Evidence of Gender Asymmetry in Intimate Partner Violence Experience at the Population-Level

Abstract

Claims of “gender symmetry” in intimate partner violence (IPV) prevalence are contested, with resolution of the issue complicated by methodological and measurement challenges. This study explores gendered differences in the distribution of IPV exposure at the population-level, considering multiple types of IPV exposure. The subjects comprised of 1,431 ever-partnered women and 1,355 ever-partnered men. Data from a nationally representative population-based cross-sectional survey were used to compare men and women’s IPV experiences. Twenty-three IPV acts were assessed across IPV types (moderate physical, severe physical, sexual, psychological, controlling behaviors, economic). Proportions were presented by gender for the number of individual IPV acts experienced per IPV type, and the frequency of these acts (none, once, few times, or many times). A composite exposure score was developed to assess the number of acts and their frequency within types by comparing scores in tertiles and across types by correlations. Women reported greater overall prevalence of 20 of the 23 individual IPV acts assessed. Across all assessed acts, women comprised a substantially greater proportion of those who reported experiencing individual acts “many times.” Women experienced more severe and more frequent IPV than men based on self-reported experience of IPV acts, and by the frequency with which acts were experienced. Significant differences between men and women’s exposure scores were observed for all six assessed types, with greater proportions of women scoring in the upper tertiles. This study provides evidence of gender asymmetry in experiences of IPV at the population level. While men do experience IPV victimization, there remains need for directed and substantial resource allocation for intervention and therapeutic responses to women’s exposure to IPV, and for primary prevention with men. Going forward, IPV measurement tools that consider frequency, severity, or co-occurring types of IPV are needed.

Keywords

intimate partner violence gender gender asymmetry gender symmetry measurement population-based survey

Introduction

Global estimates suggest that over one in four women between ages 15 to 49 have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime (Sardinha et al., 2022). IPV is largely considered a gendered issue; it is the most widespread type of violence against women internationally, and is most commonly perpetrated by male partners (World Health Organization, 2012, 2021). However, studies suggesting general comparability between men and women’s reported IPV rates have been considered indicators of “gender symmetry”; the idea that women are as violent toward their male partners and ex-partners as men are violent toward their female partners and ex-partners (Archer, 2000, 2002; Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011; Hamby, 2009).

Others have countered the proposition of gender symmetry by noting methodological considerations that may have contributed to comparable rates for men and women’s IPV prevalence, including sample settings, contextual considerations, and other methodological features (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020; Johnson, 2006). For example, representative or community-dwelling samples are proposed to capture less severe and bidirectional IPV experiences, which differs from the overrepresentation of severe and uni-directional male-to-female IPV that is derived via samples from criminal justice or medical services (Ahmadabadi et al., 2021). Contextual considerations include, for example, use of the Conflict Tactics Scale (and its revised version), which has been criticized for obscuring gendered differences by misrepresenting IPV as a matter of “conflict” (Hamby, 2014). Disentangling questions of gender symmetry in IPV is further hampered by the relative under-exploration of men’s experiences of IPV, with existing research often relying on small or non-representative convenience samples (Carmo et al., 2011; Reid et al., 2008; Scott-Storey et al., 2023).

Further, assessing the validity and comparability of IPV prevalence rates has been compromised by widespread variation and discrepancies in IPV measurements, including whether studies measure IPV based on: “any” presence of IPV, frequency of IPV behaviors, patterns or typologies, severity, IPV by former or current partners, or consideration of IPV subtypes (Ahmadabadi et al., 2021; Follingstad & Rogers, 2013; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020). Existing research has predominantly gathered data on physical and/or sexual IPV exposure, whereas other IPV types (e.g., psychological, economic abuse, controlling behaviors) are relatively underassessed (Devries et al., 2013; Fanslow et al., 2021a), particularly for men (McKay White & Fjellner, 2022; Scott-Storey et al., 2023). Others contend that findings of gender symmetry may comprise low severity IPV acts perpetrated by women against men, but fail to recognize differences in the frequency, severity, and impacts of IPV experienced by women (Kimmel, 2002; Winstok, 2015).

Evidence suggests that women experience a greater range and severity of consequences from IPV than men (Afifi et al., 2009; Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Caldwell et al., 2012; Carbone-López et al., 2006; Coker et al., 2002; Gilbert et al., 2023). IPV-related homicides show this starkly, with an estimated 40%–70% of murdered women killed by their intimate partners or ex-partners internationally (Krug et al., 2002). Globally, 13.5% of homicides were committed by an intimate partner or ex-partner, with proportions six times greater for women than men (Stöckl et al., 2013). Further, women are more likely to be injured by intimate partners, suffer from more severe IPV types, and are more likely to fear for their lives than male victims (Caldwell et al., 2012; Hamby, 2009; Krug et al., 2002). The severity, frequency, and duration of IPV have been linked to worsened health outcomes for women (Bonomi et al., 2006; Dillon et al., 2013; Ellsberg et al., 2008; Krug et al., 2002; Stubbs & Szoeke, 2022).

IPV victimization patterns are also gendered (Carbone-López et al., 2006; Fanslow, Hashemi, et al., 2022; Scott-Storey et al., 2023) Most women do not experience one type of IPV in isolation and multiple types often overlap (Dutton et al., 2005; Scott-Storey, 2011). For example, physical IPV is commonly accompanied by psychological and sexual IPV (Krug et al., 2002). Many studies have assessed the co-occurring nature of multiple types of IPV and their cumulative impact on women’s physical and mental health outcomes (Dillon et al., 2013; Krug et al., 2002; Potter et al., 2021; Stubbs & Szoeke, 2022). Comparatively, men’s experiences of co-occurring patterns of IPV are relatively underexplored (Ahmadabadi et al., 2021).

Measurement issues are also salient for exploring the claim of gender symmetry. Use of dichotomous (“ever” vs. “never”) measures can oversimplify IPV experiences by overlooking the frequency and severity of experienced behaviors and undermine systematic patterns of abuse; limitations that have been identified for measurements of psychological abuse (Dokkedahl et al., 2022; Follingstad, 2007, 2009). Use of different scoring methods such as dichotomous or frequency measures can affect the magnitude of effect sizes for IPV consequences (Dokkedahl et al., 2022). Further, simple counts may not capture the true impacts of violence exposure. For example, a “count” of numbers of controlling behaviors may be insufficient to measure levels of control, as perpetrators may not need many control tactics to assert power in a relationship (Patafio et al., 2021).

Underlying the heat behind the methodological debates about gender symmetry or asymmetry are the contended theories about what causes violence (Johnson, 2011). Feminist theoretical perspectives focus on the link between men’s violence against women and patriarchal structures of power, considering that male violence against women is both the result of historical differences in power between men and women, and a tactic for maintaining women’s subordination (McPhail et al., 2007). Multiple theories have been set up in competition with feminist perspectives on IPV, including those that focus on psychological, sociological and neurobiological explanations for violence (Chornesky, 2000). As Holly Johnson discusses, the context of these perspectives is not neutral; theories (and the statistical measures from which they are derived) have implications for establishing the priority of a problem and the types of remedial strategies that receive attention and resourcing (2015). Data on gendered patterns of violence experience, and interpretations of that data, thus have an important role in directing attention to the issues that have the greatest potential to produce tangible benefits, and not perpetuate social inequity (Johnson, 2015).

Current Study

The 2019 New Zealand Family Violence Study/He Koiora Matapopore (NZFVS) is a representative population-based cross-sectional study that assessed the prevalence and consequences of IPV experienced by both women and men in New Zealand (NZ). It used a standardized questionnaire for enquiring about experiences of a variety of acts across multiple types of IPV. As such, the study provides the opportunity to explore gender differences in IPV experience at the population-level, addressing some of the methodological concerns noted with previous studies.

Previously published findings from the 2019 NZFVS found that women and men reported similar lifetime prevalence rates with ever/never measures of IPV (Fanslow, Malihi, et al., 2022). Gender differences in the prevalence of sexual IPV were also noted, with women more likely to report this (12.4%) than men (2.1%) (Fanslow, Malihi, et al., 2022). IPV experiences had markedly different impacts, with women more likely than men to report fear of their violent partner, experiencing injuries, and mental and physical health impacts of IPV (Fanslow, Malihi, et al., 2022).

This study extends previous findings by describing gender differences in the detail and nature of violence experiences at the population-level. Specifically, this study presents data on men and women’s experiences of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological, controlling behaviors, and economic) and reports on the number of individual IPV acts experienced and the frequency of these individual acts. It extends previous research by creating a composite exposure score for assessing number of acts and their frequency within and across types; this encapsulates the use of count and frequency measures to provide a broader view of IPV exposure profiles and assists in drawing more comprehensive comparisons between men and women’s experiences.

Methods

Methods for the 2019 NZFVS have been described elsewhere, but are presented briefly here (Fanslow, Gulliver, et al., 2021). The NZFVS was a population-based retrospective cross-sectional survey based on the World Health Organization Multi-Country Study on Violence Against Women (WHO MCS). The WHO MCS’s 12-domain questionnaire was adapted to the NZ setting following consultation with government and expert advisors and for use with men.

The survey was conducted from March 2017–March 2019 across three regions, which accounted for around 40% of the NZ population and covered a range of ethnicities and urbanicity. Ethics approval was granted by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee.

Interviewers undertook intensive training to ensure consistency and validity of the collected data. Data collection was conducted through face-to-face interviews, before which all participants provided written consent. At the completion of the interview, all participants (regardless of IPV disclosure status) were provided with a contact list of support agencies.

Random sampling was conducted by selection of 2nd and 6th houses from random starting points within primary sampling units. Non-residential and short-term residential properties, and retirement villages were excluded. Women and men were recruited from different sampling units and only one randomly selected person per household was eligible to participate. Interviewers made up to seven visits to each selected household to maximize recruitment. Participants had to be aged at least 16 years old, able to speak conversational English, and residing in the house for over 1 month.

In total, the NZFVS included data from 2,888 participants. One participant identified as “Other” gender and was excluded from analysis. The final sample included 2,887 self-identified women and men. Complete interviews took place with 1,464 women and 1,423 men, with respective response rates of 63.7% and 61.3% of contacted eligible individuals (Figure 1). The ethnic and area deprivation composition of the sample were closely representative of the NZ population, though Māori men, Asian respondents, and younger age groups were slightly underrepresented (Exeter et al., 2017; Fanslow et al., 2021). For this study, the dataset was restricted to ever-partnered women (n = 1,431) and men (n = 1,355), irrespective of sexual orientation.

Figure 1.

Participant inclusion flowchart of the 2019 NZFVS.

Participants’ exposure to five IPV types (physical, sexual, psychological, controlling behaviors, and economic abuse) was assessed using questions pertaining to lifetime experience (before the past 12 months). Prior psychometric testing had been performed on the IPV questions in the WHO MCS, which found good internal consistency among the items for each IPV type (World Health Organization, 2005). Exposure was assessed by asking about participant experience of 23 acts inflicted by any current or previous partner (see Table 2 for specific acts).

IPV experience was assessed in four ways:

Number of Acts Experienced per IPV Type

Count variables were created for the number of acts responded to with “yes” per IPV type. This enables assessment of the variety and range of acts experienced within each type, extending beyond ever/never measures.

Frequency of Individual Acts

Following each IPV act to which respondents gave a “yes” answer, they were asked “Would you say this happened once, a few times, or many times?” Self-reported responses (including “No” responses) were transformed into variables to measure frequency of experience for each act. This provides a more comprehensive understanding of exposure than exclusively assessing number of acts, particularly for those who may have experienced a low number of acts with greater frequency.

Exposure Score per IPV Type

To capture the scope of exposure within each IPV type, composite exposure scores capturing individual acts and act frequency were created. To generate exposure scores, responses for frequency per act were coded as 0 = “No experience of act,” 1 = “once,” 2 = “few times,” 3 = “many times.” For each IPV type, exposure scores were created by generating row totals for number of acts by frequency of acts (i.e., one act experienced once would score “1”, three acts experienced many times would score “9”). Scores per type are presented by tertiles (Table 3).

Exposure Scores Across IPV Types

To compare correlations between continuous exposure scores for each type by gender, correlation matrices are presented (Figure 3a and b). This illustrates whether increasing exposure scores for one type are correlated with increasing exposure scores for other types, allowing exploration of co-occurrence patterns for increased exposure via greater number of acts and increased frequency across IPV types.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive data analyses were conducted in Stata 16.0 (StataCorp, 2019). Survey functions were used to account for sampling methods by weighting data by the number of eligible participants in each household. Missingness issues were minor; less than 1% for all exposure and outcome variables were missing except for economic IPV (13.8% for women and 2.8% for men), where missing was driven by “Not applicable,” “Don’t know,” or “Refused” responses.

Frequency and weighted proportions were used to compare reported prevalence by number of acts experienced per type (Table 2) and prevalence of frequency reported per individual act (Figure 2), stratified by gender (Supplemental Table 1). Row proportions were used to identify differential burdens of exposure by gender. Chi-square tests were used to determine whether differences between men and women in the prevalence and frequency of IPV acts were significant. Pearson’s correlation co-efficient was used to generate correlation matrices between men and women’s exposure scores (continuous variables). Davis’ (1971) guidelines for interpreting magnitudes of correlations were used for reporting correlation sizes.

Figure 2.

Frequency of individual IPV acts experienced, by gender.

