Nicola Graham-Kevan

rachel_tarlingThe Gendered Perspective of Domestic (Intimate Partner) Violence: A Review of the Evidence

 

 

 

The gender perspective of domestic violence between intimate partners (subsequently termed ‘domestic violence’ in this article) largely views domestic violence as a problem of men’s violence towards women. This approach is apparent within the EU as evidenced by surveys such as the FRA survey which assessed violence against women across the 28 Member States of the European Union (EU). The standardised survey included questions about physical, sexual and psychological violence, childhood victimisation, sexual harassment and stalking. These questions were only asked of women in spite of ample evidence that men experience the same victimisations, at significant prevalence rates. For example research funded by the EU commission concluded that men and women generally experienced domestic violence as both victims and perpetrators with few significant sex-differences. They also found substantial overlap of victim/perpetrator roles leading them to conclude the need to consider men and women as both potential victims and perpetrators when approaching domestic violence (Costa, Soares, Lindert, Hatzidimitriadou, Sundin, Toth, & … Barros, 2015).

The gendered perspective generally attributes male violence towards women to wider societal values and patriarchal beliefs that encourage male dominance and female subordination (eg., Abrar, Lovenduski & Margetts, 2000; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Yllö, 2005). The EU refer to violence against a female victim by her male partner as ‘gender based violence’ and assert that “women and girls, of all ages and backgrounds, are most affected by gender-based violence… and includes violence in close relationships (European Commission 2016). Patriarchy and sexual dissemination within this perspective are viewed as the direct causes of domestic violence (Bell & Naugle, 2008), rather than one potential factor that interacts with other causes (Dutton, 2006). Research that finds that women are also violent to their male partners is interpreted within this perspective as self-defense (Dobash and Dobash 2004). Such attributions are rarely made in relation to  understanding male perpetration. Thus, violence towards women is viewed as a special case, unrelated to other forms of violence and other forms of crime.

This gendered theoretical stance has been instrumental in shaping responses to domestic abuse against women in western societies (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2010; Graham-Kevan, 2007), however, it has been heavily criticised as a theory that is ideologically based rather than empirically supported (Dutton & Nichols, 2005; Dutton & Covro, 2006; Gelles & Straus, 1988; Graham-Kevan, 2007; Hamel, 2005a). Indeed, hundreds of research findings exist that undermine the exclusivity of the gendered perspective (e.g., Archer, 2000; 2002; 2006; Stith, et al., 2004; Desmarais, et al., 2012a, 2012b; Sugarman & Frankel, 1996; O’Leary, et al., 2007). Including an ever growing number of longitudinal cohort studies (see Dutton, 2007 for a review).

Those studies that are used to support a gendered perspective either fail to measure female perpetration or male victimisation at the hands of their partners (for example the FRA study above; World Health Organization [WHO], 2005a; Medina-Ariza & Barberet, 2003), or utilise selected samples, usually women from shelters or accident and emergency departments (Dutton, 2006). Research using samples of this nature unsurprisingly find high rates of male to female violence. Straus and Gelles (1999) refer to this as the ‘clinical fallacy’, whereby findings from research with clinical samples are inappropriately extrapolated to the general population who experience this problem. However, meta-analytic reviews which take into account the scientific rigour of studies offer limited support for the relationship between patriarchal values and domestic violence (Sugarman & Frankel, 1996) or for patriarchy being the most significant risk factor for domestic violence  perpetration (e.g., Stith et al., 2004; O’Leary, Smith Slep & O’Leary, 2007).

This approach is a logical extension of the conceptualisation that  if women are only violent in the context of men’s control and violence towards them, women’s  perpetration is a symptom of men’s domestic violence and so it is at best irrelevant and at worst potentially damaging due to its potential to mislead. The difficulty with such an approach is that theories about female violence remain untested. Although there are exceptions (e.g. Dobash & Dobash, 2004; Giles-Simms, 1983) research concluding domestic abuse is primarily concerned with men’s violence to women has largely omitted the measurement of women’s partner violence  (e.g. Johnson & Leone, 2005). A notable and oft cited exception was Dobash and Dobash (2004) analysis of domestic violence using a sample of  couples who were recruited from the UK criminal justice system, whereby all the men were convicted domestic violence perpetrators and all the women were their victims. In spite of this highly selected sample the authors concluded that their findings showed that domestic violence was “…primarily an asymmetrical problem of men’s violence toward women, and women’s violence does not equate to men’s in terms of frequency, severity, consequences and the victim’s sense of safety and wellbeing” (p.324). In this female ‘victim’/ male perpetrator sample 79% of women reported that their partner was violent toward them, interestingly however 54% also reported they were also violent to their partners. One quarter of the women and half of the men did not attribute the women’s violence to self defencive motives, which is particularly challenging to theory which conceptualises such women as archetypal domestic violence victims (Johnson, 1995; Kelly & Johnson, 2008).

