Cross-sectional analysis reveals partner binegativity leads to IPV victimization in Chinese bisexual individuals, indicating a need for targeted interventions.
Objective This study investigates how partner binegativity, varying by partner gender and sexual orientation, contributes to intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization among Chinese cisgender bisexual individuals. Background Bisexual individuals experience higher rates of IPV victimization than heterosexual and lesbian/gay individuals. Binegativity (i.e., negative attitudes toward bisexuality), which likely varies across relationships with different partner genders and sexual orientations, may help explain these disparities. However, little is known about these processes in China, where traditional Confucianism culture emphasizing heteronormative marriage and gender roles deeply shapes bisexual individuals' relational experiences. Method A cross‐sectional sample of 344 Chinese cisgender bisexual adults in relationships was recruited, including 191 women and 153 men. Structural equation modeling tested associations among partner characteristics (partner gender, partner sexual orientation, and their intersection), perceived partner binegativity, and IPV victimization. Results Partner binegativity was positively associated with IPV victimization, predominantly among bisexual women. Among bisexual individuals, different‐gender heterosexual partners were associated with the highest levels of partner binegativity, and heterosexual partners showed higher binegativity than LGB partners; among women but not men, different‐gender partners showed higher binegativity than same‐gender partners. Partner gender and sexual orientation were indirectly associated with IPV victimization among bisexual women via partner binegativity. Conclusion Findings highlight the role of partner binegativity in IPV victimization among Chinese bisexual individuals, and underscore how partner patterns and sociocultural contexts shape IPV vulnerability, with implications for further investigation and intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: