PHYSICAL
VIOLENCE BETWEEN DATING PARTNERS
BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS*
Murray A. Straus and Rose A. Medeiros
Family Research
Laboratory, University of New Hampshire
Durham, NH
03824 603-862-2594 murray.straus@unh.edu
It is widely
believed that partner-assaults perpetrated by women have a different etiology
than partner assaults perpetrated by men.
This paper reviews previous research on this issue and reports the
results of analysis of the extent to which the 21 risk factors measured by the
Partner and Relationships Profile are related to assaulting a dating partner by
a sample of 232 men and 334 women university students. Both the previous research and the new study
show that half or more of the risk factors investigated apply to both men and
women offenders. Thus, social scientists who are seeking to explain
partner violence, and practitioners engaged in prevention or treatment programs
need to be aware of both the ways in which the etiology of partner violence is
similar for men and women, and the ways in which it is different.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
After more than 20
years of controversy the focus of the debate over research showing that women
physically assault their male partners at about the same the rate as men
physically attack female partners (O'Leary
2000; Straus 1997; Straus 1999) has shifted focus somewhat. The focus now tends to be one whether, when women physically
assault a partner, the causes or motives are different. However, much of what has been written on
differences in causes and motives is based on the beliefs and values of the
authors rather than empirical evidence.
For example, (Dobash et al.
1992) assert that men’s and women’s motivation for violence
differ, but they base this on differences in the greater injury rate suffered
by women. Neither their own research
nor any of the studies they cite provide evidence on this issue. Similarly, Hamberger and Lohy (1997) summarize their results by as indicating that
“female perpetrations were more likely than male perpetrators to defend
themselves…” In contrast male perpetrators reported violence motivations
related primarily to dominance and control”
However, we could not find that data in the article and wrote to
Hamberger to ask about it. He replied “For a variety of
reasons, we chose not to include that data in the paper (personal
communication, 10 October 2001). “Nazroo (1995) states that “Men’s violence in marriage is very
different from women’s” but the
empirical evidence he presents concerns differences in consequences, anxiety,
and fear, and the fact that male violence is more intimidating. None of these are measures of etiological
factors, and all could follow from the greater average size and strength of
men, rather than from the implied but undemonstrated difference in
motives. The unstated agenda of authors
such as Dobash and Dobash and Nazroo is to create a perception violence by men
as wrong and malicious, and violence by women as morally courageous defense.
There are many studies that present data on factors and motivations for intimate partner violence, but which provide data only for men or only for women, and therefore cannot answer the question of whether the risk factors are different for women. For example, Fiebert and Gonzoles, in one of the relatively few studies which obtained data from women offenders, found that 46% said they hit their partner because he “wasn’t sensitive to my needs,” 44% “to gain my partner’s attention,” 38% because they did not believe their hitting would hurt him, 38% because he was “being verbally abusive to me,” and 43% because the partner “was not listening to me.” However, the sample was entirely women so that no comparisons with men were presented.
An additional problem is that there does not seem to have been a systematic review of empirical studies of differences between man and women in the etiology of domestic assault. None of the three textbooks we checked contained a section on this issue, and our search of Sociological Abstracts and PsychLIt did not uncover a review article in any of the journals.
Given the theoretical and practical
importance of this issue, such a review is needed, and that is the first purpose
of this chapter. The second purpose is
to present the results of a new empirical study of gender differences in risk
factors for partner assault. The new
study compares men and women on the degree to which 21 hypothesized risk
factors were related to physically assaulting a dating partner. The
risk factors examined fall into two broad categories: The first category refers to personal psychological
characteristics of the partner that are considered to be risk factors for
violent behavior such as antisocial personality and attitudes approving
violence. The second category refers to
characteristics of the relationship such as dominance of one partner and
communication problems.
A clear answer to the etiological
issues that are the focus of this chapter requires longitudinal data. However, the data available to us, like the
data in the studies reviewed below, are cross sectional. Consequently, we use the term “risk factor” (Kleinbaum, Kupper and Morgenstern 1982) because it refers to variables that are associated
with the dependent variable, but are not necessarily causes . For example, inadequate anger management
skills could be a cause of violence in relationships for some violent partners. But for some others it might be an effect of
relying on physical force and therefore never having to learn to effectively
control anger. It can be argued that,
if inadequate ability to deal with anger is associated with partner violence,
regardless of whether it is cause or effect, there should be randomized trials
to determine if including anger management training should be one element in
programs of primary prevention and treatment of intimate partner violence.
