PV rates 1

PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Physical aggression only

Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism”

Dating partner violence

PV rates 2

ARCHER META-ANALYSIS

• 82 studies with data on both men and women

• “women were significantly more likely than men to have used physical aggression toward their partners and to have used it more frequently” (p. 664).

• effect size small (d = -.05) (Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-

analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–681)

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 175 STUDIES BY FIEBERT

No statistical analysis, but same conclusion

PV rates 3

PREVALENCE RATES FROM NATIONAL SURVEYS

Study Female Male

1985 National Survey of Family Violence 11.3% Overall 3.0% severe

12.1% 4.4%

1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey 9.1% overall1.9% severe

9.5% overall4.5% severe

2001National Violence Against Women Survey 1.3% 0.9%

National Crime Victimization Survey 0.43% 0.08%

Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study 40.9% 47.4%

1992 National Youth Survey 20.2% overall5.7% severe

34.1% overall13.8% severe

PV rates 4

U.S. NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE SURVEYSAS REPORTED BY WOMEN

ASSAULTS BY:Men

WOMEN A. MINOR ASSAULTS` 1975 8.6 8.3` 1985 7.2 7.4

1992 10.5 10.0

B. SEVERE ASSAULTS1975 4.1 4.41985 4.2 4.21992 2.4 2.9

PV rates 5

National Comorbidity Study. N = 3,537 age 15-54

(Kessler et al, 2001) PERCENT WHO ASSAULTED A PARTNER

IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS

ASSAULTS BY:MEN WOMEN

Minor assaults as reported by female partner 17.4 17.7

Severe assaults as reported by female partner 6.5 6.2

PV rates 6

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

MALE PERPETRATOR FEMALE PERP

AS

SA

UL

TS

N=8,000RATE=0.9%

N=8,000 RATE =1.3%

US NATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SURVEYASSAULTS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS

• CARRIED OUT TO PROVE THAT GENDER SYMMETRY IS WRONG.

• BUT FOUND THAT WOMEN COMMIT 38% OF PARTNER ASSAULTS

(Tjaden et al., 2000)

PV rates 7

THREE CANADIAN STUDIES BY ACADEMICS

ASSAULTS BY:HUSB WIFE

A. OVERALL ASSAULT RATE1981 Calgary Study (n=562) 10.3% 13.2%

(Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988)1986 Canada National Study (n=954) 17.8% 23.3%

(Lupri, 1990)1987 Alberta Study (n-708) 11.2% 12.4%

(Kennedy & Dutton, 1989)

B. SEVERE ASSAULT RATE1981 Calgary Study (n=562) 4.8% 10.7%

(Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988)1986 Canada National Study (n=954) 10.1% 12.9%

(Lupri, 1990)1987 Alberta Study (n=708) 2.3% 4.7%

(Kennedy & Dutton, 1989)

PV rates 8

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SURVEY, 1999

MEN WOMENASSAULTED BY A PARTNER IN LAST 5 YEARS 7% 8%

PHYSICALLY INJURED BY PARTNER 13% 40%

RECEIVED MEDICAL ATTENTION 3% 15%

FEARED FOR THEIR LIFE 7% 38%

Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000. Statistics Canada, July 2000. Publication 85-224-XIE

PV rates 9

TRANSLATE PARTNER VIOLENCE PERCENTAGE RATES INTO RATES PER 100,000

FBI rates: per 100,000o aggravated assaults 190 per 100,000

Severe assaults by male partners 4.1% = 4,100 per 100,000Severe assaults by female partners 4.2% = 4,200 per 100,000

(partner violence rates are as reported by women in 1985 NFVS)

PV rates 10

WOMEN COMMIT ABOUT A THIRD OF MURDERS OF INTIMATE PARTNERS, BUT

THE PERCENTAGE HAS BEEN DECREASING

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

FE

MA

LE

OF

FE

ND

ER

PE

RC

EN

T

BASED ON GREENFELD ET AL, VIOLENCE BY INTIMATES , APPENDIX TABLE 5NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE PUBLICATION NCJ-167237, 1998

cCHARTS\FAMVIOL\GENDER\HOMICIDE BY FEMALES

WOMENS

SHARE OF

HOMICIDE

2,OOO= 35%

PV rates 11

PV rates 12

ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF ASSAULT AND INJURY VICTIMIZATION BY GENDER Estimated From The 1985 National Family Violence Survey

National Rate (%) National Number Female Males Females Males

Any assault 11.6 12.4 6,250,000 6,800,000 One or more severe assaults 3.4 4.8 1,800,000 2,600,000 Assault resulting in injury 0.2 0.6 189,000 63,000

FEMALE VICTIMS 3 or more severe assaults 1.1 600.000 5 or more severe assaults 0.9 450,000 12 or more severe assaults 0.5 270.000 12 or more severe assaults with injury 0.4 189.000

ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF “BEATEN WIVES” RANGES FROM 6,250,000 TO 189,000 DEPENDING ON THE CRITERIA

Straus, M. A. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for public policy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19-47). Cincinnati: Anderson

PV rates 13

GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE PERPETRATION DEPENDS ON WHETHER INJURY AND FEAR ARE CRITERIA

• IF ASSAULT IS THE CRITERION Gender Difference in PerpetrationMinor assaults

(Slapping, throwing things) NoneSevere assaults

(Punching, kicking, choking) None

• IF INJURY IS ADDED AS A CRITERION Female 1/3 of male rate

• IF FEAR IS ADDED Female rate may be only a tenth of male rate

• IF KEEPING PARTNER ALMOST A No data but female rate is a PRISONER BY REPEATED AND tiny fraction of male rateSEVERE ASSAULTS AND THREATS

PV rates 14

DATING VIOLENCE

FROM MELISSA HOLT PAPER

PV rates 15

INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY (17 COUNTRIES)

University Site Total Fem/Male% University Site Total Fem/Male%

USA-LOUISIAN 44.7 (38.1 48.2) 126.4% IND-PUNE 22.2 (12.5 25.8) 206.1%USA-WASH DC 44.6 (46.2 44.3) 96.0% USA-LOUISIAN 21.0 (18.0 22.5) 125.3%MEX-JUAREZ 42.0 (30.8 44.3) 143.9% USA-MISSISSP 20.5 (20.0 20.6) 102.9%IND-PUNE 39.0 (33.3 41.2) 123.6% KOR-PUSAN 17.4 (9.9 22.2) 224.9%CAN-LONDON 36.3 (25.9 44.2) 170.8% USA-WASH DC 17.1 (7.7 18.8) 245.0%USA-MISSISSP 34.5 (24.0 35.7) 148.7% CAN-LONDON 15.6 (13.8 16.9) 122.4%KOR-PUSAN 33.7 (24.7 39.4) 159.5% MEX-JUAREZ 15.4 (12.8 15.9) 123.8%USA-INDIANA 33.5 (39.0 31.5) 80.7% GBR-SCOTLAND 14.2 (2.9 16.2) 552.0%USA-TX-MEX 33.1 (34.0 32.4) 95.3% USA-INDIANA 13.4 (18.6 11.5) 61.5%GBR-SCOTLAND 31.9 (14.7 34.9) 237.3% CAN-TORONTO 12.4 (8.5 14.4) 168.4%USA-TX NCDCHS 31.3 (42.4 26.8) 63.2% USA-TX-N MEX 12.3 (11.8 12.8) 108.8%BEL-FLEMISH 31.0 (26.0 32.5) 124.8% HKG-HONGKONG 11.4 (5.8 15.0) 261.6%CAN-TORONTO 30.6 (23.8 34.2) 143.5% USA-CINCINN 11.3 (12.1 10.5) 86.7%USA-TX-N MEX 30.6 (31.1 30.2) 96.9% NZL-CHRISTCH 10.6 (4.2 12.4) 296.4%NDL-AMSTRDAM 30.2 (31.4 29.7) 94.5% USA-TX NCDCHS 10.4 (21.2 6.1) 28.8%DEU-FREIBURG 29.5 (37.1 24.0) 64.5% CAN-HAMILTON 9.6 (5.4 10.3) 190.4%HKG-HONGKONG 28.6 (19.5 34.6) 177.0% USA-TX-MEX 9.6 (10.8 8.9) 82.8%CAN-WINNIPEG 28.6 (29.4 28.5) 96.8% CAN-WINNIPEG 9.4 (12.5 9.0) 72.2%USA-NH 1 28.5 (24.7 30.2) 122.4% ISR-EMEKZYRL 9.4 (9.7 9.4) 96.6%NZL-CHRISTCH 26.6 (16.7 29.2) 175.2% AUS-ADELAIDE 9.2 (9.5 9.1) 96.0%USA-NH 2 26.5 (26.1 26.6) 101.9% USA-NH 2 9.0 (9.0 9.1) 101.0%CHE-FRENCH 24.5 (30.2 22.5) 74.6% CAN-MONTREAL 8.8 (7.9 9.1) 114.5%USA-CINCINN 24.5 (22.8 26.1) 114.4% CHE-GERMAN 8.7 (7.4 9.0) 121.5%CHE-GERMAN 23.9 (18.5 25.2) 136.3% USA-NH 1 8.2 (4.3 10.0) 230.9%BRA-SAOPAULO 23.3 (22.4 23.8) 106.3% BEL-FLEMISH 8.1 (6.0 8.7) 145.3%CAN-HAMILTON 23.0 (13.5 24.5) 181.1% PRT-BRAGA 7.6 (9.4 5.0) 53.1%CAN-MONTREAL 22.8 (20.6 23.4) 113.3% DEU-FREIBURG 7.3 (10.3 5.2) 50.6%SGP-SINGAPORE 22.7 (11.6 27.8) 239.9% BRA-SAOPAULO 6.8 (8.4 6.1) 72.5%AUS-ADELAIDE 21.3 (19.1 21.8) 114.6% USA-UTAH 6.1 (4.5 7.0) 156.7%ISR-EMEKZYRL 20.8 (22.6 20.4) 90.2% SGP-SINGAPORE 5.0 (1.5 6.6) 456.6%USA-PENNSLVNA 20.4 (15.1 22.1) 146.4% USA-PENNSLVNA 4.6 (5.7 4.3) 75.8%USA-UTAH 17.7 (16.4 18.4) 112.2% CHE-FRENCH 4.5 (8.0 3.3) 41.4%PRT-BRAGA 17.1 (17.4 16.7) 95.6% NDL-AMSTRDAM 4.4 (8.6 3.0) 34.7%

R: Tot-Male= .54, Tot-Female= .96, Male-Female=.31R: Tot-Male= .71, Tot-Fem= .94, Male-Female= .46

Overall Assault Perpetration Severe Assault Perpetration

(Male Female) (Male Female)

PV rates 16

PREVALENCE RATES FORADOLESCENTS DATING VIOLENCE

•Between 10% (Roscoe & Callahan, 1985) and 55% (O’Keefe, 1998). Estimates vary due to the definition of dating violence used, type

of dating violence under consideration, and method of assessment. • Rates tend to be the highest when emotional abuse is included considered (e.g., Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992).• When defined as physically violent acts rates are between 20%

(O’Keefe, Brockopp, & Chew, 1986) and 50% (Sudermann & Jaffe, 1993)

• Less severe forms of physical violence (e.g., slapping) are more common than extreme forms (e.g., choking) (Roscoe & Callahan, 1985; Carlson(1987)

• The longer the relationship, the higher the probability of violence. The same pattern also found among older dating couples (Gaertner & Foshee, 1999).

(refs are in Melissa Holt December 2002 seminar paper)

PV rates 17

AGE OF ONSET OF DATING VIOLENCE

29% experienced their first incident of dating violence between the ages of 12 and 13

40% were first victimized between the ages of 14 and 15 (Burcky et al., 1988).

PV rates 18

DATING VIOLENCE HAS SERIOUS EFFECTS

Study of 123 high school students (Burcky and colleagues, 1988)

6% No long or short term effect56% Upset them, but no long-term effects 8% Continuing emotional disturbance such as

feelings of confusion] anger

sadnessremorse, lowered self-esteem

PV rates 19

END FOR SOC 695

PV rates 20

PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Physical and psychological aggression

Police statistics and crime surveysNational crime victimization survey

FBI supplemental homicide reports

Surveys of family and psychological problemsThe national family violence surveysNational co-morbidity studyInternational dating violence studyAll but one used the CTS

Archer meta analysis

Past year rates versus ever occurred rates

Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism”

PV rates 21

BRITISH CRIME SURVEY, 1996 MEN WOMEN

Assaulted Partner past year 4% 4% Injured partner 49% 31%

PV rates 22

PV rates 23

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 (No. NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

PV rates 24

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RATES

(SEE ALSO MUTUALITY

PV rates 25

PV rates 26

TABLE 10. Percentage of high school students who perpetrated dating violence by sex, race/ethnicity, and grade — United States, Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2003

Perpetration by:

Fes s

PV rates 27

ANNUAL INCIDENCE OF ASSAULT AND INJURY VICTIMIZATION BY GENDER Estimated From The 1985 National Family Violence Survey

National Rate (%) National Number Female Males Females Males

Any assault 11.6 12.4 6,250,000 6,800,000 One or more severe assaults 3.4 4.8 1,800,000 2,600,000 Assault resulting in injury 0.2 0.6 189,000 63,000

FEMALE VICTIMS 3 or more severe assaults 1.1 600.000 5 or more severe assaults 0.9 450,000 12 or more severe assaults 0.5 270.000 12 or more severe assaults with injury 0.4 189.000

ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF “BEATEN WIVES” RANGES FROM 6,250,000 TO 189,000 DEPENDING ON THE CRITERIA

Straus, M. A. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for public policy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19-47). Cincinnati: Anderson

PV rates 28

Abused Women or Abused Men? An Examination of the Context and Outcomes of Dating Violence, Melanie Harned , 2001. Study of undergraduate and undergraduate students found "women and men reported comparable amounts of overall aggression from dating partners."

For a bliography of these studies, and a meta analysis see (Archer, 2000) (Fiebert, 1997) Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between

heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680.

Fiebert, M. S. (1997). Annotated bibliography: References examining assaults by women on their spouses/partners. In B. M. Dank & R. Refinette (Eds.), Sexual harassment & sexual consent (Vol. 1, pp. 273-286). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

PV rates 29

PV rates 30

PV rates 31

PV rates 32

PV rates 33

PV rates 34

PV rates 35

PV rates 36

National Survey Of Families And Households (Salarai and Baldwin, 2003)

PV rates 37

THE NATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SURVEY

PART OF THE MOTIVE•A comprehensive, nationally representative study like the New Hampshire National Family Violence Surveys

•But avoid showing high perpetration rates by women by not asking about that

CDC INTERVENTION•Added a sample of males

BIASED INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA•Only “ever occurred” rates presented at first, because they show a

bigger gender difference •Press release focused on male predominance•Correct focus: a problem in the behavior of both partners, even though male rates somewhat higher.

•Analogous to CDC conducting a study of high blood pressure and reporting only that Blacks have this problem more than whites

PV rates 38