In Their Own Words: Attributed Causes of Own Intimate Partner Violence
In Their Own Words: Attributed Causes of Own Intimate Partner ViolenceTatjana Raison and Donald Dutton
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia
Partner Abuse, 10 (2), 46-61 (2019)
Reproduced with permission of the author
| EJF Home | Find Help | Help the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| Domestic Violence Book | DV Site Map | Data tables | DV bibliography | DV index |
| Chapter 4 - Psychological Studies Of Domestic Violence |
| Next — Violent Touch: Breaking Through the Stereotype by David Fontes, Psy.D. |
A review of 20 articles (with a collective N of 16,463) that assessed reasons given by perpetrators for their commission of intimate partner violence (IPV). College, community, and batterer intervention program samples were used. Five studies used Motivation and Effects Questionnaire to assess AQ2 reported motivations. This had an advantage in standardizing the definitions of motive which varied widely in other studies. Perpetrators of IPV, whether male or female, do not describe their motives in gender-political terms. Instead, they describe them in psychological terms, such as anger, frustration, or gaining attention. The most frequently endorsed reasons was anger (68% by women, 47% by men) and gaining attention (53% by women, 55% by men) were the two most frequently endorsed motives. Self-defense was the least endorsed (7th of seven motives). The implications of this finding for the gender paradigm are discussed.
Cumulative studies over the past 40 years have provided evidence on both the various patterns of intimate partner violence (IPV) and the reasons for its occurrence. Despite this accumulating evidence, the predominant view of IPV, the gender paradigm posits its own view of both patterns and causation of IPV. The gender paradigm, with roots in functionalist sociology, holds that IPV is essentially male perpetrated, in order to preserve a patriarchal social order (for an extensive debate, see Bograd, 1988; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dragiewicz, 2008; Dutton, 2006, 2010, 2011). By this paradigm, male IPV occurs for gender-political and instrumental reasons and female IPV is primarily self-defensive and reactive.
Studies of patterns of IPV, based on self-reports in surveys, show the oversimplicity of the gender paradigm view. Five independent large sample surveys in the United States, found the most common form of IPV to be bilateral, matched for level of severity of violence, followed by female IPV against nonviolent males (Caetano, Vaeth, & Ramisetty-Mikler, 2008; Morse, 1995; Stets & Straus, 1989; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007; Williams & Frieze, 2005). The stereotypic pattern of male violence against nonviolent females was found in only 15% of all respondent reports where any IPV was reported.
With a few exceptions, gender paradigm writers have neither assessed nor cited the reasons given by IPV perpetrators. There is however, considerable evidence from numerous studies asking people about their own use of IPV. The purpose of this paper is to review those studies and assess the evidence provided in the light on the gender paradigm view.
This review examines attributions, motivations, and reasons that individual respondents give for their perpetration of IPV and domestic violence. Articles cited in this review have been found using the University of British Columbia online library research catalog, using the following search terms: domestic violence, IPV, partner violence, attribution, reason, motivation, anger, self-defense, retaliation, control, jealousy, and perpetration. These motives were selected, according to several authors, on the basis of prior research and interviews by clinicians. Note that dating violence was not searched so adolescent (prior to college age) descriptors may be underrepresented. Also, few studies of same-sex couples were found so they too, are unrepresented by this review. Selection has been based on articles that report percentages of attributions for perpetration. Most studies ask respondents to rate the relative frequency of each motive (e.g., the number of times it was operative). Although some ask if the motive was ever relevant. After initial research, 47 articles were found. Many of these articles have been excluded due to small samples sizes, narrative data, and findings not being reported in percentage format. This has resulted in a final sample of 20 articles (Appendices A–G). Research articles range in publication date from 1986 to 2016, and include three categories of population samples; typically, men and women from college samples, batterer intervention programs (BIPs), and community samples. Except for one article,1 the data used in this review are taken from U.S. samples.
Research on motives for IPV has relied on reports of the following to quantify the reasons subjects give for using IPV: self-defense, retaliation, control, expression of negative emotions including anger, jealousy, or tension. Previous research included both open ended questions and endorsement of provided categories. Most studies have provided respondents with categories, in which individual motivations are rated as most or less frequent. The most common measure used is the Motivations and Effects Questionnaire (MEQ: Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991) used in five articles.2 The original measure included 13 possible motivations derived from prior research. Participants were instructed to check all the apply to them. Subsequent authors have modified the measure by removing or adding certain motives. The prevalence rates for the seven motives for both men and women are shown in Table 10.
