Examining Gender Differences in the Nature and Context of Intimate Partner Violence

Background.South Africa (SA) has a high prevalence rate of intimate partner violence (IPV) and HIV, both of which can be exacerbated further by HIV serodiscordancy in the couple dyad. Further exploration of the discordancy sidedness in known mediating factors, such as alcohol abuse risk and post-traumatic stress (PTS), is required.Objectives.To investigate the extent of and gender differences in IPV, alcohol abuse risk and PTS symptoms among HIV-serodiscordant couples in Durban, SA, and to analyse these further with regard to female HIV serostatus.Methods.A cross-sectional analysis of data on 30 serodiscordant couples was conducted at the point of enrolment into a pilot study of an HIV risk reduction intervention. The statistical procedure for a dependent small sample was applied to examine gender differences in IPV, alcohol use and PTS symptoms among HIV-serodiscordant couples.Results.The woman was HIV-positive in 18 (60.0%) of the 30 serodiscordant couples enrolled. Exposure to IPV differed significantly between men (28.6%) and women (89.3%) (proportional difference −0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.8–−0.39). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that PTS symptom scores differed significantly between men (median 22, interquartile range (IQR) 23) and women (median 44, IQR 28) (p=0.03). When the above analysis was stratified by female HIV serostatus, significant gender differences were found in IPV and PTS in the couples where the woman was HIV-positive. There were no significant gender differences for alcohol abuse risk.Conclusions.The findings demonstrated high levels of IPV in HIV-serodiscordant couples and a significant gender difference in mental health risk such as PTS in such relationships, particularly where the woman was HIV-positive. HIV intervention programmes should address gender-based violence and inequity among heterosexual couples.

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) represent a heterogeneous group who engage in a variety of aggressive acts which often co-occur. However, few studies take this co-occurrence into consideration. Failure to consider overlapping forms of IPV confounds understanding of risk factors for physical IPV, which in turn undermines identification, prevention, and intervention efforts. Though rarely studied in emerging adults, personality variables have recently been identified as important correlates of IPV. The primary aims of the current studies are to identify distinct subgroups of moderate and severe psychological and physical IPV and personality covariates of class membership. Two studies were conducted at different public regional universities in the northeast (n = 500; n = 497). Both samples were about two-thirds female, approximately one-half White, one-fifth Black, and one-quarter Latino, of any race. Latent Class Analysis identified three subgroups in both studies: low, moderate, and severe IPV. The severe and moderate IPV groups included those who reported threats and moderate physical IPV while the severe IPV group also included those who engaged in severe and injurious forms of physical IPV. Multinomial regression analysis showed that impulsive aggression discriminated moderate and severe from low IPV (Study 1), and more frequent emotionally abusive and controlling behavior, a hostile-dominant interpersonal style and trait aggression discriminated among all three groups, with severe IPV having the greatest likelihood of controlling behavior and aggression (Study 2). IPV is represented by distinct subgroups that vary by severity of IPV with different personality covariates. General aggressive and domineering tendencies in relationships characterize those engaging in severe IPV.