The lack of evidence and lack of scientific rigour in the few studies that assess men and women’s domestic violence has led a growing number of researchers and other professionals to disregard these findings (Dutton, 2006) particularly when results from studies using much more rigorous designs directly contradict these interpretations (e.g. Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter & Silva, 2001).

A gender inclusive perspective encourages examination of both men’s and women’s use of domestic violence incorporates a variety of theoretical standpoints that guide research to understand why heterosexual and homosexual men and women engage in these behaviours towards their partners (e.g. power theory (Straus, 1976; 1977); social learning theory (Bandura, 1971, 1973); personality theories (Dutton, 1995; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994); and nested ecological theory (Dutton, 2006)). From this perspective factors associated with the individual are important, as is psychological assessment and therapy aimed at the individual or couple (if appropriate). The gender inclusive perspective grew from the findings of nationally representative surveys in the US which began in the 1970s. These surveys revealed remarkably similar prevalence rates of IPV perpetrated by both men and women (Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980; Straus & Gelles, 1985). This apparent gender-symmetry was an unexpected finding (Straus, 1979), and responses tended to be either outright rejection framed around methodological issues (e.g. Dobash, Dobash, Wilson & Daly, 1992; Straus, 1990) or a search for testable theoretical explanations. Typically, criticisms of the methodology used focus on the simplicity of tools used to measure violence in such surveys, which ask respondents to indicate from a list of discreet acts which they have experienced, and do not consider the context in which the IPV takes place (e.g.,  male dominance and female self defense; see Dobash & Dobash, 2004). This assertion is typically used to persuade researchers, clinicians and policy makers to question or disregard  figures of male victimisation. In addition, sceptics of the gender symmetry findings claim that surveys carried out with representative community samples will almost exclusively showcase lower levels of couple violence that may occur for reasons other than power and control. These cases are thought far more likely to be sampled  using this methodology,  than are severe cases of ‘Intimate Terrorism’, where a gendered approach would suggest the victim is likely to be the woman in a heterosexual relationship (Johnson, 1995), which are the very cases with which professionals should be concerned (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000).

Research has investigated prevalence rates of domestic violence in the community. Whilst this may intuitively seem a straightforward task, estimating a true prevalence figure is extremely difficult as the very measurement of domestic violence prevalence is contentious. Crime survey data has frequently provided evidence of the gendered nature of domestic abuse (e.g. Dobash et al., 1992). This support however is largely contingent upon the participants being assessed within a ‘domestic violence’ or ‘criminal assault’ context. This type of contextual framing essentially requires the research participant to define what is meant by ‘domestic violence’ rather than the researcher. This is problematic as many people do not view their victimisation or perpetration as domestic violence which leads to large underestimation of prevalence (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Moffit et al 2001) especially for men’s victimisation (Straus, 1999a; Povey, Coleman, Kaiza, Hoare & Janssen, 2008). In response to such concerns, more recent surveys have adopted an act based approach whereby both men and women are asked to report of the use of a variety  of aggressive and non-aggressive acts in a context of conflict in relationships (rather than crime or domestic violence). This method does not prime individuals to interpret questions in the context of crime, safety, violence or men’s aggression (e.g., National Family Violence Surveys [NFVS], Straus et al, 1980; Straus & Gelles, 1985). This conflict tactics approach may explain higher rates of self report in surveys that use this methodology (Straus, 1999a).

Therefore, failing to ask respondents about perpetration and victimisation within intimate relationships, in a non-priming context, is likely to result in large underestimates of women’s and particularly men’s IPV victimisation (Straus, 1999a). It is also important in light of research which shows that both men and women systematically underreport their own aggression (Archer, 1999), and/or over report their partner’s violence (Riggs, Murphy & O’Leary, 1989). Self-reports from both parties can be used to control for this effect and allow sex-differences to be investigated (Graham-Kevan, 2007). Furthermore, where victimisation and perpetration are both measured, the dyadic nature of domestic violence can also be studied.

Empirical research that addresses many of the issues listed above, typically finds mutual aggression the norm in dating and marital relationships (see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, et al., 2012; for a review). It also finds women are frequently the initiators of this aggression (e.g. Capaldi, Kim & Shortt, 2004; 2007; DeMaris, Pugh & Harman, 1992). In cases of one sided assaults women are more likely to be the perpetrator (Anderson, 2002; DeMaris, 1987; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Morse, 1995; O’Leary, Barling, Arias & Rosenbaum, 1989; Riggs, 1993; Roscoe & Callahan, 1985), even when using data from arrest sheets (Simmons Lehmann, Cobb & Fowler, 2005). Research has found that women’s use of domestic violence increased the frequency and severity of men’s use (e.g. Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005), and mutual aggression increased the likelihood of injury for both men and women (e.g. Capaldi et al., 2007; Fergusson, Horwood & Ridder, 2005; LeJeune & Follette, 1994; Milardo, 1998; O’Leary & Slep, 2006).

Findings of sexual symmetry have undoubtedly presented a challenge to a gendered conceptualisation of domestic violence. Gendered explanations lead to expectations that apparent reciprocal aggression between partners, is actually due to  women’s violence being predominantly as ‘self-defensive’. Research has presented accounts of women’s violence which has been interpreted as self-defense or in some way a reaction to men’s IPV (Dasguta, 1999; Dobash et al., 1992; Dobash & Dobash, 1984; 2004; Henning & Feder, 2004). More, empirically rigorous research has found little support for the primacy of self-defensive explanations for women’s IPV (Gray & Forshee 1997; Straus & Gelles 1988; Stets & Straus 1990), particularly for those  women who are violent towards non-violent male partners (Morse 1995; Simmons et al., 2005; Straus & Ramirez, 2004, or lesbian domestic violence (Dutton, 1994). Rather, such studies have highlighted alternative motivations for female violence towards partners, such as control, anger, jealousy and to get through to their partner (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones & Teplar, 1996; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005; Harned, 2001; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012b).

Neither does a gendered explanation fit with longitudinal data that suggests both men’s and women’s IPV can be predicted from risk factors present in childhood (Moffitt et al., 2001) or even before birth (Côté, Tremblay, Nagin, Zoccolillo & Vitaro, 2002; Tremblay et al., 2004). Longitudinal data has found risk factors for aggressive and antisocial behaviour tend to be shared by both boys and girls (Broidy et al. 2003; Côté, Tremblay, Nagin, Zoccolillo & Vitaro, 2002; Moffitt et al., 2001), and that the same influences predict both general aggression and partner aggression in men and women (Moffitt et al., 2001, Tremblay et al., 2004). These shared risk factors suggest the different forms of aggression are developmentally similar and likely co-occur. Furthermore, research has identified that one of the strongest risk factors for female victimisation is a woman initiating violence toward her male partner (e.g., Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2005; Stith et al., 2004). These findings are not ‘blaming’ women, but instead adopting a problem-focused, systemic approach whereby domestic violence is understood within a family context, occurring almost always within interpersonal interactions. This type of research moves from a blame/accountability model to a needs based approach (e.g., Stith et al., 2004). Therefore, there is strong empirical support for studying men and women’s domestic violence in a gender neutral manner.

Whilst the vast majority of  research has examined perpetrators or victims in isolation, exploration of relationship dyads has begun to evolve. It has long been suggested that to fully understand aggressive behaviour we should consider the interaction of the victim, perpetrator and environment in which it takes place (White & Kowalski, 1998).

Research has classified couples involved in violent relationships along dimensions of their own, and their partner’s use, of controlling behaviours and domestic violence (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003a; 2003b; 2009; Johnson, 1995; 1999).  Johnson (1995) stated that the most severe type of domestic violence is intimate terrorism (where one partner is highly controlling and physically aggressive towards a non-controlling partner). Whilst Johnson (1999) reports intimate terrorists are likely to be men and their victims women, recent research (Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003a; 2003b; 2009) including using large representative samples (Bates & Graham-Kevan, 2016; LaRoche, 2008), found no support for  sex-differences in classification, i.e. men and women are equally likely to be intimate terrorists. Johnson also used the term ‘Common Couple Violence’ (later classified as Situational Couple Violence (Johnson, 1999)) to describe relationships where one or both members used non-controlling physical aggression toward the other There domestic violence was conceptualised as borne out of conflict,  rather than a power and control dynamic. This type of low level partner violence was thought to be experienced by the majority of violent couples in community samples. Such conceptualisations have led to some researchers asserting that principles underlying a strategy to combat domestic violence should be directed at men’s violence to women (Dobash & Dobash, 2004). These authors argue “[W]hile any and all conflict and negative encounters between couples is regrettable, policies and interventions, particularly those of criminal justice, are not developed to provide wide scale responses to such encounters; nor are public resources spent upon them” (p. 344).

