In a 3–5 page paper, identify and describe four major areas of domestic violence in America. Compare those same four major problem areas that of at least four other cultures. Major points should be clearly stated and well supported with facts, details, an
fallgcrldis5
contentserver.pdf
Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence Outcomes
Jennifer E. Caldwell, Suzanne C. Swan, and V. Diane Woodbrown University of South Carolina
Objective: This paper proposes a conceptual model for gender differences in outcomes of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, broadly conceived as including physical, sexual, emotional, and coercive control forms of abuse, as well as stalking. Method: Literature review of PsycInfo and PubMed databases. Results: The literature reviewed suggests these negative effects are not equally distributed by gender—studies indicate that women suffer disproportionately from IPV, especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress. The review also finds that women experience greater decreases in relationship satisfaction as a result of IPV. Conclusions: Our review largely supports the contention of feminist theory that gender matters— but we would go further and say that what really matters is power; gender matters because it is so highly correlated with power. We propose that, due to cultural factors that typically ascribe higher status to the male gender, and men’s greater size and strength compared to women (on average), women are more likely than men to encounter contextual factors that disempower them and put them in situations—such as sexual abuse—that increase their risk of poor outcomes.
Keywords: intimate partner violence, gender differences, gender symmetry, feminist theory, power
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a costly and debilitating health and social concern for families, communities, mental and physical health practitioners, the criminal justice system, policymakers, and society at large. In the past, IPV was conceptualized primarily as something men do to women; however, recent research has demonstrated that IPV is much more complex and multidimensional, defying simplistic expla- nations. For instance, gender symmetry, the no- tion that women are similarly or more aggres- sive than males in their intimate relationships (Johnson, 2006; Melton & Belknap, 2003; Straus, 2006; White, 2009), seems to apply for some types of IPV, but not others. Numerous studies have found that women commit equal (e.g., Katz, Kuffel, & Coblentz, 2002) or higher (Archer, 2000; Magdol et al., 1997) rates of physical aggression toward partners as com-
pared to men, supporting gender symmetry the- ory. However, feminist theory, which views IPV as a gendered issue, is supported by studies finding that, relative to men, women experience more injuries (Archer, 2000), sexual victimiza- tion (Coker et al., 2002; Harned, 2001; Romito & Grassi, 2007; Slashinski, Coker, & Davis, 2003), and stalking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) from current and former intimate partners. In addition, law enforcement reports find that 75% of domestic violence offenders are male (Sny- der & McCurley, 2008), and on a typical day in the United States, approximately three females, compared to one male, are the victims of inti- mate partner homicide (Domestic Violence Re- source Center, 2011). These findings indicate that IPV is not the same phenomenon for men and women. This paper examines gender sym- metry versus feminist theories in relation to two research questions: 1. Do outcomes differ for women and men who have been victimized by IPV? 2. If outcomes do differ by gender, why? These are important questions that affect policy, prevention, and intervention efforts to address IPV.
The controversy between gender symmetry and feminist theorists on gender differences in IPV perpetration and victimization has
This article was published Online First November 14, 2011. Jennifer E. Caldwell, Suzanne C. Swan, and V. Diane
Woodbrown, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Suzanne Swan, Department of Psychology, Univer- sity of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: [email protected]
Psychology of Violence © 2011 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 2, No. 1, 42–57 2152-0828/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0026296
42
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
wide-ranging implications that go far beyond a dialogue of back and forth in empirical journals. The findings of each side’s studies are used to influence funding decisions and policy. For instance, men’s and “fathers’ rights groups” have made attempts to impact victim services for female victims of IPV (Dragiewicz, 2008; Rosen, Dragiewicz, & Gibbs, 2009). They advocate for “formal equality” (Dragiewicz, 2008, p. 130) and make the claim that men are just as likely to be victims as women, based on gender sym- metry studies. Such groups have promoted gender neutrality in IPV policy and funding, and have filed lawsuits against various victim services (Dragiewicz, 2008; Rosen et al., 2009). If the impact of IPV does not differ by gender, and the gender symmetry notion that equivalent numbers of men and women are victimized by IPV is true, then gender neu- trality in IPV policy and funding makes sense. If, however, feminist theorists are correct that women suffer greater negative consequences from IPV as compared to men, gender neu- trality is not a reasonable approach to IPV policy and funding.
To answer our first research question— do outcomes differ for women and men who have been victimized by IPV?—we review the em- pirical literature on the negative effects of IPV for men and women, focusing on the following outcomes of IPV: injuries, poor physical health, depression/anxiety, posttraumatic stress, sub- stance abuse, and decreased relationship satis- faction. For the second research question—if outcomes do differ by gender, why?—we ex- amine theoretical explanations for gender dif- ferences in effects of IPV victimization and propose a conceptual model of effects of IPV victimization. We also end up rejecting the no- tion that women experience more negative effects because of an inherent “feminine vulner- ability” that predisposes women to greater post- traumatic stress and other poor outcomes. Rather, we find support for women’s situational vulnerability, the idea that women are more likely than men to encounter contextual factors that disempower them, and put them in situa- tions—such as sexual abuse—that increase risk of poor outcomes (Cortina & Pimlott-Kubiak, 2006).
Gender and IPV Victimization Outcomes
Theories of gender describe cultural norms that support men’s greater power in most inter- actions with women, including intimate rela- tionships (Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999; Stark, 2006). Traditional gender socialization in virtually all cultures stipulates that men have a right to authority in their families and over their female partners (Anderson, 2002; Anderson & Umberson, 2001; Dobash & Dobash, 1998). Aside from men’s greater power as a result of cultural norms, men are also typically larger and stronger than their female partners. Thus, men will have greater physical power than their fe- male partners in most cases. Likely due to these factors, numerous studies have found that women report greater fear of violent male part- ners, as compared to men with violent female partners (Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Neidig, & Thorn, 1995; Walton et al., 2007). For example, Phelan and colleagues (2005) found that 70% of female victims in their sample were “very frightened” in response to physical aggression from their partners, but 85% of male victims endorsed “no fear” in response to IPV. Similarly, in the Na- tional Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), women who were stalked were 13 times more likely than men who were stalked to be “very afraid” of the stalker (Davis, Coker, & Sanderson, 2002). These factors provide a con- text for IPV in which women may be at greater risk of detrimental outcomes of IPV, as com- pared to men.
Limitations of the Literature
An important question raised by this litera- ture review is as follows. Is the effect being examined actually caused by IPV? Or, was it caused by something else, such as depression or poor health that existed before the IPV oc- curred? A limitation of the literature is that most of the studies we review are cross-sectional; it is unclear from these studies if IPV caused the effect that is examined, or the effect caused IPV, or (most likely) the relationship is recip- rocal. However, for convenience, we refer to effects as outcomes throughout the paper. A second limitation of the literature is that only some of the studies examining outcomes of IPV victimization directly assessed gender differ-
43SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
ences by conducting gender � victimization interactions, thus controlling for baseline gen- der differences. That is, a finding that female victims are more likely to experience depression than male victims may simply reflect the fact that women are, on average, twice as likely to suffer from depression as compared to men (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). The gender � vic- timization interaction term eliminates this pos- sibility. However, many studies did not conduct gender � victimization interactions and did not test differences in effect sizes by gender. Find- ings from these studies are less clear. Through- out the paper, we note which studies conducted gender � victimization interactions. A third limitation is that while most studies examined covariates that could account for outcomes, such as childhood abuse or socioeconomic in- dicators, some did not. The studies that did not control for covariates are noted.
We now turn to the empirical literature to examine gender differences/similarities in out- comes of IPV. Articles for this literature review were found in the PsycInfo and PubMed.gov databases. The search terms used were various combinations of depression, anxiety, posttrau- matic stress, injuries, substance abuse, relation- ship satisfaction, physical health, psychological health, mental health, outcomes, consequences, health consequences, aggression, violence, do- mestic violence, abuse, men, women, dating violence, IPV, partner violence, partner aggres- sion, couples aggression, male victims, male victimization, female perpetration, gender dif- ferences, and gender.
Injuries
Almost all studies have shown more injuries as a result of IPV for female victims (Archer, 2000; Bookwala, Sobin, & Zdaniuk, 2005; Cho & Wilke, 2010; Hamberger, 2005; Krahé, Bie- neck, & Moller, 2005; Morse, 1995; Phelan et al., 2005; Romans, Forte, Cohen, Du Mont, & Hyman, 2007; Walby & Allen, 2004; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007), includ- ing injuries requiring medical attention (Ehren- saft, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2004; Hamberger, 2005; Morse, 1995). In a national sample of adults from the NVAWS, Arias and Corso (2005) found almost 21% of male and around 39% of female victims had been injured during the lat- est occurrence of IPV. Most injuries were not
severe, but almost all injuries, from nonsevere to severe, occurred in female victims more often than males (Arias & Corso, 2005). However, Fergusson et al. (2005) found no gender differ- ence in injuries for individuals who experienced IPV, using longitudinal data from an unselected sample. The lack of gender differences in inju- ries in the Fergusson et al. study may be due to floor effects— only 3.9% of women and 3.3% of men in the sample experienced injuries due to IPV. As the authors stated, “the range of do- mestic violence studied within this cohort was confined to relatively mild or moderate inci- dents of violence . . . extreme violence involv- ing severe injury or death was not present with sufficient frequency for analysis” (p. 1106).
Physical Health Outcomes
Numerous physical health consequences of IPV victimization for women have been noted in the literature. Studies with female victims have found links between IPV and poor general health (Campbell, 2002; Plichta, 2004) and functioning (Campbell, 2002; Krahé et al., 2005), disability (Krahé et al., 2005; Plichta, 2004), and frequent receipt of medical treatment (Campbell, 2002; Plichta, 2004). Very few stud- ies examine male victims. Using NVAWS data, Coker, Weston, Creson, Justice, and Blakeney (2005) reported that 13% of female and 10% of male IPV victims reported poor health.
Only one study examining physical health outcomes of IPV victimization conducted gen- der � victimization interactions (Porcerelli et al., 2003). See Table 1 for an overview of study findings for health and all subsequent outcomes. This study of family practice patients found that women who were victimized by partners re- ported more physical symptoms than women who were not victims. There was no impact of victimization from partners on men’s physical symptoms. Other studies that did not directly compare effect sizes by gender found negative health outcomes for male and female victims, as compared to nonvictims (Coker et al., 2002; Fletcher, 2010). Using time-corrected data so that illnesses developed prior to victimization were excluded, Coker et al. (2002) found, after controlling for childhood victimization and other relevant variables, that both male and fe- male victims of physical, sexual, or psycholog- ical aggression (especially coercive control)
44 CALDWELL, SWAN, AND WOODBROWN
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
T ab
le 1
S u m
m a ry
T a b le
o f
S tu
d y
F in
d in
g s
fo r
E a ch
O u tc
o m
e
O ut
co m
e
F em
al e
vi ct
im s
m or
e li
ke ly
to ex
pe ri
en ce
ou tc
om e;
st ud
y co
nd uc
te d
ge nd
er �
vi ct
im iz
at io
n in
te ra
ct io
ns
F em
al e
vi ct
im s
m or
e li
ke ly
to ex
pe ri
en ce
ou tc
om e;
S tu
dy di
d no
t di
re ct
ly co
m pa
re ef
fe ct
si ze
s by
ge nd
er
O ut
co m
e oc
cu rr
ed fo
r bo
th ge
nd er
s; st
ud y
co nd
uc te
d ge
nd er
� vi
ct im
iz at
io n
in te
ra ct
io ns
O ut
co m
e oc
cu rr
ed fo
r bo
th ge
nd er
s; S
tu dy
di d
no t
di re
ct ly
co m
pa re
ef fe
ct si
ze s
by ge
nd er
M al
e vi
ct im
s m
or e
li ke
ly to
ex pe
ri en
ce ou
tc om
e; S
tu dy
di d
no t
di re
ct ly
co m
pa re
ef fe
ct si
ze s
by ge
nd er
O ut
co m
e oc
cu rr
ed fo
r ne
it he
r ge
nd er
H ea
lt h
P or
ce re
ll i
et al
., 20
03 C
ok er
et al
., 20
02 R
om it
o &
G ra
ss i,
20 07
S la
sh in
sk i
et al
., 20
03 F
le tc
he r,
20 10
D ep
re ss
io n
A n
d er
so n
, 20
02 R
om it
o &
G ra
ss i,
20 07
P or
ce re
ll i
et al
., 20
03 R
ob er
ts et
al .,
20 03
no ne
H ar
n ed
, 20
01 (s
ig ni
fi ca
nt ge
nd er
� vi
ct im
iz at
io n
in te
ra ct
io n
fo r
ps yc
ho lo
gi ca
l an
d ph
ys ic
al ab
us e)
S la
sh in
sk i
et al
., 20
03 F
er gu
ss on
et al
., 20
05 C
ok er
et al
., 20
02
W al
to n
et al
., 20
07 E
hr en
sa ft
et al
., 20
06 M
ag d
ol et
al .,
19 97
F le
tc he
r, 20
10
W on
g et
al .,
20 08
A nx
ie ty
M ag
d ol
et al
., 19
97 R
om it
o &
G ra
ss i,
20 07
(s ym
pt om
s of
pa ni
c at
ta ck
)
F er
gu ss
on et
al .,
20 05
no ne
H ar
n ed
, 20
01 (s
ig ni
fi ca
nt ge
nd er
� vi
ct im
iz at
io n
fo r
ps yc
ho lo
gi ca
l ab
us e)
E hr
en sa
ft et
al .,
20 06
H ar
n ed
, 20
01 (n
o ge
nd er
� vi
ct im
iz at
io n
in te
ra ct
io n
fo r
ph ys
ic al
ab us
e) P
T S
D H
ar n
ed ,
20 01
(s ig
ni fi
ca nt
ge nd
er �
vi ct
im iz
at io
n in
te ra
ct io
n fo
r ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
an d
ph ys
ic al
ab us
e)
no ne
C ok
er et
al .,
20 05
E hr
en sa
ft et
al .,
20 06
45SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
T ab
le 1
(c o n ti
n u ed
)
O ut
co m
e
F em
al e
vi ct
im s
m or
e li
ke ly
to ex
pe ri
en ce
ou tc
om e;
st ud
y co
nd uc
te d
ge nd
er �
vi ct
im iz
at io
n in
te ra
ct io
ns
F em
al e
vi ct
im s
m or
e li
ke ly
to ex
pe ri
en ce
ou tc
om e;
S tu
dy di
d no
t di
re ct
ly co
m pa
re ef
fe ct
si ze
s by
ge nd
er
O ut
co m
e oc
cu rr
ed fo
r bo
th ge
nd er
s; st
ud y
co nd
uc te
d ge
nd er
� vi
ct im
iz at
io n
in te
ra ct
io ns
O ut
co m
e oc
cu rr
ed fo
r bo
th ge
nd er
s; S
tu dy
di d
no t
di re
ct ly
co m
pa re
ef fe
ct si
ze s
by ge
nd er
M al
e vi
ct im
s m
or e
li ke
ly to
ex pe
ri en
ce ou
tc om
e; S
tu dy
di d
no t
di re
ct ly
co m
pa re
ef fe
ct si
ze s
by ge
nd er
O ut
co m
e oc
cu rr
ed fo
r ne
it he
r ge
nd er
S ub
st an
ce us
e A
n d
er so
n ,
20 02
(s ig
ni fi
ca nt
ef fe
ct fo
r dr
ug /a
lc oh
ol pr
ob le
m )
E hr
en sa
ft et
al .,
20 06
(s ig
ni fi
ca nt
ef fe
ct fo
r m
ar ij
ua na
de pe
nd en
ce bu
t no
t al
co ho
l de
pe nd
en ce
)
M ag
d ol
et al
., 19
97 (a
lc oh
ol ab
us e/
de pe
nd en
ce ,
nu m
be r
of il
li ci
t dr
ug s
us ed
)
W on
g et
al .,
20 08
(w om
en :
si gn
ifi ca
nt ef
fe ct
fo r
pr ob
le m
dr in
ki ng
; m
en :
si gn
ifi ca
nt ef
fe ct
s fo
r so
ft an
d ha
rd dr
ug us
e)
R om
it o
& G
ra ss
i, 20
07 (h
ea vy
al co
ho l
us e)
P or
ce re
ll i
et al
., 20
03 (a
lc oh
ol us
e pr
ob le
m s)
S la
sh in
sk i
et al
., 20
03 (S
ig ni
fi ca
nt ef
fe ct
fo r
pa in
ki ll
er s/
tr an
qu il
iz er
s an
d il
le ga
l dr
ug s;
no t
si gn
ifi ca
nt fo
r al
co ho
l)
A fi
fi et
al .,
20 09
, (a
lc oh
ol ab
us e
an d
dr ug
ab us
e) C
ok er
et al
., 20
02 (h
ea vy
al co
ho l
us e,
tr an
qu il
iz er
s, pa
in ki
ll er
s, re
cr ea
ti on
al dr
ug us
e)
R ob
er ts
et al
., 20
03 (s
m ok
in g,
al co
ho l,
m ar
ij ua
na us
e) R
el at
io ns
hi p
S at
is fa
ct io
n W
il li
am s
& F
ri ez
e, 20
05 no
ne K
at z
et al
., 20
02
N o te
. B
ol d
: st
ud y
di re
ct ly
co m
pa re
d ef
fe ct
si ze
s of
vi ct
im iz
at io
n by
ge nd
er by
co nd
uc ti
ng ge
nd er
� vi
ct im
iz at
io n
in te
ra ct
io ns
.
46 CALDWELL, SWAN, AND WOODBROWN
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
from partners had a greater likelihood of poor health. Male and female victims of physical aggression, and female victims of psychological aggression were also more likely to have a chronic disease. Finally, Romito and Grassi’s (2007) study of college students found that men who experienced high levels of partner violence reported poorer health than men who experi- enced low or no IPV. In contrast, women’s health was not affected by IPV.
To summarize, the evidence from the few studies regarding the impact of IPV on health is mixed, with one study finding more negative health effects of victimization for women, an- other finding more negative effects for men, and three studies finding no gender difference. Per- haps these conflicting findings are due to the multidimensional nature of health, assessed dif- ferent ways in different studies. Porcerelli et al. (2003) examined 18 physical symptoms during the past year; Coker et al. (2002) used three items including self-reported health status from poor to excellent and a history of a serious injury/health condition that interferes with nor- mal activities; Fletcher’s (2010) three items were the same self-reported health status item and indicators of hospitalization and emergency room visits in the past five years; Romito and Grassi (2007) used a single-item measure (How is your health now?); and Slashinski et al. (2003) used the single self-reported health sta- tus item.
Depression and Anxiety
Depression is a very common outcome of IPV; a meta-analysis of studies of female vic- tims of IPV found the mean prevalence of de- pressive symptoms was almost 50% (Golding, 1999). Far fewer studies have examined depres- sive symptoms for male victims of IPV. Rates of major depression among men who were vic- tims of IPV in the New Zealand birth cohort study (Fergusson et al., 2005) ranged from 6% for those experiencing low frequencies of vio- lence to 15% for those reporting high frequen- cies of violence.
Depression also shows large gender differ- ences in the general population. Women are, on average, twice as likely to suffer from depres- sion (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001); lifetime preva- lence rates of major depressive disorder are estimated to be 20% for women and 13% for
men (National Comorbidity Survey, 2011). Women are also more likely to develop most kinds of anxiety disorders. For example, the National Comorbidity Survey (2011) found that the lifetime prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder was 7% for women, compared to 4% for men; similarly, prevalence rates of panic disorder were 6% for women and 3% for men.
Studies examining gender differences in de- pression as an outcome of IPV are mixed (see Table 1). The one clear finding is that male IPV victims are not more likely than female victims to experience depression—no study found this result. However, several studies found gender differences indicating that female victims are more likely to experience depression in re- sponse to IPV than victimized males, and sev- eral found that depression occurred for both female and male IPV victims. Focusing only on the studies that conducted gender � victimiza- tion interactions, three found no gender differ- ence, and three found depression as a more likely outcome for women than for men. In a college sample, Harned (2001) found that fe- male and male victims of physical and psycho- logical IPV endorse similar degrees of depres- sive and anxious symptoms at lower intensities of aggression; however, with higher intensity of aggression, female victims endorsed more de- pressive and anxious symptoms. The Harned study did not include covariates in analyses. Anderson (2002), examining a large nationally representative sample of heterosexual couples, found that in couples in which both partners are physically aggressive, the effects are more det- rimental in terms of depressive symptoms for women than men.
Romito and Grassi (2007) found that women who experienced high levels of partner violence evidenced increased depression and greater fre- quencies of panic than women who experienced low or no IPV. In contrast, men’s depressive and panic symptoms were not affected by IPV. Using NVAWS data, Slashinski et al. (2003) found that for women, physical IPV victimiza- tion related to increased depression and antide- pressant utilization, whereas these relationships were not found for men. Similarly, Ehrensaft, Moffitt, and Caspi (2006), using longitudinal data from an unselected sample followed from birth, examined individuals experiencing severe IPV, defined as IPV that resulted in injury, medical care, or victim or legal service involve-
47SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
ment. Women who experienced IPV were sig- nificantly more likely to have major depression and generalized anxiety disorder at the age of 26 than female nonvictims. However, males in abusive relationships were not more likely to have either diagnosis, subsequent to controlling for previous mental illnesses.
In contrast, Fergusson et al. (2005) found no gender difference in major depression or anxi- ety for individuals who experienced IPV, also using birth cohort study data. Rather, IPV vic- timization was equally related to increased de- pression and anxiety for both men and women.
Similarly, using NWAWS data, Coker et al. (2002) found both male and female victims of physical, sexual, coercive control, and psycho- logical aggression from partners had higher de- pression scores compared to nonvictimized in- dividuals. Fletcher’s (2010) and Robert’s et al.’s (2003) studies using National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data also found greater depression for both male and female youth who experienced IPV. In sum, although depression and anxiety are common for both female and male victims of IPV, more women likely experience this outcome.
Posttraumatic Stress
Posttraumatic stress symptoms are a very fre- quent outcome of IPV victimization. Golding’s (1999) meta-analysis of studies of female vic- tims of IPV found the mean prevalence of post- traumatic stress was almost 64%. Again, while few studies have examined posttraumatic stress among male victims of IPV, Coker et al.’s (2005) study with NVAWS data found that 20% of male IPV victims reported moderate to se- vere posttraumatic stress symptoms. Only one study was identified that examined an exclu- sively male victim sample and the outcome of posttraumatic stress. In this study of male stu- dents from 60 universities in different countries, results indicated that after controlling for rele- vant variables, severe physical victimization was related to increased posttraumatic stress symptoms. This was true across universities (Hines, 2007).
Like depression and anxiety, base rates of posttraumatic stress show large gender differ- ences. The lifetime prevalence of PTSD (post- traumatic stress disorder) was 10% for women and 4% for men, according to the National
Comorbidity Survey (2011). The few studies that assessed both men’s and women’s experi- ence of posttraumatic stress symptoms after IPV victimization have consistently indicated the presence of a gender difference, with more women than men experiencing this outcome. We were able to find only one study examining posttraumatic stress symptoms that conducted gender � victimization interactions (Harned, 2001). In this study, female and male victims of physical and psychological IPV endorsed simi- lar degrees of posttraumatic stress symptoms at lower intensities of aggression; however, with higher intensity of aggression, female victims endorsed greater posttraumatic stress symp- toms. Coker et al. (2005) also found a higher rate of clinically significant posttraumatic stress symptomatology for female compared to male victims. The Coker and Harned studies did not include covariates in analyses. Ehrensaft et al. (2006) found women in aggressive relationships had an increased likelihood of PTSD at the age of 26 compared to women who were not in aggressive relationships. Men in aggressive re- lationships did not have an increased likelihood of PTSD, subsequent to controlling for previous mental illness. In sum, while modest gender differences are seen in depression and anxiety as outcomes of IPV, a larger gender difference appears to be present for posttraumatic stress.
Substance Abuse
Another important mental health outcome of IPV victimization is substance abuse. Golding’s (1999) meta-analysis found the average preva- lence of alcohol abuse among female victims of IPV was almost 20%, with greater percentages noted in shelter samples compared to national or health care setting samples. The weighted aver- age prevalence across samples of drug abuse in female victims of IPV was almost 9% (Golding, 1999). Using NVAWS data, Slashinski et al. (2003) found that 7% of male IPV victims re- ported alcohol abuse and 5% reported drug use. Here, baseline gender differences are the oppo- site of what we have seen for mood and anxiety disorders. The lifetime prevalence of alcohol abuse is 20% for men and 8% for women, while the prevalence of drug abuse is 12% for men and 5% for women (National Comorbidity Sur- vey, 2011).
48 CALDWELL, SWAN, AND WOODBROWN
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Looking at Table 1, studies examining the associations between IPV victimization and substance use are mixed. Some studies found greater substance abuse for women IPV victims, some found no gender differences, and one found greater substance use for male victims. Anderson (2002) conducted gender � victim- ization interactions and found that in couples in which both partners are physically aggressive, the effects are more detrimental in terms of alcohol and drug abuse for females than males, although both partners showed increased rates of alcohol and drug abuse. In contrast, Magdol et al. (1997), examining an unselected birth cohort of young adults, found that IPV victim- ization was related to greater alcohol and drug use for both men and women. The Magdol study did not include covariates in analyses. Other studies not conducting gender � victim- ization interactions found greater substance abuse for women following IPV victimization. For instance, Ehrensaft et al. (2006) found that women in aggressive relationships had an in- creased likelihood of marijuana dependence, but not alcohol dependence, at the age of 26 compared to women not in aggressive relation- ships. Men in aggressive relationships did not have an increased likelihood of marijuana or alcohol dependence, subsequent to controlling for previous mental illness. Similarly, Slashin- ski et al. (2003) found that physical and stalking victimization was related to increased use of drugs for women, whereas these relationships were not found for men.
Some studies that compared substance use for victimized men and women, but did not examine effect sizes for IPV victims as com- pared to nonvictims by gender, found substance use as an outcome for both genders experienc- ing victimization (Coker et al., 2002; Wong, Huang, DiGangi, Thompson, & Smith, 2008). Using NVAWS data, Coker et al. (2002) found subsequent to controlling for childhood victim- ization and other relevant variables, both male and female victims of physical and psycholog- ical aggression from partners were more likely to abuse alcohol. Male victims of physical and psychological aggression were also more likely to use illicit drugs, while female victims of coercive control, but not physical aggression, were more likely to use illicit drugs. Wong et al.’s (2008) study of South African adults found that women victimized physically and/or sexu-
ally by partners had an increased likelihood of alcohol problems, while men victimized by partners had an increased likelihood of drug use. Finally, a study of college students found increased heavy alcohol use among male IPV victims, but no effect of IPV on women’s alco- hol use (Romito & Grassi, 2007).
In sum, the findings regarding substance use are mixed, with some studies finding greater substance use for female victims, others finding no gender differences, and one study finding greater substance use for male victims. The mixed findings may be due to the multidimen- sional nature of substance use and the many ways it was assessed across different studies, ranging from a single item assessing self-reports of problems with drinking or drug use, to fre- quency and amount of substance use, to sub- stance dependence diagnoses (as shown in Ta- ble 1). More women than men may experience this outcome as a result of IPV, but if so, the gender difference is likely small.
Relationship Satisfaction
In addition to negative effects on victims’ physical and psychological health, IPV victim- ization is also detrimental to the quality of in- timate relationships. One important aspect of relationship quality is the partners’ satisfaction with the relationship. We could only find two studies that examined gender differences in re- lationship satisfaction in response to IPV vic- timization; both of these studies conducted gen- der by victimization interactions (Katz et al., 2002; Williams & Frieze, 2005). Using a sam- ple of married or cohabiting adults from the National Comorbidity Survey, Williams and Frieze (2005) found women were dissatisfied with their relationships when they experienced mild or severe victimization. Men were dissat- isfied only when they experienced severe vic- timization; mild victimization had no effect on relationship satisfaction. In a college popula- tion, Katz et al. (2002) found IPV victimization decreased relationship satisfaction only for women in serious dating relationships. Victim- ization did not affect relationship satisfaction for men, or for women in less serious dating relationships. Katz et al. (2002) proposed that men’s satisfaction was not affected since less fear and injury could be associated with their victimization.
49SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Summary of Gender Differences in Outcomes
In sum, both women and men experience negative effects of IPV, but many of these ef- fects do appear to be more likely for women. Numerous studies indicate that women are more likely to be injured as a result of IPV, and findings consistently point to higher rates of posttraumatic stress for women as a result of IPV. The two studies examining the effect of IPV on relationship satisfaction also indicate a more negative effect of IPV for women. De- pression and anxiety show a modest gender difference indicating that women are more likely to experience these outcomes. The few studies of gender differences in physical health find that poor health is most likely related to IPV for both genders. Substance use may show a gender difference with women at greater risk, but the construct is so multifaceted and mea- sured in so many different ways that conclu- sions cannot be drawn from current studies.
An important point to keep in mind is that the prevalence rates of men and women victimized by IPV who experience depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress are strongly affected by overall gender differences in these mental health disorders. For example, as discussed ear- lier, women in the general population are twice as likely to suffer from depression and most anxiety disorders, and 2.5 times more likely to have PTSD, compared to men (National Co- morbidity Survey, 2011; Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001). This means that, even if there were no gender difference at all in the effect of IPV on these outcomes, base rates in the general popu- lation would lead us to expect gender differ- ences in prevalence rates in the population of people victimized by IPV—that is, twice as many women victimized by IPV would experi- ence depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress as compared to men victimized by IPV. How- ever, there is evidence that these outcomes are more strongly associated with IPV for women than for men. The large effect of gender differ- ences in base rates in the general population, together with the evidence that there are stron- ger associations of IPV and negative outcomes for women, lead to a strong argument that gen- der neutrality in IPV policy and funding does not make sense. More resources need to be devoted to the treatment of depression, anxiety,
and posttraumatic stress for female IPV victims than for male IPV victims.
Substance abuse is worth special mention, as it is the one outcome examined in this review that shows higher prevalence in men in the general population. Men are about 2.5 times as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs as women (Na- tional Comorbidity Survey, 2011). If there was no gender difference in the effect of IPV on substance abuse, we would expect higher sub- stance abuse rates among men in the population of people victimized by IPV. However, some studies do suggest a stronger association be- tween substance abuse and victimization for women, suggesting that there may be a nar- rower gap between victimized men’s and wom- en’s substance abuse as compared to prevalence rates in the general population.
Why Are There Gender Differences in Outcomes of Intimate Partner Violence?
Given that there are gender differences in outcomes of IPV, our next questions is: How and why is IPV related to these negative effects, and why are there gender differences? We pro- pose several answers to this question, illustrated in the proposed conceptual model in Figure 1. We propose the same basic model structure regardless of gender, but we expect that there will be larger effect sizes of victimization on these outcomes for women than for men (i.e., gender is a moderator of the relationship be- tween victimization and outcomes). Given the literature reviewed above, we expect that the moderating effect of gender should be larger for some effects (fear, injuries, posttraumatic stress, relationship satisfaction) and smaller for others (depression/anxiety, substance abuse).
Contextual Factors that Disadvantage Women
The model in Figure 1 shows IPV victimiza- tion and its effects occurring within contextual factors that often put women at a disadvantage in IPV situations. These contextual factors will lead to more negative outcomes for a victimized person when cultural norms stipulate that the person should have less power than their part- ner, and when the person is physically smaller and weaker than their partner. Obviously, these two factors correlate highly with gender. While
50 CALDWELL, SWAN, AND WOODBROWN
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
some societies have made marked steps toward gender equality, in others women are still largely seen as second-class citizens. Even in societies that have made substantial gains in gender equality, such as the United States, sex- ist attitudes that men should have power over women are still common (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Most women are physically smaller and weaker than their male partners. On an individual level of analysis, there may also be a greater likeli- hood of women having less power than male partners in their intimate relationships, due to beliefs still prevalent in many cultures that grant men more power to make decisions, earn higher incomes, act against their partners’ wishes, and control their partners’ actions (Filson, Ulloa, Runfola, & Hokoda, 2010). However, regard- less of cultural norms that accord more status to the male gender, these norms may not operate within a particular relationship. Even within patriarchal societies, there are egalitarian inti- mate relationships between men and women, and relationships in which women clearly dom- inate. The third contextual factor recognizes this individual difference variable, unique to each relationship.
Women and Men Tend to Experience Different Types of Abuse
Women are much more likely to experience sexual abuse from partners than men (Coker et al., 2002; Edwards, Black, Dhingra, McKnight-
Eily, & Perry, 2009; Harned, 2001; Slashinski et al., 2003). Women are also more likely to experience stalking from partners (Slashinski et al., 2003), as well as fearful coercive control (Coker et al., 2002). The contextual factors in the model—that is, men’s right to have power over women in many cultures and men’s greater physical strength—likely play a large role in women’s greater likelihood of being victimized by these forms of abuse.
The Types of Abuse That Women Are More Likely to Experience Have Worse Outcomes
A number of studies have demonstrated that, compared to outcomes of physical abuse only, effects of sexual abuse from partners are more severe (Dutton et al., 2006; Edwards et al., 2009; Harned, 2001; Pico-Alfonso et al., 2006). Sexual violence from partners has been shown to increase symptoms of posttraumatic stress (Dutton et al., 2006). Furthermore, of the types of traumas commonly recognized as causes of PTSD, rape has the highest likelihood of result- ing in PTSD (Schnurr, Friedman, & Bernardy, 2002). Similarly, Coker et al. (2002) found worse physical health, mental health, and sub- stance abuse effects for fearful coercive control as compared to verbal abuse. Logan et al. (2006) also found worse mental health out- comes for women who had been stalked and
Figure 1. Conceptual model for IPV outcomes of victimization. Paths moderated by gender will be stronger for female victims and weaker for male victims.
51SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
experienced severe violence, as compared to women who experienced severe violence only.
Women Tend to Be More Afraid of Violent Partners
Large gender differences are found in fear of violent partners (Fergusson et al., 2005; Lang- hinrichsen-Rohling et al., 1995; Phelan et al., 2005; Walton et al., 2007). Women’s greater fear of partners is not surprising, given that women experience more sexual violence, stalk- ing, and injuries. Contextual factors of IPV also likely contribute to women’s greater fear. Many cultures accord men rights to have authority over their female partners, or even to punish their female partners for misbehavior. Women tend to be smaller and have less physical strength than their partners, increasing risk of injury. While experiencing IPV is certainly det- rimental for women and men, women may, on average, have more to lose, and thus more to fear, from IPV as compared to men.
Fear Contributes to Posttraumatic Stress
Fear may lead to worse outcomes through its strong relationship with posttraumatic stress (see Figure 1). Fear or helplessness is an essen- tial component for the development and diag- nosis of PTSD (American Psychiatric Associa- tion, 2000). By definition, people who are victims of IPV or other trauma but are not afraid will not develop posttraumatic stress. Women’s greater fear of partners in IPV situations may explain why stronger gender differences are found for posttraumatic stress than some other outcomes.
Posttraumatic Stress May Be Key to the Negative Health Effects of IPV
Posttraumatic stress has been proposed as a critical factor in the relationship between IPV victimization and negative physical and mental health outcomes (Dutton et al., 2006). Studies have demonstrated that PTSD increases nega- tive health symptoms, rates of illness, and use of medical services, and it negatively affects the course and impact of illness (Dutton et al., 2006; Schnurr & Jankowski, 1999). Posttrau- matic stress has been found to mediate the re- lationship between violence and negative health outcomes (Dutton et al., 2006; Schnurr et al.,
2002). PTSD also alters psychological function- ing, with major depression being the most fre- quent comorbid condition, occurring in just un- der half of people with PTSD (Schnurr et al., 2002). PTSD may in some cases contribute to the development of depression. One study found the risk of depression was increased for people exposed to a trauma who developed PTSD, relative to trauma-exposed people who did not develop PTSD (Breslau, Davis, Peter- son, & Schultz, 2000). In another study demon- strating the role of PTSD as an important risk factor for depression, Leiner, Compton, Houry, and Kaslow (2008) found that posttraumatic stress symptoms mediated the relationship be- tween IPV and depression. In addition, Seedat, Stein, and Carey (2005) note that PTSD typi- cally develops before depression and substance abuse. In sum, women’s greater likelihood of experiencing posttraumatic stress from IPV, and the negative effects of posttraumatic stress on health, are likely important factors in gender differences in outcomes of IPV.
Depression, Power, and the Negative Effects of IPV
Depression is strongly related to problems with physical health (Moussavi et al., 2007) and substance abuse (Hasin, Stinson, Ogburn, & Grant, 2007). Depression is a leading cause of disease burden, it frequently co-occurs with chronic diseases, and it can worsen the health outcomes of chronic diseases (Moussavi et al., 2007). Female victims of IPV are at increased risk of suffering from depression/anxiety as compared to male IPV victims—in large part, because of a main effect of gender; in smaller part, because of stronger relationships between IPV and depression for women. Substance abuse, in turn, may be a way for victims of IPV to cope or self-medicate for depression or post- traumatic stress (Stewart & Israeli, 2002). A study examining the role of power in relation- ships with respect to IPV found that inequality is a contextual factor that may contribute to depressive symptoms as a consequence of IPV (Filson et al., 2010). Filson et al.’s (2010) study of college women found that power served a meditational role—women victimized by IPV who also had less power in the relationship were more likely to exhibit depressive symptoms. Finally, studies have demonstrated that depres-
52 CALDWELL, SWAN, AND WOODBROWN
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
sion and substance abuse increase the risk of subsequent IPV (Lehrer, Buka, Gortmaker, & Shrier, 2006; Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998).
Relationship Satisfaction
Our review suggests that the link between IPV victimization and dissatisfaction with the relationship may be stronger for women. Feel- ing dissatisfied with one’s relationship may also contribute to negative health outcomes, such as depression/anxiety and substance use. For ex- ample, Testa, Livingston, and Leonard (2003) found prior IPV victimization increased rela- tionship dissatisfaction, which then predicted increased alcohol abuse measured a year later.
Discussion
Our review of the evidence presented here largely supports the contention of feminist the- ory that gender matters. However, we do not subscribe to an “inherent feminine vulnerabil- ity” that predisposes women to greater posttrau- matic stress and other poor outcomes in re- sponse to IPV, relative to men. Rather, we believe the preponderance of evidence supports situational vulnerability, the idea that women are more likely than men to encounter contex- tual factors that disempower them, and put them in situations—such as sexual abuse—that in- crease risk of poor outcomes (Cortina & Pim- lott-Kubiak, 2006). Gender certainly matters, but we would go further and say that what really matters is power; gender matters because it is so highly correlated with power. If we are correct that power is what really matters, we would expect to see the model in Figure 1 operate in a similar way for gay or lesbian relationships involving IPV. For example, the model predicts that a gay man who was accorded less status than his partner (i.e., because of his race or class), who was smaller and weaker than his partner, and who was dominated by his partner within their relationship would suffer more neg- ative outcomes from IPV, as compared to a gay man with a violent partner who was equivalent to his partner in status and physical strength.
Implications for Research and Practice
Understanding gender similarities and differ- ences in IPV has significant implications for
research and practice. We argue that power, and the abuse of power in intimate relationships, is the central issue in explaining why IPV occurs and why outcomes of IPV are typically more severe for women than for men. This is cer- tainly not a new argument; it was proposed by the Duluth model almost 20 years ago (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Gender, then, serves as a proxy for power. We believe a fruitful area of future research is to explore the contextual factors that create and sustain power differences in relation- ships. Future studies should examine not just gender, but other status variables related to more or less power and privilege in a culture (race, class, immigration status, etc.), as well as physical size and strength. Studies could also examine individual difference bases of power within a particular relationship, which may in- clude economic power, attachment to a partner who is the only source of emotional support, lack of access to resources, lack of education, fear of losing the children, disability status, and so forth. An examination of these factors in same-sex relationships, in which gender is held constant, would be informative.
The practice implications of understanding the relationship between gender and IPV are vital. Community agencies that serve IPV vic- tims are facing lawsuits in the name of gender symmetry (Dragiewicz, 2008; Rosen et al., 2009); yet women are much more likely to be injured (Archer, 2000) or killed (Domestic Vi- olence Resource Center, 2011) as a result of IPV. However, as we have argued, gender is not the only base of power. Victim services are needed for everyone who experiences signifi- cant negative consequences of IPV. We expect that the largest number of people experiencing significant negative consequences of IPV are women victimized by men, followed by lesbian and gay victims of IPV. Relative to these pop- ulations, we would expect a smaller number of men in heterosexual relationships experience significant negative consequences of IPV. How- ever, evidence indicating that 21% of male IPV victims are injured (Arias & Corso, 2005); 15% experience depression (Fergusson et al., 2005); and 20% report posttraumatic stress (Coker et al., 2005) clearly point to the seriousness of IPV for men as well as women.
Services for male victims of IPV, or for les- bian or gay victims of IPV, may not—and prob- ably should not—look exactly like traditional
53SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
services for female victims of IPV perpetrated by men. Consider the anecdotal example of one man who contacted a victim services agency, seeking help. He was a veteran who had re- cently returned from Iraq and was having diffi- culty adjusting to being home. His female part- ner was using drugs and using violence against him. This man contacted the agency not because he was in fear of his life, but because he was afraid he would end up using violence against his partner, and given his military training and posttraumatic stress issues, his violence would likely be severe. The services he received may have saved her life as well as his.
We hope that the model proposed here will stimulate new research to further develop our understanding of the complexities of IPV. Through continued research, efforts can be made to tailor prevention and intervention ef- forts to more adequately address the needs of both female and male victims.
References
Afifi, T. O., MacMillan, H., Cox, B. J., Asmundson, G. J. G., Stein, M. B., & Sareen, J. (2009). Mental health correlates of intimate partner violence in marital relationships in a nationally representative sample of males and females. Journal of Interper- sonal Violence, 24, 1398 –1417. doi:10.1177/ 0886260508322192
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Rela- tionships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851– 863. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00851.x
Anderson, K. L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15, 358 –380. doi:10.1177/089124301015003003
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression be- tween heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic re- view. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651– 680. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651
Arias, I., & Corso, P. (2005). Average cost per person victimized by an intimate partner of the opposite gender: A comparison of men and women. Vio- lence and Victims, 20, 379 –391. doi:10.1891/ vivi.2005.20.4.379
Bookwala, J., Sobin, J., & Zdaniuk, B. (2005). Gen- der and aggression in marital relationships: A life- span perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 797– 806. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4200-1
Breslau, N., Davis, G. C., Peterson, E. L., & Schultz, L. R. (2000). A second look at cormorbidity in victims of trauma: The posttraumatic stress disor- der-major depression connection. Biological Psy- chiatry, 48, 902–909. doi:10.1016/S0006- 3223(00)00933-1
Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of inti- mate partner violence. Lancet, 359, 1331–1336. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8
Cho, H., & Wilke, D. J. (2010). Gender differences in the nature of the intimate partner violence and effects of perpetrator arrest on revictimization. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 393– 400. doi: 10.1007/s10896-009-9300-1
Coker, A. L., Davis, K., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sander- son, M., Brandt, H., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Phys- ical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260 –268. doi:10.1016/ S0749-3797(02)00514-7
Coker, A. L., Weston, R., Creson, D., Justice, B., & Blakeney, P. (2005). PTSD symptoms among men and women survivors of intimate partner violence: The role of risk and protective factors. Violence and Victims, 20, 625– 643. doi:10.1891/ vivi.20.6.625
Cortina, L. M., & Pimlott-Kubiak, S. (2006). Gender and posttraumatic stress: Sexual violence as an explanation for women’s increased risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 753–759. doi:10.1037/ 0021-843X.115.4.753
Davis, K. E., Coker, A. L., & Sanderson, M. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of being stalked for men and women. Violence and Victims, 17, 429 – 443. doi:10.1891/vivi.17.4.429.33682
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1998). Violent men and violent contexts. In R. E. Dobash & R. P. Dobash (Eds.), Rethinking violence against women (pp. 141–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Domestic Violence Resource Center. (2011). Domes- tic violence statistics. Retrieved from http:// www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/ C61/#hom
Dragiewicz, M. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fa- thers’ rights and anti-VAWA activism. Feminist Criminology, 3, 121–144. doi:10.1177/ 1557085108316731
Dutton, M. A., Green, B. L., Kaltman, S. I., Roesch, D. M., Zeffiro, T. A., & Krause, E. D. (2006). Inti- mate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955–968. doi:10.1177/0886260506289178
Edwards, V. J., Black, M. C., Dhingra, S., McKnight- Eily, L., & Perry, G. S. (2009). Physical and sexual intimate partner violence and reported serious psy- chological distress in the 2007 BRFSS. Interna- tional Journal of Public Health, 54(Supplement 1), 37– 42. doi:10.1007/s00038-009-0005-2
54 CALDWELL, SWAN, AND WOODBROWN
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, 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, 258 –270. doi:10.1037/0021- 843X.113.2.258
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (2006). Is domestic violence followed by an increased risk of psychiatric disorders among women but not among men? A longitudinal cohort study. American Jour- nal of Psychiatry, 163, 885– 892. doi:10.1176/ appi.ajp.163.5.885
Fergusson, D., Horwood, L., & Ridder, E. (2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1103–1119. doi:10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2005.00202.x
Filson, J., Ulloa, E., Runfola, C., & Hokoda, A. (2010). Does powerlessness explain the relation- ship between intimate partner violence and depres- sion? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 400 – 415. doi:10.1177/0886260509334401
Fletcher, J. (2010). The effects of intimate partner violence on health in young adulthood in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 130 –135.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as com- plementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109 –118. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.56.2.109
Golding, J. (1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Jour- nal of Family Violence, 14, 99 –132. doi:10.1023/ A:1022079418229
Hamberger, L. K. (2005). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: To- ward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence and Victims, 20, 131–151. doi:10.1891/vivi.2005 .20.2.131
Harned, M. S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269 – 285.
Hasin, D. S., Stinson, F. S., Ogburn, E., & Grant, B. F. (2007). Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and depen- dence in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry, 64, 830 – 842. doi:10.1001/arch- psyc.64.7.830
Hines, D. (2007). Posttraumatic stress symptoms among men who sustain partner violence: An in- ternational multisite study of university students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 225–239. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.4.225
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence.
