Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Family Violence
Published in: Journal of Family Violence 8/2016

01-11-2016 | Original Article

Understanding Gender Symmetry within an Expanded Partner Violence Typology

Authors: Annelise Mennicke, Shanti Kulkarni

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

Login to get access

Abstract

Controversies persist regarding the pervasiveness of gender symmetrical patterns of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration even as IPV research has proliferated. Johnson’s typology accounts for gender symmetrical and asymmetrical patterns of partner violence; unfortunately this framework has been poorly integrated into our research methods resulting in a fragmented knowledgebase. The original typology can be expanded to account for patterns of control absent of physical violence at the dyadic level. Measures based upon an expanded typology will allow us to better explore the theoretical underpinnings of gender symmetry in partner violence categories, and facilitate category-specific intervention development.
Literature
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.CrossRefPubMed
Basile, K. C., Arias, I., Desai, S., & Thompson, M. P. (2004). The differential association of intimate partner physical, sexual, psychological, and stalking violence and posttraumatic stress symptoms in a nationally representative sample of women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(5), 413–421.CrossRefPubMed
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260–268.CrossRefPubMed
Dobash, R., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against 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(1), 71–91.CrossRef
Dutton, M. A. (1992). Understanding women's responses to domestic violence: A redefinition of battered woman syndrome. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 1193–1208.
Dutton, M. A., Goodman, L., & Schmidt, R. J. (2006). Development and validation of a coercive control measure for intimate partner violence: Final technical report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Evans, M., Gergory, A., Feder, G., Howarth, E., & Hegarty, K. (2016). “Even ‘daily’ is not enough”: how well do we measure domestic violence and abuse? – A think-aloud study of a commonly used self-report scale. Violence and Victims, 31, 3–26.CrossRefPubMed
Fiebert, M. S. (2010). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated bibliography. Sexuality and Culture, 14(1), 49–91.CrossRef
Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: a test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1247–1270.CrossRefPubMed
Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003–1018.CrossRefPubMed
Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: intimate terrorism, violent resistance and situational couple violence. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.
Kulkarni, S. J., Woods, S. J., & Mennicke, A. M. (2016). Intimate partner violence (IPV) in the workplace: Exploring gender differences in current health outcomes. Health and Social Work.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 221–225.CrossRef
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Mirsa, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. (2012). Rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: a comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199–230.CrossRef
Loseke, D. R., & Kurz, D. (2005). Men’s violence toward women is the serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence (pp. 79–95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRef
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. Springer Publishing Company.
Ross, J. M., & Babcock, J. C. (2009). Gender differences in partner violence in context: deconstructing Johnson’s (2001) control-based typology of violent couples. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 604–622.CrossRef
Smith, P. H., Earp, J. A., & DeVellis, R. (1995). Measuring battering, Development of the Women’s Experience with Battering (WEB) Scale. Women's Health, 1(4), 273–288.PubMed
Smith, P. H., Smith, J. B., & Earp, J. L. (1999). Beyond the measurement trap: a reconstructed conceptualization and measurement of woman battering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 179–195.
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York. NY: Oxford University Press.
Straus, M. A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1, 332–362.CrossRef
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, 13, 283–316.CrossRef
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Understanding Gender Symmetry within an Expanded Partner Violence Typology
Authors
Annelise Mennicke
Shanti Kulkarni
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/s10896-016-9867-2

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Journal of Family Violence 8/2016 Go to the issue

Original Article

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

Original Article

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

Erratum

Erratum to: Pushing the Paradigm: Addressing Controversies over LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Acknowledgment of Reviewers for Volume 31

Original Article

Embracing the Complexity of Partner Violence from a Violent Events Perspective

Original Article

Changing the Domestic Violence Narrative: Aligning Definitions and Standards