Ackard, D. M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2002). Date violence and date rape among adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 455-473. (A Minnesota statewide school sample of 81,247 students <40,301 boys, 40,946 girls> in the 9th and 12th grade responded to the question of whether they ever experienced date related violence. Over 90% of students reported never experiencing dating violence. In terms of grades, 3.3% of 9th grade girls and 2.8% of 9th grade boys reported experiencing violence, while 5.5% of 12th grade girls and 2.3% of 12th grade boys reported experiencing violence. In terms of ethnicity, American Indian boys <7.1%> and African American boys <7.2%> reported experiencing higher rates of dating violence than American Indian girls <6.8%> and African American girls <3.6%>).
Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.)
Allen-Collinson, J. (2009) A Marked Man: Female-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Abuse. Internat. JnlMen’s Health, 8(1), 22-40.
Allen-Collinson, J. (2009). A marked man: Female perpetrated intimate partner abuse. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8, (1), 22-40. (A case study of an abused heterosexual man. Article examines themes obtained from interviews and personal diary material.)
Amendt, G. (2008). I didn’t divorce my kids!: How fathers deal with family break-ups. Campus Verlag Publishers. (In Chapter 5 author presents data from an internet survey of 3600 divorced German fathers. Results reveal that 1/3 of men reported episodes of physical violence during the divorce process and 2/3 of these were initiated by ex-partners.)
Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863. (Data consisted of 7,395 married and cohabiting heterosexual couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households <NSFH-1>. In terms of measures: subjects were asked “how many arguments during the past year resulted in ‘you hitting, shoving or throwing things at a partner.’ They were also asked how many arguments ended with their partner, ‘hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'” Author reports that, “victimization rates are slightly higher among men than women <9% vs 7%> and in cases that involve perpetration by only one partner, more women than men were identified as perpetrators <2% vs 1%>.”)
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. (Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and analyses reveal that 62% of those injured were women.)
Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 213-351. (Analyzing responses to the Conflict Tactic Scale and using a data set somewhat different from the previous 2000 publication, the author reports that women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.)
Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A socialstructural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 113–133.
Archer, J. (2006). Cross cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 133-153. (A review article which suggests that “women’s empowerment is associated with lower victimization rates from their partners.” Greater individualism and empowerment by women, however, are also associated with higher perpetration rates.)
Archer, J. (2009). The nature of human aggression. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 302-308. Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 249-311.
Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. (Twenty three dating couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to express physical violence. Authors also report that, “measures of partner agreement were high” and that the correlation between past and present violence was low.)
Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298-307. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS- with a sample of 103 male and 99 female undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive. A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates <95 men, 175 women> and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.)
Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence. Do adolescents follow in their friends’ or their parents’ footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162-184. (A modified version of Conflict Tactics Scale was administered on two occasions, 6 months apart, to 526 adolescents, <280 girls, 246 boys> whose median age was 13. Results reveal that 28% of girls reported perpetrating violence with their partners <17% moderate, 11% severe> on occasion one, while 42% of girls reported perpetrating violence <25% moderate, 17% severe> on occasion two. For boys, 11% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 5% severe> on occasion one, while 21% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 15% severe> on occasion two. In terms of victimization, 33% of girls, and 38% of boys reported being victims of partner aggression on occasion one and 47% of girls and 49% of boys reported victimization on occasion two.
Au, R. (1986). Marriage and domestic violence in an urban context with rural comparisons. In Domestic violence in urban Papua New Guinea (Occasional Paper No. 19, pp.52–75). Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea: Law Reform Commission of Papua New Guinea.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006). Personal Safety Survey Australia: 2005 Reissue 4906.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Original work published August 10, 2006)
Babcock, J., Canady, B., Graham, K., & Schart, L. (2006). The evolution of battering interventions: From the dark ages into the scientific age. In J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 215-244). New York: Springer.
Babcock, J., Waltz, J., Jacobsen, N., & Gottman, J. (1993). Power and violence: The relation between communication patterns, power discrepancies, and domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 40-50.
Bala, N. An historical perspective on family and child abuse: Comment on Moloney et al, Allegations of Family Violence, 12 June 2007. Jnl Family Studies, 14(2), 271-78.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bettencourt, A. A., & Kernahan, C. (1997). A meta-analysis of aggression in the presence of violent cues: Effects of gender differences and aversive provocations. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 447–456.
Basile, S. (2004). Comparison of abuse by same and opposite-gender litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 59-68. (Author examined court documents in Massachusetts for the year 1997 and found that, “male and female defendants, who were the subject of a complaint in domestic relations cases, while sometimes exhibiting different aggressive tendencies, measured almost equally abusive in terms of the overall level of psychological and physical aggression.)
Baumeister, R.F. & Twenge, J.M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6, 166–203.
Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships. Family Relations, 32, 283-286. (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men, 293 women, with regard to dating violence. Found that 15% of the men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted to physically abusing their partners.)
Bettencourt, A. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.
Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 315-325. (Using CTS with 526 university students <167 men, 359 women> found Similar rates of mutual violence but with women reporting higher rates of violence initiation when partner had not–9% vs 3%.)
Billingham, R. E., Bland, R., & Leary, A. (1999). Dating Violence at three time periods: 1976, 1992, 1996. Psychological Reports, 85, 574-578. (Data was collected from college students in 1986 <401 women, 202 men>, 1992 <210 women, 204 men> and 1996 <342 women, 229 men>. Subjects completed the CTS and results reveal a significant decrease in partner violence over a 10 year period. However, in terms of subjects’ self reported violence and report of partner violence, women were consistently more aggressive than men.)
Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-188.
Bland, R., & Orne, H. (1986). Family violence and psychiatric disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31, 129-137. (In interviews with 1,200 randomly selected Canadians <489 men, 711 women> found that women both engaged in and initiated violence at higher rates than their male partners.)
Bohannon, J. R., Dosser Jr., D. A., & Lindley, S. E. (1995). Using couple data to determine domestic violence rates: An attempt to replicate previous work. Violence and Victims, 10, 133-41. (Authors report that in a sample of 94 military couples 11% of wives and 7% of husbands were physically aggressive, as reported by the wives.)
Bookwala, J. (2002). The role of own and perceived partner attachment in relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 84-100. (In a sample of 161 undergraduates, 34.3% of women <n=35> reported being victims of partner aggression compared to 55.9% <n=33> of men.)
Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multi variate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311. (Used CTS with 305 college students <227 women, 78 men> and found that 133 women and 43 men experienced violence in a current or recent dating relationship. Authors reports that “women reported the expression of as much or more violence in their relationships as men.” While most violence in relationships appears to be mutual–36% reported by women, 38% by men– women report initiating violence with non violent partners more frequently than men <22% vs 17%>).
Brinkerhoff, M., & Lupri, E. (1988). Interspousal violence. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 13, 407-434. (Examined Interspousal violence in a representative sample of 562 couples in Calgary, Canada. Used Conflict Tactics Scale and found twice as much wife-to-husband as husband-to-wife severe violence <10.7% vs 4.8%>. The overall violence rate for husbands was 10.3% while the overall violence rate for wives was 13.2%. Violence was significantly higher in younger and childless couples. Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.)
Brown, G. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement system to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8, (3-4), 3-139. (Summarizes partner violence data from the 1999 Canadian General Social Survey <GSS>. The GSS is based on a representative sample of 25,876 persons. Overall in the 12-month period preceding the survey, an estimated 3% Canadian women and 2% of Canadian men reported experiencing violence from their partners. During the 5 year period from 1995-1999, an estimated 8% of Canadian women and 7% of Canadian men reported violence from their partners. Reviewed police and legal responses to partner violence in Edmonton, Canada and concludes that “. . . men who are involved in disputes with their partners, whether as alleged victims or as alleged offenders or both, are disadvantaged and treated less favorably than women by the law-enforcement system at almost every step.”)
Browning, J., & Dutton, D. (1986). Assessment of wife assault with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 375-379.
Brush, L. D. (1990). Violent Acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families and Households. Gender & Society, 4, 56-67. (Used the Conflict Tactics scale in a large national survey, n=5,474, and found that women engage in same amount of spousal violence as men.)
Brutz, J., & Ingoldsby, B. B. (1984). Conflict resolution in Quaker families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 21-26. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 288 Quakers <130 men, 158 women> and found a slightly higher rate of female to male violence <15.2%> than male to female violence <14.6%>.)
Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272-285. (A sample of 505 college students <298 women, 207 men> completed the CTS. Authors reports that they found “no significant difference between men and women in reporting inflicting or sustaining physical abuse.” Specifically, within a one year period they found that 14% of the men and 18% of the women reported inflicting physical abuse, while 10% of the men and 14% of the women reported sustaining physical abuse.)
Burman, B., John, R., & Margolin, G. (1992). Observed patterns of conflict in violent, nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Behavioral Assessment, 14, 15-37.
Caetano, R., Schafter, J., Field, C., & Nelson, S. M. (2002). Agreement on reports of intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1308-1322. (A probability sample of 1635 couples was interviewed and assessed with the CTS. Agreement concerning intimate partner violence was about 40%, with no differences reported across ethnicities. Women significantly reported perpetrating more partner violence than men in all three ethnic groups.)
Caldwell, J.E. et al (2009). Why I hit him: Women’s reasons for intimate partner violence. Journal of Aggression, Mal-treatment & Trauma, 18, 672-697.
Callahan, M. R., Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(6), 664-681. (Subjects were 190 high school students <53% male; 47% female; approximately 50% African-American> who completed a modified version of the CTS2. In terms of injuries, 22% of girls and 17% of boys reported being injured by their dating partners. Note this difference was nonsignificant.)
Capaldi, D. M, Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2004). Women’s involvement in aggression in young adult romantic relationships. In M. Putallaz and K. L. Bierman (Eds.). Aggression, Antisocial Behavior, and Violence Among Girls (pp. 223-241). New York: Guildford Press. (A review chapter which reports on data obtained from Oregon Youth Study and Couples Study. Authors conclude that “Young women were observed to initiate physical aggression toward their partners more frequently than were the young men.” And “the relative prevalence of frequent physical aggression by women and of injury and fear for men was surprisingly high.”)
Capaldi, D. M. & Crosby, L. (1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184-206. (A sample of 118 young men and their dating partners were surveyed regarding their own physical aggression as well as that of their partners. Findings reveal that 31% of men and 36% of women engaged “in an act of physical aggression against their current partner.”)
Capaldi, D. M. & Owen, L. D. (2001). Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 15 (3), 425-440. Drawn from a community based at-risk sample, 159 young couples were assessed with the Conflict Tactics scale and measures of self reported injuries. Findings indicated that 9.4% of men and 13.2% of women perpetrated frequent physical aggression toward their partners. Contrary to expectations, 13% of men and 9% of women, indicated that they were physically injured at least once. Authors report “2% of the men and none of the women indicate that they had been hurt by their partners between five and nine times.”
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence, 22 (2) 101-111. (A longitudinal study using subjects from the Oregon Youth and Couples Study. <see above> Subjects were assessed 4 times across a 9 year period from late adolescence to mid-20’s. Findings reseal that young women’s rate of initiation of physical violence was “two times higher than men’s during late adolescence and young adulthood.” By mid-20’s the rate of initiation was about equal. Mutual aggression increased the likelihood of injury for both men and women.)
Carlson, B. E. (1987). Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework, 68, 16-23. (Reviews research on dating violence and finds that men and women are equally likely to aggress against their partners and that “the frequency of aggressive acts is inversely related to the likelihood of their causing physical injury.”)
Carney MM, Buttell FP. A multidimensional evaluation of a treatment program for female batterers: A pilot study. Research on Social Work Practice Vol. 14, No. 4, 2004. pp. 249-258.
Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 108-115. (An excellent review of the literature on women who perpetrate violence in intimate relationships. Also summarizes intervention programs for such women.)
Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: a descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415. (In a representative sample of British men <n=894> and women <n=971> it was found, using a modified version of the CTS, that 18% of the men and 13% of the women reported being victims of physical violence at some point in their heterosexual relationships. With regard to current relationships, 11% of men and 5% of women reported being victims of partner aggression.)
Carrado, M., George, M., Loxam, F., Jones, L., & Templar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relationships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401-415.
Cascardi, M., & Vivian, D. (1995). Context for specific episodes of marital violence: Gender and severity of violence differences. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 265-293.
Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., O’Leary, K. D., & Slep, A. M. S. (1999). Factor Structure and convergent validity of the Conflict Tactics Scale in high school students. Psychological Assessment, 11, 546-555. (A sample of 2320 high school students <1,180 males, 1,140 females> from seven high schools in Long Island, New York were assessed with a modified CTS. A significantly greater number of women <37.8%> compared to <22.5%> men reported perpetrating physical aggression toward their dating partners. Of specific note 18.1% of women compared to 4.3% of men reported slapping their partners and 16.9% of women compared to 5.5% of men reported “kicking, biting or hitting” their partners.)
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 1178-1184. (Examined 93 couples seeking marital therapy. Found using the CTS and other information that 71% reported at least one incident of physical aggression in past year. While men and women were equally likely to perpetrate violence, women reported more severe injuries. Half of the wives and two thirds of the husbands reported no injuries as a result of all aggression, but wives sustained more injuries as a result of mild aggression.)
Caulfield, M. B., & Riggs, D. S. (1992). The assessment of dating aggression: Empirical evaluation of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 549-558. (Used CTS with a sample of 667 unmarried college students <268 men and 399 women> and found on a number of items significantly higher responses of physical violence on part of women. For example, 19% of women slapped their male partner while 7% of men slapped their partners, 13% of women kicked, bit, or hit their partners with a fist while only 3.1% of men engaged in this activity.)
Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender Symmetry in Dating Intimate Partner Violence: Does Behavior Imply Similar Constructs? Violence and Victims, 20 (2) 207-218. (A sample of 414 college students <189 men, 225 women> responded to the CTS2. Results reveal that male and female subjects were equally likely to be perpetrators of minor violence in intimate dating relationships, but women were twice as likely as men to perpetrate severe violence <15.11% vs 7.41%>).
Chang, D. F., Shen, B-J., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2009). Prevalence and demographic correlates of intimate partner violence in Asian Americans. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 32, 167-175. (Study reports the first national estimate of IPV among Asian Americans. Sample consisted of 1470 <47% men, 53% women> individuals of varying Asian ethnicities who responded to items on the CTS. Data reveals that 5.02% of men and 8.48% of women perpetrated minor violence on their partners. With regard to severe violence women were more than twice as likely as men to perpetrate violence <1.54% vs .71%>).
Chermack, St. T., Walton, M. A., Fuller, B. E., & Blow, F. C. (2001). Correlates of expressed and received violence across relationship types among men and women substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 15, 140-151. (A sample of substance abusers <126 men, 126 women> ranging in age from 17-83 completed a modified version of the CTS. Results reveal no differences in expressed or received partner violence for men and women.)
Clark, M. L., Beckett, J., Wells, M., & Dungee-Anderson, D. (1994). Courtship Violence among African-American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 20 (3), 264-281. (A sample of 311 African-American college students <76 men, 235 women> responded to the CTS. Findings reveal that 41% of men and 33% of women reported being physically abused by a dating partner.)
Claxton-Oldfield, S. & Arsenault, J. (1999). The initiation of physically aggressive behaviour by female university students toward their male partners: Prevalence and the reasons offered for such behaviors. Unpublished manuscript. (In a sample of 168 actively dating female undergraduates at a Canadian university, 26% indicated that they initiated physical aggression toward their male partners. Most common reason for such behavior was because partner was not listening to them.)
Cogan, R., & Ballinger III, B. C. (2006). Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 (7), 924-935. (A sample of 457 college men and 958 college women completed the CTS. Results revealed that significantly more men than women <35.4% vs 26.0%> reported being victimized by their partners.)
Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, E. S. (2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, (4), 220-227. (A stratified sample of 5414 <2836 female, 2578 male> public high school students grades 9 through 12 responded to the South Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey in 1997. Severe physical dating violence was assessed by responses to the question of how many times during the past 12 months were you physically beaten up by the person you date or go out with? And how many times during the past 12 months did you beat up the person you date or go out with? Results reveal that 8.9% of girls reported perpetrating violence compared to 6.1% of boys. In terms of victimization, 9.7% of girls reported being victims compared to 5.3% of boys.)
Coleman, D. H., & Straus, M. A. (1986). Marital Power, Conflict, and Violence in a Nationally Representative Sample of American Couples. Violence and Victims, 1, 141-157. A sample of 2,143 couples from a 1975 nationally representative survey responded to the CTS and a measure developed by Blood and Wolfe to assess marital power. Couples were classified as equalitarian, female-dominant, male-dominant, or divided power. Equalitarian couples had the lowest rates of partner violence while female-dominant couples had the highest rate of partner violence followed by male dominant couples.)
Coleman, K., Weinman, M., & Hsi, B. (1980). Factors affecting conjugal violence. Journal of Psychology, 105, 197-202.
Coney, N. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1999). The feminization of domestic violence in America: The woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric. Journal of Men’s Studies, 8 (1), 45-58. (Authors review the domestic violence literature and report that while society in general as well as the media portray women as “recipients of domestic violence…epidemiological surveys on the distribution of violent behavior between adult partners suggest gender parity.”)
Cook P. Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2009. p.129.
Cook, P. (1997). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CT: Praeger. DeKeseredy, W. (2002). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in intimate relationships: A critique of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Retrieved June 1, 2005, from AWNET Applied Research Paper Series (www.vawnet.org).
Cook, P. W. (1997). Abused men. The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CN.: Praeger. (Presents the evidence, empirical and personal, for male spousal victimization. Examines resistance to acceptance of findings and offers solutions to reduce domestic violence.)
Cook, P. W. (2009). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic violence. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Corry, C. E., Fiebert, M. S., & Pizzy, E. (2002). Controlling domestic violence against men. Available: www.familytx.org/research/Control_DV_against_men.pdf Earlier version presented at Sixth International Conference on Family Violence, San Diego, CA. (A critical examination of men as victims of partner violence.)
Cui, M., Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Melby, J. N., & Bryant, C. M. (2005). Observer, Self-, and partner reports of hostile behaviors in romantic relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1169-1181. (Examined a sample of 236 young people <48% married, 52% dating; 56% women, 44% men> who completed questionnaires regarding their hostility toward their partners. Findings reveal that couples living together have higher levels of hostility than dating couples and that women in both conditions demonstrate higher levels of hostility towards their partners than men.)
Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., Clark, C. L., & Schafer, J. (1999). Alcohol-related problems and intimate partner violence among white, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 23, 1492-1501. (A probability sample of 1440 couples <565 white, 358 Black, 527 Hispanic> was obtained from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey. Subjects completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Ethnicity results reveal that overall rates of partner aggression were similar for whites and Hispanic while Black rates were significantly higher. In terms of gender, white men and women had similar rates of partner aggression, Hispanic women were somewhat more aggressive than Hispanic men and Black men were more aggressive than Black women. Alcohol related problems were a predictor of intimate partner violence in Black couples.)
Dal Grande, E., Woollacott, T., Taylor, A., Starr, G., Anastassiadis, K., Ben-Tovim, D., et al. (2001). Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Survey, September 1999. Adelaide: Epidemiology Branch, Dept. of Human Services.
Dalsheimer, J. (1998). Battered men. A silent epidemic. Topics in Emergency Medicine, 20(4), 52-59.
Davis. R. L. (2010). Domestic Violence-related deaths. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2 (2), 44-52. (A review article which examines domestic violence-related suicides. Author concludes that “when domestic violence-related suicides are combined with domestic homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related deaths are higher for males than females.”)
Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: The primacy of previous experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 457-471. (Of 410 university students <295 women, 115 men> responding to CTS and other instruments, it was revealed that 47% experienced some violence in dating relationships. The majority of experiences were reciprocal. When not reciprocal men were three times more likely than women to report being victims. Violent experiences in previous relationships was the best predictor of violence in current relationships.)
Dearden, J., & Jones, W. (2008). Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
DeKeserdy, W.S. & Schwartz, M.D. (1998a). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the Canadian National Survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeKeserdy, W.S. & Schwartz, M.D. (1998b). Male peer support and women abuse in postsecondary school courtship: suggestions for new directions in sociological research. In R.K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp.83–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeKeserdy, W.S. (1988). Woman abuse in dating relationships. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
DeKeseredy, W. S. & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus. Results from the Canadian National survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (A large sample <1,835 women; 1,307 men> of Canadian college students completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that women report engaging in higher rates of violence than men. Specifically, 46.1% of women reported engaging in some physical violence in intimate relationship since leaving high school. With 38% employing “minor” violence and 19% employing “severe” violence.)
DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The case of courtship violence. In E. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 111-120). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
DeMaris, A. (1992). Male versus female initiation of aggression: The case of courtship violence. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: interdisciplinary perspectives. (pp. 111-120). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. (Examined a sample of 865 white and black college students with regard to the initiation of violence in their dating experience. Found that 218 subjects, 80 men and 138 women, had experienced or expressed violence in current or recent dating relationships. Results indicate that “when one partner could be said to be the usual initiator of violence, that partner was most often the women. This finding was the same for both black and white respondents.”)
Detschelt, A. (2002-03). Recognizing domestic violence directed towards men. Jnl Legal & Public Policy, 249-272.
DIAS, Ana Rita Conde e MACHADO, Carla. Género e violência conjugal: Uma relação cultural. Aná. Psicológica [online]. 2008, vol.26, n.4 [citado 2012-07-07], pp. 571-586 . Disponível em: <http://www.scielo.gpeari.mctes.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0870-82312008000400004&lng=pt&nrm=iso>. ISSN 0870-8231.
Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R.P. (1980). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. London: Open Books. Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R.P. (1998). Rethinking violence against women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doroszewicz, K., & Forbes, G. B. (2008). Experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion among Polish college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 58-73. (The CTS-2 was used to study dating aggression in a sample <men=100, women=100> of unmarried Polish college students. Results reveal that women were overall significantly more aggressive than men <48% vs 35.6%>).
Dowd, L. (2001). Female Perpetrators of Partner Aggression: Relevant Issue and Treatment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 5 (2), 73-104. (A review article examining female partner aggression with a focus on treatment issues.)
Duminy, F.J. et al. (1993). Assault inflicted by hot water. Burns, 19(5), 426-438.
Dutton D, Bodnarchuk M. Through a psychological lens: Personality disorder and spouse assault. In Loseke D, Gelles R, Cavanaugh M (eds.). Current Controversies on Family Violence, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications 2005, p.14.
Dutton DG. Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and Victims Vol. 9, No. 2, 1994.
Dutton, D. G. & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714. (A review and analysis of the data regarding male victimization. Critical of feminist approaches that minimize female perpetration and trivialize male injury.)
Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver: UBC Press. (A thoughtful and scholarly analysis of research and treatment in the area of Domestic Violence. Offers much insight, particularly to therapists and policy makers with regard to Intimate Partner Violence <IPV>. Concludes that men are as likely as women to be victims and both suffer similar physical and psychological consequences of IPV.)
Dutton, D. G. (2007). Female intimate partner violence and developmental trajectories of abusive families. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 54-71. (A review article which concludes that female violence towards intimate male partners is just as severe and has similar consequences as male violence towards women. However, most criminal justice interventions and custody evaluations assume that males are more likely to be IPV perpetrators.)
Dutton, D. G. (2010). The Gender Paradigm and the Architecture of Antiscience. Partner Abuse, 1(1), 5-25.
Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The Gender Paradigm in Domestic Violence Research and Theory: Part 1—The Conflict of Theory and Data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(6), 680-714.
Dutton, D. G., Corvo, K. N., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and practice part II: The information website of the American Bar Association. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 30-38. (A review article critiquing the American Bar Association’s attempt to correct myths about domestic violence. Specifically authors state, “. . . female IPV is more commonplace than male IPV.”)
Dutton, D. G., Nicholls, T. L., & Spidel, A. (2005). Female perpetrators of intimate abuse. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41, (4) 1-31. (A review article examining issues related to female abusers. Authors conclude, based on survey and epidemiological studies, that females are as abusive as males in intimate relationships. They note that this is “especially so for younger cohort samples followed longitudinally.”)
Dutton, D.G. & Nicholls, T.L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1 – The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 680–714.
Dutton, D.G. (2006). Rethinking domestic violence (2nd. ed.). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Dutton, D.G. (2007). Thinking outside the box: Gender and court-mandated therapy. In J. Hamel & T.L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp.27–57). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Dutton-Greene, L. B., & Straus, M. A. (2005, July). The relationship between gender hostility and partner violence and injury. Paper presented at the 9th International Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH. (Report of findings from international dating violence Study which collected data from over 11,000 <70% women> college students from 50 universities in 21 countries. Subjects responded to the revised Conflict Tactics scale, gender hostility scales and injury scales. Findings reveal that women perpetrated greater partner violence than men, that women were more seriously injured than men and that hostility toward the opposite sex was significantly and similarly correlated with partner violence for men and women.)
Eagly, A. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eagly, A.H, Wood, W. & Diekman, A.B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H.M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp.123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eaton, D. K., Davis, K. S., Barrios, L., Brener, N. D., & Noonan, R. K. (2007). Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-occurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U. S. high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 585-602. (Data was examined from the 2003 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Subjects were 15,214 students from the 9th to the 12th grade and consisted of 48.7% female, 61.5% white, 13.9% black, 16.6% Hispanic, and 8.1% other race or ethnicity. Physical dating violence was assessed by response to the question: “During the past 12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose?” Results reveal that 8.8% of girls and 8.6% of boys reported being victims of dating violence.)
Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753. (A sample of 541 subjects from New York State <298 women, 243 men> who had been followed for over 20 years responded to the CTS. While overall similar rates of perpetration of partner abuse were reported by men and women <21% vs 22%> women were more likely than men to kick or hit <9% vs 5%> or hit or try to hit with objects <7% vs 2%>.)
Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113 (2), 258-270. (Assessed 980 individuals, ages 24-26, who were participants in longitudinal study in New Zealand. Subjects were examined with the CTS, the Partner Conflict Calendar, PCC, a measure of the consequences of abuse and a variety of personality and psychopathology scales. Findings reveal that 9% of the total sample, with an equal number of men and women, were victims of clinical abuse in their relationships with partners.)
Ellison, C. G., Barkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. R. (1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 87-113. (Subjects were selected from the first wave of The National Survey of Families & Households and consisted of 2,420 women and 2,242 men. Self administered surveys revealed that females were significantly more likely than males to perpetrate violence toward their partners. Authors report that “regular attendance at religious services is inversely associated” with domestic violence for men and women.)
Ensign, C. & Jones, P. (2006). Gender-inclusive work with victims and their children in a coed shelter. In J. Hamel & T.L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of genderinclusive theory and treatment (pp.562–578). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Ernst, A. A., Nick, T. G., Weiss, S. J., Houry, D., & Mills, T. (1997). Domestic violence in an inner-city ED. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 30, 190-197. (Assessed 516 patients <233 men, 283 women> in a New Orleans inner-city emergency Department with the Index of Spousal Abuse, a scale to measure domestic violence. Found that 28% of the men and 33% of the women <a nonsignificant difference>, were victims of past physical violence while 20% of the men and 19% of the women reported being current victims of physical violence. In terms of ethnicity, 82% of subjects were African-American. Authors report that there was a significant difference in the number of women vs. men who reported past abuse to the police ,19% of women, 6% of men.>)
Farrell, W. (1999). Women can’t hear what men don’t say. New York: Tarcher/Putnam. See Chapter 6. (Pp. 123-162; 323-329.) (An excellent social and political analysis of couple violence.)
Feather, N. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles, 35, 507-519. (Subjects <109 men, 111 women> from Adelaide, South Australia, were presented a hypothetical scenario in which either a husband or wife perpetrated domestic violence. Participants were significantly more negative in their evaluation of the husband than the wife, were more sympathetic to the wife and believed that the husband deserved a harsher penalty for his behavior.)
Feld S. L., & Felson, R. B. (2008). Gender norms and retaliatory violence against spouses and acquaintances. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 692-703.
Feld, S. L., & Felson, R. B. (2008). Gender Norms and Retaliatory Violence Against Spouses and Acquaintances. Journal of Family Issues, 29(5), 692.
Felson, R. B. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fiebert, M. S. (2010). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An Annotated bibliography. Sexuality & culture, 14, 49-91. Gelles, R. J., & Straus, M. A. (1988). Intimate violence. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Felson, R. B. (2002). Violence and Gender Reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Scholarly review and analysis of the literature. Author concludes that, “Women are just as likely as men to be victims of violence from their partners. . . .” Also “casts doubt on the battered wife syndrome as an explanation for why women kill their male partners.”)
Felson, R. B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts, 5, 21-25. (Reports that while men are eight times more likely to commit overall violence than women, there is gender parity in partner violence. Author suggests that violent men are “less likely to assault their partners because of the chivalry norm.“)
Felson, R. B. (2006). Is Violence Against Women About Women or About Violence?. Contexts, 5(2), 21-25.
Felson, R. B. (2008). The legal consequences of intimate partner violence for men and women. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 639-646. (Author reports that “evidence does not support the idea that assaults by male partners are particularly likely to be underreported or treated leniently. Rather, the results suggest that offenders who assault women are more likely to suffer legal consequences than those who assault men. . . .” In the article author summarizes an unpublished study examining whether gender and marital status affect whether people think the police should be notified about a partner assault. In a telephone survey, 800 subjects responded to a scenario of an argument between a couple in which one strikes the other, bruising their arm. Results indicate that subjects were more likely <80% to 60%> to condemn men’s assaults on women than women’s assaults on men, even though injuries were identical.)
Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. (2007). The control motive and marital violence. Violence and Victims, 22, 387-407. (Study based on an analysis of data obtained through the National Violence Against Women Survey <see Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000>. Authors looked at 10,000 respondents out of 16,000 total sample who were currently married. Results reveal that adult women are just as controlling and jealous toward their male partners as the other way around. Also report that, “While controlling spouses in current marriages are more likely to act violently there is no evidence that this relationship is gendered.”)
Felson, R. B., & Outlaw, M. C. (2007). The Control Motive and Marital Violence. Violence Victims, 22(4), 387-407.
Felson, R. B., & Pare, P. (2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 597-610. (Authors analyzed data from The National Violence Against Women Survey, and found that “male victims are particularly reluctant to report assaults by their female partners.” Reasons for nonreporting include: fear of reprisal, thought that police could do nothing to help and charges would not be believed.)
Felson, R. B., & Pare, P. (2007). Does the criminal justice system treat domestic violence and sexual offenders leniently? Justice Quarterly, 24, 435-459. (Authors analyzed data from the National Violence Against Women Survey and conclude that “women who assault their male partners are particularly likely to avoid arrest.”)
Felson, R.B. (2002). Violence and gender re-examined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Felson, R.B. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts, 5, 121–125.
