Female Initiated Intimate Partner Violence Against Men

Dutton and White (2013) have provided an important review/summation of over 200 research articles regarding domestic violence initiated by women against men.  They counter popular myths that female initiated violence is “inconsequential violence”, doesn’t harm male victims, is only bilateral, or only in self-defense.  To the contrary, “Now we know that women assault non-violent male partners more frequently than men assault non-violent female partners.”  (p.6).

Male Victims of Domestic Violence
Dutton, Donald G. and Katherine R. White
New Male Studies: An International Journal. VOL. 2, ISSUE 1, 2013, PP. 5-17 (2013)
Conclusion
Both male victims and male perpetrators have a more difficult experience in the aftermath of IPV (interpersonal violence). Male perpetrators receive harsher legal penalties, and are judged as more capable of inflicting injury or instilling fear in their female partner. This is true even when they have been part of a bilateral IPV pattern. Male victims also fare worse when attempting to access services, as males are more likely to be labelled the aggressor and to be treated with suspicion and injuries they have sustained are likely to be minimized. Custody assessments are misdirected, focusing on the male as the sole source of threat to children for physical abuse. A major revision of our thinking is required, one that is empirically based and can to alter an emotionally tinged stereotype.

Here are excerpts from their review:

• Academics who would bristle at any stereotyping of women or minorities adhere to the ‘gender paradigm’ that all domestic violence is male perpetrated against hapless female victims, in order to preserve “patriarchy” -male dominance of women.6
• When data began to surface about female intimate partner violence (IPV) from the national survey data of professor Murray Straus (Straus, 1980), it was quickly dismissed as inconsequential violence, in Michael Johnson’s term, ‘common couple violence’ (Johnson, 1995) that was bilateral and where the woman was acting in self-defence (Saunders, 1986; 1988; 2002). Now we know that women assault non-violent male partners more frequently than men assault non-violent female partners.6
• Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003) found that as the authors put it “…the “maleness” of intimate terrorism may well be an artifact of the sampling procedure used. Indeed, if the shelter data is omitted it shows sexual symmetry” (p. 1261). Eighty percent of the male intimate terrorists found were reported by the shelter sample, even though it constituted only 17% of the entire sample, (i.e., it was not found in other samples). 7
• As far back as 1992 Murray Straus had reported (Straus, 1992b) that shelter samples had 11 times the violence perpetrated against them as did community samples of women. 7
• By way of comparison with Johnson’s one-sided approach, Renee McDonald and her colleagues asked about violence both toward and by women in shelters (McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, & Minze, 2009). When asked about their own use of violence 67% of these women reported using an act of severe violence themselves against their partner. 7
• One reason that intimate partner violence toward men is underestimated is that men are less likely to view the IPV as a crime or to report it to police. Men have been asked in surveys if they had been assaulted and if so, had they reported it to police. In a 1985 survey, less than 1% of men who had been assaulted by their wife had called police (Stets & Straus, 1992). In that same survey men assaulted by their wife were less likely to hit back than were wives assaulted by their husband. Men were also far less likely to call a friend or relative for help (only 2%). 7-8
• The National Survey of Violence Against Women (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) asked a representative US sample about “crime victimization.” Of course, the use of that filter suppresses reporting because it assumes respondents will define the abuse as a crime. Straus (1999) has shown that removing this filter by asking about specific behaviors used in response to conflict increases reporting rates of abuse by a factor of 16, because it asks respondents to simply endorse a specific act (in terms of whether the individual did it or had it done to them) rather than define the act depicted as abuse. However, it also produces gender rates of IPV that are identical, leading to criticism of the scale by those who wish to screen out evidence contradicting the gender paradigm (Straus, 1992a). Apart from filters, there is another serious problem, with asking one-sided questions about IPV; bilateral IPV is missed. 8
• Five large scale surveys that asked about both victimization and perpetration found that the most common form of IPV was bilateral (two way IPV), matched for level of severity (see Table 1). Of the remaining unilateral cases, 70% were perpetrated by women, only 30% by men (Stets & Straus, 1989; Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). This finding has the following implication for one sided victimization surveys; about 75% of the women reporting victimization were also perpetrators. 8
• An emergency clinic in Philadelphia found that 12.6 percent of all male patients over a thirteen-week period (N=866) were victims of domestic violence (Mechem, Shofer, Reinhard, Horing, & Datner, 1999). These patients reported having been kicked, bitten, punched, or choked by female intimate partners in 47 percent of cases, and in 37 percent of cases reported a weapon being used against them. The authors observe that the numbers would have been higher except they had to stop counting after midnight and screened out “major trauma” cases, which could have upped the proportion injured by female partners. Note that many emergency clinics ask women but not men about potential domestic violence origins for injuries. An emergency clinic study in Ohio found that 72 percent of men admitted with injuries from spousal violence had been stabbed (Vasquez & Falcone, 1997). The authors report that burns obtained in intimate violence were as frequent for male victims as for female victims.9-10
• The reanalysis of the Canadian General Social Survey data by Laroche (2005), based on a sample of 25,876, also strongly refutes the idea that males do not suffer ill effects from intimate partner violence. It is of interest that, though not all “victim” data in that survey were available for men, what was available indicated great similarity in male and female victimization. Laroche (2005) reported that 83% of men who “feared for their life” did so because they were unilaterally terrorized by their female partner compared to the 77% of women who were unilaterally terrorized. Of the terrorized men, 80% reported having their everyday activities disrupted (compared to 74% for terrorized women), 84% received medical care (the same rate as for terrorized women), and 62% sought psychological counseling (63% for women: see Table 8, p. 16). Hence, in an immense nationally representative sample, victim reactions for abused men were virtually identical to those of abused women. It was simply that earlier research was driven by a paradigm that avoided asking the right questions of men. 10
• (although, on average men are less likely to sustain injury compared to women: Archer, 2000)… Men who had sustained common couple violence were more likely to meet the clinical cut-off for PTSD compared to men who had not sustained IPV (8.2%; 2.1%), but the group with the highest rates of PTSD were men who sustained intimate terrorism (57.9%: Hines & Douglas, 2011) p10
• Using a sample of men contacting the New Hampshire domestic violence hotline, the only one in North American for men, Denise Hines (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007) finally provided a view of male victims of IPV. Hines and Douglas (2010) reported that in this male victim sample, 20% had experienced extreme violence (e.g., choking, using a knife, burning with scalding water, targeting of their genitals) during attacks, and that 95% of the female perpetrators used controlling acts consistent with Intimate Terrorism (e.g., death threats, threats to the family pet, display of weapons, smashing things, threats of using the criminal justice system–calling the police and lodging a domestic violence complaint, using the court system to obtain sole custody, etc.). Seventy eight percent of the men were injured (Hines), 2007 sustaining on average eleven injuries. Hines and Douglas (2011) used a community sample as controls. In the community sample they found that CCV was the most common form of IPV. However, with the sample of help-seeking men, “a very different picture emerged” (p. 51). Female partners of these men used 5-6 times the frequency of physical and severe psychological aggression of the men themselves (by the men’s reports) and 5-6 times the controlling behaviors. 10-11
• Criminal justice practice requires a perpetrator and a victim, that’s how the world is divided, so it is no surprise that bilaterally violent couples will be divided in this manner by police intervention. Deborah Capaldi and her colleagues performed the essential study on this matter (Capaldi et al., 2009). As part of the ongoing Oregon Youth Survey, Capaldi et al. assessed 150 couples in late adolescence and early adulthood. Bilaterally violent couples whose level of IPV rose during one event, called the police who then arrested the man (in 85% of cases). It should be pointed out that the man’s level of aggression was higher on that incident, but the IPV pattern preceding that event had been mutual and matched for severity. Brown (2004) found that men were more likely than women to be arrested and prosecuted for IPV. For example, in cases where neither partner sustained injury, men were over 15 times more likely than females to be charged (61% vs. 3.8%). Henning and Renauer (2005) found that men were more likely to be arrest compared to women, even when other factors were controlled (e.g., prior arrests). Men also faced harsher legal ramifications post-arrest, in this sample 85% of men, but only 53.5% of women who were arrested were prosecuted (Henning & Renauer, 2005). p.11
• Male victimization is not viewed to be as serious as female victimization. Regardless of injuries sustained, or other negative outcomes, society views IPV perpetrated by a women towards a man as less dangerous and less potentially harmful to the victim (see, White & Dutton, 2013). 12
• Of perhaps greater concern is that Follingstad et al. (2004) found that this gender bias was also true of psychologists. Two scenarios describing the context and psychologically abusive behaviors with the genders reversed were given to 449 clinicians (56% male), with a median age of 52. Psychologists rated male perpetrated behaviors as more abusive and severe than a female’s use of the same actions. Contextual factors (e.g., frequency/intent/perception of recipient) did not affect this tendency. The items rated as significantly more abusive if performed by a man included “made to account for whereabouts at all times”, “would not allow to look at members of same sex”, “threatened to have committed to an institution” and “made derogatory comments.” The significance on these items was independent of the sex of the psychologist. In both the Sorenson and Follingstad studies, identical behaviors were more likely to be judged as abusive when done by a male to a female. p.12
• Coontz, Lidz and Mulvey (1994) found that clinical predictions of dangerousness made in psychiatric emergency rooms consistently underestimated female dangerousness. Predictions that a male would not be violent were correct 70% of the time, but for females, they were correct only 55% of the time. Skeem and his colleagues (2005) had 147 clinicians assess 680 patients in a psychiatric emergency room for risk of future violence. Mental health professionals of both genders were “particularly limited in their ability to assess female patients’ risk of future violence” (p. 173). In fact the false negative rate for female patients (i.e., the rate at which one was judged to be low risk but subsequently re-offended) was double that of male patients.12