PREVIOUS
RESEARCH ON GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RISK FACTORS
The criteria used to search for relevant
research was that the study reported empirical data for both men and women, for
example, the percent for each gender, the mean for each gender, and the
correlation between an etiological variable and partner-assault for each
gender. Qualitative studies were included if they presented empirical data for
men and women in a form that permitted comparison.
We used four approaches to locate relevant
research. We started with articles and
books that were already known to us and met the criteria of being an empirical
study (as just defined) of gender differences in risk factors. The risk factors ranged from basic
demographics such as age to motives for violence. This located 30 studies.
Next we examined those references for references to other relevant
research. This identified 11
possibilities, of which three studies met our criteria, making a total to that
point of 33 studies. Finally, we
searched Psychological Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts for the years 1970
to 2001 using combinations of the following search terms: sex differences,
gender differences, risk factor, causes correlates, effect, etiology, domestic
violence, family violence, partner violence, and battering. A total of 39 references were identified,
but all that met the criteria and had been previously located, with the result
that the number of studies remained at 33.
The unit of analysis for the literature
review portion of this paper is individual analyses within studies, rather than
the studies themselves. For example, a paper may have an analysis of the
relationship between being having a moderate income discrepancy and assaulting
a partner, and a high income discrepancy and assaulting a partner. In the case
of such a study, the two analyses are considered separate rather than one
finding. Thus one study may account for more than one of the analyses listed in
a given section.
(Insert Tables 1,
2, 3, and 4 about here)
The first step in the analysis of the
previous research was to summarize the studies in the form of the Appendix
table giving the sample used, the context, meaning, or motive variables
investigated, and the findings on gender differences. The next step was to tabulate the results for the studies in the
Appendix.
Appendix Table 1 summarizes the results of twelve studies that compared
violent men and women on a total of 56 characteristics. In 73% of these comparisons no significant
difference was found between men and women in the risk factors examined.
Appendix Table 2 summarizes 23 studies which provided data on gender
differences in risk factors for partner assault. Sixty percent of the variables showed the same relationship for
men and women (e.g. both positive, both non-significant, etc.). Approximately forty percent showed a
significant relationship for one sex and a non-significant relationship for the
other sex. One percent of variables in
these studies showed opposite relationships for men and women (one positive,
the other negative).
Appendix Table 3 summarizes the results for 28 variables examined in six
studies that provided descriptive statistics for men and women, but without
testing the significance of the difference. We classified the results as
different for men and women if the percentage for the gender with the larger
percentage was at least 20% greater.
Using this criterion, of the 26 risk factors evaluated by these six
studies, 43% of variables used appear to have similar results for men and
women.
Table 4 summarizes the number and percentage of analyses which found
similar relationships for men and women. The table covers 13 major areas of
risk factors, and shows the number of findings that were the same or similar
for men and women, the number of analysis overall, and what percentage of total
findings found similar relationships.
Some of the studies reviewed actually tested for a difference in
relationship for men and women, in these studies a similar relationship means
no significant difference. For other studies, which merely tested for
relationships for men and women separately, a similar relationship means just
that, both negative, both positive, or both non-significant.
Gender
Differences For Demographic Variables.
Demographic Variables.
The first row of Table 4 shows that 8 out of ten of the analysis found similar
relationships between the risk factor young age and partner assault, for men
and women. The next row shows that 9 of the 12 analysis of the relationship
between belonging to a racial or ethnic minority group and assaulting a partner
show similar relationships for men and women. Row four shows that 75% of the
nine analysis of being of a minority racial or ethnic group found a similar
relationship for men and women.
SES and Financial Variables.
Over half of the studies that looked at low SES or financial stress found
similar relationships for males and females. While half of studies on unequal
income show a similar relationship to partner assault for males and females.
Relationship Status.
Four of the five studies found a similar relationship between partner assault
and cohabiting for males and females. In dating relationships, one of two
studies found a similar relationship between seriousness of the relationship
for men and women, while two of the five studies of behavioral involvement
(e.g. amount of time spent together, number of different types of activities
shared) found a similar relationship for men and women.
Violence in Family of Origin.
The majority of studies of violence between parents (8 of 10), mother to father
violence (1 of 2) and father to mother violence (2 of 3) show similar
relationships for males and females. Additionally, half of the 14 studies on
the effects of corporal punishment found similar relationships for men and
women.
Conflict Related Variables.
All of the four studies of the link between relationship conflict and partner
assault found similar relationships for males and females. Similarly, verbal
aggression towards a partner was similarly associated for males and females.
