights the widespread nature of violence within the home environment, where children are expected to experience safety and protection. In addition, evidence from high-income countries further illustrates the seriousness of this issue. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (2025) reported that more than 200,000 offences related to child physical abuse were recorded by police in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland during the 2023/24 period, with 3.11 percent of these cases attributed directly to parents. These findings indicate that parental involvement in child abuse remains a persistent problem even in regions with established child protection systems. Moreover, regional disparities in the prevalence of child abuse by parents have been observed across the world. \u0026nbsp;Whitten et al. (2023) reported that West Asia and Africa recorded the highest prevalence of child abuse perpetrated by parents, at 42.8 percent and 38.3 percent, respectively. Such figures reflect the influence of social, cultural, and economic factors that may contribute to higher risks of violence against children in certain regions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is attributed to the issue that the consequences of child abuse extend beyond individual victims and families, and also affect the reputation and standing of a nation as a whole. When cases of child abuse, particularly those involving parents or caregivers, become prevalent or widely reported, they can undermine public trust in a country\u0026rsquo;s social institutions, child protection systems, and governance structures (Park et al., 2026; Ekici, 2025; Mahmoodi et al., 2026). Internationally, high rates of child abuse may draw negative attention from global organizations, human rights bodies, and foreign media, which leads to raised concerns about a nation\u0026rsquo;s commitment to safeguarding the rights and well-being of children.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuch perceptions can damage a country\u0026rsquo;s image as a safe and ethical society, especially in an era where global rankings, human rights reports, and international assessments play a significant role in shaping diplomatic relationships and international cooperation (Linadi \u0026amp; Ayubi, 2025; Neville et al., 2022). Moreover, the persistence of child abuse reflects systemic weaknesses in law enforcement, social welfare, education, and healthcare systems, which can further erode national credibility (Phattanasin et al., 2025). \u0026nbsp;In addition, child abuse contributes to long-term societal costs, including increased healthcare expenditure, reduced human capital development, and intergenerational cycles of violence, all of which can hinder national progress and economic competitiveness (Bullinger et al., 2025). Collectively, these consequences demonstrate that child abuse is not solely a private or familial matter but a national concern, as its prevalence and handling directly influence how a country is viewed on the global stage and its capacity to uphold fundamental human rights and social responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalaysia makes considerable efforts to safeguard its international reputation (Shukri et al., 2025). Therefore, the issue of child abuse needs to be given serious attention through more in-depth research, particularly as statistics from the Department of Social Welfare have shown an increase in child abuse cases from 1989 to 2021, as depicted in Figure 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost concerning is the severe consequences of parental physical abuse, which in extreme cases has resulted in the death of children (The U.S. Department of Justice, 2002). Childhood physical abuse is commonly defined as the intentional use of physical force by a caregiver that results in, or has the potential to result in, physical injury to a child (Garza et al., 2026). Such experiences represent a profound violation of the caregiving relationship, as the caregiver who is expected to provide protection and safety becomes a source of fear and harm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough existing literature has established a robust association between childhood physical abuse and insecure attachment outcomes (Ritz et al., 2025; Nejad et al., 2025; Talmon \u0026amp; Tsur, 2024; Desbiens et al., 2025; Ma\u0026ccedil;kalıet al., 2025; Kascakova et al., 2025), an important gap remains in understanding how this relationship may differ across gender. Despite increasing scholarly interest in gender differences in developmental and psychological outcomes, relatively few studies have explicitly examined gender as a moderating variable in the relationship between childhood physical abuse and family attachment. The moderating role of gender suggests that the strength or direction of the association between physical abuse and attachment may vary for males and females, potentially due to differences in socialization processes, emotional expression, coping mechanisms, and caregiver expectations. This lack of clarity limits the explanatory power of attachment theory and impedes the development of gender-sensitive prevention and intervention approaches. In response to this gap, the present study aims to examine the relationship between childhood family attachment and experiences of physical abuse, with a specific focus on the moderating role of gender.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Theoretical Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eAttachment theory, initially developed by John Bowlby (1969, 1988), explains how emotional bonds formed between infants and their primary caregivers serve a fundamental biological and evolutionary function. These bonds motivate children to seek closeness to caregivers in times of distress, thereby promoting safety, protection, and survival. Attachment is therefore not merely a learned or social behaviour, but an innate regulatory system that supports emotional security and healthy development from early life. When children experience consistent, responsive, and sensitive caregiving, they are more likely to develop secure attachment relationships that foster emotional regulation, stress management, and confidence in exploring their environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin this theoretical framework, caregivers play a pivotal role as sources of comfort, protection, and emotional support. Conversely, disruptions in caregiving, such as emotional unavailability, harsh discipline, or chronic stress, can undermine the formation of secure attachment bonds. Empirical evidence supports this perspective. For example, Madigan et al. (2016) reported that children with insecure attachment patterns are more likely to exhibit both internalising and externalising problems compared to securely attached children. These findings suggest that insecure attachment reflects broader difficulties in emotional regulation and behavioural adjustment, which may emerge in environments characterised by inconsistent or harmful caregiving practices. Importantly, caregivers\u0026rsquo; awareness of their role in nurturing attachment has been shown to promote more positive outcomes. Muntean and Ungureanu (2012) demonstrated that when parents actively support and prioritise secure attachment, children are more likely to develop stable and secure emotional bonds. This highlights the protective role of strong family attachment in reducing maladaptive parenting behaviours, including harsh or physically punitive discipline. More recent longitudinal evidence further strengthens the relevance of attachment theory to childhood maltreatment. Zhai et al. (2025) found that childhood maltreatment is associated not only with lower initial levels of parent\u0026ndash;child attachment but also with negative changes in attachment trajectories over time. Similarly, Haim-Nachum et al. (2024) showed that experiences of maltreatment can lead to persistent disruptions in emotional bonding, resulting in unstable or progressively deteriorating attachment relationships across development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, attachment theory provides a strong conceptual foundation for the present study by explaining how weaknesses in childhood family attachment may increase children\u0026rsquo;s vulnerability to physical abuse. In families where attachment bonds are insecure, caregivers may struggle to regulate their emotions, respond sensitively to children\u0026rsquo;s needs, or adopt non-violent disciplinary strategies. As a result, physical punishment may become more likely, reflecting breakdowns in the caregiver\u0026ndash;child relationship rather than isolated disciplinary decisions. This study, therefore, draws on attachment theory to examine how variations in childhood family attachment are systematically related to the risk of childhood physical abuse.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003ePrevious studies consistently show that childhood maltreatment and attachment play important roles in shaping emotional, behavioral, and psychological outcomes later in life. Across different populations and research designs, scholars agree that negative childhood experiences increase the risk of maladaptive outcomes, while secure attachment often acts as a protective factor that can reduce these negative effects (Lowell et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2023; Turgeon et al., 2023; Zhai et al., 2025; Papalia \u0026amp; Widom, 2024; Silva et al., 2026). Although the outcomes examined vary\u0026mdash;ranging from emotional problems and depression to narcissistic traits, aggression, and violent behavior\u0026mdash;these studies collectively highlight attachment as a key mechanism that explains how childhood maltreatment affects development over time. In addition, several studies emphasise that emotional maltreatment is particularly harmful and that supportive parent\u0026ndash;child relationships can buffer, though not always fully eliminate, its long-term consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLowell et al. (2014) examined how attachment influences the relationship between childhood maltreatment and later emotional and behavioral problems. Using data from 424 participants, they found that childhood maltreatment, especially emotional abuse, was strongly linked to poorer emotional and behavioral outcomes in young adulthood. Attachment to mothers and peers was also a strong predictor of these outcomes. Importantly, attachment explained additional differences in outcomes beyond the effects of maltreatment alone, suggesting that secure attachment can protect individuals even when they have experienced childhood abuse. Similarly, Wang et al. (2023) explored the relationship between childhood maltreatment, attachment security, and narcissism among 718 participants. Their findings showed that childhood maltreatment\u0026mdash;particularly emotional maltreatment\u0026mdash;was closely associated with vulnerable narcissism, such as fragile self-esteem and entitlement-related anger. In contrast, maltreatment had little or no relationship with grandiose narcissism. Attachment security played a key role in linking emotional maltreatment to narcissistic traits, reinforcing the idea that attachment processes help explain how early adversity shapes later personality features.