Sociology

41

John Hamel, Private Practice, San Rafael, California. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John Hamel, 70 Mitchell Boulevard,

Suite 103, San Rafael, CA 94903. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Men’s Health, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2009, 41-59. © 2009 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. http://www.mensstudies.com. All rights reserved. jmh.0801.41/$14.00 • DOI: 10.3149/jmh.0801.41 • Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jmh.0801.41

Toward a Gender-Inclusive Conception of Intimate Partner Violence Research and Theory:

Part 2 – New Directions

JOHN HAMEL Private Practice

In an article previously published in this journal (Hamel, 2007) the author con- tradicted the patriarchal paradigm which has guided domestic violence research, intervention and policy for the past three decades. The current article critically examines the two major alternative models, beginning with the post-patriar- chal/asymmetry paradigm, which acknowledges that most intimate partner abuse consists of “situational” or “common couple” violence, which is conflict-driven, has relatively minor consequences, and is initiated by women as well as men. However, this model incorrectly assumes that men perpetrate the overwhelming majority of severe abuse, known as “battering” or “intimate terrorism.” The arti- cle concludes with a discussion of the gender-inclusive model, which holds that intervention and policy should draw upon all of the available data. According to the latest research, most domestic violence is mutual, men and women emotion- ally abuse and control one another at approximately equal rates, intimate terror- ists are equally likely to be male or female, men suffer one-third of physical injuries, and males and females are equally affected by emotional abuse. In short, domestic violence is a human and relational problem, not a gender problem. Im- plications of these findings are discussed with respect to prevention, intervention and policy.

Keywords: intimate partner abuse, intimate terrorism, battering, domestic violence, gender inclusivity

The patriarchal conception of intimate partner violence (IPV) contends that IPV is perpetrated by men who are motivated by a need to dominate their female partners and maintain male privilege. When women are violent, it is assumed to be in self-defense and its consequences, if any, are thought to be negligible (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Pagelow, 1981; Pence & Paymar, 1993; Walker, 1979). Recently, the author (Hamel,

2007a) presented preliminary evidence drawn from research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s on male personality and batterer typologies, contextual factors, and relationship variables as measured in the laboratory, evidence that contradicts the patriarchal model of IPV.

Recently, many of the statistics on IPV and its theoretical underpinnings have been challenged by researchers, policy-makers and intervention providers, giving birth to a new model of IPV theory and treatment. In this article, an overview is given of the post-patriarchal/asymmetry paradigm of IPV, a research trend that represents to some extent an improvement over the patriarchal model.1 The article concludes with a dis- cussion of the gender-inclusive model, one that eschews simplistic, ideologically-dri- ven explanations, promotes evidence-based practice, and seeks to more efficiently reduce domestic violence in the community.

The Post-patriarchal/Asymmetry Paradigm

Some feminist gender theorists early on conceded that male batterers could be driven by both instrumental and expressive motives (Yllo, 1993), a “finding” that Gold- ner (1998) incorporated in her conjoint model of feminist therapy for couples with a vi- olent man. By the end of the 1990s, Pence (1999), one of the founders of the Duluth Intervention Project had begun to rethink some of her own views:

I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every op- portunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we real- ized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find.

… Activists have for years faced the accusation that women who “claim” to be battered are often lying about the abuse …. For more than a decade, the DAIP and shelter advocates reacted to this constant undercurrent of “women are liars” by arguing that “women are saints.” In many ways, we turned a blind eye to some women’s use of violence, their drug use and alcoholism, and their often harsh and violent treatment of their children. (pp. 29-30)

In her carefully-worded acknowledgement that only “some” women use violence, Pence clearly was not about to endorse anything close to a gender-inclusive model, but it was a sign that the accumulated data had over time eroded the monolithic patriarchal paradigm, making inevitable the ascendance of a new model of domestic violence the- ory and treatment.

42

HAMEL

1 The author gratefully acknowledges Kathleen Malley-Morisson for suggesting the term “post-patriarchal.”

At the center of what this author calls the post-patriarchal/asymmetry conception is a typology proposed by sociologist Michael Johnson, who sought to reconcile the ac- cumulated research with the prevailing paradigm, promising to resolve the raging dis- pute regarding which gender is “more violent” (see Table 1). Unlike previous typologies, Johnson’s included mutual and female-perpetrated violence (Johnson, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005). An examination of survey data, he proposed, leads one to conclude that women assault as often as men, and for similar reasons. The type of vi- olence revealed by this data Johnson categorized as common couple violence (also known as situational violence). Representing the majority of domestic assaults, it arises

43

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

Table 1 The Post-patriarchal/Asymmetry Concept of Domestic Violence

Post-patriarchal/Asymmetry Concept: 1995 – Present

Theory and Research

Policy and Treatment

Use of the term “intimate partner violence” acknowledges dating and cohabitating violence, same-sex violence, and violence by het- erosexual women.

Attempt to reconcile patriarchal and conflict tactics models. Ac- knowledgement of diversity in violence; for example, “family only” vs. “dysphoric/borderline” and “antisocial.” Proliferation of research on typologies; emergence of “postmodern feminist” views.

Recognition that most violence is “common couple” violence, con- flict-driven and initiated by both men and women. “Gendered vi- olence” involves male perpetrators. Men perpetrate the vast majority of severe abuse, known as “intimate terrorism.” Men are more controlling and emotionally abusive. Emphasis on asymme- try of violence between the genders.

Outcome research on men’s batterer intervention programs focus- ing on reducing recidivism by male perpetrators. Studies on fe- male batterers interpret women’s violence as reactive, men as the “dominant aggressors.”

