IPV Perpetration Research Articles

Racial Differences in the Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women and Associated Factors

Intimate partner violence against women (IPV) affects all populations, but significant variations among these groups have been suggested. However, research results on racial differences in IPV are not only inconclusive, they are also limited-particularly with regard to racial minorities. As a result, it has been challenging for practitioners and service providers in many communities to serve an increasing number of racial minority clients. This study used the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES) to examine differences in the prevalence of IPV, and associated factors, among major race groups in the U.S. Included variables were age, race, financial security, employment, education, social network, IPV perpetration and victimization, and severity of IPV. The results showed that Blacks were victimized the most, followed by Whites and Latinos, and Asians were victimized the least. Asians were the least likely to be victimized by IPV, even when controlling for sociodemographic variables. The odds of victimization for Blacks and Latinos were not significantly different from Whites. Financial security and age affected IPV victimization. Those who perceived themselves as financially secure were less likely to be victimized than those who did not. The older were less likely to be victimized than the younger. Employment, education, and social networks did not affect victimization. Race was not a significant predictor of perpetration, when controlling for other variables. Age was the only predictor of perpetration: the older were less likely to perpetrate IPV than the younger.

School Bullying Perpetration and Other Childhood Risk Factors as Predictors of Adult Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration

To assess the relationship between bullying peers as a child and adult intimate partner violence perpetration in a clinic-based sample of adult men. School bullying perpetration and intimate partner violence perpetration are both thought to stem from desire for power and control over others. A cross-sectional survey was conducted between January 2005 and December 2006. Three urban community health centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Men aged 18 to 35 years (n = 1491) seeking services at participating community health centers. School bullying perpetration. Past-year physical or sexual violence perpetration against a female partner (intimate-partner violence [IPV]). Two-fifths of men reported perpetrating school bullying as a child (n = 610; 40.9%). Men who rarely bullied in school were 1.53 times more likely to perpetrate past-year IPV than men who did not bully (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.29); this risk was elevated to 3.82 times more likely to perpetrate any past-year IPV for those men who bullied peers frequently (95% CI, 2.55-5.73). The present study indicates that bullying peers in school as a child, especially frequent bullying perpetration, is associated with increased risk for men's perpetration of IPV as an adult. The effect remains strong after controlling for common prior risk factors for both bullying and IPV perpetration. Future research is needed to discern the mechanisms and underlying root causes of abusive behavior, such as power and control, as a means to prevent violence perpetration across settings and life stages.

Women as perpetrators of IPV: the experience of Mozambique

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the occurrence, severity, chronicity, and predictors of inflicted IPV among women visiting the Forensic Services in Maputo city (Mozambique) as victims of IPV by their partner.Design/methodology/approachThe study was cross‐sectional: the data were collected from 1,442 women over 12 months (consecutive cases) and were analysed with bivariate and multivariate methods.FindingsThe overall occurrence of inflicted IPV across severity (one or more types) was 69.4 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 44.8±65.8). Psychological aggression was reported by 64 percent of women (chronicity, mean/SD 23.1±32.4); physical assault by 38.2 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 10.3±24.6); sexual coercion by 39.1 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 7.2±16.2); and injuries by 22.6 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 4.2±12.4). Further, 14.5 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 140.2±86.3) of the women used all abuse types against their partners: 18.2 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 113.1±75.9) injury, and psychological and physical abuse; 14.7 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 64.9±64.3) injury, and physical and sexual abuse; 16.3 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 94.1±57.2) injury, and psychological and sexual abuse; and 24.9 percent (chronicity, mean/SD 99.5±72) psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. Controlling behaviours, co‐occurring perpetration, abuse as a child, and certain types of own victimization were the more important factors associated with the inflicted abuse.Research limitations/implicationsMore research into women's experiences of IPV as perpetrators, particularly in relation to co‐occurring inflicted abuse, control, and abuse as a child, is warranted in Sub‐Saharan Africa. An important limitation here is the lack of a control group (e.g. general population).Practical implicationsThe present findings may be useful for the development of strategies to prevent/treat IPV in Mozambique.Originality/valueIn spite of its limitations, the current study may have provided new insights into women's use of violence against their partners.

