Top

Published in:

01-11-2016 | Original Article

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

Authors: Michael Weinberg, Ronit Smadar-Dror

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

Abstract

A common assumption is that gender can be studied through the differences between men and women living in intimate partner violent (IPV) relationships. Mainly, that general gender behavior can be studied through IPV. This approach is examined and an alternative possibility for a broad agreement is suggested. Accordingly, gender motives reflecting status enhancement for men and risk reduction for women can be dominant in daily conduct and implemented in intimate relationships. The suggestions made in this article can be seen as an alternative agreed starting point for the study of IPV free of a priori premises and conventions. Theoretical and practical implications are suggested which can mediate between the approaches regarding gender and IPV and perhaps clarify the controversy so that different psychological interventions may be applied.

Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? American Psychologist, 51, 909–917.CrossRefPubMed

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5).

Bates, E. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2014). Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's PV. Aggressive behavior, 40(1), 42–55.CrossRefPubMed

Bettencourt, A. A., & Kernahan, C. (1997). A meta-analysis of aggression in the presence of violent cues: Effects of gender differences and aversive provocations. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 447–456.CrossRef

Bettencourt, A. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447.CrossRefPubMed

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1988). Research as social action: The struggle for battered women. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 51–74). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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

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

Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.CrossRefPubMed

Felson, R. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef

Felson, RB. (2006). Is violence against women about women or about violence? Contexts Magazine, vol. 5, issue 2. Reprinted in The Contexts Reader, edited by Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper, W.W. Norton Press and the American Sociological Association. 2007. Reprinted in Ruminations on Violence, edited by Derek Pardue, Waveland Press, 2008.

Hamby, S. (2014). Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Research Scientific Progress, Scientific Challenges, and Gender. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 149–158.CrossRef

Hamby, S. (2015). A scientific answer to a scientific question: The gender debate on intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. doi:10.1177/1524838015596963.

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1108.

Jose, A., & O’leary, K. D. (2008). Prevalence of partner aggression in representative and clinic samples. In K. D. O’leary & A. Jose (Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes an intervention (pp. 15–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review. Violence against women, 8(11), 1332–1363.CrossRef

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate PV in the United States. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 179–193.CrossRef

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Misra, T. A. (2012). Motivations for men and women's intimate partner violence perpetration: a comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 429–468.CrossRef

Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17–44). Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRef

Straus, M. A. (2008a). Bucking the tide in family violence research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9(4), 191–213.CrossRef

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

Straus, M. A. (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 279–288.

Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(1), 133.CrossRefPubMed

Winstok, Z.(2011). The paradigmatic cleavage on gender differences in partner violence perpetration and victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior,16, 303–311.

Winstok, Z. (2012). PV: A New Paradigm for Understanding Conflict Escalation. The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality. Publisher: Springer.

Winstok, Z. (2014). Effects of childhood experience of violence between parents and/or parent-to-child violence on young Israeli adults’ global self-esteem. Violence and Victims, 30(4), 699–712.CrossRef

Winstok, Z. & Straus, M. A. (2014). Gender Differences in the Link between Intimate Partner Physical Violence and Depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2), 91–100.

Winstok, Z. (2015). Critical review of Hamby’s (2014) article titled “Intimate partner and sexual violence research, scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. doi:10.1177/1524838015596962.

Winstok, Z., & Straus, M. (2011). Gender Differences in Intended Escalatory Tendencies among Marital Partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(18), 3599–3617.CrossRefPubMed

Title: When Agreements Blur Disputes: Do Common Assumptions Regarding General Implications of Intimate Physical Partner Violence Mediate or Intensify the Controversy?
Authors: Michael Weinberg
Ronit Smadar-Dror
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/s10896-016-9884-1

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Changing the Domestic Violence Narrative: Aligning Definitions and Standards

Gender Arguments and Paradigmatic Challenges within Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Call for a more Inclusive Paradigm of Understanding Regarding Physical Partner Violence Perpetration

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

Methodological Contributions to the Gender Symmetry Debate and its Resolution

Implications of Partner Agreement of IPV for the Gender Symmetry Controversy

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