Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Masculinity, Sex, and Control on Different Types of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Family Violence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Controlling behaviors have been found to be a significant predictor in IPV perpetration (IPV) for both males and females. Studies have also revealed the relationship between IPV perpetration and masculinity among males; however, the literature has not investigated the relationship between masculinity and IPV perpetration among females. Additionally, studies have not explored the effects of controlling behaviors and masculinity on different types of IPV, such as physical and sexual perpetration. The present study investigated the relationship between controlling behaviors, masculinity, past victimization, and three types of IPV perpetration among 167 college students. Multivariate analyses revealed significant contributions of each factor varied according to the type of IPV perpetration (psychological, physical, and sexual). Implications from the results include the development of more inclusive violence prevention and intervention programs aimed addressing the perpetration of intimate partner violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic view. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, J., & Haigh, A. (1997). Do beliefs about aggression predict self-reported levels of aggression. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 83–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Do adolescents follow in their friend’s or their parent’s footsteps. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). The social formations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, G., & Lowenstein, I. (1997). Where the boys are. Youth & Society, 29, 166–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beere, C. A. (1990). Gender roles: A handbook of tests and measures. New York: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bogart, M. (1988). Feminists perspective on wife abuse. Newbury: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005). The National Crime Victimization Survey. Retrieved April 2, 2005 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

  • Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359, 1331–1336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeKeseredy, W. S., & Kelly, K. (1995). Sexual abuse in Canadian university and college dating relationships: The contribution of male peer support. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., & Linder, G. F. (1999). Family violence and the perpetration of adolescent dating violence: Examining social learning and social control processes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girshik, L. B. (2002). No sugar, no spice: Reflections on research on woman-to-woman sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1500–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2003). Intimate terrorism and common couple violence: A test of Johnson’s predictions in four British samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(11), 1247–1270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005a). Using Johnson’s domestic violence typology to classify men and women in a non-selected sample. Paper presented at the 9th International Family Violence Conference. Portsmouth, NH.

  • Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2005b). Investigating three explanations of women’s relationship aggression. Psychology of Women’s Quarterly, 29, 270–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1986). Personality correlates of men who abuse their partners: A cross-validation study. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the difference among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476–497.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet, 359, 1423–1429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. P. (1999). Two types of violence against women in the American family: Identifying intimate terrorism and common couple violence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Irvine, CA.

  • Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender and Society, 3, 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, R. L. (1995). Power versus feminist theories of wife abuse. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 305–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miedzian, M. (1991). Boys will be boys: Breaking the link between masculinity and violence. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2003). Cost of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, K. D. (1988). Physical aggression between spouses: A social learning theory perspective. In M. Hersen (Ed.), Handbook of family violence (pp. 31–55). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, J. M., & Harway, M. (1997). A multivariate model explaining men’s violence toward women: Predisposing and triggering hypotheses. Violence Against Women, 3, 182–203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pagelow, M. D. (1984). Family violence. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Educating groups of men who batter: The Duluth Model. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plichta, S. B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: Policy and practice implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1296–1323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Próspero, M. (2006a). The mental & physical health of mutually violent couples. Paper presented at the International Family Violence & Child Victimization Research Conference. Portsmouth, NH.

  • Próspero, M. (2006b). The role of perceptions in dating violence among young adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(4), 470–484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Próspero, M. (2006c). Patriarchal pathology: Sexual violence among Mexican-American gang-affiliated adolescent females. Paper presented at the Résovi International Conference: Violence Against Women. Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

  • Renzetti, C. M. (1992). Violent betrayal: Partner abuse in lesbian relationships. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, and community-level risk factors. In A. J. Reiss, & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence, volume 3: Social influences (pp. 1–114). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamilial conflict and violence: The Conflicts Tactics Scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. H. (1991). The maleness of violence in dating relationships: An appraisal of stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 261–278.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NCJRS publication no. 181867). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turell, S. C. (2000). A descriptive analysis of same-sex relationship violence for a diverse sample. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldner-Haugrud, C. M., & Vaden Gratch, L. (1997). Sexual coercion in gay/lesbian relationships: Descriptives and gender differences. Victims & Violence, 12, 87–98.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waterman, C. K., Dawson, L. J., & Bologna, M. J. (1989). Sexual coercion in gay male and lesbian relationships: Predictors and implications for support services. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, M. D., Smith, M. D., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1995). Masculinity and hockey violence. Sex Roles, 33, 831–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Moisés Próspero

    Present address: College of Social Work, University of Utah, 561 Jake Garn Blvd., Salt Lake City, UT, 84104, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Social Work, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77018, USA

    Moisés Próspero

Authors
  1. Moisés Próspero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moisés Próspero.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Próspero, M. Effects of Masculinity, Sex, and Control on Different Types of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration. J Fam Viol 23, 639–645 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9186-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9186-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation