See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236245485

Prevalence of Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships,

Part 1: Rates of Male and Female Victimization

Article in Partner Abuse · April 2012

DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.e1

CITATIONS READS
119 3,980

5 authors, including:

Sarah L Desmarais Kim A Reeves

Policy Research Associates Simon Fraser University
165 PUBLICATIONS 3,746 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 1,164 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tonia L Nicholls Martin Fiebert

University of British Columbia California State University, Long Beach
210 PUBLICATIONS 5,510 CITATIONS 76 PUBLICATIONS 1,171 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Fiebert on 18 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Number 2, 2012

Prevalence of Physical Violence

in Intimate Relationships, Part 2:
Rates of Male and Female Perpetration

Sarah L. Desmarais, PhD

University of South Florida

Kim A. Reeves, MA
Simon Fraser University, Canada

Tonia L. Nicholls, PhD

Simon Fraser University, Canada
British Columbia Mental Health & Addiction Services
University of British Columbia

Robin P. Telford, MA
University of South Florida

Martin S. Fiebert, PhD

California State University Long Beach

Physical violence perpetrated by men against their female partners is

widely recognized as a serious social problem. Whether women’s use of
physical violence against their male partners represents a serious social
problem remains a question under debate. We examined research published
in the last 10 years to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding

ONLINE TABLES: Detailed summaries of the 111 studies reviewed in this article can be found
in five tables available online at http://www.springerpub.com/pa. Click on the link to “The Partner
Abuse State of Knowledge Project,” and go to Topic 2 in the online document.

170 © 2012 Springer Publishing Company

 http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.170
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 171

the prevalence of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women in hetero-

sexual relationships. Our specific aims were to (a) describe the prevalence
of ­physical IPV perpetration in industrialized, English-speaking nations,
and (b) explore study and sample characteristics that affect prevalence.
Literature searches undertaken in 3 databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and
Web of Science) identified 750 articles published between 2000 and 2010.
We included 111 articles that reported 272 rates of physical IPV perpetra-
tion in our review: 25 articles reported 34 rates for men, 14 articles reported
24 rates for women, and 72 articles reported 214 rates for both men and
women. The vast majority of studies were conducted in the United States
(k 5 95, 85.6%) and most (k 5 81, 73.0%) measured IPV using a Conflict
Tactics Scale-based approach. We calculated unweighted, pooled prevalence
estimates for ­female and male perpetration overall and by sample type,
country, measurement time frame, and measurement approach. Across
studies, the overall pooled prevalence estimate was 24.8%. Consistent with
prior reviews, pooled prevalence was slightly greater for female- compared
to ­male-perpetrated physical IPV: more than 1 in 4 women (28.3%) and 1
in 5 men (21.6%) reported perpetrating physical violence in an intimate
relationship. This pattern of results remained when we calculated pooled
prevalence estimates by sample and study characteristics, with few excep-
tions. Findings underscore the need for interventions that acknowledge the
use of violence by women in intimate relationships.

KEYWORDS: intimate partner violence; prevalence; physical assault; perpetration; literature review

In contrast with the historical treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV) as

a private matter for couples to resolve “behind closed doors” (Straus, Gelles, &
­Steinmetz, 1981), we now recognize physical violence perpetrated by men against
their female partners as a serious social problem. Today, in most English-speaking,
­industrialized countries, perpetration of IPV is seen as a crime, and sanctions are
in place to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions (American Psychological
Association [APA], 2002). For instance, in the United States, all states authorize
warrantless arrests of perpetrators based on the arresting officer’s determination
that a domestic violence offense has occurred and that the arrestee has committed
this offense ­(Dutton & Corvo, 2006). In 21 states and the District of Columbia, arrest
is mandatory (Miller, 2004). In many North American jurisdictions and elsewhere,
perpetrators of IPV frequently are mandated to participate in treatment programs
such as Batterer Intervention Programs or BIPs (Barner & Carney, 2011). Together,
these efforts represent important advances in the public policy and criminal justice
­response to IPV.
Despite substantial advances, there are still significant limitations to our treat-
ment of IPV. In particular, violence perpetrated in intimate relationships continues to
be viewed as an issue of male dominance; that is, acts perpetrated by a man against
172 Desmarais et al.

his female partner in order to gain power and control in the relationship (Dutton
& Corvo, 2007; Straus, 2011). When acknowledged, violence perpetrated by women
against their male partners is viewed as occurring within the context of self-defense
or in response to a pattern of abuse perpetrated by their partner (Dasgupta, 2002;
Swan & Snow, 2006; Worcester, 2002). In contrast with this perspective, frequently
referred to as the gender or patriarchal paradigm (see Dutton & Nicholls, 2005 and
Hamel, 2007 for further discussion), research demonstrates considerable heteroge-
neity in the characteristics and motivations of perpetrators of IPV (Dutton, 2006;
Flynn & Graham, 2010; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Pruden, in press). It
is true that physical violence perpetrated by women is less likely to result in physi-
cal injury (Straus, 2004), and women suffer higher rates of serious injury (Cowell &
­Burgess, 1996; Department of Justice, 2011); however, the physical, psychological, and
financial injuries resulting from women’s perpetration of physical IPV are neither
infrequent nor inconsequential (e.g., Coker et al., 2002; LaRoche, 2008; Reid et al.,
2008; Rennison, 2003). Yet, both criminal and civil justice systems are less respon-
sive to ­allegations of female-perpetrated IPV (Basile, 2004; Brown, 2004; ­Henning &
­Renauer, 2005; Muller, Desmarais, & Hamel, 2009), and few treatment programs spe-
cifically address the needs of women who use violence against men (Carney, ­Buttell,
& ­Dutton, 2007; Dutton & Corvo, 2006; Larance, 2006).
The strongest argument for the need for such interventions comes from the large
body of research reporting that men and women physically assault their partners at
similar rates. Indeed, this “gender symmetry” has challenged prevailing IPV theory,
policy, and practice for more than 30 years (cf., Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011; Straus,
2009). The 1975 and 1985 National Family Violence Surveys found that overall rates
of female-to-male physical IPV were slightly higher than rates of ­male-to-female
physical IPV (Straus & Gelles, 1986). When disaggregated by severity, rates remained
similar: the rate of minor physical IPV by women was 78 per 1,000 and by men was
72 per 1,000, and the rate of severe physical IPV by women was 46 per 1,000 couples
and by men was 50 per 1,000 couples, both nonsignificant differences. Since then,
more than 200 so-called “family conflict studies” (i.e., those that ask respondents to
report on physically aggressive behaviors that occur within the context of interper-
sonal conflict) have continued to report approximately equal rates of physical IPV
perpetrated by men and women (Straus, 2011). In stark contrast, however, “crime
studies” (i.e., those that examine rates of physical IPV either reported to the police
or defined by respondents as constituting a crime), yield much lower rates overall,
and of female-perpetrated IPV specifically. For instance, according to the ­National
Crime ­Victimization Survey, an annual survey of approximately 76,000 households
conducted in the United States, the rate of physical IPV perpetrated by men is
­approximately seven times higher than the rate for women (Straus, 2004). Discussed
at length elsewhere (e.g., Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005;
Straus, 2004), discrepancies between the findings of family conflict and crime studies
may reflect that many victims, and men in particular, do not label their victimiza-
tion experiences as a crime, but also that men typically are less fearful and injured
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 173

less frequently than are women (Coker et al., 2002; LaRoche, 2008; Reid et al., 2008;
­Rennison, 2003).
Archer (2000) conducted a meta-analytic review of 82 studies that provided rates
of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women. Overall, results provided support for
similarities rather than differences in the prevalence of male- and female-perpetrated
physical IPV. Across studies using self-report measures of IPV perpetration, compari-
sons of unweighted effect sizes revealed that women were more likely than men to
report perpetrating IPV; whereas when partner reports were used, men and women’s
rates of IPV perpetration were more similar (with the lack of significant difference
attributed to outliers). When weighted effect sizes were compared, higher rates of
physical IPV again were found for women compared to men, although women also
were more likely to be injured and to require medical treatment for their injuries.
Although few studies were conducted in countries other than the United States, those
that were included in the review (k 5 10) also showed higher rates of physical IPV
perpetration for women than for men.
The annotated bibliography developed and periodically updated by Martin ­Fiebert
(1997, 2004, 2010) provides further evidence of women’s use of physical violence
against their male partners. In its most recent iteration, this bibliography summa-
rizes 271 scholarly investigations (211 empirical studies and 60 reviews) conducted
since the 1970s that reported rates of assaults by women against their male part-
ners and spouses. A review of the article summaries demonstrates that women often
are physically aggressive in their intimate relationships; however, whether rates
are indeed comparable overall is unclear as the nature of an annotated bibliogra-
phy prevents further synthesis or comparison of study results. Fiebert’s annotated
bibliography also is limited by its focus on articles reporting female-perpetrated IPV
to the exclusion of IPV perpetrated by men (although male prevalence rates were
included if they happened to be mentioned in a study of female perpetration).
Most recently, Straus (2011) conducted a meta-analytic review of 91 empirical
studies comparing rates of “clinical-level” IPV, defined as severe assaults such as
punching, choking, and attacks with objects or physical acts resulting in injury, per-
petrated by men and women during the same reference period (although time frames
varied across studies). Across the 36 general population study comparisons of severe
assaults, we again see slightly higher rates of perpetration by women than by men:
the median percentage of IPV perpetrated by women was 7% and by men was 5%.
In contrast, across the 14 general population studies comparing rates of injury, preva-
lence was greater for male- than female-perpetrated IPV: the median percentage of
men who injured a partner was 14% and of women was 7%. In the 21 studies compar-
ing rates of severe assault or injury in agency samples—that is, studies of samples in
which there was an intervention by social service or law enforcement agencies—the
median prevalence for male-perpetrated IPV was 63% and for female-perpetrated
IPV was 48%. Although the latter findings indicate considerably higher prevalence
for men than women, they nonetheless underscore the occurrence of severe female-
perpetrated IPV.
174 Desmarais et al.

THE PRESENT STUDY

Despite evidence of gender symmetry in perpetration rates, whether women’s use of phys-
ical violence against their male partners represents a serious social problem remains a
question under debate. The reviews discussed in this introduction have been criticized for
their failure to include crime studies that show much higher rates of IPV perpetrated by
men than women and to account for women’s use of violence in self-defense or the misap-
plication of the term “assault” (cf., Saunders, 2002). These studies also have been criticized
for their failure to disaggregate findings by sample type and, in particular, inclusion of a
high proportion of studies reporting IPV in dating samples, the predominance of studies
conducted in the United States, failure to aggregate sexual and nonsexual aggression,
and their use of the Conflict Tactic Scale definition of physical IPV (Frieze, 2000; White,
Smith, Koss, & Figueredo, 2000). They also are limited by their failure to disaggregate
rates of male- and female-perpetrated physical IPV as a function of severity (e.g., minor
vs. severe). Finally, although widely accepted as the most comprehensive investigation of
sex differences in physical IPV perpetration in heterosexual relationships to date (Dixon
& Graham-Kevin, 2011), it has been over a decade since Archer (2000) published his
­review. Consequently, results may not reflect the current prevalence rates.
In an effort to address some of these limitations, this study examined research
­published in the last 10 years reporting rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and/
or women in heterosexual relationships. Our goal was to summarize the current state
of knowledge regarding the prevalence of physical IPV perpetration in heterosexual
relationships. Our specific aims were to (a) describe the prevalence of physical IPV
perpetrated by men and women in heterosexual relationships in ­English-speaking
nations, and (b) explore how prevalence rates differed as a function of study and
­sample characteristics.

METHODS

Eligibility Criteria

To be included in our review, studies had to meet three broad inclusion criteria. First,
they needed to present empirical data regarding the prevalence of physical IPV per-
petration (see Part 1 for victimization rates; Desmarais, Reeves, Nicholls, Telford, &
Fiebert, 2012). Second, the IPV must have occurred within the context of a heterosex-
ual relationship. Third, articles were excluded if they reported findings of studies in
which participants were sampled from an identified population of IPV perpetrators,
such as individuals arrested for domestic violence and court-mandated to batterer
intervention programs because the prevalence of IPV perpetration would be skewed;
that is, 100% of participants would report perpetrating IPV in their lifetime. In con-
trast with the methodologies of both Archer (2000) and Straus (2011), we included
studies that reported rates of male- and/or female-perpetrated IPV, rather than only
focusing on articles that reported rates for both men and women. We chose not to
use strict protocols for evaluating methodological rigor and excluding studies that
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 175

failed to meet a certain threshold because we wanted to encompass studies that used
diverse samples and various methodologies. In this way, we hoped to avoid some of
the criticisms of previous reviews for systematically excluding “crime studies” that
typically show higher rates of male- than female-perpetrated physical IPV. Thus, our
approach may be more appropriately described as a narrative rather than a system-
atic review (Collins & Fraser, 2005).

Search Procedure

A systematic search of the published literature was carried out using PubMed
(­scholarly publications in the biomedical and life sciences), PsycINFO (scholarly pub-
lications in the psychological, social, behavioral, and health sciences), and the Social
Science database of Web of Science. The following keywords and stems were used
in separate and combined searches: date; dating; partner*; domestic; spous*; mari-
tal; wife; husband; intimate partner; batter*; violen*; abus*; aggress*. Findings were
limited to peer-reviewed journal articles and studies sampling human subjects aged
13 years or older conducted in industrialized, English-speaking countries (including
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United States, and the United
Kingdom). Articles written in languages other than English were excluded. This led
to an initial identification of more than 50,000 articles (including replicates) across
databases and searches. We then selected articles published between January 2000
and December 2010, reducing the number of findings to 37,615.

Review Process

A preliminary screening of the titles and abstracts to assess whether the content was
likely to meet our eligibility criteria reduced the number of articles to 6,203. Elimina-
tion of replicates and a second review of study abstracts led to retrieval of 750 articles
for further analysis.

Data Synthesis

Full text was retrieved for these 750 articles and reviewed in detail for inclusion
and data extraction. Final review narrowed the set of articles to 111. Data were
­extracted following a protocol developed and defined by the authors for the purpose
of this ­review (available upon request). Information regarding measurement time
frame (e.g., past year, lifetime) and instrument (e.g., Conflict Tactic Scale, CTS; Abuse
­Assessment Screen, AAS; etc.), and sample details were extracted by research assis-
tants and reviewed by four authors (SLD, KAR, TLN, & RPT). Results then were sum-
marized by study and grouped according to sample type: population-based samples,
small ­community samples, samples of university and college students or young adults,
samples of middle and high school students or adolescents, and clinical samples. (Full
summaries not included but available online: http://www.springerpub.com/pa.)
176 Desmarais et al.

Prevalence estimates were calculated including all relevant prevalence rates

­reported for mutually exclusive groups in each article; thus, any one article may have
contributed multiple rates. To demonstrate, some articles reported unique preva-
lence rates for physical IPV perpetrated by men and by women, and/or for minor and
­severe physical IPV, each of which would have been included in our analyses. Because
of the high degree of variation in prevalence rates, we chose to calculate unweighted,
pooled estimates to avoid confounding sample size with study quality; that is, values
derived from larger samples do not necessarily represent a closer approximation of
the true population prevalence rate compared to those derived from smaller samples
(Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). We report prevalence estimates for female and male
perpetration overall and by sample type, country, measurement time frame, and mea-
surement approach, to the extent possible.1

RESULTS

In total, we summarized 111 articles that reported 272 rates of physical IPV per-
petration. Prevalence of physical IPV perpetration was infrequently the primary
study objective. Instead, most studies had other purposes and objectives, includ-
ing the identification of correlates or antecedents of abuse or the examination of
intervention effectiveness, for instance, but also reported the prevalence of physical
IPV perpetration in the sample. Many articles reported more than one prevalence
rate: On average, each article included in our review reported 2.45 (SD 5 2.55,
Range 5 1–24) ­prevalence rates. Overall, 25 articles reported 34 rates for male per-
petration, 14 articles reported 24 rates for female perpetration, and 72 articles re-
ported 214 rates for both men and women. As may be seen in Figure 1, the number

25

20
Number of Articles

15 Overall
Men
10 Women

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Publication Year

Figure 1. Number of articles reporting physical IPV perpetration rates

over time.
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 177

of articles reporting prevalence rates for IPV perpetration appears to be increasing

over the past 10 years.
Characteristics of articles included in the analyses are described in Table 1. There
were 19 large population-based studies, 24 studies of smaller community samples,
30 studies of university and college students or young adults, 17 studies of middle
and high school students or adolescents, and 21 studies of clinical samples. Most
articles (85.6%, k 5 95) reported findings of studies conducted in the United States.
Sample sizes ranged widely from N 5 53 to N 5 89,601, with a mean of 2,340.91
(SD 5 8,748.44), median of 670, and mode of 356 participants per study. Studies

TABLE 1. Summary of Characteristics of Articles Included in Review

Number of
Characteristic Number of Articles Rates Reported

Perpetrators
Men only   25   34
Women only   14   24
Men and women   72 214
Sample type
Large population studies   19   59
Small community samples   24   55
College/University students or young adults   30   78
Middle/High school students or adolescents   17   48
Clinical samples   21   32
Measurement time frame
Past year   64 175
Lifetime   18   32
Current or most recent relationship   13   24
Other   15   39
Not specified    1    2
Measurement instrument
Conflict Tactics Scale-based   81 210
Other   30   62
Country
United States   95 232
Canada    6   14
New Zealand    4   10
Australia    1    2
United Kingdom    1    2
South Africa    1    2
International    3   10
TOTAL 111 272
178 Desmarais et al.

­ aried in their operational definition and measurement of IPV, although almost three
v
quarters of studies (73.0%, k 5 81) reported prevalence rates measured using the
CTS, CTS2, or items or scales drawn from these instruments.

Overall Rates of IPV Perpetration

Across all studies included in this review, approximately one quarter of participants
(25.3%) reported perpetrating physical violence in a heterosexual intimate relation-
ship. Physical IPV perpetration was reported by approximately 1 in 4 ­individuals
both in their lifetime (24.2%) and in the year prior to the study (25.6%). Approxi-
mately 1 in 5 (22.9%) reported perpetrating physical IPV in their current or most
recent relationship. Table 2 presents pooled prevalence among women and men
overall and as a function of study characteristics. We discuss these findings in more
detail later.

