Disagreement about the occurrence of male-to-female intimate partner violence: a qualitative study

Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Denial and Underreporting in Cisgender Male Couples

Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators often deny their actions, limiting opportunities for intervention. Cisgender male couples experience similar IPV rates to mixed-gender couples, yet less is known about how men in same-sex relationships deny or report their IPV behavior. This study aimed to describe perpetration denial across emotional, monitoring/controlling, and physical/sexual IPV, and to identify correlates of perpetration denial, in a convenience sample of male couples (N = 848; United States, 2016-2017). Past-year victimization and perpetration were measured with the IPV-Gay and Bisexual Men (GBM) scale; perpetration deniers were men whose self-reported perpetration contradicted their partner's reported victimization. Individual-, partner-, and dyadic-correlates of perpetration denial, by IPV-type, were identified using actor-partner interdependence models. We identified 663 (78.2%) perpetrators: 527 emotional; 490 monitoring/controlling; 267 physical/sexual. Thirty-six percent of physical/sexual-, 27.7% of emotional-, and 21.43% of monitoring/controlling-perpetrators categorically denied their actions. Depression was negatively associated with denying monitoring/controlling-perpetration (odds ratio 95% confidence interval: 0.91 [0.84, 0.99]) and physical/sexual-perpetration (0.91 [0.83, 0.97]); dyadic differences in depression were associated with emotional-perpetration denial (0.95 [0.90, 0.99]). Recent substance users had 46% lower odds of monitoring/controlling-denial (0.54 [0.32, 0.92]), versus non-users. Partner-race and employment were also significantly associated with emotional perpetration denial. This study highlights IPV denial's complexities, including differences across IPV types. Further investigations into how cisgender men in same-sex couples perceive and report various types of IPV perpetration will provide valuable insight into how an underserved and understudied population experiences IPV.

He Said, She Said: Comparing Men's and Women's Descriptions of Men's Partner Violence

More than one in three women and one in four men in the United States report victimization by intimate partner violence. Women and men often disagree about the frequency or severity of violent acts, and researchers have proposed various reasons for discordant reports. Using daily surveys and qualitative interviews, we compared men's and women's reports about men's partner aggression and examined language they used to describe their experiences. Fifteen heterosexual couples in violent relationships completed an 8-week study that involved daily telephone surveys about violent behaviors and household environment; baseline and end-of-study surveys addressing predictors and outcomes of violence; and qualitative end-of-study interviews to provide perspective about their relationships. Most participants were Latinos with low income. Relationship length was 5.5 years, median. In daily surveys, both partners reported similar frequencies of men's physical violence (4% of days), but men reported more physical violence by women than women did (8% vs. 3% of days). The qualitative analysts compared men's and women's accounts of male-to-female violence and observed gender-specific variations in style of reporting. Men used indirect language to describe their violent behavior, implied definitions of abuse, and justified their aggression. These findings have implications for clinical guidelines to screen and intervene with victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence in primary care and emergency settings. Future research should focus on perpetrators of violence and examine effective ways for health care providers to identify and manage their care.

Agreement on Reporting Intimate Partner Violence Among Nepalese Couples: A Cross-Sectional Study

When intimate partner violence (IPV) data are collected from only one partner, they are often subject to considerable reporting bias. However, it is not easy to collect such data from couples, and inaccuracies might result in discrepancies, which needs a resolution. We assessed the concordance on reports of lifetime and previous year physical, sexual, and emotional IPV against wives, as reported by both Nepalese wives and husbands. The association of possible risk factors with discordant reporting of IPV was also analyzed. We conducted a cross-sectional study in two areas in Nepal between August and September 2011. We collected data from 717 randomly selected couples on lifetime and previous year experience of physical, sexual, and emotional IPV against wives, as well as their sociodemographic characteristics. We calculated the kappa coefficients and agreement percentage to assess the concordance on wives' reports of IPV victimization and husbands' reports of IPV perpetration. We also performed multiple logistic regressions to identify the factors associated with discordant reporting of IPV among couples. Levels of concordance between wives' and husbands' reports of IPV were significantly low, as indicated by kappa coefficients, ranging from .20 (sexual and emotional IPV) to .24 (physical IPV) in lifetime experience and from .15(sexual IPV) to .18 (physical IPV) in previous year experience. Wives' caste, husbands' age and education, household income, and place of residence were significantly associated with discordance in IPV reports among Nepalese couples. Discordant reporting about IPV is common among Nepalese couples. Collecting information from both partners might be important to obtain more reliable data on IPV in the Nepalese context.

