Sexual Agency and Intimate Partner Violence: Navigating Risk and Resistance in Young Adulthood

Sexual Agency and Intimate Partner Violence: Navigating Risk and Resistance in Young Adulthood | 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 Research Article Sexual Agency and Intimate Partner Violence: Navigating Risk and Resistance in Young Adulthood Andrew Porter, Emily Pokrant, Beck Graefe, Spring Cooper, Lauren Prenaveau, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7190432/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Introduction: Sexual agency, the ability to recognize, communicate, and negotiate sexual boundaries, is central to relational well-being but may be compromised by experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV). While IPV is known to erode sexual agency, emerging research suggests that sexual agency may also serve as a protective factor. This study explores the potential bidirectional relationship between IPV and sexual agency among young adults, considering how structural and demographic factors may shape this dynamic. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between February and May 2022, involving 857 U.S.-based participants aged 18–20, who were recruited via social media. Participants completed validated measures of IPV (E-HITS scale) and sexual agency (Sexual Agency Questionnaire). Descriptive statistics, t-tests, multiple linear regressions, and moderation analyses were used to examine associations and interaction effects across key demographic variables. Results: Approximately one-third of participants reported experiencing IPV. Those without IPV histories reported significantly higher sexual agency scores. Regression models confirmed that IPV exposure was associated with lower sexual agency, even after adjusting for covariates. Moderation analyses revealed that higher education and racial minority status buffered the negative impact of IPV on agency. No significant moderation effects were found for gender identity, sexual orientation, or housing status. Conclusions: Findings suggest a bidirectional pattern may exist: while IPV is associated with diminished sexual agency, individuals with higher sexual agency also report lower IPV exposure. Policy Implications: Public health efforts should integrate sexual agency promotion into IPV education, intervention, and policy frameworks, especially those focused on young adults and structurally vulnerable populations. sexual agency intimate partner violence young adults resilience gender and power structural inequality sexual health Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Sexual agency, the capacity to recognize, communicate, and negotiate one’s sexual boundaries and desires, is a central component of sexual and relational well-being (Bay-Cheng, 2015; Cense, 2019). Far from being a fixed trait, sexual agency is shaped by social norms, interpersonal dynamics, and structural inequalities, including gendered power relations and cultural scripts (Tolman et al., 2015). Among young adults navigating their first intimate relationships, this capacity can serve as both a form of empowerment and a site of vulnerability. Intimate partner violence (IPV), encompassing physical, sexual, and psychological harm from a current or former partner, is a pervasive public health concern (WHO, 2012). Globally, one in three women has experienced IPV in their lifetime, with even higher rates reported in the United States (Wisniewska, 2024; WHO, 2024; CDC, 2024). In the U.S., intimate partners are responsible for 38% of all female homicides, underscoring the lethal consequences of relationship-based violence (Garcia-Vergara et al., 2022). Although IPV is often framed as a risk factor for poor physical and mental health outcomes, its specific impact on sexual agency has received less attention. For instance, research to date has established that IPV can undermine sexual assertiveness, diminish sexual satisfaction, and increase engagement in riskier sexual behaviors (Sierra et al., 2021; Calvillo et al., 2024). Psychological abuse in particular, through control, humiliation, and fear, may directly erode one’s ability to communicate or assert sexual boundaries (Gilbert, 2022). Emerging work suggests the relationship between sexual agency and IPV may be bidirectional. The role of sexual agency as a protective factor, enabling individuals to resist coercion, exit harmful dynamics, or prevent escalation of partner violence, is of particular interest. For example, individuals with stronger sexual agency may be better positioned to avoid or leave abusive relationships, especially when supported by education, community, and affirming norms (Levin et al., 2012; Soster et al., 2024). Despite these insights, the intersection of sexual agency and IPV remains underexamined, especially among diverse youth populations. Existing research rarely addresses how these dynamics vary by race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or structural vulnerabilities such as housing instability or limited education. Moreover, few studies have used a theoretical lens to explain how power, control, and agency interact within intimate relationships. The socioecological model provides a useful framework for examining how individual, relational, community, and societal factors interact to shape both the risk and consequences of IPV (Heise, 1998). This layered perspective helps identify not only who is at risk but also how broader systems, such as inequality, cultural norms, and institutional failures, reinforce cycles of violence. Importantly, it also highlights how sexual agency is not merely an individual trait but one shaped and constrained by forces operating across multiple levels of influence (Bay-Cheng, 2015). This study explores how sexual agency and IPV intersect among a diverse sample of young adults in the U.S. We examine whether IPV is associated with reduced sexual agency and whether higher sexual agency may be linked to lower IPV exposure (Connell, 1987). We also explore how these associations differ across key sociodemographic groups. Methods Study Design This study employed a cross-sectional design to assess the relationship between IPV and sexual agency among young adults in the United States. Data was collected via an anonymous online survey hosted on Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2022) between February 2022 and May 2022. The study received exempt status from the Institutional Review Board at the City University of New York (protocol #2022-0188-PHHP). Theoretical Framework This analysis was guided by the Theory of Gender and Power (TGP), which outlines how structural gender-based power imbalances influence health risks and relationship dynamics. TGP provided a framework for examining how heteronormative norms and systemic inequities shape sexual agency and IPV risk, particularly in relation to identity-based moderators such as race, gender, and education level. TGP also offers a lens for understanding how interpersonal power dynamics, rooted in structural inequalities, can limit individuals’ ability to assert sexual boundaries or exit unsafe relationships. TGP directly informed our selection of moderators and our interpretation of how structural power imbalances, such as those linked to race, gender, and education, might shape the association between IPV and sexual agency. Participants Participants were recruited through targeted advertisements on Facebook and Instagram. Eligibility criteria included being 18 to 20 years of age, residing in the United States, being fluent in English, and having access to either of the recruitment platforms. After clicking the ad, participants were directed to the informed consent page, followed by the survey. Participants were offered the opportunity to enter a lottery to win one of fourteen $50 Amazon gift cards as compensation for their time and effort. No identifying information was collected unless participants voluntarily submitted an email for the prize drawing, which was done through a separate Qualtrics survey accessed via a link provided after completing the main study. As a result, research data and identifying information were stored separately. Measures Sexual Agency Sexual agency was measured using the 17-item Sexual Agency Questionnaire (SAQ), a multidimensional scale that assesses the behavioral, emotional, and communicative components of sexual agency (Cooper et al., under review; see Appendix A for item list). Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”), with higher scores indicating greater sexual agency. Mean scores were calculated for each participant. The SAQ demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .750) among participants who were not sexually active and strong consistency (α = .864) among those who were sexually active. Intimate Partner Violence IPV was assessed using the E-HITS scale (Chen et al., 2010), a 5-item validated measure capturing the frequency of emotional and physical abuse (e.g., being hurt, insulted, threatened, screamed at by a partner, or sexually coerced). Items were scored on a 5-point scale from 0 (“Never”) to 4 (“Frequently”). The E-HITS scale demonstrated good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. Total IPV scores were calculated by summing the five items (range: 0–20), with higher scores indicating greater exposure to IPV. Demographic and Moderating Variables Participants self-reported their gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education level, housing status (stable vs. unstable), and whether they had ever been sexually active. These variables were used to describe the sample and tested as moderators in regression analyses. Data Analysis All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29 (IBM, 2022). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize sample characteristics and assess the prevalence of IPV and level of sexual agency. E-HITS scores were treated both as continuous and binary (0 = no IPV experience; 1+ = any IPV experience) for bivariate comparisons. SAQ scores were treated as continuous throughout. Independent-samples t-tests compared the mean SAQ scores between participants with and without experiences of IPV. Multiple linear regression models were used to examine the association between IPV (E-HITS score) and sexual agency (SAQ score), controlling for demographic factors. To examine moderation, interaction terms were created between E-HITS scores and each potential moderator (e.g., E-HITS × Race Minority Status). Separate regression models were tested for each moderator. Significant interaction terms (p < .05) were interpreted as evidence of moderation. For visualization, regression lines were plotted for subgroups within each moderator (e.g., racial minority vs. White participants) to illustrate differences in the slope of IPV’s impact on sexual agency. Additional exploratory analyses, including chi-square tests and subgroup t-tests, were used to evaluate the independent relationships between demographic variables and IPV or sexual agency outcomes. Results Participant Characteristics A total of 857 participants completed the survey. The mean age was 18.91 years (SD = 0.82). Two-thirds identified as cisgender (66%), while 34% identified as gender minorities (e.g., transgender, nonbinary, or genderqueer). Participants identified across a range of sexual orientations, with 31% identifying as heterosexual and 69% identifying as LGBTQ+. The sample was predominantly White (72.5%), with the remaining participants identifying as multiracial (9.2%), Hispanic/Latino (8.2%), Asian (5%), Black (4.4%), and belonging to other racial groups (0.7%). Most participants (90.2%) had a high school diploma or less. Approximately 59% reported being sexually active. A full summary of participant demographics is provided below in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (n = 857) Characteristic N (%)/M(SD) Age (mean ± SD) 18.91 ( .824) Gender Cisgender 560 (66%) Gender minority (transgender, genderqueer, non-binary) 289 (34%) Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 250 (31%) Bisexual 243 (30.1%) Queer 87 (10.8%) Pansexual 66 (8.2%) Lesbian 54 (6.3%) Gay 38 (4.7%) Asexual 38 (4.7%) Demisexual 