Anger is the most frequently endorsed motivation of perpetrators, and may manifest when a lack of emotional regulation occurs and be exacerbated by a lack of constructive communication. Anger is endorsed by perpetrators of IPV in 17 articles3. Among college women anger is a highly salient attribution (Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007; Leisring, 2013; Neal et al., 2015). College samples including both men and women endorse anger as a motivation for perpetration, in addition anger is endorsed at similar rates by both genders (Follingstad et al., 1991; Harned, 2001; Makepeace, 1986; Whitaker, 2014). Among samples in court-mandated treatment programs anger is most frequently attributed as a motive for the perpetration of IPV, however the rates of endorsement are not as high as college samples (Elmquist et al., 2014; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Kernsmith, 2005; Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth, Ramsey, & Kahler, 2006). Similar rates of endorsing anger as the most common motive about 48% of the time (see Table 1) are observed among community samples, except for one article.
Although anger appears in most of the articles they include different definitions of anger. For example, several articles use unspecified definitions of anger, or anger and frustration (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003; Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007; Neal et al., 2015). Other research has specified anger in terms of a loss of one's temper (Henning et al., 2005; Makepeace, 1986; Whitaker, 2014). One article defined it as being caused by the perpetrator's partner (e.g., because he or she made you angry; Caldwell, Swan, Allen, Sullivan, & Snow, 2009). In several articles, anger is defined in terms of expressing feelings of anger (Elmquist et al., 2014; Follingstad et al., 1991; Leisring, 2013; Stuart et al., 2006; Walley-Jean & Swan, 2009). Definitions that include perpetrators' anger involve aspects of emotional regulation, such as feelings of anger or a loss of temper. In comparison, attributing anger as an expression of negative affect may be related to communication. The definition of anger in research by Caldwell et al. (2009), which describes anger as being caused by the perpetrator's partner, is reflective of the interpersonal nature of this definition of IPV.
Variation in its definition indicates how anger has different meanings to researchers. Anger can have a trait component as in someone being anger-prone (e.g., Buss, 1957) or an interactive component where contextual factors elicit anger. In the research this varies; for example, in some studies, perpetration of IPV to express anger is related to communication between couples. This differs from perpetrators not being able to control their anger, which is related to emotional regulation (see Maiuro, Cahn, Vitaliano, Wagner, & Zegree, 1988). Similarly, research by Bliton et al. (2015) found that emotional dysregulation was associated with the perpetration of IPV. Moreover, a study using a sample of students from 14 universities in China found that among women who have perpetrated IPV, anger management issues increase their risk of perpetrating physical IPV (Kamimura, Nourian, Assasnik, & FranchekRoa, 2016). Patterns of anger in IPV perpetration are similar to those of retaliation; because retaliation as a motivation for IPV is associated with faulty communication and emotional dysregulation.
Like anger, retaliation may also be related to emotional regulation and communication. Retaliation is endorsed as a motivation for perpetration in fifteen articles4. In the literature, retaliation is most commonly defined as being expressed for either being hit first (physical IPV) or for emotional hurt (psychological IPV). Overall, retaliation for emotional hurt is endorsed more than retaliation for being hit first (Elmquist et al., 2014; Follingstad et al., 1991; Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007; Leisring, 2013; Whitaker, 2014). Suggesting that emotional and psychological factors are more attributed to retaliation compared to physical factors. Retaliation for emotional hurt is especially salient among college women, who have some of the highest rates of endorsement (Follingstad et al., 1991; Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007; Leisring, 2013; Neal et al., 2015). This is similar to the pattern of attribution found for anger, as both retaliation and anger are significant motivations for college women's perpetration of IPV. Several articles do not specify what kind of retaliation perpetrators endorse (Epstein-Ngo et al., 2013; Hughes, Massura, Anukem, & Cattage, 2016; Makepeace, 1986; Neal et al., 2015). This inconsistency in how retaliation is defined may be responsible for some of the variation in rates of endorsement.5
Similar to anger, retaliation may be related both to emotional regulation and communication. Retaliation for either emotional or physical reasons involves a response and a reaction; a lack of emotional regulation in combination with a lack of communication may result in perpetration of IPV. This explanation is associated with the psychological and interpersonal aspects of IPV perpetration. In addition, retaliation as a motive may be related to the reciprocal nature of IPV.6 This relates to the interpersonal aspects of IPV perpetration, furthermore this is important because reciprocal IPV is the most common form of perpetration and causes the most injuries (McQueen, 2011; Swahn, Alemdar, & Whitaker, 2010; Whitaker et al., 2007). Retaliation, like anger is often explained in terms of psychological, emotional, and interpersonal terms. This is also applicable to the attribution of control, which is especially relevant to both the interpersonal nature of IPV and to communication among intimate partners.