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample and prevalence by “any” exposure to each IPV type are presented in Table 1. The median age of ever-partnered women was 52 years (IQR: 28; range: 16–96) and men was 51 years (IQR: 26; range: 17–93). The sample predominantly identified as heterosexual (96.9% [95.7–97.8] for men and 96.7% [95.3–97.6] for women). Any IPV (any act at least once) was reported by 49.9% of men and 54.7% of women (p = .0460). Using any/ever measures of IPV by type, men and women reported similar prevalence for any physical IPV 29.4% for men and 28.0% for women (p = .5052), and for controlling behaviors (20.2% of men compared with 21.6% of women [p = .4512]). Women reported higher prevalence for psychological IPV (47.7% vs. 39.9% [p = .0006]) and economic abuse (16.2% vs. 11.5% [p = .0018]), and substantially higher prevalence of sexual IPV (12.4% vs. 2.1% [p = .0000]).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Ever-Partnered Participants in the NZFVS by Gender (n = 2,786).

	n (W%)
	Men (n = 1,355)	Women (n = 1,431)	Total	χ² (p-Value)
Age Group
16–29	153 (14.71)	156 (15.15)	309 (15.61)	.9370 (.8807)
30–49	477 (34.03)	474 (33.82)	951 (33.92)
50–69	507 (36.67)	547 (36.71)	1,054 (36.69)
70+	216 (13.69)	252 (14.77)	468 (14.24)
Ethnicity
European	940 (64.47)	1,006 (65.14)	1,946 (64.81)	33.91 (.0114)
Māori	118 (8.88)	183 (14.42)	301 (11.70)
Pacific	80 (7.74)	66 (7.41)	146 (7.57)
Asian	194 (17.41)	152 (11.64)	346 (14.47)
MELAA	21 (1.50)	22 (1.39)	43 (1.44)
Education
Primary/secondary	578 (43.60)	578 (40.93)	1,156 (42.25)	2.00 (.2886)
Higher	774 (56.40)	847 (59.07)	1,621 (57.75)	2.00 (.2886)
Index of Multiple Deprivation Rank
Least deprived	353 (25.06)	414 (27.19)	767 (26.14)	8.92 (.4728)
Moderately deprived	624 (45.14)	584 (39.54)	1,208 (42.29)
Most deprived	378 (29.80)	430 (33.28)	808 (31.56)
Food security
Secure	1,127 (79.52)	1,146 (81.04)	2,273 (82.61)	4.23 (.1085)
Insecure	219 (17.39)	279 (20.48)	498 (18.96)	4.23 (.1085)
Employment status
Not Working	69 (5.64)	90 (6.48)	159 (6.07)	145.81 (.0000)
Housework	12 (1.02)	146 (10.35)	158 (5.77)
Student	50 (5.82)	61 (6.19)	111 (6.01)
Retired	249 (15.84)	355 (21.63)	604 (18.79)
Employed	973 (71.57)	778 (55.29)	1,751 (63.28)
Any IPV (at least one act)
No	667 (50.06)	627 (45.35)	1,294 (47.66)	6.08 (.0460)
Yes	682 (49.94)	794 (54.65)	1,476 (52.34)	6.08 (.0460)
Any physical IPV (at least one act)
No	955 (70.57)	1,013 (71.96)	1,968 (71.28)	.6401 (.5052)
Yes	391 (29.43)	407 (28.04)	798 (28.72)	.6401 (.5052)
Any sexual IPV (at least one act)
No	1,315 (97.94)	1,226 (87.59)	2,541 (92.67)	107.24 (.0000)
Yes	28 (2.06) ^a	191 (12.41)	219 (7.33)	107.24 (.0000)
Any psychological IPV (at least one act)
No	801 (60.06)	724 (52.30)	1,525 (56.11)	16.68 (.0006)
Yes	545 (39.94)	696 (47.70)	1,241 (43.89)	16.68 (.0006)
Any controlling behaviors (at least one act)
No	1,086 (79.78)	1,112 (78.43)	2,198 (79.09)	.7550 (.4512)
Yes	262 (20.22)	309 (21.57)	571 (20.91)	.7550 (.4512)
Any economic abuse (at least one act)
No	1,171 (88.50)	1,032 (83.78)	2,203 (86.24)	11.87 (.0018)
Yes	158 (11.50)	210 (16.22)	368 (13.76)	11.87 (.0018)

Note. IPV = Intimate partner violence; MELAA = Middle Eastern, Latin American, African; NZFVS = New Zealand Family Violence Study.

Sexual IPV was disproportionately experienced by men who identified their sexuality as either gay, bisexual, or something else (14.6%). Each other IPV type was proportionate with the sexual identification of the sample.

Number of Acts per IPV Type

Compared with men, women reported experiencing significantly more individual acts within all IPV types, except for moderate physical IPV (Supplemental Table 1). This was particularly evident for sexual IPV; of those who reported experiencing two of the three measured acts, 63.9% were women and 36.2% were men, and for those reporting all three assessed acts, 95.1% were women (p = .0000). For severe physical IPV, more men reported experiencing one act only (55.7% men, 44.3% women); however of those who experienced two or more acts a substantially larger proportion were women (63.9% of those reporting two acts, 71.1% of those reporting three acts, and 93.2% of those reporting all three assessed acts [p = .0000]). Similarly for psychological IPV, 57.5% of those who reported experiencing one act were men, whereas women comprised increasing proportions of those reporting greater number of acts (57.5% of those reporting two acts, 60.5% three acts, 70.7% four acts, and 79.5% all five assessed acts (p = .0000) (Supplemental Table 1).

Similar trends were found for acts of economic IPV (p = .0018), with similar rates of men and women reporting one act (48.6% men, 51.4% women), whereas increased proportions of those reporting greater numbers of acts were women (63.0% two acts, 65.9% three acts, 77.3% four acts), with the exception of experiencing all five economic IPV acts which was reported by only one respondent (Supplemental Table 1). Comparable proportions of men and women reported experiencing one to two controlling behaviors (51.5% men, 48.5% women); however a greater proportion of those who reported three (61.7%) or all four (87.1%) of the assessed controlling behaviors were women (p = .0030).

Frequency of Individual IPV Acts

Women reported greater overall prevalence of 20 of the 23 individual IPV acts assessed, except for the acts: slapped or thrown something at (moderate physical), restricted contact with friends (controlling), and pressured into unwanted work (economic) (Figure 2). Across all assessed acts, women comprised a substantially greater proportion of those who reported experiencing individual acts “many times” (Table 2). Women experienced all individual acts with significantly greater frequency than men for moderate physical, severe physical, sexual, and psychological IPV, and controlling behaviors (Table 2). For economic IPV, women reported both greater prevalence for two acts (Failed to arrive for or interfered with childcare and refused to give money for household expenses), and a greater frequency of experience of these acts many times (Table 2). Significant differences by gender were not found in prevalence or frequency of experience of the other three economic IPV acts.

Table 2.

Frequency of Specific IPV Acts Experienced for Men (n = 1,355) and Women (n = 1,431).

