Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships, Part 1: Rates of Male and Female Victimization

Partner Abuse ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Desmarais ◽  
Kim A. Reeves ◽  
Tonia L. Nicholls ◽  
Robin P. Telford ◽  
Martin S. Fiebert
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
The Body ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Male Victims ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Pooled Prevalence

Physical violence in intimate relationships affects men, women, and families worldwide. Although the body of research examining the experiences of male victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) has grown, there have been few attempts to synthesize, compare, and contrast findings regarding the prevalence of male and female victimization. We examined research published in the last 10 years to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the prevalence of physical IPV victimization in heterosexual relationships. Our specific aims were to (a) describe the prevalence of physical IPV victimization in industrialized, English-speaking nations; and (b) explore study and sample characteristics that affect prevalence. Literature searches undertaken in three databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) identified 750 articles published between 2000 and 2010. We included 249 articles that reported 543 rates of physical IPV victimization in our review: 158 articles reported 318 rates for women, 6 articles reported 8 rates for men, and 85 articles reported 217 rates for both men and women. Most studies were conducted in the United States (k = 213, 85.5%) and almost half (k = 118, 47.4%) measured IPV using a Conflict Tactics Scale-based approach. Unweighted, pooled prevalence estimates were calculated for female and male victimization overall and by sample type, country, measurement time frame, and measurement approach. Across studies, approximately 1 in 4 women (23.1%) and 1 in 5 men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, with an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%. Analyses revealed considerable variability in rates as a function of methodological issues, indicating the need for standardized measurement of IPV.

Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships, Part 2: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration

Partner Abuse ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Desmarais ◽  
Kim A. Reeves ◽  
Tonia L. Nicholls ◽  
Robin P. Telford ◽  
Martin S. Fiebert
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Social Problem ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Sample Type ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Ipv Perpetration

Physical violence perpetrated by men against their female partners is widely recognized as a serious social problem. Whether women’s use of physical violence against their male partners represents a serious social problem remains a question under debate. We examined research published in the last 10 years to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the prevalence of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women in heterosexual relationships. Our specific aims were to (a) describe the prevalence of physical IPV perpetration in industrialized, English-speaking nations, and (b) explore study and sample characteristics that affect prevalence. Literature searches undertaken in 3 databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) identified 750 articles published between 2000 and 2010. We included 111 articles that reported 272 rates of physical IPV perpetration in our review: 25 articles reported 34 rates for men, 14 articles reported 24 rates for women, and 72 articles reported 214 rates for both men and women. The vast majority of studies were conducted in the United States (k = 95, 85.6%) and most (k = 81, 73.0%) measured IPV using a Conflict Tactics Scale-based approach. We calculated unweighted, pooled prevalence estimates for female and male perpetration overall and by sample type, country, measurement time frame, and measurement approach. Across studies, the overall pooled prevalence estimate was 24.8%. Consistent with prior reviews, pooled prevalence was slightly greater for female- compared to male-perpetrated physical IPV: more than 1 in 4 women (28.3%) and 1 in 5 men (21.6%) reported perpetrating physical violence in an intimate relationship. This pattern of results remained when we calculated pooled prevalence estimates by sample and study characteristics, with few exceptions. Findings underscore the need for interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships.

Prevalence and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence in Canada as Measured by the National Victimization Survey

Partner Abuse ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Lysova ◽  
Eugene Emeka Dim ◽  
Donald Dutton
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Male Victims ◽  
Female Victims ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Controlling Behaviors

National victimization surveys that conceptualize intimate partner violence (IPV) as crime can contribute to a better understanding of the most severe forms of victimization in the intimate partner relationship. Based on the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey on Victimization, this study examined the prevalence of victimization resulted from physical and/or sexual IPV, controlling behaviors and also consequences of IPV for both men and women in a sample representative of the Canadian population. Given the paucity of research on male victims of IPV at the national population level, this article specifically discussed the experiences of men who reported violence perpetrated by their female intimate partners. Results showed that 2.9% of men and 1.7% of women reported experiencing physical and/or sexual IPV in their current relationships in the last 5 years. In addition, 35% of male and 34% of female victims of IPV experienced high controlling behaviors—the most severe type of abuse known as intimate terrorism. Moreover, 22% of male victims and 19% of female victims of IPV were found to have experienced severe physical violence along with high controlling behaviors. Although female victims significantly more often than male victims reported the injuries and short-term emotional effects of IPV (e.g., fear, depression, anger), there was no significant difference in the experience of the most long-term effects of spousal trauma—posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms. This article argues that future research should explain the increased gap in reporting of the IPV victimization among men compared to women.