Research Articles Cited in Dutton’s Male Victims of Domestic Violence (2013)

Gender as a Factor in the Response of the Law-Enforcement System to Violence Against Partners.
Brown, Grant A.
Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, Vol 8(3-4), Sum-Fal 2004. pp. 3-139.
Abstract:
A great deal of sociological evidence has been collected in the past three decades on the prevalence of abuse among adult heterosexual partners in domestic relationships of some degree of permanence. Partly as a result of this information, partner abuse has been identified as an important social ill that must be addressed aggressively through public-awareness campaigns, the funding of a broad range of support services, and the re-training of law-enforcement authorities–including police, prosecutors, and judges. However, in at least one important respect, these policy initiatives diverge substantially from what the sociological data, which ostensibly motivates them, would indicate: they have been, to date, overwhelmingly gender specific. That is, partner abuse is routinely portrayed and acted upon as though it were almost exclusively about men abusing and victimizing innocent women and, by extension, their children–despite the overwhelming sociological evidence that a significant amount of abuse is also suffered by male partners. Persistent anecdotal reports from victims and even some participants in the law-enforcement system suggest that this ideological emphasis on the male as perpetrator has had a deleterious effect on the impartial administration of justice, resulting in men being treated much more harshly than women who are accused of partner violence. This study attempts to determine whether the anecdotes are scientifically supportable.

Men who sustain female-to-male partner violence: Factors associated with where they seek help and how they rate those resources.
Douglas, Emily M., Hines, Denise A., and McCarthy, Sean C.
Violence and Victims, Vol 27(6), 2012. pp. 871-894.
Abstract:
Research since the 1970s has documented that men, in addition to women, sustain intimate partner violence (IPV), although much of that research has been overlooked. A growing body of research is examining the experiences of menwho sustain female-to-male IPV, but there is still much to be learned. This exploratory study assesses the experiences of 302 men who have sustained IPV from their female partners and sought help from 1 of 6 resources: domestic violenceagencies, hotlines, Internet, mental health professionals, medical providers, or the police. We examine what demographic characteristics and life experiences are associated with where menseek help and how they rate those experiences. We make recommendations for agencies, service providers, and first responders about how to tailor services for this specific population and their families.

