Typology of reactions to intimate partner violence among men and women arrested for partner violence

Controlling Behaviors Victimization and Perceptions of Space for Action Among Married Women and Men in Rural China: The Moderating Effect of Fear

Victims of controlling behaviors in intimate relationships experience situations that diminish their space for action. That is, the more victims encounter controlling behaviors by their intimate partners, the less capacity they perceive for adaption to and making choices in daily life. This study explores the relationship between controlling behaviors victimization and space for action among married women and men in China. Most important, this study also examines the role that fear plays in this relationship, which so far has been uncommon. Using data collected from a community sample of 973 married individuals (women and men) with a mean age of 45.53 from a rural area in northern China, this study found a negative correlation between controlling behaviors victimization and space for action. When controlling for the variable of victim's fear, the relationship between controlling behaviors victimization, and space for action differs by gender. The moderation analysis showed that controlling behaviors victimization was significantly and negatively associated with space for action when the female participants reported feeling fear, whereas the effect was not significant for male participants. These findings provide empirical evidence concerning the effect of controlling behaviors on victims' freedom in rural China, highlighting a need for greater awareness of this social problem. The findings of this study may also be used to inform the development of programs and policies to improve victims' safety and well-being in China.

Distinguishing Subtypes of Mutual Violence in the Context of Self-defense: Classifying Types of Partner Violent Couples using a Modified Conflict Tactics Scale

PURPOSE

The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) is the most widely used measure for assessing the frequency of intimate partner violence (IPV). However, it has been criticized for not capturing the context in which IPV takes place. This study examined follow-up items to each CTS2 physical assault item asking to clarify how often the act was perpetrated in self-defense.

METHOD

A community sample of couples (N = 180) recruited for men's recent violence toward women completed the project-modified Conflict Tactics Scale with Self-Defense (CTS2SD). The majority (69.5%) reported that the physical aggression in the past year was bilateral. On the follow-up items, 27% of men's violent acts and over 22% of women's violent acts were reportedly committed in self-defense. Men's and women's CTS2 physical assault perpetration scores, along with the percentage that were committed in self-defense, were entered into two-step cluster analyses.

RESULTS

Cluster analyses revealed three subgroups of bilateral violence: Male Self-defense, Female Self-defense, and Mutual Violence. The Mutual Violent cluster reported the most frequent physical assault, injury, men's controlling behavior and men's arrest for domestic violence.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that Straus' (2012) tripartite conceptualization of Man-only, Woman-only, and Both-violent couples is overly simplistic and fails to capture different types of bilateral aggression.

Perpetrators' and Victims' Attributions for IPV: A Critical Review of the Literature

Research shows that there are a variety of reasons why people self-report engaging in intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration, but few studies report victims' attributions for their partners' IPV perpetration. Because there are two acting partners in relationships, as well as the IPV incidents that occur in the relationships, to fully understand the dynamics of IPV, both partners' perceptions of why the incidents occur must be understood. The authors of this article systematically reviewed the available empirical evidence regarding male and female perpetrators' endorsed attributions for their IPV perpetration, as well victims' attributions for their partners' IPV perpetration. Several literature databases were explored, resulting in 50 articles that met the criteria for inclusion in this review. IPV perpetrators' commonly endorsed attributions for physical and psychological IPV consisted of control, anger, retaliation, self-defense, to get attention, and an inability to express oneself verbally. Research has not examined endorsed attributions for coercive control. The few studies examining attributions for sexual IPV found that it was attributed to dominance or hedonism. Themes regarding victims' attributions were largely similar to those of the perpetrators, however, there were some differences. Victims' attributions for physical IPV perpetration consisted of anger, control, jealousy, and the influence of drugs/alcohol, which are similar to perpetrators' self-reported attributions for engaging in IPV perpetration. Victims' attributions for their partners' psychological IPV perpetration consisted of the perpetrator's personality, relationship dissolution, alcohol, and their partners' jealousy. Victims' attributions for their partners' sexual IPV perpetration, however, differed from perpetrators' attributions, consisting of the victim believing that the perpetrator thought they wanted it, being under the influence of alcohol/drugs, and doing it out of love. Methodological inconsistencies, directions for future research, and treatment implications are also discussed.

Relationship of Physical Intimate Partner Violence with Mental Health Diagnoses in the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample

OBJECTIVES

We examined associations of physical intimate partner violence (PIPV) with selected mental health disorders using a nationally representative sample of emergency department (ED) discharges corresponding to men and women (18-64 years) from the 2010 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample.