Proliferation of research examining the impact of domestic vio- lence on children, focused on father’s abuse towards the mother.

Women arrested in greater numbers and referred to same-sex bat- terer programs. Groups formed for gay or lesbian perpetrators.

Victim services include children’s groups, parent-child therapy. Growing support for intervention to include structured couples counseling, based on feminist theory and focused on male-perpe- trated battering.

within the context of escalating conflict by mutual combatants who are motivated to communicate and/or express anger rather than to control, and involves lower-level vi- olence and negligible injury. The violence here would be characterized as symmetrical.

Data from crime surveys and battered women, he proposed, are about severe, in- jury-causing and asymmetrical violence, and support the theory that battering is per- petrated almost exclusively by men seeking to exercise control and male privilege over their partners. Johnson first labeled this type of violence “patriarchal terrorism,” then later “intimate terrorism.” Another category, “mutual violent control,” was created to account for the small number of couples who were mutually violent and controlling, what Jacobsen and Gottman (1998) called “Bonnie and Clyde” couples.

One drawback of Johnson’s scheme was that it did not incorporate the impulsive and severe violence characteristic of those with borderline personality disorder (Dut- ton, 2005). A more significant problem was that it ignored contradictory data and reached its conclusions from biased samples. For example, Riggs, O’Leary, and Bres- lin (1990) found a strong correlation between having a dominant and aggressive per- sonality and IPV for both men and women. There was also a significant correlation in Cano, Avery-Leaf, Cascardi, and O’Leary’s (1998) study of high school boys and girls dating between the use of jealousy and dominance tactics and physical assaults. In sup- port of his theory, Johnson cited data gathered in Pittsburgh, claiming that men repre- sent 97 percent of intimate terrorists (Johnson, 2000), and research by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003) as evidence for an 87 percent rate (Johnson, 2005) of male intimate terrorism. However, the majority of the women surveyed in the Pittsburgh sample had come from shelters, and the Graham-Kevan and Archer sample involved battered women and male prison inmates. Johnson failed to mention that a follow-up study (Gra- ham-Kevan & Archer, 2005a), drawing upon a community sample of university stu- dents and faculty in Lancashire, England, found rates of 13 percent for female intimate terrorists and 9 percent for male intimate terrorists, based upon the same criteria John- son used.

Johnson’s typology has been quite appealing to those who continue to frame do- mestic violence as a gender issue, but understand the limitations of the theory-driven patriarchal conception. Moreover, its wider scope provides clinicians with more flexi- ble treatment options. Unfortunately, it has confused rather than clarified the issue of women’s violence. The same can be said for the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) which, despite its hybrid crime survey methodology that would inhibit reporting of male victimization (Straus, 1999), never- theless found that 36 percent of IPV victims are men.

Subsequent to the Johnson and NVAWS studies, research has proliferated within the typologies/asymmetry framework. Some of this research is seriously flawed, while some represents a genuine advancement in domestic violence research, with conclu- sions that one might debate only on points of emphasis and interpretation; for exam- ple, the extent to which abuse might be thought as “symmetrical” or “asymmetrical.” However, in light of further developments in the field, the time would seem right for another alternative to the gender-feminist patriarchal model.

44

HAMEL

At the heart of the gender-inclusive conception (see Table 2) are the assumptions that IPV theory and intervention policy ought to be derived empirically from the full range of available research data, and that the purpose of intervention is to reduce fam- ily violence by the most effective means possible (Hamel, 2005a; 2007b).

45

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

Table 2 The Gender-inclusive Concept of Domestic Violence

Gender-inclusive Concept: 2000 – Present

Theory and Research

Policy and Treatment

Theory and treatment draws upon all of the available research data, which suggest that intimate partner abuse is a human and relational problem, not a gender problem. Distinction between victims and perpetrators are de-emphasized. Emphasis is placed on mutual and systemic nature of violence. Recognition of the importance of at- tachment styles. Concern with all types of abuse, not only physi- cal violence.

Women initiate domestic violence as often as men. Self-defense is a minor motive for both genders. Men and women verbally and emotionally abuse one another at approximately equal rates, and except for rape engage in similar levels of power and control. Ef- fects of physical abuse are greater on women, but overall effects of abuse are the same for both genders.

Men cause two-thirds of physical injuries and are better able to physically intimidate, but women are equally capable of emotional intimidation. “Gendered violence” can be perpetrated by men or women. Some men claim “male privilege” (for example, being en- titled to sexual favors and having the final say in decisions), while women may claim “female privilege” (for example, as inherently superior parents, their own abusive behavior should be excused and men should support them financially.)

Domestic violence and child abuse correlate with both male and fe- male perpetrators. Children are as likely to suffer internalizing and externalizing symptoms and to perpetrate abuse as adults when they have witnessed Mom hit Dad, in contrast to when Dad hit Mom.

Gender bias should be eliminated from public education and out- reach, and from arrest and prosecution policies. Need for more dual arrests or alternatives to incarceration (for example, citations). Shelters must provide services to all victims of abuse.

Need for more flexible treatment alternatives, including intensive individual therapy, structured couples counseling, mixed-gender perpetrator groups, family therapy, and restorative justice ap- proaches. Treatment should always be guided by a thorough as- sessment, rather than by ideology.

