|
Published online: 19 June 2013
Abstract
This annotated bibliography describes 343 scholarly investigations
(270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are
as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with
their spouses or opposite-sex partners. The aggregate sample size in
the reviewed studies exceeds 440,850 people.
Ackard, D. M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2002). Date violence and
date rape among adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors
and psychological health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 455–473.
(A Minnesota statewide school sample of 81,247 students\40,301 boys,
40,946 girls [in the 9th and 12th grade responded to the question of
whether they ever experienced date related violence. Over 90 % of students
reported never experiencing dat1ng violence. In terms of grades, 3.3
% of 9th grade girls and 2.8 % of 9th grade boys reported experiencing
violence, while 5.5 % of 12th grade girls and 2.3 % of 12th grade boys
reported experiencing violence. In terms of ethnicity, American Indian
boys \7.1 %[ and African American boys\7.2 %[reported experiencing higher
rates of dat1ng violence than American Indian girls\6.8 %[and African
American girls\3.6 %[).
Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and
acquaintance rape in dat1ng relationships among college men and women.
Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305–311. (A sample
of actively dat1ng college students \204 women and 140 men[responded
to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there
were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration
of physical abuse.)
Allen-Collinson, J. (2009). A marked man: Female perpetrated intimate
partner abuse. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8(1), 22–40.
(A case study of an abused heterosexual man. Article examines themes
obtained from interviews and personal diary material.) Amendt, G. (2008).
I didn’t divorce my kids!: How fathers deal with family break-ups.
Campus Verlag Publishers. (In Chapter 5 author presents data from an
internet survey of 3,600 divorced German fathers. Results reveal that
1/3 of men reported episodes of physical violence during the divorce
process and 2/3 of these were initiated by ex-partners.)
Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between
intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64, 851–863. (Data consisted of 7,395 married and cohabiting heterosexual
couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households\NSFH-1[.
In terms of measures: subjects were asked ‘‘how many arguments
during the past year resulted in ‘you hitting, shoving or throwing
things at a partner.’ They were also asked how many arguments
ended with their partner, ‘hitting, shoving or throwing things
at you.’’’ Author reports that, ‘‘victimization
rates are slightly higher among men than women\9 vs. 7 %[and in cases
that involve perpetration by only one partner, more women than men were
identified as perpetrators\2 vs. 1 %[.’’)
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual
partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.
(Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that
women were more likely than men to ‘‘use one or more acts
of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.’’
In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured,
and analyses reveal that 62 % of those injured were women.)
Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between
heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 7, 213–351. (Analyzing responses to the Conflict Tactics
Scale and using a data set somewhat different from the previous 2000
publication, the author reports that women are more likely than men
to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick bite, punch
and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle,
choke, or beat up their partners.)
Archer, J. (2006). Cross cultural differences in physical aggression
between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality & Social Psychology
Review, 10, 133–153. (A review article which suggests that ‘‘women’s
empowerment is associated with lower victimization rates from their
partners.’’ Greater individualism and empowerment by women,
however, are also associated with higher perpetration rates.)
Archer, J. (2013). Can Evolutionary principles explain patterns of
family violence? Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 403–440. (A sophisticated
analysis of the application of evolutionary principles to findings in
the area of family violence. With regard to partner violence, author
reports that in non-Western nations women are more likely to be victims
of male partner violence while in nations with high gender empowerment,
women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive than men. Author
also points out that violence surveys are more reliable as measure of
victimization when presented as family or health surveys than when presented
as crime surveys.)
Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). dat1ng violence in the United Kingdom:
a preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337–343. (Twenty-three
dat1ng couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate
that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to
express physical violence. Authors also report that, ‘‘measures
of partner agreement were high’’ and that the correlation
between past and present violence was low.)
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence
and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 2, 82–90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample
of 270 undergraduates\95 men, 175 women[and found 30 % of men and 49
% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dat1ng histories
with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)
Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression
among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298–307.
(Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS-with a sample of 103 male and 99 female
undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dat1ng
violence, 19 % of women and 18 % of men admitted being physically aggressive.
A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was
a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage
of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman
if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)
Arriaga, X. B.&Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dat1ng violence.
Do adolescents follow in their friends’ or their parents’
footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162–184. (A
modified version of Conflict Tactics Scale was administered on two occasions,
6 months apart, to 526 adolescents,\280 girls, 246 boys[whose median
age was 13. Results reveal that 28 % of girls reported perpetrating
violence with their partners \17 % moderate, 11 % severe[ on occasion
one, while 42 % of girls reported perpetrating violence\25 % moderate,
17 % severe[on occasion two. For boys, 11 % reported perpetrating violence\6
% moderate, 5 % severe[on occasion one, while 21 % reported perpetrating
violence\6 % moderate, 15 % severe[on occasion two. In terms of victimization,
33 %of girls, and 38 %of boys reported being victims of partner aggression
on occasion one and 47 % of girls and 49 % of boys reported victimization
on occasion two.
Baker, C. R. & Stith, S. m. (2008). Factors predicting dat1ng
violence perpetration among male and female college students. Journal
of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17(2), 227–244. (The
CTS2 was administered to 439 undergraduate students\118 men, 321 women[who
were in a relationship for at least a month. Results reveal that 31.8
% of men and 41.4 % of women reported being physically violent toward
their partners.)
Basile, S. (2004). Comparison of abuse by same and opposite-gender
litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal
of Family Violence, 19, 59–68. (Author examined court documents
in Massachusetts for the year 1997 and found that, ‘‘male
and female’’ defendants, who were the subject of a complaint
in domestic relations cases, while sometimes exhibiting different aggressive
tendencies, measured almost equally abusive in terms of the overall
level of psychological and physical aggression.)
Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The
family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283–286.
(Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dat1ng
violence. Found that 15 % of the men admitted to physically abusing
their partners, while 21 % of women admitted to physically abusing their
partners.)
Billingham, R. E., Bland, R., & Leary, A. (1999). dat1ng Violence
at three time periods: 1976, 1992, 1996. Psychological Reports, 85,
574–578. (Data was collected from college students in 1986\401
women, 202 men[, 1992\210 women, 204 men[and 1996\342 women, 229 men[.
Subjects completed the CTS and results reveal a significant decrease
in partner violence over a 10 year period. However, in terms of subjects’
self reported violence and report of partner violence, women were consistently
more aggressive than men.)
Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and
the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research,
1, 315–325. (Using CTS with 526 university students\167 men, 359
women[found Similar rates of mutual violence but with women reporting
higher rates of violence initiation when partner had not—9 vs.
3 %.)
Bland, R., & Orne, H. (1986). Family violence and psychiatric
disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 129–137. (In interviews
with 1,200 randomly selected Canadians\489 men, 711 women[found that
women both engaged in and initiated violence at higher rates than their
male partners.)
Bohannon, J. R., Dosser Jr., D. A., & Lindley, S. E. (1995). Using
couple data to determine domestic violence rates: An attempt to replicate
previous work. Violence and Victims, 10, 133–141. (Authors report
that in a sample of 94 military couples 11 % of wives and 7 % of husbands
were physically aggressive, as reported by the wives.)
Bookwala, J. (2002). The role of own and perceived partner attachment
in relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 84–100.
(In a sample of 161 undergraduates, 34.3 % of women\n=35[reported being
victims of partner aggression compared to 55.9 %\n=33[of men.)
Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors
of dat1ng violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7,
297–311. (Used CTS with 305 college students\227 women, 78 men[and
found that 133 women and 43 men experienced violence in a current or
recent dat1ng relationship. Authors reports that ‘‘women
reported the expression of as much or more violence in their relationships
as men.’’ While most violence in relationships appears to
be mutual— 36 % reported by women, 38 % by men—women report
initiating violence with non violent partners more frequently than men\22
vs. 17 %[).
Breitman, N., Shackelford, T. K., & Block, C. R. (2004). Couple
age discrepancy and risk of intimate partner homicide. Violence and
Victims, 19(3) 321–342. (Authors analyzed all intimate partner
homicides \a total of 2,577[ in Chicago from 1965 to 1996 and found
the murder rate perpetrated by women was 48.7 % while the murder rate
perpetrated by men was 51.3 %.)
Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 13, 407–434. (Examined Interspousal violence
in a representative sample of 562 couples in Calgary, Canada. Used Conflict
Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife
severe violence\10.7 vs. 4.8 %[. The overall violence rate for husbands
was 10.3 % while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2 %. Violence
was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest
that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while
female violence increased.)
Brown, G. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement
system to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8, (3–4),
3–139. (Summarizes partner violence data from the 1999 Canadian
General Social Survey \GSS[. The GSS is based on a representative sample
of 25,876 persons. Overall in the 12-month period preceding the survey,
an estimated 3 % of Canadian women and 2 % of Canadian men reported
experiencing violence from their partners. During the 5 year period
from 1995 to 1999, an estimated 8 % of Canadian women and 7 % of Canadian
men reported violence from their partners. Reviewed police and legal
responses to partner violence in Edmonton, Canada and concludes that
‘‘…men who are involved in disputes with their partners,
whether as alleged victims or as alleged offenders or both, are disadvantaged
and treated less favorably than women by the law-enforcement system
at almost every step.’’)
Brush, L. D. (1990). Violent Acts and injurious outcomes in married
couples: Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families and
Households. Gender & Society, 4, 56–67. (Used the Conflict
Tactics scale in a large national survey, n = 5,474, and found that
women engage in same amount of spousal violence as men.)
Brutz, J., & Ingoldsby, B. B. (1984). Conflict resolution in Quaker
families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 21–26. (Used
Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 288 Quakers\130 men, 158 women[and
found a slightly higher rate of female to male violence\15.2 %[than
male to female violence\14.6 %[.)
Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender
identity, selfesteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dat1ng relationships.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272–285. (A sample of 505 college
students\298 women, 207 men[ completed the CTS. Authors reports that
they found ‘‘no significant difference between men and women
in reporting inflicting or sustaining physical abuse.’’
Specifically, within a 1 year period they found that 14 % of the men
and 18 % of the women reported inflicting physical abuse, while 10 %
of the men and 14 % of the women reported sustaining physical abuse.)
Caetano, R., Schafter, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002).
Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among white, Black,
and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 17, 1308–1322. (A probability sample of 1,635 couples
was interviewed and assessed with the CTS. Agreement concerning intimate
partner violence was about 40 %, with no differences reported across
ethnicities. Women significantly reported perpetrating more partner
violence than men in all three ethnic groups.)
Callahan, M. R., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Adolescent
dat1ng violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 18(6), 664–681. (Subjects were 190 high
school students\53 % male; 47 % female; approximately 50 % African-American[who
completed a modified version of the CTS2. In terms of injuries, 22 %
of girls and 17 % of boys reported being injured by their dat1ng partners.
Note this difference was non-significant.)
Carbone-Lopez, K. (2013). Across Racial/Ethnic boundaries: Investigating
intimate partner violence within a national sample. Journal of Interpersonal
violence, 28(1), 3–24. (Intimate partner violence data from the
National Violence against women survey \see Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000[
was examined for interracial and monoracial couples. Results reveal
that interracial couples were at no greater risk for IPV than White
couples. Both monoracial Black and Hispanic couples had higher rates
of IPV than White or interracial couples.)
Capaldi, D. M., & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological
and physical aggression in young at-risk couples. Social Developments,
6, 184–206. (A sample of 118 young men and aggression in young,
at-risk couples. Their dat1ng partners were surveyed regarding their
own physical aggression as well as that of their partners. Findings
reveal that 31 % of men and 36 % of women engaged ‘‘in an
act of physical aggression against their current partner.’’)
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004). Women’s
involvement in aggression in young adult romantic relationships. In
M. Putallaz and K. L. Bierman (Eds.) Aggression, antisocial behavior,
and violence among girls (pp. 223–241). New York: Guildford Press.
(A review chapter which reports on data obtained from Oregon Youth Study
and Couples Study. Authors conclude that ‘‘Young women were
observed to initiate physical aggression toward their partners more
frequently than were the young men.’’ And ‘‘the
relative prevalence of frequent physical aggression by women and of
injury and fear for men was surprisingly high.’’)
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 (2) 101–111. (A longitudinal study using
subjects from the Oregon Youth and Couples Study.\see above[Subjects
were assessed 4 times across a 9 year period from late adolescence to
mid-20’s. Findings reveal that young women’s rate of initiation
of physical violence was ‘‘two times higher than men’s
during late adolescence and young adulthood.’’ By mid-20’s
the rate of initiation was about equal. Mutual aggression increased
the likelihood of injury for both men and women.)
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(3), 425–440.
(Drawn from a community based atrisk sample, 159 young couples were
assessed with the Conflict Tactics scale and measures of self-reported
injuries. Findings indicated that 9.4 %of men and 13.2 %of women perpetrated
frequent physical aggression toward their partners. Contrary to expectations,
13 % of men and 9 % of women, indicated that they were physically injured
at least once. Authors report ‘‘2 %of the men and none of
the women indicate that they had been hurt by their partners between
five and nine times.’’)
Carlson, B. E. (1987). dat1ng violence: a research review and comparison
with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68, 16–23. (Reviews research
on dat1ng violence and finds that men and women are equally likely to
aggress against their partners and that ‘‘the frequency
of aggressive acts is inversely related to the likelihood of their causing
physical injury.’’)
Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate
intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations
for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 108–115. (An
excellent review of the literature on women who perpetrate violence
in intimate relationships. Also summarizes intervention programs for
such women.)
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. (In a representative
sample of British men\n=894[and women\n=971[it was found, using a modified
version of the CTS, that 18 % of the men and 13 % of the women reported
being victims of physical violence at some point in their heterosexual
relationships. With regard to current relationships, 11 % of men and
5 % of women reported being victims of partner aggression.)
Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A.
M. S. (1999). Factor Structure and convergent validity of the Conflict
Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychological Assessment, 11,
546–555. (A sample of 2,320 high school students\1,180 males,
1,140 females[from seven high schools in Long Island, New York were
assessed with a modified CTS. A significantly greater number of women
\37.8 %[ compared to \22.5 %[ men reported perpetrating physical aggression
toward their dat1ng partners. Of specific note 18.1 % of women compared
to 4.3 % of men reported slapping their partners and 16.9 % of women
compared to 5.5 % of men reported ‘‘kicking, biting or hitting’’
their partners.)
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital
aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives.
Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178–1184. (Examined 93 couples
seeking marital therapy. Found using the CTS and other information that
71 % reported at least one incident of physical aggression in past year.
While men and women were equally likely to perpetrate violence, women
reported more severe injuries. Half of the wives and two-thirds of the
husbands reported no injuries as a result of all aggression, but wives
sustained more injuries as a result of mild aggression.)
Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dat1ng
aggression: Empirical evaluation of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 549–558. (Used CTS with a sample
of 667 unmarried college students \268 men and 399 women[and found on
a number of items significantly higher responses of physical violence
on part of women. For example, 19 % of women slapped their male partner
while 7 % of men slapped their partners, 13 % of women kicked, bit,
or hit their partners with a fist while only 3.1 % of men engaged in
this activity.)
Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender Symmetry
in dat1ng Intimate Partner Violence: Does Behavior Imply Similar Constructs?
Violence and Victims, 20 (2), 207–218. (A sample of 414 college
students \189 men, 225 women[responded to the CTS2. Results reveal that
male and female subjects were equally likely to be perpetrators of minor
violence in intimate dat1ng relationships, but women were twice as likely
as men to perpetrate severe violence\15.11 vs. 7.41 %[).
Chan, K. L., Straus, M. A., Brownridge, D. A., Tiwari, A., & Leung,
W. C. (2008). Prevalence of dat1ng partner violence and suicidal ideation
among male and female university students worldwide. Journal of Midwifery
& Women’s Health, 53 (6) 529–537. (Authors present findings
from the International dat1ng Violence study which reports responses
from 16,000 university students from 22 sites in 21 countries. Subjects
responded to the CTS2 and results reveal that in 17 of the 22 sites
the rates of victimization were higher for men than women.)
Chang, D. F., Shen, B-J., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2009). Prevalence
and demographic correlates of intimate partner violence in Asian Americans.
International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 32, 167–175. (Study
reports the first national estimate of IPV among Asian Americans. Sample
consisted of 1,470\47 % men, 53 % women[ individuals of varying Asian
ethnicities who responded to items on the CTS. Data reveals that 5.02
% of men and 8.48 % of women perpetrated minor violence on their partners.
With regard to severe violence women were more than twice as likely
as men to perpetrate violence\1.54 vs. .71 %[).
Chermack, St. T., Walton, M. A., Fuller, B. E., & Blow, F. C.
(2001). Correlates of expressed and received violence across relationship
types among men and women substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive
Behavior, 15, 140–151. (A sample of substance abusers\126 men,
126 women[ranging in age from 17 to 83 completed a modified version
of the CTS. Results reveal no differences in expressed or received partner
violence for men and women.)
Clark, M. L., Beckett, J., Wells, M., & Dungee-Anderson, D. (1994).
Courtship Violence among African-American college students. Journal
of Black Psychology, 20(3), 264–281. (A sample of 311 African-American
college students\76 men, 235 women[responded to the CTS. Findings reveal
that 41 % of men and 33 % of women reported being physically abused
by a dat1ng partner.)
Claxton-Oldfield, S. & Arsenault, J. (1999). The initiation of
physically aggressive behaviour by female university students toward
their male partners: Prevalence and the reasons offered for such behaviors.
Unpublished manuscript. (In a sample of 168 actively dat1ng female undergraduates
at a Canadian university, 26 % indicated that they initiated physical
aggression toward their male partners. Most common reason for such behavior
was because partner was not listening to them.)
Cogan, R., & Ballinger III, B. C. (2006). Alcohol Problems and
the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general violence. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 21(7) 924–935. (A sample of 457 college
men and 958 college women completed the CTS. Results revealed that significantly
more men than women \35.4 vs. 26.0 %[reported being victimized by their
partners.)
Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois,
R. F., & Huebner, E. S. (2000). Severe dat1ng violence and quality
of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 19(4), 220–227. (A stratified sample of
5,414\2,836 female, 2,578 male[public high school students grades 9
through 12 responded to the South Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey
in 1997. Severe physical dat1ng violence was assessed by responses to
the question of how many times during the past 12 months were you physically
beaten up by the person you date or go out with? And how many times
during the past 12 months did you beat up the person you date or go
out with? Results reveal that 8.9 % of girls reported perpetrating violence
compared to 6.1 % of boys. In terms of victimization, 9.7 % of girls
reported being victims compared to 5.3 % of boys.)
Coleman, D. H., & Straus, M. A. (1986). Marital Power, Conflict,
and Violence in a Nationally Representative Sample of American Couples.
Violence and Victims, 1, 141–157. A sample of 2,143 couples from
a 1975 nationally representative survey responded to the CTS and a measure
developed by Blood and Wolfe to assess marital power. Couples were classified
as equalitarian, female-dominant, maledominant or divided power. Equalitarian
couples had the lowest rates of partner violence while female-dominant
couples had the highest rate of partner violence followed by male dominant
couples.)
Coney, N. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1999). The feminization of domestic
violence in America: The woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. Journal
of Men’s Studies, 8, (1) 45–58. (Authors review the domestic
violence literature and report that while society in general as well
as the media portray women as ‘‘recipients of domestic violence
… epidemiological surveys on the distribution of violent behavior
between adult partners suggest gender parity.’’)
Connolly, J., Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., Pepler, D., Craig, W.,
& Williams, T. S. (2010). Adolescent dat1ng aggression in Canada
and Italy: A cross-national comparison. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 34(2), 98–105. (A modified version of the CTS2 was
administered a cohort of 16 year olds in Canada \297 boys, 367 girls[and
Italy\315 boys, 263 girls[. Similar levels of dat1ng aggression were
found in Canada \32.5 %[ and Italy \33.6 %[. Boys were slightly more
aggressive than girls in Canada while no differences between girls and
boys were found in Italy.)
Cook, P. W. (1997). Abused men. The hidden side of domestic violence.
Westport, CN.: Praeger. (Presents the evidence, empirical and personal,
for male spousal victimization. Examines resistance to acceptance of
findings and offers solutions to reduce domestic violence.)
Corry, C. E., Fiebert, M. S., & Pizzy, E. (2002) Controlling Domestic
Violence against men. Available: www.familytx.org/research/Control_DV_against_men.pdf.
Earlier version presented at Sixth International Conference on Family
Violence, San Diego, CA. (A critical examination of men as victims of
partner violence.)
Cross, C. P., Tee, W., & Campbell, A. (2011). Gender symmetry
in intimate partner aggression: an effect of intimacy or target sex?
Aggressive Behavior, 37(3), 268–277. (A sample of 174 individuals
\59 men, 115 women[ responded to vignette scenarios in which they were
provoked by a same sex best friend, opposite sex best friend and an
intimate partner. Results reveal that women were significantly more
likely than men to report physically aggressing against an intimate
partner.)
Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Melby, J. N., & Bryant,
C. M. (2005). Observer, Self-, and partner reports of hostile behaviors
in romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1169–1181.
(Examined a sample of 236 young people \48 % married, 52 % dat1ng; 56
% women, 44 % men[who completed questionnaires regarding their hostile
toward their partners. Findings reveal that couples living together
have higher levels of hostility than dat1ng couples and that women in
both conditions demonstrate higher levels of hostility towards their
partners than men.)
Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., Clark, C. L., & Schafer, J. (1999).
Alcohol-related problems and intimate partner violence among white,
Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Alcoholism: Clinical and experimental
research, 23, 1492–1501. (A probability sample of 1,440 couples\565
white, 358 Black, 527 Hispanic[was obtained from the 1995 National Alcohol
Survey. Subjects completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Ethnicity results
reveal that overall rates of partner aggression were similar for whites
and Hispanics while Black rates were significantly higher. In terms
of gender, white men and women had similar rates of partner aggression,
Hispanic women were somewhat more aggressive than Hispanic men and Black
men were more aggressive than Black women. Alcohol related problems
were a predictor of intimate partner violence in Black couples.)
Davis, R. L. (2010). Domestic Violence-related deaths. Journal of
Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2 (2), 44–52. (A review
article which examines domestic violence-related suicides. Author concludes
that ‘‘when domestic violence-related suicides are combined
with domestic homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related
deaths are higher for males than females.’’)
Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). dat1ng violence: The primacy
of previous experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
3, 457–471. (Of 410 university students\295 women, 115 men[responding
to CTS and other instruments, it was revealed that 47 % experienced
some violence in dat1ng relationships. The majority of experiences were
reciprocal. When not reciprocal men were three times more likely than
women to report being victims. Violent experiences in previous relationships
were the best predictor of violence in current relationships.)
DeKeseredy, W. S. & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus.
Results from the Canadian National survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(A large sample \1,835 women; 1,307 men[of Canadian college students
completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that women report
engaging in higher rates of violence than men. Specifically, 46.1 %
of women reported engaging in some physical violence in intimate relationship
since leaving high school. With 38 % employing ‘‘minor’’
violence and 19 % employing ‘‘severe’’ violence.)
DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The
case of courtship violence. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence:
interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 111–120). Bristol, PA: Taylor
& Francis. (Examined a sample of 865 white and black college students
with regard to the initiation of violence in their dat1ng experience.
Found that 218 subjects, 80 men and 138 women, had experienced or expressed
violence in current or recent dat1ng relationships. Results indicate
that ‘‘when one partner could be said to be the usual initiator
of violence, that partner was most often the women. This finding was
the same for both black and white respondents.’’)
Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P. &
Fiebert, M. S. (2012a). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate
relationships, part 1: Rates of male and female victimization. Partner
Abuse, 3 (2), 140–169. (A gold standard article for review of
research in IPV. Focus of part 1 is on male and female victimization.
Examined all research published between 2000 and 2010 in industrialized
English speaking countries. Across studies found that 1 in 4 women and
1 in 5 men experienced physical violence in intimate relationship.)
Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P. &
Fiebert, M. S. (2012b). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate
relationships, part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner
Abuse, 3, (2), 170–198. (Focus of this review is on male and female
perpetration of violence in intimate relationships. Literature search
revealed 750 articles published between 2000 and 2010. Pooled prevalence
estimates revealed that more than 1 in five men (21.6 %) and 1 in 4
women (28.3 %) reported perpetrating physical violence in an intimate
relationship.)
Doumas, D. M., Pearson, C. L., Elgin, J. E., & McKinley, L. L.
(2008). Adult attachment as a risk factor for intimate partner violence:
The ‘‘mispairing’’ of partner attachment styles.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 616–634. (A sample of 70
heterosexual couples completed the CTS. Results reveal that 35 % of
men and 36 % of women reported perpetrating IPV.)
Doroszewicz, K, & Forbes, G. B. (2008). Experiences with dat1ng
aggression and sexual coercion among Polish college students. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 58–73. (The CTS2 was used to study
dat1ng aggression in a sample \men = 100, women = 100[of unmarried Polish
college students. Results reveal that women were overall significantly
more aggressive than men\48 vs. 35.6 %[).
Dowd, L. (2001). Female Perpetrators of Partner Aggression: Relevant
Issue and Treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma,
5(2), 73–104. (A review article examining female partner aggression
with a focus on treatment issues.)
Drumm, R. D., Popescu, M., & Riggs, M. L. (2009). Gender variation
in partner abuse. Findings from a conservative Christian denomination.
Affilia: Journal of women and Social work, 24 (1), 56–68. (A stratified
random sample of 1,431 of conservative Christian members from 49 churches
in the Northwest region of the United States responded to survey items
adapted from the CTS. Results reveal that 33.8 % of women and 20.1 %
of men reported being physically abused by their partners at some point
during their lives).
Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver: UBC
Press. (A thoughtful and scholarly analysis and integration of research
and treatment in the area of Domestic Violence. Offers much insight,
particularly to therapists and policy makers with regard to Intimate
Partner Violence\IPV[. Concludes that men are as likely as women to
be victims and both suffer similar physical and psychological consequences
of IPV.)
Dutton, D. G. (2007). Female intimate partner violence and developmental
trajectories of abusive families. International Journal of Men’s
Health, 6, 54–71. (A review article which concludes that female
violence towards intimate male partners is just as severe and has similar
consequences as male violence toward women. However, most criminal justice
interventions and custody evaluations assume that males are more likely
to be IPV perpetrators.)
Dutton, D. G., Corvo, K. N., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm
in domestic violence research and practice part II: The information
website of the American Bar Association. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
14, 30–38. (A review article critiquing the American Bar Association’s
attempt to correct myths about domestic violence. Specifically authors
state, ‘‘…female IPV is more commonplace than male
IPV.’’)
Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005) The gender paradigm in
domestic violence research and theory. Part 1: the conflict of theory
and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 10, 680–714. (A review
and analysis of the data regarding male victimization. Critical of feminist
approaches that minimize female perpetration and trivialize male injury.)
Dutton, D. G., Nicholls, T. L., & Spidel, A. (2005). Female perpetrators
of intimate abuse. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4), 1–31.
(A review article examining issues related to female abusers. Authors
conclude, based on survey and epidemiological studies, that females
are as abusive as males in intimate relationships. They note that this
is ‘‘especially so for younger cohort samples followed longitudinally.’’)
Dutton-Greene, L. B., & Straus, M. A. (2005, July). The relationship
between gender hostility and partner violence and injury. Paper presented
at the 9th International Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth,
NH. (Report of findings from international dat1ng violence study which
collected data from over 11,000 \70 % women[ college students from 50
universities in 24 countries. Subjects responded to the revised Conflict
Tactics Scale, gender hostility scales and injury scales. Findings reveal
that women perpetrated greater partner violence than men, that women
were more seriously injured than men and that hostility toward the opposite
sex was significantly and similarly correlated with partner violence
for men and women.)
Eaton, D. K., Davis, K. S., Barrios, L., Brener, N. D., & Noonan,
R. K. (2007). Associations of dat1ng violence victimization with lifetime
participation, cooccurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors
among U. S. high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
22, 585–602. (Data was examined from the 2003 national Youth Risk
Behavior Survey. Subjects were 15,214 students from the 9th to the 12th
grade and consisted of 48.7 % female, 61.5 % white, 13.9 % black, 16.6
% Hispanic, and 8.1 % other race or ethnicity. Physical dat1ng violence
was assessed by response to the question: ‘‘During the past
12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically
hurt you on purpose?’’ Results reveal that 8.8 % of girls
and 8.6 % of boys reported being victims of dat1ng violence.)
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., &
Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence:
A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology,
71, 741–753. (A sample of 541 subjects from New York State\298
women, 243 men[who had been followed for over 20 years responded to
the CTS. While overall similar rates of perpetration of partner abuse
were reported by men and women\21 vs. 22 %[women were more likely than
men to kick or hit\9 vs. 5 %[or hit or try to hit with objects\7 vs.
2 %[.)
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically
abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: men’s and
women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 113 (2), 258–270. (Assessed 980 individuals,
ages 24–26, who were participants in longitudinal study in New
Zealand. Subjects were examined with the CTS, the Partner Conflict Calendar,
PCC, a measure of the consequences of abuse and a variety of personality
and psychopathology scales. Findings reveal that an equal number of
men and women, 9 %, were victims of clinical abuse in their relationships
with partners.)
Ellison, C., G., Barkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. R. (1999).
Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family
Issues, 20, 87–113. (Subjects were selected from the first wave
of The National Survey of Families & Households and consisted of
2,420 women and 2,242 men. Self administered surveys revealed that females
were significantly more likely than males to perpetrate violence toward
their partners. Authors report that ‘‘regular attendance
at religious services is inversely associated’’ with domestic
violence for men and women.)
Ernst, A. A., Nick, T. G., Weiss, S. J., Houry, D., & Mills, T.
(1997). Domestic violence in an inner-city ED. Annals of Emergency Medicine,
30, 190–197. (Assessed 516 patients \233 men, 283 women[ in a
New Orleans inner-city emergency Department with the Index of Spousal
Abuse, a scale to measure domestic violence. Found that 28 % of the
men and 33 % of the women \a nonsignificant difference[, were victims
of past physical violence while 20 % of the men and 19 % of the women
reported being current victims of physical violence. In terms of ethnicity,
82 % of subjects were African-American. Authors report that there was
a significant difference in the number of women vs. men who reported
past abuse to the police, 19 % of women, 6 % of men[.)
Farrell, W. (1999). Women can’t hear what men don’t say.
New York: Tarcher/ Putnam. See Chapter 6. (Pp. 123–162; 323–329.)
An excellent social and political analysis of couple violence.)
Feather, N. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of
justice. Sex Roles, 35, 507–519. (Subjects \109 men, 111 women[
from Adelaide, South Australia, were presented a hypothetical scenario
in which either a husband or wife perpetrated domestic violence. Participants
were significantly more negative in their evaluation of the husband
than the wife, were more sympathetic to the wife and believed that the
husband deserved a harsher penalty for his behavior.)
Felson, R. B. (2002). Violence and Gender Reexamined. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. (Scholarly review and analysis
of the literature. Author concludes that, ‘‘Women are just
as likely as men to be victims of violence from their partners.’’
Also ‘‘casts doubt on the battered wife syndrome as an explanation
for why women kill their male partners.’’)
Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about
violence? Contexts, 5, 21–25. (Reports that while men are eight
times more likely to commit overall violence than women, there is gender
parity in partner violence. Author suggests that violent men are ‘‘less
likely to assault their partners because of the chivalry norm.’’)
Felson, R. B. (2008). The legal consequences of intimate partner violence
for men and women. Children and Youth Services Review. 30, 639–646.
(Author reports that ‘‘evidence does not support the idea
that assaults by male partners are particularly likely to be underreported
or treated leniently. Rather, the results suggest that offenders who
assault women are more likely to suffer legal consequences than those
who assault men…’’In the article author summarizes
an unpublished study examining whether gender and marital status affect
whether people think the police should be notified about a partner assault.
In a telephone survey, 800 subjects responded to a scenario of an argument
between a couple in which one strikes the other bruising their arm.
Results indicate that subjects were more likely \80–60 %[ to condemn
men’s assaults on women than women’s assaults on men, even
though injuries were identical.)
Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital
violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 387–407. (Study based on an
analysis of data obtained though the National Violence Against Women
Survey\see Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000[. Authors looked at 10,000 respondents
out of 16,000 total sample who were currently married. Results reveal
that adult women are just as controlling and jealous toward their male
partners as the other way around. Also report that, ‘‘While
controlling spouses in current marriages are more likely to act violently
there is no evidence that this relationship is gendered.’’)
Felson, R. B., & Pare, P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence
and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 597–610. (Authors analyzed data from The National
Violence Against Women Survey and found that ‘‘male victims
are particularly reluctant to report assaults by their female partners.’’
Reasons for nonreporting include: fear of reprisal, thought that police
could do nothing to help and charges would not be believed.)
Felson, R. B., & Pare, P. (2007). Does the criminal justice system
treat domestic violence and sexual offenders leniently? Justice Quarterly,
24, (Authors analyzed data from the National Violence Against Women
Survey and conclude that ‘‘women who assault their male
partners are particularly likely to avoid arrest.’’)
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. (Examined extent of domestic
violence experience and perpetration in a sample of 828\437 women, 391
men[young adults who were 25 years old. Subject were part of a long
term longitudinal study and were administered the CTS2. Results reveal
that ‘‘there were more men exposed to severe domestic violence
than women and that mild and moderate rates were similar for men and
women. Overall, 39.4 % of women and 30.9 % of men reported perpetration
scores of 3 or higher. Authors report that men and women reported similar
rates of injury\3.9 % for women vs. 3.3 % for men[. In terms of initiation
of partner assaults, 34 % of women and 12 % of men reported initiating
physical assaults.)
Fernandez-Fuertes, A. A., & Fuertes, A. (2010). Physical and Psychological
aggression in dat1ng relationship of Spanish adolescents: Motives and
consequences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(3), 183–191. (A sample
of 567 students\236 males, 331 females[from 5 hh schools in Salamanca,
Spain responded to items examining partner abuse. Results reveal girls
perpetrated physical aggression toward their male partners at significantly
higher levels than boys did to their female partners\30.2 vs. 16.1 %[).
Fiebert, M. S., & Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Women who initiate assaults:
The reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports, 80, 583–590.
(A sample of 968 women, drawn primarily from college courses in the
Southern California area, were surveyed regarding their initiation of
physical assaults on their male partners. 29 % of the women, n = 285,
revealed that they initiated assaults during the past 5 years. Women
in their 20’s were more likely to aggress than women aged 30 and
above. In terms of reasons, women appear to aggress because they did
not believe that their male victims would be injured or would retaliate.
Women also claimed that they assaulted their male partners because they
wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally.)
Fiebert, M. S. (1996). College students’ perception of men as
victims of women’s assaultive behavior. Perceptual & Motor
Skills, 82, 49–50. (Three hundred seventyone college students
\91 men, 280 women[ were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance
of the research finding regarding female assaultive behavior. The majority
of subjects (63 %) were unaware of the finding that women assault men
as frequently as men assault women; a slightly higher percentage of
women than men (39 vs. 32 %) indicated an awareness of this finding.
With regard to accepting the validity of these findings a majority of
subjects (65 %) endorsed such a result with a slightly higher percentage
of men (70 vs. 64 %)indicating their acceptance of this finding.)
Flynn, C. P. (1990). Relationship violence by women: issues and implications.
Family Relations, 36, 295–299. (A review/analysis article that
states, ‘‘researchers consistently have found that men and
women in relationships, both marital and premarital engage in comparable
amounts of violence.’’ Author also writes, ‘‘Violence
by women in intimate relationships has received little attention from
policy makers, the public, and until recently, researchers … battered
men and abusive women have receive ‘selective inattention’
by both the media and researchers.’’)
Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex
differences in motivations and effects in dat1ng violence. Family Relations,
40, 51–57. (A sample of 495 college students \207 men, 288 women[
completed the CTS and other instruments including a ‘‘justification
of relationship violence measure.’’ The study found that
women were twice as likely to report perpetrating dat1ng violence as
men. Female victims attributed male violence to a desire to gain control
over them or to retaliate for being hit first, while men believed that
female aggression was a based on their female partner’s wish to
‘‘show how angry they were and to retaliate for feeling
emotionally hurt or mistreated.’’)
Foo, L. & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate investigation of
dat1ng aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 351–377. (A
sample of 290 college students\111 men, 179 women[responded to the CTS.
Results reveal that 24.3 % of men and 38.5 % of women reported perpetrating
physical violence toward their dat1ng partners.)
Forke, C. M., Myers, R. K., Catallozzi, M., & Schwarz, D. F. (2008).
Relationship violence among female and male college undergraduate students.
Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 162, 634–641. (A sample
of 910 college students\520 women, 390 men[from three college campuses
responded to select items from the CTS. Results indicate that women
were significantly more likely to report perpetrating physical violence
on their male partners than men on their female partners.)
Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dat1ng abuse
prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11, (3),
275–286. (Data collected from 1965 adolescents in eighth and ninth
grade in 14 schools in rural North Carolina. Results reveal that 36.5
% of dat1ng females and 39.4 % of dat1ng males report being victims
of physical dat1ng violence. In terms of perpetrating violence 27.8
% of females while only 15.0 % of males report perpetrating violence.)
Foshee, V. A., Fletcher, L., MacDoughall, J. E., & Bangdiwala,
S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent
dat1ng violence. Preventive Medicine, 32, 128–141. (A sample of
1,759 8th & 9th grades from 14 different public schools completed
the CTS. Results reveal that at baseline 16 % of girls perpetrated mild
and 9 % perpetrated severe IPV while 10 % of boys perpetrated mild and
3 % perpetrated severe IPV.)
Fossos, N., Neighbors, C., Kaysen, D., & Hove, M. C. (2007). Intimate
partner violence perpetration and problem drinking among college students:
The role of expectancies and subjective evaluations of alcohol aggression.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68(5), 706–713. (A sample
of 780 college freshmen\333 men, 447 women[ who met the criteria for
‘‘heavy drinking’’ completed the CTS2. Results
reveal that women were more likely than men to engage in mild\35.38
vs. 21.67 %[and severe\6.41 vs. 2.44 %[acts of partner aggression.)
Gass, D., Stein, D. J., Williams, D. R., & Seedat, S. (2011).
Gender differences in risk for intimate partner violence among South
African adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(14), 2764–2789.
(A representative sample of South African married or cohabiting adults\641
men, 1,074 women[responded to items from the CTS. Results reveal similar
rates of perpetration of partner violence \25.2 % for women and 26.5
% for men[).
Gelles, R. J. (1994). Research and advocacy: Can one wear two hats?
Family Process, 33, 93–95. (Laments the absence of objectivity
on the part of ‘‘feminist’’ critics of research
demonstrating female perpetrated domestic violence.)
Gelles, R. J. (2007). The politics of research: The use, abuse, and
misuse of social science data—the case of intimate partner violence.
Family Court Review, 45, 42–51. (An analysis examining the issue
of how social science data has been ‘‘abused and misused
in policy and practice in the area of Intimate Partner Violence \IPV[.’’
Challenges ‘‘supposed’’ facts in the area and
faults feminists for not acknowledging the empirical findings that men
are equal victims of IPV.)
George, M. J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable
victims of marital violence. Journal of Men’s Studies, 3, 137–159.
(A thorough review of the literature which examines findings and issues
related to men as equal victims of partner abuse.)
George, M. J. (1999). A victimization survey of female perpetrated
assaults in the United Kingdom. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 67–79.
(A representative sample of 718 men and 737 women completed the CTS
and reported their experience as victims of physical assaults by women
during a 5 year period. Men reported greater victimization and more
severe assaults than did women. Specifically, 14 % of men compared to
7 % of women reported being assaulted by women. Highest risk group were
single men. The majority\55 %[of assaults on men were perpetrated by
spouses, partners, or former partners.)
George, M. J. (2002). Skimmington Revisited. Journal of Men’s
Studies, 10, No. 2, 111–127. (Examines historical sources and
finds that men who were victims of spousal aggression were subject to
punishment and humiliation. Inferences to contemporary trivialization
of male victims of partner aggression is discussed.)
George, M. J. (2003). Invisible touch. Aggression & Violent Behaviour,
8, 23–60. (A comprehensive review and analysis of female initiated
partner aggression. Historical, empirical and case evidence presented
to demonstrate reality of ‘‘battered husband syndrome.’’)
George, M. J. (2007). The ‘‘great taboo’’
and the role of patriarchy in husband and wife abuse. International
Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 7–22. (A scholarly examination
of key myths and taboos surrounding the concept of patriarchy. Emphasizes
the point that IPV will be successfully combated only when male victimization
is acknowledged and addressed by both men and women.)
Giordano, P. C., Millhollin, T. J., Cernkovich, S. A., Pugh, M. D.,
& Rudolph, J. L. (1999). Delinquency, identity, and women’s
involvement in relationship violence. Criminology, 37, 17–40.
(Reports the responses of 721 young adults \45 % male, 55 % female;
47 % white, 53 % nonwhite[who had been involved in delinquent activities
10 years earlier. Subjects responded to a modified version of the CTS.
Findings reveal that women were more likely to perpetrate violence than
men. Specifically, 27.6 % of women compared to 19.2 % of men hit or
threw at their partner and 8.3 % of women compared to 0.4 % of men threatened
spouse or partner with a knife.)
Goldberg, W. G., & Tomlanovich, M. C. (1984). Domestic violence
victims in the emergency department. JAMA, 251, 3259–3264. (A
sample of 492 patients\275 women, 217 men[who sought treatment in an
emergency department in a Detroit hospital were survey regarding their
experience with domestic violence. Respondents were mostly African-American
(78 %), city dwellers (90 %), and unemployed (60 %). Victims of domestic
violence numbered 107 (22 %). While results indicate that 38 % of victims
were men and 62 % were women this gender difference did not reach statistical
significance.)
Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Why females initiate violence: A study examining
the reasons behind assaults on men. Unpublished master’s thesis,
California State University, Long Beach. (225 college women participated
in a survey which examined their past history and their rationales for
initiating aggression with male partners. Subjects also responded to
8 conflict scenarios which provided information regarding possible reasons
for the initiation of aggression. Results indicate that 55 % of the
subjects admitted to initiating physical aggression toward their male
partners at some point in their lives. The most common reason was that
aggression was a spontaneous reaction to frustration).
Goodyear-Smith, F. A. & Laidlaw, T. M. (1999). Aggressive acts
and assaults in intimate relationships: Towards an understanding of
the literature. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 285–304.
(An up to date scholarly analysis of couple violence. Authors report
that, ‘‘…studies clearly demonstrate that within the
general population, women initiate and use violent behaviors against
their partners at least as often as men.’’)
Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C. & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship
between violence in the family of origin and dat1ng violence among college
students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693.
(A sample of 2,541 students at two universities responded to items from
the CTS2. Results reveal that 24 % of men and 32 % of men perpetrated
IPV.) An Updated Annotated Bibliography 421 123
Graham, K., Plant, M., & Plant, M. (2004). Alcohol, gender and
partner aggression: a general population study of British adults. Addiction
Research and Theory, 12, 385–401. (A cross sectional sample of
2027\1,052 women, 975 men[ adults were interviewed regarding their experience
with partner aggression. Results indicate that 16 % of women reported
physically aggressing their male partners within a 2 year period, while
13 % of males reported physically aggressing their female partners.)
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Domestic violence: Research and implications
for batterer programs in Europe. European Journal of Criminal Policy
& Research, 13, 213–225. (A review article in which author
cites evidence which challenges traditional feminist conceptualizations
of ‘‘domestic violence as unilateral male-tofemale violence
enacted to control and dominate women, supported by the patriarchal
beliefs and systems of the wider society.’’)
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (July, 2005.) Using Johnson’s
domestic violence typology to classify men and women in a non-selected
sample. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Family Violence Research Conference,
Portsmouth, NH. (A total of 1,339 subjects, students and staff from
the University of Central Lancashire, responded to a modified version
of the CTS. Authors report that, ‘‘the proportion of women
and men using any act of physical aggression towards their partners
was as follows: from self-reports 29 % for women and 17 % for men, and
from partner reports 31 % of women and 22 % for men.’’)
Grande, E. D., Hickling, J., Taylor, & Woollacott, T. (2003).
Domestic violence in South Australia: A population survey of males and
females. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27(5),
543–550. (A representative random sample of South Australian adults
responded to items related intimate partner violence. Results reveal
that 2.9 % of 2,596 men and 3.4 % of 2,884 women reported experiencing
physical violence perpetrated by their partners.)
Grandin, E. & Lupri, E. (1997). Intimate violence in Canada and
the United States: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Family Violence,
12 (4), 417–443. (Authors examine data from the 1985 U.S. National
Family Violence Resurvey and the 1986 Canadian National Family Life
Survey. Report that ‘‘although the United States exhibits
significantly higher rates of societal violence crime than Canada, Canadian
women and men were more likely than their American counterparts to use
severe and minor intimate violence.’’ This finding is counter
to the ‘‘culture of violence theory.’’ Moreover,
in both cultures the rates of violence of wives to husbands were higher
than husbands to wives. Specifically, the overall violence index for
men in America was 10.6 and in Canada it was 18.3; while the overall
violence index for women in America was 12.2 and in Canada it was 25.3.)
Gray, H. M. & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dat1ng Violence. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126–142. (A sample of 185 adolescents
responded to a questionnaire about dat1ng violence; 77 students reported
being involved in physical violence in their current or most recent
dat1ng relationship. Mutual violence was present in 66 % of cases; while
26 % of males and 8 % of females reported being victims of violence
and 29 % of females and 4 % of males reported being sole perpetrators
of violence.)
Gryl, F. E., Stith, S. M., & Bird, G. W. (1991). Close dat1ng
relationships among college students: differences by use of violence
and by gender. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 243–264.
(A sample of 280 first year college students \156 women, 124 men[at
a mid-Atlantic university completed the violence subscale of the Conflict
Tactics Scale. Results reveal that almost 30 % of the females and 23
% of males reported that they had been violent in the current relationship.
Also almost 28 % of women and 39 % of men reported sustaining violence
in their current relationship.)
Halford, W. k., Farrugia, C., Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2010).
Relationship aggression, violence and self-regulation in Australian
newlywed couples. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62(2), 82–92.
(A sample of 379 newlywed couples in Australia responded to a short
version of the CTS. Results reveal that 22 % of couples experienced
a least one act of physical violence in the past year. Female perpetration
of violence was more common that male perpetration. Authors report that
in violence couples the more common pattern was for women to be violent
\59 %[followed by violence by both partners\34 %[and least common was
violence by men only\7 %[).
Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L. & Kupper,
L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic
relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1679–1685. (A sample
of 7,493 subjects\3,405 boys, 4,088 girls[were drawn in 1994–1995
from a stratified random sample of high school students in the United
States. Subjects responded to items from the CTS and results reveal
similar rates (12 %) of reported physical violence for boys and girls.)
Hamel, J. (2005). Gender Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse.
New York: Springer. (Reviews the ‘‘most reliable and empirically
sound research’’ and concludes that ‘‘men and
women physically and emotionally abuse each other at equal rates…’’
Offers a comprehensive gender inclusive treatment approach to domestic
violence.)
Hamel, J. (2007). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate
partner violence research and theory: Part 1-traditional perspectives.
International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 36–54. (A review
article which examines research in the area of Intimate Partner Violence
(IPV) and finds that until recently the primary focus was on the physical
and psychological abuse of women by their male partners. Concludes that
the reluctance to objectively investigate the area is due to a ‘‘prevailing
patriarchal conception of intimate partner violence.’’)
Hamel, J. (2009). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate
partner violence research and theory: Part 2-new directions. International
Journal of Men’s Health, 8, (1), 41–59. (A review article
critical of Johnson’s post-patriarchal typology of intimate partner
violence. The author presents and discusses a genderinclusive model
for prevention, intervention and policy. This model is consistent with
latest findings that reveal most domestic violence is mutual.)
Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence
in families increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 National Survey
rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 969–980. (Compared
a sample of 147 African Americans from the 1975 National Survey with
576 African Americans from the 1985 National Survey with regard to spousal
violence. Using the CTS found that the rate of overall violence (169/1,000)
of husbands to wives remained the same from 1975 to 1985, while the
rate of overall violence for wives to husbands increased 33 % (153 to
204/1,000) from 1975 to 1985. The rate of severe violence of husbands
to wives decreased 43 % (113 to 64/1,000) from 1975 to 1985, while the
rate of severe violence of wives to husbands increased 42 % (76 to 108/1,000)
from 1975 to 1985. In 1985 the rate of abusive violence by black women
was nearly 3 times greater than the rate of white women.)
Harned, M. S. (2002). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for
dat1ng violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17,
1179–1197. (In a university sample of 874 daters\489 women, 385
men[assessed with the revised CTS, 22 % of women and 21 % of men reported
experiencing physical aggression from dat1ng partners.)
Harders, R. J., Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D. &
Caraway, S. J. (1998). Verbal and physical abuse in dat1ng relationships.
Paper presented at the meeting of American Psychological Association,
San Francisco, CA. (Surveyed 274 college students \92 men, 182 women[
using a revised formed of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Found that women
were significantly more physically aggressive than men, particularly
in the areas of: pushing, slapping and punching.)
Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence
in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Data from the International
Social Science Survey/Australia 1996/1997 was examined. A sample of
1,643 subjects (804 men, 839 women) responded to questions about their
experience with domestic violence in the past 12 months. Results reveal
that 5.7 % of men and 3.7 % of women reported being victims of domestic
assaults. With regard to injuries results reveal that women inflict
serious injuries at least as frequently as men. For example 1.8 % of
men and 1.2 % of women reported that their injuries required first aid,
while 1.5 % of men and 1.1 % of women reported that their injuries needed
treatment by a doctor or nurse.
Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C.,
& McLeod, K. C. (2003). Comparison of six models for violent romantic
relationships in college men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
18, 645–665. (A sample of 608 students \164 men, 444 women[ were
survey with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that 16 % of
men and 26 % of women report inflicting violence on their current romantic
partner.)
Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S.
(1983). Romance and violence in dat1ng relationships. Journal of Family
Issues, 4, 467–482. (Surveyed 644 high school students\351 men,
293 women[and found that abuse occurred at a rate of 121 per 1,000 and
appeared to be reciprocal with both partners initiating violence at
similar rates.)
Herrenkohl, T. I., Kosterman, R., Mason, W. A., & Hawkins, J.
D. (2007). Youth violence trajectories and proximal characteristics
of intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 22 (3), 259–274.
(Subjects were drawn from a longitudinal study in Seattle, WA. At age
24, 644 subjects\51.6 % female, 48.4 % male; 48 % Euro-American, 25
% African-American, 22 % Asian-American) who were partnered were assessed
with a modified version of the CTS. Results reveal that 19 % of subjects
perpetrated one or more acts of IPV in the past year. Overall 25 % of
women and 13 % of men reported having perpetrated IPV.)
Hettrich, E. L. & O’Leary, K. D. (2007). Females’
reasons for their physical aggression in dat1ng relationships. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1131–1143. (Examined a sample of
446 dat1ng college females\38.6 % Caucasian, 23.6 % Asian, 18.1 % Hispanic,
7.9 % African-American, 6.3 % Caribbean American, 4.8 % other[ and found
that 32 % reported in engaging in physical aggression toward their male
partners. Primary reasons for aggression were anger and poor communication.)
Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics
of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family
Violence, 22, 63–72. (Study examines experiences of 190 men who
called the Domestic Abuse Helpline for men. Results reveal that all
callers ‘‘experienced physical abuse from their female partners,
and a substantial minority feared their wives’ violence and were
stalked.’’)
Hines, D. A. & Douglas, E. M. (2010). Intimate terrorism by women
towards men: does it exist? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace
Research, 2, (3), 36–56. (Study investigates Johnson’s theory
of partner violence which differentiates common couple violence\CCV[from
intimate terrorism\IT[. Johnson maintains IT is caused by patriarchy
and primarily committed by men. The authors examined a sample of 302
men who sought help as victims of partner violence and compared their
responses to the CTS2 and other measures to a sample of 520 men from
the community. Female partners of the help seeking sample were significantly
more likely to aggress against and injure their male partners than female
partners of the community sample. For example, males sustained injuries
5 to 1 in the help seeking sample \35–7 %[ and 1.5–1 \1.5–1
%[ in the community sample. Authors indicate that the majority of male
aggression in the help seeking sample was ‘‘likely a reaction
to their female partner’s violence.’’ Results were
interpreted as a repudiation of Johnson’s theory.)