Although much available research indicates that intimate partner violence (IPV) is male perpetrated, growing recent evidence suggests a gender symmetry model of family violence. This article examines gender differences in IPV in current and prior relationships reported by young adults. Data comprised 2,060 young adults (62.1% females) who participated in the 30-year follow-up of the Mater Hospital and University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy (MUSP) in Brisbane, Australia. The Composite Abuse Scale was used to measure IPV during the last 12 months in the respondents' most recent relationship. Similar proportions of males and females reported leaving their prior relationships. Both males and females who were not currently in a relationship reported experiencing much higher rates of IPV than those who were in a relationship. There were no differences in the past experience of IPV between males and females who were not currently in a relationship, but males in a current relationship reported they experienced most forms of IPV more often than did females. IPV typically involves both male and female perpetrators and victims. It does appear that the majority of relationships involving higher rates of IPV were dissolved. IPV was more likely to have occurred in relationships that ended than in relationships that persisted. Males more often remain in an abusive relationship and report experiencing higher rates of IPV in their current relationships compared with females.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent among young sexual and gender minorities assigned male at birth (YSGM-AMAB). However, few studies have examined the chronicity or distinguished between minor and severe forms of IPV among YSGM-AMAB. Furthermore, while past research has documented differences in IPV by race/ethnicity, sexual identity, gender identity, income, and education in other populations, few studies have examined these sociodemographic characteristics in relation to IPV in YSGM-AMAB. Thus, the present study aims to: (1) estimate past year prevalence and chronicity of minor and severe forms of IPV victimization and perpetration in a diverse sample of (N = 665) YSGM-AMAB in New York City, and (2) examine differences in IPV prevalence and chronicity by the aforementioned sociodemographic characteristics. Cross-sectional data from [BLINDED] informed these descriptive and inferential analyses. Nearly half of all participants reported past year IPV victimization and approximately 40% reported perpetration. Psychological violence was the most common form of victimization, followed by sexual, physical, and injury victimization. Psychological violence was the most common form of perpetration, followed by physical, sexual, and injury perpetration. Regarding sociodemographic differences in last year IPV prevalence, bisexual, transgender, and lower income YSGM-AMAB were more likely to report several subtypes of IPV victimization. Whereas Asian/API, bisexual, transgender, and lower income participants were more likely to report several subtypes of IPV perpetration. Regarding last year IPV chronicity, non-graduate YSGM-AMAB reported more instances of two subtypes of IPV victimization, while Black, White, cisgender, upper income, non-graduate participants reported more instances of several subtypes of IPV perpetration. These findings may be used to develop IPV prevention and intervention programs, inform future research endeavors, and develop and strengthen policies that reduce sociodemographic inequalities and promote more favorable sociopolitical conditions for YSGM-AMAB.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a substantial health concern and identifying risk factors for IPV is a research priority. We examined the relationship between severe IPV and objectification of the self and other sex across participant sex. A sample of 1,005 male and female university students completed a series of online questionnaires that measure levels of self-objectification, objectification of the other sex, and histories of severe IPV victimization and perpetration. Self-objectification was associated with severe psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion victimization in females, but not in males. Objectification of the other sex was associated with severe psychological aggression and physical assault perpetration in males, but not in females. These findings contribute to our understanding of gender similarities and differences in IPV.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a substantial health concern and identifying risk factors for IPV is a research priority. We examined the relationship between severe IPV and objectification of the self and other sex across participant sex. A sample of 1,005 male and female university students completed a series of online questionnaires that measure levels of self-objectification, objectification of the other sex, and histories of severe IPV victimization and perpetration. Self-objectification was associated with severe psychological aggression, physical assault, and sexual coercion victimization in females, but not in males. Objectification of the other sex was associated with severe psychological aggression and physical assault perpetration in males, but not in females. These findings contribute to our understanding of gender similarities and differences in IPV.