TABLE 2. Pooled Prevalence Estimate (%) as a Function of

Study Characteristics

Characteristic Overall Men Women

Overall 24.8 21.6 28.3

Sample type
Large population studies 21.1 18.0 24.1
Small community samples 25.9 22.4 29.7
College/university students or young adults 23.9 20.0 27.5
Middle/high school students or adolescents 22.0 16.2 27.9
Clinical samples 35.7 32.9 41.7
Measurement time frame
Past year 25.6 22.3 28.7
Lifetime 24.2 18.4 31.5
Current or most recent relationship 22.9 20.7 23.5
Other 23.9 22.2 26.2
Measurement instrument
Conflict Tactics Scale-based 25.6 22.7 28.8
Other 22.3 17.5 26.7
Country
United States 24.7 21.4 28.3
Canada 25.8 19.6 32.1
New Zealand 31.0 26.6 34.2
Australia 14.1 11.8 16.5
United Kingdom 19.4 14.9 23.9
South Africa 31.8 37.4 26.2
Multiple 21.1 19.3 22.8
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 179

Male Perpetration. In total, we identified 97 articles that reported 141 preva-

lence rates for physical IPV perpetrated by men against women. Not surprisingly,
there was a wide range in prevalence rates across studies, from 1.0% in a study
of undergraduate and graduate students (Harned, 2001) to 61.6% in a sample of
151 “drinking men” (i.e., men who reported alcohol consumption during the year
prior the study; Gallagher & Parrott, 2010). The overall pooled prevalence was
21.6%. The pooled prevalence of male-perpetrated IPV in the past year was 22.3%,
ranging from 2.3% in a sample of over 10,000 patients at an inner city hospital
emergency department ­(Walton et al., 2009) to 61.6% in the Gallagher and Parrott
(2010) sample described earlier. The lifetime pooled prevalence was 18.4%, rang-
ing from 3.5% in a sample of 1,759 8th and 9th graders from 14 different public
schools in a rural county (Foshee, Fletcher, ­MacDougall, & Bangdiwla, 2001) to
49.0% in a sample of men participating in methadone maintenance treatment pro-
gram (­El-Bassel, ­Gilbert, Wu, Chang, & Fontdevila, 2007). Several studies did not
specify a time frame, but rather examined physical IPV perpetration in current or
most recent partners. The pooled prevalence for current or most recent relation-
ships was 20.8%, ranging from 1.8% (Chang, Shen, & Takeuchi, 2009) to 61.0%
(Bookwala, 2002).
As noted earlier, our review included studies conducted in many different coun-
tries, including 2 studies conducted in each of South Africa, Australia, and the United
Kingdom, 4 studies in New Zealand, 6 in Canada, and 83 in the United States that
reported rates of male perpetration. Three additional studies reported findings from
more than one country. In the first such study, Straus and Ramirez (2007) exam-
ined gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of IPV perpetrated by
1,544 university students sampled from Mexico and the United States. Straus (2008)
also conducted the International Dating Violence Study, reporting data on 13,601
university students from 32 nations. Finally, Turcotte-Seabury (2010) conducted
further analyses on a larger sample from the International Dating Violence Study
(N 5 14,252). We were particularly interested in the extent to which the findings
might be similar or different across countries.
The pooled prevalence rate for South African samples was 37.4% based on data
from the national South African Stress and Health survey, which used modified
items from the CTS to query perpetration against the individual’s most recent
­partner (Gass, Stein, Williams, & Seedat, 2010) and the convenience sample of uni-
versity students who completed the CTS2 in Straus’ (2008) multinational study. The
­Australian pooled prevalence rate was 11.8% and included a rate of 9.0% in a sample
of 379 newlywed couples (Halford, Farrugia, Lizzio, & Wilson, 2010), and 18.4% for
minor and 7.8% for severe violence in the Straus (2008) study. The pooled preva-
lence rate for ­Canadian adolescents was 19.6%, ranging from 2.9% in a sample of
717 ­Canadian aged 16 and 17 (Lavoie, Hébert, Tremblay, Vitaro, Vézina, & McDuff,
2002) to 40.0% in a sample of 245 problem gamblers (Korman et al., 2008). The
pooled prevalence rate for studies conducted in the United Kingdom was 14.9% and
included a cross-sectional sample of individuals who reported perpetrating ­physical
180 Desmarais et al.

aggression over the past 2 years (13.0%; Graham, Plant, & Plant, 2004) and the
Straus (2008) ­university sample that reported 24.6% for minor and 7.0% for severe
violence. For New Zealand, the overall pooled prevalence was 26.6%, ranging from
3.7% for severe violence (Straus, 2008) to 57.0% in a longitudinal study of young
adults in New ­Zealand (Fergusson, ­Horwood, & Ridder, 2005). Lastly, the overall
pooled prevalence for American samples was 21.4%, ranging from 1.0% (Harned,
2001) to 61.6% (­Gallagher & Parrott, 2010).

Female Perpetration. We identified 86 studies reporting 131 rates of physical IPV

perpetrated by women against their male intimate partners. The overall pooled prev-
alence across these studies was 28.2%. As with rates of male-perpetrated physical
IPV, the rates of female-perpetrated IPV varied considerably across studies, ranging
from 2.4% in a large population study conducted in the United States (Chang et al.,
2009) to 68.9% in the longitudinal study of young adults in New Zealand (Fergus-
son et al., 2005). The pooled ­prevalence of ­female-perpetrated physical IPV in the
past year was 28.6%. The range extended from 5.7% in a small community sample
(Zolotor, Theodore, Coyne-Beasley, & ­Runyan, 2007) to 68.9% in the study from New
Zealand mentioned previously (Fergusson et al., 2005). The lifetime pooled preva-
lence was 31.5%, ranging from 9.3% in the Foshee et al.’s (2001) sample of United
States high school students described earlier to 67.2% in a United States clinical
sample (Najavits, Sonn, Walsh, & Weiss, 2004). Finally, as for male-perpetrated IPV,
several studies (k 5 9) reported rates of IPV perpetrated by women against their
current or most recent romantic partner, rather than specifying a time frame. The
pooled prevalence for current or most recent relationships was 23.5%, ranging from
2.4% in Chang et al.’s study to 48.0% in a sample of college and university students
(Bookwala, 2002).
Again, most studies were conducted in the United States (81.4%, k 5 70), but
we also identified studies of female perpetration conducted in South Africa (k 5 1),
­Australia (k 5 1), Canada (k 5 5), the United Kingdom (k 5 1), and New Zealand
(k 5 4), as well as the three international studies mentioned earlier (Straus, 2008;
Straus & Ramirez, 2007; Turcotte-Seabury, 2010). One study reported rates of fe-
male-perpetrated physical IPV in South Africa using data from the South African
Stress and Health survey; the prevalence rate was 25.2% for cohabitating or mar-
ried couples (Gass et al., 2010). With Straus (2008), the pooled prevalence for South
African samples was 26.2%. For Australian samples, pooled prevalence was 16.5%,
including 20.0% among newlywed couples in the past year (Halford et al., 2010),
8.7% for severe physical IPV, and 20.7% for minor physical IPV; the latter two rates
in Straus’ (2008) international study. The pooled prevalence for studies conducted
in New ­Zealand was 34.2%, ranging from 12.9% (Straus, 2008) to 68.9% in a birth
cohort of young adults interviewed about their current or most recent relationship
­(Fergusson et al., 2005). Pooled prevalence for studies conducted in Canada was
32.1%, ranging from 9.5% for severe physical IPV in Straus’ (2008) Canadian sam-
ple to 67.0% in a sample of adolescents in child protective services (­Wekerle et al.,
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 181

2009). The pooled prevalence rate for studies conducted in the United Kingdom was
23.9%; this estimate includes rates of 15.6% (severe), 39.7% (minor) (Straus, 2008)
and 16.4% (any aggression; Graham et al., 2004). Lastly, pooled prevalence for the
American samples was 28.2%, ranging from 2.4% (Chang et al., 2009) to 67.3% in a
clinical sample (Ridley & Feldman, 2003). As with male perpetration, most studies
reporting rates of female perpetration used a CTS-based approach to assess IPV
(52 of 71 ­studies).
In sum, the prevalence of physical IPV perpetration ranged widely across studies.
Slightly higher rates of physical IPV perpetration were found among women than
men, although the degree and direction of the sex difference varied depending on
where the study was conducted. Not surprisingly, pooled prevalence estimates also
differed by measurement time frame and approach (see Table 3 and Figure 2), respec-
tively. In the following sections, we summarize rates of male and female perpetration
within each sample category. Details of each study are available online (http://www.
springerpub.com/pa).

TABLE 3. Pooled Prevalence Estimate (%) by Sample Type and Measurement

Time Frame

Measurement Time Frame Overall Men Women

Large population studies

Past year 22.4 18.3 25.8
Lifetime — — —
Current or most recent relationship 29.7 18.7 17.2
Small community samples
Past year 27.4 24.7 29.7
Lifetime 16.0 10.9 31.0
Current or most recent relationship — 29.7 —
College and university students or young adults
Past year 24.6 20.9 27.6
Lifetime 23.2 18.4 30.0
Current or most recent relationship 24.9 22.6 27.3
Middle and high school students or adolescents
Past year 16.3 9.7 24.2
Lifetime 17.8 9.0 26.6
Current or most recent relationship 32.0 24.0 40.0
Clinical samples
Past year 38.6 34.1 49.5
Lifetime 42.1 41.6 42.6
Current or most recent relationship 4.3a 4.3a —

Note. — 5 no data available.

aIndicatesonly one study contributed to the prevalence estimate.
182 Desmarais et al.

CTS-Based

60
Pooled Prevalence Estimate (%)

50

40
Overall

30 Men
Women
20

10

0
Large Smaller University High School Clinical
Population Community Students / Students / Samples
Studies Samples Young Adults Adolescents
Sample Type

Other Measures

60

50
Pooled Prevalence Estimate (%)

40
Overall
30 Men

20 Women

10

0
Large Smaller University High School Clinical
Population Community Students / Students / Samples
Studies Samples Young Adults Adolescents
Sample Type

Figure 2. Prevalence of physical IPV perpetration by measurement approach.

Large Population Studies

Articles included in this category drew data from studies of representative samples
that typically exceeded N 5 1,000 in size.

Male Perpetration. There were 17 large population studies that reported 29 rates
of male physical IPV perpetration. The overall pooled prevalence was 18.0%; the
­lowest rate was 1.8% in a sample of 1,470 Asian Americans (Chang et al., 2009), and
the highest rate was 57.0% in a longitudinal sample from New Zealand ­(Fergusson
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 183

et al., 2005). Eleven articles reported prevalence rates for the past year (pooled
­prevalence 5 18.3%); the range was 4.8% in 1,635 married or cohabitating couples
(Cunradi, Caetano, Clark, & Shafer, 2002) to 57.0% in the New Zealand sample men-
tioned previously (Fergusson et al., 2005). In studies reporting male perpetration
in current or most recent relationships, pooled prevalence was 18.7%, ranging from
1.8% (Chang et al., 2009) to 40.0% in a longitudinal study of 360 young adult couples
in New Zealand (Moffit, Robbins, & Caspi, 2001). No studies in this category reported
lifetime rates for male perpetration of physical IPV.

Female Perpetration. We identified 17 large population samples that reported

30 rates of female-perpetrated physical IPV. The overall pooled prevalence was 24.1%.
Prevalence rates ranged from 2.4% in the Asian American sample described earlier
(Chang et al., 2009) to 68.9% in a longitudinal study conducted in New Zealand (Fer-
gusson et al., 2005). Thirteen studies reported 24 rates of past year prevalence: the
average was 25.9%, ranging from 8.0% to 68.9% (same as the overall range for stud-
ies in this category). Pooled prevalence for current or most recent relationships was
17.1%, ranging from 2.4% (see previously, Chang et al., 2009) to 25.2% in a nationally
representative South African sample (Gass et al., 2010).

Small Community Samples

This category included a wide range of samples, such as those drawn from rural and
urban populations, military samples, or specific ethnic or racial groups, for example.
The defining feature of studies included in this category was that they were ­conducted
in community settings but were not necessarily representative of the characteristics
of the larger population.

Male Perpetration. We identified 21 studies of small community samples that

­reported rates of male-perpetrated physical IPV. The overall pooled prevalence was
22.4%, with a range from 4.0% to 45.0%. The lowest rate was found in a sample of
421 male naval recruits reporting on IPV perpetration in the last 12 months ­(Merrill,
Crouch, Thomsen, Guimond, & Milner, 2005), and the highest rate was found in a
sample of 316 Mexican Americans also reporting past year prevalence (Sugihara &
Warner, 2002). Seventeen articles reported rates for the past year; pooled prevalence
was 24.7%, ranging from 4.0% to 45.0% (as described earlier). Two studies of military
samples reported lifetime prevalence rates (Merrill, Crouch, Thomsen, & Guimond,
2004; McCarroll et al., 2003). We discuss these findings in further detail that follows.
Two articles focused on the current relationship and reported rates of 17.0% (Reed
et al., 2010) and 42.3% (Abrahams, Jewkes, Laubscher, & Hoffman, 2006), respec-
tively. Several articles employed other reference periods, such as the past 2 months
(­McCarroll et al., 2003).
Ten of these 21 studies sampled married or cohabitating couples. Pooled preva-
lence was 21.6%, a rate very similar to the overall prevalence of male perpetration.
184 Desmarais et al.

However, the range was considerably smaller: from 6.7% in a military sample regard-
ing a 2-month reference period (McCarroll et al., 2003) to 38.2% in a sample of newly
­married couples (Schumacher & Leonard, 2005). One study focused on a dating sam-
ple and reported a rate of 25.0%. Eight studies reported 10 rates in mixed samples
(i.e., married, cohabitating, or dating); the pooled prevalence for these studies was
22.1%, ranging from 4.0% to 45.0%.
Given the rate of overseas deployment in the past 10 years, prevalence of IPV among
military families has received considerable attention. Four studies include in the cur-
rent review reported rates of male-perpetrated physical IPV in military samples. Pooled
prevalence was 12.3%, ranging from 4.0% for severe IPV perpetrated in the past year
among a sample of 421 men in the Navy (Merill et al., 2005) to 31.6% for any physical
IPV perpetrated in the past year in a sample of 716 married men in the army posted in
Alaska (Rosen et al., 2002). Despite concerns regarding increased prevalence of IPV in
military families, these rates actually are noticeably lower than for other samples.

Female Perpetration. Twenty studies of female-perpetrated physical IPV met our

criteria for inclusion in this category. The overall pooled prevalence of the 26 rates
reported in these studies was 29.2%. The lowest prevalence rate (5.7%) was based on
data gathered using telephone interviews with 1,232 mothers in North and South
Carolina (Zolotor et al., 2007). The highest rate (48.0%) was reported by 2 different
studies; the first surveyed 316 Mexican Americans about their intimate relationships
(Sugihara & Warner, 2002), and the second study reported findings from a sample of
634 newly married couples (Schumacher & Leonard, 2005).
Nineteen small community studies reported 25 rates for past year prevalence.
For these, the pooled prevalence was 29.1%, ranging from 5.7% (Zolotor et al., 2007)
to 48.0% (Schumacher & Leonard, 2005; Sugihara & Warner, 2002). In this category,
only 1 lifetime rate was reported for female-perpetrated physical IPV, 31.0%, found
in a study of 1,367 United States Navy recruits (775 women, 592 men) who com-
pleted a survey during basic training (Merrill et al., 2004). Ten of the 20 studies
specifically sampled married and/or cohabitating couples; pooled prevalence was
30.9%, ranging from 11.5% (O’Leary & Slep Smith, 2006) to 48.0% (Schumacher &
Leonard, 2005).
We found three studies reporting rates of physical IPV perpetration by women
enlisted in the military (Forgery & Badger, 2006; Merrill et al., 2004; Merrill et al.,
2005). Pooled prevalence in these samples was 23.3%, ranging from 12.0% of enlisted
women married to civilian spouses reporting they perpetrated severe physical IPV
violence in the past year (Merrill et al., 2005) to 31.0% of female Navy recruits report-
ing they perpetrated severe physical IPV in their lifetime (Merrill et al., 2004).

College and University Students or Young Adults

Studies included in this category typically sampled undergraduate university (or

­college) students or young adults ranging from 18 to 24 years of age.
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 185

Male Perpetration. Studies that sampled college and university students or

young adults were the most common for reporting male perpetration rates: 27 stud-
ies ­reporting 40 prevalence rates met inclusion criteria for our review. Across these
­studies, we calculated a pooled prevalence of 20.1%, reflecting rates ranging from 1.0%
in a sample of 1,139 undergraduates who completed an online survey (Harned, 2001)
to 61.0% in a sample of 161 undergraduate students who completed an ­anonymous,
paper-based survey (Bookwala, 2002). Thirteen studies reported prevalence rates for
the past year (pooled prevalence 5 20.9%), ranging from 3.7% in the New Zealand
sample included in Straus’ (2008) study to 42.9% in the South African sample of the
same study. Lifetime rates were reported in 7 studies; pooled prevalence was 18.4%,
ranging from 7.4% (minor violence) to 36.0% (severe violence), both in the sample
of 189 first and second year college men who completed the CTS (Cercone, Beach,
& Arias, 2005). The remaining studies used the current relationship (range 5 3.5%,
Fossos, Neighbors, Kaysen, & Hove, 2007; to 61%, Bookwala, 2002), the past 6 months
(23.0%, Williams & Frieze, 2005; and 34.9%, Raghavan, Rajah, Gentile, ­Collado, & Ka-
vanagh, 2009), and since starting university (1.0%, Harned, 2001; 1.8%, Forke, Myers,
Catallozzi, & Schwarz, 2008) as the measurement time frames. All but Gratz, Paulson,
Jakupcak, and Tull (2009) measured IPV using some version of the CTS.

Female Perpetration. Twenty-six studies reported 44 rates of female-perpetrated

physical IPV in samples of college and university students or young adults. The over-
all pooled prevalence was 27.5%, ranging from 7.3% in a sample of 910 undergrad-
uates (Forke et al., 2008) to 48.0% in a sample of 161 undergraduates (Bookwala,
2002). Fifteen studies reported 31 past year prevalence rates (pooled prevalence 5
27.5%). The low end of the range, 8.7%, represents the prevalence of severe violence
in Australia as reported in Straus’ (2008) international study of university students.
At the top of the range, a rate of 41.4% was found in a convenience sample of college
women in relationships longer than a month (Baker & Stith, 2008).
Five lifetime rates were reported by four studies yielding a pooled prevalence rate
of 30.0% and a range from 15.1% (Cercone et al., 2005) to 39.0% (Orcutt, Garcia,
& Pickett, 2005). Four studies used current relationship as the reference period, with
a pooled prevalence of 27.25% (Bookwala, 2002; Fossos et al., 2007; Hendy et al., 2003;
Luthra & Gidycz, 2006). One study found a prevalence rate of 40.0% over the past
6 months (Williams & Frieze, 2005). The 2 studies that measured IPV since ­starting
university found rates of 7.3% and 19.0%, respectively (Forke et al., 2008; Harned,
2001). In another study examining women’s use of violence against their current or
most recent partner, the prevalence was 33.0% (Simonelli, Mullis, Elliot, & Pierce,
2002). Of the 26 studies, most (k 5 23) used some version of the CTS.

Middle and High School Students or Adolescents

This category of studies sampled middle and high school students as well as youth
who were in this age range but were not necessarily recruited through school, such
186 Desmarais et al.

as Whitaker, Le, and Niolon’s (2010) nationally representative sample of adolescents.

Although there may exist important differences between ‘intimate’ ­relationships of
middle and high school-aged youth, studies often presented rates in aggregate and
few studies uniquely reported rates for middle school students.

Male perpetration. We identified 16 studies that reported 21 rates of male-

­perpetrated IPV among adolescents. The pooled prevalence rate was 16.2%, ranging
from 2.9% in a sample of 717 Canadian adolescents 16 and 17 years of age (Lavoie
et al., 2002) to 37.4% in a sample of 664 Canadian students in grades 9 to 11 ­(Connolly
et al., 2010), both in reference to the past year. With the exception of that found
for military samples, this is the lowest pooled prevalence rate for male-perpetrated
­physical IPV in the subgroups we examined.
Past year prevalence of male-perpetrated physical IPV was reported in four
­studies, with a pooled estimate of 9.7%. Rates ranged from 2.9% in the Lavoie et al.
(2002) sample described earlier to 17.8% in a sample of 633 adolescents in Chicago
neighborhoods (Jain, Buka, Subramanian, & Molnar, 2010). Only 4 studies reported
lifetime prevalence rates; these ranged from 3.5% (Foshee et al., 2001) to 15.0% (Wolfe
& Foshee, 2003), for a pooled prevalence rate of 9.0%. The remaining 7 studies used
measurement time frames of 6 months or less (e.g., Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Connolly
et al., 2010) or focused on prevalence in the current relationship (O’Leary, Slep Smith,
Avery-Leaf, & Cascardi, 2008).
Almost half of the studies used the CTS. The remainder used various methods
­including unstandardized measures composed of open-ended questions plus items
from the CTS (Whitaker et al., 2010), a measure developed by the study authors to
make CTS items more appropriate for adolescents (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004), or the
Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Wolfe, Scott, Wekerle,
& Pittman, 2001). Pooled prevalence for studies using the CTS was slightly higher
(18.2%) than for studies using other measures (14.8%).

Female perpetration. Twenty-one rates of female-perpetrated physical IPV were

­reported across 16 studies of middle and high school students or adolescents. The rates
of female perpetration ranged from 8.9% (past year prevalence) in sample of 5,414 pub-
lic high school students in the United States (Coker et al., 2000) to 51.4% (lifetime prev-
alence) in a American sample of 1,300 first year university students (Graves, Sechrist,
White, & Paradise, 2005). The average prevalence was 27.9%. The past year pooled prev-
alence rate was 24.2% across four studies. The range was wide, extending from 8.9%
(Coker et al., 2000) to 38.1% in a sample of 633 adolescents in Chicago neighborhoods
(Jain et al., 2010). Only 4 studies reported lifetime prevalence rates; these ranged from
9.3% (Foshee et al., 2001) to 51.4% (Graves et al., 2005), for an average of 26.6%.
Nearly half of the studies reporting rates of female perpetration in adolescent samples
used CTS-based measures. Specifically, 7 studies used the CTS and an additional study
reporting a single rate used questions from the CTS (Coker et al., 2000). Two studies used
the CADRI (Wolfe et al., 2003). The other 12 studies used various ­measures, ­including
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 187

open-ended questions and items drawn from Foshee et al.’s work (Miller, ­Gorman-Smith,
Sullivan, Orpinas, & Simon, 2009). Consistent with the findings for adolescent boys,
pooled prevalence for adolescent girls was higher in studies that used the CTS (33.2%)
than in studies that employed other measurement approaches (23.9%).

Clinical Samples

Studies included in this category recruited participants from clinical or treatment set-
tings, such as emergency rooms, primary care settings, or substance use treatment.

Male perpetration. We identified 17 studies that reported 22 rates of male-perpetrated

physical IPV among clinical samples. Across these studies, pooled prevalence was 32.9%.
Rates ranged from 2.3% in a sample of over 10,000 patients at an inner city emergency
department (Walton et al., 2009) to 61.6% in a sample of 151 men who reported drinking
in the past 12 months (Gallagher & Parrott, 2010). Of note, the pooled prevalence for
clinical samples is higher than for other samples likely because clinical samples include
individuals who frequently present with known risk factors for perpetrating IPV, such
as alcohol and drug abuse.
Pooled prevalence for the 10 studies reporting past year perpetration rates was
34.1%, ranging from 2.3% to 61.6% reported in Walton et al.’s (2009) and Gallagher
and Parrott’s (2010) samples, respectively. Lifetime rates were reported in 2 ­studies;
pooled prevalence was 41.6%, ranging from 31.9% in a sample of 1,318 men from
community health centers (Silverman et al., 2010) to 49.0% in a sample of 356 men
in methadone maintenance treatment (El-Bassell et al., 2007). Four studies used the
past 6 months as the measurement time frame (pooled prevalence 5 31.1%), and
1 study reported for current or most recent relationships (4.3%).
We also examined prevalence of male-perpetrated physical IPV in various treatment-
seeking subgroups. For instance, we identified 9 studies sampling participants from
hospitals, community health centers, or other general medical centers. The pooled preva-
lence rate for these studies was 21.1%, ranging from 2.3% (Walton et al, 2009) to 43.8% in
a sample of 283 men from an urban community health center (Raj, Santana, Le Marche,
Amaro, Cranston, & Silverman, 2006). A handful of studies (k 5 8) specifically looked at
physical IPV perpetrated by men seeking substance abuse treatment. In these studies,
the pooled prevalence was 43.5%, ranging from 28.0% in a sample of 322 male metha-
done maintenance treatment patients (El-Bassel et. al., 2004) to 61.6%, as described
previously (Gallagher & Parrott, 2010).

Female perpetration. Seven studies reported 10 rates of female-perpetrated physical

IPV in clinical samples. Across these studies, pooled prevalence was 41.7%. The rates
of female-perpetrated physical IPV reported in the clinical studies ranged from a past
year prevalence of 6.0% in a sample of women attending an inner city emergency room
in Michigan (Walton et al., 2009) to a past year prevalence rate of 67.3% in a sample
of 153 female health clinic clients (Ridley & Feldman, 2003). Pooled prevalence across
188 Desmarais et al.

the four rates of past year perpetration was 45.1%. Two studies reported three lifetime
rates; pooled prevalence was 42.6%, ranging from 22.6% (average calculated based
on reported data for the purpose of this review; Friedman, Loue, Goldman Heaphy,
& Mendez, 2009) to 67.2% (Najavits et al., 2004).
It is perhaps not surprising that the latter rate, one of the highest lifetime rates of
physical IPV perpetration identified in this review, was found in a sample of women with
current post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and substance disorder (Najavits et al.,
2004). In a second study of women seeking substance abuse treatment, ­Chermack, ­Walton,
Fuller, and Blow (2001) found that approximately one quarter of female ­participants
(25.6%) reported perpetrating physical IPV that was “moderate” in ­severity and more
than one third (33.9%) reported perpetrating severe physical IPV. Across these studies,
pooled prevalence among women seeking substance abuse treatment was 53.1%. Another
study examined prevalence of physical IPV perpetrated by women with severe mental
illness (Friedman et al., 2009); 17.0% had perpetrated physical IPV in the past 2 years.
Rates of lifetime perpetration in this study ranged from 16.7% in women diagnosed with
major depression to 31.6% in women diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