Hines, D. A. & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects
of partner abuse against men: a neglected research area. Psychology
of Men and Masculinity, 2, 75–85. (A review article that examines
the issue of men as victims of partner abuse. Considers reasons why
men would remain in an abusive relationship.)
Hines, D. A. & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological,
physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised
Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and Victims, 18(2) 197–217.
(A sample of 481 college students\179 men, 302 women[responded to the
revised Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that 29 % of men and
35 % of women reported perpetrating physical aggression in their relationships.)
Hird, M. J. (2000). An empirical study of adolescent dat1ng aggression
in the U.K. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 69–78. (A sample of U.K.
high school students \279 male, 269 female[were assessed with a modified
version of the CTS. Results indicate that 15 % of males and 14 % of
females reported experiencing physical aggression from their dat1ng
partner within the past 12 months.)
Hoff, B. H. (1999). The risk of serious physical injury from assault
by a woman intimate. A re-examination of National Violence against women
survey data on type of assault by an intimate.WWW.vix.com/menmag/nvawrisk.htm.
(A re-examination of the data from the most recent National violence
against women survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) shows that ‘‘assaulted
men are more likely than assaulted women to experience serious attacks
by being hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a knife or being
knifed.’’)
Holt, J. L., Gillespie, W. (2008). Intergenerational transmission
of violence, threatened egoism, and reciprocity:A test of multiple psychosocial
factors affecting intimate partner violence. American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 33, 252–266. (A sample of 423 students\275 women, 148
men[completed the CTS. Results reveal that 23 % of women and 13 % of
men reported perpetrating IPV.)
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Social support as a moderator
between dat1ng violence victimization and depression/anxiety among African
American and Caucasian adolescents. School Psychology Review, 14, 309–328.
(A sample of 681 middle and high school students\319 males, 362 females,
267 African Americans and 414 Caucasians[responded to the Victimization
in dat1ng Relationships scale. Results reveal that 43 % of males and
32 % of females reported physical violence dat1ng victimization. More
African American than Caucasians reported physical violence dat1ng victimization\45
vs. 32 %[.)
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Female Perpetration of Physical Aggression
Against an Intimate Partner: A Controversial New Topic of Study. Violence
and Victims, 20 (2), 251–259. (Examines the changing zeitgeist,
methodological issues, and research findings regarding female perpetrated
violence.)
Jackson, S. M., Cram, F. & Seymour, F. W. (2000). Violence and
sexual coercion in high school students’ dat1ng relationships.
Journal of Family Violence, 15, 23–36. (In a New zealand sample
of senior high school students\200 women, 173 men[ 21 % of women and
19 % of men reported having been physically hurt by their heterosexual
dat1ng partner.)
Jain, S., Buka, S. L., Subramanian, S. V., & Molnar, B. E. (2010).
Neighborhood predictors of dat1ng violence victimization and perpetration
in young adulthood: A multi-level study. American Journal of Public
Health, 100(9), 1737–1744. (A sample of 633 young adults\352 women,
281 men[completed the CTS2. Results reveal that women were significantly
more likely to perpetrate physical violence toward their male partners
than were men to perpetrate violence toward their female partners\38.1
vs. 17.8 %[).
Jankey, O, Prospero, M, & Fawson, P. (2011). Mutually violent
attitudes: effects on intimate partner violence and mental health symptoms
among couples in Botswana, Africa. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and
Peace Research, 3, (1) 4–11. (A sample of 562 university students
in Botswana\71 % female[completed the CTS2. No significant differences
between men and women were found with regard to physical perpetration
of partner violence.)
Jenkins, S. S.,&Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender-related
constructs in dat1ng aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 1106–1118. (Used the CTS with a university sample of 85 dat1ng
couples. Authors’ report that, ‘‘women in existing
college dat1ng relationships are more aggressive than men.’’)
Jezl, D. R., Molidor, C. E., & Wright, T. L. (1996). Physical,
sexual, and psychological abuse in high school dat1ng relationships:
Prevalence rates and selfesteem issues. Child and Adolescent Social
Work Journal, 13(1) 69–87. (Examined an ethnically diverse sample
of currently dat1ng subjects\114 male, 118 female[ who responded to
a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that
50.9 % of subjects \63 % of males and 39 % of females[ reported being
victims of moderately abusive behaviors such as ‘‘being
kicked, slapped, having your hair pulled, and being intentionally scratched.’’)
Jouriles, E. N., & O’leary, K. D. (1985). Interpersonal
reliability of reports of marital violence. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 53, 419–421. (Used the Conflict Tactics Scale
with a sample of 65 couples in marriage therapy and 37 couples from
the community. Found moderate levels of agreement of abuse between partners
and similar rates of reported violence between partners.)
Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital
aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 11–19. (In
a representative sample of 2,143 adults found that the rate of husband
to wife severe aggression is 3.8 % while the rate of wife to husband
severe aggression is 4.6 %.)
Kan, M. L., & Feinberg, M. (2010). Measurement and correlates
of intimate partner violence among expectant first-time parents. Violence
and Victims, 25, 319–331. (A sample of 169 heterosexual couples
expecting their first child responded to the CTS2. Results reveal that
30 % of women and 17 % of men perpetrated IPV in the past year.)
Katz, J., Carino, A., & Hilton, A. (2002). Perceived verbal conflict
behaviors associated with physical aggression and sexual coercion in
dat1ng relationships: a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence & Victims,
17, 93–109. (A sample of 223\115 males, 108 females[ heterosexual
dat1ng undergraduates completed the CTS2. Results indicate that there
were no differences for men and women in the perpetration of physical
aggression toward partners.)
Katz, J., Kuffel, S. W., & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender
differences in sustaining dat1ng violence? An examination of frequency,
severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence,
17, 247–271. (Authors report two studies where dat1ng men and
women experienced violence at comparable levels, ‘‘although
men experienced more frequent moderate violence.’’ In the
first study n = 286, \183 women, 103 men[55 % of women had nonviolent
partners, while 50 % of men had nonviolent partners; in the second study
n = 123\78 women, 45 men[ 73 % of women had nonviolent partners, while
58 % of men had nonviolent partners.)
Kaura, S. A. & Allan, C. M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship
power and dat1ng violence perpretration by men and women. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 576–588. (A university sample of 352
men and 296 women completed the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Authors
report, ‘‘Suprisingly, significantly more dat1ng violence
perpetration is reported by women than by men.’’ Also found
that ‘‘male perpetration of dat1ng violence is related to
mother’s violence, whereas female perpetration of dat1ng violence
is related to father’s violence.’’)
Kelly, L. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: how
women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State Law
Review, 30, 791–855. (A scholarly examination of the issue of
male victimization which is critical of feminist perspectives.)
Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M.
(2001). Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in
the United States. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24,
487–507. (A sample of 3,537 subjects\1,738 men, 1,799 women[ were
drawn from the National Co-morbidity Survey, a nationally representative
survey conducted between 1990 and 1992. Subjects were married or cohabitating
men and women between the ages of 15–54 who were assessed using
the CTS. Results indicated that, ‘‘17.4 % of women and 18.4
% of men reported that they were victims of minor physical violence
perpetrated by their current spouses or partners.’’)
Kim, K., & Cho, Y. (1992). Epidemiological survey of spousal abuse
in Korea. In E. C. Viano (Ed.) Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives. (pp. 277–282). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
(Utilized the Conflict Tactics scale in interviews with a random sample
of 1,316 married Koreans \707 women, 609 men[. Compared to findings
with American couples, results indicate that Korean men were victimized
by their wives twice as much as American men, while Korean women were
victimized by their spouses three times as much as American women.)
Kim, J-Y., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus,
and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean
couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197–219. (A sample
of 1,500 South Koreans were surveyed. Marital power, conflict and norm
consensus were correlated with marital violence. Findings reveal that
the incidence of husband to wife violence was 27.8 %, while wife to
husband was 15.8 %.)
Kirschner, M., & Fiebert, M. (2008, April). Interracial dat1ng
and partner abuse: A pilot study. Poster session presented at the annual
meeting of Western Psychological Association, Irvine, Ca. (A convenience
sample of 40 subjects, 15 men, 25 women who were currently involved
in an interracial relationship were evaluated using the CTS2. No relationship
between partner aggression and ethnicity was found. However, women were
significantly more likely to perpetrate violence toward their male partners
then men were toward women.)
Korman, L. M., Collins, J., Dutton, D., Dhayananthan, B., Littman-Sharp,
N. & Skinner, W. (2008). Problem gambling and intimate partner violence.
Journal of Gambling Studies, 24, 13–23. (A sample of 245 problem
gambler\43 women, 202 men[completed the CTS2. Results reveal that 40
% of men and 44 % of women reported perpetrating IPV in the past year.)
Kumar, A. (2012). Domestic violence against men in India: A Perspective.
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22, 290–296.
(References an earlier study \see Sakar et al., 2008[ which reported
that 25.1 % of violence experienced by Indian men is physical. Examines
men as victims of violence as a function of changing gender roles and
power relationships in India.)
Kwong, M. J., Bartholomew, K., & Dutton, D. (1999). Gender differences
in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 31(3) 150–160. (A representative sample of
men \n=356[ and women \n=351[ from Alberta using the Conflict Tactics
Scale, reported on their experience of marital aggression during a 1
year period. Similar levels of reported perpetration of physical violence
were found, viz., husband to wife 12.9 %, wife to husband, 12.3 %.)
Lane, K., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P.A. (1985). Violence in the context
of dat1ng and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 45–49. (Surveyed
325 students\165 men, 160 women[regarding courtship violence. Used Conflict
Tactics Scale and found equal rates of violence for men and women.)
Laner, M. R., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting
couples. Deviant Behavior, 3, 229–244. (Used Conflict Tactics
Scales with a sample of 371 single individuals\129 men, 242 women[ and
found similar rates of male and female violence in dat1ng relationships.)
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2005). Top 10 greatest hits. Important
findings and future directions for intimate partner violence research.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 108–118. (Authors spells
out her choices of the 10 most important recent findings in the field
of intimate partner violence. Specifically states, ‘‘data
indicate that women’s perpetuation of violence is surprisingly
frequent, perhaps more so than men’s…’’)
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender
and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179–193.
(Scholarly examination and analysis of the issues related to intimate
partner violence. Author states that, ‘‘using behavioral
measures like the Conflict Tactics Scale in general or in community
samples, women have been shown rather consistently to perpetrate acts
of intimate partner violence at rates comparable to or even higher than
men…’’)
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Vivian, D. (1994). The correlates
of spouses’ incongruent reports of marital aggression. Journal
of Family Violence, 9, 265–283. (In a clinic sample of 97 couples
seeking marital therapy, authors found, using a modified version of
the CTS, that 61 % of the husbands and 64 % of the wives were classified
as aggressive, 25 % of the husbands and 11 % of the wives were identified
as mildly aggressive and 36 % of husbands and 53 % of wives were classified
as severely aggressive. Sixty-eight percent of couples were in agreement
with regard to husband’s overall level of aggression and 69 %
of couples were in agreement on wives overall level of aggression. Aggression
levels were identified as ‘‘nonviolent, mildly violent,
or severely violent.’’ Where there was disagreement, 65
% of husbands\n=20[were under-reporting aggression and 35 % of husbands\n=11[
were over-reporting aggression; while 57 % of wives\n=17[were under-reporting
aggression and 43 % of wives\n=13[were over-reporting aggression.)
Laroche, D. (2005) Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic
violence—Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in
Canada in 1999. Table 8. Quebec City: Government of Quebec. (Author
presents a reanalysis of Canadian General Social Survey\see Brown, 2004[and
reports great similarity in male and female victimization. Specifically,
83 % of men and 77 % of women feared for their lives because they were
unilaterally terrorized by their partners. A similar percentage \84
%[ of men and women who were terrorized by their partners received medical
attention. Reports 8 % of women and 7 % of men report being physically
abused within last 5 years.)
Leisring, P. A. (2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships:
Motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 28(7), 1437–1454. (A sample of 348 heterosexual women
in a romantic relationship completed the CTS2 and a scale to assess
motivation for a perpetration of partner aggression. Results reveal
that 30.5 % of women perpetrated at least one act of physical aggression
toward their male partners. Most common motives for aggression were
to ‘‘show anger’’ and to ‘‘retaliate
for emotional hurt.’’)
Leisring, P. A., Dowd, L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2003). Treatment of
Partner Aggressive Women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma,
7, (1/2), 257–277. (Article discusses information regarding gender
parity in partner aggression. Authors provide a rationale for the study
of female offenders and describe characteristics of partner aggressive
women. Included is a presentation of the treatment program for partner
aggressive women at University of Massachusetts medical school.)
LeJeune, C., & Follette, V. (1994). Taking Responsibility. Sex
Differences in reporting dat1ng violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
9, 133–140. (A sample of 465 college students \58.3 % male, 41.7
% female[ responded to a mailed survey of CTS items. Results reveal
that 42.4 % of female respondents report that they ‘‘usually
initiate violent acts in their relationship’’ compared to
14.3 % of male respondents who report ‘‘that they usually
initiate violence.’’ Females also report that 39.4 % of
their male partners initiate violence while 52.4 % of males report that
violence is initiated by their female partners. Authors speculate that
this discrepancy suggests that ‘‘females are more likely
than males to accept responsibility for initiating violence.’’)
Leung, P. & Cheung, M. (2008). A prevalence study on partner abuse
in six Asian American ethnic groups in the USA. International Social
Work, 51, 635–649. (A large sample of Asian Americans were survey
with the original CTS in the greater Houston area of Texas. Sample consisted
of 1,577 respondents: 610 Chinese, 517 Vietnamese, 154 Indians, 123
Koreans, 101 Filipinos and 72 Japanese. In terms of partner abuse high
rates were reported for Vietnamese (22.4 %) and Filipinos (21.8 %) and
low rates for Japanese and Chinese (9.7 %). Overall women were more
abusive than men (17.6 vs. 15.3 %).)
Lewis, A. & Sarantakos, S. (2001). Domestic Violence and the male
victim. Nuance, #3. (Based on interviews with 48 men in Australia and
New Zealand, authors present findings that domestic violence by women
toward men exists, that the refusal to examine the prevalence of this
abuse is a ‘‘disempowerment’’ of men and that
official policy should be changed to provide help for abused men.)
Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). dat1ng violence: A critical
review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 105–127.
(Authors examine the literature and state that, ‘‘there
is ample evidence that females initiate more violence than males.’’
Discusses explanations for these findings as well as ‘‘deficits
in the present body of literature including sampling methods, dependent
measures and data analyses.’’)
Licter, E. L., & McCloskey, L. A. (2004). The effects of childhood
exposure to marital violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dat1ng
violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(4,474–501. (A sample
of 105 girls and 107 boys, ages 13–21, responded to items from
the CTS. Results reveal that girls were twice as likely (3.7 vs. 7.7
%) to perpetrated violence toward their male partners as boys were toward
their female partners.)
Lillja, C. M. (1995). Why women abuse: A study examining the function
of abused men. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University,
Long Beach. (A review of the literature examining the issue of men as
victims of female assaults. Includes an original questionnaire to test
assumption that women who lack social support to combat stress are likely
to commit domestic violence.)
Lipsky, S. & Caetano, R. (2008). Is intimate partner violence
associated with the use of alcohol treatment services? Results from
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Journal of the Study of
Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 30–38. (A sample of 3,050 married or cohabiting
couples responded in a face-to-face interview. Results reveal that 10
% of women and 7 % of men reported perpetrating physical violence toward
their partners.)
Lo, W. A., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1989). The continuation of violent
dat1ng relationships among college students, Journal of College Student
Development, 30, 432–439. (A sample of 422 college students completed
the Conflict Tactics Scale. Authors report that ‘‘women
were more likely than men to claim themselves as abusers and were less
likely to claim themselves as victims.’’)
Lottes, I. L., & Weinberg, M. S. (1996). Sexual coercion among
university students: a comparison of the United States and Sweden. Journal
of Sex Research, 34, 67–76. (A sample of 507 Swedish students\211
men, 359 women[and 407 U.S. students \129 men, 278 women[ responded
to items on the CTS. Results reveal that 31 % of U.S. men compared to
18 % of Swedish men reported being victims of physical violence by female
partners during the previous 12 months. While 31 % of U.S. women compared
to 19 % of Swedish women reported being victims of physical violence
by male partners during the previous 12 months.)
Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006.) dat1ng violence among college
men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 717–731.
(A sample of 200 college students,\100 men, 100 women[responded to the
CTS. Results reveal that 25 % of women and 10 % of men reported perpetrating
violence on their dat1ng partners.)
Lysova, A. V. & Douglas, E. M. (2008). Intimate partner violence
among male and female Russian University students. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 23 (11) 1579–1599. (A sample of 338 Russian students
from 3 universities completed the CTS2. Results reveal that women compared
to men significantly perpetrated more minor\35.6 vs. 20.6[and severe\13.5
vs. 8.1[violence.)
Macchietto, J. (1992). Aspects of male victimization and female aggression:
Implications for counseling men. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,
14, 375–392. (Article reviews literature on male victimization
and female aggression.)
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A. Fagan, J., Newman, D. L., &
Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth
cohort of 21 year olds: bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological
approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68–78.
(Used CTS with a sample of 861 21 year olds \436 men, 425 women[ in
New Zealand. Physical violence perpetration was reported during the
previous 12 months by 37.2 % of women and 21.8 % of men, with severe
violence perpetration by women at 18.6 % and men at 5.7 %.)
Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence
victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383–388. (A sample of 2,338
students\1,059 men, 1,279 women[from seven colleges were surveyed regarding
their experience of dat1ng violence. Courtship violence was experienced
by 16.7 % of respondents. Authors report that ‘‘rates of
commission of acts and initiation of violence were similar across gender.’’
In term of injury, both men (98 %) and women (92 %) reported ‘‘none
or mild’’ effects of violence.)
Maker, A. H., & deRoon-Cassini, T. A. (2007). Prevalence, perpetrators,
and characteristics of witnessing parental violence and adult dat1ng
violence in Latina, East Asian, and Middle Eastern women. Violence and
Victims, 22, 632–647. (A sample 279 undergraduate women completed
the CTS2. Results reveal that 29 % of South Asian/Middle Eastern women,
21 % of East Asian women, and 38 % of Latina women reported perpetrating
physical IPV.)
Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community
and dat1ng violence among adolescents: perpetration and victimization.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291–302. (A sample of 707 high
school students\281 boys, 426 girls[ responded to the CTS. Results reveal
that girls were almost 3 times more likely than boys to perpetrate dat1ng
violence. In terms of ethnicity African-Americans had the highest level
of dat1ng violence, followed by Latinos, whites, and Asian Americans.)
Malloy, K. A., McCloskey, K. A., Grigsby, N., & Gardner, D. (2003).
Women’s use of violence within intimate relationships. Journal
of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6 (2), 37–59. (Reviews
research which examines women’s use of violence in intimate relationships.
Reports a number of studies which document the increased arrests of
women in domestic disputes.)
Malone, J., Tyree, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Generalization
and containment: Different effects of past aggression for wives and
husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 687–697. (In
a sample of 328 couples it was found that men and women engaged in similar
amounts of physical aggression within their families of origin and against
their spouses. However, results indicate that women were more aggressive
to their partners than men. Aggression was more predictable for women,
i.e., if women observed parental aggression or hit siblings they were
more likely to be violent with their spouses.)
Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between
marital partners: how do we identify them? Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 13, 77–84. (A paid volunteer sample of 103 couples completed
the Conflict Tactics Scale. It was found that husbands and wives perpetrated
similar amounts of violence. Specifically, the incidence of violence,
as reported by either spouse was: husband to wife = 39; wife to husband
= 41.)
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1987). Gender, stress and violence
in the adult relationships of a sample of college students. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 299–316. (A survey of
308 undergraduates \152 men, 156 women[revealed that 52 % expressed
and 62 % received violence at some point in their adult relationships.
Overall, women report expressing more physical violence than men. Childhood
abuse emerged as a predictor of violence in adult relationships.)
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1990). Premarital violence: The impact
of family of origin violence, stress and reciprocity. Violence and Victims,
5, 51–64. (454 premarital undergraduates\249 women, 205 men[completed
the CTS and other scales. Overall, women reported expressing more violence
than men, while men reported receiving more violence than women. Female
violence was also associated with having been abused as children.)
Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation,
stress and abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 203–210. (Investigated 155 college students\48
men, 107 women[with the Thematic Apperception Test\TAT[, Life Experiences
Survey and the CTS. Found that there were no significant gender differences
in terms of the infliction of physical abuse. Men with high power needs
were more likely to be physically abusive while highly stressed women
with high needs for affiliation and low activity inhibition were the
most likely to be physically abusive. Results indicate that physical
abuse occurred most often among committed couples.)
Matthews, W. J. (1984). Violence in college couples. College Student
Journal, 18, 150–158. (A survey of 351 college students \123 men
and 228 women[ revealed that 79\22.8 %[reported at least one incident
of dat1ng violence. Both men and women ascribed joint responsibility
for violent behavior and both sexes, as either recipients or expressors
of aggression, interpreted violence as a form of ‘‘love.’’)
Maxfield, M. G. (1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports:
Variety and validity. Criminology, 27, 671–695. (Examines FBI
homicide data from 1976 through 1985. Reports that 9,822 wives &
common law wives\57 %[were killed compared to 7,433 husbands and common
law husbands\43 %[).
McCarthy, A. (2001). Gender differences in the incidences of, motives
for, and consequences of, dat1ng violence among college students. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (In
a sample of 1,145 students\359 men, 786 women[found that 36 % of men
and 28 % of women responding to the CTS2 reported that they were victims
of physical aggression during the previous year. There were no differences
in reported motives for aggression between men and women.)
McKinney, K. (1986). Measures of verbal, physical and sexual dat1ng
violence by gender. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 14, 55–60.
(Surveyed 163 college students, 78 men, 85 women, with a questionnaire
designed to assess involvement in dat1ng abuse. Found that 38 % of women
and 47 % of men indicated that they were victims of physical abuse in
dat1ng relationships. Also found that 26 % of women and 21 % of men
acknowledged that they physically assaulted their dat1ng partners.)
McLeod, M. (1984). Women against men: An examination of domestic violence
based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data.
Justice Quarterly, 1, 171–193. (From a data set of 6,200 cases
of spousal abuse in the Detroit area in 1978–1979 found that men
used weapons 25 % of the time while female assailants used weapons 86
% of the time, 74 % of men sustained injury and of these 84 % required
medical care. Concludes that male victims are injured more often and
more seriously than female victims.)
McNeely, R. L., Cook, P. W. & Torres, J. B. (2001). Is domestic
violence a gender issue or a human issue? Journal of Human Behavior
in the Social Environment, 4(4), 227–251. (Argues that domestic
violence is a human issue and not a gender issue. Presents and discusses
empirical findings and case studies to support this view. Expresses
concerns about men’s ‘‘legal and social defenselessness.’’)
McNeely, R. L., & Mann, C. R. (1990). Domestic violence is a human
issue. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 129–132. (A review
article which discusses the findings that women are more prone than
men to engage in severely violent acts and that ‘‘classifying
spousal violence as a women’s issue rather than a human issue
is erroneous.’’)
McNeely, R. L., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The truth about
domestic violence: A falsely framed issue. Social Work, 32, 485–490.
(A review article which concludes that women are as violent as men in
domestic relationships.)
McNulty, J. K., & Hellmuth, J. C. (2008). Emotion regulation and
intimate partner violence in newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology,
22, 794–797. (A sample of 72 newlywed couples responded to the
CTS. Results reveal 16 % of men and 27 % of women reported perpetrating
IPV in the past year.)
Mechem, C. C., Shofer, F. S., Reinhard, S. S., Hornig, S., & Datner,
E. (1999). History of domestic violence among male patients presenting
to an urban emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 786–791.
(Data was collected over a 13 week period at an emergency clinic in
Philadelphia which focused on injuries to male patients. Results revealed
that 12.6 % of 866 men were victims of domestic violence. Authors cite
published findings that 14.4 % of women treated in Emergency departments
had been physically or sexually abused by an intimate partner. Compared
to non-victims, victims were more likely to be single \52 %[, younger\7.5
yrs[and African-American\61 %[. In terms of assaults, 48 % of men reported
being kicked, bitten, chocked or punched by a female partner, while
37 % of men reported having a weapon used against them.)
Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses
in the United States, 1975–1985. American Journal of Public Health,
79, 595–599. (Examined FBI figures regarding spousal homicides.
During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985 found higher murder rates
of wives than husbands\43.4 vs. 56.6 %[. Black husbands were at the
greatest risk of victimization. Spousal homicide among blacks was 8.4
times higher than that of whites. Spouse homicide rates were 7.7 times
higher in interracial marriages and the risk of victimization for both
whites and blacks increased as age differences between spouses increased.
Wives and husbands were equally likely to be killed by firearms\approximately
72 % of the time[while husbands were more likely to be stabbed and wives
more likely to bludgeoned to death. Arguments apparently escalated to
murder in 67 % of spouse homicides.)
Meredith, W. H., Abbot, D. A., & Adams, S. L. (1986). Family violence
in relation to marital and parental satisfaction and family strengths.
Journal of Family Violence, 1, 299–305. (Authors report that 6
% of men and 5 % of women in Nebraska indicated that they used severe
violence at least once in the previous year.)
Merrill, L. L., Crouch, J. L., Thomsen, C. J., Guimond, J., &
Milner, J. S. (2005). Perpetration of severe intimate partner violence:
Premilitary and second year of service rates. Military Medicine, 170(8),
705–709. (Severe intimate partner violence \SIPV[, as assessed
by 5 items from the CTS, was studied in a sample of Navy personnel\542
women, 421 men[at two time periods: before joining the military and
2 years later. Results reveal that 20 % of women perpetrated SIPV before
joining the military compared to 4 % of men who perpetrated violence.
Two years later 12 % of women reported perpetrating violence compared
to 16 % of men.)
Merrill, L. L., King, L. K., Milner, J. S., Newell, C. E., & Koss,
M. P. (1998). Premilitary intimate partner conflict resolution in a
Navy basic trainee sample. Military Psychology, 10, 1–15. (A sample
of 2,987\1,560 women, 1,427 men[ Navy basic trainees responded to the
CTS. More men \43.3 %[ than women \40.3 %[reported receiving physical
violence from an intimate partner, and more women\46.9 %[than men\31.9
%[reported at least one instance of inflicting physical violence on
an intimate partner.)
Migliaccio, T. A. (2002). Abused husbands. A narrative analysis. Journal
of Family Issues, 23, 26–52. (Narratives of 12 abused men are
examined. Study finds that the accounts of battered men and women follow
similar patterns, ‘‘including the structure of the relationships,
acceptance of the abuse, and the social context of the situation.’’)
Mihalic, S. W., & Elliot, D. (1997). A social learning theory
model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21–46.
(Based on data from the National Youth Survey\see Morse, 1995[a social
learning model of marital violence for men and women was tested. For
men ethnicity, prior victimization, stress and marital satisfaction
predicted both perpetration and experience of minor violence. With regard
to serious violence ethnicity, prior victimization, marital satisfaction
predicted men’s experience of marital violence, while ethnicity,
class and sex role attitudes predicted the perpetration of male marital
violence. For women the most important predictor of the experience of
both minor and serious marital violence was marital satisfaction, class
was also a predictor. With regard to female perpetrators of marital
violence the witnessing of parental violence was an important predictor
along with class and marital satisfaction. The social learning model
worked better for women than men.)
Milardo, R. M. (1998). Gender asymmetry in common couple violence.
Personal Relationships, 5, 423–438. (A sample of 180 college students\88
men, 72 women[ were asked whether they would be likely to hit their
partner in a number of situations common to a dat1ng relationship. Results
reveal that 83 % of the women, compared to 53 % of the men, indicated
that they would be somewhat likely to hit their partner.)
Miller, L. M. (2011). Physical abuse in a college setting: A study
of perceptions and participation in abusive dat1ng relationships. Journal
of Family Violence, 26(1), 71–80. (A sample of 1,530\672 men,
858 women[students completed the CTS2. Results reveal that women were
significantly more likely than men to perpetrate 2 or more incidents
of physical abuse on the partners\30.4 vs. 17.0 %[).
Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Sullivan T., Orpinas, P., & Simons,
T. R. (2009). Parent and peer predictors of physical dat1ng violence
perpetration in early adolescence: Tests of moderation and gender differences.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 38(4), 538–550.
(A diverse sample of 2,824 sixth graders \49 % male[from 37 schools
completed a modified version of the CTS. Within the total sample 52.6
% of students were actively dat1ng. Of these active daters, 31 % of
the girls and 27 % of the boys admitted to perpetrating physical violence
toward their dat1ng partners.)
Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R.
(2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and
emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dat1ng
relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25(7), 627–637. (A
sample of 658 college students \183 men, 475 women[completed the CTS2.
Results reveal that in the past year 16 % of men and 40 % of women perpetrated
IPV.)
Mirrlees-Black, C. (1999). Findings from a new British Crime Survey
selfcompletion questionnaire. Home Office Research, Development and
Statistics Directorate report 191. Home Office. London, HMSO. (In 1996,
16,000 completed questionnaires regarding crime victimization. Findings
reveal 4.2 % of men and 4.2 % of women between the ages of 16–59
reported being physically assaulted by a current or former partner within
the past year.)
Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis
of partner abuse with implications for abuse-prevention policy. Criminology
& Public Policy, 1(1) 5–36. (A representative longitudinal
sample of 360 young-adult couples in New Zealand completed a 13 item
physical abuse scale. Results reveal that 40 % of males and 50 % of
females had perpetrated at least one act of physical violence toward
their partners.)
Molidor, C. & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factorsin
adolescent dat1ng violence. Violence against Women, 4(2), 180–194.
(Subjects were 635 high school students\305 girls; 330 boys[who completed
a modified version of the CTS. Results indicate that there was no significant
difference between males and females in their experience of overall
dat1ng violence\37.1 % of males vs. 36.4 % of females. Males reported
greater frequency of moderate violence and females reported greater
frequency of severe violence.)
Monson, C. M., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2002). Sexual and
nonsexual dat1ng violence perpetration: testing an integrated perpetrator
typology. Violence and Victims, 17, 403–428. (A sample of 228
men and 442 women were assessed with a modified version of the CTS2.
Results reveal 27 % of men and 37 % of women reported perpetrating physical
violence on their partners.)
Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing
gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4)
251–272. (Data was analyzed from the National Youth Survey, a
longitudinal study begun in 1976 with 1,725 subjects who were drawn
from a probability sample of households in the United States and who,
in 1976, were between the ages of 11–17. This study focused on
violence as assessed by the CTS between male and female married or cohabiting
respondents during survey years 1983 \n=1,496[, 1986 \n=1,384[, 1989
\n=1,436[, and 1992\n=1,340[. For each survey year the prevalence rates
of any violence and severe violence were significantly higher for female
to male than for male to female. For example, in 1983 the rate of any
violence male to female was 36.7, while the rate of any violence female
to male was 48; in 1986, the rate of severe violence male to female
was 9.5, while the rate of severe violence female to male was 22.8.
In 1992, the rate of any violence male to female was 20.2, with a severe
violence rate male to female of 5.7; while the rate of any violence
female to male was 27.9, with a severe violence rate female to male
of 13.8. Author notes that the decline in violence over time is attributed
to the increase in age of the subjects. Results reveal\p. 163[that over
twice as many women as men reported assaulting a partner who had not
assaulted them during the study year.’’ In 1986 about 20
% of both men and women reported that assaults resulted in physical
injuries. In other years women were more likely to self-report personal
injuries.)
Moxon, S. (2011). Beyond staged retreat behind virtual ‘gender
paradigm’ barricades: the rise and fall of the misrepresentation
of partner-violence, and its eclipse by an understanding of mate-guarding.
Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 45–56.
(Author offers an original analysis of findings in the area of partner
violence. Suggests that gender-symmetries in intimate partner violence
can best be understood from an evolutionary psychological perspective.
In particular, ‘‘the greater need for women than for men
to maintain the integrity of the pair bond’’ is offered
as an explanation to account for the finding that women are as physically
aggressive or more aggressive as men in their relationship with spouses
or male partners.)
Munoz-Rivas, M. J., Grana, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & Gonzalez,
M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dat1ng relationships: prevalence,
justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health,
40, 298–304. (A sample of 2,416 high school students\1,416 women,
1,000 men[from 20 different schools in Madrid, Spain completed a modified
CTS. Results reveal that significantly more women, 41.9 % compared to
31.7 % of men, admitted to perpetrating some form of physical aggression
toward their dat1ng partners. Women were significantly more likely to
hit or kick \13.4 vs. 5.3 %[, slap \12.4 vs. 3.1 %[ and shove or grab
\22.5 vs. 11.9 %[than men.)
Murphy, J. E. (1988). Date abuse and forced intercourse among college
students. In G. P. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, &
M. A. Straus (Eds.) Family Abuse and its Consequences: New Directions
in Research (pp. 285–296). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (A sample
of 485 single college students\230 men, 255 women[ completed the CTS.
Overall men reported greater victimization than women. For example,
20.7 % of men compared to 12.8 % of women reported being kicked, bit
or hit with a fist and 6 % of men compared to 3.6 % of women reported
being beaten up by their heterosexual partner.)
Mwamwenda, T. S. (1998). Reports of husband battering from an undergraduate
sample in Umtata. Psychological Reports, 82, 517–518. (Surveyed
a sample of 138 female and 81 male college students in Transkei, South
Africa, regarding their witnessing husbanding battery. Responses reveal
that 2 % of subjects saw their mother beat their father, 18 % saw or
heard female relatives beating their husbands, and 26 % saw or heard
female neighbors beating their husbands.)
Nabors, E. L. (2010). Drug use and intimate partner violence among
college students:An in-depth exploration. Journal of interpersonal Violence,
25(6), 1043–1063, (A sample of 1,635\638 men, 997 women[undergraduates
completed the CTS2. Results reveal that 32 % of women and 28 % of men
perpetrated physical IPV in the past year.)
Niaz, U., Hassan, S., & Tariq, Q. (2002). Psychological consequences
of intimate partner violence: forms of domestic abuse in both genders.
Pakistan Journal of Medical Science, 18(3), 205–214. (A sample
of 140 \70 men, 70 women[ outpatient psychiatric patients in Pakistan
were assessed with the Karachi Domestic Violence Screening Scale. Findings
reveal that 19 men \27 %) and 30 women \43 %) reported being victims
of physical abuse in their domestic relationships.)
Nicholls, T. L. & Dutton, D. G. (2001). Abuse committed by women
against male intimates. Journal of Couples Therapy, 10 (1) 41–57.
(A comprehensive review of the literature which concludes that ‘‘men
are as likely as women to be victims of intimate assaults’’.)
Nisonoff, L. & Bitman, I. (1979). Spouse abuse: Incidence and
relationship to selected demographic variables. Victimology, 4, 131–140.