Recent Research Trends

Over the past few years, IPV research has built on previous data to provide further evidence for much greater gender symmetry than previously had been believed to exist. Some of this research comes from interest in the increasing numbers of women man- dated to batterer intervention programs (BIP), a consequence of mandatory arrest poli- cies (Mills, 2003), while some has come from follow-up studies of Johnson’s typologies and re-analyses of the NVAWS data. One, by Coker, Davis, Arias, et al. (2002), found lifetime male victimization rates of 10.5 percent for experienced verbal abuse and jeal- ousy/possessiveness, and 6.8 percent for imposition of power/control, compared to rates of 5.2 percent and 6.9 percent for women. Particularly illuminating have been longitudinal studies and attachment research, as well as emerging data on the effects of IPV on children.

Etiology and Risk Factors

The causes of intimate partner abuse are far more similar between the genders than they are dissimilar. There is evidence that male gender role stress and gender-role con- flict are correlated with male-perpetrated partner abuse (Jakupcak, 2003). Patriarchal beliefs may also be a contributing factor in some male-perpetrated partner abuse, but are less important than harboring pro-violent attitudes (Hamel, 2007a), which is a risk factor for both genders (Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; Simmons, Lehmann & Cobb, 2004). In their review of the risk factor literature, Medeiros and Straus (2006) found no significant gender differences in the relationship between part- ner violence and 72-73 percent of the major IPV risk factors. The same direction of ef- fect was found in 99 percent of the total number. Risk factors found in male populations that have also been found among females include (1) growing up in a violent home (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003; Sommer, 1994; Straus & Smith, 1990), (2) certain per- sonality traits such as dependency and jealousy, which are common among both het- erosexual and lesbian offenders (Coleman, 1994; Shupe, Stacey, & Hazlewood, 1987), (3) and conditions that either meet the criterion for a DSM Axis II personality disorder (borderline, antisocial, or narcissistic) (Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2003; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Kalichman, 1988; Simmons, et al.) or are characterized by a gener- ally aggressive personality (Ehrensaft, Moffit, & Caspi, 2004; Felson, 2002; Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, & Laughlin, 2002; O’Leary, 1988; Sommer, 1994). In the study by Henning et al. (2003), which compared men and women participants in bat- terer intervention programs, the women scored higher on the Millon Clinical Multiax- ial Inventory III for 8 of the 14 maladaptive personality subscales measured, including compulsive, histrionic, narcissistic, paranoid, borderline and sadistic traits. Whether these elevated traits mean that partner assaultive women are more pathological than partner assaultive men in general, or that it takes a pathological woman to come to the attention of a law enforcement system predisposed to arrest males, was not determined by the study.

46

HAMEL

Similar correlations have been found for men and women between perpetration of IPV and proximal risk factors such as unemployment and low socioeconomic status (Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, Fagan, & Silva, 1997), being under 30 years of age (Morse, 1995; Sommer, 1994; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980), or being in a dating or co- habitating relationship. The review by Medeiros and Straus (2006) also identified re- lationship conflict as a significant risk factor for both genders. Partly due to the negative communication dynamics discussed earlier, conflicted couples are at risk for physical violence. Once there is abuse by either partner, there is a greater risk of continued re- ciprocal abuse. Stets (1991) found a high correlation for both genders between psy- chological abuse victimization and perpetration. The greatest risk factor for physical violence perpetration in the White, Merrill and Kos (2001) study of 2,784 Navy re- cruits was physical or psychological victimization by one’s partner. A recent study by Graham-Kevan and Archer (2005b) of 358 female students and staff at an English uni- versity found no correlation between fear and a woman’s use of severe violence. Sig- nificant effects, however, were found for reciprocal violence as a means of retribution or as the result of a desire to control one’s partner.

These studies suggest that intimate partner abuse is a complex phenomenon, driven by factors inherent in the individual (including culturally-derived attitudes and beliefs), situational variables, and the particular dynamics of the relationship. Recent studies on adult attachment are especially promising. As was the case with personality character- istics, research on attachment focused first on men (Dutton, 1998), and only later ex- panded to a consideration of the attachment styles of both partners and the interplay between them. Now we know that relationships in which one partner fears intimacy (avoidant or fearful attachment) and the other fears abandonment (preoccupied or fear- ful attachment) are at higher risk for physical abuse (Bartholomew, Henderson, & Dut- ton, 2001; Bookwala, 2002; Roberts & Noller, 1998), and that violence may be initiated by individuals with different attachment styles, and by either gender.

Longitudinal studies have found that many partner-abusive women, like men, bring to the relationship a history of aggressive tendencies, thus undermining the notion that their violence is always reactive. Capaldi, Kim, and Shortt (2004) followed a sample of 206 men in Oregon from adolescence, interviewing them in their mid-20’s and their intimate partners. The women were found to have been more violent than the men, based on self-reports and partner reports as well as from observation of the couples as they discussed a contentious topic. In the experimental situation, the women initiated more of the abuse (including physical assaults) and those with a history of previous antisocial behavior were the most abusive. A community cohort (N = 543 men and women) in upstate New York, which had been followed since childhood, was inter- viewed again at a mean age of 31 (Ehrensaft et al., 2006). Existence of DSM-IV Clus- ter A (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal) or Cluster B (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic) Axis II personality disorder symptoms at mean age 22 predicted perpetra- tion of IPV at age 31, for both men and women.

In their New Zealand study, Ehrensaft, Cohen and Johnson (2004) re-interviewed a birth cohort (N = 980 men and women) at age 24-26. Aggressive personality and con-

47

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

duct disorder in childhood predicted female-to-male adult IPV as well as male-to- female adult IPV. Given that the study examined both non-clinical and clinical cases and that men and women were equally represented in the latter, their findings directly con- tradicted Johnson’s view that men make up the overwhelming number of clinical cases. In the clinically abusive group consisting of subjects who had been injured and/or sought services (for example, called police, or sought medical attention or mental health counseling), the men were more likely to have been previously arrested, but the gen- ders did not differ from each other in seeking help, or the extent of their reported vic- timization or perpetration.

Johnson’s findings were challenged most recently and convincingly by a massive Canadian study involving 25,876 respondents (Laroche, 2005). In addition to ques- tions on physical assaults, the survey also asked respondents about victimization from the following psychologically abusive and controlling behaviors by their partner (sim- ilar to those in the Duluth Power and Control Wheel2): “Limits your contact with fam- ily or friends,” “Puts you down or calls you names to make you feel bad,” “Is jealous and doesn’t want you to talk to other men/women,” “Harms or threatens to harm some- one close to you,” “Demands to know who you are with and where you are at all times,” “Damages or destroys your possessions or property,” and “Prevents you from knowing about or having access to the family income, even if you ask.” Approximately 3 per- cent of the surveyed women and 2 percent of the men were counted as victims of se- vere intimate terrorism, defined as having experienced severe and frequent physical violence and high levels of psychological abuse and control, and who would fit Ehren- saft et al.’s (2004) “clinical abuse cases,” characterized by injuries sustained, fear ex- pressed, and use of police and other services. This means that men represent fully 40 percent of intimate terrorism victims (an underestimation considering the study’s methodology, akin to the NVAWS study in that its questionnaire framed IPV in terms of personal safety rather than conflict, thus suppressing male victimization rates) and “the inadequate assessment of controlling behaviors suffered by men” (Laroche, 2005, p. 11).

Impact of Abuse on Partners

The literature on the physical and psychological impact of partner abuse is ger- mane to any inquiry regarding symmetry versus asymmetry in IPV. In the 1985 National Family Violence Survey (NFVS) (Straus & Gelles, 1990), 3 percent of physically as- saulted women said they had suffered physical injuries severe enough to seek medical attention. The rate reported by men was 0.4 percent, which is seven-and-a-half times less. These statistics are often interpreted as evidence that men are rarely injured in do-

48

HAMEL

2 Based on interviews with female victims in a shelter setting, the “wheel” identified eight power and control tactics used by male batterers: using intimidation, using emotional abuse, using isolation, minimizing, denying and blaming, using children, using male privilege, using economic abuse, and using coercion and threats.

mestic violence incidents. However, the data refer to the number of individuals who sought medical attention, not necessarily those who needed it. Men are less inclined to seek medical help in general or to admit to having been injured by a woman (Archer, 2000). Also, the data reflect only severe injuries, not injuries in general. In the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), 41.5 percent of the fe- male and 19.9 percent of the victims reported injuries. The total number of individuals injured by their partners, according to Archer’s comprehensive review of the literature (2000), included 62 percent women and 38 percent men, a ratio somewhat less than 2:1. In Straus’ (2004) sample of students at 31 universities in 16 countries, the men incurred 43 percent of the physical injuries. The 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adoles- cent Health, with a sample of more than 11,000 young adults between the ages of 18 and 28, found that in reciprocally-violent relationships men incurred the majority of the physical injuries. Overall, women incurred more physical injuries, but the difference was quite small (Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007).

The NFVS (Straus & Gelles., 1990) found correlations for both men and women between assaults suffered and psychological injury, including days at home due to ill- ness, high stress, psychosomatic symptoms, and depression. The effects were greater for the women, but statistically significant only for depression. Follingstad et al.’s (1991) study of dating couples reported three times greater fear and anxiety by as- saulted women than assaulted men. Fifty-six and one-half percent of the women and 38.8 percent of the men reported being emotionally hurt. The incidence of sadness or depression was more equal, reported by 34.7 percent of the men and 35.5 percent of the women. Depending on what year they were interviewed for the National Youth Survey (Morse, 1995), 9.5-13.5 percent of the men said they “felt in physical danger,” com- pared with 29.0-30.1 percent of the women. A survey of 2,027 adults in the United Kingdom (Graham, Plant, & Plant, 2004) found similar results, with women reporting fear at twice the rate as men, especially when the man was the sole perpetrator and had been drinking. However, the actual psychological distress suffered by men may be higher than the data tell us on reported levels of fear. Society socializes men to suppress feelings that render them vulnerable. Men tend to under-report assaults against them and are highly reluctant to being perceived as victims (Archer, 1999; Follingstad et al., 1991).

Anectdotal data suggests that when men admit to being victimized by their wives, they are often met with ridicule and scorn (Cook, 1997). Hines and Malley-Morrison (2001) point out that most research on the effects of violence focus on internalizing symptoms, such as depression, which are typically reported with greater frequency by women, and they recommend that research also look at externalizing symptoms. There also appear to be minimal differences between the genders when the impact of emo- tionally-abusive and controlling behaviors is considered. As Hines and Malley-Morri- son found, emotionally abused men are more likely to evidence symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and problem drinking than those who have not been abused. A recent analysis of the NVAWS data (Pimlott-Kubiak & Cortina, 2003) found high correlations for both genders between having incurred physical and/or psy-

49

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

chological abuse and depression, chemical dependency, and physical illness. In a pio- neering study of 57 partner violent couples who had come to a clinic for counseling (Vi- vian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994), men and women rated the impact of receiving psychological abuse equally negatively, and reported “similar and elevated levels of depressive symptomology” (p. 118). Harned’s (2001) college dating sample reported that received emotional abuse (insults, humiliation, degradation), isolation, intimidation or threats and economic abuse predicted more types of psychological distress (depres- sion, anxiety and PTSD) than physical aggression, for both male and female IPV vic- tims.

