Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 619–624 | Cite as

The Time Course of Repeat Intimate Partner Violence

Original Article

Abstract

This study examines the time course of repeat victimization by assessing whether the opportunity for victim/offender contact influences the time lapse between successive incidents of intimate partner violence. Several measures of opportunity for victim/offender contact are used, including cohabitation, co-parenting, restraining order status, and victim unemployment. The study finds that some victims (i.e., those who live with the offender) are at risk of repeat victimization in a shorter period of time than other victims. However, the study yields conflicting findings about the relationship between other opportunity variables (i.e., co-parenting and victim unemployment) and the time lapse between successive incidents of intimate partner violence. Policy implications are discussed and suggestions are offered for future research on repeat intimate partner violence.

Keywords

Intimate partner violence Domestic violence Repeat victimization 

References

  1. Brownridge, D. (2004). Understanding women’s heightened risk of violence in common law unions. Violence Against Women, 10(6), 626–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chaudhuri, M., & Daly, K. (1992). Do restraining orders help? Battered women’s experience with male violence and the legal process. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic violence: The changing criminal justice response. Westport, CT: Auburn House.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farrell, G. (1995). Preventing repeat victimisation. In M. Tonry & D. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic approaches to crime prevention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Farrell, G. & Pease, K. (1993). Once bitten, twice bitten: Repeat victimization and its implications for crime prevention. Crime Prevention Unit Paper 46. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  6. Farrell, G., Buck, W., & Pease, K. (1993). The Merseyside domestic violence prevention project. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, (2). Stockholm: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fattah, E. (1993). The rational choice/opportunity perspectives as a vehicle for integrating criminological and victimological theories. In R. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice: Advances in criminological theory, (5). New Jersey: Transaction.Google Scholar
  8. Feld, S., & Straus, M. (1989). Escalation and desistance of wife assault in marriage. Criminology, 27(1), 141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garofalo, J. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. In M. Gottfredson & T. Hirschi (Eds.), Positivist criminology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Gelles, R., & Straus, M. (1988). Intimate violence. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  11. Hanmer, J., & Stanko, E. (1985). Stripping away the rhetoric of protection: violence to women, law, and the State in Britain and the U.S.A. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 13, 357–374.Google Scholar
  12. Harrell, A., & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work?. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Harrell, A., Smith, B., & Newmark, L. (1993). Court processing and the effects of restraining orders for domestic violence victims. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  14. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  15. Humphreys, C., & Thiara, R. (2003). Neither justice nor protection: women’s experiences of post-separation violence. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 25, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laycock, G. (2001). Hypothesis-based research: the repeat victimization story. The International Journal of Policy and Practice, 1(1), 59–82.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, J., & Krull, A. (1997). Controlling domestic violence: Victim resources and police intervention. In G. Kaufman Kantor & L. Jasinki (Eds.), Out of the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Moe, A., & Bell, M. (2004). Abject economics: the effects of battering and violence on women’s work and employability. Violence Against Women, 10(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (1999). Findings about partner violence from the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study. National Institute of Justice. U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  20. Moore-Parmley, A. (1999). An exploratory study of the effects of arrest, victim characteristics, and community factors on same-offender repeat victimization in misdemeanor domestic violence cases. Dissertation, University of Maryland. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  21. Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1986). Power and control: Tactics of men who batter. Duluth, MN: Minnesota Program Development.Google Scholar
  22. Polvi, N., Looman, T., Humphries, C., & Pease, K. (1990). Repeat break-and-enter victimization: time course and crime prevention opportunity. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17(1), 8–11.Google Scholar
  23. Sampson, A., & Phillips, C. (1997). Reducing repeat racial victimisation on an East London estate. Crime detection and prevention series paper 67. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  24. Simons, R., Lin, K., & Gordon, L. (1998). Socialization in the family of origin and male dating violence: a prospective study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 713–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yllo, K. (1983). Sexual equality and violence against wives in American States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 14, 67–86.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeMonmouth UniversityWest Long BranchUSA

Personalised recommendations