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTurgeon et al. (2023) focused on attachment disorganization in young adulthood by examining childhood maltreatment and mother\u0026ndash;child emotional communication. Using a small longitudinal sample of 66 individuals from low-income families, the study found that childhood maltreatment increased the risk of hostile\u0026ndash;helpless attachment states in adulthood. However, positive emotional communication between mothers and children during early childhood reduced this risk, highlighting the protective role of early relational quality despite adverse experiences. Zhai et al. (2025) investigated the longitudinal effects of childhood maltreatment on depression among 1,030 children in China. Their results showed that higher levels of maltreatment were associated with increased depression over time. Early analyses suggested that attachment to both fathers and mothers partially explained this relationship. However, more advanced analyses indicated that although maltreatment clearly predicted depression, the protective effects of attachment were not statistically stable across time. This suggests that while attachment is important, its buffering role may vary across contexts and developmental stages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePapalia and Widom (2024) extended this literature by linking childhood maltreatment, adult attachment, and violent behavior. Following participants from childhood into their late forties, they found that childhood abuse and neglect increased the risk of violent behavior in adulthood. Adult attachment insecurity also raised this risk and partly explained why maltreated individuals were more likely to engage in violence. In particular, attachment anxiety\u0026mdash;not avoidance\u0026mdash;played a key role, suggesting that fear of abandonment and emotional dependence are important pathways linking early abuse to later violence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Sirparanta et al. (2024) examined whether parents\u0026rsquo; own histories of childhood maltreatment affect their children\u0026rsquo;s attachment outcomes. Based on a meta-analysis of 25 studies involving 2,592 children, the authors found only weak evidence that parental maltreatment history predicts children\u0026rsquo;s attachment insecurity and no clear effect on attachment disorganization. These findings suggest that although intergenerational effects exist, children\u0026rsquo;s attachment outcomes are influenced more strongly by other factors, such as current parenting practices and environmental conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, Silva et al. (2026) demonstrated how childhood maltreatment, attachment insecurity, and alcohol use interact to influence aggressive behavior in adulthood. Their study showed that early abuse and neglect increase insecure attachment and alcohol consumption, which together raise the risk of aggression later in life. This highlights how attachment insecurity can combine with maladaptive coping behaviors to intensify the long-term effects of childhood trauma. From a prevention and intervention perspective, Cyr and Alink (2017) emphasised that the child\u0026ndash;parent attachment relationship is central to preventing maltreatment and improving developmental outcomes. They argued that attachment-based interventions should be prioritised for vulnerable families and that parenting capacity assessments should focus more on parents\u0026rsquo; ability to change, particularly their sensitivity to children\u0026rsquo;s needs. Using an attachment framework, they suggest, can improve decisions about child placement and support more effective child protection practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature highlights the critical role of attachment in shaping the experiences and consequences of childhood maltreatment, while also revealing important gaps related to specific forms of abuse, gender differences, and cultural context. Although attachment is widely recognised as a protective factor, its relationship with childhood physical abuse remains underexplored, particularly in non-Western settings. Moreover, the moderating role of gender in this relationship has received limited empirical attention. These gaps underscore the need for research that directly examines how attachment relates to childhood physical abuse and whether this relationship differs between males and females. In response, the present study investigates the association between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse, with gender as a moderating variable, within the Malaysian context, thereby contributing to a more nuanced and culturally grounded understanding of child maltreatment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology ","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ei. Research Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional research design to examine the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse, as well as the moderating role of gender. The cross-sectional approach was deemed appropriate as it allows the assessment of associations between variables at a single point in time using retrospective self-reports. The target population comprised Malaysian young adults aged between 20 and 24 years, an age group considered suitable for recalling childhood experiences while having sufficient cognitive maturity to reflect on family relationships and disciplinary practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eii. Participants and Sampling Procedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe population of Malaysian young adults aged 20-24 is estimated at \u003cstrong\u003e3,155,500 individuals\u003c/strong\u003e. Using a \u003cstrong\u003enon-probability convenience sampling technique\u003c/strong\u003e, 416 respondents were recruited for this study. This sampling approach was selected due to practical constraints, including accessibility, time limitations, and the sensitivity of the research topic. Participants were recruited through online platforms, and voluntary participation was emphasized. Inclusion criteria required respondents to (i) be Malaysian citizens, (ii) fall within the specified age range of 20\u0026ndash;24 years, and (iii) provide informed consent prior to participation. The final sample size exceeded the minimum recommended threshold for regression-based moderation analysis, thereby ensuring adequate statistical power for hypothesis testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiii. Data collection instruments\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected using a self-administered structured questionnaire comprising three main sections: demographic information, childhood physical abuse, and childhood family attachment. All measurement items were adapted from established instruments and carefully modified to ensure cultural relevance and suitability for the Malaysian context and the study population. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale. For childhood family attachment, response options ranged from 1 (\u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e), while for childhood physical abuse, responses ranged from 1 (\u003cem\u003enever\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003ealways\u003c/em\u003e). A summary of the questionnaire items and their respective constructs is presented in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Questionnaire Items\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.9817%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70.2163%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChildhood Physical Abuse (CPA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.9817%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPA1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPA2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPA3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPA4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPA5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70.2163%;\"\u003e\n \u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhen I was a child, my parents hit, slapped, or spanked me as a form of punishment.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI was sometimes pushed, kicked, or beaten by my parents.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMy parents used objects such as belts, sticks, or hangers to discipline me.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI experienced injuries, bruises, or pain after being punished by my parent.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAs a child, I often feared being physically hurt by my parents when I made mistakes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.802%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChildhood Family Attachment (CFA)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.9817%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70.2163%;\"\u003e\n \u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI was happy being part of my family when I was a child.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI would do anything necessary to help my parents.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI felt emotionally close to one or both of my parent during my childhood.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eI enjoyed spending time with my parents when I was growing up.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigher scores indicate higher levels of perceived childhood physical abuse and stronger childhood family attachment, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiv. Procedure and ethical considerations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to data collection, \u003cstrong\u003eethical approval\u003c/strong\u003e was obtained from \u003cstrong\u003eUniversiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) Ethics Committee\u003c/strong\u003e (Approval No.: \u003cstrong\u003eUNIMAS/NC-22.02/09-17(05)\u003c/strong\u003e). Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, their voluntary participation, and their right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained. No personally identifiable information was collected, and all responses were used solely for academic research purposes. Given the sensitive nature of childhood abuse, participants were encouraged to respond honestly and were assured that their responses would be treated with the utmost confidentiality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. Data analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 23.0). The analysis proceeded in several stages to ensure the robustness and validity of the findings. First, descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages) were computed to summarise the demographic characteristics of the respondents and the central tendencies of the study variables. Next, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the bivariate relationships between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. A correlation heatmap was generated to visually represent the strength and direction of associations among the variables. To test the study hypotheses, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was employed. Model summary and ANOVA tests were conducted to evaluate the explanatory power of the regression models and their overall statistical significance. Linear regression analysis was then used to examine the magnitude, direction, and statistical significance of each predictor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to interpretation, several diagnostic tests were performed to ensure that the assumptions of regression analysis were met. Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) and collinearity diagnostics were examined to assess potential multicollinearity among the independent variables; VIF values below the recommended threshold indicated no serious multicollinearity concerns. Case-wise diagnostics were also inspected to identify potential outliers or influential cases that could unduly affect the regression estimates. To examine the moderating role of gender, an interaction analysis was conducted by including the interaction term between childhood family attachment and gender in the regression model. All continuous variables were mean-centred prior to creating the interaction term to reduce multicollinearity. Where a significant interaction effect was observed, simple slope analysis was performed to further interpret the nature of the moderation effect by examining the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse at different levels of gender.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003evi.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eReliability analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInternal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha coefficient, which measures the extent to which items within a construct are interrelated and consistently capture the same underlying concept. Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha values range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater internal consistency among the items. In social science research, a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha value of 0.70 or higher is generally regarded as acceptable, indicating that the items reliably measure the intended construct. In contrast, values above 0.80 reflect good reliability. As presented in Table 2, the Childhood Physical Abuse scale recorded a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of 0.820, suggesting good internal consistency and a high degree of coherence among the five items measuring experiences of physical abuse during childhood. Similarly, the Childhood Family Attachment scale yielded a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of 0.709, indicating acceptable reliability and confirming that the four items consistently reflect the construct of emotional closeness and attachment within the family context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2: Reliability Analysis for Study Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.9815%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.3305%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNumber of Items\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChildhood Physical Abuse\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.9815%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.820\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.3305%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 44.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChildhood Family Attachment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 26.9815%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.709\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 28.3305%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese results indicate that the measurement scales used in this study are reliable and suitable for further statistical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 presents the descriptive statistics for childhood family attachment (CFA), gender, and childhood physical abuse (CPA) based on 416 respondents. Overall, the results suggest a sample characterised by relatively strong family attachment and low to moderate experiences of physical abuse during childhood. The mean score for CFA is 4.34 (SD = 0.77) on a five-point scale, with values ranging from 1 to 5. This indicates that, on average, respondents reported high levels of childhood family attachment, reflecting generally positive emotional bonds and supportive family relationships during childhood. The relatively small standard deviation suggests that most respondents shared similar perceptions of strong family attachment, with limited dispersion around the mean. For CPA, the mean score is 2.07 (SD = 0.84), also measured on a five-point scale. This relatively low mean implies that experiences of childhood physical abuse were generally infrequent among the respondents. Although the full range of responses (1 to 5) is observed, the lower average score and moderate variability indicate that severe or frequent physical abuse was not commonly reported. However, some respondents did experience higher levels of abuse. Regarding gender, the mean of 1.31 (SD = 0.46) reflects the coding of gender categories (e.g., 1 = male, 2 = female), suggesting the sample is skewed toward one gender. The limited variability is expected for a dichotomous variable and indicates a relatively unbalanced gender distribution in the sample. Taken together, these descriptive findings provide an important context for subsequent analyses by showing that the sample essentially experienced strong family attachment alongside relatively low levels of childhood physical abuse, allowing for meaningful examination of how variations in CFA may relate to CPA in later inferential models.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Descriptive Statistics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4748%;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2978%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMaximum\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4748%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e416\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2978%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4748%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e416\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2978%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.4748%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e416\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2978%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.2797%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6942%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.84\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 reports the correlation matrix examining the bivariate relationships among childhood physical abuse, childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. Overall, the correlations are minor to moderate, indicating that multicollinearity is unlikely to pose a problem and that each variable represents a distinct construct within the study. A moderate negative correlation is observed between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse (r = \u0026minus;0.268), suggesting that higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with lower levels of childhood physical abuse. This finding is consistent with theoretical expectations, as strong emotional bonds and supportive family environments are generally linked to reduced use of harsh or abusive disciplinary practices during childhood. The relationship between gender and childhood physical abuse is positive but weak (r = 0.159), indicating that experiences of childhood physical abuse differ slightly by gender. Although the strength of this association is limited, it suggests that one gender group may be marginally more exposed to physical abuse than the other, justifying further examination using multivariate and moderation analyses. Notably, the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender shows a very weak positive correlation with childhood physical abuse (r = 0.065). This indicates that, at the bivariate level, the combined influence of childhood family attachment and gender has only a minimal direct association with childhood physical abuse. However, this does not rule out a meaningful moderation effect, as interaction terms are intended to capture conditional relationships that are more appropriately assessed within a regression framework rather than through simple correlations. Furthermore, the correlations between the interaction term and its component variables are low (r = 0.149 with childhood family attachment and r = \u0026minus;0.069 with gender), which is desirable and indicates that the interaction term does not substantially overlap with the main effects. Taken together, these findings support proceeding with a moderation analysis to formally test whether gender moderates the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:;;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;'\u003eTable 2: Correlation Heatmap\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\" style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:0cm;line-height:115%;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\n \u003ctable style=\"width:240.0pt;border-collapse:collapse;border:none;\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eCPA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eCFA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eGender\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: 1pt solid windowtext;border-left: none;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;border-right: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003ePAG\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eCPA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(99, 190, 123);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(248, 105, 107);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e-0.268\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(246, 233, 132);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e0.159\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(254, 220, 129);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e0.065\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eCFA\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(248, 105, 107);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e-0.268\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(99, 