In a recent article, Hamby advocates the replacement of the “old” Conflict Tactic Scales used to measure physical partner violence (PV) with a new measurement instrument that represents and supports a thesis that gender use of physical PV is asymmetrical rather than symmetrical. This article takes a critical look at the logic, assumptions, arguments, examples, interpretations, and conclusions, presented in Hamby’s article, and in some cases disagrees with them. Furthermore, this article uses Hamby’s proposals as an opportunity to review and examine core issues in the study of perpetration of physical PV, including gender-related theoretical and methodological issues.
AllenC. T.SwanS. C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816–1834.
2.
ArcherJ. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351.
3.
BelknapJ. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
BelknapJ.MeltonH. (2005). Are heterosexual men also victims of intimate partner abuse? Applied research forum, national electronic network on violence against women. Retrieved fromnew.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_MaleVictims.pdf
5.
BreidingM. J.BlackM. C.RyanG. W. (2008). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence in eighteen US states/territories, 2005. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 112–118.
6.
CaldwellJ. E.SwanS. C.WoodbrownV. D. (2012). Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence, 2, 42.
7.
ChanK. L. (2011). Gender differences in self-reports of intimate partner violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 167–175.
8.
DeKeseredyW. S. (1995). Enhancing the quality of survey data on woman abuse. Violence Against Women, 1, 139–157.
9.
DobashR. E.DobashR. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.
10.
DobashR. P.DobashR. E.WilsonM.DalyM. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.
11.
DonnellyD. A.KenyonS. (1996). “Honey, we don’t do men” gender stereotypes and the provision of services to sexually assaulted males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 441–448.
12.
FriezeI. H. (2005). Female violence against intimate partners: An introduction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 229–237.
13.
GellesR. J.StrausM. A. (1988). Intimate violence: The causes and consequences of abuse in the American family. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
14.
HambyS. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 149–158.
15.
HambyS.ChandrasekaranC. (2012). Comparison of dating partner-specific and nonspecific victimization questions in obtained rates of intimate partner violence. Paper presented at the International Family Violence & Child Victimization Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH.
16.
HambyS.GrychJ. (2013). Evidence-based interventions need to be more systematic, not more disruptive. American Psychologist, 68, 476–477.
17.
HensonB.WilcoxP.ReynsB. W.CullenF. T. (2010). Gender, adolescent lifestyles, and violent victimization: Implications for routine activity theory. Victims and Offenders, 5, 303–328.
18.
HowardJ. A. (1984). The “normal” victim: The effects of gender stereotypes on reactions to victims. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 270–281.
19.
JohnsonM. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence against Women, 12, 1003–1018.
20.
JoseA.O’LearyK. D. (2008). Prevalence of partner aggression in representative and clinic samples. In O’LearyK. D.JoseA. (Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions (pp. 15–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
KääriäinenJ.SirénR. (2011). Trust in the police, generalized trust and reporting crime. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 65–81.
22.
KimmelM. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence a substantive and methodological research review. Violence against Women, 8, 1332–1363.
23.
KurzD. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender & Society, 3, 489–505.
24.
Langhinrichsen-RohlingJ. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179–193.
25.
McKibbinW. F.ShackelfordT. K.GoetzA. T.StarrattV. G. (2008). Why do men rape? An evolutionary psychological perspective. Review of General Psychology, 12, 86.
26.
McPhailB. A.BuschN. B.KulkarniS.RiceG. (2007). An integrative feminist model the evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 817–841.
RichardsonD. S. (2005). The myth of female passivity: Thirty years of revelations about male aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 238–247.
29.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
30.
StetsJ. E.StrausM. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting of marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In StrausM. A.GellesR. J. (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151–166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
31.
StithS. M.SmithD. B.PennC. E.WardD. B.TrittD. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98.
32.
StrausM. A. (1976). Sexual inequality, cultural norms, and wife-beating. In VianoE. C. (Ed.), Victims and society (pp. 543–559). Washington, DC: Visage Press.
33.
StrausM. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
34.
StrausM. A. (1987). The conflict tactics scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In StrausM. A.GellesR. J. (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49–73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
35.
StrausM. A. (1992). Children as witness to marital violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. In SchwarzD. F. (Ed.), Children and violence: Report of the twenty-third Ross roundtable on critical approaches to common pediatric problems (pp. 98–104). Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories.
36.
StrausM. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In ArriagaX. B.OskampS. (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
StrausM. A. (2008a). Bucking the tide in family violence research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9, 191–213.
38.
StrausM. A. (2008b). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275.
39.
StrausM. A. (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.
40.
StrausM. A. (2012). Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: The methodological, theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the conflict tactics scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 538–556.
41.
StrausM. A. (2015). Dyadic concordance and discordance in family violence: A powerful and practical approach to research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 83–94.
42.
StrausM. A.DouglasE. M. (2004). A short form of the revised conflict tactics scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507–520.
43.
StrausM. A.GellesR. J.SteinmetzS. K. (2006). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications. (Re-issue of 1980 book with a new Introduction).
44.
StrausM. A.HambyS. L.Boney-McCoyS.SugarmanD. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.
45.
StrausM. A.HambyS. L.FinkelhorD.MooreD. W.RunyanD. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the parent-child conflict tactics scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 249–270.
46.
TjadenP.ThoennesN. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
47.
TjadenP.ThoennesN. (2006). Extent, nature, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
48.
VisherC. A. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21, 5–28.
49.
WinstokZ. (2012). Partner violence: A new paradigm for understanding conflict escalation. New York, NY: Springer.
50.
WinstokZ.EisikovitsZ. (In press). The preferred gender setup by social workers in Israel in treatment of partner violence victims.