31 (3.8%) Race/Ethnicity White 621 (72.5%) Multiracial 79 (9.2%) Hispanic/Latino 70 (8.2%) Asian 43 (5%) Black 38 (4.4%) American Indian / Alaskan Native 4 (0.5%) Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander 2 (0.2%) Education Level High School Graduation or Less 773 (90.2%) Higher education 84 (9.8%) Sexually Active Yes 488 (59.3%) No 335 (40.7%) Prevalence of IPV Overall, 31.4% (n = 269) of participants reported experiencing at least one form of IPV during their lifetime. The average E-HITS score among those with any IPV experience was 2.4 (SD = 1.97), with a range from 1 to 11. Psychological IPV was the most commonly reported subtype. Among IPV survivors, 16% reported experiencing insults, 8% reported being screamed at, 21% reported some form of physical IPV, and 18% reported sexual coercion. Sexual Agency and IPV Participants with no history of IPV reported significantly higher sexual agency scores (M = 2.73, SD = 0.46) than those who had experienced IPV (M = 2.55, SD = 0.56); t (358) = 3.219, p < .001). The difference in means (MD = 0.18) reflected a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.50), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.07, 0.29]. See Figure 1 for a comparison of SAQ scores based on lifetime IPV experience. Regression analysis indicated that higher IPV scores were associated with lower sexual agency scores ( b = -0.041, SE = 0.019, t = -2.116, p = .035). This negative association remained significant after adjusting for gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education level, housing stability, and sexual activity status. Moderation Analyses Moderation models tested whether the relationship between IPV and sexual agency differed by demographic subgroup. A full summary of multiple regression results with interaction effects is provided in Table 2. Significant interaction effects were found for race/ethnicity and education level. Table 2. Linear Regression Results of Sexual Agency & IPV with Various Moderators Moderator / Predictor Gender Model (F(3, 432) = 1.93, p = .124 , R² = 0.013) E-HITS Score -0.041 0.019 -2.116 .035 [-0.078, -0.003] Gender Identity -0.02 0.055 -0.368 .713 [-0.129, 0.089] Interaction 0.012 0.032 0.389 .697 [-0.050, 0.074] Sexual Orientation Model (F(3, 432) = 2.175, p = .09 , R² = 0.015) E-HITS Score -0.021 0.031 -0.674 .5 [-0.082, 0.040] Sexual Orientation -0.021 0.061 -0.245 .807 [-0.134, 0.105] Interaction 0.012 0.035 -0.592 .554 [-0.091, 0.049] Race / Ethnicity Model (F(3, 432) = 3.537, p = .015 , R² = 0.024) E-HITS Score -0.06 0.019 -3.236 .001 [-0.096, -0.024] Racial Identity -0.045 0.061 -0.733 .464 [-0.164, 0.075] Interaction 0.069 0.032 2.156 .032 [0.006, 0.133] Housing Instability Status Model (F(3, 432) = 3.373, p = .018 , R² = 0.023) E-HITS Score -0.029 0.017 -1.671 .095 [-0.063, 0.005] Housing Istability Status -0.073 0.078 -0.944 .346 [-0.226, 0.079] Interaction -0.035 0.038 -0.935 .35 [-0.109, 0.039] Education Level Model (F(3, 432) = 3.62, p = .013 , R² = 0.024) E-HITS Score -0.054 0.017 -3.18 .002 [-0.088, -0.021] Education Level -0.054 0.087 -0.624 .533 [-0.226, 0.117] Interaction 0.082 0.037 2.206 .028 [0.009, 0.155] Sexual Activity Status Model (F(3, 432) = 10.312, p<.001 , R² = 0.068) E-HITS Score -0.005 0.058 -0.086 .932 [-0.120, 0.110] Sexual Activity Status 0.306 0.065 4.681 <.001 [0.177, 0.434] Interaction -0.049 0.061 -0.082 .415 [-0.168, 0.070] Race/Ethnicity: The negative association between IPV and sexual agency was attenuated among racial/ethnic minority participants compared to White participants (interaction term: b = 0.069, p = .032). See Figure 2 for a comparison of slopes based on racial minority status. Education Level: Participants with higher educational attainment experienced a smaller decline in sexual agency as IPV increased (interaction term: b = 0.082, p = .028). See Figure 3 below for a comparison of slopes between those who have obtained a college degree and those whose highest level of education attained is high school or less. No significant moderation effects were found for gender identity ( p = .697), sexual orientation ( p = .554), housing status ( p = .350), or sexual activity status ( p = .415). Additional Exploratory Analyses Gender Minority Status and Psychological IPV: Gender minority participants were more likely to report insult-based IPV than expected (χ² (1) = 6.33, p = .012, φ = .22). Housing Status and IPV: Participants reporting current or past housing instability were more likely to report IPV (χ² (1) = 5.79, p = .016) and had significantly higher E-HITS scores (M = 1.14 vs. 0.68; t (426) = -2.18, p = .03), reflecting a large effect size ( d = 1.56). Education Level and Psychological IPV: Participants with only a high school diploma were more likely to report insult-based IPV than those with some college education (χ² (1) = 3.66, p = .056, φ = -.16). Sexual Activity, IPV, and Sexual Agency: Sexually active participants were more likely to report IPV (χ² (1) = 5.58, p = .018, φ = .11) and also reported significantly higher sexual agency scores (M = 2.52 vs. 2.12; t (821) = -11.16, p < .001, d = 0.50). Discussion Summary of Findings This study examined the relationship between sexual agency and IPV among a diverse sample of U.S. young adults. Consistent with prior research suggesting a complex interplay between power, agency, and harm in intimate relationships (Bay-Cheng, 2015 ; Tolman et al., 2015 ), our findings reinforce the potential bidirectionality of this relationship: while IPV is associated with diminished sexual agency, individuals with higher sexual agency were also less likely to report IPV. These results support the emerging view that sexual agency is not only shaped by violence but may also function as a protective factor, particularly when supported by educational attainment, cultural resilience, and relational experience (Levin et al., 2012 ; Soster et al., 2024 ). Sexual Agency as a Protective Factor Participants with higher sexual agency reported significantly lower IPV exposure, suggesting that sexual agency may act as a form of relational resilience. This aligns with prior research showing that agency-related competencies, such as boundary-setting, refusal skills, and assertive communication, can help individuals recognize red flags and disengage from coercive situations (Soster et al., 2024 ; Balint, 2024 ). However, it is also possible that individuals who have experienced IPV may report lower levels of sexual agency due to reduced confidence or self-perception, as the measure relies on self-report. This highlights the need to interpret these associations with caution and consider how current or past experiences of harm may shape how participants assess their own agency. Education emerged as a particularly strong moderator: participants with higher educational attainment showed less erosion of sexual agency in response to IPV. This may reflect enhanced communication skills, consent literacy, or increased economic independence, all of which are known correlates of both sexual autonomy and reduced IPV risk (Sanz-Barbero et al., 2019 ). In doing so, we aim to reframe sexual agency not only as an outcome of violence but as a potential resilience mechanism, one that may inform future prevention and intervention strategies targeting IPV. Similarly, racial minority participants demonstrated a weaker link between IPV and reduced sexual agency. While these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to sample imbalance, they may suggest the presence of culturally specific resilience mechanisms, such as community cohesion, family support, or engagement with values of collective survival, that help sustain agency in the face of relational harm (Mariscal, 2020 ). Although no significant moderation effects were found for sexual orientation in this study, prior research suggests that individuals with diverse sexual orientations may nonetheless benefit from identity development processes that foster sexual agency. Navigating queer identities often involves early and repeated engagement with boundary-setting, consent negotiation, and intentional communication, skills that are foundational to sexual agency and may help some individuals buffer against coercive relationship dynamics (Schobert et al., 2021 ). Exposure to sex-positive communities and discourses may further reinforce these protective competencies. Finally, sexually active participants reported higher sexual agency overall. While this group was also more likely to report IPV, their elevated agency levels may reflect opportunities to develop and practice relational skills over time. This dual pattern, where sexually active individuals report both higher sexual agency and greater IPV exposure, suggests a more complex relationship between experience, vulnerability, and agency development. It is possible that engaging in sexual relationships provides more opportunities to practice and develop agency-related skills like boundary-setting and communication, which could elevate SA scores over time. At the same time, increased exposure to sexual or romantic partnerships may elevate the risk of encountering IPV, particularly for young adults navigating early or unstable relationships. This reinforces the idea that sexual agency and IPV are not simply opposites but can co-occur in ways shaped by context, experience, and structural vulnerability. IPV’s Impact on Sexual Agency Concurrently, IPV was clearly associated with lower sexual agency scores. This was consistent across most models and suggests that repeated exposure to coercion, manipulation, or physical harm can erode individuals’ ability to assert themselves sexually. These effects are in line with theoretical expectations from the TGP, which frames IPV as both a consequence and reinforcer of gendered power imbalances. This erosion of agency was particularly acute among participants facing structural vulnerabilities. For example, those with a history of housing instability reported significantly higher IPV exposure and scored lower on sexual agency, although the moderating effect of housing instability itself was not significant. This suggests that the consequences of structural vulnerability may be cumulative rather than additive. The same dynamic may apply to gender minority participants, who reported higher rates of psychological IPV (e.g., insults) but did not differ in overall agency scores, perhaps due to simultaneous exposure to affirming and disempowering environments. Power, Structure, and Sexual Agency Taken together, these findings reinforce that sexual agency is not solely an internal trait. It is relational, contextual, and shaped by broader systems of power and inequality (Bay-Cheng, 2015 ). Incorporating TGP is useful here: it positions sexual agency as a resource constrained by social norms, gender roles, and economic dependency. Our results suggest that sexual agency can be cultivated and supported through upstream investments in education, identity-affirming environments, and policies that challenge traditional gender scripts. Rather than viewing sexual agency only as something that IPV damages, this study supports reframing it as a potential modifiable protective factor, one that can be strengthened before violence occurs and it is rebuilt during recovery. These findings also align with an intersectional understanding of power, in which overlapping systems of race, gender, class, and sexuality shape how agency is constrained or expressed. Implications Implications for Education and Educators This study underscores the need to prioritize sexual agency, not just sexual health knowledge, as a core component of comprehensive sex education. Currently, many curricula marginalize or omit concepts such as boundary-setting, consent negotiation, and communication skills, leaving young people without the necessary tools to navigate coercion or recognize relational red flags. Programs at both the secondary and post-secondary levels must go beyond biology and risk-avoidance to focus on empowerment, agency, and consent. This includes teaching students how to recognize and assert their needs, understand power dynamics in relationships, and practice healthy communication. For example, The