Gender differences in self-reports of intimate partner violence: A review

The lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) among women in the United States is reported to be between 18 and 50%. One-third of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner and alcohol is often involved. Despite these figures, 77% of women have never been screened for IPV. Substance abuse in male partners is known to place women at risk. We examined the role of female alcohol use on rates of severe IPV. Our hypotheses were: (1) the prevalence of IPV among women seen in trauma centers is greater than that found in national surveys; (2) alcohol problems among abused women and their partners are greater than those among non-abused women; (3) females and their partners alcohol problems are each independently associated with IPV; and (4) female trauma center patients support domestic violence screening. An in-person survey was administered to 95 consecutive adult female trauma patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center. The survey included questions about past-year and lifetime severe IPV, female and male partner alcohol use, and willingness to participate in IPV screening and referral. The multivariate associations of female and partner alcohol use with past-year severe IPV were assessed with logistic regression. Nearly one-half (46.3%) of women reported a lifetime history of severe IPV, with 26% experiencing severe IPV in the past year. Past-year IPV was identified in 59.1% of women screening positive for drinking problems, but in only 12.7% of those screening negative for drinking problems (p = 0.001). Similarly, past-year IPV prevalence was 55.2% when the partner was a problem drinker versus 8.3% when he was not (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that female problem drinking (odds ratio [OR] = 5.8) and partner problem drinking (OR=8.9) were independent predictors of past-year severe IPV. The majority of women (90.5%) felt that it was appropriate for health care professionals to screen for IPV; 90% of women with a history of IPV thought screening was important and 71% wished a previous healthcare provider had asked them about it. Female trauma patients demonstrate a higher prevalence of severe IPV than the general population. IPV rates appear to be related to both female and partner alcohol misuse. Female trauma patients endorsed IPV screening and thus should be screened for alcohol use and IPV in a way that minimizes future violence risk. Further research is needed to elucidate whether intervention for alcohol misuse has an impact on rates of IPV in this population.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health problem. Within the U.S., urban emergency department (ED) patients have elevated prevalence of IPV, substance use, and other social problems compared to those in the general household population. Using a social-ecological framework, this cross-sectional study analyzes the extent to which individual, household, and neighborhood factors are associated with the frequency of IPV among a socially disadvantaged sample of urban ED patients. Confidential survey interviews were conducted with 1037 married/partnered study participants (46% male; 50% Hispanic; 29% African American) at a public safety-net hospital. Gender-stratified multilevel Tobit regression models were estimated for frequency of past-year physical IPV (perpetration and victimization) and frequency of severe IPV. Approximately 23% of participants reported IPV. Among men and women, impulsivity, adverse childhood experiences, substance use, and their spouse/partner’s hazardous drinking were associated with IPV frequency. Additionally, household food insufficiency, being fired or laid off from their job, perceived neighborhood disorder, and neighborhood demographic characteristics were associated with IPV frequency among women. Similar patterns were observed in models of severe IPV frequency. IPV prevention strategies implemented in urban ED settings should address the individual, household, and neighborhood risk factors that are linked with partner aggression among socially disadvantaged couples.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrated by men has been associated with men’s hostility toward women (HTW). However, no study that has examined HTW has considered every main form of IPV as well as the severity of the acts perpetrated. The purpose of the present study was to identify distinct profiles of IPV perpetration based on the severity of physical, psychological, and sexual IPV and coercive control acts and to examine potential differences in HTW between the resulting profiles in a sample of 969 men seeking help for anger management or domestic violence. In addition, given the association previously found between HTW and IPV perpetration in women, we also investigated whether hostility toward men (HTM) could also be linked to men’s profiles of IPV perpetration. The results of the latent profile analysis suggested four profiles of IPV perpetrators: minor psychological IPV and severe control, severe IPV and control, minor IPV and control, and no/minor psychological IPV. Results also indicated significant differences between the profiles in terms of both HTW and HTM. Specifically, greater HTW was observed among the profiles characterized by the highest proportion of physical IPV perpetration, whereas greater HTM was observed among the profiles characterized by the highest proportions of severe coercive IPV. Findings will contribute to guide intervention strategies tailored to these different subgroups of men.

Relying on an ecological framework, we examined risk factors for severe physical intimate partner violence (IPV) and related injuries among a nationally representative sample of women (N = 67,226) in India. Data for this cross-sectional study were derived from the 2005–2006 India National Family Health Survey, a nationally representative household-based health surveillance system. Logistic regression analyses were used to generate the study findings. We found that factors related to severe physical IPV and injuries included low or no education, low socioeconomic status, rural residence, greater number of children, and separated or divorced marital status. Husbands’ problem drinking, jealousy, suspicion, control, and emotionally and sexually abusive behaviors were also related to an increased likelihood of women experiencing severe IPV and injuries. Other factors included women’s exposure to domestic violence in childhood, perpetration of IPV, and adherence to social norms that accept husbands’ violence. Practitioners may use these findings to identify women at high risk of being victimized by severe IPV or injuries for prevention and intervention strategies. Policies and programs that focus on empowering abused women and holding perpetrators accountable may protect women at risk for severe IPV or injuries that may result in death.

The goal of this review was to answer two questions: A) What is the prevalence of opioid use in samples of people who are victims and/or perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV), and B) what is the prevalence of IPV among those who have used opioids? There were five times as many research studies of IPV in people who use opioids (B) than of opioids in IPV-experienced people (A). Across the five studies that reported estimates of opioid use among IPV-experienced people, for victimization, estimates ranged from 2.4% having an opioid use disorder (OUD) to 46–50% having had a prescription for opioid as an analgesic in the past 5 years. For perpetration, there was a sole study which found that 1.5% of a sample of perpetrators of IPV reported having an OUD. The prevalence of IPV victimization among women who had used opioids was 36–94% in their lifetimes, and 32–75% in the past year. For men who had used opioids, the prevalence of IPV perpetration ranged from 15% perpetrating severe physical IPV or a gun/knife threat in the past year to 58% reporting any IPV perpetration in their lifetimes. IPV is frequent among people who use opioids. Opioid use appears to be elevated in IPV victims and/or perpetrators as compared with the general population. Research is needed on the prevalence of opioid use in samples of IPV-experienced people, including initiation of use and how opioid use influences risk for IPV.

