Sex Roles

, Volume 52, Issue 11–12, pp 717–724 | Cite as

Understanding Gender and Intimate Partner Abuse

  • Maureen C. McHughEmail author


This issue represents our efforts to apply a feminist or gender lens to the research on violence in intimate relationships and to forward our understanding of gender and interpersonal violence. The paper introduces the articles in this special issue on “Understanding Gender and Intimate Partner Violence” within a framework of theoretical and methodological issues in feminist research. The current articles are viewed as contributing to our understanding of gender and interpersonal violence: by investigating patterns of interpersonal violence; by examining interpersonal violence with the context of lifespan and culture; by positing or testing theoretical models for gender and interpersonal violence; and by arguing for methodological or conceptual advances in the field.


feminist research intimate abuse partner violence interpersonal violence women’s use of violence gender 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alway, J. (1995). The trouble with gender: Tales of a still missing feminist revolution in sociological theory. Sociological Theory, 13(3), 209–228.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim?: Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research.Sex Roles, 52(11), 853–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, K. L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender and Society, 15, 358–380.Google Scholar
  5. Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bookwala, J., Sobin, J., & Zdaniuk, B. (2005). Gender and aggression in marital relationships: A life-span perspective. Sex Roles, 52(11), 797–806.Google Scholar
  8. Brush, L. D. (1990). Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families and Households. Gender and Society, 4, 56–67.Google Scholar
  9. Brush, L. (2005). Philosophical and political issues in research on women’s violence and aggression. Sex Roles, 52(11), 867–873.Google Scholar
  10. Cosgrove, L., & McHugh, M. C. (2002). Deconstructing difference: Conceptualizing feminist research from within the postmodern. In L. H. Collins, M. R. Dunlap, & J. C. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 20–36). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  11. Currie, D. H. (1998). Violent men or violent women: Whose definition counts? In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 97–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.Google Scholar
  13. Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and Victims, 9, 167–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dutton, M. A. (1996). Battered women’s strategic response to violence: The role of context. In J. L. Edleson & Z. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with battered women and their families (pp. 105–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. (2005). Coercive control and intimate partner violence: toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52(11), 743–756.Google Scholar
  16. Edleson, J. L., & Tolman, R. M. (1992). Intervention for men who batter: An ecological approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Ferree, M. M., Lorber, J., & Hess, B. B. (Eds.). (1999). Revisioning gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Frieze, I. H. (2000). Violence in close relationships—Development of a research area: Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 681–684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Frieze, I. H. (2005). Hurting the one you love: Violence in relationships. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  20. Frieze, I. H., & McHugh, M. C. (1992). Power and influence strategies in violent and nonviolent marriages. Psychology of Women Quarterly Special Issue: Women and Power, 16(4), 449–465.Google Scholar
  21. Gondolf, E. W. (1984). Men who batter: An integrated approach for stopping wife abuse. New York: Learning Publications. (Patterns of reassault in batterer programs.)Google Scholar
  22. Gondolf, E. W. (2001). Batterer intervention systems. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Gormley, B. (2005). An adult attachment theoretical perspective of gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 52(11), 785–795.Google Scholar
  24. Gormley, B., & Lopez, F. G. (2003, August). Contributions of stress, gender, adult attachment orientations, and defense mechanisms to psychological abuse in college dating relationships. Poster session presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Hamby, S. (2005). Measuring gender differences in partner violence: Implications from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior. Sex Roles, 52(11), 725–742.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, A. G. (1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kernsmith, P. (2005). Treating perpetrators of domestic violence: Gender differences in the applicability of the theory of planned behavior. Sex Roles, 52(11), 757–770.Google Scholar
  30. Kimball, M. M. (1995). Feminist visions of gender similarities and differences. New York: Harrington Park.Google Scholar
  31. Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krahé, B., Bieneck, S., & Möller, I. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52(11), 807–827.Google Scholar
  33. Krahé, B., & Berger, A. (2005). Sex Differences in Relationship Aggression among Young Adults in Germany. Sex Roles, 52(11), 829–838.Google Scholar
  34. Kurz, D. (1993). Physical assaults by husbands: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 88–103). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Marshall, L. L. (1992a). Development of the Severity of Violence Against Women Scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marshall, L. L. (1992b). The Severity of Violence Against Men Scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McHugh, M. C., & Bartoszek, T. A. (2000). Intimate violence. In M. Biaggio & M. Hersen (Eds.) Issues in the psychology of women (pp. 115–144). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  38. McHugh, M. C., & Cosgrove, L. (2002). Gendered subjects in psychology: Satirical and dialectic perspectives. In L. H. Collins, M. R. Dunlap, & J. C. Chrisler (Eds.), Charting a new course for feminist psychology (pp. 3–19). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. McHugh, M. C., & Cosgrove, L. (2004). Feminist research methods: Studying women and gender. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Praeger guide to the psychology of gender (pp. 155–182). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  40. Olson, L. N. (2002). Exploring “common couple violence” in heterosexual romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 104–128.Google Scholar
  41. Risman, B. (1998). Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When courtship persistence becomes intrusive pursuit: Comparing rejecter and pursuer perspectives of unrequited attraction. Sex Roles, 52(11), 839–852.Google Scholar
  43. Sorenson, S. B., & Taylor, C. A. (2005). Females aggression toward intimate male partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stacey, J., & Thorne, B. (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Socia Problems, 3(4), 301–316.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Sweet, J. A., & Bumpass, L. L. (1996). The National Survey of Families and Households–Waves 1 and 2: Data description and documentation. Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin–Madison (
  47. Tolman, R. M., Edleson, J. L., & Fendrich, M. (1996). The applicability of the theory of planned behavior to abusive men’s cessation of violent behavior. Violence and Victims, 11(4), 341–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.Google Scholar
  49. Weston, R., Temple, J. R., & Marshall, L. L. (in press). Gender symmetry and asymmetry in relationship violence among diverse women. Sex Roles.Google Scholar
  50. White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1994). Deconstructing the myth of the nonaggressive woman: A feminist analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 487–508.Google Scholar
  51. Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Patterns of violent relationships, psychological distress, and marital satisfaction in a national sample of men and women. Sex Roles, 52(11), 771–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yllo, K. (1988). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 213–236). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Yoshihama, M. (2000). Reinterpreting strength and safety in a socio-cultural context: Dynamics of domestic violence and experiences of women of Japanese descent. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(3/4), 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University of PennsylvaniaIndiana
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndiana

Personalised recommendations