Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry W. Bennett ◽  
Oliver J. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Psychological Characteristics ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use coercive actions toward intimate or formerly intimate partners, including emotional abuse, stalking, threats, physical violence, or rape. The lifetime prevalence of IPV is 35% for women and 28% for men, with at an estimated economic cost of over ten billion dollars. IPV occurs in all demographic sectors of society, but higher frequencies of IPV perpetration are found among people who are younger and who have lower income and less education. Similar proportions of men and women use IPV, but when the effects of partner abuse are considered, women bear the greatest physical and behavioral health burden. Single-explanation causes for IPV such as substance abuse, patriarchy, and personality disorders are sometimes preferred by practitioners, advocates, and policymakers, but an understanding of IPV perpetration is enhanced when we look through the multiple lenses of culture and society, relationship, and psychological characteristics of the perpetrators.

The Role of Violence Acceptance and Inequitable Gender Norms in Intimate Partner Violence Severity Among Couples in Zambia

2019 ◽  
pp. 088626051987672
Author(s):  
Shoshanna L. Fine ◽  
Jeremy C. Kane ◽  
Sarah M. Murray ◽  
Stephanie Skavenski ◽  
Saphira Munthali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Gender Norms ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
The Relationship

Inequitable gender norms, including the acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, have been found to be associated with the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and victimization. Despite these findings, few studies have considered whether inequitable gender norms are related to IPV severity. This study uses baseline data from a psychotherapeutic intervention targeting heterosexual couples ( n = 247) in Lusaka, Zambia, who reported moderate to severe male-perpetrated IPV and male hazardous alcohol use to consider: (a) prevailing gender norms, including those related to IPV; (b) the relationship between IPV acceptance and IPV severity; and (c) the relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to model the relationships between IPV acceptance and inequitable gender norms, and female-reported IPV severity (including threats of violence, physical violence, sexual violence, and total violence), separately among male and female participants. In general, men and women were similar in their patterns of agreement with gender norms, with both highly endorsing items related to household roles. More than three-quarters of men (78.1%) and women (78.5%) indicated overall acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, with no significant differences between men and women in their endorsement of any IPV-related gender norms. Among men, IPV acceptance was associated with a statistically significant increase in IPV perpetration severity in terms of threatening violence ( B = 5.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.84, 9.89]), physical violence ( B = 4.54, 95% CI = [0.10, 8.98]), and total violence ( B = 11.65, 95% CI = [3.14, 20.16]). There was no association between IPV acceptance and IPV victimization severity among women. Unlike IPV acceptance, there was no evidence for a relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity for either men or women. These findings have implications for the appropriateness of gender transformative interventions in targeting men and women in relationships in which there is ongoing IPV.

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ara A'Court
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Ambivalent Sexism ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Gendered Theory ◽  
The Relationship

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

scholarly journals Associations between intimate partner violence and mental health in German men and women: a cross-sectional analysis of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Grasskemper ◽  
Diogo Costa
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Stress Symptoms ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

This work explores the cross-sectional associations between Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress symptoms, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in a representative sample of German adult men (n=2,789) and women (n=3,149), and considers their involvement as victims or perpetrators of physical and psychological IPV. In this sample, physical IPV victimization was associated with anxiety and stress among men. Psychological IPV victimization was associated with depression among men, and with stress among both sexes. Physical IPV perpetration was significantly associated only with women depressive and stress symptoms. Psychological IPV perpetration was associated with stress for both men and women. The mental component of HRQoL was significantly lower for men and women involved in any type of IPV. These results support the need to consider the mental health consequences of IPV involvement for both men and women.

What Puts Individuals at Risk for Physical Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration? A Meta-Analysis Examining Risk Markers for Men and Women

2020 ◽  
pp. 152483802092577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Sandra M. Stith ◽  
Bryan Cafferky
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Risk Markers ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Potential Factors

Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration is a serious public health concern around the world. This meta-analysis aimed to synthesize all available data examining risk markers for physical IPV perpetration among men and women between 1980 and 2018. Studies were included in the analysis if they examined physical IPV in adult opposite-sex relationships, included statistical information needed to calculate at least one bivariate effect size, and were written in English. A total of 503 studies, yielding 2,972 unique effect sizes, were included in the analysis. Data from these studies allowed for the examination of 63 unique risk markers related to physical IPV perpetration for both men and women, 60 unique risk markers for male perpetration, and 45 unique risk markers for female perpetration. Lastly, we were able to compare the strength of 44 risk markers for physical IPV perpetration between men and women. We found that the strongest risk markers were related to other acts of violence (both perpetration and victimization) as well as relationship dynamics. Results from this study highlight the potential factors that could be focused on in prevention programming and intervention work. Additionally, it was found that 9 out of 44 risk markers significantly differed in strength for men and women, allowing for additional specificity in intervention work for helping professionals working with either male or female perpetrators of physical IPV.

