Numerous academic studies point to gender symmetry in the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV). Many of these studies report findings from surveys with small and/or unrepresentative samples that have insufficient questions to differentiate adequately between different types of abuse. Data from a large, nationally representative survey suggest that, while the prevalence of situational violence is fairly symmetrical, coercive controlling abuse is highly gendered, with women overwhelmingly the victims. The authors conclude that more comprehensive measures are required in national surveys that consider a wider range of controlling behaviors as well as the meaning and impact of abuse.
BeckC.MenkeM.BrewsterK.FigueredoA. (2009). Validation of a measure of intimate partner abuse with couples participating in divorce mediation. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 50, 295-308.
2.
BeckC.WalshM.MechanicM.FigueredoA.ChenM. (2011). Intimate partner abuse in divorce mediation: Outcome from a long-term multi-cultural study (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
3.
BogaertsS.van der VeenH.van der KnappL. (2011). Aspects of intimate terrorism: A test of Johnson’s typology in a Dutch online panel. International Perspectives in Victimology, 5, 13-21.
BrittonA. (2012). Intimate violence: 2010/11 BCS. In SmithK. (Ed.), Homicides, firearm offences and intimate violence 2010/11: Supplementary volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 (pp. 83-115). London, England: Home Office.
6.
CapaldiD.ShorttJ.KimH.WilsonJ.CrosbyL.TucciS. (2009). Official incidents of domestic violence: Types, injury, and associations with nonofficial couple aggression. Violence and Victims, 24, 502-519.
7.
CoyM.KellyL. (2010). Islands in the stream: An evaluation of independent domestic violence advocacy schemes. London, England: Trust for London.
8.
DeKeseredyW. (2011). Violence against women: Myths, facts, controversies. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
9.
DobashR.DobashR. E. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324-349.
10.
DobashR.DobashR. E.WilsonM.DalyM. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.
11.
DuttonM.GoodmanL. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743-756.
12.
DuttonM.GoodmanL.SchmidtR. (2006). Development and validation of a coercive control measure for intimate partner violence: Final technical report. Bethesda, MD: Cosmos Corporation.
13.
EhrensaftM.MoffittT.CaspiA. (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.
14.
FryeN.KarneyB. (2006). The context of aggressive behaviour in marriage: A longitudinal study of newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 12-20.
15.
GaddD.FarrallS.DallimoreD.LombardN. (2003). Equal victims or the usual suspects? Making sense of domestic abuse against men. International Review of Victimology, 10, 95-116.
16.
Graham-KevanN.ArcherJ. (2004). Using Johnson’s domestic violence typology to classify men and women in a non-selected sample. Preston, UK: Department of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire.
17.
HettrichE.O’LearyK. (2007). Females’ reasons for their physical aggression in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1131-1143.
18.
HeymanR.Feldbau-KohnS.EhrensaftM.Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ.O’LearyK. (2001). Can questionnaire reports correctly classify relationship distress and partner physical abuse?Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 334-346.
19.
HinesD.DouglasE. (2010). Intimate terrorism by women towards men: Does it exist?Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2, 36-56.
20.
JohnsonH. (1996). Dangerous domains: Violence against women in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Canada.
21.
JohnsonM. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
22.
JohnsonM. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.
23.
JohnsonM. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
24.
JohnsonM.LeoneJ. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349.
25.
KirkwoodC. (1993). Leaving abusive partners: From the scars of survival to the wisdom for change. London, England: Sage.
26.
Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179-193.
27.
LarocheD. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence: Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Ontario, Canada: Government of Quebec, Institut de la statistique du Quebec.
28.
MichalskiJ. (2005). Explaining intimate partner violence: The sociological limitations of victimization studies. Sociological Forum, 20, 613-640.
29.
PenceE.DasguptaS. (2006). Re-examining “battering”: Are all acts of violence against intimate partners the same? Available from http://www.praxisinternational.org
30.
ProsperoM.KimM. (2009). Mutual partner violence: Mental health symptoms among female and male victims in four racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 2039-2056.
31.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
StarkE. (2009). Rethinking coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15, 1509-1525.
33.
StarkE. (2010). Do violent acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles, 62, 201-211.
StrausM. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
36.
StrausM. (1990). Injury and frequency of assault and the “representative sample fallacy” in measuring wife beating and child abuse. In StrausM.GellesR. (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 75-91). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
37.
StrausM. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1, 332-363.
38.
StrausM. (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 279-288.
39.
StrausM.GellesR. (1990). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. In StrausM.GellesR. (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 113-131). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
40.
StrausM.GozjolkoK. (2007, June). “Intimate terrorism” and injury of dating partners by male and female university students. Paper presented at the Stockholm Criminology Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden.
41.
StrausM.HambyS.Boney-McCoyS.SugarmanD. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.
42.
TanhaM.BeckC.FigueredoA.RaghavanC. (2010). Sex differences in intimate partner violence and the use of coercive control as a motivational factor for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1836-1854.
43.
TjadenP.ThoennesN. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142-161.
44.
WalbyS.AllenJ. (2004). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey. London, England: Home Office.
45.
WalbyS.MyhillA. (2001). New survey methodologies in researching violence against women. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 502-522.