(In a sample of 297 telephone survey respondents\112 men, 185 women[found
that 15.5 % of men and 11.3 % of women report having hit their spouse,
while 18.6 % of men and 12.7 % of women report having been hit by their
spouse.)
Nowinskia, S. N. & Bowen, E. (2012). Partner violence against
heterosexual and gay men: Prevalence and correlates. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 17(1), 36–52. (A review article examining male
victims of IPV both within opposite and same gender relationships. Also
reviews studies of the relationship between IPV and ethnicity.)
O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dat1ng violence among high
school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546–568.
(Surveyed 939 students\385 boys, 554 girls [ranging in age from 14 to
20. Sample was ethnically diverse: 53 % Latino, 20 % White, 13 % African-American,
6.7 % Asian American, and 7 % ‘‘other.’’ A modified
version of the violence subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale was used
to assess dat1ng violence. Results reveal that 43 % of females and 39
% of males reported that they perpetrated some form of physical aggression
on their dat1ng partners.)
O’Keeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dat1ng
violence. Social Work, 31, 465–468. (Surveyed 256 high school
students from Sacramento, CA., 135 girls, 121 boys, with the CTS. Ninety
percent of students were juniors or seniors, the majority came from
middle class homes, 94 % were average or better students, and 65 % were
white and 35 % were black, Hispanic or Asian. Found that 11.9 % of girls
compared to 7.4 % of boys admitted to being sole perpetrators of physical
violence. 17.8 % of girls and 11.6 % of boys admitted that they were
both ‘‘victims and perpetrators’’ of physical
violence.)
O’Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone,
J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression
between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 57, 263–268. (272 couples were assessed regarding
physical aggression. More women reported physically aggressing against
their partners at pre-marriage \44 vs. 31 %[ and 18 months of marriage\36
vs. 27 %[. At 30 months there was a non-significant but higher rate
for women\32 vs. 25 %[.)
O’Leary, K. D., Slep, A. M. S., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi,
M. (2008). Gender differences in dat1ng aggression among multiethnic
high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 473–479.
(A sample of 2,363 students\1,186 boys, 1,177 girls[from 7 multiethnic
high schools in New York were assessed with a modified Conflict Tactics
Scale. The vast majority of subjects were between 15 and 18 years old
and ethnicities included white, African-American, Hispanic and Asian.
Results reveal that among those currently dat1ng students \male = 543,
female = 706[ 24 % of males reported perpetrating physical aggression
compared to 40 % of females who reported perpetrating physical aggression.
Similar rates of victimization and injury were reported by males and
females. No differences in ethnicities were reported except for the
finding that Asian males were less aggressive toward their dat1ng partners.)
O’Leary, S. G., & Slep, A. M. S. (2006). Precipitants of
Partner aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 344–347.
(A random sample of 453 couples, who were cohabiting and raising a child
between the ages of 3–7, was assessed with the CTS2 and a scale
to evaluate precipitants for Partner Aggression\PCPT[. Results reveal
that women were more likely than men to perpetrate both mild\23.8 vs.
33.8 %[and severe\8.4 vs. 11.5 %[aggression. With regards to precipitation,
the authors state that, ‘‘Men were more likely than women
to report partner physical aggression as a precipitant for their own
mild physical aggression.’’ While the physical aggression
of women was more likely to be precipitated by their partner’s
verbal aggression, authors go on to conclude, ‘‘These findings
suggest that women may often be the first to escalate a conflict and
use physical aggression.’’)
O’Leary, K. D., Tintle, N., Bromet, E. J., & Gluzman, S.
F. (2008). Descriptive epidemiology of intimate partner aggression in
Ukraine. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43, 619–626.
(A nationally representative sample from the Ukraine consisting of 1,116
married or co-habiting adults \558 men, 558 women[responded to items
modified from the CTS. Results indicate that an equal number\18.7 vs.
18.5 %[of men and women reported ever aggressing against their partners
and equal numbers\11.4 vs. 11.3 %[report aggressing against their partners
in the past year.)
Olshen, E., McVeigh, K. H., Wunsch-Hitzig, R. A., & Rickert, V.
I. (2007). dat1ng violence, sexual assault and suicide attempts among
urban teenagers. Archives of Pediatric Adolsecent Medicine, 161, 539–545.
(A representative sample consisting of 8,080 teenagers\4,118 girls,
3,962 boys[from 87 New York City public high schools were subjects in
this investigation. Individuals responded to the question: ‘‘during
the past 12 months did your boyfriend (or girlfriend) ever hit, slap
or physically hurt you on purpose.’’ Results reveal that
10.6 % of girls and 9.5 % of boys reported an experience of dat1ng violence.)
Panuzio, J., & DiLillo, D. (2010). Physical, psychological, and
sexual intimate partner aggression among newlywed couples: Longitudinal
prediction of marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 25,
689–699. (A sample of 202 newly married couples completed the
TS. Results reveal that 30 % of men and 34 % of women perpetrated physical
IPV.)
Pedersen, P. & Thomas, C. D. (1992). Prevalence and correlates
of dat1ng violence in a Canadian University sample. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science, 24, 490–501. (A sample of 166 undergraduates\116
women, 50 men[ responded to the CTS; 45.8 % of subjects reported experiencing
physical violence in their current or most recent dat1ng relationship.
Of this total, 44.8 % of women and 48 % of men reported being physically
aggressed upon by their partners. It was also found that only 22 % of
men and 40.5 % of women reported using physical aggression against a
dat1ng partner.)
Pekarek, C. (2008). Intimate partner violence and interracial relationships:
Prevalence, perceived social support and gender. Unpublished master’s
thesis, California State University, Long Beach. Long Beach, Ca. (A
total of 203 subjects, \36 men, 167 women[ of various ethnicities responded
to the CTS2. No differences in partner abuse were found as a function
of ethnicity. Women were significantly more likely to perpetrate violence
toward their male partners than were men toward women.)
Perry, A. R., & Fromuth, M. E. (2005). Courtship violence using
couple data:Characteristic and perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 20(9), 1078–1095. (A sample 50 heterosexual dat1ng couples
completed the CTS2. Results reveal that women were more likely than
men to perpetrate partner violence.)
Plass, M. S., & Gessner, J. C. (1983). Violence in courtship relations:
a southern sample. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 11, 198–202.
(In an opportunity sample of 195 high school and college students from
a large southern city, researchers used the Conflict Tactics scale to
examine courtship violence. Overall, results reveal that women were
significantly more likely than men to be aggressors. Specifically, in,
committed relationships, women were three times as likely as men to
slap their partners, and to kick, bit or hit with the fist seven times
as often as men. In casual relationships, while the gender differences
weren’t as pronounced, women were more aggressive than men. Other
findings reveal that high school students were more abusive than college
students, and that a ‘‘higher proportion of black respondents
were involved as aggressors.’’)
Prospero, M. (2007). Mental health symptoms among female and male
victims of partner violence. American Journal of Men’s Health,
1, 269–277. (An ethnically diverse sample\27 % Hispanic, 18 %
African-American, 24 % Asian, and 30 % White[of 573 college students\241
male, 332 female[responded to the CTS2 and a mental health symptom questionnaire.
Results reveal no differences between males and females on partner abuse.
Author reports that ‘‘higher mental health problems were
not related to whether the victim was female or male, but rather to
the amount of partner violence that the victim experienced.’’)
Prospero, M. (2009). Sex-symmetric effects of coercive behaviors on
mental health? Not exactly. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(1),
128–146. (A diverse sample of 573\332 female, 241 male[university
students\30 % White, 27 % Hispanic, 24 % Asian, and 18 % African American
responded to items from the CTS. Results reveal that 46.4 % of females
reported being physically victimized by their male partners, while 41.9
% of males reported being victimized by their female partners.)
Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Caetano, R. (2005). Alcohol use and intimate
partner violence as predictors of separation among US couples: A longitudinal
model. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66(2), 205–212. (A representative
sample 1,392 predominantly white couples responded to the CTS. Of the
couples still together 12 % of men and 15 % of women perpetrated intimate
partner violence, and of the separated couples 27 % of men and 43 %
of women perpetrated IPV.)
Randle, A. A. & Graham, C. A. (2011). A review of the evidence
on the effects of intimate partner violence on men. Psychology of Men
& Masculinity, 12, (2) 96–111. (A review article that examines
‘‘empirical evidence on the effects of intimate partner
violence in men.’’)
Reid, R. J., Bonomi, A. E., Rivara, F. P., Anderson, M. S., Fishman,
P. A., Carrell, D. S., & Thompson, R. S. (2008). Intimate partner
violence among men. Prevalence, chronicity, and health effect. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34 (6) 478–485. (A telephone survey
assessing IPV was conducted with 420 men enrolled in a healthcare system
in Idaho and Washington. Results reveal that 28.8 % of men reported
being victims of IPV over the course of their lifetimes with younger
men experiencing significantly greater abuse than older men.)
Renner, L. M., & Whitney, S. D. (2010). Examining symmetry in
intimate partner violence among young adults using socio-demographic
characteristics. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 91–106. (From
a total sample of 12,313 who responded to an Adolescent Health survey
which assessed IPV, 4,895 young adults \2,697 women, 2,198 men[reported
either perpetration or victimization of IPV. Of this sample, 21.1 %
reported perpetrating violence\38 % male, 42 % female[, 24.6 % reported
victimization and 54.3 % reported IPV was bidirectional.)
Ridley, C. A., & Feldman, C. M. (2003). Female Domestic Violence
toward male partners: Exploring Conflict Responses and Outcomes. Journal
of Family Violence, 18(3), 157–170. (Participants were 153 female
volunteers who completed the Abusive Behavior Inventory. Results reveal
that 67.3 % of participants reported at least one occurrence of perpetrating
violent behavior in the past year. Most frequent behaviors included
pushing, shoving, holding down\45.1 %[and slapping, hitting, biting\41.2
%[).
Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1996). Aggression between
heterosexual dat1ng partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11,
519–540. (A sample of 345 college students\232 women, 113 men[were
assessed with the CTS. Results reveal similar overall rates of physical
violence toward dat1ng partners: 30 % for men and 33.6 % for women.
However, authors report that 18.2 % of women compared to 9.0 % of men
slapped their partners and 13.2 % of women compared to 2.5 % of men
reported ‘‘kicking, biting or hitting’’ their
partners.)
Riggs, D. S., O’Leary, K. D., & Breslin, F. C. (1990). Multiple
correlates of physical aggression in dat1ng couples. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 5, 61–73. (Used CTS and studied 408 college students\125
men and 283 women[. Found that significantly more women\39 %[than men\23
%[reported engaging in physical aggression against their current partners.)
Rollins, B. C., & Oheneba-Sakyi, Y. (1990). Physical violence
in Utah households. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 301–309. (In
a random sample of 1,471 Utah households, using the Conflict Tactics
Scale, it was found that women’s rate of severe violence was 5.3
% compared to a male rate of 3.4 %.)
Romito, P. & Grassi, M. (2007). Does violence affect one gender
more than the other? The mental health impact of violence among male
and female university students. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1222–1234.
(A sample of 502 Italian university students responded to a self report
survey regarding experience with intimate partner violence. Ninety-two
percent of subjects were 25 years old or younger and 64 % were women.
Results revealed no differences between men & women in terms of
intimate partner violence. Specifically, 32 % of men reported some victimization
and 37.1 % reported high victimization while 35.2 % of women reported
some victimization and 28.3 % reported high victimization.)
Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Changing relationships between men and women.
A note on the decline in intimate partner violence. Homicide Studies,
1, 72–83. (Author reports on homicide rates in St. Louis from
1968 to 1992. Findings indicate that while men and women were equally
likely to be victims of partner violence in 1970, in subsequent years
men, primarily black men, were more likely to be murdered by their intimate
partners.)
Rouse, L. P. (1988). Abuse in dat1ng relationships: A comparison of
Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Journal of College Student Development,
29, 312–319. (The use of physical force and its consequences were
examined in a diverse sample of college students. Subjects consisted
of 130 whites\58 men, 72 women[, 64 Blacks \32 men, 32 women[, and 34
Hispanics \24 men, 10 women[. Men were significantly more likely than
women to report that their partners used moderate physical force and
caused a greater number of injuries requiring medical attention. This
gender difference was present for Whites and Blacks but not for Hispanics.)
Rouse, L. P., Breen, R., & Howell, M. (1988). Abuse in intimate
relationships. A Comparison of married and dat1ng college students.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 414–429. (A sample of 130
married (48 men, 82 women) college students and 130 college students
in dat1ng relationships (58 men, 72 women) reported their experience
of physical abuse in intimate relationships. Men were more likely to
report being physically abused than women in both dat1ng and marital
relationships.)
Russell, R. J. H., & Hulson, B. (1992). Physical and psychological
abuse of heterosexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences,
13, 457–473. (In a pilot study in Great Britain 46 couples responded
to the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that husband to wife violence
was: Overall violence = 25 % and severe violence = 5.8 %; while wife
to husband violence was: Overall violence = 25 % and severe violence
= 11.3 %.)
Ryan, K. A. (1998). The relationship between courtship violence and
sexual aggression in college students. Journal of Family Violence, 13,
377–394. (A sample of 656 college students\245 men, 411 women[completed
the CTS. Thirty-four percent of the women and 40 % of the men reported
being victims of their partner’s physical aggression.)
Sack, A. R., Keller, J. F., & Howard, R. D. (1982). Conflict tactics
and violence in dat1ng situations. International Journal of Sociology
of the Family, 12, 89–100. (Used the CTS with a sample of 211
college students, 92 men, 119 women. Results indicate that there were
no differences between men and women with regard to the expression of
physical violence.)
Saenger, G. (1963). Male and female relations in the American comic
strip. In D. M. White & R. H. Abel (Eds.), The funnies, an American
idiom (pp. 219–231). Glencoe, NY: The Free Press. (Twenty consecutive
editions of all comic strips in nine New York City newspapers in October,
1950 were examined. Results reveal that husbands were victims of aggression
in 63 % of conflict situations while wives were victims in 39 % of situations.
In addition, wives were more aggressive in 73 % of domestic situations,
in 10 % of situations, husbands and wives were equally aggressive and
in only 17 % of situations were husbands more violent than wives.)
Saewyc, E. M., Brown, D., Plane, M., Mundt, M. P., Zakletskaia, L.,
Wiegel, J. & Fleming, M. F. (2009). Gender Differences in violent
exposure among University students attending campus health clinics in
the United States and Canada. Journal of Adolescent Health. (Data was
collected from a cross sectional survey of 2,091 students \717 men,
1,374 women[ at five universities who came for routine primary care.
Subjects were primarily white (82 %) and responded to items from the
CTS. Results indicate that, ‘‘both men and women reported
a similar prevalence of physical violence from intimate partners.’’
Sarantakos, S. (2004). Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband
violence. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12 (3) 277–296. (Members
of 68 families with violent wives in Australia were studied. In 78 %
of cases wives’ violence was reported to be moderate to severe
and in 38 % of cases husbands needed medical attention. Using information
from husbands, wives, children and wives’ mothers study provides
compelling data challenging self defense as a motive for female-to-male
violence.)
Sarkar, S., Dsouza, R., Dasgupta, A, & Fiebert, M. S. (2008, April).
Men as victims of domestic violence in India. Poster session presented
at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Irvine,
Ca. (A convenience sample of married, middle class, men from all parts
of India responded to modified version of the CTS. Findings reveal that
25.1 % of subjects reported at least one incident, within the past year,
of physical violence from their wives.)
Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Rates of intimate
partner violence in the United States. American journal of Public Health,
88, 1702–1704. (Used modified CTS and examined reports of partner
violence in a representative sample of 1,635 married and cohabiting
couples. Both partners reports were used to estimate the following lower
and upper bound rates: 5.21 and 13.61 % for male to female violence,
and 6.22 and 18.21 % for female to male violence.)
Schnurr, M. P., Lehman, B. J., & Kaura, S. A. (2010). Variationin
late adolescents’ reports of dat1ng violence perpetration: A dyadic
analysis. Violence and Victims, 25, 68–82. (A sample of 214 college
dat1ng couples completed the CTS2. Results reveal that 26 % of men and
30 % of women perpetrated physical IPV.)
Schumacher, J. A. & Leonard, K. E. (2005). Husbands’ and
wives’ marital adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression
as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in early marriage.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 28–37. (A sample
of 634 newly married couples\approximately 60 % Euro-American and 30
% African-American[completed the revised CTS on 3 occasions over 3 years.
The prevalence of wife to husband aggression was 48, 45, and 41 %, while
husband to wife aggression was 37, 38, and 37 %.)
Schwartz, M., O’Leary, S. G., & Kendziora, K. T. (1997).
dat1ng aggression among high school students. Violence and Victims,
12, 295–305. (A sample of 228 \122 male, 106 female[ high school
students were assessed with the Conflict Tactics Scale as it related
to the use of physical aggression during an argument with an opposite
sex dat1ng partner. Results indicate that 44 % of females and only 16
% of males reported engaging in at least one physically aggressive behavior
during a disagreement. Authors speculate that culturally boys have inhibited
their dat1ng aggression, girls have become less intimidated by their
dat1ng partners than they once were. Authors cite research which shows
that parents are more likely to punish boys than girls when they fight
with their siblings.)
Sharpe, D., & Taylor, J. K. (1999). An examination of variables
from a socialdevelopmental model to explain physical and psychological
dat1ng violence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31:3, 165–175.
(Canadian college students \110 men, 225 women[ was surveyed with the
Conflict Tactics Scale regarding dat1ng violence. Results reveal that
38 % of men and 27 % women report receiving physical violence from their
partners. Twice as many women compared to men reported inflicting violence
without receiving physical violence from dat1ng partners.)
Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J. & Segrist, A. E. (2000).
Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally
and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 1–22.
(A modified Conflict Tactics Scale was administered to 572 college students\395
women; 177 men[. Results reveal that significantly more women than men,
23.5 vs. 13.0 %, admitted using physical force against a dat1ng partner.)
Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence
in college students’ dat1ng relationships. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 5, 530–548. (Surveyed 504 college students\116
men, 388 women[with the Conflict Tactics Scale and found that men and
women were similar in the overall amount of violence they expressed
but that men reported experiencing significantly more violence than
women.)
Simon, T. R., Miller. S., Gorman-Smith, D., Orpinas, P., & Sullivan,
T. (2009). Physical dat1ng violence norms and behavior among sixth-grade
students from four U[S[sites. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30, 1–15.
(A sample of 5,404 randomly selected sixth-grade students completed
measures designed to assess dat1ng violence. Results reveal that 31
% of girls and 26 % of boys reported being physically aggressive.)
Simonelli, C. J. & Ingram, K. M. (1998). Psychological distress
among men experiencing physical and emotional abuse in heterosexual
dat1ng relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 667–681.
(Responses from 70 male undergraduates to the CTS and a Psychological
Maltreatment Inventory revealed that 40 % reported being the target
of some form of physical aggression from their female dat1ng partners
while only 23 % reported expressing physical aggression to their partners.
Men who were victims of emotional and physical abuse also reported greater
levels of distress and depression.)
Simonelli, C. J., Mullis, T., Elliot, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2002).
Abuse by siblings and subsequent experiences of violence within the
dat1ng relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 103–121.
(A sample of 120 undergraduates \61 men, 59 women[completed the CTS.
Ten percent of men and 33 % of women reported that they perpetrated
at least one type of physical aggressive behavior against their dat1ng
partner and 18 and 15 % of women reported receiving physical aggression
from their dat1ng partner.)
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(3), 435–444.
(A random sample of 453 couples in Suffolk county NY, who were raising
young children were assessed with the CTS2. Results reveal, with regard
to perpetrating severe physical aggression, wives were significantly
more aggressive than husbands\19.9 vs. 13.5 %[).
Sommer, R. (1994). Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress
model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,
Canada. (The study was in two waves: the first was from 1989 to 1990
and included a random sample of 452 married or cohabiting women and
447 married or cohabiting men from Winnipeg, Canada; the second was
from 1991 to 1992 and included 368 women and 369 men all of whom participated
in the first wave. Subjects completed the CTS & other assessment
instruments. 39.1 % of women reported being physically aggressive (16.2
% reporting having perpetrated severe violence) at some point in their
relationship with their male partner. While 26.3 % of men reported being
physically aggressive (with 7.6 % reporting perpetrating severe violence)
at some point in their relationship with their female partner. Among
the perpetrators of partner abuse, 34.8 % of men and 40.1 % of women
reported observing their mothers hitting their fathers. Results indicate
that 21 % of ‘‘males’ and 13 % of females’ partners
required medical attention as a result of a partner abuse incident.’’
Results also indicate that ‘‘10 % of women and 15 % of men
perpetrated partner abuse in self defense.’’)
Sommer, R., Barnes, G. E. & Murray, R. P. (1992). Alcohol consumption,
alcohol abuse, personality and female perpetrated spouse abuse. Journal
of Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1315–1323. (The
responses from a subsample of 452 women drawn from a sample of 1,257
Winnipeg residents were analyzed. Using the CTS, it was found that 39
% of women physically aggressed against their male partners at some
point in their relationship. Younger women with high scores on Eysenck’s
P scale were most likely to perpetrate violence. Note: The sample of
subjects is the same as the one cited in Sommer’s 1994 dissertation.)
Sorenson, S. B., & Telles, C. A. (1991). Self reports of spousal
violence in a Mexican–American and non-Hispanic white population.
Violence and Victims, 6, 3–15. (Surveyed 1,243 Mexican-Americans
and 1,149 non-Hispanic whites and found that women compared to men reported
higher rates of hitting, throwing objects, initiating violence, and
striking first more than once. Gender difference was significant only
for non-Hispanic whites.)
Sorenson, S. B., Upchurch, D. M., & Shen, H. (1996). Violence
and injury in marital arguments: risk patterns and gender differences.
American Journal of Public Health, 66(1), 35–40. (Data analysis
was based on findings from the National Survey of Families and Households
conducted in 1987–1988. Subjects included 6,779 currently married
White, Black and Hispanic individuals who completed a modified version
of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Authors report that, ‘‘women\6.2
vs. 4.9 %[were slightly more likely than men to report that they had
hit, shoved or thrown something at their spouse in the previous year.’’
Women also reported higher rates of causing injury than did men. Other
findings of note: (1) Blacks were 1.58 times more likely and Hispanics
0.53 times less likely than Whites to report tha physical violence occurred
in their relationship; (2) Subjects under 30 reported more violence
and those above 50 reported less violence; 3) lower annual income was
associated with higher rates of physical violence.)
Spencer, G. A. & Bryant, S. A. (2000). dat1ng violence: A comparison
of rural, suburban and urban teens. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25
(2), 302–305. (A sample of 2,094 high school students in upper
New York State indicated their experience of physical dat1ng violence.
There were a similar number of boys and girls surveyed, with more subjects
from urban areas than rural or suburban areas. The majority of subjects
were white, non-hispanic. Males in each region were more likely to report
being victims of physical dat1ng violence than females in each region.
Specifically, 30 % of rural boys and 20 % of urban and 20 % of suburban
boys reported being victims of partner physical aggression while 25
% of rural girls and 16 % of suburban and 13 % of urban girls reported
victimization.)
Stacy, C. L., Schandel, L. M., Flannery, W. S., Conlon, M., &
Milardo, R. M. (1994). It’s not all moonlight and roses: dat1ng
violence at the University of Maine, 1982–1992. College Student
Journal, 28, 2–9. (Three separate samples of students were assessed
in 1982, 1987 and 1992 with the CTS. Authors report that the rate of
partner abuse has more than doubled over a 10 year period. In 1992 the
data collected from 53 men and 106 women revealed the overall rate of
violence perpetrated by men was 20.8 % while the rate perpetrated by
women was 41.5 %.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1977–1978). The battered husband syndrome.
Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 499–509. (A pioneering
article suggesting that the incidence of husband beating was similar
to the incidence of wife beating.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Women and violence: victims and perpetrators.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34, 334–350. (Examines the
apparent contradiction in women’s role as victim and perpetrator
in domestic violence.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). A cross cultural comparison of marital abuse.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8, 404–414. (Using a
modified version of the CTS, examined marital violence in small samples
from six societies: Finland, United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Belize,
and Israel\total n = 630[. Found that ‘‘in each society
the percentage of husbands who used violence was similar to the percentage
of violent wives.’’ The major exception was Puerto Rico
where men were more violent. Author also reports that, ‘‘Wives
who used violence … tended to use greater amounts.’’)
Stets, J. E. & Henderson, D. A. (1991). Contextual factors surrounding
conflict resolution while dat1ng: results from a national study. Family
Relations, 40, 29–40. (Drawn from a random national telephone
survey, daters \n=277; men = 149, women = 128[between the ages of 18
and 30, who were single, never married and in a relationship during
the past year which lasted at least 2 months with at least six dates
were examined with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Findings reveal that
over 30 % of subjects used physical aggression in their relationships,
with 22 % of the men and 40 % of the women reported using some form
of physical aggression. Women were ‘‘6 times more likely
than men to use severe aggression\19.2 vs. 3.4 %[ … Men were twice
as likely as women to report receiving severe aggression \15.7 vs. 8
%[.’’ Also found that younger subjects and those of lower
socioeconomic status \SES[were more likely to use physical aggression.)
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dat1ng
relationships, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237–246. (Examined
a college sample of 505 white students. Found that men and women were
similar in both their use and reception of violence. Jealousy was a
factor in explaining dat1ng violence for women.)
Stets, J. E. & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Patterns of physical
and sexual abuse for men and women in dat1ng relationships: A descriptive
analysis, Journal of Family Violence, 4, 63–76. (Examined a sample
of 287 college students\118 men and 169 women[and found similar rates
for men and women of low level physical abuse in dat1ng relationships.
More women than men were pushed or shoved\24 vs. 10 %[ while more men
than women were slapped \12 vs. 8 %[. In term of unwanted sexual contact
22 % of men and 36 % of women reported such behavior. The most frequent
category for both men \18 %[ and women \19 %[ was the item, ‘‘against
my will my partner initiated necking’’.)
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1990). Interpersonal control
and courtship aggression. Journal of Personal and Social Relations,
7, 371–394. (A random sample of white heterosexual college students
\335 men, 448 women[ were assessed with the CTS. Findings reveal that
women compared to men perpetrated significantly more mild and severe
aggression toward their dat1ng partners and men compared to women sustained
significantly more mild and severe aggression from their dat1ng partners.)
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting
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. 151–166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Reports information
regarding the initiation of violence. In a sample of 297 men and 428
women, men said they struck the first blow in 43.7 % of cases, and their
partner hit first in 44.1 % of cases and could not disentangle who hit
first in remaining 12.2 %. Women report hitting first in 52.7 % of cases,
their partners in 42.6 % and could not disentangle who hit first in
remaining 4.7 %. Authors conclude that violence by women is not primarily
defensive.)
Stockdale, G. L. (1998). Men’s Accounts of Domestic Violence.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Deakin University, Australia. (Twenty
male victims of domestic violence were interviewed using a semi-structured
protocol. Many subjects incurred severe physical violence and were ‘‘mostly
disturbed by false accusations of violence on their part, and their
partner’s use of their children against them, which they felt
were supported by the legal system and the community.’’)
Straus, M. (1980). Victims and aggressors in marital violence. American
Behavioral Scientist, 23, 681–704. (Reviews data from the 1975
National Survey. Examined a subsample of 325 violent couples and found
that in 49.5 % of cases both husbands and wives committed at least one
violent act, while husbands alone were violent in 27.7 % of the cases
and wives alone were violent in 22.7 % of the cases. Found that 148
violent husbands had an average number of 7.1 aggressive acts per year
while the 177 violent wives averaged 6.8 aggressive acts per year.)
Straus, M. A. (1995). Trends in cultural norms and rates of partner
violence: An update to 1992. In S. M. Stich & M. A. Straus (Eds.)
Understanding partner violence: Prevalence, causes, consequences, and
solutions (pp. 30–33). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family
Relations. (Reports finding that while the approval of a husband slapping
his wife declined dramatically from 1968 to 1994\21 to 10 %[the approval
of a wife slapping her husband did not decline but remained at 22 %
during the same period. The most frequently mentioned reason for slapping
for both partners was sexual unfaithfulness. Also reports that severe
physical assaults by men declined by 48 % from 1975 to 1992–38/1,000
to 19/1,000 while severe assaults by women did not change from 1975
to 1992 and remained above 40/1,000. Suggests that public service announcements
should be directed at female perpetrated violence and that school based
programs ‘‘explicitly recognize and condemn violence by
girls as well as boys.’’)
Straus, M. A. (1998). The controversy over domestic violence by women:
A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. Paper
presented at Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, Claremont,
CA. (Examines issue of differential rates of assaults between crime
studies and couple conflict studies. Provides a sociological explanation
to account for assaults by women within the family.)
Straus, M. A. (2001). Prevalence of violence against dat1ng partners
by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women,
10, 790–811. (dat1ng aggression was studied at 31 universities
in 16 countries worldwide. Responding to the revised Conflict Tactics
Scale were 8,666 students \5,919 women, 2,747 men[. Results reveal that
overall 25 % of men and 28 % of women assaulted their dat1ng partner
in the past year. At 21 of the 31 universities studied a larger percentage
of women than men assaulted their dat1ng partner. In terms of severe
assaults a higher rate of perpetration by women occurred in a majority
(18 of the 31) of the sites.)
Straus, M. A. (2005). Women’s violence toward men is a serious
social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh
(Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence, 2nd. Edition, (pp.
55–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (A scholarly review of research
showing that women initiate physical assaults on their male partners
as frequently as men assault women. Examines the fact that injuries
and fatalities result from such violence.)
Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical
assaults on partners. Violence Against Women, 12, 1086–1097. (A
review article and position statement in which author advocates a research
focus on why gender symmetry in partner aggression is predominant and
its implications for primary prevention and treatment. Suggests that
such research is handicapped for a number of reasons including bias.
Specifically cites concerns about some researchers who are blindly committed
to a single causal theory—patriarchy & male dominance–
as well as ‘‘denial of research grants to projects that
do not assume most partner violence is by male perpetrators.’’
Authors also expresses concerns about ‘‘failure to investigate
primary prevention & treatment for female offenders’’
and a suppression of evidence ‘‘of female perpetration by
both researchers and agencies.’’)
Straus, M. A. (2007). Processes explaining the concealment and distortion
of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence. European Journal
of Criminal Policy Research, 13, 227–232. (Focuses on methods
used to conceal and distort evidence of gender symmetry in partner violence.
These include the suppression of evidence, the avoidance of data inconsistent
with ‘‘Patriarchal Dominance Theory,’’ the obstruction
of the publication of articles & the funding of research that might
contradict the idea that male dominance in the cause of PV, and the
harassment of researchers who produce evidence that contradicts feminist
beliefs.)
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.(A convenience sample of 13,601 students\71.5
% women, 28.5 % men[ at 68 universities in 32 countries completed the
CTS2. Findings reveal that almost a third of students assaulted their
dat1ng partners in a 12 month period. In terms of initiation, mutual
aggression accounted for 68.6 % of physical violence, while women initiated
violence 21.4 % of the time and men initiated violence 9.9 % of the
time.)
Straus, M. A. (2009a). Gender symmetry in partner violence: evidence
and implications for prevention and treatment. In J. R. Lutzker and
D. J. Whitaker (Eds.). Prevention of Partner Violence (pp. 245–271).
Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. (A review article
that examines evidence of gender symmetry in partner violence. Also
summarizes studies that show existing efforts at prevention and treatment
have been limited by the conceptualization that partner violence is
primarily violence against women.)
Straus, M. A. (2009b). Current controversies and prevalence concerning
female offenders of intimate partner violence. Why the overwhelming
evidence of partner physical violence by women has not been perceived
and is often denied. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
18, 1–19. (A major review and analysis that examines gender symmetry
in intimate partner violence. Discusses reasons why findings have not
been perceived and accepted by practitioners and the public. Examines
the issue of concealment and denial by academic researchers and the
negative effect that misperception & denial has had on prevention
and treatment programs.)
Straus, M. A. (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration
of clinicallevel partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications
for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 279–288.
(A comprehensive review article which concludes that much of the controversy
over gender symmetry ‘‘arises because those who assert gender
symmetry do so on the basis of perpetration rates, whereas those who
deny gender symmetry do so on the basis of the effects of victimization…’’
Straus presents findings from 36 general populations study comparisons
of severe assaults by men and women. Overall the median percentage of
men who severely assault their female partners was 5.1 %, while a median
of 7.1 % of women severely assaulted their male partners. In terms of
injuries, the rate for women injuring their male partners was 88 % of
the male rate.)
Straus, M. A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about
partner violence by women: The methodological, theoretical, and value
basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 30(5), 538–556. (A review and analysis
in which the author presents a vigorous defense of the most widely used
measure to assess intimate partner violence).
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change
in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465–479. (Reviewed data
from two large sample national violence surveys of married couples and
report that men and women assaulted each other at approximately equally
rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence at a higher rate
than men. Sample size in 1975 survey = 2,143; sample size in 1985 survey
= 6,002.)
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American
families. Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). Behind
closed doors: Violence in the American family, Garden City, NJ: Anchor.
(Reports findings from National Family Violence survey conducted in
1975. In terms of religion, found that Jewish men had the lowest rates
of abusive spousal violence (1 %), while Jewish women had a rate of
abusive spousal violence which was more than double the rate for Protestant
women\7 %[, pp. 128–133. Abusive violence was defined as an ‘‘act
which has a high potential for injuring the person being hit,’’
pp. 21–22.)
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Development and
preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.
(The revised CTS has clearer differentiation between minor and severe
violence and new scales to measure sexual coercion and physical injury.
Used the CTS2 with a sample of 317 college students \114 men, 203 women[and
found that: 49 % of men and 31 % of women reported being a victim of
physical assault by their partner; 38 % of men and 30 % of women reported
being a victim of sexual coercion by their partner; and 16 % of men
and 14 % of women reported being seriously injured by their partners.)
Straus, M. A., & Kaufman Kantor, G. (1994, July). Change in spouse
assault rates from 1975–1992: A comparison of three national surveys
in the United States. Paper presented at the Thirteenth World Congress
of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany. (Reports that the trend of decreasing
severe assaults by husbands found in the National Survey from 1975 to
1985 has continued in the 1992 survey while wives maintained higher
rates of assault.)
Straus, M. A., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Moore, D. W. (1994, August).
Change in cultural norms approving marital violence from 1968 to 1994.
Paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles,
CA. (Compared surveys conducted in 1968 \n=1,176[, 1985 \n=6,002[, 1992
\n=1,970[, and 1994 \n=524[, with regard to the approval of facial slapping
by a spouse. Approval of slapping by husbands decreased from 21 % in
1968 to 13 % in 1985, to 12 % in 1992, to 10 % in 1994. The approval
of slapping by wives was 22 % in 1968 and has not declined over the
years.)
Straus, M. A., & Medeiros, R. A. (2002, November). Gender differences
in risk factors for physical violence between dat1ng partners by university
students. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Society
for Criminology, Chicago, Illinois. (A sample of 232 men and 334 women
responded to revised CTS. Results indicate that for minor violence the
rates for both men and women are 22 % and for severe violence rates
are 10 % for men and 11 % for women.)
Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1999, November). Preliminary
psychometric data for the Personal Relationships Profile (PRP):A multi-scale
tool for clinical screening and research on partner violence. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology,
Toronto, Canada.((In a study of 1,034 dat1ng couples at two US universities
injury rates based on responses to the revised CTS (CTS2) revealed that
9.9 % of men and 9.4 % of women report being injured by the opposite
sex. In terms of inflicting injuries, 10.1 % of men and 8.0 % of women
indicated that they inflicted injuries on their partners.)
Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence,
severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dat1ng partners
by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281–290.
(Reports findings from four samples of university students in Juarez,
Mexico, El Paso and Lubbock, Texas, and New Hampshire. Subjects (N =
1,544) responded to the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate
that there were no significant differences between males and females
in either the overall prevalence of physical aggression or the prevalence
of severe attacks. However, when only one partner was violent it was
twice as likely to be the female than the male \19.0 vs. 9.8 %[. Moreover,
in terms of severe aggression females were twice as likely to be violent
than men\29.8 vs. 13.7 %[).
Straus, M. A., & Scott, K. (2008). Gender symmetry in partner
violence: The evidence and implications for primary prevention and treatment.
In J. R. Lutzker & D. J. Whitaker (eds.), Prevention of partner
violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (A major
review article which examines evidence for gender symmetry in partner
abuse and presents recommendations for primary prevention.)
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). dat1ng violence: Prevalence,
context, and risk markers. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.)
Violence in dat1ng relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3–32).
New York: Praeger. (Reviewed 21 studies of dat1ng behavior and found
that women reported having expressed violence at higher rates than men–329
per 1,000 vs. 393 per 1,000.)
Sugihara, Y., & Warner, J. A. (2002). Dominance and domestic abuse
among Mexican Americans: gender differences in the etiology of violence
in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 17(4), 315–340.
(A sample of 316 Mexican Americans \161 men, 155 women[ were evaluated
with the CTS2. Subjects’ average age was in the mid 30’s,
most were married, and all were Englishspeakers. Results reveal no differences
in the victimization of physical assaults\35 vs. 37 %[. However, a greater
percentage of men\14 vs. 10[reported physical injuries.)
Swahn, M. H., Simon, T. R., Arias, I., & Bossarte, R. M. (2008).
Measuring sex differences in violence victimization and perpetration
within date and same-sex peer relationships. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 23, 1120–1138. (Data was obtained from The Youth Violence
Survey conducted in 2004 in a high risk community. All public school
students in grades 7, 9, 11, 12 were surveyed. Items were similar to
the CTS. Boys \n = 1,495[ reported greater physical violence victimization
than girls\n = 1,372[32.6 % compared to 28.8 %.)
Swart, L. A., Seedat, M., Stevens, G., & Ricardo, I. (2002). Violence
in adolescents’ romantic relationships: findings from a survey
amongst school-going youth in a South African community. Journal of
Adolescence, 25(4), 385–395. (A sample of 928 students\494 female,
424 male[from 7 schools in South Africa completed a modified version
of the CTS2. Results reveal that 35.3 % of males and 43.5 % of females
reported perpetrating physical violence in a romantic relationship within
a 12 month period prior to the survey.)
Swaroop, S. & Dsouza, A. (September, 2007). Violence a home truth
for India husband. http://mynation.net/study-report-indianhusbands.htm
(A sample of 1,650 Indian husbands between the ages of 15 and 49 were
interviewed regarding their experience with domestic violence. Authors
report that 25.2 % of men report being victims of physical violence.)
Symons, P. Y., Groer, M. W., Kepler-Youngblood, P., & Slater,
V. (1994). Prevalence and predictors of adolescent dat1ng violence.
Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 7 (3) 14–23.
(A sample of 561 rural North Carolina adolescents, predominantly female
\77 %[ and 40 % black and 58 % white completed a scale assessing dat1ng
violence and family violence. Results reveal that boys were significantly
more likely to experience dat1ng violence than girls.)
Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool:
The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45,
633–644. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with 103 couples and found
that the wives’ rates of physical aggression was somewhat higher
than husbands’.)
Tang, C. S. (1994). Prevalence of spouse aggression in Hong Kong.
Journal of Family Violence, 9, 347–356. (Subjects were 382 undergraduates\246
women, 136 men[ at the Chinese University in Hong Kong. The CTS was
used to assess students’ evaluation of their parents responses
during family conflict. 14 % of students reported that their parents
engaged in physical violence. ‘‘Mothers were as likely as
fathers to use actual physical force toward their spouses.’’)
Tang, C. S. (1999). Marital power and aggression in a community sample
of Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6),
586–602. (A Hong Kong sample of 1,270 Chinese families\518 men,
752 women[were assessed with the CTS. Across all conditions of marital
power women were significantly more likely to perpetrate minor violence
on their spouses. There was no significant differences in the perpetration
of severe violence.)
Thompson Jr., E. H. (1990). Courtship violence and the male role.
Men’s Studies Review, 7, (3), 4–13. (Subjects were 336 undergraduates\167
men, 169 women[ who completed a modified version of the CTS. Found that
24.6 % of men compared to 28.4 % of women expressed physical violence
toward their dat1ng partners within the past two years. Found that women
were twice as likely as men to slap their partners.)
Thompson Jr., E. H. (1991). The maleness of violence in dat1ng relationships:
an appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261–278. (In a more
extensive presentation of his 1990 article, the author concludes that,
‘‘a more masculine and/or less feminine gender orientation
and variations in relationship seriousness proved to be the two strongest
predictors of both men’s and women’s involvement in courtship
violence.’’)
Thorton, A. J. V., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2010). Adaptive
and maladaptive personality traits as predictors of violent and nonviolent
offending beheavior in men and women. Aggressive Behavior, 36(3), 177–186.
(A sample of 116 men and 181 women responded to items adapted from the
CTS. Results reveal that women were significantly more likely than men
to perpetrated intimate partner violence.)
Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors
in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980’s to 1990’s.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4), 83–98. (Studied prevalence
of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985 to 1999. Results reveal
that women were ‘‘over 40 % of the offenders in lethal domestic
assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black…black
women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators
of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including
Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders
for every 100 male offenders.’’ In the small number of cases
involving Hispanic couples, ‘‘women were more likely to
be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period’’
of the study.)
Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences
of male-tofemale and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured
by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women,
6, 142–161. (Telephone interviews using a modified version of
the CTS was obtained from 6,934 men and 7,278 women regarding prevalence
and consequences of partner violence. Authors report that women, over
the course of their lives were 2.9 times more likely to report being
physically assaulted than men. However, it should be noted that overall
reported estimate of annual intimate partner violence for women of 1.4
% is significantly lower than 11–12 % estimates from earlier national
surveys. Straus (1998) characterizes the data from this study as being
flawed and inaccurate. He cites the wording of items as possibly creating
‘‘demand characteristics’’ that led subjects
to view the survey as a study of crime and thus restrict their responses
to exclude behavior considered harmless, especially minor assaults by
women. Thus, he states this unintended demand characteristics probably
account for the low prevalence rate and 3 to 1 ratio of male to female
physical assaults.)
Tyree, A., & Malone, J. (1991). How can it be that wives hit husbands
as much as husbands hit wives and none of us knew it? Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. (Reviews
the literature and discusses results from their study attempting to
predict spousal violence. Found that women’s violence is correlated
with a history of hitting siblings and a desire to improve contact with
partners.)
Vasquez, D., & Falcone, R. (1997). Cross gender violence. Annals
of Emergency Medicine, 29(3), 427–429. (Reports equal cross gender
violence treated at an Ohio trauma center during an 11 month period.
Of 1,400 trauma admissions, 37 patients \18 men, 19 women[sustained
injuries inflicted by members of the opposite sex. The severity score
of injury was higher for men than women, 11.4 vs. 6.9. The majority
of men were admitted for stab wounds, 72 %; the majority of women for
assault, 53 %.)
Vaeth, P. A. C., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Catetano, R. (2010).
Depression among couples in the United States in the context of intimate
partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 771–790.
(A sample of 1,136 multi-ethnic couples\1/3 White, 1/3 Hispanic, 1/5
Black & rest mixed ethnicity[completed the revised CTS. Results
reveal that 10.2 % of men and 13.1 % of women reported perpetrating
physical violence.)
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). Are bi-directionally
violent couples mutually victimized? In L. K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti
(Eds.) Domestic partner abuse (pp. 23–52). New York: Springer.
(Authors found using a modified version of the CTS, that in a sample
of 57 mutually aggressive couples, there were no significant differences
between husbands’ and wives’ reports concerning the frequency
and severity of assault victimization. With regard to injuries, 32 wives
and 25 husbands reported the presence of a physical injury which resulted
from partner aggression.)
Waiping, A. L., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1989). The continuation
of violent dat1ng relationships among college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 30, 432–439. (Using a modified version of
the CTS, authors examined courtship violence in a sample of 422 college
students\227 women, 195 men[. Women more often than men \35.3 vs. 20.3
%[ indicated that they physically abused their partners.)
Walton, M. A., Murray, R., Cunningham, R. M., Chermack, S. T., Barry,
K. L., Booth, B. M., et al. (2009). Correlates of intimate partner violence
among and women in an inner city emergency department. Journal of Addictive
Diseases, 28, 366–381. (A large sample\10,744[of patients seeking
treatment at the emergency department in Flint, Michigan responded to
a survey which contained one item dealing with partner violence. Results
reveal that 6 % of women and 2 % of men reported perpetrating IPV.)
Watson, J. M., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary,
K. D. (2001). High School students’ responses to dat1ng aggression.
Victims and Violence, 16 (3) 339–348. (Using a modified version
of the CTS, authors examined dat1ng violence in a multi-ethnic sample
\43 % Hispanic; 31.5 % Caucasian; 15.8 % African- American[of New York
high school students\266 males, 209 females[. Overall, 45.6 % of students
reported experiencing physical aggression from a current or past dat1ng
partner. There were significant differences in self-reported rates of
victimization: African-American 60 %, Caucasian 47 % and Hispanic 41
%. The only ethnic group that showed significant gender differences
were Hispanics, with females showing higher rates of victimization.)
Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A. M., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M., Trocme,
N., & Waechter, R. (2009). Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(1), 45–58.
(A sample of 408 troubled youths \51.6 % women[ completed the Conflict
in Adolescent dat1ng Relationships Inventory. Results reveal that 44
% of men and 67 % of women reported perpetrating violence in the past
year.)
West, C. M. (2008). ‘‘A thin line between love and hate?’’
Black men as victims of perpetrators of dat1ng violence. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16(3) 238–257. (A review
article which examines Black men as victims and perpetrators of dat1ng
violence. Author concludes that the rate of ‘‘dat1ng violence
perpetrated against Black men is unacceptably high.’’)
West, C. M., & Rose, S. (2000). dat1ng aggression among low income
African American youth. Violence against Women, 6, 470–494. (A
sample of 171 \88 female, 83 male[ low income African American youth
were assessed using a modified version of the CTS. Victimization and
perpetration rates were high. Women were significantly more likely to
threaten to hit their partners\66.3 vs. 49.4 %[, throw something at
partners\62 vs. 45 %[, slap their partners\53.3 vs. 38.6 %[, and hit
with something\47.1 vs. 30.9 %[.)
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 intimate partner violence.
American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941–947. (A sample of 11,370
young adults\46 % male, 54 % female; 70 % white, 15 % Black, 10.7 %
Hispanic, 4.3 % other[aged 18–28, who were drawn from the 2001
National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, responded to a modified
version of the CTS. Results indicate that almost 24 % of all relationships
had some physical violence and that half the violence was reciprocal.
In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators
70 % of the time. While overall, women were somewhat more likely to
be injured than men, the authors report that, ‘‘in fact,
men in relationships with reciprocal violence were reportedly injured
more often \25.2 %[than were women in relationships with nonreciprocal
violence\20.0 %[.)
White, H. R., & Chen, P. H. (2002). Problem drinking and intimate
partner violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 205–214.
(A sample of 725\400 women, 325 men[problem drinkers completed the CTS.
Results reveal that 18 % of women and 13 % of men reported perpetrating
IPV.)
White, J. W., & Humphrey, (1994). Women’s aggression in
heterosexual conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 195–202. (Eight
hundred and twenty-nine women \representing 84 % of entering class of
women[ 17 and 18 years old, entering the university for the first time
completed the CTS and other assessment instruments. Results reveal that
51.5 % of subjects used physical aggression at least once in their prior
dat1ng relationships and, in the past year, 30.2 % reported physically
aggressing against their male partners. Past use of physical aggression
was the best predictor of current aggression. The witnessing and experiencing
of parental aggression also predicted present aggression.)
White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth
of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 18, 487–508. (A review and analysis which acknowledges
that ‘‘women equal or exceed men in number of reported aggressive
acts committed within the family.’’ Examines a variety of
explanations to account for such aggression.)
White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence
in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims,
6, 247–256. (In a representative sample of 2,603 women and 2,105
men it was found that 37 % of the men and 35 % of women inflicted some
form of physical aggression, while 39 % of the men and 32 % of the women
received some form of physical aggression.)
Williams, J. R., Ghandour, R. M., & Kub, J. E. (2008). Female
perpetration of violence in heterosexual relationships: Adolescence
through adulthood. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 9(4), 227–249.
(This article reviews 62 empirical studies, published between 1996 and
2006, that examine female perpetrated intimate partner violence across
adolescence, college students and adults. Authors conclude that …‘‘girls
and women perpetrate a significant amount of IPV against their male
partners.’’)
Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005a). Courtship behaviors,
relationship violence, and breakup persistence in college men and women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 248‘‘257. (A sample of
college students\215 women and 85 men; 77 % Caucasian, 13 % African-American,
5 % Asian and the rest mixed or other[responded to the revised Conflict
Tactics Scale, CTS2. Results revealed that women were significantly
more likely than men to engage in mild (40 vs. 23 %) and severe (14
vs. 4 %) acts of violence with their partners.)
Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005b). Patterns of violent
relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a
national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52(11/12), 771–784.
(Data from a National Comorbidity Survey was examined. In a sample of
3,519 men and women it was found that 18.4 % were involved in a violent
relationship. Most violence, both mild and severe, was mutual. However,
women were more likely than men to initiate both mild and severe violence.)
Williams, T. S., Connolly, J, Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Laporte,
L. (2008). Risk models of dat1ng aggression across different adolescent
relationships: A developmental psychopathology approach. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 622–632. (A sample of
621 Canadian H.S. students\44 % boys, 56 % girls[ were assessed with
items from the CTS. Authors report that 32 % of students reported perpetrating
some form of physical aggression toward their opposite sex partners.
There were no significant differences between boys and girls in perpetration.)
Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings?
On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States.
Criminology, 30, 189–215. (Authors summarize research which indicates
that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives,
about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from
a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio
of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)
Winstok, Z. & Straus, M. A. (2011). Gender differences in intended
escalatory tendencies among marital partners. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 26 (18), 3599–3617. (A sample of 208 Israeli couples
responded to a survey examining their tendencies to escalate aggression
in eight hypothetical situations. Findings reveal that 54.6 % of men
vs. 74 % of women indicated that they would respond aggressively if
their partners provoked them verbally and 51 % of men vs. 76 % of women
revealed that they would respond aggressively if their partner physically
provoked them. Authors in discussing this disparity suggest that societies
often view women’s violence against their male partners as ‘‘understandable,
pardonable and sometimes humorous’’.)
Wolf, K. A., & Foshee, V. A. (2003). Family violence, anger expression
styles, and adolescent dat1ng violence. Journal of Family Violence,
18, 309–316. (A sample of 1,405 adolescents in North Carolina
responded to a questionnaire examining dat1ng violence. Results reveal
that 28 % of girls and 15 % of boys reported perpetrating IPV in their
lifetime.)
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Wekerle, C., & Pittman, A. (2001). Child
maltreatment: Risk of adjustment problems and dat1ng violence in adolescence.
Journal of American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 282–289.
(A sample of 1,419 high school students from Ontario, Canada completed
a dat1ng violence survey. Results reveal that 28 % of girls and 11 %
of boys reported perpetrating physical IPV.)
Wong, F. Y., Huang, J., DiGangi, J. A., Thompson, E. E., & Smith,
B. D. (2008). Gender differences in intimate partner violence on substance
abuse, sexual risks, and depression among a sample of South Africans
in Cape Town. South Africa. AIDS Education and Prevention, 20 (1), 56–64.
(A total 395 Black and colored individuals\200 women, 195 men[in two
South African townships responded to selected items from the CTS. Findings
reveal that 99.4 % of men and 99 % of men reported exposure to IPV at
some point in their life and one quarter of both men and women reported
experiencing partner violence during the past 6 months.)
Wright, E. M., & Benson, M. L. (2010). Relational aggression,
intimate partner violence, and gender: An exploratory analysis. Victims
& Offenders, 5(4), 283–302. (A representative sample of 2,807
Chicago couples responded in face-to-face interviews and completed a
CTS. Results reveal that 11 % of men and 16 % of women perpetrated IPV
in the past year.)
Zacarias, A. E., Macassa, G., & Soares, J. J. F. (2009). Women
as perpetrators of IPV: the experience of Mozambique. Journal of Aggression,
Conflict and Peace Research, 4(1), 5–27. (A sample of 1,442 women
in Mozambique were assessed regarding their perpetration of Intimate
partner violence. Results reveal that 38.2 % of women reported physically
assaulting their partners.)
Acknowledgments The author thanks Diane Roe for her assistance in
updat1ng this bibliography.
|