Sex Wrap, a multimedia sexual health intervention, integrates these principles by utilizing podcasts and social media to promote consent literacy, boundary setting, and open dialogue about sexual decision-making (Porter & Cooper, 2016–present ). Education that incorporates these elements is not only protective against IPV but may also promote long-term relational well-being. Curricula must also be trauma-informed, LGBTQ + inclusive, and culturally responsive. These principles are especially important in marginalized or under-resourced communities where structural vulnerabilities to IPV are often highest. Schools serving these populations should be prioritized for funding and program implementation. Implications for Interventions and Interventionalists Intervention models that focus solely on physical safety or trauma recovery miss a key opportunity: rebuilding sexual agency as part of healing. Survivors often struggle with diminished confidence, difficulty asserting boundaries, or fear of sexual intimacy, all of which are critical for long-term recovery and for reducing the risk of revictimization. Programs should explicitly support survivors in regaining control over their sexual and relational lives. This includes sex-positive therapy, group-based agency skills workshops, and survivor-led storytelling that validates agency as an act of resilience and empowerment. Prevention efforts targeting youth should incorporate similar tools, including interactive consent education, empowerment-focused discussion groups, and role-play exercises that promote assertiveness. Importantly, sexual agency must not be treated as an individual responsibility alone. Structural supports, clinics, shelters, and schools should embed agency-building components into IPV screening, education, and care, particularly when serving young people and those most at risk of disempowerment.’ Communities with higher levels of sexual agency would likely also help prevent IPV. The role of a community in standing up to rape culture and “calling in” people who are committing sexual and gender microaggressions provides pre-IPV options for repair (Ross, 2025 ). Survivor-led interventions, such as peer mentoring programs, storytelling circles, and community-based advocacy, can also play a critical role in helping individuals reclaim sexual agency as part of their healing process (Bagwell-Gray, 2018 ). Implications for Policy Sexual agency is not just an individual asset, but a public health determinant. Federal and state education policies should require inclusion of sexual agency competencies in health curricula, particularly in regions with elevated IPV rates. This means mandating content on consent, communication, and boundary setting, not as add-ons, but as essential outcomes. In parallel, funding must be expanded for school- and community-based programs that integrate these principles. Shelters, health systems, and housing support services must adopt trauma-informed approaches that center not only survivor safety, but also survivor agency. Policies addressing IPV should also reflect the intersectional nature of risk and resilience. Data collection systems must disaggregate by race, gender identity, and socioeconomic status to better understand where agency is most threatened and where it can be most effectively supported. Without this lens, prevention efforts risk reproducing the very inequities they aim to disrupt. Implications for Future Research Future studies should use longitudinal designs to better understand the temporal and potentially causal relationship between sexual agency and IPV. Qualitative and mixed-methods approaches are also needed to explore how survivors describe changes in sexual agency over time and in response to interventions. Furthermore, future research should investigate how specific contextual factors, such as cultural identity, religious affiliation, and early relationship experiences, impact both vulnerability and resilience across diverse populations. Strengths and Limitations Strengths This study offers several key contributions to the literature on sexual agency and IPV. First, it is one of the few studies to empirically explore the bidirectional relationship between sexual agency and IPV among a large, demographically diverse sample of young adults. By examining both the erosive impact of IPV on sexual agency and the potential protective role of agency against IPV, this work reframes sexual agency as both an outcome and a resilience factor. Second, the study is grounded in a strong theoretical framework, the Theory of Gender and Power, which enables a nuanced interpretation of how structural inequalities and social norms shape relational dynamics. The inclusion of moderation analyses further strengthens the findings by identifying how the relationship between IPV and agency differs across groups, offering valuable insights for tailoring prevention and intervention strategies. Finally, the use of validated and psychometrically sound instruments adds credibility to the measurement of key constructs. The large sample size enhances statistical power, and the inclusion of underrepresented groups helps center populations often overlooked in IPV research. Limitations Despite these strengths, several limitations should be noted. Most importantly, the cross-sectional design prevents the drawing of causal or temporal conclusions. While findings suggest that sexual agency may be protective against IPV, it is also possible that IPV erodes sexual agency over time. Longitudinal research is needed to clarify directionality. Second, reliance on self-reported data raises the possibility of response biases, including recall errors and social desirability effects. Although the anonymous online format may have reduced these risks, future studies could benefit from incorporating mixed-methods designs or interview-based approaches to understand the context behind the numbers better. Finally, the sample lacked racial and ethnic balance, with White participants making up the majority. This limits generalizability and constrains deeper exploration of how cultural and community-based resilience may shape agency and IPV experiences. Future research should prioritize recruitment strategies that better represent racially and economically marginalized populations. Given that demographic variables such as race, education, and housing status are often interrelated, some degree of collinearity may exist between moderators, limiting our ability to isolate their independent effects. Conclusion Sexual agency isn’t just a byproduct of healthy relationships; it is a critical tool for preventing and healing from intimate partner violence. This study shows that while IPV may erode agency, higher agency is linked to reduced exposure to violence, even when structural vulnerabilities are present. That duality matters. It means sexual agency should be treated not only as an outcome, but as an intervention point. Building sexual agency, through education, community, and policy, is a public health imperative. If we want to interrupt cycles of coercion and control, we need to start by giving young people the skills, confidence, and support to own their boundaries and desires. Declarations Funding This research was supported by an unrestricted internal grant from the City University of New York, which was used to provide participant incentives in the form of Amazon gift cards. Conflicts of interest/Competing interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest or competing interests. Availability of data and material The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the topic and protections outlined in the IRB protocol. Code availability Not applicable. Author Contributions Andrew Porter and Spring Cooper conceptualized the study and oversaw data collection. Andrew Porter and Emily Pokrant drafted the original version of the manuscript. Beck Graefe contributed to statistical planning, conducted data analysis, and provided statistical writing support on both the original and final drafts. Spring, Cooper, Lauren Prenaveau, and Ashley Falcon provided editorial feedback and revisions to the final manuscript. Andrew Porter led the final revisions and prepared the version submitted for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. References Balint, S. (2024). Women's experiences of sexual agency under constrained choice: A systematic review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48 (4), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843241245713 Bagwell-Gray ME. Women’s Healing Journey From Intimate Partner Violence: Establishing Positive Sexuality. Qualitative Health Research. 2018;29(6):779-795. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318804302 Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, 73(7) , 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0452-6 Calvillo, C., Marshall, A., Gafford, S., & Montgomery, B. E. (2024). Intimate partner violence and its relation to sexual health outcomes across different adult populations: A systematic review. Frontiers in Sociology, 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1498969 Chan, C., Chan, Y., Au, A., & Cheung, G. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Extended–Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (E-HITS) screening tool in detecting intimate partner violence in hospital emergency departments in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17 (2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/102490791001700202 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, May 16). About intimate partner violence . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html Cense, M. (2019). Rethinking sexual agency: Proposing a multicomponent model based on young people’s life stories. Sex Education, 19 (3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1535968 Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics . Stanford University Press. Cooper, S. C., & Porter, A. W. (Hosts). (2016–present). The Sex Wrap [Audio podcast]. Podglomerate. https://thepodglomerate.com/episodes-of/the-sex-wrap/ Cooper, S. C., Porter, A., Fries, N., Cheruvillil, S., Lewis, L., Lim, M. S. C., Chung, K. S. K., Albury, K., & Skinner, S. R. (under review). Development and validity testing of a scale to measure sexual agency in young people . Manuscript under review. Cooper, S. C., Schobert, K., Cheruvillil, S., Porter, A., & Palmedo, P. C. (2021). Posts, likes, shares, and DMs: A qualitative exploration of how social media is related to sexual agency in young people. Journal of Health Communication, 26 , 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1890283 Garcia-Vergara, E., Almeda, N., Martín Ríos, B., Becerra-Alonso, D., & Fernández-Navarro, F. (2022). A Comprehensive Analysis of Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Femicide: A Systematic Review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(12), 7336. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127336 Gilbert, L. K., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., & Kresnow, M. (2022). Intimate partner violence and health conditions among U.S. adults—National Intimate Partner Violence Survey, 2010–2012. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38 , NP237–NP261. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221080147 Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002 IBM Corp. (2022). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 29.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp. Levin, D. S., Ward, L. M., & Neilson, E. C. (2012). Formative sexual communications, sexual agency and coercion, and youth sexual health. Social Service Review, 86 , 487–516. https://doi.org/10.1086/667785 Mariscal, S. E. (2020). Resilience following exposure to intimate partner violence and other violence: A comparison of Latino and non-Latino youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 113 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104975 Qualtrics. (2022). Qualtrics Survey Software (Version XM). Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com Ross, L. J. (2025). Calling In: How to Start Making Change with Those You’d Rather Cancel . Simon & Schuster. Sanz-Barbero, B., Barón, N., & Vives-Cases, C. (2019). Prevalence, associated factors, and health impact of intimate partner violence against women in different life stages. PLoS ONE, 14 (10), e0221049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221049 Schobert, K., Cooper, S., Fries, N., & Cheruvillil, M. S. (2021). I thought we were vibin’: A qualitative exploration of sexual agency and consent in young people. Sexualities, 24 (7), 906–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211026457 Sherin, K. M., Sinacore, J. M., Li, X. Q., Zitter, R. E., & Shakil, A. (1998). E-HITS: A short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Family Medicine, 30 (7), 508–512. Sierra, J. C., Arcos-Romero, A. I., Álvarez-Muelas, A., & Cervilla, Ó. (2021). The impact of intimate partner violence on sexual attitudes, sexual assertiveness, and sexual functioning in men and women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (2), 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020594 Soster, A. P., Falcke, D., & Oliveira, A. (2024). Exploring the association between sexual agency and intimate relationship violence experienced and perpetrated by Brazilian and Portuguese women. Sexuality Research and Social Policy . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01053-9 Tolman, D. L., Anderson, S. M., & Belmont, K. (2015). Mobilizing metaphor: Considering complexities, contradictions, and contexts in adolescent girls’ and young women’s sexual agency. Sex Roles, 73 , 298–310. Wisniewska, M. J. (2024, October 7). Domestic violence statistics 2024. Break the Cycle . https://www.breakthecycle.org/domestic-violence-statistics/ World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence . https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77432 World Health Organization. (2024, May 25). Violence against women . https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-7190432","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":494708120,"identity":"2eb9e378-515c-4346-81d0-afe61bc343f4","order_by":0,"name":"Andrew Porter","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Miami","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrew","middleName":"","lastName":"Porter","suffix":""},{"id":494708122,"identity":"87215797-d2b9-465e-b73c-d44d55e85c97","order_by":1,"name":"Emily Pokrant","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South Florida","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emily","middleName":"","lastName":"Pokrant","suffix":""},{"id":494708123,"identity":"017b07e1-3a22-452e-84f7-93434d90ce00","order_by":2,"name":"Beck Graefe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Miami","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Beck","middleName":"","lastName":"Graefe","suffix":""},{"id":494708124,"identity":"9b3c4ebd-f8c6-4a4e-bc04-38ac1a5702bf","order_by":3,"name":"Spring Cooper","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"City University of New York","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Spring","middleName":"","lastName":"Cooper","suffix":""},{"id":494708127,"identity":"9d2fed78-d71b-451e-9f0b-db54339c8e9e","order_by":4,"name":"Lauren Prenaveau","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Widener University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lauren","middleName":"","lastName":"Prenaveau","suffix":""},{"id":494708128,"identity":"3eff1d6f-dfbd-4ce3-97e0-843a4848ba4a","order_by":5,"name":"Ashley Falcon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Miami","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ashley","middleName":"","lastName":"Falcon","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-22 21:23:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7190432/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7190432/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88648326,"identity":"88c2b113-ea63-436b-971a-fc99796c441d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 16:53:30","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17770,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDifferences in SAQ score between those with and without lifetime IPV experience\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMean SAQ score based upon IPV lifetime experience. Dots indicate means; whiskers indicate 95% confidence intervals (N=440).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7190432/v1/fa646b6416eacf20e443f1c5.png"},{"id":88648290,"identity":"45e862bd-c2b1-4124-86bf-243eced836ed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 16:53:28","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46531,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of regression coefficients based on racial minority status\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScatterplot of E-HITS Score (X) predicting SAQ score (Y) for White (blue) and racial/ethnic minority (red) individuals (Z). Points represent individual participants (N = 440); lines show regression‐predicted values at each moderator level.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7190432/v1/5d0eadec206e2e1ce0006f5c.png"},{"id":88648323,"identity":"5d27abf5-e512-4f32-9dc2-210ab97241f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 16:53:30","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46713,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of regression coefficients based on education level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScatterplot of E-HITS Score (X) predicting SAQ score (Y) for individuals who have a high school diploma or less (blue) and those with a college education (red) (Z). Points represent individual participants (N = 440); lines show regression‐predicted values at each moderator level.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7190432/v1/b4f3cb33ad17b52132eca4fd.png"},{"id":92883577,"identity":"e43d737d-b585-4463-8027-1f1fa1f9f58a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-06 16:01:58","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":808790,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7190432/v1/a188de37-d7c6-4b3b-aa2f-1c6b45d31009.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eSexual Agency and Intimate Partner Violence: Navigating Risk and Resistance in Young Adulthood\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSexual agency, the capacity to recognize, communicate, and negotiate one\u0026rsquo;s sexual boundaries and desires, is a central component of sexual and relational well-being (Bay-Cheng, 2015; Cense, 2019). Far from being a fixed trait, sexual agency is shaped by social norms, interpersonal dynamics, and structural inequalities, including gendered power relations and cultural scripts (Tolman et al., 2015). Among young adults navigating their first intimate relationships, this capacity can serve as both a form of empowerment and a site of vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntimate partner violence (IPV), encompassing physical, sexual, and psychological harm from a current or former partner, is a pervasive public health concern (WHO, 2012). Globally, one in three women has experienced IPV in their lifetime, with even higher rates reported in the United States (Wisniewska, 2024; WHO, 2024; CDC, 2024). In the U.S., intimate partners are responsible for 38% of all female homicides, underscoring the lethal consequences of relationship-based violence (Garcia-Vergara et al., 2022). Although IPV is often framed as a risk factor for poor physical and mental health outcomes, its specific impact on sexual agency has received less attention. For instance, research to date has established that IPV can undermine sexual assertiveness, diminish sexual satisfaction, and increase engagement in riskier sexual behaviors (Sierra et al., 2021; Calvillo et al., 2024). Psychological abuse in particular, through control, humiliation, and fear, may directly erode one\u0026rsquo;s ability to communicate or assert sexual boundaries (Gilbert, 2022). Emerging work suggests the relationship between sexual agency and IPV may be bidirectional. The role of sexual agency as a protective factor, enabling individuals to resist coercion, exit harmful dynamics, or prevent escalation of partner violence, is of particular interest. For example, individuals with stronger sexual agency may be better positioned to avoid or leave abusive relationships, especially when supported by education, community, and affirming norms (Levin et al., 2012; Soster et al., 2024). Despite these insights, the intersection of sexual agency and IPV remains underexamined, especially among diverse youth populations. Existing research rarely addresses how these dynamics vary by race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or structural vulnerabilities such as housing instability or limited education. Moreover, few studies have used a theoretical lens to explain how power, control, and agency interact within intimate relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe socioecological model provides a useful framework for examining how individual, relational, community, and societal factors interact to shape both the risk and consequences of IPV (Heise, 1998). This layered perspective helps identify not only who is at risk but also how broader systems, such as inequality, cultural norms, and institutional failures, reinforce cycles of violence. Importantly, it also highlights how sexual agency is not merely an individual trait but one shaped and constrained by forces operating across multiple levels of influence (Bay-Cheng, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study explores how sexual agency and IPV intersect among a diverse sample of young adults in the U.S. We examine whether IPV is associated with reduced sexual agency and whether higher sexual agency may be linked to lower IPV exposure (Connell, 1987). We also explore how these associations differ across key sociodemographic groups.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy Design\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study employed a cross-sectional design to assess the relationship between IPV and sexual agency among young adults in the United States. Data was collected via an anonymous online survey hosted on Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2022) between February 2022 and May 2022. The study received exempt status from the Institutional Review Board at the City University of New York (protocol #2022-0188-PHHP).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretical Framework\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis analysis was guided by the Theory of Gender and Power (TGP), which outlines how structural gender-based power imbalances influence health risks and relationship dynamics. TGP provided a framework for examining how heteronormative norms and systemic inequities shape sexual agency and IPV risk, particularly in relation to identity-based moderators such as race, gender, and education level. TGP also offers a lens for understanding how interpersonal power dynamics, rooted in structural inequalities, can limit individuals\u0026rsquo; ability to assert sexual boundaries or exit unsafe relationships. TGP directly informed our selection of moderators and our interpretation of how structural power imbalances, such as those linked to race, gender, and education, might shape the association between IPV and sexual agency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through targeted advertisements on Facebook and Instagram. Eligibility criteria included being 18 to 20 years of age, residing in the United States, being fluent in English, and having access to either of the recruitment platforms. After clicking the ad, participants were directed to the informed consent page, followed by the survey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were offered the opportunity to enter a lottery to win one of fourteen $50 Amazon gift cards as compensation for their time and effort. No identifying information was collected unless participants voluntarily submitted an email for the prize drawing, which was done through a separate Qualtrics survey accessed via a link provided after completing the main study. As a result, research data and identifying information were stored separately.