Bidirectional and Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence: A Comprehensive Review

Abstract

The debate over whether intimate partner violence (IPV) is primarily unidirectional by men (male-perpetrated violence against women) or bidirectional (both partners engaging in violence) remains significant. A 2012 systematic review determined the prevalence of bidirectional and unidirectional IPV in various population samples (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). The current comprehensive review updates the 2012 review, analyzing 64 empirical studies directly related to the bidirectionality of physical violence between 2012 and 2022. First, we examined bidirectional and unidirectional violence by the nature of the sample (i.e., large population, community, university or college students, adolescent or middle/high school students, and clinical or treatment-seeking) and other study characteristics including the type of measurements (e.g., the Conflict Tactics Scales versus other measures). Our review indicates that bidirectional violence remains prevalent among all sample types. The average amount of reported IPV that was bidirectional in nature was 52.8% (ranging from 44.8% among middle or high school students to almost 60% among clinical and university student samples). Our findings demonstrate substantial consistency with the 2012 review, which found 57.5% (ranging from 49.2% among female-oriented nonmilitary treatment-seeking samples to 69.7% among male-oriented military legal/justice samples). This validates the importance of considering IPV as a complex and nuanced phenomenon likely to occur with both partners engaged in violence—initiatively or reactively—during relationships. A second finding was that the ratio of unidirectional female-to-male IPV compared to male-to-female IPV differed significantly among all five samples. In all samples, the rates of female-perpetrated unidirectional violence were higher than the rates of male-perpetrated unidirectional violence (31.4% and 16.9%, respectively). This finding is consistent with the results of the 2012 study. Third, we explored the concordance of reporting bidirectional and unidirectional violence by male and female partners. Our findings indicate remarkable levels of agreement on reporting patterns of both bidirectional and unidirectional violence by men and woman suggesting that the results are likely valid and reliable. Moreover, the reporting consistency between males and females did not differ significantly depending on study characteristics, including sample type, measurement time frame, measurement instrument, and study location. Overall, it is essential to conduct more research on the nature and types of bidirectional violence, including the roles of both partners involved. The findings from such studies could have significant implications for researchers, clinicians, and practitioners in terms of screening, treating, and preventing various forms of violent dynamics.