Such a policy not only implies a general relaxing of criminal law to allow some types physical assault towards partners to be effectively ignored, it also ignores the  literature that suggests that  reciprocal aggression is more likely to result in  injury for both parties in comparison to uni-directional violence by men and women (Straus, 2008; Whitaker et al., 2007). Considering the frequency of reciprocal violence (approximately half of all domestic abuse Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012), and the large overlap between partner violence and child abuse and neglect (Appel & Holden, 1998; Eddleson, 1999), it is likely that reciprocal domestic violence is the most common type experienced by children (Slep & O’Leary, 2005). Child witnesses to domestic violence are at high risk for experiencing a host of emotional and behavioural problems in comparison to children who have not experienced this violence (Wolak & Finlehor, 1998), regardless of whether the perpetrator is their mother or father (English, Marshall & Stewart, 2003). Taking into account the potential negative effects associated with reciprocal domestic violence, it can be argued that it is not only misleading, but dangerous to underplay its negative effects and minimise law enforcement and service response to its prevention and intervention.

Prevention

Interpersonal violence has been recognized as a public health problem, as WHO (2005b) state “Interpersonal violence – violence between individuals in families and communalities – is a public health problem…In response, many governments, nongovernmental organizations and communities are supporting the development and implementation of prevention strategies” (p. 1).  The principles of public health have been used as a framework to understand the causes and consequences of violence, and how it can be prevented. The approach is risk factor, evidence base and population oriented, in that it aims to provide maximum benefit for the largest number of people possible. Therefore, primary, secondary and tertiary prevention methods are advocated to target the whole population (Hamilton & Browne, 2002). Primary prevention strategies aim to prevent the development of social problems in an entire population and refer to those services that can be accessed universally by all members of the population, such as TV series and poster campaigns. Secondary prevention strategies aim to prevent the occurrence of a social problem in those people deemed at high risk of experiencing it, and refers to targeted services shown to identify and reduce the susceptibility of high risk individuals (see risk assessment section). Tertiary prevention refers to services delivered to those people who have already experienced the stated problem in an attempt to reduce its reoccurrence and negative impacts, such as IPV perpetrator programs in this instance (see treatment section).

In terms of primary prevention, research shows that media campaigns have proved extremely useful in the reduction and prevention of various social problems (Biglan, 1992). Research has further demonstrated that only when a large proportion of the population is reached is reduction in the prevalence of a problem evidenced (Biglan, 1995). Therefore, in order to make noticeable reductions at societal level Universal campaigns should be put into practice.

It is important that primary prevention campaigns actually map onto what the majority of the general population experience as domestic violence, otherwise the message may not be internalised by the majority as something that applies to them. Universal campaigns containing messages which only apply to smaller, specific sub groups of people (e.g., men at high risk of unidirectional control and violence to a female partner) may lead the majority to assume that only severe violence to women is ‘domestic violence’, and anything less is ‘normal’ in relationships, especially aggression by women towards men. For example, data from the British Crime Survey (Povey et al., 2008) showed the majority of total respondents (65%) who reported some level of domestic violence victimisation in the previous 12 months did not view this as ‘domestic violence’, although female victims were more likely to view such acts as ‘domestic violence’ than were male victims (39% compared to 30% of men). Furthermore, 29% of victims thought this was ‘something that just happened in relationships’ (36% and 23% of male and females respectively), and 30% thought the acts were wrong but not a crime (29% and 30%). Such figures raise questions about what governments are doing wrong if a large proportion of the population who experience legally defined violent acts from a partner do not consider this to be ‘domestic violence’ or ‘criminal’, but rather an inherent part of everyday relationships.

Therefore, it is imperative that governments take note of what surveys with representative community samples tell us about male and female victimisation and perpetration rates. Despite the wealth of evidence that exists showing similar rates of male and female perpetration, the majority of universal campaigns typically advertise women (and sometimes children) as the unidirectional victims of male violence (Dixon, 2010). Such campaigns may actually be serving to increase the rates of female violence against men, as some evidence would suggest (Whitaker et al., 2007), and as female perpetration is a risk factor for male perpetration (Stith et al., 2004), it may also serve to increase reciprocal violence via this mechanism (Dixon, 2010).

Based on US representative community surveys (e.g., Slep & O’Leary, 2005; Straus et al., 1980; Straus & Gelles, 1985), it would appear universal campaigns that portray the message ‘violence in families by any member is not acceptable’ would best represent the experiences of the majority. This is especially important considering the overlap of violence to partners and child maltreatment, and the intergenerational cycle of abuse (Dixon, Browne & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005).