DISCUSSION

We conducted a review of 111 studies published in the last 10 years to summarize

the current state of knowledge regarding the prevalence of physical IPV perpetrated
by men and women in heterosexual relationships in English-speaking, industrialized
countries. Our findings underscore the pervasiveness of physical IPV perpetrated
by men and women in heterosexual relationships: across studies, the overall preva-
lence estimate was 24.8% or one in four respondents. Consistent with prior reviews
(Archer, 2000; Straus, 2010), perpetration rates were slightly higher for women than
for men: physical IPV was perpetrated by more than 1 in 4 women (28.3%) and 1 in
5 men (21.6%). Also consistent with prior research, the pooled prevalence for clinical
samples was higher than the overall estimate, with approximately one third perpe-
trating physical IPV, but still showed higher rates of perpetration by women than
by men. Disaggregating pooled prevalence by measurement time frame revealed the
same pattern of results: pooled prevalence of lifetime perpetration of physical IPV by
women (31.5%) was almost twice that for men (18.4%).
Rates of physical IPV perpetration ranged widely across studies for both men (1.0%
to 61.6%) and women (2.4% to 68.9%). Much of the variation can be attributed to the
highly diverse sampling methods and study procedures. For instance, studies differed
in their operational definitions of physical IPV perpetration and in their ­reporting
of minor and/or severe IPV. When reported, rates of minor physical IPV were much
higher than rates of severe physical IPV. Studies also varied in their measurement
time frames. Many studies reported lifetime and/or past year prevalence rates, ­others
reported rates for the current or most recent relationship, and still others used dif-
ferent reference periods altogether (e.g., past 2 months, past 6 months). In contrast
with expectations, rates of past year perpetration were slightly higher than rates of
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 189

lifetime perpetration (pooled estimates 5 25.6% vs. 24.2%). Possible explanations for
these counterintuitive findings include the increased salience of more recent events
or memory fading for events in the more distant past, and thus, increased likelihood
of reporting more recent events; and forward telescoping of events that occurred more
than 12 months ago (Hamby, 2005).
There was considerable consistency in instrumentation across studies. Almost three
quarters of the reviewed studies employed a CTS-based measurement ­approach. The
development, refinement, and widespread use of the CTS instruments has been noted
by some as an important advancement in the field (cf., Langhingrichsen-Rohling,
2005), but also heavily criticized by others (e.g., Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly,
1992; Hamby, 2009). For instance, some argue that CTS measures overestimate rates
of female perpetration (e.g., White et al., 2000). Accordingly, in the present review,
the predominance of studies using CTS-based measures may have contributed to the
higher pooled prevalence estimates for female-perpetrated IPV. That said, we found
pooled prevalence for female perpetration was only slightly lower—by ­approximately
2%—when other measures were used.
There remains much debate in the field regarding the best approach to studying
IPV prevalence (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). Indeed, much of the ­controversy re-
garding gender symmetry in male and female perpetration rates can be attributed
to methodological variations across studies (Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Hamby, 2005,
2009). In the current review, the degree to which male and female perpetration rates
differed fluctuated as a function of sample and study characteristics. For instance,
sex differences were noticeably greater for adolescents compared to the other sample
­categories. As another example, with the exception of studies of clinical samples, life-
time perpetration rates were notably higher for women than men, whereas past year
and current relationship rates were much more similar (although still showing higher
rates of perpetration for women). This pattern of results may reflect sex ­differences in
memory and reporting accuracy. For instance, women may be more likely than men
to recall lifetime perpetration experiences; that is, lifetime experiences may ­remain
more salient for women whereas men may experience more memory fading (Smith
& Torstensson, 1997). Women also have been found to be more accurate than men in
recalling dates of personal experiences (Gaskell, Wright, & O’Muircheartaigh, 2000).
That said, lifetime prevalence rates were reported much less frequently than were
past year prevalence rates (32 rates compared to 175 rates) and, when reported,
largely reflected perpetration by adolescents and young adults (22 of 32 rates). Thus,
variations in sex differences by sample type and reference period may be confounded.
Discussed in further detail in the next section, examination of pooled prevalence for
male and female perpetration by study location likewise ­revealed variations in sex
differences but, again, typically showed higher rates for women than men.
Given the small number of studies conducted outside of the United States, the
unique samples from which the data were drawn (e.g., some countries have clinical
studies included in their pooled prevalence wherein higher rates would naturally
be expected), and the diverse methodologies employed, it is premature to draw firm
190 Desmarais et al.

conclusions regarding cross-national comparisons based on our review. That said,

it is noteworthy that the findings are generally consistent with Straus’ (2008) in-
ternational study. Specifically, across these developed, English-speaking countries,
the rates of physical IPV perpetration are within a relatively small range, from a
pooled estimate of 14.1% for studies conducted in Australia to 31.8% for studies
conducted in New Zealand. However, comparison of prevalence rates for men and
women within countries showed some interesting differences. In particular, South
Africa was the only country for which the overall pooled estimate was higher for
male- than female-perpetrated physical IPV. In fact, this was the only case in which
the pooled prevalence was higher for men than for women in the current review.
Also, the differences between male and female perpetration rates were quite a bit
higher in some countries (e.g., the United States and Canada) compared to oth-
ers (e.g., Australia). Nonetheless, gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately
account for our findings. Whether the same can be said for perpetration of IPV in
other countries is beyond the scope of the current review (see McCarthy, Lambert,
& Westphal, in press).
As seen in our review of physical IPV victimization, rates of physical IPV perpetra-
tion in student samples were very similar to those seen in large population studies
and small community samples. We discuss possible explanations for these findings in
Part 1 (Desmarais et al., 2012), but a few additional points merit discussion herein.
First, findings are consistent with prior research and ­reviews documenting that IPV
perpetration and victimization peaks between the ages of 16 and 24 years of age
(e.g., Archer, 2000; Rennison, 2001). Second, the range in rates for lifetime physi-
cal IPV perpetration in these samples is very similar to the range in rates for past
year prevalence. This is not surprising given that adolescents and young adults have
been dating for shorter periods compared to adults, and thus, the difference between
lifetime and past year experiences in intimate relationships, ­violent or otherwise, is
likely to be small.
Our findings also document the increased research focus on female perpetration in
recent years, a trend that has been noted by others (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe, 2005).
Of the 111 studies included in our review, 86 reported rates of female perpetration,
only 11 fewer than the 97 rates of male perpetration. In contrast, our review of physi-
cal IPV victimization identified almost 3 times as many studies reporting prevalence
among women than men (Desmarais et al., 2012). This discrepancy may have signifi-
cant implications for policy and practice. Specifically, although the notion that women
use violence against their male partners is gaining acceptance, the experiences of
male victims continue to be neglected. Thus, our willingness to address the needs of
female perpetrators of IPV may be increasing, whereas the dearth of services avail-
able and reduced responsiveness of justice and social systems to the needs of male
victims persists (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007; Hines & Douglas, 2010; Muller et
al., 2009; Lipsky, Caetano, & Roy-Burne, 2011).
However, conclusions based on findings of our review should be qualified by limita-
tions of our approach. First, we used an inclusive selection strategy and did not ­conduct
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 191

a systematic assessment of study quality. Second, because of the range in study quality,
we chose to present descriptive but not inferential statistics. Third, we identified dif-
ferences in prevalence as a function of country; however, we did not measure charac-
teristics of the respondents, such as gender role beliefs, which may have contributed
to these differences. Fourth, we did not include variables that may describe the con-
text within which the perpetration occurred. Thus, we are unable to speak to whether
rates reflect unilateral or reciprocal abuse (but see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra,
­Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012) or to comment on whether the violence was perpetrated in
self-­defense (but see Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, et al., in press). Fifth, we
examined rates of perpetration, but not rates of physical IPV that resulted in injury.
As found in the Archer (2000) and Straus (2011) reviews, this measurement specifica-
tion (i.e., any physical IPV vs. physical IPV that resulted in injury) will lead to different
conclusions regarding symmetry in male and female perpetration rates. Also, because it
was ­inconsistently reported and defined, we were unable to systematically code sever-
ity of violence across studies, although we did disaggregate rates of minor and ­severe
physical IPV whenever possible. Sixth, although we coded the instruments used to
measure perpetration, we did not assess the mode of administration (e.g., face-to-face
interview, self-administered survey, telephone interview, etc.). Previous research indi-
cates significant variation in perpetration rates as a function of this variable (Archer,
2000). Moreover, most studies relied on self-report methodologies and did not include
measures of social desirability. Finally, we compared prevalence rates between and not
within studies, preventing direct comparisons of physical IPV perpetration rates as a
function of perpetrator’s sex, country, measurement approach, or time frame.
Despite these limitations, the present review represents a comprehensive sum-
mary of the current state of knowledge regarding physical IPV perpetration among
­heterosexual men and women in English-speaking, industrialized nations. As ­reported
in our review of physical IPV victimization rates (see Desmarais et al., 2012), we
found that rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women generally were more
similar than they were different and that perpetration of physical IPV in hetero-
sexual relationships continues to be a serious social problem. Although rates varied
across individual studies, our synthesis of findings from studies conducted over the
past decade suggests that approximately one quarter of individuals in heterosexual
relationships physically assault their intimate partners, a rate almost identical to
that found in our review of victimization prevalence.
Importantly, results of the current review pertain only to the presence or absence,
and not the severity or context, of perpetration. Thus, rather than perpetuating the
debate regarding the comparability of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women,
findings should be used to support the development and implementation of interven-
tions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships but
also recognize how participants’ treatment needs may differ. Intervention strategies
that are both gender-inclusive and gender-sensitive may have the greatest potential
for reducing IPV and improving clinical outcomes (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011;
Hamberger, 2005; Larance, 2006; Straus, 2011).
192 Desmarais et al.

