Traditionally, any physical aggression within intimate relationships has been labeled “domestic violence,” even as researchers and advocates continue to disagree about the nature of that phenomenon vis-à-vis gender and control. As part of a larger mixed-methods study, 22 women from a non-agency, community-based sample who reported experience with relationship violence were interviewed. The existence of patterned coercive and controlling behaviors substantially differentiated experiences with violence, suggesting this dynamic is at least as important to identify as physical violence. Although preliminary, the impact of these findings on intervention and prevention strategies and on the debate surrounding gender symmetry is discussed.
AndersonK. L. (2009). Gendering coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15, 1444-1457.
2.
AndersonK. L.UmbersonD. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15, 358-380.
3.
ArcherJ. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313-351.
4.
BabcockJ. C.GreenC. E.RobieC. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
DebbonaireT.ToddJ. (2012). Respect response to Dixon et al. (2012) “Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: Are they based on ideology or evidence?” Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 216-224.
7.
DixonL.ArcherJ.Graham-KevanN. (2012). Perpetrator programmes for partner violence: Are they based on ideology or evidence?Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 196-215.
8.
DixonL.Graham-KevanN. (2011). Understanding the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice and policy. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1145-1155.
9.
DobashR.DobashR. (2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324-349.
10.
DuttonD. G. (2012). The case against the role of gender in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 99-104.
11.
DuttonD. G.NichollsT. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714.
12.
DuttonM. A.GoodmanL. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743-756.
13.
EmeryC. R. (2011). Disorder or deviant order? Re-theorizing domestic violence in terms of order, power, and legitimacy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 525-540.
FrenchJ.RavenB. (1959). The bases of social power. In CartwrightD. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Oxford, UK: University of Michigan.
16.
GilfusM. E.TraboldN.O’BrienP.Fleck-HendersonA. (2010). Gender and intimate partner violence: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Social Work Education, 46, 245-263.
17.
HambergerL.GuseC. (2002). Men’s and women’s use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples. Violence Against Women, 8, 1301-1311.
18.
HautzingerS. (2007). Violence in the city of women: Police and batterers in Bahia, Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
HinesD. A.SaudinoK. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and Victims, 18, 197-217.
20.
JohnsonM. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.
21.
JohnsonM. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
22.
JohnsonM. P. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 289-296.
23.
Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179-193.
24.
MeltonH.BelknapJ. (2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 328-348.
25.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
MillerJ. (2006). A specification of the types of intimate partner violence experienced by women in the general population. Violence Against Women, 12, 1105-1131.
27.
RossJ. M.BabcockJ. C. (2010). Gender and intimate partner violence in the United States: Confronting the controversies. Sex Roles, 62, 194-200.
28.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
StarkE. (2009). Rethinking coercive control. Violence Against Women, 15, 1509-1525.
30.
StarkE. (2010). Do violent acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles, 62, 201-211.
31.
StoverC. S.MeadowsA. L.KaufmanJ. (2009). Interventions for intimate partner violence: Review and implications for evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 223-233.
32.
StrausM. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.
33.
StrausM. A.GellesR. J. (1988). Violence in American families: How much is there and why does it occur? In NunnallyE. W.ChilmanC. S.CoxF. M. (Eds.), Troubled relationships (pp. 141-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
StrausM. A.HambyS.WarrenW. L. (2003). The Conflict Tactics Scales handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
35.
TanhaM.BeckC. J. A.FigueredoA. J.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.