Intimate Partner Violence Among Low-Income Fathers: Testing a Stress-Coping Model

This research used a stress-coping conceptual framework to examine intimate partner violence (IPV) among men who are fathers. The current study examined how perceived stress explained associations between stressors (e.g., employment status, psychological and physical female-to-male partner violence [FMPV], substance use, criminal justice system involvement) and male-perpetrated physical and psychological IPV. Participants were 1,971 low-income, ethnically diverse fathers involved in a statewide fatherhood program. Findings indicated that, across African American, White, and Hispanic/Latino men, male-reported FMPV and criminal justice involvement were associated with psychological and/or physical IPV via perceived stress. Employment status and alcohol use were associated with psychological IPV via perceived stress among African American men only. Implications for community-based fatherhood programs are discussed.

Intimate Partner Aggression Reporting Concordance and Correlates of Agreement Among Men With Alcohol use Disorders and Their Female Partners

This study examined relationship aggression reporting concordance among 303 men with alcohol use disorders and their female partners enrolled in couples-based alcohol abuse treatment. Agreement for physical and psychological aggression was generally consistent with, or higher than, concordance rates reported among other populations. Men’s antisocial personality disorder characteristics were the strongest predictor of higher concordance for male- and female-perpetrated aggression. Higher alcohol problem severity, poorer relationship adjustment, and higher psychopathic personality features were associated with better concordance in some analyses. Women reported experiencing more physical aggression than men reported perpetrating, and women reported perpetrating more psychological aggression than men reported experiencing. Findings highlight the importance of obtaining aggression reports from both partners and the need for research investigating methods for improving concordance.

Acceptance of wife beating and its association with physical violence towards women in Nepal: a cross-sectional study using couple's data

BACKGROUND

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious global public health issue. Acceptance of wife beating is known to be associated with IPV, but few studies have analysed the acceptance of wife beating from both women and men's points of view. The objective of this study was to examine whether acceptance of wife beating among couples is associated with lifetime and past one-year physical IPV perpetration towards wives in Nepal.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted from August to September 2011, with 717 randomly selected couples with wives aged 18 to 49 years old from the Kirtipur municipality and Bhaktapur district of Nepal. Wives' and husbands' acceptance of wife beating was measured by six scale items, while physical IPV experience among wives was measured by seven physical assault scale items. To assess the association between acceptance of wife beating and physical IPV, multiple logistic regression analysis was used.

RESULTS

Nearly 30% of wives and husbands indicated that beating of wives is acceptable under certain circumstances. Statistically, no significant difference was detected between wives' and husbands' level of acceptance of wife beating. However, husbands' acceptance of wife beating was positively associated with lifetime and past one-year perpetration of physical IPV, whereas wives' acceptance of wife beating was neither associated with lifetime nor past one-year victimization of physical IPV. The positive association for husbands remained even after controlling for their partner's factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance of wife beating is an important risk factor, which must be considered to prevent perpetration of physical IPV towards wives in Nepal. Future studies should include men to better understand the structure and dynamics of IPV in Nepal, and prevention programs should also target men to change their attitudes or to identify which couples are at more risk of physical IPV occurring toward wives.