Comparison of Impulsive and Premeditated Female Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

A bimodal classification of aggression has been shown to be useful among male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV; Stanford, Houston, & Baldridge, 2008). To extend this research, this study attempts to replicate this result in a female population. The Impulsive/Premeditated Aggression Scale (IPAS) was used to classify (N = 87) females who were convicted of domestic violence and court ordered into an intervention program as being predominately impulsive–aggressive (IA) or predominately premeditated–aggressive (PM). The results of this study demonstrate that female IPV perpetrators (both IA and PM) tend to be similar to male IA batterers, with low psychopathic traits and higher levels of psychopathology. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: Support for Health Care Interventions Targeted at Level of Risk

AbstractThe mental health correlates of male aggression or violence against an intimate partner (IPV) are examined using exploratory cluster analysis for 81 men who self-reported risk factors for IPV perpetration on a computer-based health risk assessment. Men disclosing IPV perpetration could be meaningfully subdivided into two different clusters: a high pathology/high violence cluster, and lower pathology/low violence cluster. These groups appear to perpetrate intimate partner violence in differing psychoemotional contexts and could be robustly identified using multiple distinct analytic methods. If men who self-disclose IPV in a health care setting can be meaningfully subdivided based on mental health symptoms and level of violence, it lends support for potential new targeted approaches to preventing partner violence perpetration by both women and men.

Effects of Masculinity, Sex, and Control on Different Types of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration

Controlling behaviors have been found to be a significant predictor in IPV perpetration (IPV) for both males and females. Studies have also revealed the relationship between IPV perpetration and masculinity among males; however, the literature has not investigated the relationship between masculinity and IPV perpetration among females. Additionally, studies have not explored the effects of controlling behaviors and masculinity on different types of IPV, such as physical and sexual perpetration. The present study investigated the relationship between controlling behaviors, masculinity, past victimization, and three types of IPV perpetration among 167 college students. Multivariate analyses revealed significant contributions of each factor varied according to the type of IPV perpetration (psychological, physical, and sexual). Implications from the results include the development of more inclusive violence prevention and intervention programs aimed addressing the perpetration of intimate partner violence.

Are Half of All IPV Perpetrators Women? Putting Context Back into the Intimate Partner Violence Research Field

SUMMARY For our field to truly understand women's use of IPV, it is crucial that the following three steps be taken by researchers to put context back into the equation: (a) incorporate the effects of multiple oppressions women face within the context of predominantly male offending across different types of violent criminal categories (top level); (b) integrate findings from both objective and subjective IPV research methods that will require elevating subjective approaches to the same status as objective (middle level); and (c) centralize the issue of ongoing patterns of coercion, power, and control within our definitions of IPV (individual level). Without such an embedded approach, our field will continue to divert much-needed resources toward the so-called gender symmetry debate and run the risk of helping to perpetuate further injustices against women.

Attitudes of Men and Women Towards Wife Beating: Findings From Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan

The aim of this study is to investigate the factors associated with the acceptance of wife beating among currently married men and women living in disadvantaged Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. The study uses data from a cross-sectional survey of 3,100 households from 12 refugee camps, conducted in 1999, with a sub-sample of 395 married women and men selected for this analysis. Associations between acceptance of wife beating and experience of abuse as well as other risk factors are assessed for men and women separately, using χ2 tests and odds ratios from binary logistic regression models. The majority of men (60.1%) and women (61.8%) believe that wife beating is justified in at least one of the eight hypothetical marital situations presented to them. Among women, those that had been victims of intimate partner violence are significantly more likely to report acceptance of wife beating. Among men, acceptance of wife beating is also significantly associated with their current age, labor force participation, their view on women’s autonomy, and their own history as perpetrators of IPV. The majority of respondents justify wife beating in this context, with essentially no difference between men and women. Acceptance of wife beating by both men and women was strongly associated with previous experiences of wife beating adjusting for other risk factors.