IPV Act		Men n (W%)	Women n (W%)	Row Total n (100%)	χ² (p-Value)
Moderate physical: slapped you or thrown something at you that could hurt you?	No	1,028 (47.93)	1,125 (52.07)	2,153	20.73 (.0008)
	Once	119 (57.42)	92 (42.58)	211
	Few times	132 (51.95)	127 (48.05)	259
	Many times	27 (29.73)	67 (70.27)	94
Moderate physical: pushed or shoved you or pulled your hair?	No	1,120 (50.11)	1,124 (49.89)	2,244	29.77 (.0000)
	Once	60 (43.33)	83 (56.67)	143
	Few times	120 (49.48)	128 (50.52)	248
	Many times	18 (21.30)	71 (78.70)	89
Severe physical: hit with their fist or with something else that could hurt you?	No	1,196 (49.44)	1,225 (50.56)	2,421	20.02 (.0008)
	Once	47 (51.28)	47 (48.72)	94
	Few times	65 (46.33)	85 (53.67)	150
	Many times	15 (21.52)	56 (78.48)	71
Severe physical: kicked, dragged or beaten up?	No	1,306 (50.49)	1,292 (49.51)	2,598	46.89 (.0000)
	Once	13 (36.96)	25 (63.04)	38
	Few times	17 (30.38)	48 (69.62)	65
	Many times	5 (8.06)	50 (91.94)	55
Severe physical: choked or burnt on purpose?	No	1,333 (50.26)	1,336 (49.74)	2,669	47.78 (.0000)
	Once	2 (5.26)	33 (94.74)	35
	Few times	6 (25.00)	23 (75.00)	29
	Many times	2 (6.90)	21 (93.10)	23
Severe physical: threatened or actually used a gun, knife, or other weapon?	No	1,300 (49.63)	1,341 (50.37)	2,641	21.19 (.0001)
	Once	25 (51.72)	25 (48.28)	50
	Few times	14 (28.30)	33 (71.70)	47
	Many times	1 (4.76)	15 (95.24)	16
Sexual: force you to have sexual intercourse?	No	1,333 (51.14)	1,282 (48.86)	2,615	87.81 (.0000)
	Once	1 (5.71)	32 (94.29)	33
	Few times	4 (8.33)	66 (91.67)	70
	Many times	2 (9.09)	27 (90.91)	29
Sexual: Have sexual intercourse you did not want to because you were afraid?	No	1,321 (50.89)	1,283 (49.11)	2,604	70.9 (.0000)
	Once	5 (28.57)	15 (71.43)	20
	Few times	9 (11.63)	70 (88.37)	79
	Many times	3 (8.33)	37 (91.67)	40
Sexual: Force you to do anything else sexual?	No	1,332 (50.29)	1,331 (49.71)	2,663	60.81 (.0000)
	Once	1 (10.00)	15 (90.00)	16
	Few times	4 (7.81)	50 (92.19)	54
	Many times	1 (4.55)	18 (95.45)	19
Psychological: Insulted you or made you feel bad about yourself?	No	879 (51.52)	834 (48.48)	1,713	44.43 (.0000)
	Once	44 (56.81)	32 (43.18)	76
	Few times	269 (49.33)	281 (50.67)	550
	Many times	108 (31.94)	245 (68.06)	353
Psychological: Said or did something that made you feel humiliated in front of people?	No	1,070 (52.30)	983 (47.70)	2,053	55.05 (.0000)
	Once	47 (55.56)	34 (44.44)	81
	Few times	145 (38.43)	230 (61.57)	375
	Many times	54 (29.20)	142 (70.80)	196
Psychological: Did things that made you feel scared or intimidated?	No	1,267 (53.96)	1,085 (46.04)	2,352	163.70 (.0000)
	Once	14 (31.48)	30 (68.52)	44
	Few times	32 (18.40)	149 (81.60)	181
	Many times	20 (14.29)	138 (85.71)	158
Psychological: Threatened to harm you or someone you care about?	No	1,266 (51.57)	1,202 (48.43)	2,468	68.01 (.0000)
	Once	16 (30.65)	34 (69.35)	50
	Few times	34 (29.29)	88 (70.71)	122
	Many times	19 (18.18)	88 (81.82)	107
Psychological: Destroyed things that are important to you?	No	1,221 (50.10)	1,224 (49.90)	2,445	25.76 (.0001)
	Once	29 (54.79)	27 (45.21)	56
	Few times	57 (41.52)	87 (58.48)	144
	Many times	24 (24.77)	73 (75.22)	97
Controlling: Stopped you from seeing your friends?	No	1,160 (48.97)	1,212 (51.03)	2,372	24.84 (.0002)
	Once	25 (68.00)	15 (32.00)	40
	Few times	99 (57.85)	76 (42.15)	175
	Many times	53 (34.37)	107 (65.63)	160
Controlling: Restricted contact with your family?	No	1,263 (49.54)	1,310 (50.46)	2,573	14.77 (.0032)
	Once	6 (54.55)	4 (45.45)	10
	Few times	41 (55.17)	35 (44.83)	76
	Many times	32 (30.58)	69 (69.42)	101
Controlling: Insisted on knowing where you are in a way that made you feel unsafe?	No	1,177 (50.24)	1,172 (49.76)	2,349	14.27 (.0077)
	Once	12 (46.15)	13 (53.85)	25
	Few times	71 (47.42)	88 (52.58)	159
	Many times	75 (36.94)	138 (63.06)	213
Controlling: Stopped you from getting healthcare?	No	1,190 (50.30)	1,181 (49.70)	2,371	15.19 (.0054)
	Once	1 (100.00)	0 (0.00)	1
	Few times	71 (47.42)	88 (52.58)	159
	Many times	75 (36.94)	138 (63.06)	213
Economic: Pressured into paid work that you did not want to do?	No	1,279 (51.89)	1,207 (48.11)	2,486	7.60 (.0752)
	Once	22 (71.05)	8 (28.95)	30
	Few times	16 (62.50)	9 (37.50)	25
	Many times	4 (31.25)	10 (68.75)	14
Economic: Failed to arrive for or interfered with childcare when you were at work?	No	1,060 (52.11)	970 (47.89)	2,030	17.73 (.0010)
	Once	7 (38.46)	16 (61.54)	23
	Few times	16 (26.47)	45 (73.53)	61
	Many times	10 (37.93)	15 (62.07)	25
Economic: Given up/refused a job because your partner did not want you to do it?	No	1,276 (52.35)	1,184 (47.65)	2,460	7.14 (.0850)
	Once	27 (42.67)	34 (57.33)	61
	Few times	10 (34.38)	18 (65.63)	28
	Many times	1 (20.00)	2 (80.00)	3
Economic: Taken your earnings or savings from you against your will?	No	1,249 (52.35)	1,157 (47.65)	2,406	8.56 (.0589)
	Once	26 (61.70)	16 (38.30)	42
	Few times	30 (52.78)	31 (47.22)	61
	Many times	15 (32.76)	32 (67.24)	47
Economic: Refused to give you money for household expenses, even when they have money for other things?	No	1,259 (53.41)	1,108 (46.59)	2,367	35.66 (.0000)
	Once	6 (35.00)	11 (65.00)	17
	Few times	25 (31.46)	53 (68.54)	78
	Many times	15 (23.29)	51 (76.71)	66

Note. Observations (n) and weighted percentages may not be directly proportionate due to survey weighting. n = number of participants; W%=weighted proportion; IPV = intimate partner violence.

Exposure Scores per Type

Exposure scores are presented in tertiles in Table 3. Significant differences between men and women’s exposure scores were observed for all six assessed types. For moderate physical IPV exposure, men comprised slightly more than half of respondents scoring within the lower two tertiles (52.7% and 51.1%); however 75.4% of those scoring in the upper tertile were women (p = .0002) (Table 3). For severe physical IPV, women comprised a greater proportion of those who scored in all three levels of the exposure score tertiles; these differences were particularly evident in the middle (72.6% women) and upper (91.9% women) tertiles (p = .0000) (Table 3). Of the men who reported sexual IPV, respondents were mostly clustered in the lowest tertile; however, the proportion was still low as 20% of those in this tertile were men and 80% were women (Table 3). Of the middle and upper tertiles for sexual IPV exposure scores, 93.5% and 96.6% were women, respectively (p = .0000).