He Said, She Said: Comparing Men’s and Women’s Descriptions of Men’s Partner Violence

2019 ◽  
pp. 088626051988853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmine Rodriguez ◽  
Sandra K. Burge ◽  
Johanna Becho ◽  
David A. Katerndahl ◽  
Robert C. Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Heterosexual Couples ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Relationship Length

More than one in three women and one in four men in the United States report victimization by intimate partner violence. Women and men often disagree about the frequency or severity of violent acts, and researchers have proposed various reasons for discordant reports. Using daily surveys and qualitative interviews, we compared men’s and women’s reports about men’s partner aggression and examined language they used to describe their experiences. Fifteen heterosexual couples in violent relationships completed an 8-week study that involved daily telephone surveys about violent behaviors and household environment; baseline and end-of-study surveys addressing predictors and outcomes of violence; and qualitative end-of-study interviews to provide perspective about their relationships. Most participants were Latinos with low income. Relationship length was 5.5 years, median. In daily surveys, both partners reported similar frequencies of men’s physical violence (4% of days), but men reported more physical violence by women than women did (8% vs. 3% of days). The qualitative analysts compared men’s and women’s accounts of male-to-female violence and observed gender-specific variations in style of reporting. Men used indirect language to describe their violent behavior, implied definitions of abuse, and justified their aggression. These findings have implications for clinical guidelines to screen and intervene with victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence in primary care and emergency settings. Future research should focus on perpetrators of violence and examine effective ways for health care providers to identify and manage their care.

Intimate Partner Violence and the Role of Breast Imaging Centers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rifat A Wahab ◽  
Maegan Chan ◽  
Charmi Vijapura ◽  
Ann L Brown ◽  
Emaan Asghar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Psychological Harm ◽  
Patterns Of Abuse

Abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, or psychological harm by a current or former intimate partner. In the United States, one in three women will experience a form of IPV in their lifetime. Screening for IPV at breast imaging centers provides an important opportunity to identify and assist affected women. Breast imaging centers provide a private environment where passive and active IPV screening methods can be employed. In addition, when obtaining a mammogram or breast ultrasound, the patient’s upper chest is exposed, which could demonstrate patterns of abuse. This article discusses the need for IPV screening, via both passive and active methods, and implementation steps for breast imaging centers.

Impact of Dating Violence on Male and Female College Students

Partner Abuse ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 323-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne Amanor-Boadu ◽  
Sandra M. Stith ◽  
Marjorie Strachman Miller ◽  
Joshua Cook ◽  
Lauren Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Relationship Satisfaction ◽  
Dating Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Gender Effects ◽  
Severe Injury ◽  
Male Victims ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Female Victims ◽  
Violence Victimization

This study examined gender differences in impacts of dating violence (specifically minor and severe physical injury, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], problems with alcohol, self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction) using a sample of 305 male and 363 female undergraduate students. Multiple linear regression models were used to test for the effects of dating violence victimization on the eight outcome variables while controlling for the effects of perpetration and psychological victimization. Results indicated that physical violence victimization did not impact problems with alcohol, self-esteem, or relationship satisfaction for either males or females. However, being a victim of minor violence significantly increased the levels of depression, anxiety, and PTSD and being a victim of severe violence significantly increased minor and severe injury. Different gender effects were seen in anxiety and PTSD scores where male victims scored higher than male nonvictims, but female victims did not differ significantly from female nonvictims and in minor and severe injury where both male and female victims scored higher than nonvictims, but the difference between the two groups was greater for men on the severe injury subscale and greater for women on the minor injury subscale. Overall, results of our analyses indicate that both male and female victims of dating violence experience physical and mental health consequences and, on the whole, do not support previous findings that would suggest that female victims suffer a greater impact than male victims do.