190, 123);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(251, 167, 119);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e-0.087\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(248, 233, 132);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e0.149\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eGender\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(246, 233, 132);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e0.159\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(251, 167, 119);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e-0.087\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(99, 190, 123);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border: none;background: rgb(251, 173, 120);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e-0.069\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003eCFA*G\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(254, 220, 129);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e0.065\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(248, 233, 132);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e0.149\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(251, 173, 120);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e-0.069\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 48pt;border-top: none;border-right: none;border-left: none;border-image: initial;border-bottom: 1pt solid windowtext;background: rgb(99, 190, 123);padding: 0cm 5.4pt;height: 15pt;vertical-align: bottom;\"\u003e\n \u003cp style='margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;font-size:16px;font-family:\"Aptos\",sans-serif;text-align:right;'\u003e\u003cspan style='font-family:\"Times New Roman\",serif;color:black;'\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 presents the model summary for the regression analysis examining the effects of childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender on childhood physical abuse. The results indicate that the overall model provides a statistically significant explanation of variation in childhood physical abuse. The model yields an R value of 0.321, indicating a modest overall association between the predictors and childhood physical abuse. The R-square value of 0.103 shows that approximately 10.3 percent of the variance in childhood physical abuse is jointly explained by childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction. After adjusting for the number of predictors, the adjusted R-square remains similar at 0.097, suggesting the model\u0026apos;s explanatory power is stable and not overstated. The standard error of the estimate of 0.80012 indicates the average distance between the observed values of childhood physical abuse and the values predicted by the model, reflecting an acceptable level of prediction accuracy for social and behavioural research. In addition, the change in the F statistic is statistically significant (p \u0026lt; 0.001), confirming that the inclusion of childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction significantly improves the model compared with a model without predictors. Although the proportion of variance explained is relatively modest, this magnitude is typical in studies examining complex family and psychosocial experiences. The results suggest that childhood family attachment and gender, together with their combined effect, contribute meaningfully to understanding variations in childhood physical abuse, supporting further interpretation of the regression coefficients and the moderation effect of gender.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3: Model Summary\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eR Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.7023%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R-Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.5115%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Error of the Estimate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.1298%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig. F Change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.321\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.6489%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.7023%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.097\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.5115%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.80012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.5038%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e412\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.1298%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 presents the analysis of variance results for the regression model with childhood physical abuse as the dependent variable and childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender as predictors. The findings indicate that the overall regression model is statistically significant. The regression sum of squares (30.394) reflects the portion of variability in childhood physical abuse explained by the predictors included in the model. In contrast, the residual sum of squares (263.762) represents the unexplained variation. With three degrees of freedom for the regression and 412 degrees of freedom for the residual, the model yields an F statistic of 15.825, which is statistically significant at the 1 percent level (p \u0026lt; 0.001). This result indicates that the predictors, taken together, significantly improve the prediction of childhood physical abuse compared with a model that includes no explanatory variables. The relatively larger residual sum of squares suggests that, while childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction contribute meaningfully to explaining childhood physical abuse, a substantial proportion of variation remains attributable to other factors not included in the model. Nevertheless, the significant F value confirms that the model as a whole provides a better fit than the null model, supporting the inclusion of the predictors in subsequent interpretation of individual coefficients and the moderation effect of gender.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4: ANOVA\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.8812%;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSum of Squares\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edf\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.8812%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegression\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.394\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.131\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.825\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001b\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.8812%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e263.762\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e412\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.8812%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.2835%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e294.157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e415\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15.7088%;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5 reports the regression coefficients for the model predicting childhood physical abuse from childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. Overall, the results indicate that both the main effects and the interaction term contribute significantly to explaining variation in childhood physical abuse. The constant term is positive and statistically significant (B = 3.03, p \u0026lt; 0.001), indicating the expected level of childhood physical abuse when childhood family attachment and gender are at their reference or zero values. Although the constant itself is not of substantive interest, it provides the baseline against which the effects of the predictors are interpreted. Childhood family attachment shows a negative and highly significant effect on childhood physical abuse (B = \u0026minus;0.298, p \u0026lt; 0.001). This result indicates that higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with lower levels of childhood physical abuse, holding gender constant. Substantively, a one-unit increase in childhood family attachment is associated with a reduction of approximately 0.30 units in childhood physical abuse, highlighting the protective role of strong family attachment during childhood. The confidence interval does not include zero, further confirming the robustness of this negative relationship. Gender has a positive and statistically significant coefficient (B = 0.262, p = 0.002), suggesting that childhood physical abuse differs by gender. This finding implies that, on average, one gender group reports higher levels of childhood physical abuse than the other, after accounting for childhood family attachment. The confidence interval for gender is entirely positive, reinforcing the presence of a meaningful gender-based difference. Importantly, the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender is positive and statistically significant (B = 0.092, p = 0.015). This result provides evidence of a moderation effect, indicating that the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse varies by gender. Specifically, the positive interaction term suggests that the protective effect of childhood family attachment against childhood physical abuse is weaker for one gender compared with the other. In other words, while stronger family attachment reduces physical abuse for both genders, the magnitude of this reduction differs across gender groups. The confidence interval for the interaction term does not cross zero, supporting the reliability of this moderating effect. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that childhood family attachment plays a central role in reducing childhood physical abuse, that experiences of physical abuse differ by gender, and that gender significantly conditions the strength of the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. This underscores the importance of considering gender differences when examining family dynamics and childhood maltreatment outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5: Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"541\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnstandardized Coefficients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSig.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 176px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e95.0% Confidence Interval for B\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Error\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUpper Bound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.262\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.583\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.516\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.545\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.298\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.052\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-5.759\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.196\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.262\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.094\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA*G\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.092\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 84px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.444\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.015\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.018\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.166\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6 reports the variance inflation factor values for childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. The results indicate that multicollinearity is not a concern in the regression model. All variance inflation factor values are very close to 1: 1.029 for childhood family attachment, 1.011 for gender, and 1.026 for the interaction term. These values are well below commonly accepted threshold levels (for example, 5 or 10), indicating that the predictors are not highly correlated with one another.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe low variance inflation factor for the interaction term further suggests that including the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender does not distort the regression coefficient estimates. These findings confirm that the regression estimates are stable and reliable, and that the observed effects of childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction on childhood physical abuse can be interpreted with confidence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 6: Variance Inflation Factor\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVIF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 137px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA*G\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.026\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7 presents the collinearity diagnostics for the regression model predicting childhood physical abuse using childhood family attachment, gender, and the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender. Overall, the diagnostics indicate that there is no serious multicollinearity in the model. The condition index values range from 1.000 to 14.794. According to commonly used guidelines, condition index values below 15 suggest weak or no multicollinearity, values between 15 and 30 indicate moderate multicollinearity, and values above 30 signal severe multicollinearity. In this model, the highest condition index is 14.794, which remains below the threshold of concern, indicating that multicollinearity is unlikely to distort the regression estimates. Further support comes from the variance proportions. Although the highest condition index (Dimension 4) shows large variance proportions for the constant and childhood family attachment, these high proportions do not coincide with similarly high variance proportions for multiple predictors within the same dimension. Multicollinearity is typically problematic only when two or more predictors exhibit high variance proportions (typically above 0.50) within a dimension with a high condition index. This pattern is not observed here. Additionally, the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender loads primarily on Dimension 2, while gender loads most strongly on Dimension 3, indicating that these variables contribute to distinct dimensions of the model rather than overlapping excessively. This separation further suggests that the interaction term does not introduce instability into the model. Taken together, the collinearity diagnostics confirm that childhood family attachment, gender, and their interaction can be included simultaneously in the regression model without concern for multicollinearity. These results reinforce the findings from the variance inflation factor analysis and support the reliability and interpretability of the regression coefficients explaining childhood physical abuse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 7: Collinearity Diagnostics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDimension\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEigenvalue\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCondition Index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 197px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariance Proportions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Constant)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFA*G\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.911\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.992\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.713\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.970\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.085\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.869\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.850\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 86px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.013\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.794\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 85px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.980\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 50px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.910\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.130\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8 presents the casewise diagnostics for the regression model with childhood physical abuse as the dependent variable. The casewise diagnostics indicate the presence of a small number of outliers in the model predicting childhood physical abuse, as four cases exhibit standardized residuals greater than \u0026plusmn;3.0. These cases represent respondents who reported the maximum level of childhood physical abuse, with observed values substantially higher than those predicted by the model. However, these outliers account for less than 1 percent of the total sample, suggesting that they are rare and not systematic. Importantly, the existence of these outliers does not imply a problem with the model or the data quality. In studies involving sensitive and complex experiences such as childhood physical abuse, extreme observations are expected and may reflect genuinely severe individual circumstances that are not fully explained by general predictors such as childhood family attachment and gender. Unless additional influence diagnostics (for example, Cook\u0026rsquo;s distance or leverage values) indicate that these cases exert disproportionate influence on the regression estimates, there is no strong justification for their exclusion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 8: Casewise Diagnostics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCase Number\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStd. Residual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePredicted Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResidual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.313\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.350\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.650\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e282\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.308\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.354\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.646\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e337\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.414\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e407\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.520\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.184\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.816\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 illustrates the interaction between childhood family attachment and gender in predicting childhood physical abuse, offering a clear visual interpretation of the moderation effect identified in the regression analysis. For both males and females, childhood physical abuse decreases as childhood family attachment increases, indicating that stronger family attachment is generally associated with lower levels of physical abuse during childhood. However, the magnitude of this protective effect differs by gender. The slope for males is steeper, showing a more pronounced reduction in childhood physical abuse when moving from low to high childhood family attachment. In contrast, the slope for females is flatter, suggesting that although higher childhood family attachment is also associated with lower physical abuse among females, the reduction is less substantial compared to males. Across both low and high levels of childhood family attachment, females consistently report higher levels of childhood physical abuse than males. This pattern visually confirms the significant interaction effect found in the regression results, demonstrating that gender moderates the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. In substantive terms, while childhood family attachment serves as a protective factor for both genders, its buffering effect against physical abuse is stronger for males than for females.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9 presents the simple slope analysis examining the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse separately for males and females. The results provide further insight into the moderating role of gender observed in the interaction analysis. For males, childhood family attachment has a negative and statistically significant effect on childhood physical abuse (\u0026beta; = \u0026minus;0.206, t = \u0026minus;3.257, p = 0.001). This indicates that higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with a substantial reduction in childhood physical abuse among males. In practical terms, as family attachment strengthens, the likelihood or intensity of physical abuse during childhood decreases significantly for males, highlighting a strong protective effect. In contrast, for females, the slope coefficient is also negative (\u0026beta; = \u0026minus;0.114), suggesting that higher childhood family attachment is associated with lower childhood physical abuse. However, this relationship is not statistically significant (t = \u0026minus;1.363, p = 0.174). This implies that although the direction of the association is consistent with expectations, the protective effect of childhood family attachment is weaker and less reliable in females than in males. Taken together, these findings confirm that gender moderates the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse. Specifically, childhood family attachment significantly reduces physical abuse among males, whereas the same effect is not statistically evident among females. This pattern is consistent with the interaction plot and regression results, underscoring