The Mediated Portrayal of Intimate Partner Violence in True Crime Podcasts: Strangulation, Isolation, Threats of Violence, and Coercive Control

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122110190
Author(s):  
Danielle C. Slakoff
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Emotional Abuse ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Individual ◽  
True Crime

In this directed qualitative content analysis of four season-long true crime podcasts, the researcher examined how different types of intimate partner violence (IPV) were portrayed. Across the podcasts, controlling behaviors, emotional abuse, and coercive control were commonly depicted. Physical violence was not the most common form of abuse depicted, but it was presented in sensationalistic ways—with a pointed focus on strangulation and bruising. Overall, the podcasts provided a much more realistic portrayal of IPV at the individual level than traditional news sources, yet did not go far enough in describing the societal conditions that permit abuse.

Intimate Partner Violence Among Hispanic Men and Women: The Role of Drinking, Neighborhood Disorder, and Acculturation-Related Factors

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol B. Cunradi
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Alcohol Abuse ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Neighborhood Disorder ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Neighborhood Conditions ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Hispanic Men ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

Using secondary data analysis, this study assessed the contribution of drinking, neighborhood disorder, and acculturation-related factors to past-year intimate partner violence (IPV) risk among a national sample of married or cohabiting Hispanic men (n = 1,148) and women (n = 1,399) who participated in the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Drinking measures were past-year alcohol abuse, past-month binge drinking, and number of past-year drinking days. Neighborhood disorder was measured by perceived level of neighborhood problems. Acculturation-related factors were nativity and survey interview language preference (Spanish vs. English). Similar proportions of men and women reported IPV perpetration (6.1% vs. 6.5%) and IPV victimization (8.8% vs. 7.8%). Logistic regression results indicated that for men, neighborhood disorder was associated with IPV perpetration (odds ratio [OR] = 1.55) and victimization (OR = 1.36). For women, neighborhood disorder (OR = 1.34) and their alcohol abuse (OR = 10.26) were associated with IPV victimization, but not IPV perpetration. Acculturation-related factors were not associated with IPV perpetration or victimization for men or women. The findings suggest that IPV prevention efforts should address deleterious neighborhood conditions in addition to individual-level factors that place couples at risk for IPV.

scholarly journals Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Ara A'Court
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Ambivalent Sexism ◽  
Benevolent Sexism ◽  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
Gendered Theory ◽  
The Relationship

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

scholarly journals Intergenerational Continuity of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: An Investigation of Possible Mechanisms

2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052095962
Author(s):  
Sania Shakoor ◽  
Delphine Theobald ◽  
David P. Farrington
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Intergenerational Transmission ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Early Adulthood ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal Study ◽  
Ipv Perpetration ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a continuum of abuse that is associated with a number of negative outcomes including substance misuse, depression, and suicidal ideation. This study aims to investigate the intergenerational transmission of IPV perpetration and the mechanisms involved. Intergenerational transmission was investigated using information from two generations of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development which is a prospective longitudinal study of 411 males from an inner London area in the UK who have been followed up over a period of 50 years. Information with regard to IPV perpetration, specifically physical violence, was garnered from self-reports by the male at age 32, from their female partner at age 48, and from their male and female children in early adulthood. Regression analyses were used to investigate intergenerational transmission and examine whether psychosocial risk factors could be identified as potential intergenerational pathways. Having a father who was a perpetrator of IPV significantly increased the odds of daughters being perpetrators by 2 times. It did not significantly increase the odds for sons. The intergenerational transmission of IPV perpetration remains between fathers and their daughters over and above a series of psychosocial factors such as accommodation problems and alcohol misuse. Identification of factors associated with the intergenerational transmission of IPV perpetration will inform practitioners and policymakers. Information garnered from studies such as this may contribute to the development of prevention and intervention strategies for those at risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document