Control is found as a motivation in 14 articles7. As with the previous attributions, scholars have different definitions of control; however, there seems to be two primary definitions. Firstly, control is defined as “getting control over your partner” (Elmquist et al., 2014; Follingstad et al., 1991; Harned, 2001; Leisring, 2013). Secondly, control is defined in terms of getting your partner do something that you want or to stop doing something Carrado et al., 1996;
Kernsmith, 2005; Whitaker, 2014). A few studies define control as using it to gain power or to feel powerful (Epstein-Ngo et al., 2013; Neal et al., 2015; Stuart et al., 2006). Although these definitions are included in IPV literature, they are vague and do not provide a specific explanation of the psychology that causes individuals to perpetrate IPV. Based on these definitions, control involves psychological and interpersonal aspects. In this sense, the attribution of control may be similar to retaliation, because both involve a reaction to an action of an intimate partner.
Although control shares similar characteristics with retaliation, overall control is endorsed at smaller rates than retaliation. Across different samples, control is endorsed by perpetrators at similar rates; rates of endorsement are also similar between men and women. In addition to the findings of this research, Frankland and Brown (2014) studied a sample of individuals who had been in same-sex relationships. Their findings indicate there are no differences between gay and lesbian respondents on measures of control; moreover, the authors conclude that controlling behaviors are a central feature in same-sex IPV. Research by Frankland and Brown (2014) suggests that control is attributed to perpetration of IPV in same-sex relationships, this is important because it shows there is some similarity in the attributions made by homosexual and heterosexual perpetrators of IPV.8 In addition, there may be similarities in the factors that lead to these attributions, such as psychological and interpersonal mechanisms. A study using data from over 900 adolescents has found that controlling behaviors are associated with IPV perpetration for men and women (Giordano, Copp, Longmore, & Manning, 2016). Based on definitions of control in IPV literature, emotional regulation and communication are factors that contribute to the salient are the interpersonal factors involved in wanting to gain someone's attention, which corresponds to the inability to verbally express oneself.
The inability to express oneself is attributed to the perpetration of IPV in eight articles9. All the articles define this attribution in terms of not being able to verbally express thoughts or feelings. Most of these articles use college samples, suggesting that this is a more common motivation for college men and women. This attribution is not endorsed by the community samples included in this review, suggesting that this is not a common motivation among these samples or perhaps these samples describe similar feelings in different terms.
This attribution is described as not being able to verbally express feelings, meaning that it is related to psychological factors and emotional regulation. Moreover, interpersonal factors and communication are paramount to this attribution. The inability to express oneself verbally shares characteristics with the previous attribution of wanting to gain attention. Both involve emotional regulation in the context of interpersonal interactions with intimate partners while trying to communicate thoughts and feelings.
Self-defense as a motive for female IPV has been posited by gender paradigm writers who see most IPV as initially male perpetrated (Dutton, 2006, 2010, 2011). Self-defense is endorsed in 14 articles10 found in this review. Although self-defense is included in over half the articles, there are disparities in its rates of endorsement. Among college women, self-defense is negligibly endorsed (Follingstad et al., 1991; Leisring, 2013; Makepeace, 1986; Neal et al., 2015; Walley, Jean & Swan, 2009; Whitaker, 2014). Within this sample there is one exception. Research by Harned (2001) finds that self-defense is a significant motivation among college women (42%), however it was even more frequently endorsed by college men (56%), leading one to suspect a methodological cause for the endorsement rates. Harned (2001) concludes that college women were not more likely to use physical violence in self-defense than college men. For college men, self-defense is reported at equal rates to women (Follingstad et al., 1991; Harned, 2001; Makepeace, 1986; Whitaker, 2014). Although self-defense is not highly endorsed by women in BIPs compared to other attributions; self-defense is endorsed at higher rates compared to their college counterparts (Babcock et al., 2003; Elmquist et al., 2014; Kernsmith, 2005; Stuart et al., 2006). In these samples, men in BIPs endorse self-defense at similar rates to women (Elmquist et al., 2014; Kernsmith, 2005). This is supported by Kernsmith (2005) who found no significant difference between men and women in the frequency of violence that they use self-defense. Of the two community samples in, research by Cascardi and Vivian (1995) has found that self-defense was almost nonexistent among their sample population; alternatively, Caldwell et al. (2009) found that among their sample of community women, self-defense was a significant attribution (83%). Although self-defense appeared in most the articles, it was not highly endorsed with two exceptions.11 Moreover, there is some variation and ambiguity in the definition of self-defense within the IPV literature. For example, Swan and Snow (2003) describe self-defense as present when it is used some of the time. Although 75% of their sample endorsed this description, it would be problematic to see this as a main motive (e.g., always used as a opposed to sometimes used). In comparison to other motives included this review, it is not a significant motivation endorsed by most perpetrators of IPV, regardless of group. In addition, these findings suggest that there are not significant differences between men and women in self-defense as a reason for their perpetration of IPV. Across studies, self-defense is ranked a distant 7th by women as a motive for their own use of IPV (Table 10 and Table 11).
The percentages of endorsements suggest that self-defense is not a main contributor in the perpetration of IPV by either gender. This, along with other attributions shows that emotional, psychological, and interpersonal factors were the most frequently endorsed. Psychological reasons for perpetration are more salient among perpetrators than physical reasons. Table 10 and Table 11 summarize the average endorsements by gender across all studies. Women endorse anger and retaliation more frequently than men. Self-defense is the least endorsed motive by both genders. There are no significant differences in social desirability scores by gender or on the impact of social desirability on reporting of motives (CaldAQ10 well et al., 2009; Follingstad et al., 1991, 2005).
The research summarized in this review demonstrates the importance of considering emotional, psychological, and interpersonal factors of IPV perpetration; and how these relate to emotional regulation and communication within intimate relationships. Based on the research included in this review, psychological factors (e.g., anger, control, retaliation, jealousy) are most frequently endorsed in IPV perpetration than are physical factors (e.g., self-defense). Most importantly, this information should be considered in future treatments and policies that are created for individuals affected by IPV. Intervention and treatment programs should consider the psychological, emotional, and interpersonal factors reported by perpetrators of IPV.
Although this review analyses the attributions of perpetrators into individual components, it is necessary to remember that they are not mutually exclusive. This is demonstrated by the fact that in most of the research articles, perpetrators endorse multiple attributions. This indicates that people perpetrate IPV for many reasons, which highlights the complex nature of IPV. It is necessary to perceive IPV in a more complex manner, and this should be considered in future treatment.
The major limitation of the research reviewed is the lack of concise definitions used to describe attributions of perpetrators. According to the findings of this review, attributions of anger and control and gaining attention have varying and inconsistent definitions throughout IPV research, making it difficult to deduce how perpetrators describe their motivations and why they use them. Likewise, retaliation and self defense show inconsistencies and vagueness in their definitions. For example, one cannot know what variety of partner behaviors incited the anger reported as a motive. These might range from the commonplace (e.g., a spouse' unfaithfulness) to those that might generally do so to minor transgressions suggesting more of a perceptual and emotional problem for the perpetrator.
Retaliation and self-defense are included in most of the research articles used in this review, yet they do not have clear criteria. Although they are included as separate attributions in research, there is potentially significant overlap between them; and depending on how they are measured, they can be quite different or similar. How do we assess a retaliation or self-defense that increases the level of violence beyond the original event? This discrepancy has been addressed by multiple researchers, Leisring and Grigorian (2016) have found that at times the definitions of retaliation and self-defense overlap in IPV research. Many of the articles included in the review have either vague or unclear definitions of self-defense and retaliation.12 Consequently, it is unclear whether IPV perpetrating occurs because of trying to protect oneself or trying to take revenge. The findings of Leisring and Grigorian (2016) and the findings of this review suggest that there are many inconsistencies that exist in the definitions of IPV attributions, which pose multiple problems for future research and application. Some motives may be decidedly mixed but are artificially separated on report questionnaires. In addition, it cannot be determined whether the inconsistencies are due to the perpetrator's explanations for perpetration, to research differences in definitions of attributions or to the design of the instrument of measure. This poses difficulties for future research on IPV attributions. The ambiguity of IPV attributions needs to be addressed in future research. It is also worth noting that despite the prominence of the gender paradigm in theories of causation for IPV, no direct tests of patriarchy were found in the literature. No researchers asked specifically if someone used IPV out of “male privilege” or because it was their right. That being said, the prediction from the gender paradigm that women would report self-defense motives more frequently than men, was not supported by the studies to date.