NOTE

1. Due to variation in research designs as well as inconsistent reporting of method-

ological details across studies, we were not able to systematically compare findings
as a function of country, measurement time frame, and measurement approach for
all sample types.

REFERENCES

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies summarized in the online-only

tables available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.e2.
*Abrahams, N., Jewkes, R., Laubscher, R., & Hoffman, M. (2006). Intimate partner
­violence: Prevalence and risk factors for men in Cape Town, South Africa. Violence
and Victims, 21(2), 247–264.
American Psychological Association Working Group on Intimate Partner Abuse and
Relationship Violence. (2002). Intimate partner abuse and relationship violence.
­Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/violence/
partner-violence.pdf
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651–680.
*Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004) Adolescent dating violence: Do adolescents follow
in their friends’, or their parents’, footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2),
162–184.
*Baker, C. R., & Stith, S. M. (2008). Factors predicting dating violence perpetration
among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 17(2), 227–244.
Barner, J. R., & Carney, M. M. (2011). Interventions for intimate partner violence:
A historical review. Journal of Family Violence, 26(3), 235–244.
Basile, S. (2004). Comparison of abuse alleged by same- and opposite-gender litigants as
cited in requests for abuse prevention orders. Journal of Family Violence, 19(1), 59–68.
*Bookwala, J. (2002). The role of own and perceived partner attachment in relationship
aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 84–100.
Brown, G. R. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement system
to violence against partners. Sexuality & Culture, 8, 1–87.
Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner
violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 12, 108–115.
*Cercone, J. J., Beach, S. R. H., & Arias, I. (2005). Gender symmetry in dating inti-
mate partner violence: Does behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims,
20(2), 207–218.
*Chang, D. F., Shen, B., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2009). Prevalence and demographic correlates
of intimate partner violence in Asian Americans. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 32(3), 167–175.
*Chermack, S. T., Walton, M. A., Fuller, B. E., & Blow, F. C. (2001). Correlates of ­expressed
and received violence across relationship types among men and women substance
abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 15(2), 140–151.
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 193

Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., et al. (2002).
Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women.
American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23(4), 260–268.
*Coker, A. L., McKeown, R. E., Sanderson, M., Davis, K. E., Valois, R. F., & Huebner, E. S.
(2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school
students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4), 220–227.
Collins, J. A., & Fraser, B. C. J. M. (2005). Balancing the strengths of systematic and
narrative reviews. Human Reproduction Update, 11(2), 103–104.
*Connolly, J., Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Williams, T. S. (2010).
Adolescent dating aggression in Canada and Italy: A cross-national comparison.
­International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34(2), 98–105.
*Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., Clark, C., & Schafer, J. (2000). Neighborhood poverty as a
predictor of intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in
the United States: A multilevel analysis. Annals of Epidemiology, 10(5), 297–308.
Cowell, N. A. & Burgess, A. W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding violence against women
(pp. 74–80). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Dasgupta, S. D. (2002). A framework for understanding women’s use of nonlethal ­violence
in intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1364–1389.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Intimate partner vio-
lence. Retrieved August 4, 2011, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=
971#summary
Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert, M. S. (2012).
Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships: Part 1. Rates of male and
female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3(2).
Dixon, L., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2011). Understanding the nature and etiology of inti-
mate partner violence and implications for practice and policy. Clinical Psychology
Review, 31, 1145–115.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symme-
try in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71–91.
Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychol-
ogy and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 11, 457–483.
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.
Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence
­research and theory: Part 1—The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 10, 680–714.
*El-Bassel, N., Gilbert, L., Golder, S., Wu, E., Chang, M., Fondtdevila, J., et al. (2004).
Deconstructing the relationships between intimate partner violence and sexual HIV
risk among drug-involved men and their female partners. AIDS and Behavior, 8(4),
429–439.
*El-Bassel, N., Gilbert, L., Wu, E., Chang, M., & Fontdevila, J. (2007). Perpetration of
­intimate partner violence among men in methadone treatment programs in New York
City. American Journal of Public Health, 97(7), 1230–1232.
*Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Partner violence and mental
health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67(5), 1103–1119.
194 Desmarais et al.

Fiebert, M. S. (1997). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male

partners: An annotated bibliography. Sexuality & Culture, 1, 273–286.
Fiebert, M. S. (2004). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male
partners: An annotated bibliography. Sexuality & Culture, 8, 140–177.
Fiebert, M. S. (2011). References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male
partners: An annotated bibliography. Sexuality & Culture, 14, 49–91.
Flynn, A., & Graham, K. (2010). “Why did it happen?” A review and conceptual frame-
work for research on perpetrators’ and victims’ explanations for intimate partner
violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(3), 239–251.
*Forke, C. M., Myers, R. K., Catallozzi, M., & Schwarz, D. F. (2008). Relationship vio-
lence among female and male college undergraduate students. Archives of Pediatric
Adolescent Medicine, 162(7), 634–641.
*Foshee, V. A., Fletcher, L., MacDougall, J. E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender ­differences
in the longitudinal predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventative Medicine,
32(2), 128–141.
*Fossos, N., Neighbors, C., Kaysen, D., & Hove, M. C. (2007). Intimate partner violence
perpetration and problem drinking among college students: The roles of expectancies
and subjective evaluations of alcohol aggression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 68(5), 706–713.
*Friedman, S. H., Loue, S., Goldman Heaphy, E. L., & Mendez, N. (2011). Intimate
­partner violence victimization and perpetration by Puerto Rican women with severe
mental illnesses. Community Mental Health Journal, 47(2), 156–163.
Frieze, I. H. (2000). Violence in close relationships—development of a research area:
Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 681–684.
*Gallagher, K. E., & Parrott, D. J. (2010). Influence of heavy episodic drinking on the
relation between men’s locus of control and aggression toward intimate partners.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71(2), 299–306.
Gaskell, G. D., Wright, D. B., & O’Muircheartaigh, C. A. (2000). Telescoping of landmark
events: Implications for survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 77–89.
*Gass, D., Stein, D. J., Williams, D. R., & Seedat, S. (2010). Gender differences in risk
for intimate partner violence among South African adults. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 26(14), 2764–2789.
*Graham, K., Plant, M., & Plant, M. (2004). Alcohol, gender, and partner aggression:
A general population study of British adults. Addiction Research and Theory, 12(4),
385–401.
*Gratz, K. L., Paulson, A., Jakupcak, M., & Tull, M. T. (2009). Exploring the relationship
between childhood maltreatment and intimate partner abuse: The mediating role of
emotion dysregulation. Violence and Victims, 24, 68–82.
*Graves, K. N., Sechrist, S. M., White, J. W., & Paradise, M. J. (2005). Intimate partner
violence perpetrated by college women within the context of a history of ­victimization.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 278–289.
*Halford, W. K., Farrugia, C., Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2010). Relationship aggression,
violence and self-regulation in Australian newlywed couples. Australian Journal of
Psychology, 62(2), 82–92.
Hamby, S. L. (2005). Measuring gender differences in partner violence: Implications
from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior. Sex Roles:
A Journal of Research, 52(11–12), 725–742.
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 195

Hamby, S. L. (2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and
dead ends. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 24–34.
Hamel, J. (2007). Domestic violence: A gender-inclusive conception. In J. Hamel & T. L.
Nicholls (Eds.), Family interventions in domestic violence: A handbook of gender-
­inclusive theory and treatment (pp. 3–26). New York: Springer Publishing.
*Harned, M. S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context
and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 269–285.
*Hendy, H. M., Weiner, K., Bakerofskie, J., Eggen, D., Gustitus, C., & McLeod, K. C.
(2003). Comparison of six models for violent romantic relationships in college men
and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(6), 645–665.
Henning, K., & Renauer, B. (2005). Prosecution of women arrested for intimate partner
abuse. Violence and Victims, 20(3), 171–189.
Hines, D. A., Brown, J., & Dunning, E. (2007). Characteristics of callers to the Domestic
Abuse Helpline for Men. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 63–72.
Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2011). The reported availability of U.S. domestic violence
services to victims who vary by age, sexual orientation, and gender. Partner Abuse,
2(1), 3–30.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2005). Female perpetration of physical aggression against an inti-
mate partner: A controversial new topic of study. Violence and Victims, 20(2), 251–259.
*Jain, S., Buka, S. L., Subramanian, S. V., & Molnar, B. E. (2010). Neighborhood predic-
tors of dating violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood: A multi-
level study. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1737–1744.
*Korman, L. M., Collins, J., Dutton, D., Dhayananthan, B., Littman-Sharp, N., Skinner,
W., et al. (2008). Problem gambling and intimate partner violence. Journal Gambling
Studies, 24(1), 13–23.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2005). Top 10 greatest “hits”: Important findings and future
directions for intimate partner violence research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
20(1), 108–118.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2007). Controversies involving gender and intimate partner
violence in the United States. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 62(3–4), 179–193.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Pruden, M. (in press). Motivations for men
and women’s perpetration of intimate partner violence: A comprehensive review.
Partner Abuse.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of
­bi-directional versus uni-directional intimate partner violence across samples, ­sexual
orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2).
Larance, L. Y. (2006). Serving women who use force in their intimate heterosexual
­relationships: an extended view. Violence Against Women, 12(7), 622–640.
LaRoche, D. (2008). Context and consequences of domestic violence against men and
women in Canada in 2004. Québec, Canada: Institute de la statistique du Québec.
*Lavoie, F., Hébert, M., Tremblay, R., Vitaro, F., Vézina, L., & McDuff, P. (2002). History
of family dysfunction and perpetration of dating violence by adolescent boys: A lon-
gitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5), 375–383.
Lipsky, S., Caetano, R., & Roy-Burne, P. (2011). Triple jeopardy: Impact of partner vio-
lence perpetration, mental health and substance use on perceived unmet need for
mental health care among men. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
46(9), 843–852.
196 Desmarais et al.

*Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and women:
Evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(6), 717–731.
*McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Newby, J. H., Liu, X., Fullerton, C. S., Norwood, A. E.,
et al. (2003). Domestic violence and deployment in US Army soldiers. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 191(1), 3–9.
McCarthy, S., Lambert, T., & Westphal, R. (in press). International research on partner
abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse.
*Merrill, L. L., Crouch, J. L., Thomsen, C. J., & Guimond, J. M. (2004). Risk for intimate
partner violence and child physical abuse: Psychosocial characteristics of multirisk
male and female Navy recruits. Child Maltreatment, 9(1), 18–29.
*Merrill, L. L., Crouch, J. L., Thomsen, C. J., Guimond, J., & Milner, J. S. (2005). Perpe-
tration of severe intimate partner violence: Premilitary and second year of service
rates. Military Medicine, 170(8), 705–709.
Miller, N. (2004). Domestic violence: A review of state legislation defining police and pros-
ecution duties and powers. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice.
*Miller, S., Gorman-Smith, D., Sullivan, T., Orpinas, P., & Simons, T. R. (2009). Parent
and peer predictors of physical dating violence perpetration in early adolescence:
Tests of moderation and gender differences. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 38(4), 538–550.
*Moffitt, T. E., Robins, R. W., & Caspi, A. (2001). A couples analysis of partner abuse with
implications for abuse-prevention policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(1), 5–36.
Muller, H. J., Desmarais, S. L., & Hamel, J. M. (2009). Do judicial responses to restrain-
ing order requests discriminate against male victims of domestic violence? Journal
of Family Violence, 24, 625–637.
*Najavits, L. M., Sonn, J., Walsh, M., & Weiss, R. (2004). Domestic violence in women
with PTSD and substance abuse. Addictive Behaviors, 29(4), 707–715.
*O’Leary, K. D., Slep Smith, A. M., Avery-Leaf, S., & Cascardi, M. (2008). Gender dif-
ferences in dating aggression among multiethnic high school students. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 42, 473–479.
*Orcutt, H. K., Garcia, M., & Pickett, S. M. (2005). Female-perpetrated intimate partner
violence and romantic attachment style in a college student sample. Violence and
Victims, 20(3), 287–302.
*Raghavan, C., Rajah, V., Gentile, K., Collado, L., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2009). Community
violence, social support networks, ethnic group differences, and male perpetration of
intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(10), 1615–1632.
*Raj, A., Santana, C., Le Marche, A., Amaro, H., Cranston, K., & Silverman, J. G. (2006).
Perpetration of intimate partner violence associated with sexual risk behaviors
among adult men. American Journal of Public Health, 96(10), 1873–1878.
*Reed, E., Silverman, J. G., Ickovics, J. R., Gupta, J., Welles, S. L., Santana, M. C., et al.
(2010). Experiences of racial discrimination & relation to violence perpetration
and gang involvement among a sample of urban African American men. Journal of
­Immigrant and Minority Health, 12(3), 319–326.
Reid, R. J., Bonomi, A. E., Rivara, F. P., Anderson, M. L., Fishman, P. A., Carrell, D. S.,
et al. (2008). Intimate partner violence among men: Prevalence, chronicity, and
health effects. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(6), 478–485.
Rennison, C. M. (2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-1999
­(Publication No. NCJ 187635). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Rates of Male and Female Physical Violence 197

Rennison, C. M. (2003). Intimate partner violence (Publication No: NXJ 197838).

­Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
*Ridley, C. A., & Feldman, C. M. (2003). Female domestic violence toward male partners:
Exploring conflict responses and outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 18(3), 157–170.
*Rosen, L. N., Knudson, K. H., Brannen, S. J., Fancher, P., Killgore, T. E., & Baraisch, G. G.
(2002). Intimate partner violence among U.S. Army soldiers in Alaska: A ­comparison
of reported rates and survey results. Military Medicine, 167(8), 688–691.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quanti-
tative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.
Saunders, D. G. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social
problem? Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1424–1448.
*Schumacher, J. A., & Leonard, K. E. (2005). Husbands’ and wives’ marital adjustment, ver-
bal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical ­aggression
in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(1), 28–37.
*Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R., McCauley, H. L., Gupta, J., Miller, E. Raj, A. et al. (2010).
Male perpetration of intimate partner violence and involvement in abortions and
abortion related conflict. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1415–1417.
*Simonelli, C. J., Mullis, T., Elliot, A. N., & Pierce, T. W. (2002). Abuse by siblings and
subsequent experiences of violence within the dating relationship. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 17(2), 103–121.
Smith, W. R., & Torstensson, M. (1997). Gender differences in risk perception and
­neutralizing fear of crime: Toward resolving the paradoxes. British Journal of Crimi-
nology, 37(4), 608–634.
Straus, M. A. (2004). Women’s violence toward men is a serious social problem. In R.
J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 55–77)
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*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, 252–275.
Straus, M. A. (2009). Why the overwhelming evidence on partner physical violence
by women has not been perceived and is often denied. Journal of Aggression,
­Mal­treatment & Trauma, 18, 1–19.
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, 279–288.
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.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence
from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the
­Family, 48, 465–479.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1981). Behind closed doors: Violence in
the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
*Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and
chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in
Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33(4), 281–290.
*Sugihara, Y., & Warner, J. A. (2002). Dominance and domestic abuse among Mexican
Americans: Gender differences in the etiology of violence in intimate relationships.
Journal of Family Violence, 17(4), 315–340.
 198 Desmarais et al.

Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2006). The development of a theory of women’s use of violence
in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1026–1045.
*Turcotte-Seabury, C. A. (2010). Anger management and the process mediating the link
between witnessing violence between parents and partner violence. Violence and
Victims, 25(3), 306–318.
*Walton, M. A., Murray, R., Cunningham, R. M., Chermack, S. T., Barry, K. L., Booth,
B. M., et al. (2009). Correlates of intimate partner violence among men and women in
an inner city emergency department. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 28(4), 366–381.
*Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A. M., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M., Trocme, N., et al. (2009).
The contribution of childhood emotional abuse to teen dating violence among child
protective services-involved youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(1), 45–58.
*Whitaker, D. J., Le, B., & Niolon, P. H. (2010). Persistence and desistance of the perpe-
tration of physical aggression across relationships: Findings from a national study of
adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(4), 591–609.
White, J. W., Smith, P. H., Koss, M. P., & Figueredo, A. J. (2000). Intimate partner
­aggression—What have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological
­Bulletin, 126(5), 690–696.
*Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Courtship behaviors, relationship violence, and
breakup persistence in college men and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
29(3), 248–257.
*Wolf, K. A., & Foshee, V. A., (2003). Family violence, anger expression styles, and
­adolescent dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18(6), 309–316.
*Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Wekerle, C., & Pittman, A. (2001). Child maltreatment: Risk
of adjustment problems and dating violence in adolescence. Journal of American
­Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(3), 282–289.
*Wolfe, D. A., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., Grasley, C., & Reitzel-Jaffe, D. (2003).
Dating violence prevention with at-risk youth: A controlled outcome ­evaluation.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 279–291.
Worcester, N. (2002). Women’s use of force: Complexities and challenges of taking the
issue seriously. Violence Against Women, 8, 1390–1415.
*Zolotor, A. J., Theodore, A. D., Coyne-Beasley, T., & Runyan, D. K. (2007). Intimate
­partner violence and child maltreatment: Overlapping risk. Brief Treatment and
­Crisis Intervention, 7(4), 305–321.

Acknowledgments. We thank Ezra Oschorn, Michael Caudy, Melissa Tirotti, Michelle

Pritchard, Naomi McKay, and Mackenzie Chilton for their research assistance. The first
author’s work on this manuscript was supported by Award Number P30DA028807 from
the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the second author’s work on this manuscript was
supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; and the
third author’s work on this manuscript was supported by the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research and Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. The content is
solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official
views of the funding agencies.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Sarah L. Desmarais, PhD,

Assistant Professor, University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd. (MHC
2735), Tampa, FL 33629. Email: sdesmarais@usf.edu

View publication stats