However, only two of the five studies on verbal aggression by a partner found a
similar relationship for males and females.
Self-Defense Related. In
five of the seven studies similar numbers of men and women cited self defense
as a reason for assaulting their partner. Only one of five studies looking at
assaults in response to a partner’s assaults or in retribution for a partner’s
assault found similar relationships for men and women. All of the seven studies
which looked at the relationship between physical assaults by partners and
assaulting a partner found similar relationships for men and women.
Control. Controlling
or jealous behavior, success in controlling one’s partner, and threats made
towards a partner were each similarly associated for men and women in one of
two studies. Dominance was linked to
partner assault in four of five studies.
Jealousy. Jealousy was
similarly associated for men and women in two of four studies. Two studies
examined the relationship between desire for an exclusive relationship and
assaulting one’s partner, neither of which found the same relationship for men
and women.
Substance Use. Half of
the 16 studies of the relationship between substance use and partner assault
found similar relationships for men and women.
Personality of Perpetrator.
A similar relationship between prior aggressive behavior and assaulting a
partner for men and women was found by only two of the ten studies which
examined the relationship. Three of
four studies found a similar relationship between having an angry personality
and assaulting a partner for men and women. All of the six studies which looked
at anger or provocation as a reason for partner assault found a similar
relationship for men and women. Four of the six studies which looked at the
association between various other personality traits and partner assault found
similar relationships for men and women.
Gender Hostility. Of
the two studies which looked at gender hostility, one found a similar
relationship between gender hostility and partner assault for men and women.
Traditional sex role beliefs were found to be similarly associated with partner
assault by men and women in one of two studies.
Traditional Sex Role Beliefs. Controlling or jealous behavior, success in controlling one’s partner,
and threats made towards a partner were each similarly associated for men and
women in one of two studies. Jealousy was similarly associated for man and
women in two of four studies. Dominance was similarly linked to partner assault
in four of five studies. Two studies examined the relationship between desire
for an exclusive relationship, and assaulting one’s partner, neither of which
found the same relationship for men and women.
Although this review of previous research
revealed a number of differences between men and women in risk factors for
intimate partner violence, considerably more of the risk factors examined were
found to apply to both genders. Thus,
statements that the etiology of domestic assaults is different for women need
to refer to specific risk factors rather than stating or implying that the
etiology of partner violence is generally different for women. However, with the presently available
research it is difficult to identify with confidence which of the risk factors
apply to violence by both men and women, and which tend to be important for one
gender but not the other. The research to be described in the remainder of this
chapter is intended to contribute to the body of additional information that will
eventually enable the shared and unique variables to be identified.
Sample
The sample consists of 566 undergraduate students (232 men
and 334 women) from two universities
who were enrolled in sociology courses or the introductory psychology course in
the 1998, 1999, and 2000. The sample was restricted to those who were
or had been in a heterosexual romantic relationship of a month or longer.
Data Collection
The
questionnaire booklet consisted of: (1)
A cover sheet explaining the purpose of the study and the participant’s rights,
and providing the name of a contact person and telephone number for those who
might have questions after the test session was over. (2) The demographic
questions. (3) The instruments described in the measures section.
The
data were gathered using procedures reviewed by and approved by the university
board for protection of human subjects.
The sociology class participants were tested during a classroom period. The purpose, task demands, and rights were
explained orally as well as in printed form at the beginning of each test
session. Participants were told that
the test session would involve answering questions concerning attitudes,
beliefs, and experiences they may have had.
They were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their
responses and they were told that the session would take about an hour. In
practice, most students completed the survey in 40 to 45 minutes. The psychology class participants were tested
in groups of 20-30. They were asked to
sign written consent forms before completing their questionnaires. After receiving directions about using the
machine scored answer sheets, they worked at their own pace. A debriefing form was given to each
participant as they left the testing room.
It explained the study in more detail and provided names and telephone
numbers of area mental health services and community resources such as services
for battered women. Students from the
Psychology subject pool received two credits toward the fulfillment of their
introductory psychology course research requirement for their participation.
(Insert Table 5 about here)
Table 5 shows that 40% of the respondents were in their
first year at the university. The median age was 20, but some older students
were included. Over half were of
European descent (62%). Their
socioeconomic background was relatively high: about two thirds of their parents
had had at least some college education and the median income category was
$50,000-59,999.
Relationship characteristics. Almost all the students described a dating relationship (90%) as
opposed to more committed relationships.