Agreement on intimate partner violence among a sample of blue-collar couples

This study assessed agreement level about the occurrence of past-year male-to-female partner violence (MFPV) and female-to-male partner violence (FMPV) among a sample of 897 blue-collar couples. Intimate partner violence (IPV) was measured with the Physical Assault subscale of the revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Agreement level was assessed with Cohen's kappa statistic. Lower-bound estimates (based on couple agreement that an IPV event occurred) and upper-bound estimates (based on uncorroborated reports from either partner that an IPV event occurred) were calculated. Results indicated low agreement for most IPV behaviors (kappa < .40). Estimated lower- and upper-bound rates for MFPV were 6.7% and 21.2%, for FMPV, 7.1% and 24.2%, and for any IPV, 10.1% and 30.2%. Findings suggest that single-point IPV prevalence estimates are biased; lower- and upper-bound estimates using collateral reports should be calculated when possible. In addition, findings underscore the importance of conducting IPV research among understudied populations, such as working-class couples, that may be at elevated IPV risk.

Perception of mutual violence in incarcerated women’s intimate partner relationships in Mexico City

The purpose of this article is to determine the degree of physical violence received and inflicted over the past two years by a sample of women in prison in their relationships with their partners (N=/213). Over half of the women report having suffered some form of violence at the hands of their partners at some time in their lives. As for physical violence experienced over the past two years, one out of every four women has experienced violence at the hands of her partner. The women in this study rated the act of physical violence they had experienced in the past two years as severe, a term they also used to describe the degree of disturbance, anger and fear they felt after the violent incident. As for the violence the women inflicted on their partners, one out of every four women has inflicted violence on her partner (26.8%) although they rate the most aggressive event during these past two years as slight. After the event, over half the women felt severely disturbed as well as slightly angry and scared.

Men who batter intimate partners: a grounded theory study of the development of male violence in intimate partner relationships

Intimate partner violence is a serious and pervasive problem in U.S. society, with 25% of women and 7.6% of men reporting physical abuse by an intimate partner each year. Understanding the risk factors for development of violence is essential toward the development of interventions to reduce partner violence. Much of the understanding about the development of partner violence is based on research with victims rather than perpetrators. The study was conducted with men convicted of assault on an intimate female partner. Grounded theory was the method used to analyze data from interviews with 16 men participating in a batterers' intervention and prevention program. From the data, the Violent Couples Model was developed. The primary elements of the Violent Couples Model are justifying violence, minimizing violence, childhood exposure to violence, ineffective anger management, childhood experience of violence, and ineffective conflict resolution. Social and familial factors serve as moderating elements. Contextual elements of the model include power and control, social isolation, desensitization, insecure maternal relationships, the view of violence as a private problem, ambivalent intimate relationships, objectification of women, immaturity, lack of awareness about what constitutes violence, mistrust, traditional views of the roles of women, financial issues, and jealousy. Interventions indicated in the model are primary, or preventive, in nature. The model focuses on prevention efforts with the family as a whole, rather than on batterers alone.

Measuring intimate partner violence (IPV): you may only get what you ask for

With the goal of understanding the true extent of intimate partner violence (IPV), researchers have put tremendous effort over the past 20 years developing, revising, and assessing IPV screening instruments. The enhancements made in IPV instrumentation reflect our improved understanding of the nature of IPV. Unfortunately, as is often the case with progress, we are presently at the stage where IPV researchers have an arsenal of multiple IPV screens that are, in some cases, slightly different, whereas in others, the differences are sizeable. This article explores the evolution and variation of a sample of IPV screens. To further progress in IPV research, we must make conscious decisions concerning the best tool for our individual research. Simultaneously, we must enhance our understanding of how these IPV screening instruments overlap so that comparisons of IPV prevalence or incidence across time and population are possible.

Issues in estimating the prevalence of intimate partner violence: assessing the impact of abuse status on participation bias

This study examines the potential implications of household interviews on participation bias for estimates of intimate partner violence (IPV). Using a variety of scales, IPV prevalence for the 135 women interviewed in a street-intercept survey was compared with the IPV prevalence of a subsample of these women who reported willingness to participate in a household survey with their partner in another room or when their partner also would be interviewed. A potential self-selection bias showed an 8% to 13% deflated prevalence of moderate to highly abused women and a 8% to 11% inflated prevalence of nonabused women among this subsample who would willingly participate in a household survey. Understanding who is included in household surveys, and who is not, is essential to compute and interpret national prevalence estimates for IPV.