Keywords: intimate partner violence, female perpetration, adolescents, college students, adults, prevalence

Search Strategy

In order to obtain articles from a wide range of disciplines, we searched the PubMed, PsychINFO, and Scopus databases. The keyword terms included female, domestic violence, family violence, partner abuse, dating violence, relationship violence, aggression, spouses, partner, and dating. Because this review was focused on female perpetration of violence, we excluded articles with the keyword term battered women. These keywords were chosen based on their relevance to this review and because they were index terms for the databases. These searches were further limited by the following criteria: English language, published from 1996 to 2006, domestic (United States), and human subject research. This initial search yielded 2,303 citations. The titles and abstracts of these articles were then subject to further review. Articles were selected if they contained information on the prevalence of IPV perpetration by females.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies examining prevalence rates were included in the review if they included percentage data on female-perpetrated IPV during a specified time period. Studies presenting counts of violent acts or mean scores on violence scales were not included. Additionally, only those articles which included self-reported perpetration by women, rather than victimization reported by men, were included in this review since some evidence suggests that men and women may report female-to-male partner violence (FMPV) differently, with females usually reporting more violence (Andrews et al., 2000;Armstrong, Wernke, Medina, & Schafer, 2002;Caetano et al., 2002;Cunradi, Bersamin, & Ames, 2008;Perry & Fromuth, 2005;Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998). For example,Caetano and colleagues (2002) found that 42% of white females reported perpetrating IPV while only 19% of their white male victims reported this perpetration. Some researchers suggest that this tendency for males to “under report” their experiences of victimization is because they may be less likely to view the incident as abusive and be frightened or threatened by the act (Wolfe et al., 2001). Given the discrepancies often found in partner reports of abuse, we chose to focus only on reports by one partner (i.e., female reports of perpetration) to make the reported rates across studies as comparable as possible.

A total of 62 articles met these inclusion criteria. Fifteen articles focused on adolescents, 16 on college students, and 31 on adult women. These populations were selected based on distinctions made in the available literature.

Prevalence Rates of Female Perpetrated Violence in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships

Table 1 presents information from the 62 articles that reported prevalence rates of female perpetrated violence in heterosexual intimate relationships. These results are separated by sample population (adolescent, college, adult) and type of violence perpetrated (physical, emotional, sexual). The specific types of violence which comprised these categories were self-defined by each research team and, therefore, may vary in definition, specificity, and severity. We applied the term “emotional” to describe verbal and psychological abuse reported in the reviewed studies; jealous behavior alone was not included in this definition. There were also large variations among these articles in the terms used for IPV (e.g. relationship violence, dating violence, courtship violence, etc.). For purposes of this review, we will use IPV as an all-inclusive term for violence occurring in heterosexual intimate relationships.

Adolescents

Fifteen studies reported the prevalence of female perpetrated IPV among adolescents. Most of the studies were conducted with high school students, with the youngest samples consisting of 8^th–9^th grade students (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004;Foshee, 1996;Wolf & Foshee, 2003). Samples were often racially diverse; however, few of the studies examined prevalence rates separately by race/ethnicity. The time orientation in these studies varied, with approximately half of the studies examining lifetime IPV perpetration and the other half examining IPV perpetration in the past year. As expected, those studies which measured past year perpetration had slightly lower prevalence rates compared to those measuring lifetime prevalence, with the exception of one study (Chase, Treboux, O'Leary, & Strassberg, 1998).

Physical violence was the type of violence most often reported, with fourteen of the fifteen studies reporting these perpetration rates among adolescents. For all fourteen studies, the prevalence rate for physical violence ranged between 4.0% and 79.0%. The wide range of prevalence rates appears to be a result of methodological and sampling differences across studies. For example,Bennett and Fineran (1998) found a low perpetration rate (4.0%) compared to other studies, possibly because their measurement of physical violence was relatively narrow, including only severe acts combined with reports of sexual violence. In addition, the two studies that reported the highest rates of female perpetrated IPV were both conducted with samples considered at risk for violence (Chase et al., 1998;West & Rose, 2000). Specifically,Chase et al. (1998) examined physical IPV among 95 high school students who were referred to a drop-out prevention program because of problems with aggression and other delinquent behaviors andWest and Rose (2000) examined IPV prevalence among 171 low income African American youth, a population which is often at increased risk for violence. When these outlying rates are removed, the prevalence rates of the remaining eleven studies range from 9.0%–44.3%.

