Female Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

2021 ◽  
pp. 3491-3516
Author(s):  
Lynn Dowd ◽  
Lesley Lambo
2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052110014
Author(s):  
Doris F. Pu ◽  
Christina M. Rodriguez ◽  
Marina D. Dimperio

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is often conceptualized as occurring unilaterally, reciprocal or bidirectional violence is actually the most prevalent form of IPV. The current study assessed physical IPV experiences in couples and evaluated risk and protective factors that may be differentially associated with reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV concurrently and over time. As part of a multi-wave longitudinal study, women and men reported on the frequency of their IPV perpetration and victimization three times across the transition to parenthood. Participants also reported on risk factors related to personal adjustment, psychosocial resources, attitudes toward gender role egalitarianism, and sociodemographic characteristics at each wave. Participants were classified into one of four IPV groups (reciprocal violence, male perpetrators only, female perpetrators only, and no violence) based on their self-report and based on a combined report, which incorporated both partners’ reports of IPV for a maximum estimate of violence. Women and men were analyzed separately, as both can be perpetrators and/or victims of IPV. Cross-sectional analyses using self-reported IPV data indicated that IPV groups were most consistently distinguished by their levels of couple satisfaction, across gender; psychological distress also appeared to differentiate IPV groups, although somewhat less consistently. When combined reports of IPV were used, sociodemographic risk markers (i.e., age, income, and education) in addition to couple functioning were among the most robust factors differentiating IPV groups concurrently, across gender. In longitudinal analyses, sociodemographic vulnerabilities were again among the most consistent factors differentiating subsequent IPV groups over time. Several gender differences were also found, suggesting that different risk factors (e.g., women’s social support and men’s emotion regulation abilities) may need to be targeted in interventions to identify, prevent, and treat IPV among women and men.


Partner Abuse ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 452-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny A. Leisring

Women’s perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) has been an extremely controversial topic. In this article, the author discusses 10 reasons why it is critically important to study women’s use of IPV. The prevalence and motivation of women’s use of IPV are discussed, as well as the psychopathology typically found in clinical samples of female IPV perpetrators. Consequences of women’s IPV for victims, for romantic relationships, for witnessing children, and for the female perpetrators themselves are reviewed. Evidence points to the importance of research on this topic and the urgent need for effective prevention and intervention programs for women’s perpetration of IPV.


2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tara L. Cornelius ◽  
Kathryn M. Bell ◽  
Nicole Wyngarden ◽  
Ryan C. Shorey

Objectives: The primary goal of this study is to qualitatively examine reinforcing and punishing consequences following the perpetration of physical aggression by women in dating relationships because recent theoretical conceptualizations of intimate partner violence have emphasized an examination of such consequences. Method: Participants were 25 undergraduate women in current dating relationships who reported previous perpetration of physical dating violence and completed a qualitative, theoretically based interview on the consequences of their aggression perpetration. Results: Findings demonstrated that violent episodes resulted in both reinforcing and punishing consequences, with 100% of instances resulting in reinforcing consequences for the perpetrator and 76% classified as punishing, which were divided into 15 different classes of outcomes. Conclusions: These findings suggest that dating violence prevention programming could focus their efforts on increasing use of nonaggressive behaviors leading to reinforcing outcomes among dating couples during conflict resolution. This also has important implications for theoretical models of intimate partner violence.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 897-918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew W. Savage ◽  
Jennifer A. Scarduzio ◽  
Kate Lockwood Harris ◽  
Kellie E. Carlyle

This study employed a mixed method approach to examine the effects of participant sex, perpetrator sex, and severity of violence on perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators. Quantitative participants (n = 449) completed a survey and qualitative participants (n = 31) participated in a focus group or an interview. Participants believed that it was more likely male perpetrators had prior involvement in IPV. Participants rated stories of female perpetrators as more abnormal than stories of male perpetrators. Participants in the weak severity of violence condition had lower evaluations of responsibility than the strong or fatal severity of violence conditions and only women were discerning about perpetrator sex in their ratings of responsibility. Theoretical implications extend intimate terrorism and defensive attribution theory.


2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (13) ◽  
pp. 2394-2417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kellie E. Carlyle ◽  
Jennifer A. Scarduzio ◽  
Michael D. Slater

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 636-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Storey ◽  
Susanne Strand

Research and management efforts in the area of intimate partner violence (IPV) have primarily focused on male perpetrators and female victims, resulting in more limited knowledge of female IPV perpetrators and their male victims. In the current study the violence risk assessments of police officers were examined in order to outline the characteristics of female perpetrators of IPV and their male victims. In addition, the officers’ assessments of violence risk and proposed risk management strategies are presented. Results reveal some similarities between the female perpetrators and male victims and their more studied counterparts. However, differences appear to be present in the perceived violence risk posed by the perpetrators and the violence risk management strategies proposed to reduce that risk and protect the victim. The results suggest a need for further research in the area, particularly with respect to the violence risk assessment and management of female IPV perpetrators.


Partner Abuse ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 284-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Lake ◽  
Matthew S. Stanford

A bimodal classification of aggression has been shown to be useful among male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV; Stanford, Houston, & Baldridge, 2008). To extend this research, this study attempts to replicate this result in a female population. The Impulsive/Premeditated Aggression Scale (IPAS) was used to classify (N = 87) females who were convicted of domestic violence and court ordered into an intervention program as being predominately impulsive–aggressive (IA) or predominately premeditated–aggressive (PM). The results of this study demonstrate that female IPV perpetrators (both IA and PM) tend to be similar to male IA batterers, with low psychopathic traits and higher levels of psychopathology. Implications and future directions are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document