Female Perpetration of Violence in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships

Abstract

This article critically reviews 62 empirical studies that examine the prevalence of female perpetrated intimate partner violence across three distinct populations (adolescents, college students, and adults). All studies were published between 1996 and 2006 and reported prevalence rates of physical, emotional, and/or sexual violence perpetrated by females in heterosexual intimate relationships. The highest rates were found for emotional violence, followed by physical and sexual violence. Prevalence rates varied widely within each population, most likely due to methodological and sampling differences across studies. Few longitudinal studies existed, limiting the extent to which we could identify developmental patterns associated with female perpetrated intimate partner violence. Differences and similarities across populations are highlighted. Methodological difficulties of this area of inquiry as well as implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed. Keywordsintimate partner violence; female perpetration; adolescents; college students; adults; prevalence Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional abuse, or threat of abuse, by a current or former spouse or partner is a critical public health concern (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelly, 2002). Nearly one-quarter of U.S. women and 7.6% of men report having been raped and/or physically assaulted at some point in their lifetime by a current or past spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, or date (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Women who experience IPV are significantly more likely to experience adverse health outcomes compared to those who have not experienced IPV (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2007). Health consequences of IPV include chronic gynecological, central nervous system, and stress-related health problems Kernic et al., 2002) as well as depression, post traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and suicidality (Campbell, 2002;Dutton et al., 2006;Woods et al., 2005).To date, most studies on IPV have focused on the victimization of women and girls rather than their male counterparts. This is due to the fact that a greater proportion of women report experiencing IPV; women are victimized at about five times the rate of men (Rennison & Corresponding Author: Jessica Roberts Williams, PhD, MPH, RN, The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 46834 Willowood Place, Sterling, VA 20165, phone: 410-243-3910, fax: 410-502-5481, email: jrober65@son.jhmi Recent evidence has shown that IPV is not limited to adult populations, but, unfortunately, is also quite common among adolescents and young adults. Exposure to intimate partner violence is now being documented at younger and younger ages. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have estimated that between 12% and 20%, or nearly one-fifth, of middle and high school students experience physical or psychological abuse in dating relationships (CDC, 2006). The prevalence of dating violence among adolescent samples has ...

Men’s experiences of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and abuse in health care: A cross-sectional study of a Swedish random male population sample

“…2 Approximated by the value for unemployed in age group 16-64 yrs, excluding full time students, as given by SCB 3 Approximated by the value for the age group 15-24 yrs, as given by SCB 0.05 for all analyses. This was done because the prevalence of abuse is known to correlate with age, and a considerable age difference exists between the two samples (Table 4).…”

“…Abuse against men, however, remains relatively under-researched and under-theorized and only limited knowledge exists on the prevalence of abusive experiences among men. Most research so far has focused on specific kinds of abuse, such as abuse in intimate partner relationships (2,3) or on childhood experiences of abuse (4,5). Population based studies on life-time experiences of different kinds of abuse; especially emotional abuse (EA) and abuse in health care (AHC) are scarce.…”

Using an African American Lens to Explore the Intersection of Race, Gender, and Intimate Partner Violence

“…Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious social problem and, to combat it, batterer intervention programs (BIPs) have become the most prevalent treatment mechanism for perpetrators after a criminal domestic violence plea or conviction (Carney and Buttell, 2006;Price and Rosenbaum, 2009). However, only recently, has a growing body of literature begun to investigate the motivations, experiences, and treatment of female perpetrators (e.g., see White and Dutton, 2013;Follingstad et al, 1991;Archer, 2000;Williams, Ghandour, & Kub, 2008;Desmarais, Reeves, Nichools, Telford, & Fiebert, 2012). Relatedly, many scholars argue that the majority of IPV is bi-directional (see for an extensive overview Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al, 2012).…”

Mujeres violentas y/o delincuentes: una visión desde la perspectiva biopsicosocial

“…Furthermore, the majority of these women belong to minority groups and have lived in poverty most of their lives (Carlen, 1992). However, women can perpetrate violent acts such as domestic violence (Caldwell, Swan, Allen, Sullivan and Snow, 2009;Williams, Ghandour and Kub, 2008), infanticide (West, 2007), participate in drug trafficking and in some other kinds of organised crime similar to the men's, although their number would be smaller in contrast (Vizcaíno-Gutiérrez, 2010). Weizmann-Henelius et al (2003) classified violent women within three different groups according to their victims: women who had victimised someone closely related to them (as the result of interpersonal conflicts), those who victimise an acquaintance with no relation and those who had victimised an stranger, which usually occurs less frequently and who are usually weak and helpless victims, such as patients in a hospital or old people without relatives (Hickey, 2006).…”