References

Abrar, S., Lovenduski, J., & Margetts, H. (2000). Feminist ideas and domestic violence policy change. Political Studies, 48, 239-262. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00258

Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 851–863. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00851.x

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.).         Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

Appel, A.E., & Holden, G.W. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 578-599. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.12.4.578

Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the conflict tactics scales: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1263-1289. doi: 10.1177/088626099014012003

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. doi: 10.1037MJ033-2909.I26.5.651

Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 7, 313-351. doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00061-1

Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-structural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 113-133. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_3

Babcock, J.C., Green, C.E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterer’s treatment Work?: A meta-       analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 2,         1023-1053. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001

Babcock, J.C., Miller, S.A., & Siard, C. (2003). Toward a typology of abusive women:   Differences between partner-only and generally violent women in the use of         violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 153-161. doi: 10.1111/1471-    6402.00095

Bandura, A. (1971). Psychological modelling. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A.J.Z., & Dutton, D.G.  (2001). Insecure attachment and partner abuse. In C.C. Clulow. (Ed.), Attachment and couple work: Applying the secure base concept in research and practice. London: Routledge.

Beech, A.R., & Ward, T. (2004). The integration of etiology and risk in sexual offenders: A theoretical framework. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 31-63. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2003.08.002

Bell, K.M., & Naugle, A.E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1096-1107. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.003

Biglan, A. (1992). Family practices and the larger social context. New Zealand journal of Psychology, 21(1), 37-43.

Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behaviour into a lower prevalence of such behaviour. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 479-492. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-479

Browne, K.D., & Herbert, M. (1997). Preventing family violence. Chichester: Wiley.

Broidy, L., Nagin, D., Tremblay, R., Bates, J., Brame, B., Dodge, K., et al. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222-245. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.222

Campbell, J. C. (1986). Nursing assessment of risk of homicide for battered women. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(4), 36-51.

Campbell, J.C., Webster, D.W., & Glass, N. (2009). The Danger Assessment: Validation of a Lethality Risk Assessment Instrument for Intimate Partner Femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 653-674. doi: 10.1177/0886260508317180

Capaldi, D.M., Kim, H.K., & Shortt, J.W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 101–111. doi: DOI 10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1

Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004). Women’s involvement in aggression in young adult romantic relationships. In K. L Putallaz & K. L. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls (pp. 223-241). New York: Guilford.

Capaldi,  D.M., &  Owen, L.D. (2001).  Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 425–440. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.15.3.425

Carrado, M., George, M.J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:6<401::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-K

Cawson, P. (2002). Child maltreatment in the family: the experience of a national sample of young people. London: NSPCC.

Chan, K.L., Brownridge, D.A., Yan, E., Fong, D.Y., & Tiwari, A. (2011). Child maltreatment polyvictimisation:  Rates and short-term effects on adjustment in a representative Hong Kong sample. Psychology of Violence, 1, 4-15. doi: 10.1037/90020284

Chiodo, D., Leschied, A.W., Whitehead, P.C., & Hurley, D. (2008). Child welfare practice and policy related to the impact of children experiencing physical victimization and domestic violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 564-574. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.008

Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children’s development. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 56(1), 96-118.

Costa, D., Soares, J., Lindert, J., Hatzidimitriadou, E., Sundin, Ö., Toth, O., & … Barros, H. (2015). Intimate partner violence: A study in men and women from six European countries. International Journal Of Public Health, 60(4), 467-478. doi:10.1007/s00038-015-0663-1

Côté, S., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D. S., Zoccolillo, M., & Vitaro, F. (2002). Childhood behavioral profiles leading to adolescent conduct disorder: Risk trajectories for boys and girls. Journal of American Academic Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1086-1094. doi:10.1097/00004583-200209000-00009

Dasgupta, S. D. (1999). Just like men? A critical view of violence by women. In M. E. Shephard & E. L. Pence (Eds.), Coordinating community responses to domestic violence (pp. 195-222). City, State: Sage Publications

Davies, B., Ralph, S., & Hawton, M. (1995). A study of client satisfaction with family court counselling in cases involving domestic violence. Family Court Review, 33, 324-341. doi: 10.1111/j.174-1617.1995.tb00375.x

D’Ambrosio, Z. (2008). Advocating for comprehensive assessments in domestic violence cases. Family Court Review, 46, 654-699. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00230.x

DeMaris, A. (1987). The efficacy of a spouse abuse model in accounting for courtship violence.  Journal of Family Issues, 8, 291-305. doi: 10.1177/019251387008003003

DeMaris, A., Pugh, M.D., & Harman, E. (1992). Sex differences in the accuracy of recall of witnesses of portrayed dyadic violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 335-345. doi: 10.2307/353065

Dixon, L. (2010, July). Investigating normative beliefs about intimate partner violence in international student samples. Paper presented at the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research Conference. Sheraton Harborside Hotel and Conference Centre, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, US, July 11-13.

