Top

Published in:

01-11-2016 | Original Article

It is and it is not: the Importance of Context when Exploring Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence

Authors: Nicole L. Johnson, Samantha C. Holmes, Dawn M. Johnson

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

Abstract

The literature on gender differences in perpetration of physical partner violence (PV) consists of two opposing camps: those who emphasize gender symmetry, and those who emphasize gender asymmetry. We propose a both/and approach to this controversy by suggesting that the issue of gender symmetry is complex and dependent upon context. Furthermore, we discuss how the role of personal investment in political agendas contributes to this divide in the literature. We argue that this both/and approach to inquiry will significantly contribute to the understanding of gender differences in perpetration of PV, as well inform the development of interventions for PV.

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.

Allen, C. T., Swan, S. C., & Raghavan, C. (2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816–1834.CrossRefPubMed

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.CrossRefPubMed

Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351.CrossRef

Barnett, O. W., Lee, C. Y., & Thelen, R. E. (1997). Gender differences in attributions of self-defense and control in interpartner aggression. Violence Against Women, 3, 462–481.CrossRefPubMed

Dietz, M. G. (1987). Context is all: Feminism and theories of citizenship. Daedalus, 116, 1–24.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.

Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.CrossRef

Fals-Stewart, W., & O’Farrell, T. J. (1998). Domestic violence among primary drug abusers. In Paper presented at the 8th international conference on the treatment of addictive behaviors. Santa: Fe, NM.

Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G. R., & Kelley, M. L. (2003). The timeline followback spousal violence interview to assess physical aggression between intimate partners: Reliability and validity. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 131–142.CrossRef

Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. In S. Firestone & A. Koedt (Eds.), Notes from the second year: Women’s liberation major writings of radical feminists (pp. 76–78). New York, NY: Self-Published.

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

Martin, D. (1981). Battered wives. Volcano, CA: Volcano Press.

Mooney, J. (1994). The hidden figure: Domestic violence in North London. London: Islington Council.

Pezalla, A. E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M. (2012). Researching the researcher-as-instrument: An exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity. Qualitative Research, 12, 165–185.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.CrossRef

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1988). How violent are American families? Estimates from the National Family Violence Resurvey and other studies. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp. 14–36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Violence in the American family: Behind closed doors. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001.CrossRef

Swan, S. C., Gambone, L. J., Caldwell, J. E., Sullivan, T. P., & Snow, D. L. (2008). A review of research on women's use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23, 301–314.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Worell, J., & Remer, P. (2002). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowering diverse women (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Title: It is and it is not: the Importance of Context when Exploring Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner Violence
Authors: Nicole L. Johnson
Samantha C. Holmes
Dawn M. Johnson
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/s10896-016-9858-3

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

It is and it is not: the Importance of Context when Exploring Gender Differences in Perpetration of Physical Partner 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

Self-Defense, Retaliation, and Gender: Clarifying Motivations for Physical Partner Violence

Understanding Gender Symmetry within an Expanded Partner Violence Typology

Partner Aggression Versus Partner Abuse Terminology: Moving the Field Forward and Resolving Controversies

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

The Impact of the Gender Differences Controversy on Female-Specific Physical Dating Violence Prevention Programming

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