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1103-1119. (Examined extent of domestic violence experience and perpetration in a sample of 828 <437 women, 391 men> young adults who were 25 years old. Subjects were part of a long term longitudinal study and were administered the CTS2. Results reveal that “there were more men exposed to severe domestic violence than women” and that mild and moderate rates were similar for men and women. Overall, 39.4% of women and 30.9% of men reported perpetration scores of 3 or higher. Authors report that men and women reported similar rates of injury <3.9% for women vs. 3.3% for men>. In terms of initiation of partner assaults, 34% of women and 12% of men reported initiating physical assaults.)
Fiebert, M. S. (1996). College students’ perception of men as victims of women’s assaultive behavior. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 82, 49-50. (Three hundred seventy one college students <91 men, 280 women> were surveyed regarding their knowledge and acceptance of the research finding regarding female assaultive behavior. The majority of subjects (63%) were unaware of the finding that women assault men as frequently as men assault women; a slightly higher percentage of women than men (39% vs 32%) indicated an awareness of this finding. With regard to accepting the validity of these findings a majority of subjects (65%) endorsed such a result with a slightly higher percentage of men (70% vs 64%)indicating their acceptance of this finding.)
Fiebert, M. S., & Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Women who initiate assaults: The reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590. (A sample of 968 women, drawn primarily from college courses in the Southern California area, were surveyed regarding their initiation of physical assaults on their male partners. 29% of the women, n=285, revealed that they initiated assaults during the past five years. Women in their 20’s were more likely to aggress than women aged 30 and above. In terms of reasons, women appear to aggress because they did not believe that their male victims would be injured or would retaliate. Women also claimed that they assaulted their male partners because they wished to engage their attention, particularly emotionally.)
Fiebert, M.S. (2008). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: an annotated bibliography.
Fischer, A.H. & Manstead, A.S.R. (2000). The relation between gender and emotions in different cultures. In A.H. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives (pp.71–94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, C. P. (1990). Relationship violence by women: issues and implications. Family Relations, 36, 295-299. (A review/analysis article that states, “researchers consistently have found that men and women in relationships, both marital and premarital engage in comparable amounts of violence.” Author also writes, “Violence by women in intimate relationships has received little attention from policy makers, the public, and until recently, researchers…battered men and abusive women have receive ‘selective inattention’ by both the media and researchers.”)
Follingstad, D. R., Wright, S., & Sebastian, J. A. (1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57. (A sample of 495 college students <207 men, 288 women> completed the CTS and other instruments including a “justification of relationship violence measure.” The study found that women were twice as likely to report perpetrating dating violence as men. Female victims attributed male violence to a desire to gain control over them or to retaliate for being hit first, while men believed that female aggression was a based on their female partner’s wish to “show how angry they were and to retaliate for feeling emotionally hurt or mistreated.”)
Foo, L., & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate investigation of dating aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 351-377. (A sample of 290 college students <111 men, 179 women> responded to the CTS. Results reveal that 24.3% of men and 38.5% of women reported perpetrating physical violence toward their dating partners.)
Forke, C. M., Myers, R. K., Catallozzi, M., & Schwarz, D. F. (2008). Relationship violence among female and male college undergraduate students. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 162, 634-641. (A sample of 910 college students <520 women, 390 men> from three college campuses responded to select items from the CTS. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely to report perpetrating physical violence on their male partners than men on their female partners.)
Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 11 (3), 275-286. (Data collected from 1965 adolescents in eighth and ninth grade in 14 schools in rural North Carolina. Results reveal that 36.5% of dating females and 39.4% of dating males report being victims of physical dating violence. In terms of perpetrating violence 27.8% of females while only 15.0% of males report perpetrating violence.)
Gelles RJ. The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data—The cases of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review Vol. 45, No. 1, 2007.
Gelles, R. J. (1994). Research and advocacy: Can one wear two hats? Family Process, 33, 93-95. (Laments the absence of objectivity on the part of “feminist” critics of research demonstrating female perpetrated domestic violence.)
Gelles, R. J. (2007). The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data – the case of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, 45, 42-51. (An analysis examining the issue of how social science data has been “abused and misused in policy and practice in the area of Intimate Partner Violence <IPV>.” Challenges “supposed” facts in the area and faults feminists for not acknowledging the empirical findings that men are equal victims of IPV.)
George, M. J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence. Journal of Men’s Studies, 3, 137-159. (A thorough review of the literature which examines findings and issues related to men as equal victims of partner abuse.)
George, M. J. (1999). A victimization survey of female perpetrated assaults in the United Kingdom. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 67-79. (A representative sample of 718 men and 737 women completed the CTS and reported their experience as victims of physical assaults by women during a five year period. Men reported greater victimization and more severe assaults than did women. Specifically, 14% of men compared to 7% of women reported being assaulted by women. Highest risk group were single men. The majority (55%) of assaults on men were perpetrated by spouses, partners, or former partners.)
George, M. J. (2002). Skimmington Revisited. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10 (2), 111-127. (Examines historical sources and finds that men who were victims of spousal aggression were subject to punishment and humiliation. Inferences to contemporary trivialization of male victims of partner aggression is discussed.)
George, M. J. (2003). Invisible touch. Aggression & Violent Behaviour, 8, 23-60. (A comprehensive review and analysis of female initiated partner aggression. Historical, empirical and case evidence presented to demonstrate reality of “battered husband syndrome.”)
George, M. J. (2007). The “great taboo” and the role of patriarchy in husband and wife abuse. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 7-22. (A scholarly examination of key myths and taboos surrounding the concept of patriarchy. Emphasizes the point that IPV will be successfully combated only when male victimization is acknowledged and addressed by both men and women.)
George, M. J., & Yarwood, D. J. (2004, October). Male Domestic Violence Victims Survey 2001. Ascot, UK: Dewar Research.
George, M.J. (1994). Riding the donkey backwards: Men as the unacceptable victims of marital violence. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 3(2) 137-159.
George, M.J. (2002). SkimmingtonRevisited. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 10(1), 111-136.
George, M.J. (2003). Invisible touch. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 8, 23-60.
Giordano, P. C., Millhollin, T. J., Cernkovich, S. A., Pugh, M. D., & Rudolph, J. L. (1999). Delinquency, identity, and women’s involvement in relationship violence. Criminology, 37, 17-40. (Reports the responses of 721 young adults <45% male, 55% female; 47% white, 53% nonwhite> who had been involved in delinquent activities 10 years earlier. Subjects responded to a modified version of the CTS. Findings reveal that women were more likely to perpetrate violence than men. Specifically, 27.6% of women compared to 19.2% of men hit or threw at their partner and 8.3% of women compared to 0.4% of men threatened spouse or partner with a knife.)
Glick, P. & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–452.
Glick, P., Fiske, S.T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B. et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S.T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C. et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.
Goldberg, W. G., & Tomlanovich, M. C. (1984). Domestic violence victims in the emergency department. JAMA, 251, 3259-3264. (A sample of 492 patients <275 women, 217 men> who sought treatment in an emergency department in a Detroit hospital were survey regarding their experience with domestic violence. Respondents were mostly African-American (78%), city dwellers (90%), and unemployed (60%). Victims of domestic violence numbered 107 (22%). While results indicate that 38% of victims were men and 62% were women this gender difference did not reach statistical significance.
Gonzalez, D. M. (1997). Why females initiate violence: A study examining the reasons behind assaults on men. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (225 college women participated in a survey which examined their past history and their rationales for initiating aggression with male partners. Subjects also responded to 8 conflict scenarios which provided information regarding possible reasons for the initiation of aggression. Results indicate that 55% of the subjects admitted to initiating physical aggression toward their male partners at some point in their lives. The most common reason was that aggression was a spontaneous reaction to frustration).
Goodyear-Smith, F. A. & Laidlaw, T. M. (1999). Aggressive acts and assaults in intimate relationships: Towards an understanding of the literature. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 285-304. (An up to date scholarly analysis of couple violence. Authors report that, “…studies clearly demonstrate that within the general population, women initiate and use violent behaviors against their partners at least as often as men.”
Graham, K., Plant, M., & Plant, M. (2004). Alcohol, gender and partner aggression: a general population study of British adults. Addiction Research and Theory, 12, 385-401. (A cross sectional sample of 2027 <1052 women, 975 men> adults were interviewed regarding their experience with partner aggression. Results indicate that 16% of women reported physically aggressing their male partners within a two year period, while 13% of males reported physically aggressing their female partners.)
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). The re-emergence of male victims. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6(1), 3-6.
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Domestic violence: Research and implications for batterer programmes in Europe. European Journal of Criminal Policy & Research, 13, 213-225. (A review article in which author cites evidence which challenges traditional feminist conceptualizations of “domestic violence as unilateral male-to-female violence enacted to control and dominate women, supported by the patriarchal beliefs and systems of the wider society.”)
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Domestic Violence: Research and Implications for Batterer Programmes in Europe. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 13(3), 213-225.
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (July, 2005). Using Johnson’s domestic violence typology to classify men and women in a non-selected sample. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH. (A total of 1339 subjects, students and staff from the University of Central Lancashire, responded to a modified version of the CTS. Authors report that, “the proportion of women and men using any act of physical aggression towards their partners was as follows: from self-reports 29% for women and 17% for men, and from partner reports 31% of women and 22% for men.”)
Grandin, E. & Lupri, E. (1997). Intimate violence in Canada and the United States: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Family Violence, 12 (4), 417-443. (Authors examine data from the 1985 U.S. National Family Violence Resurvey and the 1986 Canadian National Family Life Survey. Report that “although the United States exhibits significantly higher rates of societal violence crime than Canada, Canadian women and men were more likely than their American counterparts to use severe and minor intimate violence.” This finding is counter to the “culture of violence theory.” Moreover, in both cultures the rates of violence of wives to husbands were higher than husbands to wives. Specifically, the overall violence index for men in America was 10.6 and in Canada it was 18.3; while the overall violence index for women in America was 12.2 and in Canada it was 25.3.)
Gray, H. M. & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126-142. (A sample of 185 adolescents responded to a questionnaire about dating violence; 77 students reported being involved in physical violence in their current or most recent dating relationship. Mutual violence was present in 66% of cases; while 26% of males and 8% of females reported being victims of violence and 29% of females and 4% of males reported being sole perpetrators of violence.)
Gryl, F. E., Stith, S. M., & Bird, G. W. (1991). Close dating relationships among college students: differences by use of violence and by gender. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 243-264. (A sample of 280 first year college students <156 women, 124 men> at a mid-Atlantic university completed the violence sub-scale of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that almost 30% of the females and 23% of males reported that they had been violent in the current relationship. Also almost 28% of women and 39% of men reported sustaining violence in their current relationship.)
Halford, W.K. et al. (2010). Relationship aggression, violence and self-regulation in Australian newlywed couples. Australian Jnl of Psychology, 62 (2), 82-92.
Halpern, C. T., Oslak, S. G., Young, M. L., Martin, S. L. & Kupper, L. L. (2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1679-1685. (A sample of 7493 subjects <3405 boys, 4088 girls> were drawn in 1994-5 from a stratified random sample of high school students in the United States. Subjects responded to items from the CTS and results reveal similar rates (12%) of reported physical violence for boys and girls.)
Hamel, J. & Nicholls, T.L. (Eds.) (2007). Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of genderinclusive theory and treatment. New York: Springer Publishing Company
Hamel, J. (2005). Gender inclusive treatment of intimate partner abuse: A comprehensive approach. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Hamel, J. (2007a). Domestic violence: A genderinclusive conception. In J. Hamel & T.L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp.3–26). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Hamel, J. (2005). Gender Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse. New York: Springer. (Reviews the “most reliable and empirically sound research” and concludes that “men and women physically and emotionally abuse each other at equal rates. . .” Offers a comprehensive gender inclusive treatment approach to domestic violence.)
Hamel, J. (2007). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part 1-traditional perspectives. International Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 36-54. (A review article which examines research in the area of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and finds that until recently the primary focus was on the physical and psychological abuse of women by their male partners. Concludes that the reluctance to objectively investigate the area is due to a “prevailing patriarchal conception of intimate partner violence.”)
Hamel, J. (2007b). Gender-inclusive family interventions in domestic violence: An overview. In J. Hamel & T.L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp.247–274). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Hamel, J. (2009). Toward a gender-inclusive conception of intimate partner violence research and theory: Part 2-new directions. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8, (1) 41-59. (A review article critical of Johnson’s post-patriarchal typology of intimate partner violence. The author presents and discusses a gender-inclusive model for prevention, intervention and policy. This model is consistent with latest findings that reveal most domestic violence is mutual.)
Hamel, J. (2010). Do we want to be politically correct, or do we want to reduce partner violence in our communities? Partner Abuse, 1(1), 82-91.
Hamel, J. et al, (2007). Perceptions of motives in intimate partner violence: Expressive versus coercive violence. Violence and Victims, 22(5), 563-576.
Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1989). Is violence in families increasing? A comparison of 1975 and 1985 National Survey rates. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 969-980. (Compared a sample of 147 African Americans from the 1975 National Survey with 576 African Americans from the 1985 National Survey with regard to spousal violence. Using the CTS found that the rate of overall violence (169/1000) of husbands to wives remained the same from 1975 to 1985, while the rate of overall violence for wives to husbands increased 33% (153 to 204/1000) from 1975 to 1985. The rate of severe violence of husbands to wives decreased 43% (113 to 64/1000) from 1975 to 1985, while the rate of severe violence of wives to husbands increased 42% (76 to 108/1000) from 1975 to 1985. In 1985 the rate of abusive violence by black women was nearly 3 times greater than the rate of white women.)
Harders, R. J., Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D. & Caraway, S. J. (1998). Verbal and physical abuse in dating relationships. Paper presented at the meeting of American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. (Surveyed 274 college students <92 men, 182 women> using a revised formed of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Found that women were significantly more physically aggressive than men, particularly in the areas of: pushing, slapping and punching.)
Harned, M. S. (2002). A multivariate analysis of risk markers for dating violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1179-1197. (In a university sample of 874 daters <489 women, 385 men> assessed with the revised CTS, 22% of women and 21% of men reported experiencing physical aggression from dating partners.)
Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Data from the International Social Science Survey/ Australia 1996/97 was examined. A sample of 1643 subjects (804 men, 839 women) responded to questions about their experience with domestic violence in the past 12 months. Results reveal that 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women reported being victims of domestic assaults. With regard to injuries results reveal that women inflict serious injuries at least as frequently as men. For example 1.8% of men and 1.2% of women reported that their injuries required first aid, while 1.5% of men and 1.1% of women reported that their injuries needed treatment by a doctor or nurse.
Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic Violence in Australia: Are Women and Men Equally Violent? Australian Monitor, 2(3).
Heise, L.L., Ellsberg, M. & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending violence against women (Population Rep. Series L, No. 11). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health.
Heise, L.L., Pitanguy, J. & Germain, A. (1994). Violence against women: The hidden health burden. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Heleniak, D. (2005). The new star chamber: The New Jersey family court and the prevention of domestic violence act. Rutgers Law Review, 57, 1009-1042.
Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C., & McLeod, K. C. (2003). Comparison of six models for violent romantic relationships in college men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 645-665. (A sample of 608 students <164 men, 444 women> were surveyed with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that 16% of men and 26% of women report inflicting violence on their current romantic partner.)
Hennessy, A., & Willie, C. (2006). Ending Family Violence Program, Woorabinda. Mackay: CDFVR Indigenous Family Violence Prevention Forum.
Henning K, Feder L. A comparison of men and women arrested for domestic violence: Who presents the greater risk? Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2004.
Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 467-482. (Surveyed 644 high school students <351 men, 293 women> and found that abuse occurred at a rate of 121 per 1000 and appeared to be reciprocal with both partners initiating violence at similar rates.)