Few studies reported prevalence rates for female perpetration of emotional or sexual violence in adolescent intimate relationships. Based on our inclusion criteria, two studies reported rates for emotional violence and three for sexual violence.Schumacher and Smith Slep (2004) examined the rates of self-reported verbal aggression among 398 ethnically diverse 10^th-12^th grade students. Ninety-four percent of females stated that they had been verbally aggressive toward their current or most recent dating partner.West and Rose (2000) found that perpetration among females ranged from 36.5%–88.6% depending on the type of aggression; females reported making their partner feel guilty most often and making them feel inferior least often.

West and Rose (2000) was also one of the few studies selected that measured the occurrence of sexual violence in adolescent intimate relationships. In this study, rates of sexual aggression perpetrated by females ranged from 4.6%–19.5%, again, depending on the specific behavior. The most common behavior reported was forced kissing whereas the least commonly reported behavior was trying to force intercourse. The two other studies that measured sexual violence found lower rates of female perpetration.Coker and colleagues (2000) examined forced sex perpetration among 5,414 Caucasian (49.4%) and African American (44.3%) high school students who took part in the South Carolina Youth Risk Behavior Survey and found a lifetime prevalence rate of 4.2% for females. Another study investigating lifetime sexual IPV among 8^th–9^th grade students (N=1965) in rural North Carolina reported a female perpetration rate of 1.2% (Foshee, 1996).

College

Fifteen studies examined female perpetration among college students. While there was a wide range of ages in some of the studies, most of the samples reported a mean age between 18 and 21. The majority of samples were also predominately Caucasian. Multiple time frames were used to measure prevalence in college samples; the most common were past year or lifetime IPV perpetration, however, some studies measured IPV perpetration within the past five years, while at the University, or in the current/most recent relationship. No major differences were observed in prevalence rates based on the measurement time frame.

Fourteen studies reported the prevalence of female perpetrated physical IPV among this population with rates ranging from 11.7%–39.0%. These rates appeared to be more similar across studies, than those found for adolescents, possibly because the samples were more homogenous.

Perpetration of emotional violence appeared to be very common in this population. Five studies reported rates of emotional IPV perpetration by college females, which ranged from 40.4%–89.3%.Beyers, Leonard, Mays, and Rose (2000) found the lowest rate (40.4%) of emotional violence perpetration in their study; however, their definition of this type of abuse differed from those used in other studies. Their study used a global experience measure and defined emotional violence as “the use of words to control, dominate, intimidate, degrade, and/or intentionally harm another psychologically” (Beyers et al., 2000, p. 456), whereas, the other studies used either the Conflict Tactics Scale or the Abuse Behavior Inventory, both of which defined emotional violence as specific behaviors. These other studies found perpetration rates greater than 65%.Cercone, Beach, and Arias (2005) were the only authors to include a measure of severe psychological aggression using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (e.g. I destroyed something belonging to my partner) in their study of 414 predominantly Caucasian undergraduate students. Their findings showed that 26.7% of females reported perpetrating this type of violence against a dating partner at some point in their life.

Four studies reported prevalence rates of sexual IPV perpetration by female college students ranging from 2.1% to 46.2%. These studies used widely varying measures of sexual aggression. As with verbal aggression,Beyers and colleagues (2000) used a global experience measure for sexual abuse as opposed to specific behaviors, possibly accounting for the lower prevalence rate (2.1%) reported in this study.Anderson (1998;1996) reported the highest levels of sexual IPV (34.1–46.2% overall) in his study, however, his measure asked about attempted sexual IPV and, therefore, may be an overestimate compared to the other studies, which did not include attempted behaviors in their measures.

Adults

Thirty-one articles presented prevalence estimates of female perpetrated IPV among adult populations. Similar to studies with adolescents and college populations, physical violence was the most commonly studied type of aggression among adults (all 31 studies); only four studies reported estimates for emotional or verbal abuse and one study reported on sexual aggression perpetrated by women.

Prevalence estimates for physical IPV perpetrated by women varied significantly across the studies possibly due to the divergent recall periods (e.g. past year, ever), respondent groups (e.g. race/ethnicity), and degrees of violence (e.g. moderate, severe) documented. Furthermore, some of the largest estimates were obtained from particularly high-risk subject populations. Estimates for past year female-perpetrated physical IPV range from 13.0% to 68.0%, although the highest rate reported was obtained from a sample of women seeking alcohol treatment, a documented risk factor for IPV perpetration and victimization (Chase, O'Farrell, Murphy, Fals-Stewart, & Murphy, 2003). Race/ethnic specific estimates suggest that African American and Hispanic women report higher rates of IPV perpetration compared to Caucasian women. A nationally-representative survey found the prevalence of female perpetrated IPV to be 30.0% among African-Americans, 21.0% among Hispanic, and 16.0% among Caucasian women (Caetano, Schafer, & Cunradi, 2001;Caetano, Cunradi, Schafer, & Clark, 2000;Cunradi, Caetano, Clark, & Schafer, 1999).