According to Hamberger (2005), discrepancies in experienced fear are important because fear changes the dynamics of a relationship and promotes gender asymmetry:

A number of scholars in the field have identified fear induction as the pri- mary mechanism through which partner achieves control … that is, the victim is fearful of injury, death, or some other untoward consequence of the violence, and strives to bring their behavior into compliance with the demands of the abuser to end the violence or threat. (p. 133)

Because women report more fear, men are presumed to exercise more control. This is true to some extent, but the point may be overstated. First, as noted above, men are reluctant to express vulnerability of any kind, especially fear. Second, because of their greater ability to protect themselves, men generally have less reason to fear physical harm. However, considering that assaultive women often attack their partners when they are intoxicated, asleep or otherwise not expecting it (Mann, 1988), this point, too, is overstated. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that men are not equally afraid of emotional harm. The reader is asked to consider which partner’s behavior is the most inhibited, the woman who keeps quiet after her husband punches a hole in the wall and glares at her, or the man who keeps quiet out of fear that his wife will call him a “loser” in front of his friends, ridicule the size of his penis, or threaten to leave and take the chil- dren with her. The extent to which the use of emotional abuse and control actually in- hibits a partner’s behavior or disrupts their daily activities is a question that has yet to be empirically investigated.

Minimization of Female-Perpetrated Violence

In spite of the convincing evidence so far presented, many researchers minimize abuse against men, often drawing conclusions that seem unrelated to their own data. As discussed earlier, the women in Henning et al.’s (2003) study of BIP participants scored higher than the men on 8 of 14 Axis II personality disorders, many of them associated with IPV perpetration. The researchers did not ask the clients or their partners about as- sault rates or their motives for violence. They did ask about relationship satisfaction, which emerged as a factor for both the male and the female offenders. Based on this finding, and the male and female partners’ similar histories of childhood origin of abuse, the researchers came to this rather curious conclusion:

50

HAMEL

Although the rate of dissatisfaction was similar between the men and the women, it is possible that the reasons for their low relationship sat- isfaction are different. Female offenders are more likely to have been dually arrested than males (Henning & Feder, in press), and many of the women in reality may be victims rather than primary aggressors in their relationships. (p. 851)

In a study by Swan and Snow (2002) of 108 partner-violent women, the subjects admitted to having been more physically and emotionally assaultive than their part- ners, yet the authors determined that only 12 percent of these women were the aggres- sors. This dubious conclusion was reached because the authors accorded equal weight to isolation-type control tactics and acts of physical violence. As reported by the women, men used such tactics 75 percent more often. The women’s use of violence and emotional abuse was not regarded as “coercive.” The authors admit that the instrument used to gauge coercive control, the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory, was designed to measure men’s behaviors (for example, “Get upset if housework was not done when you wanted,” and “Demand partner stay home and take care of the chil- dren”), and recommend that “a new scale particular to women’s violence is needed” (p. 312). Despite this caution, they determined that the women were victims of abuse at a rate three times that of men. Women who assaulted and emotionally abused their mates were deemed “violent resisters” to male abuse. Self-defense is assumed, even though the women were never asked about it. “Women’s violent behavior,” the authors con- cluded, “can only be understood when placed in the context of their male partner’s vi- olence against them” (p. 310).

In the broader sense, they are correct. Consider the study by Langhinrichsen- Rohling, Neidig, and Thorn (1995), which found that 83 percent of men arrested for bat- tering had been involved in mutually violent relationships, or the high rates of physical and psychological abuse by the female partners noted in the research by Stacey, Hazel- wood, and Shupe (1994) on male batterers. With their study, Swan and Snow (2000) merely confirm the fact that most partner violence is mutual.

In the April, 2005, special issue of the journal Violence and Victims, Feder and Henning (2005) reported on a study of 317 couples dually arrested for IPV, most of them African-American. Criminal justice data revealed no differences between the part- ners in injuries inflicted or weapons used. Interview data revealed no differences in in- cidence of physical assault. Women were more likely to use a weapon, but to suffer slightly higher rates of injuries (19.6 percent vs. 15.0 percent). There were no gender differences in overall psychological abuse or coercive control tactics. However, be- cause the men had more serious arrest records and history of substance abuse, and had engaged in higher rates of sexual coercion, the authors concluded:

The above findings could be used to argue that many of these dually ar- rested women might have been engaged in mutual combat but were in- stead defending themselves. While the design of the present study cannot ultimately answer whether the women were acting in self-defense, our

51

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

findings are consistent with past research indicating greater defensive aggression on the part of females. (p. 167)

Some of the women undoubtedly were acting in self-defense, but this study is more in line with past research, reviewed earlier in this paper, that found self-defense to be not a primary motive. The reader will note that the authors did not speculate as to whether many of the men may have been acting in self-defense.

In another article from that special issue, Kernsmith (2005) reported on a study which compared male and female participants in batterer treatment. Unlike the studies discussed above, this one specifically asked the subjects about self-defense. No sig- nificant differences were found between the genders in the frequency that each group reported self-defense as a motive for their violence. The women were more likely than the men to aggress for reasons of retaliation, to “discipline” their partner (“Get your partner to do what you wanted,” “Punish your partner”), and to exert power and con- trol. Retaliation, however, was a more common motive for women than a desire to exert power and control. “These findings,” the authors concluded, “may indicate that females are not generally the primary aggressor in the abusive incidents and may, in- stead, be responding to a partner’s aggression” (p. 179). They do not mention that the men, too, were more likely to endorse retaliation over coercion.