#1 Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships: Part 1. Rates of Male and Female Victimization

Partner Abuse ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Desmarais ◽  
Kim A. Reeves ◽  
Tonia L. Nicholls ◽  
Robin P. Telford ◽  
Martin S. Fiebert
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Male And Female

scholarly journals Immigration and Intimate Partner Violence

Social Work ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine L. Marrs Fuchsel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Asian Women ◽  
Foreign Born ◽  
Four Levels

Drawing from a feminist and ecological perspective, intimate partner violence, also known as domestic violence, is abuse that occurs in intimate relationships regardless of culture, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation and involves behaviors used by one person to gain or maintain power and control over the other person. These types of abuse and characteristics of abuse include psychological, physical, sexual, verbal, or economic abuse, or isolation. Targeted victims in intimate partner violence incidences are predominantly women. According to the ecological model, intimate partner violence manifests at four levels, including individual, relationship, community, and societal. During the 1970s in the United States, recognition of intimate partner violence as a community problem affecting millions of American Caucasian women was apparent. Since that time increasing numbers of foreign-born individuals have resulted in increased prevalence of intimate partner violence among different groups of women (e.g., African women, Asian women, Southeast Asian women, Latinas, immigrant women, refugees) living in the United States. In addition, the intersection between intimate partner violence and immigration-related implications has increased for one particular group of women living in the United States: immigrant Latinas (i.e., approximately one in three Latinas have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime). This is partly due to the increase of Latinos migrating to the United States from Mexico, Central American countries, and other Spanish-speaking countries. According to the 2016 US census, Latinos are the largest and fastest-growing minority group in the United States. The majority of Latinos currently reside in large states and distinct geographical parts of the United States (e.g., California, Texas, New York, Southwestern and Eastern states). In the early 21st century, the Southeastern (e.g., state of North Carolina) and Midwestern (e.g., state of Iowa) parts of the United States have seen an increase in the Latino population. The criminal justice system’s involvement and efforts to mitigate intimate partner violence among migrant populations are noteworthy.

The Relationship Between Partner Violence and Number of Abortions in a National Sample of Abortion Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gretchen E. Ely ◽  
Nadine S. Murshid
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Physical Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Poverty Rate ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Income Poverty ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Prevalence Ratios

The purpose of the study was to examine the association between women’s experience of two types (sexual and physical) of intimate partner violence (IPV) and number of previous abortions among a national sample of 4,586 abortion patients between the ages of 13 and above 38 years in the United States. Using data from the nationally representative Abortion Patients Survey 2008, χ2 tests were conducted to examine the bivariate associations between all independent and dependent variables. Prevalence ratios were calculated to determine the association between IPV, physical and sexual, and number of abortions, controlling for whether the coconceiving partner knew about the pregnancy and the abortion, and demographic factors including age, education, income, poverty rate, race, and type of union. Results indicate that approximately 51% of the sample of women seeking abortion services had never gotten an abortion before. Reports of IPV were low among this sample—5.6% reported physical violence and 2.4% reported sexual violence, while 82.3% of the coconceiving partners knew about the abortion, and 87.1% knew about the pregnancy. Prevalence ratios revealed that physical violence was positively associated with number of abortions (PR = 1.31, p < .001), but sexual violence was negatively associated with number of abortions (PR = 0.74, p < .05) when all control variables were accounted for. Findings suggesting that physical and sexual violence are differentially associated with a history of multiple abortions were unexpected and suggest the need for additional research in this area. Implications for practice, policy, and directions for future research are discussed.

Five Poems

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-79
Author(s):  
Sassy Ross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
American English ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
The Body ◽  
Childhood Sexual Trauma ◽  
Her Family ◽  
The Past

A grandmother’s lost leg. A mother’s scarred sacrum. A daughter transformed into stone. In these five poems, history dwells in the body, the past deep in the bone. Confronting themes of poverty, intimate partner violence, and childhood sexual trauma, the poems speak to the varying ways the poet and women in her family have insisted on survival. These poems bear shifts in landscape and language, namely, from St. Lucia to the United States, from Antillean Creole to American English. Part of a manuscript in progress, the poems seek to probe inherited and lived-through pain so as to move the spirit ever more deeply toward healing, wholeness, and promise.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document