Herrenkohl, T. I., Kosterman, R., Mason, W. A., & Hawkins, J. D. (2007). Youth Violence Trajectories and Proximal Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence. Violence and Victims, 22 (3), 259-274. (Subjects were drawn from a longitudinal study in Seattle, WA. At age 24, 644 subjects <51.6% female, 48.4% male; 48% Euro-American, 25% African-American, 22% Asian-American) who were partnered were assessed with a modified version of the CTS. Results reveal that 19% of subjects perpetrated one or more acts of IPV in the past year. Overall 25% of women and 13% of men reported having perpetrated IPV.
Hettrich, E. L. & O’Leary, K. D. (2007). Females’ reasons for their physical aggression in dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1131-1143. (Examined a sample of 446 dating college females <38.6% Caucasian, 23.6% Asian, 18.1% Hispanic, 7.9% African-American, 6.3% Caribbean American, 4.8% other> and found that 32% reported in engaging in physical aggression toward their male partners. Primary reasons for aggression were anger and poor communication.)
Hines, D. A. & Douglas, E. M. (2010). Intimate terrorism by women towards men: does it exist? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 2, (3), 36-56. (Study investigates Johnson’s theory of partner violence which differentiates common couple violence <CCV> from intimate terrorism <IT>. Johnson maintains IT is caused by patriarchy and primarily committed by men. The authors examined a sample of 302 men who sought help as victims of partner violence and compared their responses to the CTS2 and other measures to a sample of 520 men from the community. Female partners of the helpseeking sample were significantly more likely to aggress against and injure their male partners than female partners of the community sample. For example, males sustained injuries 5 to 1 in the helpseeking sample <35% to 7%> and 1.5 to 1 <1.5% to 1%> in the community sample. Authors indicate that the majority of male aggression in the helpseeking sample was “likely a reaction to their female partner’s violence.” Results were interpreted as a repudiation of Johnson’s theory.)
Hines, D. A. & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: a neglected research area. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 2, 75-85. (A review article that examines the issue of men as victims of partner abuse. Considers reasons why men would remain in an abusive relationship.)
Hines, D. A. & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised Conflict Tactics Scales. Violence and Victims, 18 (2), 197-217. (A sample of 481 college students <179 men, 302 women> responded to the revised Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that 29% of men and 35% of women reported perpetrating physical aggression in their relationships.)
Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2010). Intimate terrorism by women towards men: Does it exist? Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research.
Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family violence, 22, 63-72. (Study examines experiences of 190 men who called the Domestic Abuse Helpline for men. Results reveal that all callers “experienced physical abuse from their female partners, and a substantial minority feared their wives’ violence and were stalked.”)
Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of Callers to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men. Journal of Family Violence, 22(2), 63-72.
Hines, D.A. (2007) Posttraumatic stress symptoms among men who sustain partner violence: An international multisite study of university students. Psycholof Men & Masculinity, 8(4), 225-239.
Hines, D.A. et al (2009). Women’s use of intimate partner violence against men: Prevalence, implications, and consequences. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(6), 572-586.
Hird, M. J. (2000). An empirical study of adolescent dating aggression in the U.K. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 69-78. (A sample of U.K. high school students <279 male, 269 female> were assessed with a modified version of the CTS. Results indicate that 15% of males and 14% of females reported experiencing physical aggression from their dating partner within the past 12 months.)
Hoff, B. H. (1999). The risk of serious physical injury from assault by a woman intimate. A re-examination of National Violence against women survey data on type of assault by an intimate. WWW.vix.com/menmag/nvawrisk.htm. (A re-examination of the data from the most recent National violence against women survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) shows that “assaulted men are more likely than assaulted women to experience serious attacks by being hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a knife or being knifed.”)
Holt, M. K, & Espelange, D. L. (2005). Social support as a moderator between dating violence victimization and depression/anxiety among African American and Caucasian adolescents. School Psychology Review, 14, 309-328. (A sample of 681 middle and high school students <319 males, 362 females, 267 African Americans and 414 Caucasians> responded to the Victimization in Dating Relationships scale. Results reveal that 43% of males and 32% of females reported physical violence dating victimization. More African American than Caucasians reported physical violence dating victimization <45% vs 32%>.)
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Female Perpetration of Physical Aggression Against an Intimate Partner: A Controversial New Topic of Study. Violence and Victims, 20 (2), 251-259. (Examines the changing zeitgeist, methodological issues, and research findings regarding female perpetrated violence.)
Jackson, S. M., Cram, F. & Seymour, F. W. (2000). Violence and sexual coercion in high school students’ dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 23-36. (In a New Zealand sample of senior high school students <200 women, 173 men> 21% of women and 19% of men reported having been physically hurt by their heterosexual dating partner.)
Jankey, O., Prospero, M., & Fawson, P. (2011). Mutually violent attitudes: effects on intimate partner violence and mental health symptoms among couples in Botswana, Africa. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, (1) 4-11. (A sample of 562 university students in Botswana <71% female> completed the CTS2. No significant differences between men and women were found with regard to physical perpetration of partner violence.)
Jenkins, S. S., & Aube, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender-related constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106-1118. (Used the CTS with a university sample of 85 dating couples. Authors report that, “women in existing college dating relationships are more aggressive than men.”)
Jezl, D. R., Molidor, C. E., & Wright, T. L. (1996). Physical, sexual, and psychological abuse in high school dating relationships: Prevalence rates and self-esteem issues. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13 (1), 69-87. (Examined an ethnically diverse sample of currently dating subjects <114 male, 118 female> who responded to a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that 50.9% of subjects <63% of males and 39% of females> reported being victims of moderately abusive behaviors such as “being kicked, slapped, having your hair pulled, and being intentionally scratched.”)
Jouriles, E. N., & O’leary, K. D. (1985). Interpersonal reliability of reports of marital violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 419-421. (Used the Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 65 couples in marriage therapy and 37 couples from the community. Found moderate levels of agreement of abuse between partners and similar rates of reported violence between partners.)
Kalin, R. & Tilby, P. (1978). Development and validation of a sex-role ideology scale. Psychological Reports, 42, 731–738.
Kalmuss, D. (1984). The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 11-19. (In a representative sample of 2,143 adults found that the rate of husband to wife severe aggression is 3.8% while the rate of wife to husband severe aggression is 4.6%.)
Kasian, M., & Painter, S. (1992). Frequency and severity of psychological abuse in a dating population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 350-364.
Katz, J., Carino, A., & Hilton, A. (2002). Perceived verbal conflict behaviors associated with physical aggression and sexual coercion in dating relationships: a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence & Victims, 17, 93-109. (A sample of 223 <115 males, 108 females> heterosexual dating undergraduates completed the CTS2. Results indicate that there were no differences for men and women in the perpetration of physical aggression toward partners.)
Katz, J., Kuffel, S. W., & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 247-271. (Authors report two studies where dating men and women experienced violence at comparable levels, “although men experienced more frequent moderate violence.” In the first study n=286, <183 women, 103 men> 55% of women had nonviolent partners, while 50% of men had nonviolent partners; in the second study n=123 <78 women, 45 men> 73% of women had nonviolent partners, while 58% of men had nonviolent partners.)
Kaura, S. A. & Allan, C. M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 576-588. (A university sample of 352 men and 296 women completed the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Authors report, “Surprisingly, significantly more dating violence perpetration is reported by women than by men.” Also found that “male perpetration of dating violence is related to mother’s violence, whereas female perpetration of dating violence is related to father’s violence.”)
Kelly, H.A. (1994). Rule of thumb and the folklore of the husband’s stick. Jnlof Legal Education, 44(3), 341-365.
Kelly, L. (2002). Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State. Florida State University Law Review, 30, 791.
Kelly, L. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State University Law Review, 30, 791-855.
Kelly, L. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: how women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State Law Review, 30, 791-855. (A scholarly examination of the issue of male victimization which is critical of feminist perspectives.)
Kessler, R. C., Molnar, B. E., Feurer, I. D., & Appelbaum, M. (2001). Patterns and mental health predictors of domestic violence in the United States. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 487-507. (A sample of 3537 subjects <1738 men, 1799 women> were drawn from the National Co-morbidity Survey, a nationally representative survey conducted between 1990 and 1992. Subjects were married or cohabitating men and women between the ages of 15-54 who were assessed using the CTS. Results indicated that, “17.4% of women and 18.4% of men reported that they were victims of minor physical violence perpetrated by their current spouses or partners.”)
Kim, J., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197-219.
Kim, J-Y., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197-219. (A sample of 1500 South Koreans were surveyed. Marital power, conflict and norm consensus were correlated with marital violence. Findings reveal that the incidence of husband to wife violence 27.8%, while wife to husband was 15.8%)
Kim, K., & Cho, Y. (1992). Epidemiological survey of spousal abuse in Korea. In E. C. Viano (Ed.) Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. (pp. 277-282). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. (Utilized the Conflict Tactics scale in interviews with a random sample of 1,316 married Koreans <707 women, 609 men>. Compared to findings with American couples, results indicate that Korean men were victimized by their wives twice as much as American men, while Korean women were victimized by their spouses three times as much as American women.)
Kimberg, L. (2008). Addressing intimate partner violence with male patients: A review and introduction of pilot guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(2), 2071-78.
Kirschner, M., & Fiebert, M. (2008, April). Interracial dating and partner abuse: A pilot study. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of Western Psychological Association, Irvine, CA. (A convenience sample of 40 subjects, 15 men, 25 women who were currently involved in an interracial relationship were evaluated using the CTS2. No relationship between partner aggression and ethnicity was found. However, women were significantly more likely to perpetrate violence toward their male partners then men were toward women.)
Krob, M.J. et al. (1986). Burned and battered adults. 18thAnnual Meeting American Burns Assoc.
Kumar, A. (2012). Domestic violence against men in India: A Perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 22, 290-296. (References an earlier study <see Sakar et al, 2008> which reported that 25.1% of violence experienced by Indian men is physical. Examines men as victims of violence as a function of changing gender roles and power relationships in India.)
Kwong, M. J., Bartholomew, K., & Dutton, D. (1999). Gender differences in patterns of relationship violence in Alberta. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31 (3), 150-160. (A representative sample of men <n=356> and women <n=351> from Alberta using the Conflict Tactics Scale, reported on their experience of marital aggression during a one year period. Similar levels of reported perpetration of physical violence were found, viz., husband to wife 12.9%, wife to husband, 12.3%.)
Lane, K., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P.A. (1985). Violence in the context of dating and sex. Journal of Family Issues, 6, 45-49. (Surveyed 325 students <165 men, 160 women> regarding courtship violence. Used Conflict Tactics Scale and found equal rates of violence for men and women.)
Laner, M. R., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in courting couples. Deviant Behavior, 3, 229-244. (Used Conflict Tactics Scales with a sample of 371 single individuals <129 men, 242 women> and found similar rates of male and female violence in dating relationships.)
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2005). Top 10 greatest hits. Important findings and future directions for intimate partner violence research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 108-118. (Author spells out her choices of the 10 most important recent findings in the field of intimate partner violence. Specifically states, “data indicate that women’s perpetuation of violence is surprisingly frequent, perhaps more so than men’s. . . .”)
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179-193. (Scholarly examination and analysis of the issues related to intimate partner violence. Author states that, “using behavioral measures like the Conflict Tactics Scale in general or in community samples, women have been shown rather consistently to perpetrate acts of intimate partner violence at rates comparable to or even higher than men. . .”)
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Vivian, D. (1994). The correlates of spouses’ incongruent reports of marital aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 265-283. (In a clinic sample of 97 couples seeking marital therapy, authors found, using a modified version of the CTS, that 61% of the husbands and 64% of the wives were classified as aggressive, 25% of the husbands and 11% of the wives were identified as mildly aggressive and 36% of husbands and 53% of wives were classified as severely aggressive. Sixty-eight percent of couples were in agreement with regard to husband’s overall level of aggression and 69% of couples were in agreement on wive’s overall level of aggression. Aggression levels were identified as “nonviolent, mildly violent, or severely violent.” Where there was disagreement, 65% of husbands <n=20> were under-reporting aggression and 35% of husbands <n=11> were over-reporting aggression; while 57% of wives <n=17> were under-reporting aggression and 43% of wives <n=13> were over-reporting aggression.)
Laroche, D. (2005). Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence-Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999. Table 8. Quebec City: Government of Quebec. (Author presents a reanalysis of Canadian General Social Survey <see Brown, 2004> and reports great similarity in male and female victimization. Specifically, 83% of men and 77% of women feared for their lives because they were unilaterally terrorized by their partners. A similar percentage <84%> of men and women who were terrorized by their partners received medical attention. Reports 8% of women and 7% of men report being physically abused within last 5 years.)
Lee, M. Y., Uken, A., & Sebold, J. (2007). Role of Self-Determined Goals in Predicting Recidivism in Domestic Violence Offenders. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(1), 30.
Lee, M., Uken, A., & Sebold, J. (2004). Accountability for Change: Solution-Focused Treatment with Domestic Violence Offenders. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 85(4), 463-476.
Leisring, P. A., Dowd, L., & Rosenbaum, A. (2003). Treatment of Partner Aggressive Women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 7 (1/2), 257-277. (Article discusses information regarding gender parity in partner aggression. Authors provide a rationale for the study of female offenders and describe characteristics of partner aggressive women. Included is a presentation of the treatment program for partner aggressive women at University of Massachusetts medical school.)
LeJeune, C., & Follette, V. (1994). Taking Responsibility. Sex Differences in reporting dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 133-140. (A sample of 465 college students <58.3% male, 41.7% female> responded to a mailed survey of CTS items. Results reveal that 42.4% of female respondents report that they “usually initiate violent acts in their relationship” compared to 14.3% of male respondents who report “that they usually initiate violence.” Females also report that 39.4% of their male partners initiate violence while 52.4% of males report that violence is initiated by their female partners. Authors speculate that this discrepancy suggests that “females are more likely than males to accept responsibility for initiating violence.”)
Leung, P. & Cheung, M. (2008). A prevalence study on partner abuse in six Asian American ethnic groups in the USA. International Social Work, 51, 635-649. (A large sample of Asian Americans were surveyed with the original CTS in the greater Houston area of Texas. Sample consisted of 1577 respondents: 610 Chinese, 517 Vietnamese, 154 Indians, 123 Koreans, 101 Filipinos and 72 Japanese. In terms of partner abuse high rates were reported for Vietnamese (22.4%) and Filipinos (21.8%) and low rates for Japanese and Chinese (9.7%). Overall women were more abusive than men (17.6% vs 15.3%).)
Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lewis, A. & Sarantakos, S. (2001). Domestic Violence and the male victim. Nuance, #3. (Based on interviews with 48 men in Australia and New Zealand, authors present findings that domestic violence by women toward men exists, that the refusal to examine the prevalence of this abuse is a “disempowerment” of men and that official policy should be changed to provide help for abused men.)
Lewis, S. F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 21, 105-127. (Authors examine the literature and state that, “there is ample evidence that females initiate more violence than males.” Discusses explanations for these findings as well as “deficits in the present body of literature including sampling methods, dependent measures and data analyses.”)
Lillja, C. M. (1995). Why women abuse: A study examining the function of abused men. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (A review of the literature examining the issue of men as victims of female assaults. Includes an original questionnaire to test assumption that women who lack social support to combat stress are likely to commit domestic violence.)
Lo, W. A., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1989). The continuation of violent dating relationships among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 432-439. (A sample of 422 college students completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. Found that, “women were more likely than men to claim themselves as abusers and were less likely to claim themselves as victims.”)
Lottes, I. L., & Weinberg, M. S. (1996). Sexual coercion among university students: a comparison of the United States and Sweden. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 67-76. (A sample of 507 Swedish students <211 men, 359 women> and 407 U.S. students <129 men, 278 women> responded to items on the CTS. Results reveal that 31% of U.S. men compared to 18% of Swedish men reported being victims of physical violence by female partners during the previous 12 months. While 31% of U.S. women compared to 19% of Swedish women reported being victims of physical violence by male partners during the previous 12 months.)
Lupri, E., & Grandin, E. (2004). Intimate partner abuse against men: Overview paper. Ottawa, ON: National Clearinghouse on Family Violence.
Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 717-731. (A sample of 200 college students, <100 men, 100 women> responded to the CTS. Results reveal that 25% of women and 10% of men reported perpetrating violence on their dating partners.)
Lysova, A. V. & Douglas, E. M. (2008). Intimate partner violence among male and female Russian University students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 (11) 1579-1599. (A sample of 338 Russian students from 3 universities completed the CTS2. Results reveal that women compared to men significantly perpetrated more minor <35.6 vs 20.6> and severe <13.5 vs 8.1> violence.)
Macchietto, J. (1992). Aspects of male victimization and female aggression: Implications for counseling men. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 14, 375-392. (Article reviews literature on male victimization and female aggression.)
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Fagan, J., Newman, D. L., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21 year Olds: bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68-78. (Used CTS with a sample of 861 21 year Olds <436 men, 425 women> in New Zealand. Physical violence perpetration was reported during the previous 12 months by 37.2% of women and 21.8% of men, with severe violence perpetration by women at 18.6% and men at 5.7%.)
Makepeace, J. M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388. (A sample of 2,338 students <1,059 men, 1,279 women> from seven colleges were surveyed regarding their experience of dating violence. Courtship violence was experienced by 16.7 % of respondents. Authors report that “rates of commission of acts and initiation of violence were similar across gender.” In term of injury, both men (98%) and women (92%) reported “none or mild” effects of violence.)
Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among adolescents: perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 291-302. (A sample of 707 high school students <281 boys, 426 girls> responded to the CTS. Results reveal that girls were almost 3 times more likely than boys to perpetrate dating violence. In terms of ethnicity, African-Americans had the highest level of dating violence, followed by Latinos, whites, and Asian Americans.)
Mallory, K. A., McCloskey, K. A., Griggsby, N., & Gardner, D. (2003). Women’s use of violence within intimate relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6 (2), 37-59. (Reviews research which examines women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Reports a number of studies which document the increased arrests of women in domestic disputes.)
Malone, J., Tyree, A., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Generalization and containment: Different effects of past aggression for wives and husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 687-697. (In a sample of 328 couples it was found that men and women engaged in similar amounts of physical aggression within their families of origin and against their spouses. However, results indicate that women were more aggressive to their partners than men. Aggression was more predictable for women, i.e., if women observed parental aggression or hit siblings they were more likely to be violent with their spouses.)
Mann, C. (1988). Getting even? Justice Quarterly, 5, 33-51.
Margolin, G. (1987). The multiple forms of aggressiveness between marital partners: how do we identify them? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13 , 77-84. (A paid volunteer sample of 103 couples completed the Conflict Tactics Scale. It was found that husbands and wives perpetrated similar amounts of violence. Specifically, the incidence of violence, as reported by either spouse was: husband to wife =39; wife to husband =41.)
Margolin, G., John, R., & Gleberman, L. (1988). Affective responses to conflictual discussions in violent and nonviolent couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 24-33.
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1987). Gender, stress and violence in the adult relationships of a sample of college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 299-316. (A survey of 308 undergraduates <152 men, 156 women> revealed that 52% expressed and 62% received violence at some point in their adult relationships. Overall, women report expressing more physical violence than men. Childhood abuse emerged as a predictor of violence in adult relationships.)
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1990). Premarital violence: The impact of family of origin violence, stress and reciprocity. Violence and Victims, 5, 51-64. (454 premarital undergraduates <249 women, 205 men> completed the CTS and other scales. Overall, women reported expressing more violence than men, while men reported receiving more violence than women. Female violence was also associated with having been abused as children.)
Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress and abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 203-210. (Investigated 155 college students <48 men, 107 women> with the Thematic Apperception Test <TAT>, Life Experiences Survey and the CTS. Found that there were no significant gender differences in terms of the infliction of physical abuse. Men with high power needs were more likely to be physically abusive while highly stressed women with high needs for affiliation and low activity inhibition were the most likely to be physically abusive. Results indicate that physical abuse occurred most often among committed couples.)
Matthews, W. J. (1984). Violence in college couples. College Student Journal, 18, 150-158. (A survey of 351 college students <123 men and 228 women> revealed that 79 <22.8 %> reported at least one incident of dating violence. Both men and women ascribed joint responsibility for violent behavior and both sexes, as either recipients or expressors of aggression, interpreted violence as a form of “love.”)
Maxfield, M. G. (1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity. Criminology, 27, 671-695. (Examines FBI homicide data from 1976 through 1985. Reports that 9,822 wives & common law wives <57%> were killed compared to 7,433 husbands and common law husbands <43%>).
McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Fan, Z., & Newby J. H. (2004). Patterns of mutual and nonmutual spouse abuse in the U.S. Army (1998-2002). Violence and Victims, 19, 453-468.
McCarthy, A. (2001.) Gender differences in the incidences of, motives for, and consequences of, dating violence among college students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (In a sample of 1145 students <359 men, 786 women> found that 36% of men and 28% of women responding to the CTS2 reported that they were victims of physical aggression during the previous year. There were no differences in reported motives for aggression between men and women.)
McKinney, K. (1986). Measures of verbal, physical and sexual dating violence by gender. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 14, 55-60. (Surveyed 163 college students, 78 men, 85 women, with a questionnaire designed to assess involvement in dating abuse. Found that 38% of women and 47% of men indicated that they were victims of physical abuse in dating relationships. Also found that 26% of women and 21% of men acknowledged that they physically assaulted their dating partners.)
McLeod, M. (1984). Women against men: An examination of domestic violence based on an analysis of official data and national victimization data. Justice Quarterly, 1, 171-193. (From a data set of 6,200 cases of spousal abuse in the Detroit area in 1978-79 found that men used weapons 25% of the time while female assailants used weapons 86% of the time, 74% of men sustained injury and of these 84% required medical care. Concludes that male victims are injured more often and more seriously than female victims.)
Mcmurran, M., & Gilchrist, E. (2007). Anger Control and Alcohol Use: Appropriate Interventions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence? Psychology, Crime & Law, (1), 1-10.
McNeely, R. et al. (1987). The truth about domestic violence: a falsely framed issue. Social Work, (Nov-Dec), 485-485-490.
McNeely, R. et al. (2001). Is domestic violence a gender issue, or a human issue? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4, 227–251.
McNeely, R. L., & Mann, C. R. (1990). Domestic violence is a human issue. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 129-132. (A review article which discusses the findings that women are more prone than men to engage in severely violent acts and that “classifying spousal violence as a women’s issue rather than a human issue is erroneous.”)
McNeely, R. L., & Robinson-Simpson, G. (1987). The truth about domestic violence: A falsely framed issue. Social Work, 32, 485-490. (A review article which concludes that women are as violent as men in domestic relationships.)
McNeely, R. L., Cook, P. W. & Torres, J. B. (2001). Is domestic violence a gender issue or a human issue? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4 (4), 227-251. (Argues that domestic violence is a human issue and not a gender issue. Presents and discusses empirical findings and case studies to support this view. Expresses concerns about men’s “legal and social defenselessness.”)
Mechem, C. C., Shofer, F. S., Reinhard, S. S., Hornig, S., & Datner, E. (1999). History of domestic violence among male patients presenting to an urban emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 786-791. (Data was collected over a 13 week period at an emergency clinic in Philadelphia which focused on injuries to male patients. Results revealed that 12.6% of 866 men were victims of domestic violence. Authors cite published findings that 14.4% of women treated in Emergency departments had been physically or sexually abused by an intimate partner. Compared to non-victims, victims were more likely to be single <52%>, younger <7.5 yrs> and African-American <61%>. In terms of assaults, 48% of men reported being kicked, bitten, chocked or punched by a female partner, while 37% of men reported having a weapon used against them.)
Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2006). Risk Factors for Physical Violence Between Dating Partners: Implications for Gender-Inclusive Prevention and Treatment of Family Violence. In J. Hamel, & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A practioners guide to gender-inclusive research and treatment. (pp. 59-85). Springer.
Medeiros, R. A., & Straus, M. A. (2007). Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. in J. Hamel & T. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence (pp. –). New York, NY: Springer.
Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1975-85. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 595-599. (Examined FBI figures regarding spousal homicides. During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985 found higher murder rates of wives than husbands <43.4% vs 56.6%>. Black husbands were at the greatest risk of victimization. Spousal homicide among blacks was 8.4 times higher than that of whites. Spouse homicide rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages and the risk of victimization for both whites and blacks increased as age differences between spouses increased. Wives and husbands were equally likely to be killed by firearms <approximately 72% of the time> while husbands were more likely to be stabbed and wives more likely to bludgeoned to death. Arguments apparently escalated to murder in 67% of spouse homicides.)
Meredith, W. H., Abbot, D. A., & Adams, S. L. (1986). Family violence in relation to marital and parental satisfaction and family strengths. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 299-305. (Authors report that 6% of men and 5% of women in Nebraska indicated that they used severe violence at least once in the previous year.)
Merrill, L. L., King, L. K., Milner, J. S., Newell, C. E., & Koss, M. P. (1998). Premilitary intimate partner conflict resolution in a Navy basic trainee sample. Military Psychology, 10, 1-15. (A sample of 2, 987 ,1,560 women, 1,427 men> Navy basic trainees responded to the CTS. More men <43.3%> than women <40.3%> reported receiving physical violence from an intimate partner, and more women <46.9%> than men <31.9%> reported at least one instance of inflicting physical violence on an intimate partner.)
Migliaccio, T. A. (2002). Abused husbands: A Narrative analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 26-52. (Narratives of 12 abused men are examined. Study finds that the accounts of battered men and women follow similar patterns, “including the structure of the relationships, acceptance of the abuse, and the social context of the situation.”)
Mihalic, S. W., & Elliot, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21-46. (Based on data from the National Youth Survey <see Morse, 1995> a social learning model of marital violence for men and women was tested. For men ethnicity, prior victimization, stress and marital satisfaction predicted both perpetration and experience of minor violence. With regard to serious violence ethnicity, prior victimization, marital satisfaction predicted men’s experience of marital violence, while ethnicity, class and sex role attitudes predicted the perpetration of male marital violence. For women the most important predictor of the experience of both minor and serious marital violence was marital satisfaction, class was also a predictor. With regard to female perpetrators of marital violence the witnessing of parental violence was an important predictor along with class and marital satisfaction. The social learning model worked better for women than men.)
Mihalic, S.W. & Elliott, D. (1997). If violence is domestic, does it really count? Journal of Family Violence, 12, 293–311.
Mihalic, S.W. et al (1997). If violence is domestic, does it really count? Journal of Family Violence,12, 293-311.
Milardo, R. M. (1998). Gender asymmetry in common couple violence. Personal Relationships, 5, 423-438. (A sample of 180 college students <88 men, 72 women> were asked whether they would be likely to hit their partner in a number of situations common to a dating relationship. Results reveal that 83% of the women, compared to 53% of the men, indicated that they would be somewhat likely to hit their partner.)
Mirrlees-Black, C. (1999). Domestic violence: Findings from a new British Crime survey self-completion questionnaire (Home Office Research Study No. 191). London, UK: Home Office.
Mirrlees-Black, C. (1999). Findings from a new British Crime Survey self-completion questionnaire. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate report 191. Home Office. London, HMSO. (In 1996, 16,000 completed questionnaires regarding crime victimization. Findings reveal 4.2% of men and 4.2% of women between the ages of 16-59 reported being physically assaulted by a current or former partner within the past year.)
Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with implications for abuse-prevention policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 1 (1), 5-36. (A representative longitudinal sample of 360 young-adult couples in New Zealand completed a 13 item physical abuse scale. Results reveal that 40% of males and 50% of females had perpetrated at least one act of physical violence toward their partners.)
Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (1999, July). Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 170018.
Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M. & Silva, P.A. (2001). Sex differences in anti-social behavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunnedin longitudinal study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence against Women, 4 (2), 180-194. (Subjects were 635 high school students <305 girls; 330 boys> who completed a modified version of the CTS. Results indicate that there was no significant difference between males and females in their experience of overall dating violence <37.1% of males vs. 36.4% of females. Males reported greater frequency of moderate violence and females reported greater frequency of severe violence.)
Monson, C. M., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2002). Sexual and nonsexual dating violence perpetration: testing an integrated perpetrator typology. Violence and Victims, 17, 403-428. (A sample of 228 men and 442 women were assessed with a modified version of the CTS2. Results reveal 27% of men and 37% of women reported perpetrating physical violence on their partners.)
Morse, B. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 1, 251-269. Muehlenhard, C., & Cook, S. (1988). Men’s self-reports of unwanted sexual activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58-72.
Morse, B. J. (1995). Beyond the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10 (4), 251-272. (Data was analyzed from the National Youth Survey, a longitudinal study begun in 1976 with 1,725 subjects who were drawn from a probability sample of households in the United States and who, in 1976, were between the ages of 11-17. This study focused on violence as assessed by the CTS between male and female married or cohabiting respondents during survey years 1983 <n=1,496>, 1986 <n=1,384>, 1989 <n=1,436>, and 1992 <n=1,340>. For each survey year the prevalence rates of any violence and severe violence were significantly higher for female to male than for male to female. For example, in 1983 the rate of any violence male to female was 36.7, while the rate of any violence female to male was 48; in 1986, the rate of severe violence male to female was 9.5, while the rate of severe violence female to male was 22.8. In 1992, the rate of any violence male to female was 20.2, with a severe violence rate male to female of 5.7; while the rate of any violence female to male was 27.9, with a severe violence rate female to male of 13.8. Author notes that the decline in violence over time is attributed to the increase in age of the subjects. Results reveal <p. 163> that over twice as many women as men reported assaulting a partner who had not assaulted them during the study year.” In 1986 about 20% of both men and women reported that assaults resulted in physical injuries. In other years women were more likely to self report personal injuries.)
Moxon, S. (2011). Beyond staged retreat behind virtual ‘gender paradigm’ barricades: the rise and fall of the misrepresentation of partner-violence, and its eclipse by an understanding of mate-guarding. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 45-56. (Author offers an original analysis of findings in the area of partner violence. Suggests that gender-symmetries in intimate partner violence can best be understood from an evolutionary psychological perspective. In particular, “the greater need for women than for men to maintain the integrity of the pair bond” is offered as an explanation to account for the finding that women are as physically aggressive or more aggressive as men in their relationship with spouses or male partners.)
Munoz-Rivas, M. J., Grana, J. L., O’Leary, K. D., & Gonzalez, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298-304. (A sample of 2416 high school students <1416 women, 1000 men> from 20 different schools in Madrid, Spain completed a modified CTS. Results reveal that significantly more women, 41.9% compared to 31.7% of men, admitted to perpetrating some form of physical aggression toward their dating partners. Women were significantly more likely to hit or kick <13.4% vs 5.3%>, slap <12.4% vs 3.1%> and shove or grab <22.5% vs 11.9%> than men.)
Murphy, J. E. (1988). Date abuse and forced intercourse among college students. In G. P. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.) Family Abuse and its Consequences: New Directions in Research (pp. 285-296). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (A sample of 485 single college students <230 men, 255 women> completed the CTS. Overall men reported greater victimization than women. For example, 20.7% of men compared to 12.8% of women reported being kicked, bit or hit with a fist and 6% of men compared to 3.6% of women reported being beaten up by their heterosexual partner.)
Mwamwenda, T. S. (1998). Reports of husband battering from an undergraduate sample in Umtata. Psychological Reports, 82, 517-518. (Surveyed a sample of 138 female and 81 male college students in Transkei, South Africa, regarding their witnessing husbanding battery. Responses reveal that 2% of subjects saw their mother beat their father, 18% saw or heard female relatives beating their husbands, and 26% saw or heard female neighbors beating their husbands.)
National Crime Prevention (2001). Young People and Domestic Violence : National Research on Young People’s Attitudes to and Experiences of Domestic Violence. Barton: Attorney-General’s Dept.
Niaz, U., Hassan, S., & Tariq, Q. (2002). Psychological consequences of intimate partner violence: forms of domestic abuse in both genders. Pakistan Journal of Medical Science, 18 (3), 205-214. (A sample of 140 <70 men, 70 women> outpatient psychiatric patients in Pakistan were assessed with the Karachi Domestic Violence Screening Scale. Findings reveal that 19 men <27%> and 30 women <43%> reported being victims of physical abuse in their domestic relationships.)
Nicholls, T. L. & Dutton, D. G. (2001). Abuse committed by women against male intimates. Journal of Couples Therapy, 10 (1), 41-57. (A comprehensive review of the literature which concludes that “men are as likely as women to be victims of intimate assaults.”)
Nisonoff, L. & Bitman, I. (1979). Spouse abuse: Incidence and relationship to selected demographic variables. Victimology, 4, 131-140. (In a sample of 297 telephone survey respondents <112 men, 185 women> found that 15.5% of men and 11.3% of women report having hit their spouse, while 18.6% of men and 12.7% of women report having been hit by their spouse.)
Nowinskia, S. N. & Bowen, E. (2012). Partner violence against heterosexual and gay men: Prevalence and correlates. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 (1) 36-52. (A review article examining male victims of IPV both within opposite and same gender relationships. Also reviews studies of the relationship between IPV and ethnicity.)
O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568. (Surveyed 939 students <385 boys, 554 girls> ranging in age from 14-20. Sample was ethnically diverse: 53% Latino, 20% White, 13% African-American, 6.7% Asian American, and 7% “other.” A modified version of the violence subscale of the Conflict Tactics Scale was used to assess dating violence. Results reveal that 43% of females and 39% of males reported that they perpetrated some form of physical aggression on their dating partners.)
O’Keeffe, N. K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31, 465-468. (Surveyed 256 high school students from Sacramento, CA., 135 girls, 121 boys, with the CTS. Ninety percent of students were juniors or seniors, the majority came from middle class homes, 94% were average or better students, and 65% were white and 35% were black, Hispanic or Asian. Found that 11.9% of girls compared to 7.4% of boys admitted to being sole perpetrators of physical violence. 17.8% of girls and 11.6% of boys admitted that they were both “victims and perpetrators” of physical violence.)
O’Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, I., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Prevalence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268. (272 couples were assessed regarding physical aggression. More women reported physically aggressing against their partners at premarriage <44% vs 31%> and 18 months of marriage <36% vs 27%>. At 30 months there was a nonsignificant but higher rate for women <32% vs 25%>.)
O’Leary, K. D., Slep, A. M. S., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender differences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 473-479. (A sample of 2363 students <1186 boys, 1177 girls> from 7 multiethnic high schools in New York were assessed with a modified Conflict Tactics Scale. The vast majority of subjects were between 15 and 18 years old and ethnicities included white, African-American, Hispanic and Asian. Results reveal that among those currently dating students <male=543, female=706> 24% of males reported perpetrating physical aggression compared to 40% of females who reported perpetrating physical aggression. Similar rates of victimization and injury were reported by males and females. No differences in ethnicities were reported except for the finding that Asian males were less aggressive toward their dating partners.)
O’Leary, K. D., Tintle, N., Bromet, E. J., & Gluzman, S. F. (2008). Descriptive epidemiology of intimate partner aggression in Ukraine. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43, 619-626. (A nationally representative sample from the Ukraine consisting of 1,116 married or co-habiting adults <558 men, 558 women> responded to items modified from the CTS. Results indicate that an equal number <18.7% vs 18.5%> of men and women reported ever aggressing against their partners and equal numbers <11.4% vs 11.3%> report aggressing against their partners in the past year.)
O’Leary, S. G., & Slep, A. M. S. (2006). Precipitants of Partner Aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 344-347. (A random sample of 453 couples, who were cohabiting and raising a child between the ages of 3-7, was assessed with the CTS2 and a scale to evaluate precipitants for Partner Aggression <PCPT>. Results reveal that women were more likely than men to perpetrate both mild <23.8% vs 33.8%> and severe <8.4% vs 11.5%> aggression. With regards to precipitation, the authors state that, “Men were more likely than women to report partner physical aggression as a precipitant for their own mild physical aggression.” While the physical aggression of women was more likely to be precipitated by their partner’s verbal aggression, authors go on to conclude, “These findings suggest that women may often be the first to escalate a conflict and use physical aggression.”)
Olshen, E., McVeigh, K. H., Wunsch-Hitzig, R. A., & Rickert, V. I. (2007). Dating violence, sexual assault and suicide attempts among urban teenagers. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 161, 539-545. (A representative sample consisting of 8080 teenagers <4118 girls, 3962 boys> from 87 New York City public high schools were subjects in this investigation. Individuals responded to the question: “during the past 12 months did your boyfriend (or girlfriend) ever hit, slap or physically hurt you on purpose.” Results reveal that 10.6% of girls and 9.5% of boys reported an experience of dating violence.)
Pearson, P. (1997). When she was bad: Women and the myth of innocence. New York: Penguin. Saunders, D. (1986). When battered women use violence. Violence and Victims, 1, 47-60.
Pedersen, P. & Thomas, C. D. (1992). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a Canadian University sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 490-501. (A sample of 166 undergraduates <116 women, 50 men> responded to the CTS; 45.8% of subjects reported experiencing physical violence in their current or most recent dating relationship. Of this total, 44.8% of women and 48% of men reported being physically aggressed upon by their partners. It was also found that only 22% of men and 40.5% of women reported using physical aggression against a dating partner.)
Pekarek, C. (2008). Intimate partner violence and interracial relationships: Prevalence, perceived social support and gender. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Long Beach. Long Beach, CA. (A total of 203 subjects. <36 men, 167 women> of various ethnicities responded to the CTS2. No differences in partner abuse were found as a function of ethnicity. Women were significantly more likely to perpetrate violence toward their male partners than were men toward women.)
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
People, J. (2005). Trends and Patterns in Domestic Violence Assaults. Crime and Justice Bulletin, 89.
Plass, M. S., & Gessner, J. C. (1983). Violence in courtship relations: a southern sample. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology, 11, 198-202. (In an opportunity sample of 195 high school and college students from a large southern city, researchers used the Conflict Tactics scale to examine courtship violence. Overall, results reveal that women were significantly more likely than men to be aggressors. Specifically, in, committed relationships, women were three times as likely as men to slap their partners, and to kick, bit or hit with the fist seven times as often as men. In casual relationships, while the gender differences weren’t as pronounced, women were more aggressive than men. Other findings reveal that high school students were more abusive than college students, and that a “higher proportion of black respondents were involved as aggressors.”)
Prospero, M. (2007). Mental health symptoms among female and male victims of partner violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 1, 269-277. (An ethnically diverse sample <27% Hispanic, 18% African-American, 24% Asian, and 30% White> of 573 college students <241 male, 332 female> responded to the CTS2 and a mental healthy symptom questionnaire. Results reveal no differences between males and females on partner abuse. Author reports that “higher mental health problems were not related to whether the victim was female or male, but rather to the amount of partner violence that the victim experienced.”)
Prospero, M. (2009). Sex-symmetric effects of coercive behaviors on mental health? Not exactly. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24 (1), 128-146. (A diverse sample of 573 <332 female, 241 male> university students <30% white, 27% Hispanic, 24% Asian, and 18% African American responded to items from the CTS. Results reveal that 46.4% of females reported being physically victimized by their male partners, while 41.9% of males reported being victimized by their female partners.)
Ranck, S. & Toft, S. (1986). Domestic violence in an urban context with rural comparisons. In Domestic violence in urban Papua New Guinea (Occasional Paper No. 19, pp.3–51). Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea: Law Reform Commission of Papua New Guinea.
Randle, A. A. & Graham, C. A. (2011). A review of the evidence on the effects of intimate partner violence on men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, (2) 96-111. (A review article that examines “empirical evidence on the effects of intimate partner violence in men.”)
Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting: Analysis of HR 590. August 16, 2007.
Ridley, C. A., & Feldman, C. M. (2003). Female domestic violence toward male partners: Exploring conflict responses and outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 18 (3), 157-170. (Participants were 153 female volunteers who completed the Abusive Behavior Inventory. Results reveal that 67.3% of participants reported at least one occurrence of perpetrating violent behavior in the past year. Most frequent behaviors included pushing, shoving, holding down <45.1%> and slapping, hitting, biting <41.2%>.)
Riggs, D. S., & O’Leary, K. D. (1996). Aggression between heterosexual dating partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 519-540. (A sample of 345 college students <232 women, 113 men> were assessed with the CTS. Results reveal similar overall rates of physical violence toward dating partners: 30% for men and 33.6% for women. However, authors report that 18.2% of women compared to 9.0% of men slapped their partners and 13.2% of women compared to 2.5% of men reported “kicking, biting or hitting” their partners.)
Riggs, D. S., O’Leary, K. D., & Breslin, F. C. (1990). Multiple correlates of physical aggression in dating couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 61-73. (Used CTS and studied 408 college students <125 men and 283 women>. Found that significantly more women <39%> than men <23%> reported engaging in physical aggression against their current partners.)
Rollins, B. C., & Oheneba-Sakyi, Y. (1990). Physical violence in Utah households. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 301-309. (In a random sample of 1,471 Utah households, using the Conflict Tactics Scale, it was found that women’s rate of severe violence was 5.3% compared to a male rate of 3.4%.)
Romito, P. & Grassi, M. (2007). Does violence affect one gender more than the other? The mental health impact of violence among male and female university students. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1222-1234. (A sample of 502 Italian university students responded to a self report survey regarding experience with intimate partner violence. Ninety two percent of subjects were 25 years old or younger and 64% were women. Results revealed no differences between men & women in terms of intimate partner violence. Specifically, 32% of men reported some victimization and 37.1% reported high victimization while 35.2% of women reported some victimization and 28.3% reported high victimization.)
Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Changing relationships between men and women. A note on the decline in intimate partner violence. Homicide Studies, 1, 72-83. (Author reports on homicide rates in ST. Louis from 1968-1992. Findings indicate that while men and women were equally likely to be victims of partner violence in 1970, in subsequent years men, primarily black men, were more likely to be murdered by their intimate partners.)
Rouse, L. P. (1988). Abuse in dating relationships: A comparison of Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 312-319. (The use of physical force and its consequences were examined in a diverse sample of college students. Subjects consisted of 130 whites <58 men, 72 women>, 64 Blacks <32 men, 32 women>, and 34 Hispanics <24 men, 10 women>. Men were significantly more likely than women to report that their partners used moderate physical force and caused a greater number of injuries requiring medical attention. This gender difference was present for Whites and Blacks but not for Hispanics.)
Rouse, L. P., Breen, R., & Howell, M. (1988). Abuse in intimate relationships. A Comparison of married and dating college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 414-429. (A sample of 130 married (48 men, 82 women) college students and 130 college students in dating relationships (58 men, 72 women) reported their experience of physical abuse in intimate relationships. Men were more likely to report being physically abused than women in both dating and marital relationships.)
Russell, R. J. H., & Hulson, B. (1992). Physical and psychological abuse of heterosexual partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 457-473. (In a pilot study in Great Britain 46 couples responded to the Conflict Tactics Scale. Results reveal that husband to wife violence was: Overall violence= 25% and severe violence= 5.8%; while wife to husband violence was: Overall violence= 25% and severe violence=11.3%.)
Russo, N. (2004, August). Violence against women: A global health issue. Paper presented at the 28th International Congress of Psychology, Beijing.
Ryan, K. A. (1998). The relationship between courtship violence and sexual aggression in college students. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 377-394. (A sample of 656 college students <245 men, 411 women> completed the CTS. Thirty four percent of the women and 40% of the men reported being victims of their partner’s physical aggression.)
Sack, A. R., Keller, J. F., & Howard, R. D. (1982). Conflict tactics and violence in dating situations. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 12, 89-100. (Used the CTS with a sample of 211 college students, 92 men, 119 women. Results indicate that there were no differences between men and women with regard to the expression of physical violence.)
Saenger, G. (1963). Male and female relations in the American comic strip. In D. M. White & R. H. Abel (Eds.), The funnies, an American idiom (pp. 219-231). Glencoe, NY: The Free Press. (Twenty consecutive editions of all comic strips in nine New York City newspapers in October, 1950 were examined. Results reveal that husbands were victims of aggression in 63% of conflict situations while wives were victims in 39% of situations. In addition, wives were more aggressive in 73% of domestic situations, in 10% of situations, husbands and wives were equally aggressive and in only 17% of situations were husbands more violent than wives.)
Saewyc, E. M., Brown, D., Plane, M., Mundt, M. P., Zakletskaia, L., Wiegel, J. & Fleming, M. F. (2009). Gender Differences in violence exposure among university students attending campus health clinics in the United States and Canada. Journal of Adolescent Health. (Data was collected from a cross sectional survey of 2091 students <717 men, 1374 women> at five universities who came for routine primary care. Subjects were primarily white (82%) and responded to items from the CTS. Results indicate that, “both men and women reported a similar prevalence of physical violence from intimate partners.”
Sarantakos, S. (1998). Husband Abuse as Self-Defence. [Paper] Montreal: International Congress of Sociology.
Sarantakos, S. (1999). Husband Abuse: Fact or Fiction. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 34(3), 231-252.
Sarantakos, S. (2001). Domestic Violence Policies: Where Did We Go Wrong? Nuance, 3, 44-69.
Sarantakos, S. (2004). Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12 (3), 277-296. (Members of 68 families with violent wives in Australia were studied. In 78% of cases wives’ violence was reported to be moderate to severe and in 38% of cases husbands needed medical attention. Using information from husbands, wives, children and wives’ mothers study provides compelling data challenging self defense as a motive for female-to-male violence.)
Sarantakos, S. (2004). Deconstructing Self-Defense in Wife-to-Husband Violence. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 12(3), 277-296.
Sarantakos, S., & Lewis, A. (2001). Domestic Violence and the Male Victim. Nuance, 3, 1-15.
Sarlar. S., Dsouza, R., Dasgupta, A., & Fiebert, M.S. (2008, April). Men as victims of domestic violence in India. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Irvine, CA. (A convenience sample of married, middle class, men from all parts of India responded to modified version of the CTS. Findings reveal that 25.1% of subjects reported at least one incident, within the past year, of physical violence from their wives.
Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. L. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American journal of Public Health, 88, 1702-1704. (Used modified CTS and examined reports of partner violence in a representative sample of 1635 married and cohabiting couples. Both partners reports were used to estimate the following lower and upper bound rates: 5.21% and 13.61% for male to female violence, and 6.22% and 18.21 % for female to male violence.)
Schumacher, J. A. & Leonard, K. E. (2005). Husbands’ and wives’ marital adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 28-37. (A sample of 634 newly married couples <approximately 60% Euro-American and 30% African-American> completed the revised CTS on 3 occasions over three years. The prevalence of wife to husband aggression was 48%, 45%, and 41%, while husband to wife aggression was 37%, 38%, and 37%.)
Schwartz, M., O’Leary, S. G., & Kendziora, K. T. (1997). Dating aggression among high school students. Violence and Victims, 12, 295-305. (A sample of 228 <122 male, 106 female> high school students were assessed with the Conflict Tactics Scale as it related to the use of physical aggression during an argument with an opposite sex dating partner. Results indicate that 44% of females and only 16% of males reported engaging in at least one physically aggressive behavior during a disagreement. Authors speculate that culturally boys have inhibited their dating aggression, girls have become less intimidated by their dating partners than they once were. Authors cite research which shows that parents are more likely to punish boys than girls when they fight with their siblings.)
Sharpe, D., & Taylor, J. K. (1999). An examination of variables from a social-developmental model to explain physical and psychological dating violence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31:3, 165-175. (Canadian college students <110 men, 225 women> were surveyed with the Conflict Tactics Scale regarding dating violence. Results reveal that 38% of men and 27% of women report receiving physical violence from their partners. Twice as many women compared to men reported inflicting violence without receiving physical violence from dating partners.)
Shook, N. J., Gerrity, D. A., Jurich, J. & Segrist, A. E. (2000). Courtship violence among college students: A comparison of verbally and physically abusive couples. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 1-22. (A modified Conflict Tactics Scale was administered to 572 college students <395 women; 177 men>. Results reveal that significantly more women than men, 23.5% vs 13.0%, admitted using physical force against a dating partner.)
Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence in college students’ dating relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 530-548. (Surveyed 504 college students <116 men, 388 women> with the Conflict Tactics Scale and found that men and women were similar in the overall amount of violence they expressed but that men reported experiencing significantly more violence than women.)
Simonelli, C. J. & Ingram, K. M. (1998). Psychological distress among men experiencing physical and emotional abuse in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 667-681. (Responses from 70 male undergraduates to the CTS and a Psychological Maltreatment Inventory revealed that 40% reported being the target of some form of physical aggression from their female dating partners while only 23% reported expressing physical aggression to their partners. Men who were victims of emotional and physical abuse also reported greater levels of distress and depression.)
Simonelli, C. J., Mullis, T., Elliot, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2002). Abuse by siblings and subsequent experiences of violence within the dating relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 103-121. (A sample of 120 undergraduates <61 men, 59 women> completed the CTS. Ten percent of men and 33% of women reported that they perpetrated at least one type of physical aggressive behavior against their dating partner and 18% of men and 15% of women reported receiving physical aggression from their dating partner.)
Sommer, R. (1994). Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. (The study was in two waves: the first was from 1989-1990 and included a random sample of 452 married or cohabiting women and 447 married or cohabiting men from Winnipeg, Canada; the second was from 1991-1992 and included 368 women and 369 men all of whom participated in the first wave. Subjects completed the CTS & other assessment instruments. 39.1% of women reported being physically aggressive (16.2% reporting having perpetrated severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their male partner. While 26.3% of men reported being physically aggressive (with 7.6% reporting perpetrating severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their female partner. Among the perpetrators of partner abuse, 34.8% of men and 40.1% of women reported observing their mothers hitting their fathers. Results indicate that 21% of “males’ and 13% of females’ partners required medical attention as a result of a partner abuse incident.” Results also indicate that “10% of women and 15% of men perpetrated partner abuse in self defense.”)
Sommer, R., Barnes, G. E. & Murray, R. P. (1992). Alcohol consumption, alcohol abuse, personality and female perpetrated spouse abuse. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1315-1323. (The responses from a subsample of 452 women drawn from a sample of 1,257 Winnipeg residents were analyzed. Using the CTS, it was found that 39% of women physically aggressed against their male partners at some point in their relationship. Younger women with high scores on Eysenck’s P scale were most likely to perpetrate violence. Note: The sample of subjects is the same as the one cited in Sommer’s 1994 dissertation.)
Sommers CH. Who Stole Feminism? New York: Simon and Schuster. 1994. pp. 203-204.
Sorenson, S. B., & Telles, C. A. (1991). Self reports of spousal violence in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic white population. Violence and Victims, 6, 3-15. (Surveyed 1,243 Mexican-Americans and 1,149 non-Hispanic whites and found that women compared to men reported higher rates of hitting, throwing objects, initiating violence, and striking first more than once. Gender difference was significant only for non-Hispanic whites.)
Sorenson, S. B., Upchurch, D. M., & Shen, H. (1996). Violence and injury in marital arguments: risk patterns and gender differences. American Journal of Public Health, 66 (1), 35-40. (Data analysis was based on findings from the National Survey of Families and Households conducted in 1987-88. Subjects included 6779 currently married White, Black and Hispanic individuals who completed a modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Authors report that, “women <6.2% vs 4.9%> were slightly more likely than men to report that they had hit, shoved or thrown something at their spouse in the previous year.” Women also reported higher rates of causing injury than did men. Other findings of note: 1) Blacks were 1.58 times more likely and Hispanics 0.53 times less likely than Whites to report that physical violence occurred in their relationship; 2) Subjects under 30 reported more violence and those above 50 reported less violence; 3) lower annual income was associated with higher rates of physical violence.)
Spencer, G. A., & Bryant, S. A. (2000). Dating violence: A comparison of rural, suburban and urban teens. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25 (5), 302-305. (A sample of 2094 high school students in upper New York State indicated their experience of physical dating violence. There were a similar number of boys and girls surveyed, with more subjects from urban areas than rural or suburban areas. The majority of subjects were white non-Hispanic. Males in each region were more likely to report being victims of physical dating violence than females in each region. Specifically, 30% of rural boys and 20% of urban and 20% of suburban boys reported being victims of partner physical aggression while 25% of rural girls and 16% of suburban and 13% of urban girls reported victimization.)
Stacy, C. L., Schandel, L. M., Flannery, W. S., Conlon, M., & Milardo, R. M. (1994). It’s not all moonlight and roses: dating violence at the University of Maine, 1982-1992. College Student Journal, 28, 2-9. (Three separate samples of students were assessed in 1982, 1987 and 1992 with the CTS. Authors report that the rate of partner abuse has more than doubled over a 10 year period. In 1992 the data collected from 53 men and 106 women revealed the overall rate of violence perpetrated by men was 20.8% while the rate perpetrated by women was 41.5%.)
Steinmetz, S. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology. An international journal, 2(3-4), 499-509.
Steinmetz, S. K. (1977-78). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 499-509. (A pioneering article suggesting that the incidence of husband beating was similar to the incidence of wife beating.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Women and violence: victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34, 334-350. (Examines the apparent contradiction in women’s role as victim and perpetrator in domestic violence.)
Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). A cross cultural comparison of marital abuse. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8, 404-414. (Using a modified version of the CTS, examined marital violence in small samples from six societies: Finland, United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Belize, and Israel <total n=630>. Found that “in each society the percentage of husbands who used violence was similar to the percentage of violent wives.” The major exception was Puerto Rico where men were more violent. Author also reports that, “Wives who used violence… tended to use greater amounts.”)
Stets, J. E. & Henderson, D. A. (1991). Contextual factors surrounding conflict resolution while dating: results from a national study. Family Relations, 40, 29-40. (Drawn from a random national telephone survey, daters <n=277; men=149, women=128> between the ages of 18 and 30, who were single, never married and in a relationship during the past year which lasted at least two months with at least six dates were examined with the Conflict Tactics Scale. Findings reveal that over 30% of subjects used physical aggression in their relationships, with 22% of the men and 40% of the women reported using some form of physical aggression. Women were “6 times more likely than men to use severe aggression <19.2% vs. 3.4%>…Men were twice as likely as women to report receiving severe aggression <15.7% vs. 8%>.” Also found that younger subjects and those of lower socioeconomic status <SES> were more likely to use physical aggression.)
Stets, J. E. & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1989). Patterns of physical and sexual abuse for men and women in dating relationships: A descriptive analysis, Journal of Family Violence, 4, 63-76. (Examined a sample of 287 college students <118 men and 169 women> and found similar rates for men and women of low level physical abuse in dating relationships. More women than men were pushed or shoved <24% vs 10%> while more men than women were slapped <12% vs 8%>. In term of unwanted sexual contact 22% of men and 36% of women reported such behavior. The most frequent category for both men <18%> and women <19%> was the item, “against my will my partner initiated necking”.)
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships, Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237-246. (Examined a college sample of 505 white students. Found that men and women were similar in both their use and reception of violence. Jealousy was a factor in explaining dating violence for women.)
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1990). Interpersonal Control and Courtship Aggression, Journal of Personal and Social Relations, 7, 371-394. (A random sample of white heterosexual college students <335 men, 448 women> were assessed with the CTS. Findings reveal that women compared to men perpetrated significantly more mild and severe aggression toward their dating partners and men compared to women sustained significantly more mild and severe aggression from their dating partners.)
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 151-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. (Reports information regarding the initiation of violence. In a sample of 297 men and 428 women, men said they struck the first blow in 43.7% of cases, and their partner hit first in 44.1% of cases and could not disentangle who hit first in remaining 12.2%. Women report hitting first in 52.7% of cases, their partners in 42.6% and could not disentangle who hit first in remaining 4.7%. Authors conclude that violence by women is not primarily defensive.)
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate Partner Physical Abuse Perpetration and Victimization Risk Factors: A Meta-Analytic Review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65-98.
Stockdale, G. L. (1998). Men’s Accounts of Domestic Violence. Unpublished master’s thesis. Deakin University, Australia. (Twenty male victims of domestic violence were interviewed using a semi-structured protocol. Many subjects incurred sever physical violence and were “mostly disturbed by false accusations of violence on their part, and their partner’s use of their children against the, which they felt were supported by the legal system and the community.”)
Straus MA. Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review Vol. 30, 2008. pp. 252-275.
Straus MA. Gender symmetry in partner violence: The evidence, the denial, and the implications for primary prevention and treatment. In Lutzker JR and Whitaker DJ (eds.): Prevention of Partner Violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007.
Straus MA. Processes Thomas, M. (2007). Treatment of family violence: A systematic perspective. In J. Hamel & T.L. Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment (pp.417–436). New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Straus, M. (1980). Victims and aggressors in marital violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 23, 681-704. (Reviews data from the 1975 National Survey. Examined a subsample of 325 violent couples and found that in 49.5% of cases both husbands and wives committed at least one violent act, while husbands alone were violent in 27.7% of the cases and wives alone were violent in 22.7% of the cases. Found that 148 violent husbands had an average number of 7.1 aggressive acts per year while the 177 violent wives averaged 6.8 aggressive acts per year.)
Straus, M. (1988). Violence in American families: How much is there and why does it occur? In Nunnally et al, Troubled Relationships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. Gelles & D. Loseky (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
Straus, M. A. (1990). The Conflict Tactics Scales and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability. In M. A. Straus, & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 49–73). New Brunswick: Transaction.
Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical Assaults by Wives: A Major Social Problem. In R. J. Gelles, & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence. (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park: Sage.
Straus, M. A. (1995). Trends in cultural norms and rates of partner violence: An update to 1992. In S. M. Stich & M. A. Straus (Eds.) Understanding partner violence: Prevalence, causes, consequences, and solutions (pp. 30-33). Minneapolis, MN: National Council on Family Relations. (Reports finding that while the approval of a husband slapping his wife declined dramatically from 1968 to 1994 <21% to 10%> the approval of a wife slapping her husband did not decline but remained at 22% during the same period. The most frequently mentioned reason for slapping for both partners was sexual unfaithfulness. Also reports that severe physical assaults by men declined by 48% from 1975 to 1992–38/1000 to 19/1000 while severe assaults by women did not change from 1975 to 1992 and remained above 40/1000. Suggests that public service announcements should be directed at female perpetrated violence and that school based programs “explicitly recognize and condemn violence by girls as well as boys.”)
Straus, M. A. (1998). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. Paper presented at Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, Claremont, CA. (Examines issue of differential rates of assaults between crime studies and couple conflict studies. Provides a sociological explanation to account for assaults by women within the family.)
Straus, M. A. (2001). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811. (Dating aggression was studied at 31 universities in 16 countries worldwide. Responding to the revised Conflict Tactics Scale were 8666 students <5919 women, 2747 men>. Results reveal that overall 25% of men and 28% of women assaulted their dating partner in the past year. At 21 of the 31 universities studied a larger percentage of women than men assaulted their dating partner. In terms of severe assaults a higher rate of perpetration by women occurred in a majority (18 of the 31) of the sites.)
Straus, M. A. (2005). Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence, 2nd Edition, (pp. 55-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (A scholarly review of research showing that women initiate physical assaults on their male partners as frequently as men assault women. Examines the fact that injuries and fatalities result from such violence.)
Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical assaults on partners. Violence Against Women, 12, 1086-1097. (A review article and position statement in which author advocates a research focus on why gender symmetry in partner aggression is predominant and its implications for primary prevention and treatment. Suggests that such research is handicapped for a number of reasons including bias. Specifically cites concerns about some researchers who are blindly committed to a single causal theory-patriarchy & male dominance — as well as “denial of research grants to projects that do not assume most partner violence is by male perpetrators.” Authors also expresses concerns about “failure to investigate primary prevention & treatment for female offenders” and a suppression of evidence “of female perpetration by both researchers and agencies.”)
Straus, M. A. (2007). Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 13, 227-232. (Focuses on methods used to conceal and distort evidence of gender symmetry in partner violence. These include the suppression of evidence, the avoidance of data inconsistent with “Patriarchal Dominance Theory,” the obstruction of the publication of articles & the funding of research that might contradict the idea that male dominance in the cause of PV, and the harassment of researchers who produce evidence that contradicts feminist beliefs.)
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275. (A convenience sample of 13,601 students <71.5% women, 28.5% men> at 68 universities in 32 countries completed the CTS2. Findings reveal that almost a third of students assaulted their dating partners in a 12 month period. In terms of initiation, mutual aggression accounted for 68.6% of physical violence, while women initiated violence 21.4% of the time and men initiated violence 9.9% of the time.)
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.
Straus, M. A. (2009). Current controversies and prevalence concerning female offenders of intimate partner violence. Why the overwhelming evidence of partner physical violence by women has not been perceived and is often denied. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 1-19. (A major review and analysis that examines gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. Discusses reasons why findings have not been perceived and accepted by practitioners and the public. Examines the issue of concealment and denial by academic researchers and the negative effect that misperception & denial has had on prevention and treatment programs.)
Straus, M. A. (2009). Gender symmetry in partner violence: evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. In J. R. Lutzker and D. J. Whitaker (Eds.). Prevention of Partner Violence (pp. 245-271). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association. (A review article that examines evidence of gender symmetry in partner violence. Also summarizes studies that show existing efforts at prevention and treatment have been limited by the conceptualization that partner violence is primarily violence again women.)
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479. (Reviewed data from two large sample national violence surveys of married couples and report that men and women assaulted each other at approximately equally rates, with women engaging in minor acts of violence at a higher rate than men. Sample size in 1975 survey=2,143; sample size in 1985 survey=6,002.)
Straus, M. A., & Kaufman Kantor, G. (1994, July). Change in spouse assault rates from 1975-1992: A comparison of three national surveys in the United States. Paper presented at the Thirteenth World Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, Germany. (Reports that the trend of decreasing severe assaults by husbands found in the National Survey from 1975 to 1985 has continued in the 1992 survey while wives maintained higher rates of assault.)