Table 3.

Exposure Scores (Number of Acts by Frequency of Acts) per IPV Type.

IPV Type	Score	Tertile	Men n (W%)	Women n (W%)	Total n (Column%)	χ² (p-Value)
Moderate physical	0	None	998 (48.98)	1,045 (51.02)	2,043 (74.57)	25.30 (.0002)
	1–2	Lower	207 (52.73)	194 (47.27)	401 (14.77)
	3–4	Middle	103 (51.05)	103 (48.95)	206 (7.13)
	5–6	Upper	23 (24.58)	75 (75.42)	98 (3.52)
Severe physical	0	None	1,197 (50.38)	1,186 (49.62)	2,383 (86.57)	33.29 (.0000)
	1–4	Lower	130 (46.94)	155 (53.06)	285 (10.17)
	5–8	Middle	17 (27.40)	49 (72.60)	66 (2.16)
	9–12	Upper	2 (8.11)	29 (91.89)	31 (1.10)
Sexual	0	None	1,319 (51.67)	1,236 (48.33)	2,555 (93.14)	105.70 (.0000)
	1–3	Lower	20 (20.00)	93 (80.00)	113 (3.71)
	4–6	Middle	3 (6.49)	66 (93.51)	69 (2.29)
	7–9	Upper	1 (3.45)	21 (96.55)	22 (0.86)
Psychological	0	None	851 (52.74)	757 (47.26)	1,608 (59.47)	73.46 (.0000)
	1–5	Lower	381 (50.11)	384 (49.89)	765 (26.98)
	6–10	Middle	92 (38.44)	158 (61.56)	250 (8.72)
	11–15	Upper	22 (17.18)	120 (82.82)	142 (4.83)
Controlling behaviors	0	None	1,096 (49.52)	1,125 (50.48)	2,221 (80.18)	18.90 (.0017)
	1–4	Lower	131 (56.03)	102 (43.97)	233 (8.36)
	5–8	Middle	68 (47.47)	88 (52.53)	156 (5.87)
	9–12	Upper	52 (33.86)	105 (66.14)	157 (5.60)
Economic	0	None	1,168 (53.45)	1,030 (46.55)	2,198 (86.21)	20.97 (.0002)
	1–5	Lower	143 (47.09)	166 (52.91)	309 (11.61)
	6–10	Middle	14 (25.81)	41 (74.19)	55 (1.99)
	11–15	Upper	1 (16.67)	3 (83.33)	4 (0.19)

Note. n = number of participants; W% = weighted proportion; IPV = intimate partner violence.

While a similar proportion of men and women scored in the lower tertile for psychological IPV (50.1% vs. 49.9%, respectively), women comprised a significantly greater proportion of those who scored in the middle (61.6%) and upper (82.8%) tertiles than men (p = .0000). For controlling behaviors, a slightly greater proportion of those scoring in the lower tertile were men (56.0%) than women; however different proportions were observed for the upper tertile (33.9% men and 66.1% women). Similar proportions of men and women scored in the lower tertile for economic IPV (47.1% for men and 52.9% of women) (Table 3). However, 74.2% of those in the middle tertile and 83.3% of those scoring in the upper tertile were women (p = .0002).

Exposure Scores Across Types

Correlation matrices were used to explore relationships between exposure scores across types. Overall, women presented higher correlations between exposure scores per type than for men, with all correlations ranging from “substantial” (.520 for economic and sexual IPV) to “very high” (.807 for severe and moderate physical IPV) (Figure 3b). For men, correlations ranged from “low” (.253 for sexual and moderate physical IPV) to “substantial” (.640 for severe and moderate physical IPV) (Figure 3a). For both men and women, the highest correlations were observed between moderate physical IPV and psychological IPV, and moderate physical IPV and severe physical IPV. For women, a “very high” correlation (.715) was also found between controlling behaviors and psychological IPV.

Figure 3.

(a) Matrix of correlations for ever-partnered men (left) and (b) Matrix of correlations for ever-partnered women (right).

Discussion

This study provides evidence of gender asymmetry in experiences of IPV at the population level. While use of ever/never measures based on experience of any single act of IPV yielded overall comparable prevalence rates of IPV for women and men, this study confirms previous assertions that women are more likely to experience more severe and more frequent IPV than men. This is supported by women and men’s self-reported experience of IPV acts, and by the frequency with which each act was experienced. The co-occurrence across IPV types and frequency also supports the contention that women are more likely to experience more, and more frequent IPV than men.

Creation of exposure scores facilitated a broader understanding of IPV experiences within types, rather than simplified (at least one, at least “once”) measures as are commonly used in IPV research. For example, for psychological IPV (which has been posited as men’s most commonly experienced IPV type (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013)), over four times as many women than men had scores in the upper tertile; scores within this tertile corresponded to reporting, at minimum, four individual acts at least “a few times” and one “many times” or experiencing four acts “many times.”

Correlations between exposure scores for different IPV types indicated that increased frequency (or severity) of experiencing some IPV types corresponded with increased risk for experiencing greater frequency for other IPV types. These correlations suggest that women are more likely to experience multiple types of IPV at increased frequency or severity than men. This may help to explain why greater impacts of cumulative IPV exposure have been observed for women than men (Mellar, Gulliver, et al., 2023; Mellar, Hashemi, et al., 2023).

Population-based U.S. studies have found that around 40% of men and women experience any physical IPV (Smith et al., 2018), which was echoed in the present study; prevalence of any physical IPV was similar (29.4% and 28.0% for men and women, respectively). However, when considering the number of acts and their frequency via exposure scores, women experienced greater moderate and severe physical IPV.

The act most commonly reported by both men and women was being insulted by a partner, which has also been found in other similar studies (Heise et al., 2019). This act has been categorized as a milder act of psychological IPV by some studies, though there is currently no consensus on how to measure thresholds for severity of psychological IPV (Heise et al., 2019). Milder psychological IPV acts captured by various instruments may be normative and common across relationships, and unlikely to cause detrimental impacts (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013), or may constitute a separate type of IPV (microaggression) (Hacıaliefendioğlu et al., 2021). It is also possible that men’s experiences of psychological IPV may cluster around milder acts compared to women, similar to indications that men generally experience more moderate physical IPV (Carmo et al., 2011; Reid et al., 2008).

Research has previously found that women’s reports of controlling behaviors indicate more frequent and severe physical IPV, and co-occurring psychological and physical IPV (Aizpurua et al., 2021; Hardesty et al., 2015). These studies have primarily relied on count measures of the number of controlling behaviors experienced; an approach which has been criticized as, while the variety of acts used by a perpetrator is important, “count approaches [risk] (mis)classifying highly controlling abusers as ‘low control’ when they rely on very few control tactics but enforce them relentlessly” (Hardesty et al., 2015, p. 834). The present study shows that greater frequency and number of controlling behaviors is also correlated with greater exposure scores for psychological IPV and moderate physical IPV.