Impact of Abuse on Children

A number of researchers have investigated the effects that witnessing IPV has on children’s emotional development. Child witnesses have been found to be 5-7 times at greater risk to develop internalizing symptoms (depression, anxiety, PTSD) and exter- nalizing symptoms (conduct disorder and academic problems) than other children (Cummings & Davies, 1994). Until very recently, this research has examined only the impact of father’s violence. Easy access to shelters, which serve exclusively female residents and their children, in combination with the stifling effects of the dominant patriarchal paradigm, no doubt accounted for this selective sampling. Fathers who hit their spouses were also found to be at greater risk for abusing their children and their violence was found to have a “spillover” effect on the family system, because the mother, stressed and depressed as a result of the beatings, sometimes neglected or abused the children herself (Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998).

In the past few years, a handful of studies have examined the role of both parents as perpetrators of IPV and child abuse. Witnessing IPV by either parent predicted dat- ing violence in a study of 1,965 middle and high school students in rural North Carolina (Foshee, Bauman, & Linder, 1999). A sample of 232 families with an adolescent re- ferred to a mental health clinic (Mahoney, Donnelly, Boxer, & Lewis, 2003) yielded sig- nificant correlations, based on mothers’ reports, between both father-to-mother and mother-to-father IPV and defiant, antisocial behavior by the adolescent. Based on ado- lescents’ reports, significant correlations were also found between parental IPV and adolescent internal distress. Moretti, Odgers, and Obsuth’s (2006) study of 112 delin- quent juveniles found correlations between previous exposure to interparental aggres-

52

HAMEL

sion initiated by the mother and perpetration of dating violence by both boys and girls. There were no such effects for father-perpetrated IPV. An analysis of the first NFVS found that child witnesses to parental IPV also are at risk for assaulting their parents, especially the mothers, but only in families in which the IPV is either bidirectional or unilaterally perpetrated by the mother (Ullman & Straus, 2003). Research with adults disputing child custody (Johnston & Roseby, 1997) found other negative consequences of father- or mother-perpetrated IPV on the family, such as the blurring of boundaries between the parental and child subsystems.

Partner-assaultive mothers and fathers are equally likely to hit their children (Mar- golin & Gordis, 2003; Straus & Smith, 1990). Slep and O’Leary’s (2005) representa- tive sample study of 453 couples with young children in New York found that bi-directional partner aggression occurred in 65 percent of the families, and that 51 percent of couples engaged in both partner and child abuse. The “battering dad” pat- tern in which the father assaults the mother, and one or both parents physically abuse the child, accounted for only 2 percent of families with severe violence. Which type of abuse is most traumatic on children?

The domestic violence literature generally finds greater effects for witnessed IPV (Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003). Some Child Protective Services (CPS) studies have found the opposite (Salzinger, Feldman, Ing-mak, Mojica, Stockhammer, & Rosario, 2002). English, Marshall, and Stewart (2003) reported on a cohort of 261 children and their mothers referred to CPS for parental abuse and neglect. The moth- ers were asked about IPV, perpetrated and received, as well as the extent to which they physically abused their children, to determine their effects on the children’s adjustment as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist. Neither mother’s depression nor levels of perpetrated or received IPV were significantly correlated with psychopathology in the child. But echoing similar findings from Moore and Pepler (1998), a significant ef- fect was found for mother’s verbal abuse of the child.

The effects of having grown up in a violent home, in which either of the parents is abusive, have a lasting impact on a child, increasing the likelihood that he or she will perpetrate IPV in adulthood. Both the partner-abusive men and partner-abusive women interviewed in Kaura and Allen’s (2004) study of dating students had grown up in vi- olent homes. The women were more likely to have experienced child abuse at the hands of their father, and the women to have experienced such abuse at the hands of their mother. Sommer’s (1994) Winnepeg survey also found correlations between witness- ing interparental abuse and adult intimate partner violence, as did Jankowski, Leiten- berg, Henning, and Coffey’s (1999) study of 1,576 dating college students. Research by Straus (1992) actually found higher IPV rates among adults who had witnessed mother-perpetrated violence, compared to violence perpetrated by fathers.

The Future of IPV Research and Policy

Theoretical works by Felson (2002), Mills (2003), Dutton (2006) and others (see Hamel & Nicholls, 2007) call for radical changes in IPV theory and intervention. New clinical manuals (Hamel, 2005a; Hamel & Nicholls, 2007) offer alternative, research-

53

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

based intervention strategies that seek to more fairly and effectively address the prob- lem of intimate partner abuse in the community. Additional research, according to Holtzworth-Munroe (2005) should

begin to consider the complex interrelationship and dyadic interactional processes between female and male violence within a relationship, hope- fully leading to better understanding of the relationship between these two forms of aggression. Finally, others in the field may choose to study only female violence, as there is a strong need for the development of theories and the gathering of data regarding female aggression .... We should not have to continue work comparing violent males and females (in our attempt to prove that male violence is worse); rather, some re- searchers should now feel free to study female aggression as a topic in its own right. (p. 258)

We would also call for further research on the effects of IPV on the family system. In the meantime, however, is has become evident that “the science has moved well be- yond the policy. It is time for the policy to change” (Dutton & Corvo, 2005, p. 32). There is no doubt that women are physically affected more by IPV than are men, suf- fering a greater share of injuries, especially those that are life-threatening. Because of this and women’s greater fear of physical harm, it cannot be said that “domestic vio- lence is the same” between the genders. However, in light of similar etiology, the com- parable rates of both physical and psychological abuse and coercive tactics, and how they affect men and women, the consequences of mother-perpetrated IPV on children, the family system, and the intergenerational transmission of violence, women’s higher rates of injuries ought not be cited as an excuse to maintain the status quo. Women suf- fer greater physical injury not because men are meaner or more privileged, pathologi- cal or controlling, and “not necessarily because men strike more often, but because men strike harder” (Morse, 1995, p. 269). That men strike harder means that safety planning should be a relatively greater concern for female victims and that women will require the greater share of shelter beds. It does not, however, justify the dispropor- tionately high rates of arrest and mandatory treatment for men relative to women (Hamel, 2005b; Price & Rosenbaum, 2007), or the scant availability of services for male victims (Young, Cook, Smith, Turteltaub, & Hazlewood, 2007). Surely, we can do better.