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeasures\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSexual Agency\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Sexual agency was measured using the 17-item Sexual Agency Questionnaire (SAQ), a multidimensional scale that assesses the behavioral, emotional, and communicative components of sexual agency (Cooper et al., under review; see Appendix A for item list). Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (\u0026ldquo;Strongly Disagree\u0026rdquo;) to 5 (\u0026ldquo;Strongly Agree\u0026rdquo;), with higher scores indicating greater sexual agency. Mean scores were calculated for each participant. The SAQ demonstrated good internal consistency (\u0026alpha; = .750) among participants who were not sexually active and strong consistency (\u0026alpha; = .864) among those who were sexually active.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIntimate Partner Violence\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;IPV was assessed using the E-HITS scale (Chen et al., 2010), a 5-item validated measure capturing the frequency of emotional and physical abuse (e.g., being hurt, insulted, threatened, screamed at by a partner, or sexually coerced). Items were scored on a 5-point scale from 0 (\u0026ldquo;Never\u0026rdquo;) to 4 (\u0026ldquo;Frequently\u0026rdquo;). The E-HITS scale demonstrated good internal consistency with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of .90. Total IPV scores were calculated by summing the five items (range: 0\u0026ndash;20), with higher scores indicating greater exposure to IPV.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDemographic and Moderating Variables\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Participants self-reported their gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education level, housing status (stable vs. unstable), and whether they had ever been sexually active. These variables were used to describe the sample and tested as moderators in regression analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29 (IBM, 2022). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize sample characteristics and assess the prevalence of IPV and level of sexual agency. E-HITS scores were treated both as continuous and binary (0 = no IPV experience; 1+ = any IPV experience) for bivariate comparisons. SAQ scores were treated as continuous throughout.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent-samples t-tests compared the mean SAQ scores between participants with and without experiences of IPV. Multiple linear regression models were used to examine the association between IPV (E-HITS score) and sexual agency (SAQ score), controlling for demographic factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine moderation, interaction terms were created between E-HITS scores and each potential moderator (e.g., E-HITS \u0026times; Race Minority Status). Separate regression models were tested for each moderator. Significant interaction terms (p \u0026lt; .05) were interpreted as evidence of moderation. For visualization, regression lines were plotted for subgroups within each moderator (e.g., racial minority vs. White participants) to illustrate differences in the slope of IPV\u0026rsquo;s impact on sexual agency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional exploratory analyses, including chi-square tests and subgroup t-tests, were used to evaluate the independent relationships between demographic variables and IPV or sexual agency outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eParticipant Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 857 participants completed the survey. The mean age was 18.91 years (SD = 0.82). Two-thirds identified as cisgender (66%), while 34% identified as gender minorities (e.g., transgender, nonbinary, or genderqueer). Participants identified across a range of sexual orientations, with 31% identifying as heterosexual and 69% identifying as LGBTQ+. The sample was predominantly White (72.5%), with the remaining participants identifying as multiracial (9.2%), Hispanic/Latino (8.2%), Asian (5%), Black (4.4%), and belonging to other racial groups (0.7%). Most participants (90.2%) had a high school diploma or less. Approximately 59% reported being sexually active. A full summary of participant demographics is provided below in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (n = 857)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN (%)/M(SD)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge (mean \u003cstrong\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/strong\u003e SD)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.91\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(\u003c/strong\u003e.824)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCisgender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e560 (66%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender minority (transgender, genderqueer, non-binary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e289 (34%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSexual Orientation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250 (31%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e243 (30.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQueer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e87 (10.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePansexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e66 (8.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54 (6.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38 (4.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38 (4.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemisexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31 (3.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRace/Ethnicity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhite\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e621 (72.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMultiracial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79 (9.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHispanic/Latino\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70 (8.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlack\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38 (4.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmerican Indian / Alaskan Native\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (0.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNative Hawaiian / Pacific Islander\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2 (0.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh School Graduation or Less\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e773 (90.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigher education\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e84 (9.8%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSexually Active\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e488 (59.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 312px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e335 (40.7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevalence of IPV\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, 31.4% (n = 269) of participants reported experiencing at least one form of IPV during their lifetime. The average E-HITS score among those with any IPV experience was 2.4 (SD = 1.97), with a range from 1 to 11. Psychological IPV was the most commonly reported subtype. Among IPV survivors, 16% reported experiencing insults, 8% reported being screamed at, 21% reported some form of physical IPV, and 18% reported sexual coercion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSexual Agency and IPV\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants with no history of IPV reported significantly higher sexual agency scores (M = 2.73, SD = 0.46) than those who had experienced IPV (M = 2.55, SD = 0.56); \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(358) = 3.219, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). The difference in means (MD = 0.18) reflected a medium effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.50), with a 95% confidence interval of [0.07, 0.29]. See Figure 1 for a comparison of SAQ scores based on lifetime IPV experience.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegression analysis indicated that higher IPV scores were associated with lower sexual agency scores (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = -0.041, SE = 0.019, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e = -2.116, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .035). This negative association remained significant after adjusting for gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education level, housing stability, and sexual activity status.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModeration Analyses\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModeration models tested whether the relationship between IPV and sexual agency differed by demographic subgroup. A full summary of multiple regression results with interaction effects is provided in Table 2. Significant interaction effects were found for race/ethnicity and education level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable 2. Linear Regression Results of Sexual Agency \u0026amp; IPV with Various Moderators\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModerator / Predictor\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg width=\"9\" height=\"22\" src=\"\" alt=\"image\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg width=\"19\" height=\"22\" src=\"\" alt=\"image\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg width=\"7\" height=\"22\" src=\"\" alt=\"image\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg width=\"9\" height=\"22\" src=\"\" alt=\"image\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cimg width=\"52\" height=\"22\" src=\"\" alt=\"image\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender Model\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(F(3, 432) = 1.93, \u003cem\u003ep = .124\u003c/em\u003e, R\u0026sup2; = 0.013) \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE-HITS Score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.035\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.078, -0.003]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGender Identity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.055\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.368\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.713\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.129, 0.089]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteraction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.389\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.697\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.050, 0.074]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSexual Orientation Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(F(3, 432) = 2.175,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p = .09\u003c/em\u003e, R\u0026sup2; = 0.015) \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE-HITS Score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.674\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.5\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.082, 0.040]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSexual Orientation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.245\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.807\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.134, 0.105]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteraction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.592\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.554\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.091, 0.049]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRace / Ethnicity Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(F(3, 432) = 3.537, \u003cem\u003ep = .015\u003c/em\u003e, R\u0026sup2; = 