The fewer significant differences observed for economic IPV acts may have corresponded with a strong influence of gendered expectations and norms pertaining to employment and divisions of labor within heterosexual relationships (Postmus et al., 2012). Previous research has found that men who were unemployed were at the greatest increased risk for experiencing IPV, whereas for women the greatest likelihood was observed for those who experienced food insecurity (Mellar, Gulliver, et al., 2023; Mellar, Hashemi, et al., 2023). Economic abuse can be used to coerce victims into staying in relationships and has been posited to mediate the relationship with poor mental health outcomes, especially when compounded with other IPV types (McKay White & Fjellner, 2022; Stylianou et al., 2013; Voth Schrag et al., 2019). A 2022 Canadian study claimed that “economic abuse, as a general phenomenon, is not a gendered issue”; however the study then reported that economic abuse severity, as well as economic abuse subtypes (especially “economic control”), were gendered and more likely to be reported by women (McKay White & Fjellner, 2022, p. 9). Importantly, this study utilized a small, non-representative sample (n = 270) and noted the need for population-level research on economic abuse (McKay White & Fjellner, 2022). The current study addresses this gap.

This study supports patterns found in other research that presents nuanced gender differences, namely greater prevalence of most IPV types reported by women compared with men, especially for the less common but more severe acts, and for physical and psychological consequences of experiencing IPV (Cotter, 2021). Further development, adaptation, and validation of survey tools for use with men is needed, as it is not yet wholly established whether there are gendered biases in construct validity of IPV measurement tools (Follingstad & Rogers, 2013; Scott-Storey et al., 2023). Men’s prevalence rates for controlling behaviors and economic abuse in the present study were relatively high at the “any” levels compared to women (Table 1 and Figure 2), particularly considering the strong gendered evidence for controlling behaviors (Myhill, 2015). However, once responses were detailed by number of acts, frequency of acts, and exposure scores, the expected gendered differences became evident. This supports claims that low-level controlling behaviors may be picked up in healthy relationships depending on wording of the questions and measurements used, and may not indicate presence of abuse (Patafio et al., 2021).

Controlling behaviors (or coercive control) remains an inconsistently defined and measured concept, though one review identified three key facets of coercive controlling behaviors: intentionality of the perpetrator, the victim’s negative perception of the controlling behavior, and the abuser’s ability to assert and maintain control via credible threats (Hamberger et al., 2017). In a U.S. population-based study, men’s coercive control prevalence (29.8%) was largely driven by yes responses to “kept track of by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing” (Smith et al., 2018); however this question does not capture either the intention of the perpetrator or perception of the victim (e.g., “in a way that made you feel unsafe or afraid”). Similar problems with conceptualizations of physical and psychological IPV have been identified, as those reporting the presence of specific behaviors may not have experienced or perceived them as threatening, harmful, or abusive (Follingstad, 2007, 2009; Scott-Storey et al., 2023).

Thus, frequency measures may also contain more detail on IPV experiences and effectively capture repetitive and ongoing situations of abuse (Patafio et al., 2021). Some research has indicated that IPV measurements that use frequency-related scores can detect patterns that simple count measures cannot (Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020). Importantly, our exposure scores are helpful at the population-level but are not recommended for clinical or practice measures, where nuanced and sensitive individual risk-assessments are required.

The greater reported frequency of individual acts and the number of acts experienced by women helps to explain why women are at increased risk for experiencing poor mental and physical health outcomes compared with men. Frequency via number of acts and their experienced frequency may be a useful indicator or proxy for overall severity of IPV, outside of the nature of the acts themselves. In terms of specific acts, women’s reports of greater prevalence and frequency of severe IPV acts (such as threats with weapons, forced sex, and strangulation) that are associated with higher risk for intimate femicide, helps to explain gendered differences in intimate partner homicide rates (Johnson et al., 2019).

Findings lend credence to feminist theoretical perspectives about patriarchal structures of power, and the need to consider men’s violence against women as both a manifestation of and a tactic to maintain women’s inequitable positions in society. While acknowledging this, we also note that more nuanced versions of feminist theory, such as the integrative model for feminist theory, have been proposed which allow scope for incorporating additional explanatory models of violence causation (McPhail et al., 2007). We also highlight that power, and use of violence to acquire and maintain power, is a recurring theme that underlies many theories. Foregrounding issues of power has strongly contributed to effectiveness of community-based IPV prevention efforts (Abramsky et al., 2014). The current study supports calls to avoid gender-neutral approaches to research on gendered violence (Johnson, 2015). Doing so will ensure that research can bolster fundamental efforts to target violence against women and to avoid further entrenching gender inequities, such as by diverting funding from IPV services for women (Johnson, 2015).

Diversity

This study adds to the diversity of global data available on IPV by contributing data from a high income, non-U.S. population sample. It provides comprehensive discussion of the diversity of IPV experience on the basis of gender, and contributes to identification of IPV issues for men in same-sex relationships. While provision was made for collecting data from people who identify their gender as non-binary, only one person with this identification participated. Further research which is able to recruit a greater number of gender-diverse individuals is needed to understand prevalence and patterns of IPV within this group. This study also included a range of people who reported disability; the increased risk for IPV experience for disabled people is described elsewhere (Fanslow, Malihi, et al., 2021b).

Our sample was broadly representative of the NZ population in terms of ethnicity, but we have not presented ethnic-specific rates of IPV here as it was not the focus of this article. Elsewhere we have noted that ethnic and income-related variation in IPV rates is associated with different health outcomes (Mellar, Hashemi, et al., 2023). Implications of these inequitable burdens within the population merits both culturally appropriate responses and dedicated resourcing for these portions of the community (Dobbs, 2014). We also acknowledge the broad classifications of ethnicity can conceal within-group variations, as labels like “Pacific,” “Asian,” and “European” can obscure different risks and resources that exist within different cultural groups classified into these broad categories (Simon-Kumar, 2019).

Limitations

Several sampling factors may have underestimated the prevalence of IPV, including exclusion of inaccessible housing, those who could not speak English, and those residing in facilities such as prisons. While data collection was conducted in compliance with WHO’s recommendations for maximizing participant safety and disclosure (Ellsberg et al., 2001), recall or social desirability biases may have compromised self-reported IPV measures (Ellsberg et al., 2008). This study assessed lifetime IPV experience (before the past 12 months) and excluded the past 12-month IPV due to its low prevalence in the sample. This study did not assess whether IPV was perpetrated by a current or former partner, which has been argued to show differential patterns of victimization by gender (Ahmadabadi et al., 2021). Though it could not be measured in the present study, duration of IPV may also be a relevant factor in gendered differences in IPV experience and related outcomes, which may be measured as duration of violent episodes or of violent relationship (Follingstad, 2009).

As this was a predominantly self-reported heterosexual sample, nuanced results could not be produced for those in same-sex partnerships. However, while the proportions of those who experienced IPV were consistent with the distribution of sexuality within the sample, a substantial proportion (14.6%) of men who experienced sexual IPV identified as gay, bisexual, or something else. More research with LGBTQ samples is warranted, especially to further exploration of men’s IPV experiences (Scott-Storey et al., 2023).