The majority (88%) were not living or had not lived with the partner
they were describing. However, sexual
relations were reported to be part of the relationship by 76%. About half the
sample had been in the relationship described for between one and 11 months,
and slightly more than half the sample described a current relationship, and
the remainder described a previous relationship.
Gender differences. The male and female students were similar in year in school,
median age, in the proportion of parents with at least some college education,
median family income, percent dating, percent cohabiting and percent sexually
active. Women were more likely to identify themselves as European American,
while men were more likely to identify themselves as other. About the same percentage of men than women
reported their mothers had attained a four-year college degree or graduate
education. The women had been in their
relationships slightly longer than the men, and more, were in the relationship
they described at the time of testing.
The fact that more women than men had relationships of a year or more,
and the fact that more of them reported on current relationships may affect
both the nature and frequency of experiences and behavior reported and memory
for events that took place between respondents and their partners.
Partner-Assault.
The revised Conflict Tactics Scales or CTS2 (Straus
et al. 1996) was used to measure physical assault by the
respondent. The CTS has been used in
over a hundred studies of both married and dating partners in the past 25 years
and there is extensive evidence of reliability and validity (Archer
1999; Straus 1990). The three
core scales of the CTS2 measure Negotiation, Psychological Aggression, and
Physical Assault. The Physical Assault
scale includes subscales for “minor” and “severe” assaults. The Minor Assault scale includes acts such
as slapping or throwing something at the partner. The Severe Assault scale includes acts such as punching and
choking. The difference between the
minor and severe subscales is analogous to the legal categories of simple
assault and aggravated assault. See (StrausStraus
1990 and Straus) for a complete list of the CTS questions and for data
on validity and reliability.
Risk Factor Variables. The Personal And
Relationships Profile (PRP) was used to obtain the data on risk factors. The PRP is a 21 scale instrument designed
for research on partner-assault. The
variables measured by the PRP scales were selected on the basis of a review of
the theoretical and empirical literature on the etiology of intimate partner
violence. The steps used to develop the
PRP, along with data on reliability and validity, are given in (Straus et al. 1999; Straus and Mouradian
1999). The instructions for the PRP ask the
respondent to indicate whether they agree or disagree that the statement
describes themselves, using the following response categories: Strongly = 1,
Disagree = 2, Agree = 3, and Strongly Agree =4. Some of the scales in the PRP measure
personal or intra-psychic characteristics of the respondent and some measure
characteristics of the relationship as reported by the respondent.
The personal characteristics scales are: Antisocial
Personality, Borderline Personality, Criminal History, Depression, Gender
Hostility, Neglect History,
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Social Desirability, Social Integration,
Substance Abuse, Stressful Conditions, Sexual Abuse History, and Violence
Approval.
The relationship characteristics scales are: Anger
Management, Communication Problems, Conflict, Dominance, Jealousy, Negative
Attribution, Relationship Commitment, Relationship Distress.
Social Desirability Scale. Criminological research that
uses self-report data needs to take into account defensiveness or minimization
of socially undesirable behavior. We
did this by using the Social Desirability scale of the PRP. This is a 13 item version of the widely used
Crown-Marlow social desirability scale developed by Reynolds (Reynolds 1982). The scale
measures the degree to which respondents tend to avoid disclosing socially undesirable
behavior such partner-assault and other crime.
The need for such a control is indicated by the fact that the Social
Desirability scale has a correlation of -..20 with the Partner-assault scale.
The correlations of the Social Desirability scale with the PRP scales with
Socioeconomic Status Scale. This scale was created by
factor analysis of the education of the respondent’s father and mother (each
with a possible score of 1-7) and family income (with possible scores of 1-9).
The results indicated a single factor explaining ?? percent of the
variance. The factor score for this
factor constitutes the SES scale for this study. It has a mean of approximately zero and a standard deviation of
approximately 1.
Data
Analysis
We used partial correlation (alpha .05, one-tailed tests) to examine the
extent to which the risk factors measured by the PRP are associated with
assaulting a partner during the previous 12 months. The partial correlations controlled for the respondent’s scores
on the social desirability response scale and the SES scale. The correlations were computed separately
for male and female respondents. The
correlations were first computed using Minor Violence as the dependent variable
and then using Severe Violence as the dependent variable.
Transformations.
Five of the PRP Scales were moderately to strongly skewed (defined as a
skewness statistic greater than 0.5).
