We rely on data from one-on-one semi-structured interviews with males convicted of intimate partner violence (IPV) and descriptive survey data to contribute to theoretical assessments of the nexus between masculinity, IPV and health. We broaden theoretical understanding of male perpetrators of IPV and their violence against women by reporting on two emergent themes: 1) the role of economic stress in relation to masculinity and 2) the importance of control/dominance among male perpetrators. We find that the intersection of masculinity pursuits, economic stress, and control are inextricably tethered to IPV: It is not only the state of being economically disadvantaged that increase risk for IPV, but also the internalized implications of what such disadvantage implies about one's male identity. We conclude with suggestions for future research and policy approaches to the social problem of IPV.
American Public Health Association. (1992). Position paper 9211 (PP): Domestic violence. Washington, DC: APHA Public Policy Statements American Public Health Association.
4.
AndersonK.L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59(3), 655–669.
5.
AndersonK.L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles, 52(11/12), 853–865.
6.
AndersonK.L. & UmbersonD. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men's accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15(3), 358–380.
7.
BanduraA., & WaltersR. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
8.
Band-WintersteinT., & EisikovitsZ. (2009). “Aging out” of violence: The multiple faces of intimate partner violence over the life span. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 164–180.
9.
BelknapJ., & HolsingerK. (2006). The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 48–71.
10.
BensonM.FoxG.DeMarisA., & Van WykJ. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3), 207–235.
11.
BlackM.C.BasileK.C.BreidingM.J.SmithS.G.WaltersM.L.MerrickM.T. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
12.
BonomiA.E.ThompsonR.S.AndersonM.ReidR.J.CarrellD.DimerJ.A. (2006). Intimate partner violence and women's physical, mental, and social functioning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(6), 458–466.
13.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Intimate partner violence in the U.S., 2005, Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
14.
ButlerJ. (1999). Gender trouble. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
15.
ButlerJ. (2004). Undoing gender. New York, NY: Routledge.
ChristiansenS.L., & PalkovitzR. (2001). Why the “good provider” role still matters: Providing as a form of paternal involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 22(1), 84–106.
18.
CokerA.L.DavisK.E.AriasI.DesaiS.SandersonM.BrandtH.M., & SmithP.H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23(4), 260–268.
19.
ConnellR.W. (1995). Masculinities. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
de VisserR.O., & McDonnellE.J. (2013). “Man points”: Masculine capital and young men's health. Health Psychology, 32(1), 5–14.
22.
FerraroK.J., & JohnsonJ.M. (1983). Women experience battering: The process of victimization. Social Problems, 30(3), 325–339.
23.
FletcherJ. (2010). The effects of intimate partner violence on health in young adulthood in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 130–135
24.
FrechtlingJ., & SharpL. (Eds.). (1997). User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations. Arlington, VA: Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, National Science Foundation Publication.
GellesR.J. (1997). Intimate violence in families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
GlaserB.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
28.
GlaserB.G., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
29.
GolafshaniN. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.
30.
HallR.E. (2009). Cool pose, black manhood, and juvenile delinquency. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 531–539.
31.
HallR.E., & PizarroJ.M. (2011). Cool pose: Black male homicide and the social implications of manhood, Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 86–98.
32.
HellmanC.M.JohnsonC.V., & DobsonT. (2010). Taking action to stop violence: A study on readiness to change among male batterers. Journal of Family Violence, 25(4), 431–438.
33.
Holtzworth-MunroeA.SmutzlerN., & BatesL. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence part III: Sociodemographic factors, relationship factors, and differing consequences of husband and wife violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(3), 285–307.
34.
Institute of Medicine; Committee on Preventive Services for Women. (2011). Clinical preventive services for women: Closing the gaps (pp. 117–123). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
35.
JewkesR. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359(315), 1423–1429.
36.
JordanC.E.CampbellR., & FollingstadD. (2010). Violence and women's mental health: The impact of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 607–628.
37.
Kaufman-KantorG.K.JasinskiJ.L., & AldarondoE. (1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9(3), 207–222.
KlockeB. (2008). Roles of men with feminism and feminist theory (online). National Organization for Men against Sexism. Retrieved February 17, 2011 from http://www.nomas.org/node/122.
40.
LevittH.M.SwangeR.T., & ButlerJ.B., (2008). Male perpetrators' perspectives on intimate partner violence, religion, and masculinity. Sex Roles, 58, 435–448.
41.
LoflandJ., & LoflandL.H. (1995). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
42.
MacEfieldR. (2007). Usability of studies and the Hawthorne Effect. Journal of Usability Studies, 2(3), 145–154.
43.
MahoneyC. (1997). Common qualitative methods. In FechtlingJ. & SharpL. (Eds.), User-friendl handbook for mixed method evaluations (pp. 3–1 to 3–22). Arlington, VA: Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication, National Science Foundation Publication.
44.
MajorsR., & BillsonJ. (1992). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
45.
MelzerS.A. (2002). Gender, work, and intimate violence: Men's occupational violence spillover and compensatory violence. Journal of Marriage & Family, 64(4), 820–832.
46.
MesserschmidtJ.W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
47.
MosherC.MietheT.D., & PhillipsD. (2002). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
MullaneyJ.L. (2007). Telling it like a man: Masculinities and battering men's accounts of their violence. Men and Masculinities, 10(2), 222–247.
49.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). (2012). Understanding intimate partner violence: Fact sheet. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
50.
NorlanderB., & EckhardtC.I. (2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25(2), 119–152.
51.
PoteatV.P.KimmelM.S., & WilchinsR. (2011). The moderating effects of support for violence beliefs on masculine norms, aggression, and homophobic behavior during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 434–447.
52.
RidgewayC.L., & CorrellS.J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531.
53.
SampsonR.J., & LaubJ.H. (2005). A life course view of the development of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 602(1), 12–45.
54.
SchrockD.P., & PadavicI. (2007). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity in a batter intervention program. Gender & Society, 21(5), 625–649.
55.
ShepardM.F., & CampbellJ.A. (1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 291–305.
56.
StrausM.A. (1978). Wife beating: How common and why?Victimology, 2(3–4), 443–458.
57.
StrausM.A. (1979). Manual for the conflict tactics scale (CTS). Durham, NC: University of New Hampshire.
58.
StrausM.A.HambyS.L.Boney-McCoyS., & SugarmanD.B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Developing and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.
59.
StraussA.C., & CorbinJ. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
SwanS.C., & SnowD.L. (2006). The development of a theory of women's use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1026–1045.
61.
ThomasG., & JamesD. (2006). Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery. British Educational Research Journal, 32(6), 767–795.
62.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). A profile of the working poor, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2008.pdf on July 28, 2010.
WoodJ.T. (2001). The normalization of violence in heterosexual romantic relationships: Women's narratives of love and violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 239–261.
65.
WoodJ.T. (2004). Monsters and victims: Male felons' accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 555–576.
66.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). The economic dimensions of interpersonal violence. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