Dixon, L. & Browne, K.D. (2003). The heterogeneity of spouse abuse: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 107-130. doi: 10.1016/51359-1789(02)00104-0

Dixon. L., Browne, K.D. & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). Risk factors of parents abused as children: A mediational analysis of the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment (Part I). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 47-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00339x

Dixon, L. & Graham-Kevan, N. (2010). Spouse abuse. In B.S. Fisher and S.P. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Dixon. L., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., & Browne, K.D. (2008). Classifying partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 74-93. doi: 10.1177/0886260507307652

Dixon, L., Browne, K.D., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., & Ostapuik, E. (2010). Differentiating patterns of violence in the family. Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research, 2, 32-44. doi: 10.5042/jacpr.2010.0003

Dixon, L., Fatania, R., Howard, P. (2011). Classifying female perpetrated intimate partner aggression. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Dobash, R.P., & Dobash, R.E. (1979). Violence Against Wives. New York: The Free Press.

Dobash, R., & Dobash, R. P. (1984). The nature and antecedents of violent events. British Journal of Criminology, 24(3), 269-288.

Dobash, R.P., & Dobash, R.E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324-349. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azh026

Dobash, R., Dobash, R., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). ‘The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence’. Social Problems, 39, 402-32. . doi: 10.1525/sp.1992.39.1.03×00641

Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 125 – 140

Dutton, D. G (1995). Male abusiveness in intimate relationships. Clinical Psychology Review, 15, 567-581. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(95)00028-N

Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver. UCB Press.

Dutton, D.G. & Corvo, K. (2006) Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 457-483. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.007

Dutton, D. G., Landolt, M. A., Starzomski, A., & Bodnarchuk, M. (2001). Validation of the

propensity for abusiveness scale in diverse male populations. Journal of Family Violence,16, 59-73. doi: 10/1023/A:1026528510057

Dutton, D.G. & Nicholls, T. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680 – 714. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001

Egeland, B., Bosquet, M., & Chung, A.L (2002). Continuities and discontinuities in the intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment: Implications for breaking the cycle of abuse. In K.D. Browne, H. Hanks, P. Stratton, & C.E Hamilton (Eds.), Early prediction and prevention of child abuse: A handbook (pp. 217–232). Chichester: Wiley

Edleson, J.L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5, 134-154. doi: 10.1177/107780129952003

English., D.J., Marshall, D.B., & Stewart, A.J. (2003). Effects of Family Violence on Child Behavior and Health During Early Childhood. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 43-57. doi: 10.1023/A:1021-453431252

Faulk, M. (1974, July). Men who assault their wives. Medicine, Science and the Law, 180-183.

Felson, R.B. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., & Ridder,  E.M. (2005).  Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1103–1119. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00205.x

Gelles, R.J & Straus, M.A. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Giles-Sims, J. (1983). Wife battering: A systems theory approach. New York: The           Guilford Press.

Gewirtz, A. H., & Edleson, J. L. (2007). Young children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: Towards a developmental risk and resilience framework for research and        intervention. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 151-163.

Giles-Sims, J. (1983).  Wife battering: A systems theory approach.  New York: The Guilford      Press.

Gondolf, E.W. (1988). Who are these guys?: Toward a behavioral typology of batterers. Violence and Victims, 3(3), 187-203.

Graham, K., Wells, S., & Jelley, J. (2002). The social context of physical aggression among adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 64-83. doi: 10.1177/088626050201700/005

Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Domestic violence: Research and implications for batterer programs in Europe. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 13, 217-225.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003a). Intimate Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: A Test of Johnson’s Predictions in Four British Samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1247-1270. doi:10.1177/0886260503256656

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence and Victims, 18, 181-196. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.181

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005). Investigating three explanations of women’s relationship aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 270-277. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00221.x

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer J. (2009). Control tactics and partner violence in heterosexual relationships. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 445-452. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.007

Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence: Differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126-141. doi: 10.1177/088626097012001008

Hamel, J. (2005a). Domestic violence: A gender inclusive conception. In J. Hamel & T.L Nicholls (Eds.). Gender inclusive treatment of intimate partner abuse: A comprehensive approach. New York. Springer.

Hamel, J. (2005b). Gender-inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse: A Comprehensive Approach. New York: Springer.

Hamilton, C., & Browne, K.D. (2002). Predicting physical maltreatment. In K.D Browne, H. Hanks, P. Stratton and C. Hamilton. Early prediction and prevention of child abuse: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley.

Hanson, R.K., Helmus, L., & Bourgon, G. (2007). The validity of risk assessments for IPV: A meta-analysis (Report 2007-07). Retrieved from Public Safety Canada website: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/vra_ipv_200707-eng.aspx

Harned, M.S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 269-285.

Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2004). A comparison of men and women arrested for domestic violence: Who presents the greater threat? Journal of Family Violence, 19, 69-80. doi: 10.1023/B.JOFV.0000019838.01126.7c

Herrenkohl, T.I., & Herrenkohl, R.C. (2007). Examining the Overlap and Prediction of Multiple Forms of Child Maltreatment, Stressors, and Socioeconomic Status: A Longitudinal Analysis of Youth Outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 553-562. doi: 10.1007/510896-007-9107-x

Herrenkohl, T.I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E.A., Herrenkohl, R.C., & Moylan, C.A. (2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 9, 84-99. doi: 10.1177/1524838008314797

Hilton, N.Z., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., Lang, C., Cormier, C.A. & Lines, K.J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Onrario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16, 267-275. doi: 10.1037/1040-359016.3.267

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, C., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G.L. (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) Batterer Typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019. doi: 10.1307/0022-006x.68.6.100

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J.C. (2004). Typologies of men who are martially violent: scientific and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1369-1389. doi: 10.1177/0886260504269693

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typologies of male Batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476

Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal Terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294. doi: 10.23071352683

Johnson, M.P. (1999). Two types of violence against women in the American family: Identifying intimate terrorism and common couple violence. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the National Council on Family Relations, Irvine, California. In J. Hamel and T.L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment. (pp. 153). New York: Springer.

Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 948-963. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x

Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349. doi:10.1177/0192513X04270345

Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1987). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 186–192. doi: 10.1111/J.1939-0025.1987.tb03528.x

Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. P. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46), 476-499. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x

Kropp, P.R., Hart & Belfrage, H. (2004). Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER). User manual. Vancouver: British Columbia Institute on Family Violence.

Kropp, P.R., Hart, S.D., Webster, C.D. & Eaves, D. (1999). Manual for the spousal assault risk assessment guide (3rd Edition). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

LaRoche, D. (2008). Context and consequences of domestic violence against men and women in Canada 2004 (Living conditions, April). Québec. Institut de la Statistique du Québec.

LeJeune, C., & Follette, V. (1994). Taking responsibility: Sex differences in reporting dating violence.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 133-140. doi: 10.1177/088626094009001009

Loseke, D.R., Gelles, R.J. & Cavanaugh, M.M. (2005). Section I: Controversies in conceptualisation. In D.R. Loseke., R.J. Gelles and M.M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp.1-4). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. B. (2003). Co-occurrence between martial aggression and parents’ child abuse potential: The impact of cumulative stress. Violence and Victims, 18, 243-258. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.3.243

McGuire, J. (2002). Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

McGuire. J. &  Priestley, P. (1995).  Reviewing what works: past present and future. In J. McGuire (Ed.). What Works: Reducing Reoffending. Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Medina-Ariza, J. & Barberet, M. (2003). Intimate Partner Violence in Spain: Findings from a National Survey. Violence Against Women, 9, 302-322.

Mihalic, S., & Elliott, D. (1997). If violence is domestic, does it really count?. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 293-311. doi:10.1023/A:1022800905045

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2003). Preventing the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behaviour: Implications of partner violence. In D. P. Farrington & J. W. Coid (Eds.), Early prevention of adult antisocial behaviour (pp. 109-129). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Morse, B.J. (1995). Beyond the conflict tactics scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence.  Violence and Victims, 10(4), 251-272.

Milardo, R. (1998). Gender asymmetry in common couple violence. Personal Relationships, 5, 423–443. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00180.x.

O’Leary, K. D, Barling, J., Arias, I., & Rosenbaum, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.57.2.263

O’Leary, S. G., & Slep, A.M.S. (2006).  Precipitants of partner aggression.  Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 344-347. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.344

O’Leary, K.D., Smith Slep, A.M., & O’Leary, S.G. (2007). Multivariate models of men’s and women’s partner aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 752-764. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.752

Osofsky, J. D. (1999). The impact of violence on children, Future of Children, 9, 33-49. doi: 10.2307/1602780

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1983). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.

Povey, D., Coleman, K., Kaiza, P., Hoare, J., & Jansson, K. (2008). Homicide, firearms and intimate violence 2006/07 (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 03/08). Home Office: London.

Respect. (2008, November 8). Respect Position Statement: Gender and Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://www.respect.uk.net/data/files/respect_gender__dv_position_satatement.doc

Riggs, D. S. (1993). Relationship problems and dating aggression: A potential treatment target. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 18-35. doi: 10.1177/088626093008001002

Riggs, D.S., Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K.D. (1989). Intentional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 220-232. doi: 10.1177/088626089004002006

Roscoe, B. & Callahan, J.E. (1985). Adolescent’s self-reports of violence in families and dating relationships.  Adolescence, 79, 545-553.

Santovena, E.E., & Dixon, L. (2011). Investigating the true rate of intimate partner violence: A review of nationally representative studies. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Saunders, D.G. (1992). A typology of men who batter women: Three types derived from cluster analysis. American Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264-275. doi: 10.1037/h0079333

Simmons, C. A., Lehmann, P., Cobb, N., & Fowler, C. R. (2005). Personality profiles of women and men arrested for domestic violence: An analysis of similarities and differences. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41, 63-81. doi:10.1300/J076v41n04_03

Simon, T. R., Anderson, M., Thompson, M. P., Crosby, A. E., Shelley, G., & Sacks, J. J. (2001). Attitudinal acceptance of intimate partner violence among US students. Violence and Victims, 16(2), 115-126.

Slep, A.M.S., & O’Leary, S.G. (2001). Examining partner and child abuse: Are we ready for a more integrated approach to family violence? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4, 87-107. doi: 10.1203/A:1011319213874

Slep, A.M.S., & O’Leary, S.G. (2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 435-444. doi: 10.1037/0022-606x.73.3.435

Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting of marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151-165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Stith, S.M., Smith, D.B., Penn, C.E., Ward, D.B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner    physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic           review. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 10, 65-98. doi:            0.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001

Straus, M. A. (1976). Sexual inequality, cultural norms, and wife-beating. Victimology, 1, 54−76.

Straus, M. A. (1977). Wife beating: How common and why? Victimology, 2, 443−458.

Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. doi: 10.2307/351733

Straus, M. A. (1990). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation of new data on validity and reliability. In M.A. Straus & .J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49-73). New Brunswick: Transaction.

Straus, M. A. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories.

Straus, M.A. (1999a). Characteristics of the National Violence Against Women Study that might explain the low assault rate for both sexes and the even lower rate for assaults by women. Retrieved from http://www.batteredmen.com/straus22.htm

Straus, M.A. (1999b). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical and sociology of science analysis. In X. Arriaga and S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in Intimate Relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004

Straus, M. A. (2009). Why the overwhelming evidence on partner physical violence by women has not been perceived and is often denied. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 552-571. doi:10.1080/10926770903103081

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1988). How violent are American families? Estimates from the national family violence resurvey and other studies. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, Kirkpatrick, J. T & A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp. 14-36). Newbury Park: Sage.

Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1999). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8145 families. New Jersey: Transaction publishers.

Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J. & Steinmetz, S.K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Anchor Books.

Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1985). Is family violence increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 national survey rates. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, San Diego. In Dutton, D. G. (2007). Rethinking domestic violence (pp. 42). Vancouver: UCB Press.

Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. (2004). Criminal History and Assault of Dating Partners: The Role of type of Prior Crime, Age of Onset, and Gender. Violence and Victims, 19, 413-434. doi:10.1891/vivi.19.4.413.64164

Sugarman, D.B., & Frankel, S.L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13-40. doi: 10.1007/BF02333338

Taylor, C. A., & Sorenson, S. B. (2005). Community-based norms about intimate partner violence: Putting attributions of fault and responsibility into context. Sex Roles, 53, 573-589. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-7143-7

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequence of violence against women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Research in Brief, November. National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. National Institute of Justice.

Tremblay, T. E., Nagin, D. S., Séguin, J. R., Zoccolillo, M., Zelazo, P. D., Boivin, M., et al. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: Trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics, 114, 43-50. doi: 10.1542/peds.114.1.e43

Whitaker, D.J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L.S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947. doi: 10.25105/AJPH.2005.079020

Williams, K. R., & Houghton, A. B. (2004). Assessing the risk of domestic violence re-offending: A validation study. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 437-455.

White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1998). Male violence toward women: An integrated perspective. In R. G. Geen, & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy ( pp. 203–226). San Diego: Academic Press.

WHO (2005a). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva: World Health Organization.

WHO (2005b). Violence prevention alliance: Building global commitment for violence prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (1998). Children exposed to partner violence. In J. L. Jasinski, L. Williams, J. L. Jasinski, L. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research (pp. 73-112). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Yllö, K. A. (2005). Through a feminist lens: Gender, diversity, and violence: Extending the feminist framework. In D.R. Loseke., R.J. Gelles and M.M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp.19-34). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

 

Nicola Graham-Kevan

Monographic Giflted women, fragile men

School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK.
March 2017