Conclusion

This study provides evidence of gender asymmetry in IPV experiences at the population-level and reinforces the ongoing need for women-centered focus for IPV intervention efforts and a men-centered focus for IPV prevention. While men do experience IPV victimization, this study highlights that IPV experiences are distinctly different for men and women. These differences are likely commonly obscured by use of blunt and oversimplified measurement tools for IPV exposure, including the use of ever/never measures that do not consider frequency, severity, or co-occurring types of IPV. Gendered differences in the frequency and severity of IPV experienced help to explain the different health outcomes observed between men and women who are victims of IPV and reinforce the need for gendered approaches to dealing with IPV in research, clinical settings, IPV services, and policy-making. If we are to focus on IPV patterns for which the greatest level of harm occurs as recommended by scholars (Scott-Storey et al., 2023), these findings emphasize the need for directed and substantial resource allocation for intervention and therapeutic responses to women’s exposure to IPV, and also the need for primary prevention with men. Services should also be attuned to gendered differences in help-seeking behaviors, as women IPV survivors are more likely to seek help than men (Cho et al., 2019).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605231163646 – Supplemental material for Evidence of Gender Asymmetry in Intimate Partner Violence Experience at the Population-Level

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605231163646 for Evidence of Gender Asymmetry in Intimate Partner Violence Experience at the Population-Level by Janet L. Fanslow, Brooklyn M. Mellar, Pauline J. Gulliver and Tracey K. D. McIntosh in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Acknowledgements and Credits

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participants, interviewers, the study project team led by Patricia Meagher-Lundberg and data curation by Dr Ladan Hashemi. Representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Accident Compensation Corporation, New Zealand Police, and Ministry of Education, who were part of the Governance Group for Family and Sexual Violence at the inception of the study, are also acknowledged. The study funder had no involvement in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This study is based on the WHO Violence Against Women Instrument as developed for use in the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence and has been adapted from the version used in Asia and the Pacific by kNOwVAWdata, version 12.03. It adheres to the WHO ethical guidelines for the conduct of violence against women research.

Author Contributions

BMM conducted the data analysis and coordinated the writing of the article. JLF and PG supervised the data analysis and interpretation. JLF and PG contributed to originating the research questions. JLF, PG, and TM were coinvestigators on the grant that supported the data collection. All authors participated in the writing of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding was received from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, contract number CONT-42799-HASTR-UOA.

ORCID iDs

Janet L. Fanslow

Brooklyn M. Mellar

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Janet L. Fanslow, MNZM, is an Associate Professor at the School of Population Health, University of Auckland, and Chief Advisor of the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse. She has been engaged in violence prevention research since 1989 and has led two population-based studies on the prevalence and health consequences of violence.

Brooklyn M. Mellar, MPH, is a research assistant in the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland. Her work focuses on social determinants of health, particularly intimate partner violence and adverse childhood experiences. She is interested in using quantitative methods to identify moderating factors between adversity and poor health to inform population-level prevention and intervention efforts.

Pauline J. Gulliver, PhD, is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the School of Population Health, University of Auckland. Pauline has also been involved with research measuring the long-term outcomes of assault in pregnancy, exploring risk factors for suicidal ideation in women who have experienced violence, and understanding the dynamics associated with family violence deaths.

Tracey K. D. McIntosh, PhD, MNZM, is Ngāi Tūhoe and is Professor of Indigenous Studies and Co-Head of Te Wānanga o Waipapa (School of Māori Studies and Pacific Studies) at the University of Auckland. Her recent research focused on incarceration (particularly of Māori and Indigenous peoples) and issues pertaining to poverty, inequality, and social justice.

References

Abramsky

Devries

Kiss

Nakuti

Kyegombe

Starmann

Cundill

Francisco

Kaye

Musuya

Michau

Watts

(2014). Findings from the SASA! Study: A cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of a community mobilization intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0122-5

Afifi

T. O.

MacMillan

Cox

B. J.

Asmundson

G. J. G.

Stein

M. B.

Sareen

(2009). Mental health correlates of intimate partner violence in marital relationships in a nationally representative sample of males and females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(8), 1398–1417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508322192

Ahmadabadi

Najman

J. M.

Williams

G. M.

Clavarino

A. M.

d’Abbs

(2021). Gender differences in intimate partner violence in current and prior relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 915–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517730563

Aizpurua

Copp

Ricarte

J. J.

Vázquez

(2021). Controlling behaviors and intimate partner violence among women in Spain: An examination of individual, partner, and relationship risk factors for physical and psychological abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 231–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723744

Ansara

D. L.

Hindin

M. J.

(2010). Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner violence for women and men in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1628–1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510370600

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651

Archer

(2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00061-1

Bonomi

A. E.

Thompson

R. S.

Anderson

Reid

R. J.

Carrell

Dimer

J. A.

Rivara

F. P.

(2006). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical, mental, and social functioning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(6), 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.01.015

Caldwell

J. E.

Swan

S. C.

Woodbrown

V. D.

(2012). Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence, 2(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026296

10.

Carbone-López

Kruttschnitt

Macmillan

(2006). Patterns of intimate partner violence and their associations with physical health, psychological distress, and substance use. Public Health Reports, 121(4), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100406

11.

Carmo

Grams

Magalhães

(2011). Men as victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18(8), 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2011.07.006

12.

Cho

Seon

Han

J.-B.

Shamrova

Kwon

(2019). Gender differences in the relationship between the nature of intimate partner violence and the survivor’s help-seeking. Violence Against Women, 26(6–7), 712–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219841440

13.

Chornesky

(2000). The dynamics of battering revisited. Affilia, 15(4), 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/08861090022094074

14.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00514-7

15.

Cotter

(2021). Intimate partner violence in Canada, 2018: An overview. Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2021001/article/00003-eng.htm

16.

Davis

J. A.

(1971). Elementary survey analysis. Prentice-Hall.

17.

Devries

K. M.

Mak

J. Y. T.

García-Moreno

Petzold

Child

J. C.

Falder

Lim

Bacchus

L. J.

Engell

R. E.

Rosenfeld

Pallitto

Vos

Abrahams

Watts

C. H.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340(6140), 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240937

18.

Dillon

Hussain

Loxton

Rahman

(2013). Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: A review of the literature. International Journal of Family Medicine, 2013, 313909. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/313909

19.

Dixon

Graham-Kevan

(2011). Understanding the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice and policy. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(7), 1145–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.001

20.

Dobbs

T. E. T

. (2014). Kaupapa Māori wellbeing framework: The basis for whānau violence prevention and intervention. New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, University of Auckland. https://nzfvc.org.nz/issues-papers-6

21.

Dokkedahl

S. B.

Kirubakaran

Bech-Hansen

Kristensen

T. R.

Elklit

(2022). The psychological subtype of intimate partner violence and its effect on mental health: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Systematic Reviews, 11, 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02025-z

22.

Dutton

M. A.

Kaltman

Goodman

L. A.

Weinfurt

Vankos

(2005). Patterns of intimate partner violence: Correlates and outcomes. Violence and Victims, 20(5), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667005780927520

23.

Ellsberg

Heise

Pena

Agurto

Winkvist

(2001). Researching domestic violence against women: Methodological and ethical considerations. Studies in Family Planning, 32(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2001.00001.x

24.

Ellsberg

Jansen

Heise

Watts

Garcia-Moreno

(2008). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: An observational study. Lancet, 371(9619), 1165–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60522-X

25.

Exeter

D. J.

Zhao

Crengle

Lee

Browne

(2017). The New Zealand indices of multiple deprivation (IMD): A new suite of indicators for social and health research in Aotearoa, New Zealand. PloS One, 12(8), e0181260. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181260

26.