Violence Against Women, 12, 1003–1018. doi: 10.1177/1077801206293328
Katz, J., Kuffel, S., & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence?: An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 247– 271. doi:10.1023/A:1016005312091
Krahé, B., Bieneck, S., & Moller, I. (2005). Under- standing gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807– 827. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4201-0
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Neidig, P., & Thorn, G. (1995). Violent marriages: Gender differences in levels of current violence and past abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 159 –176. doi:10.1007/ BF02110598
Lehrer, J. A., Buka, S., Gortmaker, S., & Shrier, L. A. (2006). Depressive symptomatology as a predictor of exposure to intimate partner violence among U.S. female adolescents and young adults. Ar- chives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 270 –276. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.3.270
Leiner, A., Compton, M., Houry, D., & Kaslow, N. (2008). Intimate partner violence, psychological distress, and suicidality: A path model using data from African American women seeking care in an urban emergency department. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 473– 481. doi:10.1007/s10896-008- 9174-7
Logan, T. K., Shannon, L., Cole, J., & Walker, R. (2006). The impact of differential patterns of phys- ical violence and stalking on mental health and help-seeking among women with protective or- ders. Violence Against Women, 12, 866 – 886. doi: 10.1177/1077801206292679
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Newman, D., Fagan, J., & Silva, P. (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemio- logical approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68 –78. doi:10.1037/ 0022-006X.65.1.68
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., & Silva, P. (1998). Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnor- mal Psychology, 107, 375–389. doi:10.1037/0021- 843X.107.3.375
Melton, H., & Belknap, J. (2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Crim- inal Justice and Behavior, 30, 328 –348. doi: 10.1177/0093854803030003004
Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner vi- olence. Violence and Victims, 10, 251–272.
Moussavi, S., Chatterji, S., Verdes, E., Tandon, A., Patel, V., & Ustun, B. (2007). Depression, chronic diseases, and decrements in health: Results from
55SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
the World Health Surveys. The Lancet, 370, 851– 858. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61415-9
National Comorbidity Survey. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/ftpdir/ NCS-R_Lifetime_Prevalence_Estimates.pdf
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2001). Gender differences in depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 173–176. doi:10.1111/1467- 8721.00142
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Phelan, M. B., Hamberger, L., Guse, C., Edwards, S., Walczak, S., & Zosel, A. (2005). Domestic vio- lence among male and female patients seeking emergency medical services. Violence and Vic- tims, 20, 187–206. doi:10.1891/vivi.2005.20.2.187
Pico-Alfonso, M. A., Garcia-Linares, M. I., Celda- Navarro, N., Blasco-Ros, C., Echeburua, E., & Martinez, M. (2006). The impact of physical, psy- chological, and sexual intimate male partner vio- lence on women’s mental health: Depressive symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder, state anx- iety, and suicide. Journal of Women’s Health, 15, 599 – 611. doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.15.599
Plichta, S. B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: Policy and practice implications. Journal of Interpersonal Vio- lence, 19, 1296 –1323. doi:10.1177/ 0886260504269685
Porcerelli, J. H., Cogan, R., West, P. P., Rose, E. A., Lambrecht, D., Wilson, K. E., . . . Karana, D. (2003). Violent victimization of women and men: Physical and psychiatric symptoms. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 16, 32– 39. doi:10.3122/jabfm.16.1.32
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. The Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216.
Roberts, T. A., Klein, J. D., & Fisher, S. (2003). Longitudinal effect of intimate partner abuse on high-risk behavior among adolescents. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157, 875– 881.
Romans, S., Forte, T., Cohen, M. M., Du Mont, J., & Hyman, I. (2007). Who is most at risk for intimate partner violence?: A Canadian population-based study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1495–1514. doi:10.1177/0886260507306566
Romito, P., & Grassi, M. (2007). Does violence affect one gender more than the other? The mental health impact of violence among male and female university students. Social Science & Medi- cine, 65, 1222–1234. doi:10.1016/j.socsci- med.2007.05.017
Rosen, L. N., Dragiewicz, M., & Gibbs, J. (2009). Fathers’ rights groups: Demographic correlates and impact on custody policy. Violence Against
Women, 15, 513–531. doi:10.1177/ 1077801209331409
Schnurr, P. P., Friedman, M. J., & Bernardy, N. C. (2002). Research on posttraumatic stress disorder: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 877– 889. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10064
Schnurr, P. P., & Jankowski, M. K. (1999). Physical health and post-traumatic stress disorder: Review and synthesis. Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychi- atry, 4, 295–304.
Seedat, S., Stein, D., & Carey, P. (2005). Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder in women: Epidemio- logical and treatment issues. CNS Drugs, 19, 411– 427. doi:10.2165/00023210-200519050-00004
Slashinski, M. J., Coker, A. L., & Davis, K. E. (2003). Physical aggression, forced sex, and stalk- ing victimization by a dating partner: An analysis of the National Violence against Women Survey. Violence and Victims, 18, 595– 617. doi:10.1891/ vivi.2003.18.6.595
Snyder, H. N., & McCurley, C. (2008). Domestic assaults by juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention. Retrieved from http://permanent.access- .gpo.gov/LPS113929/LPS113929/www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffiles1/ojjdp/219180.pdf
Stark, E. (2006). Reply to Michael P. Johnson’s conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asym- metry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1019 –1025.
Stewart, S., & Israeli, A. (2002). Substance abuse and co-occurring psychiatric disorders in victims of intimate violence. In C. Wekerle & A-M. Wall (Eds.), The violence and addiction equation: The- oretical and clinical issues in substance abuse and relationship violence (pp. 98 –122). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical assaults on partners. Vio- lence Against Women, 12, 1086 –1097. doi: 10.1177/1077801206293335
Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & Leonard, K. E. (2003). Women’s substance use and experiences of inti- mate partner violence: A longitudinal investigation among a community sample. Addictive Behav- iors, 28, 1649 –1664. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh .2003.08.040
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to- male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Vio- lence Against Women, 6, 142–161. doi:10.1177/ 10778010022181769
Walby, S., & Allen, J. (2004). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the
56 CALDWELL, SWAN, AND WOODBROWN
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
British Crime Survey (No. 276). London, England: Home Office Research.
Walton, M. A., Cunningham, R., Chermack, S., Maio, R., Blow, F., & Weber, J. (2007). Correlates of violence history among injured patients in an urban emergency department: Gender, substance use, and depression. Journal of Addictive Dis- eases, 26, 61–75. doi:10.1300/J069v26n03_07
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltz- man, L. (2007). Differences in frequency of vio- lence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941–947. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020
White, J. W. (2009). A gendered approach to adoles- cent dating violence: Theoretical and methodolog- ical issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 1–15. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.01467.x
Williams, S., & Frieze, I. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52, 771–784. doi:10.1007/ s11199-005-4198-4
Wong, F. Y., Huang, Z. J., DiGangi, J. A., Thomp- son, E. E., & Smith, B. D. (2008). Gender differ- ences in intimate partner violence on substance abuse, sexual risks, and depression among a sam- ple of South Africans in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Education and Prevention, 20, 56 – 64. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2008.20.1.56
Received September 15, 2010 Revision received September 6, 2011
Accepted September 13, 2011 �
Members of Underrepresented Groups: Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at [email protected]. Please note the following important points:
• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review.
• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research.
• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, “social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude change” as well.
• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.
57SPECIAL ISSUE: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OUTCOMES
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
