Intimate Partner Violence Gender Research Articles

A Literature Review on Domestic Violence Expressed from Gender Perspective

This article provides a review of the literature on domestic violence from a gender perspective. Based on scientific evidence, the main topic of discussion is the gender-related risk factors for intimate partner violence. In order to reveal the role of gender in intimate partner violence, the work examined intimate partner violence through literature sources. Previous research has shown that women, in particular, are more likely than men to become victims of intimate partner violence. One risk factor for this is the reality of being financially dependent, which allows perpetrators to use violence against female partners. Aside from financial issues, other risk factors include pregnancy, a poor communication style between partners, and divorce.

Perpetrator or victim? A review of the complexities of domestic violence cases

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to provide a review of research on the merits of public policy and law enforcement responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) in the USA using prevalence rates and dynamics of IPV.Design/methodology/approachA reading of recent comprehensive literature reviews was supplemented by a PsychInfo search of relevant articles published in peer-reviewed journals.FindingsLaws against IPV in the USA have been enforced much more vigorously in comparison with most of the world, many of which have no such laws at all. While more perpetrators have been held accountable for their actions – increasing the safety of victims – many perpetrators are never brought to justice, and “mandatory arrest” laws sometimes result in arrests being made with a scant evidence of wrongdoing. This state of affairs can be traced two key factors. First, the persistence of the gender paradigm – an outdated and discredited set of assumptions about the role of gender in IPV – as formulated by battered women’s advocates, which has informed IPV public policy for several decades. Second, the complex nature of IPV, a phenomenon that mostly happens behind closed doors, varies widely in frequency, intensity, mutuality and impact on victims, and it cannot easily be framed in binary victim/perpetrator terms.Practical implicationsThe arrest and prosecution of possibly innocent individuals is in violation of due process and mitigates against our common efforts to reduce IPV in our communities.Originality/valueA compact summary of the relevant IPV policy literature is presented with a focus on an under-studied topic, i.e. the problems inherent in the categorization of individuals as either victims or perpetrators and the failure to recognize the inherently complex nature of IPV.

Intimate partner violence: gender issues and the adjudication of homicide and other cases

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV) and, based upon the author’s experience as an expert witness, 25 years of clinical experience working with IPV perpetrators and victims, and a review of the relevant scholarly literature, provide judges, attorneys, mental health professionals and expert court witness suggestions for the adjudication of cases involving IPV in homicide and other cases.Design/methodology/approachThe author reviewed the extant general domestic violence research literature, depending largely on results from findings from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project, a series of 17 literature review published in five issues of the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Ause. Other relevant research articles were found via a search of the PschInfo database, using the keywords “intimate partner homicides,” “domestic violence homicides,” “intimate partner homicides and gender” and “domestic violence homicides and gender.”FindingsThe judicial response to IPV perpetration has been limited by common misconceptions, among them the confusion between most forms of IPV, which are primarily bi-directional and less consequential and battering, which involves more serious assaults and is typically motivated out of a desire to dominate and control one’s partner. Another misconception is that women are much more likely than men to perpetrate IPV in self-defense or to express emotion. On the other hand, there is no question that female victims are much more likely to experience severe physical injuries, and that women account for approximately three-quarters of homicide victims.Practical implicationsThese include the following: this concise review of IPV research provides a clearer understanding of IPV, useful for anyone working in the field. Mental health professionals working with IPV perpetrators, as well as victims, can draw from this research best practice suggestions in working with more problematic cases. The paper should be especially useful to anyone involved in the adjudication of IPV cases, including lethal cases. In particular, prosecutors and attorneys working for the defense are given suggestions on how to obtain more reliable research data, choose more fruitful questions for their clients, and better conceptualize a case overall.Originality/valueThis paper presents a more nuanced and evidence-based conceptualization of serious and lethal IPV, drawing on a broad research base not generally available to members of the legal profession.

Victimization and Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence among Female and Male Youth and Adults in South Africa

OBJECTIVE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a huge public health problem. The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence and influence of sociodemographic and health characteristics on IPV victimization and perpetration among women and men 15 years and older in South Africa.MATERIALS & METHODS: Data based on the South African national population-based survey in 2012 for 15916 (8532 women and 7384 men) aged 15 years and older who were in an intimate partner relationship were analysed. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the association between sociodemographic factors, health variables and IPV victimization and perpetration.RESULTS: Among women, 8.5% had experienced any form of IPV in the past 12 months, and 3.5% of the women had engaged in IPV perpetration in the past 12 months. Among men, 5.0% had experienced any form of IPV in past 12 months, and 4.4% of the men had engaged in IPV perpetration in the past 12 months. In multivariable logistic regression analysis among women, younger age, being African Black, having psychological distress, having been a victim of violent crime and having had multiple sexual partners were associated with IPV victimization in the past 12 months, while younger age, psychological distress, hazardous or harmful alcohol use, and having had multiple sexual partners was associated with IPV perpetration in the past 12 months. In multivariable logistic regression analysis among men, younger age, psychological distress, hazardous or harmful alcohol use, and having been a victim of violence crime was associated with IPV victimization in the past 12 months, while younger age, poor health status, psychological distress, hazardous or harmful alcohol use, and illicit drug use was associated with IPV perpetration in the past 12 months.CONCLUSION: Past 12-month prevalence of IPV victimization and perpetration among women and men was significant. IPV gender commonalities and differences in risk factors, such as psychological distress, substance use, crime victimization and sexual risk behaviour, may inform strategies of violence prevention programmes.

Sociological Theories of Intimate Partner Violence

Sociological theories of intimate partner violence seek to explain violent behavior as a function of social structures rather than individual pathology. This review examines the major theories used by sociologists to understand intimate partner violence, categorizing them by their respective views regarding the role of gender in intimate partner violence. Family violence theories (including systems theory, ecological theory, exchange/social control theory, resource theory, and the subculture-of-violence theory) view intimate partner violence as an expression of conflict within the family that can best be understood through examination of social structures contributing to the use of violence. Feminist theory sees intimate partner violence as an expression of gender-based domination of women by men. This review also discusses some integrative theories that seek to bridge the polarized views of the traditional perspectives in relation to gender.

The case against the role of gender in intimate partner violence

I argue that Gondolf, Johnson and Dekeseredy, in a recent issue of Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, presented one sided arguments and misleading evidence for the role of gender in intimate partner violence (IPV). Johnson and Dekeseredy use only female victim samples and Gondolf only a male perpetrator sample. These methods generate spurious support for the gender paradigm. Better methodology; longitudinal and laboratory studies indicate that bilateral IPV, matched for level of severity is the most common form of IPV. Our policies should be directed towards this most common form not the relatively rare "wife battering". The stereotype of IPV proffered by the gender paradigm has obscured the dyadic patterns and psychological profiles of IPV so that a "one size fits all" approach has been the normative response. The future of IPV policy lies in prevention and in models that treat abusive families as coherent systems.

A Brief Reply to Dutton

ABSTRACT This article is a brief reply to Dutton's rebuttal (Dutton, this issue) to the author's critique of Dutton's analysis of the role of gender in intimate partner violence.