Finally, the research reviewed, of necessity, assessed conscious motivation that respondents had awareness of. Both psychological and sociological theories also posit unconscious motivation. The former, refers to Freudian notions of the unconscious (Freud, 1942), the latter to Marxist notions of “false consciousness” (e.g., MacKinnon, 1989). It should be self-evident as to why respondents cannot report on motives to which they have no conscious access.
Although this paper includes detailed information of perpetrator's attributions, more research is necessary to have an in-depth understanding of why IPV occurs. It would be relevant to find out if age, social class, or other demographics affect reported motivation. Although the research reviewed contained college samples (with typical mean ages of 20–21), community samples (with a variety of reported mean ages) and BIP samples (typically male, mean age about 31), social class, and other variables were confounded with age, making interpretation impossible. Most samples used in this review either excluded or included very little same-sex samples. Subsequent research on attributions of same-sex couples would provide valuable information; because this research would allow for the comparison of attributions between heterosexual and homosexual. As discussed in the previous section, more precise definitions are required. Future research should include looking at differences in attributions depending on what kind of IPV is perpetrated (e.g., physical IPV vs. psychological IPV). Most of the research in this review included individual perpetrators, and not couples. In future research, sampling couples where both have perpetrated IPV would allow for comparison of their attributions, providing further insight into why perpetration occurs. These suggestions for future research of IPV attributions are important because they will provide further information and details on why perpetration occurs, which can guide future treatments and interventions for those affected by IPV.
Babcock, J. C., Miller, S. A., & Siard, C. (2003). Toward a typology of abusive women: Differences between partner-only and generally violent women in the use of violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(2), 153–161.
Bliton, C. F., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Zapor, H., Elmquist, J., Brem, M. J., Shorey, R. C., & Stuart, G. L. (2015). Emotion dysregulation, gender, and intimate partner violence perpetration: An exploratory study in college students. Journal of Family Violence, 31(3), 371–377.
Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife assault: An introduction. K. Yllo, & M. Bograd Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. 11–26. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Buss, A. H. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343–349.
Caetano, R., Vaeth, P. A. C., & Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (2008). Intimate partner violence victims and perpetrator characteristics among couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 23(6), 507–518.
Caldwell, J. E., Swan, S. C., Allen, C. T., Sullivan, T. P., & Snow, D. L. (2009). Why I hit him: Women's reasons for intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(7), 672–697.
Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22(6), 401–415.
Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. Journal of Family Violence, 10(3), 265–293.
Coker, A.L. (2007).Does physical intimate partner violence affect sexual health? A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(2), 149–177.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(4), 260–268.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York NY: Free Press.
Dragiewicz, M. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers' rights and anti-VAWA activism.Feminist Criminology, 3(2), 121–144.
Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver Canada: UBC Press.
Dutton, D. G. (2010). The gender paradigm and the architecture of anti-science. Partner Abuse, 1(1), 5–25.
Dutton, D. G. (2011). The case against the role of gender in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 99–104.
Dutton, D., & White, K. (2013). Male victims of domestic violence. New Male Studies: An International Journal, 2(1),.
Elmquist, J., Hamel, J., Shorey, R. C., Labrecque, L., Ninnemann, A., & Stuart, G. L. (2014). Motivations for intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic violence and court referred to batterer intervention programs. Partner Abuse, 5(4), 359–374.
Epstein-Ngo, Q. M., Cunningham, R. M., Whiteside, L. K., Chermack, S. T., Booth, B. M., Zimmerman, M. A., & Walton, M. A. (2013). A daily calendar analysis of substance use and dating violence among high risk urban youth. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 194–200.