Fanslow

Gulliver

Hashemi

Malihi

McIntosh

(2021). Methods for the 2019 New Zealand family violence study- a study on the association between violence exposure, health and well-being. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 16(1), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2020.1862252

27.

Fanslow

Malihi

Hashemi

Gulliver

McIntosh

(2021a). Change in prevalence of psychological and economic abuse, and controlling behaviours against women by an intimate partner in two cross-sectional studies in New Zealand, 2003 and 2019. BMJ Open, 11(3), e044910. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044910

28.

Fanslow

Malihi

Hashemi

Gulliver

McIntosh

(2021b). Lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence and disability: Results from a population-based study in New Zealand. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 61(3), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.02.022

29.

Fanslow

J. L.

Hashemi

Gulliver

McIntosh

(2022). Gender patterns in the use of physical violence against a violent partner: Results of a cross-sectional population-based study in New Zealand. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP22890–NP22920. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211073094

30.

Fanslow

J. L.

Malihi

Hashemi

Gulliver

McIntosh

(2022). Prevalence of interpersonal violence against women and men in New Zealand: Results of a cross-sectional study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 46(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13206

31.

Follingstad

D. R.

(2007). Rethinking current approaches to psychological abuse: Conceptual and methodological issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(4), 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.07.004

32.

Follingstad

D. R.

(2009). The impact of psychological aggression on women’s mental health and behavior: The status of the field. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(3), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009334453

33.

Follingstad

D. R.

Rogers

M. J.

(2013). Validity concerns in the measurement of women’s and men’s report of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69(3–4), 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0264-5

34.

Gilbert

L. K.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

Kresnow

M.-J.

(2023). Intimate partner violence and health conditions among U.S. Adults-national intimate partner violence survey, 2010–2012. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1–2), NP237–NP261.

35.

Hacıaliefendioğlu

Yılmaz

Koyutürk

Karakurt

(2021). Co-occurrence patterns of intimate partner violence. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 26, 79–90.

36.

Hamberger

L. K.

Larsen

S. E.

Lehrner

(2017). Coercive control in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.08.003

37.

Hamby

(2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma, 1(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015066

38.

Hamby

(2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research: Scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014520723

39.

Hardesty

J. L.

Crossman

K. A.

Haselschwerdt

M. L.

Raffaelli

Ogolsky

B. G.

Johnson

M. P.

(2015). Toward a standard approach to operationalizing coercive control and classifying violence types. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 833–843. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24582812

40.

Hardesty

J. L.

Ogolsky

B. G.

(2020). A socioecological perspective on intimate partner violence research: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12652

41.

Heise

Pallitto

García-Moreno

Clark

C. J.

(2019). Measuring psychological abuse by intimate partners: Constructing a cross-cultural indicator for the Sustainable Development Goals. SSM - Population Health, 9, 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100377

42.

Johnson

(2015). Degendering violence. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 22(3), 390–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxv021

43.

Johnson

Eriksson

Mazerolle

Wortley

(2019). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. 14(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117701574

44.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293328

45.

Johnson

M. P.

(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 289–296. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006

46.

Kimmel

M. S.

(2002). “Gender Symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1332–1363. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102237407

47.

Krug

E. G.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Mercy

J. A.

Zwi

A. B.

Lozano

R. E.

(Eds.). (2002). World report on violence and health. World Health Organization.

48.

McKay White

Fjellner

. (2022). The prevalence of economic abuse among intimate partners in alberta. SAGE Open. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221084999

49.

McPhail

B. A.

Busch

N. B.

Kulkarni

Rice

(2007). An integrative feminist model: The evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13(8), 817–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207302039

50.

Mellar

Gulliver

Selak

Hashemi

McIntosh

Fanslow

(2023). Association between men’s exposure to intimate partner violence and self-reported health outcomes in New Zealand. JAMA Network Open, 6(1), e2252578. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.52578

51.

Mellar

Hashemi

Selak

Gulliver

McIntosh

Fanslow

(2023). Association between women’s exposure to intimate partner violence and self-reported health outcomes in New Zealand. JAMA Network Open, 6(3), e231311. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1311

52.

Myhill

(2015). Measuring coercive control: What can we learn from national population surveys? Violence Against Women, 21(3), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214568032

53.

Patafio

Miller

Walker

Coomber

Curtis

Karantzas

Mayshak

Taylor

Hyder

(2021). Coercive controlling behaviors and reporting physical intimate partner violence in Australian women: An exploration. Violence Against Women, 28(2), 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220985932

54.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S.-B.

McMahon

Murshid

N. S.

Kim

M. S.

(2012). Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(3), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511421669

55.

Potter

L. C.

Morris

Hegarty

García-Moreno

Feder

(2021). Categories and health impacts of intimate partner violence in the World Health Organization multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. International Journal of Epidemiology, 50(2), 652–662. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa220

56.

Reid

R. J.

Bonomi

A. E.

Rivara

F. P.

Anderson

M. L.

Fishman

P. A.

Carrell

D. S.

Thompson

R. S.

(2008). Intimate partner violence among men. Prevalence, chronicity, and health effects. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(6), 478–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.029

57.

Sardinha

Maheu-Giroux

Stöckl

Meyer

S. R.

García-Moreno

(2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. The Lancet, 399(10327), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7

58.

Scott-Storey

(2011). Cumulative abuse: Do things add up? An evaluation of the conceptualization, operationalization, and methodological approaches in the study of the phenomenon of cumulative abuse. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12(3), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838011404253

59.

Scott-Storey

O’Donnell

Ford-Gilboe

Varcoe

Wathen

Malcolm

Vincent

(2023). What about the men? A critical review of men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 24(2), 858–872.

60.

Simon-Kumar

(2019). Ethnic perspectives on family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, University of Auckland. https://nzfvc.org.nz/issues-paper-14-ethnic-perspectives-family-violence-aotearoa-new-zealand

61.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K. C.

Merrick

M. T.

Wang

Kresnow

M.-J.

Chen

(2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2015 data brief–updated release. Atlanta, Georgia: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

62.

StataCorp. (2019). Stata statistical software: Release 16. College Station, TX. StataCorp LLC.

63.

Stöckl

Devries

Rotstein

Abrahams

Campbell

Watts

Moreno

C. G.

(2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The Lancet, 382(9895), 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61030-2

64.

Stubbs

Szoeke

(2022). The effect of intimate partner violence on the physical health and health-related behaviors of women: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 23(4), 1157–1172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020985541

65.

Stylianou

A. M.

Postmus

J. L.

McMahon

(2013). Measuring abusive behaviors: Is economic abuse a unique form of abuse? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3186–3204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513496904

66.

Voth Schrag

R. J.

Robinson

S. R.

Ravi

. (2019). Understanding pathways within intimate partner violence: Economic abuse, economic hardship, and mental health. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(2), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1546247

67.

Winstok

(2015). Critical review of Hamby’s (2014) article titled “Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Research, Scientific Progress, Scientific Challenges, and Gender”. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015596962

68.

World Health Organization. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence against women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43309

69.

World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence (No. WHO/RHR/12.36). https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/?sequence=1

70.

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341337

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB