2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.04.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dyadic concordance and discordance in family violence: A powerful and practical approach to research and practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
72
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
6
72
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is also possible that our predominately male participants (particularly in the high general violence profile) may have been reluctant to admit severe violence to or from partners. Our results are consistent with studies of non-veteran samples have suggested that the most common type of partner violence is "mutual aggression and victimization" (Straus, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…However, it is also possible that our predominately male participants (particularly in the high general violence profile) may have been reluctant to admit severe violence to or from partners. Our results are consistent with studies of non-veteran samples have suggested that the most common type of partner violence is "mutual aggression and victimization" (Straus, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Several studies have considered the expression of directionality of violence perpetrated toward a partner in heterosexual couples, distinguishing between unidirectional and bidirectional violence [8,9]. There are three mutually exclusive categories, or dyadic concordance types [9]: Unidirectional male-to-female, unidirectional female-to-male, and bidirectional. Unidirectional violence occurs when only one member of the couple is a perpetrator and the other is a victim [8].…”
Section: Gender Symmetry Versus Directionality In Ipv and Dating Violmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies of couples have found a certain disparity between perceptions of members' views (Straus, 2015). Research in this area explains potential disagreement in members' views as a kind of bias.…”
Section: Mutual Ipvmentioning
confidence: 99%