1 / 38

PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE Physical aggression only Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism” Dating p

PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE Physical aggression only Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism” Dating partner violence. ARCHER META-ANALYSIS 82 studies with data on both men and women

sharvani
Download Presentation

PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE Physical aggression only Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism” Dating p

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE Physical aggression only Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism” Dating partner violence

  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

  3. U.S. NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE SURVEYS • AS REPORTED BY WOMEN • ASSAULTS BY: • MenWOMEN A. MINOR ASSAULTS • ` 1975 8.6 8.3 • ` 1985 7.2 7.4 • 1992 10.5 10.0 • B. SEVERE ASSAULTS • 1975 4.1 4.4 • 1985 4.2 4.2 • 1992 2.4 2.9

  4. 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

  5. US NATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SURVEY • ASSAULTS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS • CARRIED OUT TO PROVE THAT GENDER SYMMETRY IS WRONG. • BUT FOUND THAT WOMEN COMMIT 38% OF PARTNER ASSAULTS N=8,000 RATE =1.3% (Tjaden et al., 2000)

  6. THREE CANADIAN STUDIES BY ACADEMICS ASSAULTS BY: HUSBWIFE A. OVERALL ASSAULT RATE 1981 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 RATE 1981 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)

  7. CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SURVEY, 1999 MENWOMEN ASSAULTED 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

  8. 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 100,000 Severe assaults by female partners 4.2% = 4,200 per 100,000 (partner violence rates are as reported by women in 1985 NFVS)

  9. WOMENS SHARE OF HOMICIDE 2,OOO = 35%

  10. 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

  11. GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE PERPETRATION DEPENDS ON WHETHER INJURY AND FEAR ARE CRITERIA • IF ASSAULT IS THE CRITERION Gender Difference in Perpetration • Minor assaults • (Slapping, throwing things) None • Severe 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 rate • SEVERE ASSAULTS AND THREATS

  12. DATING VIOLENCE FROM MELISSA HOLT PAPER

  13. INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY (17 COUNTRIES)

  14. PREVALENCE RATES FOR ADOLESCENTS 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)

  15. 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).

  16. DATING VIOLENCE HAS SERIOUS EFFECTS Study of 123 high school students (Burcky and colleagues, 1988) 6% No long or short term effect 56% Upset them, but no long-term effects 8% Continuing emotional disturbance such as feelings of confusion ] anger sadness remorse, lowered self-esteem

  17. END FOR SOC 695

  18. PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE Physical and psychological aggression Police statistics and crime surveys National crime victimization survey FBI supplemental homicide reports Surveys of family and psychological problems The national family violence surveys National co-morbidity study International dating violence study All but one used the CTS Archer meta analysis Past year rates versus ever occurred rates Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism”

  19. 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.

  20. GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RATES (SEE ALSO MUTUALITY

  21. 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: s s Fe

  22. 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

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

  24. 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

More Related