Treatment for perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) is a crucial preventive measure for IPV. However, professionals working with IPV perpetrators might be mandated by law to intervene when they suspect future IPV, creating a potential conflict for perpetrators seeking help for their problems. There is limited research on IPV perpetrators’ perspectives on mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence (MR-IPV). We aimed to add to this research by examining knowledge, experiences, and perceptions of MR-IPV among perpetrators who had voluntarily sought help for IPV and comparing them with those of IPV victims recruited from IPV help services. Forty-one IPV perpetrators who voluntarily had sought help from help services answered a questionnaire about MR-IPV. Descriptive statistics were used to examine their knowledge, experiences, and perceptions of MR-IPV. Mann–Whitney U tests, chi-square tests, and multivariate logistic regression were used to compare the IPV perpetrators with 86 victims. Results showed that though the majority of IPV perpetrators reported having been informed about MR-IPV (58.5%), few reported knowing the MR-IPV law (19.5%), though 43.9% reported knowing it to some extent . Only 17.5% had experienced MR-IPV. The IPV perpetrators varied in their perceptions of MR-IPV. More IPV victims had experienced MR-IPV compared to IPV perpetrators, and this difference remained statistically significant when controlling for conceptually informed variables (IPV persistence, IPV severity, and the presence of children), sociodemographic characteristics, and participation mode. Despite a modest sample size, our findings bring new insights concerning voluntarily help-seeking IPV perpetrators’ perspectives on MR-IPV. Our findings suggest that professionals must ensure that information about MR-IPV is adequately understood by IPV perpetrators. Despite the fact that there was a difference between perpetrators and victims in IPV characteristics, this could not account for the difference in MR-IPV experience. This suggests that the MR-IPV law might not be practiced uniformly for IPV perpetrators and victims.

Many college students experience intimate partner violence (IPV). Although receiving help from formal and informal sources may ameliorate possible negative impacts of IPV victimization, the outcomes of help-seeking are not always positive. This study used survey data collected at six universities across the United States (U.S.) to examine gender differences in IPV, help-seeking, and its outcomes (n=3,070). Major variables included IPV victimization, IPV consequences, help-seeking, and outcomes. Descriptive and bivariate analyses revealed higher rates of victimization among females as well as poorer health status, higher levels of depression, and more daily routine problems. Females also used more formal help, and reported it as being useful more often than males. Inversely, more males than females reported that informal supports were helpful. Recommendations include social workers providing tailored services both for male and female survivors, service providers developing educational programs that target informal help sources, and social work education providing relevant trainings.

Inequitable gender norms, including the acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, have been found to be associated with the occurrence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and victimization. Despite these findings, few studies have considered whether inequitable gender norms are related to IPV severity. This study uses baseline data from a psychotherapeutic intervention targeting heterosexual couples (n = 247) in Lusaka, Zambia, who reported moderate to severe male-perpetrated IPV and male hazardous alcohol use to consider: (a) prevailing gender norms, including those related to IPV; (b) the relationship between IPV acceptance and IPV severity; and (c) the relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to model the relationships between IPV acceptance and inequitable gender norms, and female-reported IPV severity (including threats of violence, physical violence, sexual violence, and total violence), separately among male and female participants. In general, men and women were similar in their patterns of agreement with gender norms, with both highly endorsing items related to household roles. More than three-quarters of men (78.1%) and women (78.5%) indicated overall acceptance of violence in intimate relationships, with no significant differences between men and women in their endorsement of any IPV-related gender norms. Among men, IPV acceptance was associated with a statistically significant increase in IPV perpetration severity in terms of threatening violence (B = 5.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.84, 9.89]), physical violence (B = 4.54, 95% CI = [0.10, 8.98]), and total violence (B = 11.65, 95% CI = [3.14, 20.16]). There was no association between IPV acceptance and IPV victimization severity among women. Unlike IPV acceptance, there was no evidence for a relationship between inequitable gender norms and IPV severity for either men or women. These findings have implications for the appropriateness of gender transformative interventions in targeting men and women in relationships in which there is ongoing IPV.