To examine the effect of this skew on the correlation coefficients,
three of the variables with skewed distributions were selected for
transformations. Two types of transformations were used: power transformations, and normalized
STANINE scores. Power transformations
were done by applying powers of increasing strength until the skewness
statistic for the distribution was close to zero. The skewness statistic for
the Criminal History Scale was reduced from 1.471 to 0.027 by a power
transformation of –2.75 (X -2.75 ). Similarly the Depression Scale’s
skewness was reduced from 0.605 to 0.056 using a power transformation of 0.25
(X 0.25), and the Neglect History Scale’s skewness statistic was
reduced from 0.828 to 0.028 with a power transformation of –0.5 (X –0.5 ).
STANINE transformations create a normally distributed variable with nine
categories and a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 2. First the variables were rank ordered, then
the values assigned by rank ordering were transformed into standard normal
variables (z-scores). The z-scores are then grouped into the nine categories,
with the lowest negative scores assigned a value of 1 and the highest positive
scores assigned a value of 9.
Prevalence Rates
Many
previous studies of dating relationships have found that between 25 and 45%
assaulted their partner in the previous 12 months (Stets
and Straus 1989; Sugarman and Hotaling 1989). The 33% rate for this sample is consistent with those
studies. Most assaults against dating
partners fall within the “minor violence” category and that is also the case
for this sample. 22 percent of the
sample restricted their violence to minor assaults, and 11% engaged in one or
more of the acts in the Severe Assault scale.
The rates for men and women are also consistent
with many previous studies of violence in dating relationships in that the
rates for men and women are about the same:
For Minor violence the rates are 22%
for both men and women. For
Severe Violence the rates are 10% for men and 11% for women.
(Insert Table 6 about here)
Extent of Concordance In Risk factors
The
first two columns of Table 6 give the partial correlations of each of the PRP
scales with minor assaults for men and women, and the second two columns give
the correlations of the PRP scales with severe assaults for men and women.
Minor
Assaults. The correlations in
the first two columns of Table 6 show that 14 of the 21 PRP scales were
significantly correlated with Minor Violence by either male or female
respondents, or both. Half of these 14
were significantly related to minor assaults for both women and men. Five (36%) were correlated only for men, and
2 (14%) were correlated only for women.
There were no instances of a significant relationship in the opposite
direction for men and women.
Severe
Assaults. The two right hand columns of Table 6 show that 14 of the PRP
scales were significantly correlated with severe assaults on a dating
partner. Eight of these, or 57%, were
significantly related for both men and women; four or 29% were correlated only
for men, and two (14%) were significantly correlated only for women. As was true for minor violence, for severe
violence there was no instance of a significant relationship in the opposite
direction for men and women.
The following PRP variables were associated with
Minor Violence by women as well as by men:
Anger management, Antisocial Personality, Borderline Personality,
Conflict with the partner, Communication Problems, Dominance, and Negative
Attribution about the partner.
The following PRP variables were associated with Severe Violence by
women as well as by men: Anger Management, Antisocial Personality, Criminal
History, Conflict with partner, Communication Problems, Dominance, and Negative
Attribution about the partner and Neglect History.
Altogether, of the 18 risk factors
found to be related to either Minor or Severe assaults, 9 or half applied to
the women as well as the men in this sample.
Risk Factors
Unique To Men
The
first of the PRP scales in Table 6 that is a risk factors unique to men is
Gender Hostility (eighth row of Table 6).
For men, this variable was scored to indicate hostility to women, and
for women it was scored to indicate hostility to men. (for scoring method, see\(Straus et al. 1999). This row
shows that for men Hostility To Women was correlated with minor assaults. However, for women Hostility To Men was not
correlated with assaults on male partners.
The correlations in the two right hand columns of this row show that
Gender Hostility was not correlated with severe assault by either men or women.
The
next PRP scale in Table 6 that is significantly related to violence by men but
not women is Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
This is correlated with Minor Violence but there is no relationship
between PTSD and Severe Violence for either men or women in this sample.
Moving
down Table 6, the row for Sexual Abuse History shows that it is related to both
Minor and Severe Violence by men, but not related to either level of violence
by women. This was surprising to us, and we do not have an explanation for why
a history of sexual abuse is related to assaults by men but not by women.
The
Stressful Conditions scale, which measures the extent to which the respondent
is under ongoing or chronic stress, is related to minor violence by men, but not
by women. On the other hand, the
Stressful conditions scale is significantly related to Severe Violence by both
men and women.
Finally,
the next to the last row of Table 6 shows that the Violent Attitudes scale is
related to both Minor and Severe Violence by men, but not to either level of
violence by women.