Male Victims of Domestic Violence
Drijber, Babette C.
Journal of Family Violence. February 2013, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 173–178
Abstract
Most studies regarding DV focused mainly on female victims. To gain more insight into the problems male victims encounter, this study investigated the characteristics of this group in the Netherlands. Adult male victims of DV filled out an online questionnaire regarding the characteristics of the abuse (N = 372). When men are victims of DV, they are physically as well as psychologically abused with the female (ex)-partners often being their perpetrator. The most important reason for men not to report the abuse is the belief the police would not take any action. Our findings suggest society should be aware that men are also victims of DV and feel the need to talk about it and desire support.

Male Victims of Domestic Violence
Dutton, Donald G. and Katherine R. White
New Male Studies: An International Journal. VOL. 2, ISSUE 1, 2013, PP. 5-17 (2013)
Conclusion
Both male victims and male perpetrators have a more difficult experience in the aftermath of IPV. Male perpetrators receive harsher legal penalties, and are judged as more capable of inflicting injury or instilling fear in their female partner. This is true even when they have been part of a bilateral IPV pattern. Male victims also fare worse when attempting to access services, as males are more likely to be labelled the aggressor and to be treated with suspicion and injuries they have sustained are likely to be minimized. Custody assessments are misdirected, focusing on the male as the sole source of threat to children for physical abuse. A major revision of our thinking is required, one that is empirically based and can to alter an emotionally tinged stereotype.

Psychologists’ Judgments of Psychologically Aggressive Actions When Perpetrated by a Husband Versus a Wife.
Follingstad, Diane R., DeHart, Dana D., and Green, Eric P..
Violence and Victims, Vol 19(4), Aug, 2004. pp. 435-452.
Abstract:
Research literature suggests that clinical judgments of men’s versus women’s behavior and symptoms typically rate the men as more pathological and dangerous. To determine whether this view would extend to assessments of psychologicallyaggressive actions, two separate versions of a survey listing potentially psychologically abusive behaviors perpetrated by either a wife toward her husband or the identical actions perpetrated by a husband toward his wife were sent to a nationwide sampling of practicing psychologists. Results indicated that psychologists, irrespective of demographics, rated the husband’s behavior as more likely to be psychologically abusive and more severe in nature than the wife’s use of the same actions. Psychologists did not differentially rely on any of the three contextual factors (i.e., frequency/duration, intent of the perpetrator, and perception of the recipient) to influence their determination that a behavior was ‘psychological abuse’ dependent upon whether the initiator of the psychological actions was the husband or the wife. Future research could assess more directly the rationale for the psychologists’ differing views of male versus female behavior. In addition, more normative information is needed to inform mental health professionals as to the prevalence and severity of psychologically aggressive actions in the general population.

Intimate Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: A Test of Johnson’s Predictions in Four British Samples.
Graham-Kevan, Nicola and Archer, John.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol 18(11), Nov, 2003. pp. 1247-1270.
Abstract:
This study sought to both replicate and considerably extend the findings of Johnson (1999) that there are two distinct subgroups of physical aggression within relationships: intimate terrorism and common couple violence. The present sample consisted of women residing at Women’s Aid shelters and their partners (N = 86), male and female students (N = 208), men attending male treatment programs for domestic violence and their partners (N = 8), and male prisoners and their partners (N = 192). Respondents completed measures on physical aggression, injuries sustained, escalation of physical aggression, and controlling behaviors. Cluster analysis was employed to categorize relationships as either intimate terrorism or common couple violence. Frequency analysis showed broad support for Johnson’s findings.

Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men.
Hines, Denise A. and Brown, Jan.
Journal of Family Violence, Vol 22(2), Feb, 2007. pp. 63-72.
Abstract:
[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 22(8) of Journal of Family Violence (see record 2008-08038-013). In the online and print publications the Acknowledgement as well as the address listed under the last author were incorrect. The correct address is as follows: E. Dunning, Family Interventions Project, 4300 Auburn Blvd., Suite 208, Sacramento, CA 95841, USA. And the correct Acknowledgment is as follows: In addition to thanking the members of the Family Research Laboratory for their comments on a previous draft of this article, the authors would also like to thank Mark Rosenthal for his help in preparing the data for analysis.] Intimate partner violence (IPV) by women against men has been the subject of much debate. Feminists typically argue that IPV is committed only by menagainst women. Others argue that violence is a human problem and women also commit much IPV. To resolve these debates, IPV has been classified into two categories: common couple violence captured by population-based studies, and patriarchal terrorism, captured by studies of battered women. This typology ignores male victims of extreme IPV. The current study addresses this omission by describing 190 male callers to the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men. All callers experienced physical abuse from their female partners, and a substantial minority feared their wives’ violence and were stalked. Over 90% experienced controlling behaviors, and several men reported frustrating experiences with the domestic violence system. Callers’ reports indicated that their female abusers had a history of trauma, alcohol/drug problems, mental illness, and homicidal and suicidal ideations.

A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by women.
Hines, Denise A. and Douglas, Emily M.
Partner Abuse, Vol 1(3), July 2010. pp. 286-313.
Abstract:
Over 30 years of research has established that both men and women are capable of sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) by their opposite-sex partners, yet little research has examined men’s experiences in such relationships. Some experts in the field have forwarded assumptions about men who sustain IPV — for example, that the abuse they experience is trivial or humorous and of no consequence and that, if their abuse was severe enough, they have the financial and psychological resources to easily leave the relationship — but these assumptions have little data to support them. The present study is an in-depth, descriptive examination of 302 men who sustained severe IPV from their womenpartners within the previous year and sought help. We present information on their demographics, overall mental health, and the types and frequency of various forms of physical and psychological IPV they sustained. We also provide both quantitative and qualitative information about their last physical argument and their reasons for staying in the relationship. It is concluded that, contrary to many assumptions about these men, the IPV they sustain is quite severe and both mentally and physically damaging; their most frequent response to their partner’s IPV is to get away from her; and they are often blocked in their efforts to leave, sometimes physically, but more often because of strong psychological and emotional ties to their partners and especially their children. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for policy and practice.

“Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review
Kimmel, Michael S.
Violence Against Women, Vol. 8 No. 11, November 2002 1332-1363
Abstract
Despite numerous studies that report the preponderance of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women, other empirical studies suggest that rates of domestic violence by women and men are equivalent. This article explores these claims of gender symmetry in intimate partners’ use of violence by reviewing the empirical foundations of the research and critiquing existing sources of data on domestic violence. The author suggests methods to reconcile the disparate data and encourages researchers and practitioners to acknowledge women’s use of violence while understanding why it tends to be very different from violence by men toward their female partners.

Aspects of the context and consequences of domestic violence: Situational couple violence and intimate terrorism in Canada in 1999.
LaRoche, D.
Quebec City, QC: Government of Quebec. (2005). (Not available through PsycINFO)

Children’s adjustment problems in families characterized by men’s severe violence toward women: Does other family violence matter?
McDonald, Renee., Jouriles, Ernest N., and Tart, Candyce D.
Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol 33(2), Feb, 2009. pp. 94-101.
Abstract:
Objectives: This research examined whether additional forms of family violence (partner-child aggression, mother-childaggression, and women’s intimate partner violence [IPV]) contribute to children’s adjustment problems in familiescharacterized by men’s severe violence toward women.
Methods: Participants were 258 children and their mothers recruited from domestic violence shelters. Mothers and children completed measures of men’s IPV, women’s IPV, partner-child aggression, and mother-child aggression. Mothers provided reports of children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems; children provided reports of their appraisals of threat in relation to interparent conflict. Results: After controlling for sociodemographics and men’s IPV: (1) each of the additional forms of family violence (partner-child aggression, mother-child aggression, and women’s IPV) was associated with children’s externalizing problems; (2) partner-child aggression was associated with internalizing problems; and (3) partner-child aggression was associated with children’s threat appraisals. The relation of mother-child aggression to externalizing problems was stronger for boys than for girls; gender differences were not observed for internalizing problems or threat appraisals.
Conclusions: Men’s severe IPV seldom occurs in the absence of other forms of family violence, and these other forms appear to contribute to children’s adjustment problems. Parent-child aggression, and partner-child aggression in particular, are especially important. Systematic efforts to identify shelter children who are victims of parental violence seem warranted. Practice implications: Men’s severe IPV seldom occurs in the absence of other forms of family violence(partner-child aggression, mother-child aggression, and women’s IPV), and these different forms of family violence all contribute to children’s adjustment problems. Treatment programs for children who come to domestic violence shelters should address these different forms of family violence, especially parent-child aggression.

History of Domestic Violence among Male Patients Presenting to an Urban Emergency Department
Mechem, Crawford, Frances Shofer, Sharon S. Reinhard, Sarah Hornig, Elizabeth Datner
Acad Emerg Med. 1999 Aug;6(8):786-91.
Abstract.
Objective: To establish the prevalence of domestic violence committed by women against male patients presenting to an urban ED for any reason.
Methods: This was a prospective survey in which male patients of legal age presenting to the ED over a 13-week period were interviewed. Patients answered a series of six questions adapted from the George Washington University Universal Violence Prevention Screening Protocol. Patients who could not speak English, those refusing to participate, those unable to give informed consent, and those meeting regional criteria for major trauma were excluded.
Results: Of 866 male patients interviewed, 109 (12.6%) had been the victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the preceding year. Victims were more likely to be younger, single, African American, and uninsured. The most common forms of assault were slapping, grabbing, and shoving (60.6% of victims). These were followed by choking, kicking, biting, and punching (48.6%), or throwing an object at the victim (46.8%). Thirty-seven percent of cases involved a weapon. Seven percent of victims de- scribed being forced to have sex. Nineteen percent of victims contacted the police; 14% required medical attention; 11% pressed charges or sought a restraining order; and 6% pursued follow-up counseling.
Conclusions: Almost 13% of men in this sample population had been victims of domestic violence committed by a female intimate partner within the previous year. Further attention to the recognition and management of domestic violence committed by women against men may be warranted.

Men who seek protection orders against female intimate partners.
Mele, Marie, Roberts, James C., and Wolfer, Loreen.
Partner Abuse, Vol 2(1), Jan, 2011. pp. 61-75.
Abstract:
Whereas intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrated by men against women has been studied at length, relatively little attention has been given to violence perpetrated by women against their male intimate partners. This study represents one of relatively few attempts to better understand the experiences of male IPV victims. Specifically, this study explored the characteristics of men who obtain and withdraw a protection order against a female intimate partner, in comparison to those men who obtain and do not withdraw the order. We also looked at the reasons men cite for obtaining and withdrawing a protection order and the types of relief granted by the court. Findings from this study revealed that menwho requested protection from abuse (PFA) against female intimate partnersexperienced a pattern of victimization prior to their requests for protection, including physical, psychological, or emotional abuse. Although, each of these men sought and was granted a ‘no abuse, stalk, or threaten’ order, few of them were able to obtain temporary custody of children they had in common with the defendant, nor were they successful in getting defendants evicted from the home or getting the court to order defendants to relinquish their firearms. A comparison of men who withdrew their PFAs to those who did not withdraw them suggested that men who did not withdraw their PFAs perceived their abusive situations as being more serious. Implications for future research are discussed.

Male Victims of Domestic Violence and Their History of Perpetrating Violence
Muelleman, Robert L. and Patricia Burgess
Acad Emerg Med. 1998 Sep;5(9):866-70
Abstract.
Objective: To determine whether male victims of domestic violence have similar rates of violence perpetration compared with men evaluated in the ED with other causes of injury.
Methods: Case‐control retrospective ED record review with linkage to police department records. Cases were identified by ICD code N‐code 995.81 (adult maltreatment syndrome) over a 4‐year period (January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1994) at one urban trauma center. Medical records were reviewed to confirm that the assailant was an intimate female partner. Controls were identified by E‐codes 880–888 (unintentional falls) and matched by age, race, and date of visit. All names were linked to police department record information regarding arrests for domestic violence perpetration, nonaggravated assaults, aggravated assaults, firearms violations, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). This information was reported without patient identifiers. Comparisons between cases and controls were made with x2 analysis.
Results: Forty‐five cases and 45 controls were identified. The cases were injured by unarmed fights, E960 (31%); cuttings, E966 (33%); blunt objects, E968.2 (31%); and bites, E968.8 (5%). Median age (interquartile range) for cases was 32 (25.75, 38.25) years and for controls was 31 (25, 36.5) years. Median follow‐up (interquartile range) of police records after ED visit was 45 (37, 50) months for cases and 45 (36.75, 51) months for controls. Fifty‐one percent of the cases had arrests for domestic violence perpetration vs 22.2% of the controls (p = 0.009). Forty‐four percent of the cases had been arrested for nonaggravated assaults vs 20.0% of the controls (p = 0.024). There was no statistical difference between the cases and controls in arrests for aggravated assaults (13.3% vs 4.4%), firearm violations (22.2% vs 17.8%), or DUIs (35.6% vs 20%).
Conclusion: Men who present to the ED with injuries inflicted by their female partners have a high rate of domestic violence perpetration. This information calls into question whether many male “victims” of domestic violence are injured in self‐defense by the female “victim.” Also, injury by a female partner may be a useful indicator to identify batterers, so they can be referred by appropriate resources.

Women and men’s use of coercive control in intimate partner violence.
Robertson, Kirsten and Murachver, Tamar.
Violence and Victims, Vol 26(2), 2011. pp. 208-217.
Abstract:
This study examined the relationship between coercive control and intimate partner violence (IPV) for men and womenand for targets and perpetrators. One hundred and seventy-two participants (85 men, 87 women) recruited from three samples reported on their own and their partner’s behavior. IPV was measured using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). Coercive control was measured using modified items from the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI). Coercive control was associated with IPV, and this relationship was similar for men and women across the three samples. In fact, coercive control was predominantly reciprocal in nature, with women and men reporting both receiving and perpetrating controlling behaviors. Overall, coercive controlling behaviors were characteristic of individuals within violent relationships, regardless of their physical abuse status. The experience of violence, rather than gender, was the best predictor of coercive control.

When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self-defense?
Saunders, Daniel G.
Violence and Victims, Vol 1(1), Spr 1986. pp. 47-60.
Abstract:
Reviews what is known about the relative victimization of spouses, clarifies some concepts regarding self-defense, and presents data on the motives for using violence of 52 battered women who sought help. Data show that the most frequent reason for violence reported by Ss was self-defense. Eight percent of Ss reported that nonsevere violence was used to initiate an attack more than half of the time. The concepts of self-defense and fighting back were significantly and positively correlated. It is recommended that care be used in stating assumptions about motives for violent behavior and in assigning labels to rates of marital violence.  (Article available for pay)

A typology of men who batter: Three types derived from cluster analysis.
Saunders, Daniel G.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol 62(2), Apr, 1992. pp. 264-275.
Abstract:
Replicated and extended the findings of previous studies (e.g., P. L. Caesar, 1986) by evaluating 165 menundergoing assessment for admission to a treatment program for men who batter. Three types of batterers were identified: family only aggressors (FOAs), generalized aggressors (GAs), and emotionally volatile aggressors (EVAs). FOAs reported the most satisfaction in the relationship, the least marital conflict, the least infliction of psychological abuse, and low levels of anger, depression, and jealousy. GAs were most likely to be violent out of the home and most likely to use severe violence. Their violence was likely to be associated with alcohol use. They reported low or moderate levels of anger and depression. EVAs reported the highest levels of anger, depression, and jealousy and reported being the most psychologically abusive and least satisfied in their relationships.

Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social problem? A review of the literature.
Saunders, Daniel G.
Violence Against Women, Vol 8(12), Dec, 2002. Special Issue: Women’s use of violence in intimate relationships, part 2. pp. 1424-1448.
Abstract:
Notes that research that shows approximately equal rates of dating and domestic violence by men and women has been used to challenge the priority given to services for abused women. This article reviews the scientific evidence for gender equality in rates of lethal and nonlethal intimate partner violence. Among the problems noted in studies showing gender equality are the ways in which questions about violence are framed, exclusion of items about sexual abuse and stalking, and exclusion of separated couples. Studies without these problems show much higher rates of violence by men. Furthermore, the physical and psychological consequences of victimization are consistently more severe for women.

The marriage license as a hitting license: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting, and married couples.
Stets, Jan E. and Straus, Murray A.
Journal of Family Violence, Vol 4(2), Jun, 1989. pp. 161-180.
Abstract:
Used the Conflict Tactics Scale to examine violence by both men and women in 526 dating, 237 cohabiting, and 5,005 marital relationships. Findings indicate that (1) the highest rate of assault was among the cohabiting couples; (2) violence was most severe in cohabiting couples; and (3) for all 3 marital status groups, the most frequent pattern was for both partners to be violent, with the least frequent pattern being male-only violence. Age, education, and occupation did not explain differences in assault rate by marital status. The higher prevalence of violence among cohabiting couples may be a result of family isolation or arguments stemming from issues of autonomy and control. (Article is not available through PsycINFO)

Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences.
Stets, J., & Straus, M. A. (1992).
In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families (pp. 151-166). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Victims and aggressors in marital violence.
Straus, M. A. American Behavioral Scientist (1980). 23(5), 681-704.  This article is not available through PsycINFO

The Conflict Tactics Scale and its critics: An evaluation and new data on validity and reliability.
Straus, M. A.
In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families (1992). (pp. 49-73). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Blaming the messenger for the bad news about partner violence by women: The methodological, theoretical, and value basis of the purported invalidity of the Conflict Tactics Scales.
Straus, Murray A.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Vol 30(5), Sep-Oct, 2012. pp. 538-556.
Abstract:
More than 200 studies have found ‘gender symmetry’ in perpetration of violence against a marital or dating partner in the sense that about the same percent of women as men physically assault a marital or dating partner. Most of these studies obtained the data using the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS). However, these results have been challenged by numerous articles in the past 25 years that have asserted that the CTS is invalid. This article identifies and responds to 11 purported methodological problems of the CTS, and two other bases for the belief that the CTS is not valid. The discussion argues that the repeated assertion over the past 25 years that the CTS is invalid is not primarily about methodology. Rather it is primarily about theories and values concerning the results of research showing gender symmetry in perpetration. According to the prevailing ‘patriarchal dominance’ theory, these results cannot be true and therefore the CTS must be invalid. The conclusion suggests that an essential part of the effort to prevent and treat violence against women and by women requires taking into account the dyadic nature of partner violence through use of instruments such as the CTS that measure violence by both partners.

Cross gender violence.
Vasquez, D., & Falcone, R. (1997).
Annals of Emergency Medicine, 29(3), 427-429.
Abstract.
Reports equal cross gender violence treated at an Ohio trauma center during an 11 mouth period. Of 1,400 trauma admissions, 37 patients 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%.)

Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence.
Whitaker, Daniel J., Haileyesus, Tadesse., Swahn, Monica and Saltzman, Linda S.
American Journal of Public Health, Vol 97(5), May, 2007. pp. 941-947.
Abstract:
Objectives: We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury. Methods: We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships. Results: Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI = 1.9,2.8), but not men (AOR = 1.26; 95% CI = 0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR = 4.4; 95% CI = 3.6, 5.5). Conclusions: The context of the violence (reciprocal vs nonreciprocal) is a strong predictor of reported injury. Prevention approaches that address the escalation of partner violence may be needed to address reciprocal violence.