Top

Published in:

01-11-2016 | Original Article

Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence

Author: Elizabeth A. Bates

Published in: Journal of Family Violence | Issue 8/2016

Abstract

There is a wealth of research that details the bidirectional nature of the majority of intimate partner violence (IPV; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199–230, 2012). However, there is a tendency for interventions to treat perpetrators and victims unilaterally from a gendered standpoint. The current paper discusses the evidence to date that illustrates the extent of the problem, including frequency within several samples and the severity of outcomes. It further argues that the only way to develop effective interventions is to acknowledge that many perpetrators may also be victims, and the need to understand the context in which the violence occurs.

The organisation that accredits programs within the UK is called Respect. Respect is a Government funded charity that petitions to inform policy; their purpose of accreditation includes to provide a recognised framework and to set the standards for work with perpetrators. Other Government accreditation procedures also focus solely on programs that serve heterosexual men who are abusive to women; these are largely still influenced by Duluth based approaches.

Bates, E. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2014). Testing predictions from the male control theory of men’s partner violence. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 42–55.CrossRefPubMed

Bates, E. A., Graham-Kevan, N., Bolam, L. T. & Thornton, A. J. (in press). Review of Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs in the UK. Partner Abuse.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. London: Open Books.

Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 457–483.CrossRef

Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2007). The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 658–667.CrossRef

Gray, H. M., & Foshee, V. (1997). Adolescent dating violence: Differences between one-sided and mutually violent profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126–141.CrossRef

Hamel, J. (2007). Domestic violence: A gender-inclusive conception. In J. Hamel & T. L. Nicols (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence (pp. 3–26). New York: Springer.

Hellmuth, J. C., Jaquier, V., Overstreet, N., Swan, S. C., & Sullivan, T. P. (2014). The mediating role of avoidance coping between IPV victimization, mental health, and substance abuse among women experiencing bidirectional IPV. Psychiatry Research, 220, 391.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 282–294.

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003–1018.CrossRefPubMed

Koepsell, J. K., Kernic, M. A., & Holt, V. L. (2006). Factors that influence battered women to leave their abusive relationships. Violence and Victims, 21(2), 131–147.CrossRefPubMed

Kropp, P. R. (2009). Intimate partner violence risk assessment. In J. L. Ireland, C. A. Ireland & Birch, P. (Eds) Violent and sexual offenders: assessment, treatment and management. Oregon: Willan Publishing.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2006). An examination of sheltered battered women's perpetration of stalking and other unwanted pursuit behaviors. Violence and Victims, 21(5), 579–595.CrossRefPubMed

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179–193.CrossRef

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across sample, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199–230.CrossRef

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. Springer Publishing Company.

Respect (2012). Respect Accreditation Standard, 2nd Edition. London: Respect: Respect. Available at: http://www.respect.uk.net/data/files/Accreditation/respect__full_standard_july_12_v2_web.pdf

Rhodes, K. V., Houry, D., Cerulli, C., Straus, H., Kaslow, N. J., & McNutt, L. A. (2009). Intimate partner violence and comorbid mental health conditions among urban male patients. The Annals of Family Medicine, 7(1), 47–55.CrossRefPubMed

Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8, 145 families (pp. 227–244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98.CrossRef

Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275.CrossRef

Straus, M. A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 332–362.CrossRef

Straus, M. A., & Gozjolko, K. L. (2016). Concordance Between Partners In “Intimate Terrorism” A Comparison Of Two Typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 55–60.CrossRef

Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5), 941–947.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Winstok, Z. (2007). Toward an interactional perspective on intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(3), 348–363.CrossRef

Title: Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence
Author: Elizabeth A. Bates
Publication date: 01-11-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Family Violence / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0885-7482
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2851
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9862-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Current Controversies within Intimate Partner Violence: Overlooking Bidirectional Violence

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

When Agreements Blur Disputes: Do Common Assumptions Regarding General Implications of Intimate Physical Partner Violence Mediate or Intensify the Controversy?

Gender Differences in Risk Markers for Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence: Results from a Meta-Analytic Review

Current Controversies Concerning Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence

Bridging the two Sides of a 30-Year Controversy over Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence

Understanding Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: The Enduring Relevance of Feminist Ways of Knowing

Where Do We Go from here?: Examining Intimate Partner Violence by Bringing Male Victims, Female Perpetrators, and Psychological Sciences into the Fold