Risk Factors
Unique To Women
The correlation in the tenth row of
Table 6 between the Jealousy scale and severe violence is significant for
women, but not for men. While the Jealousy scale is associated with increased
minor assaults by men.
The next of the PRP variables to be
related to Minor Violence only for women is Neglect History. However, although this relationship to Minor
violence is unique to women, the correlations in this row, in the columns for
Severe Violence, shows that Criminal History is related to sever assaults by
men as well as women, and it fact, the relationship to Severe Violence is
stronger for men than women.
Relationship Distress was found to
be related to Minor Violence by women, but not to Minor Violence by men. For both men and women, the correlation with
Severe Violence was not strong enough to be statistically significant.
Social Integration has a
statistically significant relation to assault by women, but is not related for
men. This applies to the relation of
Social Integration to both Minor and Severe Violence.
The first part of this chapter
reviewed research that provided empirical data that permitted comparing risk
factors for intimate partner violence by men and women. The second part of the chapter reported the
results of a new study comparing 21 risk factors for men and women. Both the previous research and the research
reported for the first time in this chapter found that, although there are some
risk factors that are unique to men and some that are unique to women,
depending on which set of comparisons were tabulated, from 43 to 73% of the
risk factors majority apply to both men and women. Only four were found to be correlated with violence by men but
not correlated with violence by women (Hostility to Women, Post-Traumatic
Stress Symptoms, Stressful Conditions, and Violence Approval). Only three were correlated with violence by
women, but not correlated with violence by men (Neglect History and Social
Integration, and Violent Socialization).
Thus, few of the risk factors investigated for this article are unique
to either men or women
Limitations
Although there is
considerable agreement between the previous research and the new study reported
in this chapter in respect to the proportion of risk factors that apply to
women as well as men, there is little overlap between the specific variables in
the current study and those investigated previously. Thus, results reported need to be confirmed by other research.
Caution is also needed
because, as noted in the introduction, the results reported in this chapter are
based on cross sectional data and may not reflect a cause-effect relationship
between the risk factors studied and partner assault.
Finally, although the
conclusions are based on correlations that meet the criterion of statistical
significance, the size of the correlations is from .10 to .23. It is conventional to think of correlations
in the .20 range as not very large. However,
correlations of this size represent an effect size that is typical of studies
of risk factors for partner violence, and for that matter typical of the effect
size for any one independent variable in social psychological research. Moreover, these effect sizes take on added
importance because, unlike most previous research on risk factors for partner
violence, they are partial correlations which controlled for social
desirability response set. The
correlations without these controlling for social desirability response set are
somewhat larger. Most important, a
correlation of .20 can indicate an effect size that has considerable
theoretical and practical importance (McCartney
and Rosenthal 2000). For example,
the correlation between Communication Problems and partner assault in this
sample is about .20 for both men and women and for both minor and severe
assaults. If low communication skills
is a cause of partner violence, a correlation this size indicates that an
intervention program that enables participants to change from the high to the
low half of the distribution, would increase the proportion who were
subsequently successful in avoiding violence from 40% to 60%.
Interpreting these results is like
trying to decide whether to describe a glass as half full or half empty. Of course it is both, and both aspects need
to be emphasized. For example, 57% of
the risk factors we found to be correlated with severe violence against a
partner apply to both men and women.
This indicates considerable overlap in the risk factors for partner
violence for men and women. At the same
time, the fact that four of the PRP scales were related to severe violence only
for men, and three were related to severe violence only for women, suggests
that there are also aspects of the etiology of partner violence that may be
unique or particularly salient for one gender.
If these results are confirmed by other studies, intimate partner
violence prevention or treatment programs need to be constructed in aware of
both the ways in which the risk factors are similar for both men and women, and
the ways in which they are different.
This, of course assumes that there are prevention and treatment programs
for women as well as men, which is an important next step in ending intimate
partner violence.
Table 1: Studies with significance tests for gender differences.
|
Factor |
No significant difference |
Male higher |
Female higher |
|||
|
Study |
# |
Study |
# |
Study |
# |
|
|
Violence used for self-defense |
(Dixon, Roth and Cauthen ) (Follingstad et al. 1991) (Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) (Harned 2001) |
5 |
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) |
1 |
(Felson and Messner 1998) (h) |
1 |
|
In response to
physical attack by partner |
|
|
(Follingstad et al. 1991) |
1 |
(Felson and Messner 1998) (h) (Watson et al. 2001) (Stets and Straus 1990) |
3 |
|
Physical
aggression by partner |
(O'Keefe and Treister 1998) (White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unable to express self verbally/letting feelings out |
(Barnett,
Lee and Thelen 1997) (Follingstad et al. 1991)(unable to express verbally) (Harned 2001) |
3 |
|
|
(Follingstad et al. 1991) (to show anger) |
1 |
|
Anger/coercion |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Anger/jealousy/punish partner |
|
|
|
|
(Harned 2001) |
1 |
|
Anger only |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Provocation |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Don’t know |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
To feel more powerful |
(Harned 2001) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
To get control over partner |
(Harned 2001) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
To prove love |
(Harned 2001) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Showing your partner who was boss |
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) |
1 |
|
|
(Follingstad et al. 1991) |
1 |
|
Teaching your partner a lesson/Punish your partner |
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) (Follingstad
et al. 1991) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
In retaliation for emotional
pain |
|
|
|
|
(Follingstad et al. 1991) |
1 |
|
To get your own way |
|
|
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) |
1 |
|
|
|
Because it was sexually
arousing |
(Follingstad et al. 1991) (Harned 2001) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jealousy |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
(Langan and Dawson 1995)(h) (Follingstad et al. 1991) |
2 |
|
|
|
Personality of perpetrator |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Function: Stress |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Teasing your partner, just
playing around |
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to upset your partner
emotionally |
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to get your partner’s
attention |
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) (Harned 2001) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Unaware of your intentions |
|
|
(Barnett, Lee and Thelen 1997) |
1 |
|
|
|
Race |
(Zlotnick et al. 1998) (White,
Merrill and Koss 1999) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Help from friends/family
living outside the home |
(Zlotnick et al. 1998) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Justification for partner
violence scale (mean score) |
|
|
|
|
(Follingstad et al. 1991) |
1 |
|
Prior aggressive behavior |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offender has no violent record |
|
|
|
|
(Felson and Messner 1998) (h) |
1 |
|
Drug use |
|
|
(Langan and Dawson 1995) (h) (At time of homicide and in the past) |
1 |
|
|
|
Alcohol use |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) (Cascardi
and Vivian 1995) (severe) |
2 |
(Langan and Dawson 1995) (h) (at time of homicide) (Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor) |
2 |
|
|
|
Subjective intensity of anger experienced |
(Follingstad et al. 1991) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Disposition to experience anger |
(Follingstad et al. 1991) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Frequency of experiencing anger |
(Follingstad et al. 1991) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
History of mental illness |
(Langan and Dawson 1995)(h) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Depression |
(Zlotnick et al. 1998) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Social activity |
(Zlotnick et al. 1998) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Relationship conflict |
(O'Keefe and Treister 1998) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Seriousness of relationship |
(O'Keefe and Treister 1998) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Age |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Marital status |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Educational level |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Geographic location of Primary
childhood residence |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Witnessing violence between parents |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Physical punishment as a child |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Childhood sexual abuse |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hostility towards other gender |
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Angry/impulsive personality |
|
|
|
|
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
Financial work stressors |
|
|
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
Marital stressors |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Family/child stressors |
|
|
|
|
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
Health stressors |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Multiple stressors |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other stressors |
(Cascardi and Vivian 1995) (minor and severe) |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal aggression by partner |
|
|
|
|
(White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
Parent’s SES |
(White, Merrill
and Koss 1999) |
1 |
|
|
|
|
(h) indicates studies of spousal homicide
Highlighted categories were not included in Table 5
Table 2: Studies providing data for males and females, but no tests of significance for gender difference.
|
Factor |
Male ns / Female ns |
Male + / Female + |
Male - / Female - |
Male + / Female - |
Male - / Female + |
Male ns / Female + |
Male ns / Female - |
Male + / Female ns |
Male - / Female ns |
|
Interparental aggression |
(Stets and Pirog-Good 1990) (minor and severe violence) (Riggs, O'Leary and Breslin 1990) (Marshall and Rose 1990) (ever and in past 2 years) (White, Merrill and Koss 1999) |
(Kalmuss 1984) |
|
|
|
|
|
(Stets and Pirog-Good 1989) (minor and severe) |
|
|
Mother to Father aggression |
(Avakame 1998) |
|
|
|
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) |
|
|
|
|
Father to mother aggression |
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) (Straus
and Yodanis 1996) |
|
|
|
(Avakame 1998) |
|
|
|
|
Corporally punished or physically abused by parents as a child |
(Stets and Pirog-Good 1990) (minor and severe violence) (White, Merrill and Koss 1999) (Stets and Pirog-Good 1989) (severe) |
(Kalmuss 1984) (parent to child hitting) |
|
|
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) (Stets and Pirog-Good 1989) (minor) |
|
(Marshall and Rose 1990) (ever and in past 2 years) |
|
|
Corporally punished or physically abused by FATHER as a child |
|
|
|
|
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) (at age 13+) (Straus
and Yodanis 1996) as a teenager |
|
(Avakame 1998) |
|
|
Corporally punished or physically abused by MOTHER as a child |
(Avakame 1998) |
(Straus and Yodanis 1996) as a teenager |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interparental aggression and aggression by parents towards child |
(Ryan 1998) |
(Malone, Tyree and O'Leary 1989) (premarital, 6 and 18 months) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggression
as a child |
(Riggs, O'Leary and Breslin 1990) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Born
to an unmarried mother |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parents’ SES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Giordano et al. 1999) (higher score=lower SES) |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) (at birth, 7 and 9, and 15) |
|
Negative
mother-child interaction at age 3 |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difficult temperament at ages 3 and 5 |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mother’s mental health problems at age 7 and 9 |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conduct problems at ages 7 and 9 (reported by teachers
and parents) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
Family conflict at ages 7 and 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
Mother’s mental health problems at age 15 |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One parent absent at age 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
One
parent absent at age 15 |
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Composite
of family socioeconomic resources |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Composite
family relations |
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent-child
attachment at age 15 |
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Family conflict at age 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
Adolescent
identity as “troublemaker” |
(Giordano et al. 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggressive
delinquency by age 15 |
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Juvenile
Police contact by age 15 |
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delinquent
behavior as an adolescent |
|
(Giordano et al. 1999) (Moffitt
and Caspi 1999) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Composite of problem behaviors, with other risk factors
controlled |
|
(Moffitt and Caspi 1999) NR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggression against
patents |
(Malone, Tyree and O'Leary 1989) (premarital) |
|
|
|
|
(Malone, Tyree and O'Leary
1989) (at six and 18 months) |
|
|
|
|
Aggression Against
peers and siblings |
|
|
|
|
|
(Malone, Tyree and O'Leary
1989) (at six and 18 months) |
|
(Malone, Tyree and O'Leary 1989) (premarital) |
|
|
Combined predictors (parental aggression both towards
the child and towards each other, aggression against parents, and aggression
against peers and siblings) |
|
(Malone, Tyree and O'Leary 1989) (premarital) |
|
|
|
(Malone, Tyree and O'Leary
1989) (at six and 18 months) |
|
|
|
|
Verbal aggression from partner |
(Bookwala et al. 1992) |
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) |
|
|
|
|
|
(Cano et al. 1998) (studies 1 and 2) |
|
|
Verbal aggression towards partner |
|
(Bookwala et al. 1992) (Ryan 1998) (Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) (Cano et al. 1998) (studies 1 and 2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threatens partner |
|
(Ryan 1998) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physical aggression by partner |
(Marshall and Rose 1990) (ever and past 2 years) |
(Bookwala et al. 1992) (Cano et al. 1998) (studies 1 and 2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceptance of physical aggression |
(Stets and Pirog-Good 1990) (severe and minor) (Cano et al. 1998) (studies 1 and 2) |
(Straus and Yodanis 1996) |
|
|
|
|
|
(Stets and Pirog-Good 1989) (minor and severe) |
|
|
Controlling/jealous behavior towards partner |
(Stets and Pirog-Good 1990) (severe violence) |
(Cano et al. 1998) (study 2) (Stets and Pirog-Good 1989) (severe violence) |
|
|
|
(Cano et al. 1998) (study 1) (Ryan 1998) |
|
(Stets and Pirog-Good 1990) (minor violence) (Stets and Pirog-Good 1989) (minor) |
|
|
Success in controlling partner |
(Stets and
Pirog-Good 1990) (severe violence) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Stets and
Pirog-Good 1990) (minor violence) |
|
|
Controlling/jealous behavior by partner |
(Cano et al. 1998) (study 2) |
|
|
|
|
(Cano et al. 1998) (study 1) |
|
|
|
|
Partner
makes own decisions |
(Ryan 1998) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dominant personality |
(Riggs, O'Leary and Breslin 1990) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wife dominant power |
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Husband dominant power |
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wife dominant in family decisions |
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Husband dominant in family decisions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) |
|
|
Percent shared decisions |
|
|
(Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz 1980) |
|
|