Fiebert, M. S., & Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). College women who initiate assaults on their male partners and the reasons offered for such behavior. Psychology Reports, 80(2), 583–590.
Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40(1), 51–57.
Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22.
Freud, S. (1942). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York NY: International Universities Press.
Giordano, P. C., Copp, J. E., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2016). Anger, control and intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 31(1), 1–13.
Goldenberg, T., Stephenson, R., Freeland, R., Finneran, C., & Hadley, C. (2016). “Struggling to be the alpha”: Sources of tension and intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships between men. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18(8), 875–889.
Harned, M. S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 269–285.
Henning, K., Jones, A. R., & Holdford, R. (2005). “I didn't do it, but if I did I had a good reason”: Minimization, denial, and attributions of blame among male and female domestic violence offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 20(3), 131–139.
Hettrich, E. L., & O'Leary, K. D. (2007). Females' reasons for their use of physical aggression in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(9), 1131– 1143.
Hughes, H. M., Massura, C. E., Anuken, O. V., & Cattage, J. S. (2016).
Kamimura, A., Nourian, M. M., Assasnik, N., & Franchek-Roa, K. (2016). Factors associated with perpetration of intimate partner violence among college students in china. Injury Prevention, 22(5), 352–357.
Kernsmith, P. (2005). Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 173–185.
Leisring, P. A. (2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships: Motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1437–1454.
Leisring, P.A. & Grigorian, H.L. (2016). Self-defense, retaliation, and gender: Clarifying motivations for physical partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 949-953.
MacKinnon, C.A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Maiuro, R. D., Cahn, T. S., Vitaliano, P. P., Wagner, B. C., & Zegree, J. B. (1988). Anger, hostility and depression in domestically violent versus generally assaultive men and nonviolent control couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 17– 23.
Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35(3), 383–388.
McQueen, D. (2011). Domestic violence is most commonly reciprocal. The Psychiatrist, 35(1), 33–33.
Morse, B. (1995). Beyond the conflict tactics scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10(4), 251–272.
Neal, A. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2015). Why did she do it? College women's motives for intimate partner violence perpetration. Partner Abuse, 6(4), 425–441.
Plichta, S. B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: Policy and practice implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1296–1323.19(11)
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1989). The marriage license as a hitting license: A comparison of dating, cohabiting and married couples. Journal of Family Violence, 4(1), 37– 54.
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1992). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. M. A. Straus, & R. J. Gelles Physical Violence in American Families. 151–166. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Hellmuth, J. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Reasons for intimate partner violence perpetration among arrested women. Violence against Women, 12(7), 609–621.
Swahn, M. H., Alemdar, M., & Whitaker, D. J. (2010). Nonreciprocal and reciprocal dating violence and injury occurrence among urban youth. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 11(3), 264–268.
Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2003). Behavioral and psychological differences among abused women who use violence in intimate relationships. Violence against Women, 9(1), 75–109.
Walley-Jean, C. J., & Swan, S. (2009). Motivations and justifications for partner aggression in a sample of African American college women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(7), 698–717.
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 941–947.
Whitaker, M. P. (2014). Motivational attributions about intimate partner violence among male and female perpetrators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 517– 535.
Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52(11), 771–784.
Appendices that were omitted here can be found at Partner Abuse, 10 (2), 46-61 (2019).
The authors have no relevant financial interest or affiliations with any commercial interests related to the subjects discussed within this article.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Donald Dutton, University of British Columbia, Department of Psychology, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Email: dondutton@shaw.ca
| EJF Home | Find Help | Help the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| Domestic Violence Book | DV Site Map | Data tables | DV bibliography | DV index |
| Chapter 4 - Psychological Studies Of Domestic Violence |
| Next — Violent Touch: Breaking Through the Stereotype by David Fontes, Psy.D. |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.
2. Follingstad et al. (1991), Harned (2001), Walley-Jean and Swan (2009), Leisring (2013), Neal, Dixon, Edwards, and Gidycz (2015).
5. Studies range from 0.9% attribution up to 93% attribution (Epstein-Ngo et al., 2013; Hettrich & O'Leary, 2007).P _ Fol i o:4
6. Reciprocal or bilateral IPV is the most common form, based on the social surveys in Table 10.
8. Of the samples found in Table 10 the majority consist of heterosexual individuals. _ Fol i o:5