References

Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Inter- personal Violence, 14(12), 1263-1289.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680.

54

HAMEL

Babcock, J., Miller, S., & 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, 13, 46-59.

Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A., & Dutton, D. (2001). Insecure attachment and abusive inti- mate relationships. In C. Culow (Ed.), Adult attachment and couple psychotherapy (pp. 43- 61). New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Bookwala, J. (2002). Adult attachment styles and aggressive behaviors in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 175-190.

Cano, A., Avery-Leaf, S., Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K. (1998). Dating violence in two high school samples: Discriminating variables. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18(4), 431-446.

Capaldi, D., Kim, H., & Shortt, J. (2004). Women’s involvement in aggression in young adult ro- mantic relationships. In M. Pullatz (Ed.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls (pp. 223-241). New York: Guilford.

Carrado, M., George, M., Loxam, F., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British het- erosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415.

Coker, A, Davis, K., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H., & Smith, P. (2002). Physi- cal and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventitive Medicine, 23(4), 260-268.

Coleman, V. (1994). Lesbian battering: The relationship between personality and perpetration of violence. Violence and victims, 9(2), 139-152.

Cook, P. (1997). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Maternal depression and child development. Journal

of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 73-112. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy.

New York: The Free Press. Dutton, D. (1998). The abusive personality. New York: Guilford. Dutton, D. (2005). Domestic abuse assessment in child custody disputes: Beware the domestic

violence research paradigm. Journal of Child Custody, 2, 23-42. Dutton, D. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence. Vancouver, B.C.: UBC Press. Dutton, D., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and

science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 457- 483.

Ehrensaft, M., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. (2006). Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk for partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(3), 474-483.

Ehrensaft, M., Moffit, T., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 258-270.

English, D., Marshall, D., & Stewart, A. (2003). Effects of family violence on child behavior and health during early childhood. Journal of Family Violence, 18(1), 43-57.

Feder, L., & Henning, K. (2005). A comparison of male and female dually arrested domestic vi- olence offenders. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 153-171.

Felson, R. (2002). Violence & gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Follingstad, D, Wright, S., Lloyd, S, & Sebastian, J. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating relationships. Family Relations, 40, 51-57.

55

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

Follingstad, D., Bradley, R., Helff, C., & Laughlin, J. (2002). A model for predicting dating vi- olence: Anxious attachment, angry temperament and a need for relationship control. Violence and Victims, 17(1), 35-47.

Foshee, V., Bauman, K., & Linder, F. (1999). Family violence and the preparation of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(2), 331-342.

Goldner, V. (1998). The treatment of violence and victimization in intimate relationships. Fam- ily Process, 37(3), 263-286.

Graham, K., Plant, M., & Plant, M. (2004). Alcohol, gender and partner aggression: A general population study of British adults. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 385-401.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1247-1270.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005a). Using Johnson’s domestic violence typology to clas- sify men and women in a non-selected sample. Journal of Abnormal Behavior, 10, 680-714.

Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005b). Investigating three explanations of women’s relation- ship aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 270-277.

Hamberger, K. (2005). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: Toward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 131-151.

Hamel, J. (2005a). Gender-inclusive treatment of intimate partner abuse: A comprehensive ap- proach. New York: Springer.

Hamel, J. (2005b). Fixing only part of the problem: Public policy and batterer intervention. Fam- ily Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 21(2/3), 18-27.

Hamel, J. (2007a). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part I - Traditional perspectives. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6(1), 36- 53.

Hamel, J. (2007b). Domestic violence: A gender-inclusive conception. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 3-26). New York: Springer.

Hamel, J., & Nicholls, T. (2007). Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gen- der inclusive theory and treatment. New York: Springer.

Harned, M. (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., & Holdford, R. (2003). Treatment needs of women arrested for domes- tic violence: A comparison with male offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(8), 839-856.

Hines, D., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: A neglected research area. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2(2), 75-85.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Female perpetration of physical aggression against an intimate partner: A controversial new topic of study. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 251-259.

Jacobsen, N., & Gottman, J. (1998). When men batter women. New York: Simon & Shuster. Jakupcak, M. (2003). Masculine gender role stress and men’s fear of emotions and as predictors

of relationship violence. Violence and Victims, 18, 533-541. Jankowski, M., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K., & Coffey, P. (1999). Intergenerational transmission

of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents vs. opposite sex par- ents vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 267-279.

56

HAMEL

Johnson, M. (2000). Conflict and control: Symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Paper prepared for the National Institute of Justice Gender Symmetry Workshop, Arlington, VA.

Johnson, M., & Leone, J. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational cou- ple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Fam- ily Issues, 26(3), 322-349.

Johnston, J., & Campbell, L. (1993). A clinical typology of interpersonal violence in disputed- custody cases. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(2), 190-199.