0.024)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE-HITS Score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.236\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.096, -0.024]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRacial Identity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.733\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.464\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.164, 0.075]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteraction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.069\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.156\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.032\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.006, 0.133]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHousing Instability Status Model\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(F(3, 432) = 3.373, \u003cem\u003ep = .018\u003c/em\u003e, R\u0026sup2; = 0.023)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE-HITS Score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.671\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.095\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.063, 0.005]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHousing Istability Status\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.073\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.944\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.346\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.226, 0.079]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteraction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.035\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.038\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.935\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.35\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.109, 0.039]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducation Level Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(F(3, 432) = 3.62, \u003cem\u003ep = .013\u003c/em\u003e, R\u0026sup2; = 0.024)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE-HITS Score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.054\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.002\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.088, -0.021]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEducation Level\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.054\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.087\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.624\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.533\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.226, 0.117]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteraction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.082\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.037\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.206\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.028\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.009, 0.155]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 624px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSexual Activity Status Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(F(3, 432) = 10.312,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u0026lt;.001\u003c/em\u003e, R\u0026sup2; = 0.068)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE-HITS Score\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.058\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.086\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.932\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.120, 0.110]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSexual Activity Status\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.306\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.065\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.681\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[0.177, 0.434]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 288px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteraction\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.049\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.082\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.415\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.168, 0.070]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRace/Ethnicity: The negative association between IPV and sexual agency was attenuated among racial/ethnic minority participants compared to White participants (interaction term: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = 0.069, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .032). See Figure 2 for a comparison of slopes based on racial minority status.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation Level: Participants with higher educational attainment experienced a smaller decline in sexual agency as IPV increased (interaction term: \u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = 0.082, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .028). See Figure 3 below for a comparison of slopes between those who have obtained a college degree and those whose highest level of education attained is high school or less.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo significant moderation effects were found for gender identity (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .697), sexual orientation (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .554), housing status (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .350), or sexual activity status (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .415).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditional Exploratory Analyses\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGender Minority Status and Psychological IPV: Gender minority participants were more likely to report insult-based IPV than expected (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; (1) = 6.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .012, \u0026phi; = .22).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHousing Status and IPV: Participants reporting current or past housing instability were more likely to report IPV (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; (1) = 5.79, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .016) and had significantly higher E-HITS scores (M = 1.14 vs. 0.68; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(426) = -2.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .03), reflecting a large effect size (\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 1.56).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation Level and Psychological IPV: Participants with only a high school diploma were more likely to report insult-based IPV than those with some college education (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; (1) = 3.66, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .056, \u0026phi; = -.16).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSexual Activity, IPV, and Sexual Agency: Sexually active participants were more likely to report IPV (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; (1) = 5.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .018, \u0026phi; = .11) and also reported significantly higher sexual agency scores (M = 2.52 vs. 2.12; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(821) = -11.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = 0.50).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSummary of Findings\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the relationship between sexual agency and IPV among a diverse sample of U.S. young adults. Consistent with prior research suggesting a complex interplay between power, agency, and harm in intimate relationships (Bay-Cheng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Tolman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), our findings reinforce the potential bidirectionality of this relationship: while IPV is associated with diminished sexual agency, individuals with higher sexual agency were also less likely to report IPV. These results support the emerging view that sexual agency is not only shaped by violence but may also function as a protective factor, particularly when supported by educational attainment, cultural resilience, and relational experience (Levin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Soster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSexual Agency as a Protective Factor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Participants with higher sexual agency reported significantly lower IPV exposure, suggesting that sexual agency may act as a form of relational resilience. This aligns with prior research showing that agency-related competencies, such as boundary-setting, refusal skills, and assertive communication, can help individuals recognize red flags and disengage from coercive situations (Soster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Balint, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is also possible that individuals who have experienced IPV may report lower levels of sexual agency due to reduced confidence or self-perception, as the measure relies on self-report. This highlights the need to interpret these associations with caution and consider how current or past experiences of harm may shape how participants assess their own agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation emerged as a particularly strong moderator: participants with higher educational attainment showed less erosion of sexual agency in response to IPV. This may reflect enhanced communication skills, consent literacy, or increased economic independence, all of which are known correlates of both sexual autonomy and reduced IPV risk (Sanz-Barbero et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In doing so, we aim to reframe sexual agency not only as an outcome of violence but as a potential resilience mechanism, one that may inform future prevention and intervention strategies targeting IPV.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Similarly, racial minority participants demonstrated a weaker link between IPV and reduced sexual agency. While these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to sample imbalance, they may suggest the presence of culturally specific resilience mechanisms, such as community cohesion, family support, or engagement with values of collective survival, that help sustain agency in the face of relational harm (Mariscal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough no significant moderation effects were found for sexual orientation in this study, prior research suggests that individuals with diverse sexual orientations may nonetheless benefit from identity development processes that foster sexual agency. Navigating queer identities often involves early and repeated engagement with boundary-setting, consent negotiation, and intentional communication, skills that are foundational to sexual agency and may help some individuals buffer against coercive relationship dynamics (Schobert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Exposure to sex-positive communities and discourses may further reinforce these protective competencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Finally, sexually active participants reported higher sexual agency overall. While this group was also more likely to report IPV, their elevated agency levels may reflect opportunities to develop and practice relational skills over time. This dual pattern, where sexually active individuals report both higher sexual agency and greater IPV exposure, suggests a more complex relationship between experience, vulnerability, and agency development. It is possible that engaging in sexual relationships provides more opportunities to practice and develop agency-related skills like boundary-setting and communication, which could elevate SA scores over time. At the same time, increased exposure to sexual or romantic partnerships may elevate the risk of encountering IPV, particularly for young adults navigating early or unstable relationships. This reinforces the idea that sexual agency and IPV are not simply opposites but can co-occur in ways shaped by context, experience, and structural vulnerability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIPV\u0026rsquo;s Impact on Sexual Agency\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConcurrently, IPV was clearly associated with lower sexual agency scores. This was consistent across most models and suggests that repeated exposure to coercion, manipulation, or physical harm can erode individuals\u0026rsquo; ability to assert themselves sexually. These effects are in line with theoretical expectations from the TGP, which frames IPV as both a consequence and reinforcer of gendered power imbalances.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis erosion of agency was particularly acute among participants facing structural vulnerabilities. For example, those with a history of housing instability reported significantly higher IPV exposure and scored lower on sexual agency, although the moderating effect of housing instability itself was not significant. This suggests that the consequences of structural vulnerability may be cumulative rather than additive. The same dynamic may apply to gender minority participants, who reported higher rates of psychological IPV (e.g., insults) but did not differ in overall agency scores, perhaps due to simultaneous exposure to affirming and disempowering environments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePower, Structure, and Sexual Agency\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these findings reinforce that sexual agency is not solely an internal trait. It is relational, contextual, and shaped by broader systems of power and inequality (Bay-Cheng, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Incorporating TGP is useful here: it positions sexual agency as a resource constrained by social norms, gender roles, and economic dependency. Our results suggest that sexual agency can be cultivated and supported through upstream investments in education, identity-affirming environments, and policies that challenge traditional gender scripts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRather than viewing sexual agency only as something that IPV damages, this study supports reframing it as a potential modifiable protective factor, one that can be strengthened before violence occurs and it is rebuilt during recovery.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings also align with an intersectional understanding of power, in which overlapping systems of race, gender, class, and sexuality shape how agency is constrained or expressed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplications\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplications for Education and Educators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study underscores the need to prioritize sexual agency, not just sexual health knowledge, as a core component of comprehensive sex education. Currently, many curricula marginalize or omit concepts such as boundary-setting, consent negotiation, and communication skills, leaving young people without the necessary tools to navigate coercion or recognize relational red flags.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrograms at both the secondary and post-secondary levels must go beyond biology and risk-avoidance to focus on empowerment, agency, and consent. This includes teaching students how to recognize and assert their needs, understand power dynamics in relationships, and practice healthy communication. For example, The Sex Wrap, a multimedia sexual health intervention, integrates these principles by utilizing podcasts and social media to promote consent literacy, boundary setting, and open dialogue about sexual decision-making (Porter \u0026amp; Cooper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u0026ndash;present\u003c/span\u003e). Education that incorporates these elements is not only protective against IPV but may also promote long-term relational well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurricula must also be trauma-informed, LGBTQ\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;inclusive, and culturally responsive. These principles are especially important in marginalized or under-resourced communities where structural vulnerabilities to IPV are often highest. Schools serving these populations should be prioritized for funding and program implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplications for Interventions and Interventionalists\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntervention models that focus solely on physical safety or trauma recovery miss a key opportunity: rebuilding sexual agency as part of healing. Survivors often struggle with diminished confidence, difficulty asserting boundaries, or fear of sexual intimacy, all of which are critical for long-term recovery and for reducing the risk of revictimization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrograms should explicitly support survivors in regaining control over their sexual and relational lives. This includes sex-positive therapy, group-based agency skills workshops, and survivor-led storytelling that validates agency as an act of resilience and empowerment. Prevention efforts targeting youth should incorporate similar tools, including interactive consent education, empowerment-focused discussion groups, and role-play exercises that promote assertiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportantly, sexual agency must not be treated as an individual responsibility alone. Structural supports, clinics, shelters, and schools should embed agency-building components into IPV screening, education, and care, particularly when serving young people and those most at risk of disempowerment.\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunities with higher levels of sexual agency would likely also help prevent IPV. The role of a community in standing up to rape culture and \u0026ldquo;calling in\u0026rdquo; people who are committing sexual and gender microaggressions provides pre-IPV options for repair (Ross, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvivor-led interventions, such as peer mentoring programs, storytelling circles, and community-based advocacy, can also play a critical role in helping individuals reclaim sexual agency as part of their healing process (Bagwell-Gray, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplications for Policy\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSexual agency is not just an individual asset, but a public health determinant. Federal and state education policies should require inclusion of sexual agency competencies in health curricula, particularly in regions with elevated IPV rates. This means mandating content on consent, communication, and boundary setting, not as add-ons, but as essential outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn parallel, funding must be expanded for school- and community-based programs that integrate these principles. Shelters, health systems, and housing support services must adopt trauma-informed approaches that center not only survivor safety, but also survivor agency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicies addressing IPV should also reflect the intersectional nature of risk and resilience. Data collection systems must disaggregate by race, gender identity, and socioeconomic status to better understand where agency is most threatened and where it can be most effectively supported. Without this lens, prevention efforts risk reproducing the very inequities they aim to disrupt.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImplications for Future Research\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture studies should use longitudinal designs to better understand the temporal and potentially causal relationship between sexual agency and IPV. Qualitative and mixed-methods approaches are also needed to explore how survivors describe changes in sexual agency over time and in response to interventions. Furthermore, future research should investigate how specific contextual factors, such as cultural identity, religious affiliation, and early relationship experiences, impact both vulnerability and resilience across diverse populations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStrengths and Limitations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrengths\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study offers several key contributions to the literature on sexual agency and IPV. First, it is one of the few studies to empirically explore the bidirectional relationship between sexual agency and IPV among a large, demographically diverse sample of young adults. By examining both the erosive impact of IPV on sexual agency and the potential protective role of agency against IPV, this work reframes sexual agency as both an outcome and a resilience factor. Second, the study is grounded in a strong theoretical framework, the Theory of Gender and Power, which enables a nuanced interpretation of how structural inequalities and social norms shape relational dynamics. The inclusion of moderation analyses further strengthens the findings by identifying how the relationship between IPV and agency differs across groups, offering valuable insights for tailoring prevention and intervention strategies. Finally, the use of validated and psychometrically sound instruments adds credibility to the measurement of key constructs. The large sample size enhances statistical power, and the inclusion of underrepresented groups helps center populations often overlooked in IPV research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLimitations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these strengths, several limitations should be noted. Most importantly, the cross-sectional design prevents the drawing of causal or temporal conclusions. While findings suggest that sexual agency may be protective against IPV, it is also possible that IPV erodes sexual agency over time. Longitudinal research is needed to clarify directionality. Second, reliance on self-reported data raises the possibility of response biases, including recall errors and social desirability effects. Although the anonymous online format may have reduced these risks, future studies could benefit from incorporating mixed-methods designs or interview-based approaches to understand the context behind the numbers better. Finally, the sample lacked racial and ethnic balance, with White participants making up the majority. This limits generalizability and constrains deeper exploration of how cultural and community-based resilience may shape agency and IPV experiences. Future research should prioritize recruitment strategies that better represent racially and economically marginalized populations. Given that demographic variables such as race, education, and housing status are often interrelated, some degree of collinearity may exist between moderators, limiting our ability to isolate their independent effects.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSexual agency isn\u0026rsquo;t just a byproduct of healthy relationships; it is a critical tool for preventing and healing from intimate partner violence. This study shows that while IPV may erode agency, higher agency is linked to reduced exposure to violence, even when structural vulnerabilities are present. That duality matters. It means sexual agency should be treated not only as an outcome, but as an intervention point. Building sexual agency, through education, community, and policy, is a public health imperative. If we want to interrupt cycles of coercion and control, we need to start by giving young people the skills, confidence, and support to own their boundaries and desires.