the importance of considering gender-specific mechanisms when examining the protective role of family attachment in childhood abuse outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 9: Slope Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSlope Coefficient (\u0026beta;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.206\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;3.257\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 152px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;0.114\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;1.363\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.174\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study provide deeper insight into the protective role of childhood family attachment in shaping experiences of childhood physical abuse, while also highlighting important gender-based differences in this relationship. Consistent with attachment theory, higher levels of childhood family attachment are associated with lower levels of physical abuse, underscoring the importance of secure emotional bonds, parental responsiveness, and a supportive family environment. Families characterised by warmth, trust, and open communication are more likely to adopt constructive discipline strategies and effective conflict resolution, thereby reducing children\u0026rsquo;s exposure to harsh or abusive practices. These findings are supported by previous research. Zhai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) showed that the relationship between childhood maltreatment and child depression is partly explained by the quality of attachment with both fathers and mothers, reinforcing the role of parental attachment as a key protective mechanism. Similarly, Thompson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e) found that stronger attachment between children and their birth parents reduces dissociative symptoms, with this effect operating through caregiver\u0026ndash;child attachment and placement stability. Together, these studies align with the present findings by demonstrating that secure attachment relationships play a critical role in buffering children against adverse psychological and behavioural outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe significant effect of gender in the present study indicates that childhood physical abuse is not experienced uniformly by boys and girls. Meng and D\u0026rsquo;Arcy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) likewise reported that childhood abuse is strongly associated with gender and that men and women differ in their mental health outcomes later in life. These differences may reflect gendered socialisation practices, cultural norms, and parental expectations that influence disciplinary approaches. In many contexts, boys are more likely to be subjected to stricter or more physical discipline due to beliefs that they require firmer control or are more prone to behavioural problems. In contrast, girls may be more exposed to non-physical forms of maltreatment, such as emotional or psychological abuse, which are not fully captured by measures of physical abuse. This perspective is consistent with Liu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2026\u003c/span\u003e), who found that girls are more emotionally affected by physical neglect and abuse, particularly in how they understand and express their emotions. These patterns help explain why gender emerges as an independent predictor of childhood physical abuse in the model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMost importantly, the significant interaction between childhood family attachment and gender indicates that the protective effect of family attachment operates differently for males and females. The stronger buffering effect observed among males suggests that high levels of family attachment substantially reduce the likelihood of physical abuse for boys. One possible explanation is that secure attachment helps reduce externalising behaviours among boys, which are often cited as triggers for physical punishment. In addition, strong emotional bonds may encourage parents to respond to boys with greater empathy and support, counteracting traditional norms that legitimise harsher discipline. However, this gendered pattern appears to be context-dependent. Wang (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) showed that fathers\u0026rsquo; harsh parenting is explicitly linked to boys\u0026rsquo; aggressive behaviour, whereas mothers\u0026rsquo; harsh parenting is associated with verbal aggression in both boys and girls. This suggests that parental roles and gender-specific parenting practices may shape how attachment translates into protection against abuse. Taken together, these findings highlight that while childhood family attachment is a crucial protective factor, its effectiveness varies by gender and parental context.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides empirical evidence on the protective role of childhood family attachment in reducing experiences of childhood physical abuse among emerging adults. Consistent with attachment theory, the results demonstrate that stronger childhood family attachment is associated with lower levels of childhood physical abuse, highlighting the importance of secure emotional bonds, parental responsiveness, and a supportive family environment in shaping children\u0026rsquo;s early life experiences. Beyond this direct relationship, the findings reveal that gender plays a significant role in childhood physical abuse, both as an independent predictor and as a moderator. The interaction effect shows that the protective influence of childhood family attachment is stronger for males than for females, suggesting that secure attachment relationships are particularly effective in buffering boys against physical abuse. This gendered pattern underscores that childhood physical abuse is not experienced uniformly and that the mechanisms through which family attachment operates differ across genders. Thus, this study contributes to the literature by demonstrating that childhood family attachment remains a crucial protective factor well into emerging adulthood, while also emphasizing the need to consider gender-specific pathways in understanding and preventing childhood physical abuse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings offer several important policy implications for child welfare, family development, and violence prevention. First, policies and intervention programmes should prioritise strengthening family attachment and parenting practices from early childhood. Parenting education programmes that promote emotional warmth, positive communication, and non-violent discipline strategies can play a critical role in reducing the risk of physical abuse. Such programmes should be integrated into existing family and community services, particularly for families identified as at risk. Second, the significant role of gender suggests that gender-sensitive prevention strategies are essential. Policies should recognise that boys and girls may experience and respond to physical abuse differently. For example, interventions targeting boys may focus on managing externalising behaviours through positive reinforcement and emotional regulation, while ensuring that parents are supported in adopting empathetic, non-violent disciplinary approaches. At the same time, policies should not overlook girls, who may experience other forms of maltreatment that are less visible but equally harmful. Third, child protection agencies and schools should incorporate attachment-informed frameworks in their assessment and prevention efforts. Early identification of weak family attachment can serve as a warning signal for potential abuse, allowing timely intervention before maltreatment escalates. Strengthening collaboration between schools, healthcare providers, and social services can further enhance the effectiveness of such preventive measures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Suggestions for Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, the study relies on self-reported and retrospective data. Respondents were asked to recall their childhood experiences during emerging adulthood, which may not always be accurate. Memories can fade or change over time, and some respondents may be unwilling to report sensitive experiences such as physical abuse. As a result, the levels of childhood physical abuse and family attachment may be underreported or overreported. Second, the study's cross-sectional design limits the ability to identify cause-and-effect relationships. Although the findings show a clear association between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse, the study cannot confirm whether weak family attachment leads to higher abuse or whether abusive experiences weaken attachment. Longitudinal data would allow researchers to observe changes over time and better establish causal pathways. Third, the sample's gender distribution is unbalanced. This imbalance may affect the accuracy of gender comparisons and limit the generalisability of the findings. Some gender differences observed in the study may be due to unequal sample sizes rather than actual differences in experience. Fourth, the study focuses only on childhood physical abuse. Other forms of maltreatment, such as emotional abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect, were not examined. These forms of abuse may be more common, especially among females, and may also be closely linked to family attachment. Excluding them may underestimate the full impact of childhood adversity. Finally, cultural and social factors were not directly included in the analysis. Parenting styles, discipline practices, and views on physical punishment differ across cultures and social contexts. Without considering these factors, the findings may not fully apply to other populations or cultural settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should address these limitations. Longitudinal studies are recommended to track children and families over time and better understand how family attachment affects the risk of abuse across different stages of development. Future studies should also include multiple forms of childhood maltreatment to provide a more complete understanding of adverse childhood experiences. In addition, examining attachment to different caregivers, such as mothers and fathers, may help explain how specific parental roles influence abuse risk. Researchers should also consider cultural, socioeconomic, and family context factors, as these may shape parenting behaviour and attachment patterns. Finally, using larger, more representative samples would improve the generalisability of the findings and support the development of more effective and inclusive prevention policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics Approval:\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the American Psychological Association(APA) and relevant institutional research guidelines. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) Ethics Committee (Approval No.: UNIMAS/NC-22.02/09\u0026ndash;17(05)). All participants were fully informed about the purpose and procedures of the study. They were assured that their participation was entirely voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. Data collection procedures ensured anonymity and confidentiality, and no identifying or sensitive personal information was recorded. The research involved minimal risk to participants and was conducted in full compliance with established ethical standards for research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants in this study provided written informed consent, either in online format, prior to their participation in the research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConflict of Interest:\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eM.S.S. conceptualised the study, developed the research framework, supervised the overall research process, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. F.M. and M.J.A.R. contributed to data collection, questionnaire design, and preliminary data analysis. A.S. assisted with the literature review and methodological refinement. N.S.A. contributed to statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and manuscript editing. R.M.H. contributed to the discussion section and provided critical revisions to improve the intellectual content of the manuscript. All authors reviewed, revised, and approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to express gratitude to Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) and Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study were generated from a questionnaire survey and contain sensitive personal information. Due to ethical and confidentiality considerations, the data are not publicly available. However, anonymised data may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo Funding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoat, A. A., Hirano, K. A., \u0026amp; Roehlkepartain, E. (2024). Parent and adolescent perceptions of parent\u0026ndash;child developmental relationships: The role of family routines. \u003cem\u003eFamily Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, 74\u003c/em\u003e(1), 395\u0026ndash;411. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13107\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowlby, J. (1969). \u003cem\u003eAttachment\u003c/em\u003e. Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowlby, J. (1988). \u003cem\u003eA secure base: Parent\u0026ndash;child attachment and healthy human development\u003c/em\u003e. Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBullinger, L. R., Raissian, K. M., Klika, B., Merrick, M., \u0026amp; Thibodeau, E. (2025). More than snuggles: The effect of paid family leave on infant maltreatment. \u003cem\u003eChild Maltreatment, 31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 98\u0026ndash;110. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595251318939\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCyr, C., \u0026amp; Alink, L. R. A. (2017). \u003cem\u003eChild maltreatment: The central roles of parenting capacities and attachment\u003c/em\u003e. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 81\u0026ndash;86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDesbiens, F., Brassard, A., Godbout, N., Savard, C., Daspe, M.-\u0026Egrave;., Lafontaine, M.-F., \u0026amp; Dugal, C. (2025). Therapeutic alliance with perpetrators of intimate partner violence: The roles of childhood interpersonal trauma and attachment insecurity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Aggression, Maltreatment \u0026amp; Trauma, 34\u003c/em\u003e(4), 467\u0026ndash;487. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2025.2474606\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDon, B. P., Simpson, J. A., Fredrickson, B. L., \u0026amp; Algoe, S. B. (2025). Interparental positivity spillover theory: How parents\u0026rsquo; positive relational interactions influence children. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science, 20\u003c/em\u003e(4), 639\u0026ndash;668. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231220626\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEkici, \u0026Ouml;. (2025). The role of media in creating an environment of trust in society. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education and Social Sciences Research, 6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 121\u0026ndash;136. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18099053\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGarza, H. H., Piper, K. E., \u0026amp; Lawson, K. A. (2026). Physical abuse of young children reported by medical professionals in the United States, 2014\u0026ndash;2023. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Pediatrics, 13\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2025.1718486\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHaim-Nachum, S., Lazarov, A., Zabag, R., Martin, A., Bergman, M., Neria, Y., \u0026amp; Amsalem, D. (2024). Self-stigma mediates the relationships between childhood maltreatment and symptom levels of PTSD, depression, and anxiety. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychotraumatology, 15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2370174. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2370174\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKascakova, N., Furstova, J., Hasto, J., \u0026amp; Tavel, P. (2025). Associations of multiple adverse childhood experiences, attachment insecurity, and loneliness with physical and mental health difficulties in a representative Slovak sample. \u003cem\u003ePreventive Medicine Reports, 50\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.102982\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLowell, A., Renk, K., \u0026amp; Havill Adgate, A. (2014). \u003cem\u003eThe role of attachment in the relationship between child maltreatment and later emotional and behavioral functioning\u003c/em\u003e. Child Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect, 38(9), 1436\u0026ndash;1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.02.006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLinadi, K. E., \u0026amp; Ayubi, D. (2025). Child abuse in Indonesia: A national trend analysis and health promotion response (2016\u0026ndash;2024). In \u003cem\u003eThe 6th International Conference on Public Health for Tropical and Coastal Development\u003c/em\u003e (p. 193). https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202519300080\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, Y., Liu, S., Preece, D. A., Gross, J. J., Zhao, Z., et al. (2026). Childhood maltreatment and alexithymia: A network analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders, 343\u003c/em\u003e, 120876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.120876\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMa\u0026ccedil;kalı, Z., G\u0026ouml;kdağ, C., \u0026amp; Toksoy, Ş. E. (2025). The structural associations among childhood traumas, attachment dimensions, and relational needs. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology, 44\u003c/em\u003e, 13367\u0026ndash;13377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08070-w\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMahmoodi, M., Sharifi, H., Zahedi, R., Malekmohammadi, N., Sharafoddin, M., Salarpour, E., Bazrafshan, A., Jandaghi, A., Najafi, M., \u0026amp; Chegeni, M. (2026). Sexual abuse in street children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eSexuality \u0026amp; Culture\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-025-10497-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMadigan, S., Brumariu, L. E., Villani, V., Atkinson, L., \u0026amp; LyonsRuth, K. (2016). Representational and questionnaire measures of attachment: A meta-analysis of relations to child internalizing and externalizing problems. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 142\u003c/em\u003e(4), 367\u0026ndash;399. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000029\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeng, X., \u0026amp; D\u0026rsquo;Arcy, C. (2016). Gender moderates the relationship between childhood abuse and internalizing and substance use disorders later in life: A cross-sectional analysis. \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychiatry, 16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 401. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-1071-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMekuriaw, B. Y., Getnet, B., Seid, E., Teferi, T., Alemwork, A., Aschale, M., \u0026amp; Tsega, A. (2025). Prevalence and associated factors of psychological distress among caregivers of children with malnutrition: A cross-sectional study. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health, 25\u003c/em\u003e, 505. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21692-w\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMuntean, A., \u0026amp; Ungureanu, R. (2012). Adoptions of children in Romania: Applying attachment theory. \u003cem\u003eProcedia \u0026ndash; Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33\u003c/em\u003e, 6\u0026ndash;10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.072\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNational Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. (2025, July). \u003cem\u003ePhysical abuse statistics briefing\u003c/em\u003e. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/statistics-briefings/physical-abuse\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNejad, M. H., Damirchi, E. S., Sadeghi, M., \u0026amp; Homayoon, M. N. (2025). Developing a model of experiential avoidance based on childhood trauma and victimization, mediated by insecure attachment styles. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Trauma \u0026amp; Dissociation, 9\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2025.100513\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeville, S. E., Zidan, T., Williams, A., \u0026amp; Rotabi-Casares, K. S. (2022). Child maltreatment and protection in the Arab Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A scoping review. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect, 134\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105924\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePapalia, N., \u0026amp; Widom, C. S. (2024). Do insecure adult attachment styles mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and violent behavior? \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Psychopathology, 36\u003c/em\u003e, 636\u0026ndash;647. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579422001468\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePark, K., Eastman, A. L., G\u0026oacute;mez, A., \u0026amp; Courtney, M. E. (2026). Risks of incarceration: Impact of social support networks during the transition to adulthood. \u003cem\u003eSocial Work Research\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svaf026\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePertiwi, Y. W., Triantoro, M., Indriyani, D., \u0026amp; Al-Amin. (2025). Character education from an early age: Family strategies in developing positive values. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3\u003c/em\u003e(4), 343\u0026ndash;354.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePhattanasin, K., Yaseen, M., \u0026amp; Thummanitchayuth, D. (2025). Bridging the gap: International standards and domestic realities in Pakistan\u0026rsquo;s child protection laws. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Posthumanism, 5\u003c/em\u003e(6), 241\u0026ndash;256. https://doi.org/10.63332/joph.v5i6.1990\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePollak, S. D., \u0026amp; Gunnar, M. R. (2025). What developmental science has to say about caregiving. \u003cem\u003eDaedalus, 154\u003c/em\u003e(1), 36\u0026ndash;51. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02122\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRitz, L., Mauny, N., Montcharmont, C., Dessommes, N., Jacquet, D., \u0026amp; Lemercier-Dugarin, M. (2025). Indirect association between childhood maltreatment and food and alcohol disturbance through insecure attachment in university students. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Eating Disorders\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-025-01321-y\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRussell, J. D., Heyn, S. A., Peverill, M., DiMaio, S., \u0026amp; Herringa, R. J. (2024). Traumatic and adverse childhood experiences and developmental differences in psychiatric risk. \u003cem\u003eJAMA Psychiatry, 82\u003c/em\u003e(1), 66\u0026ndash;74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2024.3231\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShukri, S., Batool, F., \u0026amp; Yilmaz, I. (2025). Civilisational chauvinism: Islamic heritage in the foreign policies of Mahathir, Sharif, and Erdoğan. In \u003cem\u003eInstrumentalisation of religion in electoral politics\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2848-6_6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSilva, D., F\u0026aacute;vero, M., Del Campo, A., Sousa-Gomes, V., Silva, C., Moreira, P., \u0026amp; Moreira, D. (2026). From victimization to aggression: The effect of adverse childhood experiences, attachment, and alcohol consumption on aggressors. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000577\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSirparanta, A. E., Danner Touati, C., Cyr, C., \u0026amp; Miljkovitch, R. (2024). Parental History of Childhood Maltreatment and Offspring Attachment Insecurity and Disorganization: Two Meta-Analyses. \u003cem\u003eTrauma, Violence, \u0026amp; Abuse\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241282995\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTalmon, A., \u0026amp; Tsur, N. (2024). Intergenerational transmission of posttraumatic orientation to bodily signals following child maltreatment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence, 40\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241285874\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThompson, J. N., Salazar, A. M., \u0026amp; Taussig, H. N. (2026). Parent\u0026ndash;child attachment and trauma-related dissociation among youth in out-of-home care: The age-dependent roles of caregiver\u0026ndash;child attachment and placement duration. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect, 138\u003c/em\u003e, 107883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2026.107883\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurgeon, J., Milot, T., St-Laurent, D., \u0026amp; Dubois-Comtois, K. (2023). Association between childhood maltreatment and attachment disorganization in young adulthood: The protective role of early mother\u0026ndash;child interactions. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect, 143\u003c/em\u003e, 106281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106281\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eU.S. Department of Justice. (2002). \u003cem\u003eFamily violence statistics: Including statistics on strangers and acquaintances\u003c/em\u003e. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/family-violence-statistics-including-statistics-strangers-and-acquaintances\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, X., Yu, L., \u0026amp; Li, J. (2023). \u003cem\u003eRelationships between childhood maltreatment, attachment security, and features of narcissism: A network analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Personality and Individual Differences, 200, 111890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111890\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhitten, T., Tzoumakis, S., Green, M. J., \u0026amp; Dean, K. (2023). Global prevalence of childhood exposure to physical violence within domestic and family relationships in the general population: A systematic review and proportional meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eTrauma, Violence, \u0026amp; Abuse, 25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1411\u0026ndash;1430. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231179133\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2024, November 5). \u003cem\u003eChild maltreatment\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-maltreatment\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, M. (2017). Harsh parenting and peer acceptance in Chinese early adolescents: Three child aggression subtypes as mediators and child gender as moderator. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect, 63\u003c/em\u003e, 30\u0026ndash;40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, M., Lin, Y., Xu, Q., Liu, H., Li, Y., \u0026amp; Duan, Q. (1995). Chinese parents\u0026rsquo; education anxiety, parenting, and problem behaviors in preschool children: Child competence as moderator. \u003cem\u003eFamily Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Science, 74\u003c/em\u003e(2), 969\u0026ndash;984. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13135\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXie, Z., Zhang, Z., Li, X., Thabrew, H., Bi, K., Tang, S., \u0026amp; Zhou, J. (2025). Risk or refuge? The dual role of affinity for solitude and deviant peer affiliation in the link between childhood maltreatment and youth depression: A mixed-methods study. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review, 178\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108518\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhai, R., Yang, S., \u0026amp; Zhang, L. (2025). Does parent\u0026ndash;child attachment play a role in the relationship between childhood maltreatment and depression? Evidence from a longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eChild Abuse \u0026amp; Neglect, 135\u003c/em\u003e, 107643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107643\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhu, J., Deneault, A.-A., Turgeon, J., \u0026amp; Madigan, S. (2025). Caregiver and child adverse childhood experiences: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003ePediatrics, 155\u003c/em\u003e(2). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2024-068578\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Attachment, childhood physical abuse, gender, emerging adults","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8846037/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8846037/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eChildhood physical abuse has lasting implications for individual well-being, yet empirical evidence on protective family factors and their gendered effects during emerging adulthood remains limited. This study offers novel insight by examining gender as a moderating factor in the relationship between childhood family attachment and childhood physical abuse among emerging adults. The objective of this study is to assess whether stronger childhood family attachment reduces experiences of childhood physical abuse and to determine whether this protective effect differs by gender. Data were collected using a structured self-administered questionnaire distributed to university students through academic networks, with lecturers assisting in disseminating the survey to their students. A total of 416 responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and regression-based moderation analysis. The findings indicate that childhood family attachment is significantly and negatively associated with childhood physical abuse, confirming its protective role. Gender is found to be a significant predictor and moderator, with results showing that the buffering effect of childhood family attachment against physical abuse is stronger for males than for females. From a policy perspective, the results emphasise the need for attachment-based and gender-sensitive family interventions. Policies should prioritise strengthening parent\u0026ndash;child relationships, promoting non-violent disciplinary practices, and incorporating gender-responsive approaches in child protection and parenting programmes to prevent childhood physical abuse effectively.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Childhood Family Attachment and Physical Abuse: The Moderating Role of Gender","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-08 14:58:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8846037/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-04-09T11:32:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-02T20:57:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-07T03:14:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"176279458923056853968245619338987504853","date":"2026-03-06T13:07:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"208206844995780626115096558433824695858","date":"2026-03-05T02:50:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-26T18:21:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-26T13:34:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-17T12:50:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-16T07:36:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2026-02-16T07:31:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a0188b27-eddf-4afa-99db-4f902e5fdb2a","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 8th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":63923764,"name":"Health sciences/Health care"},{"id":63923765,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":63923766,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T04:23:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-08 14:58:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8846037","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8846037","identity":"rs-8846037","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}