Straus, M. A., & Medeiros, R. A. (2002, November). Gender differences in risk factors for physical violence between dating partners by university students. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Society for Criminology, Chicago, Illinois. (A sample of 232 men and 334 women responded to revised CTS. Results indicate that for minor violence the rates for both men and women are 22% and for severe violence rates are 10% for men and 11% for women.)
Straus, M. A., & Mouradian, V. E. (1999, November). Preliminary psychometric data for the Personal Relationships Profile (PRP): A multi-scale tool for clinical screening and research on partner violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada. (In a study of 1,034 dating couples at two US universities, injury rates based on responses to the revised CTS (CTS2) revealed that 9.9% of men and 9.4% of women report being injured by the opposite sex. In terms of inflicting injuries, 10.1% men and 8.0% women indicated that they inflicted injuries on their partners.)
Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2002, July). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281-290. Available at: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/. (Reports findings from four samples of university students in Juarez, Mexico, El Paso and Lubbock, Texas, and New Hampshire. Subjects (N=1,554) responded to the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Results indicate that there were no significant differences between males and females in either the overall prevalence of physical aggression or the prevalence of severe attacks. However, when only one partner was violent it was twice as likely to be the female than the male <19.0% vs 9.8%>. Moreover, in terms of severe aggression females were twice as likely to be violent than men <29.8% vs 13.7%>).
Straus, M. A., & Scott, K. (in press). Gender symmetry in partner violence: The evidence and implications for primary prevention and treatment. in J. R. Lutzker & D. J. Whitaker (eds.), Prevention of partner violence. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. (A major review article which examines evidence for gender symmetry in partner abuse and presents recommendations for primary prevention.)
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family, Garden City, NJ: Anchor. (Reports findings from National Family Violence survey conducted in 1975. In terms of religion, found that Jewish men had the lowest rates of abusive spousal violence (1%), while Jewish women had a rate of abusive spousal violence which was more than double the rate for Protestant women <7%>, pp. 128-133. Abusive violence was defined as an “act which has a high potential for injuring the person being hit,” pp.21-2.)
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. (The revised CTS has clearer differentiation between minor and severe violence and new scales to measure sexual coercion and physical injury. Used the CTS2 with a sample of 317 college students <114 men, 203 women> and found that: 49% of men and 31% of women reported being a victim of physical assault by their partner; 38% of men and 30% of women reported being a victim of sexual coercion by their partner; and 16% of men and 14% of women reported being seriously injured by their partners.)
Straus, M. A., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Moore, D. W. (1994, August). Change in cultural norms approving marital violence from 1968 to 1994. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Los Angeles, CA. (Compared surveys conducted in 1968 <n=1,176>, 1985 <n=6,002>, 1992 <n=1,970>, and 1994 <n=524>, with regard to the approval of facial slapping by a spouse. Approval of slapping by husbands decreased from 21% in 1968 to 13% in 1985, to 12% in 1992, to 10% in 1994. The approval of slapping by wives was 22% in 1968 and has not declined over the years.)
Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1988). How violent are American families? Estimates from the National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In G.T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J.T. Kirkpatrick & M.A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp.14–36). Newbury Park: Sage.
Straus, M.A. & Members of the International Dating Violence Consortium (2003, June). Prevalence and correlates of family violence worldwide: Estimates from the International Dating Violence Study. Presented at the International Seminar on Family Violence, University of Montreal, Canada.
Straus, M.A. (1977-8). Wife-beating: How common and why? Victimology, 2, 443–458. Straus, M.A. (1994). State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in relation to assaults on wives in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 7–24.
Straus, M.A. (2007). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children & Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.
Straus, M.A. (2007). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275.
Straus, M.A. (2007). Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research, 13, 227-232.
Straus, M.A. (2008). Bucking the tide in family violence research. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 9(4), 191-213.
Straus, M.A. (2009). Why the overwhelming evidence on partner physical violence by women has not been perceived and is often denied. Jnl Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(6), 552-571.
Straus, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S. & Sugarman, D.B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.
Stuart, P. (2004). Risk Factors for Recent Domestic Physical Assault in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 16(3), 216-224.
Sugarman DB, Frankel SL. Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence Vol. 17, 1996. pp. 13-40.
Felson RB, Outlaw MC. The control motive and marital behavior. Violence and Victims, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2007. pp. 387 – 407.
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In M. A. Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.) Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp.3-32). New York: Praeger. (Reviewed 21 studies of dating behavior and found that women reported having expressed violence at higher rates than men–329 per 1000 vs 393 per 1000.)
Sugihara, Y., & Warner, J. A. (2002). Dominance and domestic abuse among Mexican Americans: gender differences in the etiology of violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 17 (4), 315-340. (A sample of 316 Mexican Americans <161 men, 155 women> were evaluated with the CTS2. Subjects’ average age was in the mid 30’s, most were married, and all were English-speakers. Results reveal no differences in the victimization of physical assaults <35% vs 37%>. However, a greater percentage of men <14 vs 10> reported physical injuries.)
Swahn, M. H., Simon, T. R., Arias, I., & Bossarte, R. M. (2008). Measuring sex differences in violence victimization and perpetration within date and same-sex peer relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1120-1138. (Data was obtained from The Youth Violence Survey conducted in 2004 in a high risk community. All public school students in grades 7, 9, 11, 12 were surveyed. Items were similar to the CTS. Boys <n=1,495> reported greater physical violence victimization than girls <n=1,372> 32.6% compared to 28.8%.)
Swaroop, S., & Dsouza, R. (September, 2007). Violence a home truth for India husbands. http://mynation.net/study-report-indianhusbands.htm (A sample of 1650 Indian husbands between the ages of 15 and 49 were interviewed regarding their experience with domestic violence. Authors report that 25.2% of men report being victims of physical violence.)
Swart, L. A., Stevens, M. S. G., & Ricardo, I. (2002). Violence in adolescents’ romantic relationships: findings from a survey amongst school-going youth in a South African community. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 385-395. (A sample of 928 students <494 female, 424 male> from 7 schools in South Africa completed a modified version of the CTS2. Results reveal that 35.3% of males and 43.5% of females reported perpetrating physical violence in a romantic relationship within a 12 month period prior to the survey.)
Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson, & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture (pp. 49–73). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Symons, P. Y., Groer, M. W., Kepler-Youngblood, P., & Slater, V. (1994). Prevalence and Predictors of Adolescent Dating Violence, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 7 (3) 14-23. (A sample of 561 rural North Carolina adolescents, predominantly female <77%> and 40% black and 58% white completed a scale assessing dating violence and family violence. Results reveal that boys were significantly more likely to experience dating violence than girls.)
Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 633-644. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with 103 couples and found that the wives’ rates of physical aggression was somewhat higher than husbands’.)
Talmadge, L., & Dabbs, J. (1990). Intimacy, conversational patterns, and concomitant cognitive/emotional processes in couples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 473–488.
Tang, C. S. (1994). Prevalence of spouse aggression in Hong Kong. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 347-356. (Subjects were 382 undergraduates <246 women, 136 men> at the Chinese University in Hong Kong. The CTS was used to assess students’ evaluation of their parents responses during family conflict. 14% of students reported that their parents engaged in physical violence. “Mothers were as likely as fathers to use actual physical force toward their spouses.”)
Tang, C. S. (1999). Marital power and aggression in a community sample of Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14 (6), 586-602. (A Hong Kong sample of 1,270 Chinese families <518 men, 752 women> were assessed with the CTS. Across all conditions of marital power women were significantly more likely to perpetrate minor violence on their spouses. There was no significant differences in the perpetration of severe violence.)
Thompson Jr., E. H. (1990). Courtship violence and the male role. Men’s Studies Review, 7 (3), 1, 4-13. (Subjects were 336 undergraduates <167 men, 169 women> who completed a modified version of the CTS. Found that 24.6% of men compared to 28.4% of women expressed physical violence toward their dating partners within the past two years. Found that women were twice as likely as men to slap their partners.)
Thompson Jr., E. H. (1991). The maleness of violence in dating relationships: an appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261-278. (In a more extensive presentation of his 1990 article, the author concludes that, “a more masculine and/or less feminine gender orientation and variations in relationship seriousness proved to be the two strongest predictors of both men’s and women’s involvement in courtship violence.”)
Titterington, V. B., & Harper, L. (2005). Women as the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in Houston, 1980s to 1990s. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41 (4) 83-98. (Studied prevalence of intimate partner homicide in Houston from 1985-1999. Results reveal that women were “over 40% of the offenders in lethal domestic assaults. Both victims and offenders were disproportionately black . . . black women were equally (or more) likely than black men to be the perpetrators of intimate domestic homicide. Among non-Hispanic whites (including Asians, others) there were 63 female intimate partner homicide offenders for every 100 male offenders.” In the small number of cases involving Hispanic couples, “women were more likely to be the aggressors in intimate partner homicide in the latter time period” of the study.)
Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142-161. (Telephone interviews using a modified version of the CTS was obtained from 6,934 men and 7,278 women regarding prevalence and consequences of partner violence. Authors report that women, over the course of their lives were 2.9 times more likely to report being physically assaulted than men. However, it should be noted that overall reported estimate of annual intimate partner violence for women of 1.4% is significantly lower than 11-12% estimates from earlier national surveys. Straus (1998) characterizes the data from this study as being flawed and inaccurate. He cites the wording of items as possibly creating “demand characteristics” that led subjects to view the survey as a study of crime and thus restrict their responses to exclude behavior considered harmless, especially minor assaults by women. Thus, he states this unintended demand characteristics probably account for the low prevalence rate and 3 to 1 ratio of male to female physical assaults.)
Tyree, A., & Malone, J. (1991). How can it be that wives hit husbands as much as husbands hit wives and none of us knew it? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. (Reviews the literature and discusses results from their study attempting to predict spousal violence. Found that women’s violence is correlated with a history of hitting siblings and a desire to improve contact with partners.)
Vasquez, D., & Falcone, R. (1997). Cross gender violence. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 29 (3), 427-429. (Reports equal cross gender violence treated at an Ohio trauma center during an 11 mouth period. Of 1,400 trauma admissions, 37 patients <18 men, 19 women> sustained injuries inflicted by members of the opposite sex. The severity score of injury was higher for men than women, 11.4 vs 6.9. The majority of men were admitted for stab wounds, 72%; the majority of women for assault, 53%.)
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1996). Are bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? In L. K. Hamberger & C. Renzetti (Eds.) Domestic partner abuse (pp. 23-52). New York: Springer. (Authors found using a modified version of the CTS, that in a sample of 57 mutually aggressive couples, there were no significant differences between husbands’ and wives’ reports concerning the frequency and severity of assault victimization. With regard to injuries, 32 wives and 25 husbands reported the presence of a physical injury which resulted from partner aggression.)
Waiping, A. L., & Sporakowski, M. J. (1989). The continuation of violent dating relationships among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 432-439. (Using a modified version of the CTS, authors examined courtship violence in a sample of 422 college students <227 women, 195 men>. Women more often than men <35.3% vs 20.3%> indicated that they physically abused their partners.)
Watson, J. M., Cascardi, M., Avery-Leaf, S., & O’Leary, K. D. (2001). High school students’ responses to dating aggression. Victims and Violence, 16 (3), 339-348. (Using a modified version of the CTS, authors examined dating violence in a multi-ethnic sample <43% Hispanic; 31.5% Caucasian; 15.8% African-American> of New York high school students <266 males, 209 females>. Overall, 45.6% of students reported experiencing physical aggression from a current or past dating partner. There were significant differences in self-reported rates of victimization: African-American 60%, Caucasian 47% and Hispanic 41%. The only ethnic group that showed significant gender differences were Hispanics, with females showing higher rates of victimization.)
West, C. M. (2008). “A thin line between love and hate?” Black men as victims of perpetrators of dating violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16, 238-257. (A review article which examines black men as victims and perpetrators of dating violence. Author concludes that the rate of “dating violence perpetrated against black men is unacceptably high.”)
West, C. M., & Rose, S. (2000). Dating aggression among low income African American youth. Violence against Women, 6, 470-494. (A sample of 171 <88 female, 83 male> low income African American youth were assessed using a modified version of the CTS. Victimization and perpetration rates were high. Women were significantly more likely to threaten to hit their partners <66.3% vs 49.4%>, throw something at partners <62% vs 45%>, slap their partners <53.3% vs 38.6%>, and hit with something <47.1% vs 30.9%>.)
Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman L. .Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships with Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence. Am J Public Health, 97(5), 941-7.
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947. (A sample of 11,370 young adults <46% male, 54% female; 70% white, 15% black, 10.7% Hispanic, 4.3 % other> aged 18-28, who were drawn from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, responded to a modified version of the CTS. Results indicate that almost 24% of all relationships had some physical violence and that half the violence was reciprocal. In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators 70% of the time. While overall, women were somewhat more likely to be injured than men, the authors report that, “in fact, men in relationships with reciprocal violence were reportedly injured more often <25.2%> than were women in relationships with nonreciprocal violence <20.0%>.)
White, J. W., & Humphrey, (1994). Women’s aggression in heterosexual conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 195-202. (Eight hundred and twenty nine women <representing 84% of entering class of women> 17 and 18 years old, entering the university for the first time completed the CTS and other assessment instruments. Results reveal that 51.5% of subjects used physical aggression at least once in their prior dating relationships and, in the past year, 30.2% reported physically aggressing against their male partners. Past use of physical aggression was the best predictor of current aggression. The witnessing and experiencing of parental aggression also predicted present aggression.)
White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247-256. (In a representative sample of 2,603 women and 2,105 men it was found that 37% of the men and 35% of women inflicted some form of physical aggression, while 39% of the men and 32% of the women received some form of physical aggression.)
White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 487-508. (A review and analysis which acknowledges that “women equal or exceed men in number of reported aggressive acts committed within the family.” Examines a variety of explanations to account for such aggression.)
White, J.W., Smith, P.H., Koss, M.P. & Figueredo, A.J. (2000). Intimate partner aggression – What have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 690–696.
Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005b). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52 (11/12), 771-784. (Data from a National Comorbidity Survey was examined. In a sample of 3,519 men and women it was found that 18.4% were involved in a violent relationship. Most violence, both mild and severe, was mutual. However, women were more likely than men to initiate both mild and severe violence.)
Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. (2005a). Courtship behaviors, relationship violence, and breakup persistence in college men and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 248-257. (A sample of college students <215 women and 85 men; 77% Caucasian, 13% African-American, 5% Asian & the rest mixed or other> responded to the revised Conflict Tactics Scale, CTS2. Results revealed that women were significantly more likely than men to engage in mild (40% vs 23%) and severe (14% vs 4%) acts of violence with their partners.)
Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)
Winstok, Z. & Straus, M. A. (2011). Gender differences in intended escalatory tendencies among marital partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26 (18), 3599-3617. (A sample of 208 Israeli couples responded to a survey examining their tendencies to escalate aggression in eight hypothetical situations. Findings reveal that 54.6% of men vs 74% of women indicated that they would respond aggressively if their partners provoked them verbally and 51% of men vs 76% of women revealed that they would respond aggressively if their partner physically provoked them. Authors in discussing this disparity suggest that societies often view women’s violence against their male partners as “understandable, pardonable and sometimes humorous.”)
Zeev Winstok & Murray A. Straus. Gender Differences in Intended Escalatory Tendencies among Marital Partners. Jornal of Interpersonal Violence Straus, Murray A. Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment . Partner Abuse, Volume 1, Number 3, July 2010 , pp. 332-362(31)
+351 936734255
Telefone da Sede Nacional (assuntos administrativos e informação geral):
+351 210994683