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by an unrestricted internal grant from the City University of New York, which was used to provide participant incentives in the form of Amazon gift cards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConflicts of interest/Competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest or competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and material\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the topic and protections outlined in the IRB protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCode availability\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndrew Porter and Spring Cooper conceptualized the study and oversaw data collection. Andrew Porter and Emily Pokrant drafted the original version of the manuscript. Beck Graefe contributed to statistical planning, conducted data analysis, and provided statistical writing support on both the original and final drafts. Spring, Cooper, Lauren Prenaveau, and Ashley Falcon provided editorial feedback and revisions to the final manuscript. Andrew Porter led the final revisions and prepared the version submitted for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBalint, S. (2024). Women\u0026apos;s experiences of sexual agency under constrained choice: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Women Quarterly, 48\u003c/em\u003e(4), 491\u0026ndash;512. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843241245713\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBagwell-Gray ME. Women\u0026rsquo;s Healing Journey From Intimate Partner Violence: Establishing Positive Sexuality. Qualitative Health Research. 2018;29(6):779-795. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318804302\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women\u0026rsquo;s sexuality.\u003cem\u003e Sex Roles, 73(7)\u003c/em\u003e, 279\u0026ndash;291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0452-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCalvillo, C., Marshall, A., Gafford, S., \u0026amp; Montgomery, B. E. (2024). Intimate partner violence and its relation to sexual health outcomes across different adult populations: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sociology, 9\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1498969\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, C., Chan, Y., Au, A., \u0026amp; Cheung, G. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Extended\u0026ndash;Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (E-HITS) screening tool in detecting intimate partner violence in hospital emergency departments in Hong Kong. \u003cem\u003eHong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 109\u0026ndash;117. https://doi.org/10.1177/102490791001700202\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, May 16). \u003cem\u003eAbout intimate partner violence\u003c/em\u003e. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/index.html\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCense, M. (2019). Rethinking sexual agency: Proposing a multicomponent model based on young people\u0026rsquo;s life stories. \u003cem\u003eSex Education, 19\u003c/em\u003e(3), 247\u0026ndash;262. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2018.1535968\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConnell, R. W. (1987). \u003cem\u003eGender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics\u003c/em\u003e. Stanford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooper, S. C., \u0026amp; Porter, A. W. (Hosts). (2016\u0026ndash;present). The Sex Wrap [Audio podcast]. Podglomerate. https://thepodglomerate.com/episodes-of/the-sex-wrap/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooper, S. C., Porter, A., Fries, N., Cheruvillil, S., Lewis, L., Lim, M. S. C., Chung, K. S. K., Albury, K., \u0026amp; Skinner, S. R. (under review). \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and validity testing of a scale to measure sexual agency in young people\u003c/em\u003e. Manuscript under review.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooper, S. C., Schobert, K., Cheruvillil, S., Porter, A., \u0026amp; Palmedo, P. C. (2021). Posts, likes, shares, and DMs: A qualitative exploration of how social media is related to sexual agency in young people. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Health Communication, 26\u003c/em\u003e, 121\u0026ndash;126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1890283\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarcia-Vergara, E., Almeda, N., Mart\u0026iacute;n R\u0026iacute;os, B., Becerra-Alonso, D., \u0026amp; Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Navarro, F. (2022). A Comprehensive Analysis of Factors Associated with Intimate Partner Femicide: A Systematic Review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(12), 7336. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127336\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilbert, L. K., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., \u0026amp; Kresnow, M. (2022). Intimate partner violence and health conditions among U.S. adults\u0026mdash;National Intimate Partner Violence Survey, 2010\u0026ndash;2012. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence, 38\u003c/em\u003e, NP237\u0026ndash;NP261. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221080147\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262\u0026ndash;290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIBM Corp. (2022). \u003cem\u003eIBM SPSS Statistics for Windows\u003c/em\u003e (Version 29.0) [Computer software]. IBM Corp.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevin, D. S., Ward, L. M., \u0026amp; Neilson, E. C. (2012). Formative sexual communications, sexual agency and coercion, and youth sexual health. \u003cem\u003eSocial Service Review, 86\u003c/em\u003e, 487\u0026ndash;516. https://doi.org/10.1086/667785\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMariscal, S. E. (2020). Resilience following exposure to intimate partner violence and other violence: A comparison of Latino and non-Latino youth. \u003cem\u003eChildren and Youth Services Review, 113\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104975\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQualtrics. (2022). \u003cem\u003eQualtrics Survey Software\u003c/em\u003e (Version XM). Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoss, L. J. (2025). \u003cem\u003eCalling In: How to Start Making Change with Those You\u0026rsquo;d Rather Cancel\u003c/em\u003e. Simon \u0026amp; Schuster.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSanz-Barbero, B., Bar\u0026oacute;n, N., \u0026amp; Vives-Cases, C. (2019). Prevalence, associated factors, and health impact of intimate partner violence against women in different life stages. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE, 14\u003c/em\u003e(10), e0221049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221049\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchobert, K., Cooper, S., Fries, N., \u0026amp; Cheruvillil, M. S. (2021). I thought we were vibin\u0026rsquo;: A qualitative exploration of sexual agency and consent in young people. \u003cem\u003eSexualities, 24\u003c/em\u003e(7), 906\u0026ndash;921. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211026457\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSherin, K. M., Sinacore, J. M., Li, X. Q., Zitter, R. E., \u0026amp; Shakil, A. (1998). E-HITS: A short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. \u003cem\u003eFamily Medicine, 30\u003c/em\u003e(7), 508\u0026ndash;512.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSierra, J. C., Arcos-Romero, A. I., \u0026Aacute;lvarez-Muelas, A., \u0026amp; Cervilla, \u0026Oacute;. (2021). The impact of intimate partner violence on sexual attitudes, sexual assertiveness, and sexual functioning in men and women. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020594\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoster, A. P., Falcke, D., \u0026amp; Oliveira, A. (2024). Exploring the association between sexual agency and intimate relationship violence experienced and perpetrated by Brazilian and Portuguese women. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research and Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-024-01053-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTolman, D. L., Anderson, S. M., \u0026amp; Belmont, K. (2015). Mobilizing metaphor: Considering complexities, contradictions, and contexts in adolescent girls\u0026rsquo; and young women\u0026rsquo;s sexual agency. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles, 73\u003c/em\u003e, 298\u0026ndash;310.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWisniewska, M. J. (2024, October 7). Domestic violence statistics 2024. \u003cem\u003eBreak the Cycle\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.breakthecycle.org/domestic-violence-statistics/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2012). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence\u003c/em\u003e. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77432\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. (2024, May 25). \u003cem\u003eViolence against women\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"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":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"sexual agency, intimate partner violence, young adults, resilience, gender and power, structural inequality, sexual health","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7190432/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7190432/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntroduction:\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003c/strong\u003eSexual agency, the ability to recognize, communicate, and negotiate sexual boundaries, is central to relational well-being but may be compromised by experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV). While IPV is known to erode sexual agency, emerging research suggests that sexual agency may also serve as a protective factor. This study explores the potential bidirectional relationship between IPV and sexual agency among young adults, considering how structural and demographic factors may shape this dynamic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nA cross-sectional online survey was conducted between February and May 2022, involving 857 U.S.-based participants aged 18–20, who were recruited via social media. Participants completed validated measures of IPV (E-HITS scale) and sexual agency (Sexual Agency Questionnaire). Descriptive statistics, t-tests, multiple linear regressions, and moderation analyses were used to examine associations and interaction effects across key demographic variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nApproximately one-third of participants reported experiencing IPV. Those without IPV histories reported significantly higher sexual agency scores. Regression models confirmed that IPV exposure was associated with lower sexual agency, even after adjusting for covariates. Moderation analyses revealed that higher education and racial minority status buffered the negative impact of IPV on agency. No significant moderation effects were found for gender identity, sexual orientation, or housing status.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nFindings suggest a bidirectional pattern may exist: while IPV is associated with diminished sexual agency, individuals with higher sexual agency also report lower IPV exposure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePolicy Implications:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\nPublic health efforts should integrate sexual agency promotion into IPV education, intervention, and policy frameworks, especially those focused on young adults and structurally vulnerable populations.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sexual Agency and Intimate Partner Violence: Navigating Risk and Resistance in Young Adulthood","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-08 16:53:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7190432/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3b822231-efeb-4f97-ba21-bbf2b639bca8","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-06T15:53:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-08 16:53:11","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7190432","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7190432","identity":"rs-7190432","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}