Johnston, J., & Roseby, V. (1997). In the name of the child. New York: The Free Press. Kalichman, S. (1988). MMPI profiles of women and men convicted of domestic homicide. Jour-

nal of Clinical Psychology, 44(6), 847-853. Kaura, S., & Allen, C. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence per-

petration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(5), 576-588. Kernsmith, P. (2005). Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations

for domestic violence perpetration. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 173-185. Kitzmann, K., Gaylord, N., Holt, A., & Kenny, E. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence:

A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 339-352. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Violent marriages: Gender differ-

ences in levels of current violence and past abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 10(2), 159-175. Laroche, D. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence: Situational

couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Institut de la Statistique du Que- bec. Available from http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca

Magdol, L., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Fagan, J., & Silva, P. (1997). Gender differences in partner vi- olence in a birth cohort of 21 year olds: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiolog- ical approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68-78.

Mahoney, A., Donnelly, W., Boxer, P., & Lewis, T. (2003). Marital and severe parent-to- adolescent physical aggression in clinic-referred families: Mother and adolescent reports on co-occurrence and links to child behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(1), 3- 19.

Mann, C. (1988). Getting even? Justice Quarterly, 5, 33-51. Margolin, G., & Gordis, E. (2003). Co-occurrence between marital aggression and parents’ child

abuse potential: The impact of cumulative stress. Violence and Victims, 18(3), 243-258. Medeiros, R., & Straus, M. (2006). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners:

Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-in- clusive theory and treatment (pp. 59-86). New York: Springer.

Mills, L. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Moore, T., & Pepler, D. (1998). Correlates of adjustment in children at risk. In G. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to domestic violence (pp. 157-184). Wash- ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Moretti, M., Odgers, C., & Obsuth, I. (2006). Exposure to maternal versus paternal partner vio- lence and aggression in adolescent girls and boys: The moderating role of PTSD. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 385-395.

Morse, B. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10(4), 251-269.

57

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT

O’Leary, K. D. (1988). Physical aggression in spouses: A social learning theory perspective. In R. Van Hasselt, R. Morrison, A. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of family violence (pp. 31-55). New York: Plenum Press.

Pence, E. (1999). Some thoughts on philosophy. In M. Shepard & E. Pence (Eds.), Coordinat- ing community responses to domestic violence (pp. 25-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.

Pimlott-Kubiak, S., & Cortina, M. (2003). Gender, victimization and outcomes: Reconceptual- izing risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 528-539.

Potter-Efron, R. (2005). Handbook of anger management: Individual, couple, family, and group approaches. New York: Haworth Press.

Price, B., & Rosenbaum, A. (2007, July). National survey of batterer intervention programs. Paper presented at the International Family Violence and Child Victimization Research con- ference, Portsmouth, NH.

Riggs, D., O’Leary, K. D., & Breslin, F. C. (1990). Multiple correlated of physical aggression in dating couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(1), 61-73.

Roberts, N., & Noller, P. (1998). The association between adult attachment and couple violence. In J. Simpson & W. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 317-350). New York: Guilford.

Salzinger, S., Feldman, R., Ing-mak, D., Mojica, E., Stockhammer, T., & Rosario, M. (2002). Ef- fects of partner violence and physical child abused on child behavior: A study of abused and comparison children. Journal of Family Violence, 17(1), 23-52.

Shupe, A., Stacey, W., & Hazlewood, L. (1987). Violent men, violent couples: The dynamics of domestic violence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Simmons, C., Lehmann, P., & Cobb, N. (2004). Personality profiles & attitudes toward vio- lenceof women arrested for domestic violence: How they differ from and are similar to men arrested for domestic violence. Paper presented at the 9th FVSAI International Conference on Family Violence, San Diego, CA.

Slep, A., & O’Leary, S. G. (2005). Parent and partner violence in families with young children: Rates, patterns, and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 435- 444.

Sommer, R. (1994). Male and female perpetrated partner abuse. Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Manitoba. University Microfilms International.

Stacey, W., Hazelwood, L., & Shupe, A. (1994). The violent couple. Westport, CT: Praeger. Stets, J. (1991). Psychological aggression in dating relationships: The role of interpersonal con-

trol. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 97-114. Straus, M., & Gelles, R. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, N.J.:

Transaction Publishers. Straus, M. (1992, September). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for life-

long problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. Re- port of the 23rd Ross Roundtable on Critical Approaches to Common Pediatric Problems, M5796.

Straus, M. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women. In X. Arriaga & S. Os- kamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17-44). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Straus, M. (2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790-811.

58

HAMEL

Straus, M., & Smith, C. (1990). Family patterns and child abuse. In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 245-262). New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

Straus, M., Gelles, R., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Swan, S., & Snow, D. (2002). A typology of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(3), 286-319.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner vio- lence. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181867.

Ullman, A., & Straus, M. (2003). Violence by children against mothers in relation to violence be- tween parents and corporal punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 41-60.

Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A gender-sensitive comparison. Violence and Victims, 9(2), 107-124.

Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row. Whitaker, J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. (2007). Differences in frequency of vi-

olence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 941-947.

White, J., Merrill, L., & Koss, M. (2001). Predictors of courtship violence in a Navy recruit sam- ple. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 61-73.

Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (1998). Children exposed to partner violence. In J. Jasinski & L. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research (pp. 184- 209). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yllo, K. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In R. Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park, N.J.: Sage.

Young, C., Cook, P., Smith, S., Turteltaub, J., & Hazlewood, L. (2007). Domestic violence: New visions, new solutions. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic vi- olence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 601-620). New York: Springer.

59

TOWARD A GENDER-INCLUSIVE CONCEPT