METHODS

PIPV was determined using International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) external cause of injury code E967.3 (battering by spouse or partner). ICD-9-CM clinical classification of discharge diagnoses was used to identify mental health disorders. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR_adj) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

PIPV prevalence was estimated at 0.36 per 1000 ED discharges. The strongest correlates of PIPV were alcohol-related (OR_adj = 3.02, 95% CI: 2.62-3.50), adjustment (OR_adj = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.56-3.58), intentional self-harm (OR_adj = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05-1.89), anxiety (OR_adj = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07-1.40), drug-related (OR_adj = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.01-1.47), and mood (OR_adj = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.31) disorders. PIPV's association with alcohol-related disorders was stronger among women (OR_adj = 3.22, 95% CI: 2.79-3.72) versus men (OR_adj = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.42-2.77). Similarly, drug-related disorders were stronger correlates of PIPV among women (OR_adj = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.09-1.60) versus men (OR_adj = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.31-1.16).

CONCLUSIONS

In EDs, PIPV was linked to several mental health disorders, with women experiencing comorbid PIPV and substance use more frequently than men.

Bridging intimate partner violence and the human brain: a literature review

Past studies mainly focused on the physical and structural brain injuries in women survivors with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV), but little attention has been given to the biological impact and cognitive dysfunction resulting from such psychological stress. In this article, we aim to establish the connection between IPV and the brain by reviewing current literature examining (1) the biological mechanisms linking IPV, stress, and the brain; (2) the functional and anatomical considerations of the brain in abused women; and (3) the abused women's behavioral responses to IPV, including fear, pain, and emotion regulation, by utilizing functional neuroimaging. The major significance of this study is in highlighting the need to advance beyond self-reports and to obtain scientific evidence of the neurological impact and cognitive dysfunction in abused women with a history of IPV, an area in which current literature remains at a descriptive level.

Motivations for Men and Women’s Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Comprehensive Review

The main purpose of this review article was to collect and summarize all available papers that reported empirical data related to men’s and women’s motivations for IPV. To facilitate direct gender comparisons, the motives reported in each obtained study were coded by the current authors into seven broad categories: (a) power/control, (b) self-defense, (c) expression of negative emotion (i.e., anger), (d) communication difficulties, (e) retaliation, (f) jealousy, and (g) other. Across the 75 samples (located in 74 articles) that were reviewed and coded for this study, 24 contained samples of only women (32%), 6 samples consisted of only men (8%), and 46 samples used both women and men (62%). Power/control and self-defense were commonly measured motivations (76% and 61%, respectively). However, using violence as an expression of negative emotion (63%), communication difficulties (48%), retaliation (60%), or because of jealousy (49%) were also commonly assessed motives. In 62% of the samples, at least one other type of motive was also measured. Only 18 of the located study samples (24%) included data that allowed for a direct gender comparison of men’s and women’s reported motivations. Many of these studies did not subject their data to statistical analyses. Among those that did, very few gender-specific motives for perpetration emerged. These results should be viewed with caution, however, because many methodological and measurement challenges exist in this field. There was also considerable heterogeneity across papers making direct gender comparisons problematic.

Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations

Studies report that women use as much or more physical intimate partner violence (IPV) as men. Most of these studies measure IPV by counting the number of IPV acts over a specified time period, but counting acts captures only one aspect of this complex phenomenon. To inform interventions, women's motivations for using IPV must be understood. A systematic review, therefore, was conducted to summarize evidence regarding women's motivations for the use of physical IPV in heterosexual relationships. Four published literature databases were searched, and articles that met inclusion criteria were abstracted. This was supplemented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications that directly investigated heterosexual women's motivations for perpetrating nonlethal, physical IPV. Of the 144 potentially eligible articles, 23 met inclusion criteria. Over two thirds of studies enrolled participants from IPV shelters, courts, or batterers' treatment programs. Women's motivations were primarily assessed through interviews or administration of an author-created questionnaire. Anger and not being able to get a partner's attention were pervasive themes. Self-defense and retaliation also were commonly cited motivations, but distinguishing the two was difficult in some studies. Control was mentioned but not listed as a primary motivation. IPV prevention and treatment programs should explore ways to effectively address women's relationship concerns and ability to manage anger and should recognize that women commonly use IPV in response to their partner's violence.

Women arrested for partner violence and substance use: an exploration of discrepancies in the literature

Discrepancies exist in research examining substance problems within groups of women arrested for intimate partner violence (IPV). In some studies women IPV arrestees have been found to be at high risk for substance-related problems, whereas in others they are found to be at low risk for substance-related problems. The current study explores these discrepancies then compares a sample of women court ordered to a domestic violence diversion program (n = 78) to a matched sample of men (n = 78) in the same program using police report information, self-report measures, the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3, and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III alcohol and drug subscales. Women IPV arrestees had a low occurrence of substance use during the arresting incident, a low incidence of substance-related diagnoses, and fewer substance-related problems than did men IPV arrestees. However, women demonstrated personality structures susceptible to nondiagnosable, hazardous drinking patterns.