As expected, past year prevalence estimates for physical IPV also varied by severity: ranging from 15.9% to 25.8% for moderate abuse and 7.1% to 26.9% for severe abuse. Higher estimates were observed for some subject populations. For example,Chermack and colleagues (2000;2001) found that over one-third of the females in a substance abuse treatment program reported perpetrating severe physical abuse against an intimate partner while half of all alcoholic women seeking outpatient treatment in a study byChase and colleagues (2003) reported perpetrating severe IPV against their partners.

As noted above, very few of the selected articles provided prevalence estimates for emotional or sexual abuse. However, based on this limited evidence it appears that adult women commonly use psychological abuse, alone or in combination with physical aggression, against their intimate partners. General estimates of past year psychological aggression by women range from 81.0% to 88.0% (Sugihara & Warner, 2002;White & Chen, 2002), however,O’Leary and Smith Slep (2006) reported past year prevalence of mild psychological aggression to be as high as 95%; the same study reported the prevalence of severe psychological aggression to be just over one-quarter. Finally, only one study reported on the prevalence of sexual aggression perpetrated by women. In a sample of 316 Mexican American women,Sugihara and Warner (2002) found that 11% reported perpetrating sexual violence against an intimate partner in the past year.

Similarities and Differences across Populations

The information gained from this review indicates that female perpetrated IPV is a common occurrence among adolescents, college students, and adults. In all three populations, emotional violence appears to be the most prevalent, followed by physical and then sexual violence. Given the wide range of prevalence rates within each study population, however, it is difficult to determine the developmental trajectory of female perpetrated IPV from these studies.

In this review, we only found a few studies which reported prevalence rates of IPV perpetration among females at two or more time points making it difficult to obtain a clear picture of the developmental patterns associated with this type of violence. Only one study reported prevalence rates over time for female perpetrated IPV among adolescents (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004). This study found a significant increase in prevalence over a six month period; however, they measured lifetime perpetration of IPV, therefore, it is unclear if there was an actual increase or simply an accumulation of violence.Graves, Sechrist, White, and Paradise (2005) provided the only study which examined IPV prevalence rates at multiple time points for college students (past year prevalence for four years) and, in fact, also included a measure of prevalence during adolescence. They measured prevalence during adolescence as IPV occurring between the age of 14 up to the point of the first survey administration and prevalence during college as past year prevalence every year for four years. The highest prevalence was found for adolescence (although this may be due to the larger time period of measurement) and a decreasing trend during college. Among the studies examining IPV perpetration in adult female populations, five reported prevalence rates at two time points (Field & Caetano, 2003;Kim & Capaldi, 2004;Martino, Collins, & Ellickson, 2005;Merrill, Crouch, Thomsen, Guimond, & Milner, 2005;Schumacher & Leonard, 2005). All five studies showed IPV perpetration to be relatively stable or to follow a decreasing trend over time.

Together, these studies provide very limited evidence that female perpetration of IPV may follow a similar developmental trajectory as other forms of violence. Developmental researchers have shown that the onset of violent behaviors usually follows one of two paths, one in which violence occurs during early adolescence, peaks during mid-adolescence, and decreases in late adolescence to young adulthood (referred to as “adolescent limited” or “late onset”) and the other in which violence emerges during early childhood, escalates to more serious forms of violence by adolescence and persists into adulthood (referred to as “life course persistent” or “early onset”) (Elliott, 1994;Moffitt, 1993;United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). The adolescent limited or late onset trajectory is the most common trajectory found among youth. Much of what is known about the development trajectory of violent behavior comes from a few longitudinal surveys following youth over the course of several years (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). These trajectories, however, have been more clearly defined for males, possibly because the studies primarily looked at forms of violence more characteristic of males, such as serious violence (e.g. aggravated assault, robbery, gang fights, rape) (Elliott, 1994;Moffitt, 1993;United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). There is evidence, however, indicating that the developmental trajectories for the emergence of violence differ for males and females (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Therefore, more longitudinal research is needed to see how the development of female perpetrated violence in intimate relationships is similar and different from the development of other forms of violence.

Methodological Issues

Several important methodological issues in the measurement of female perpetrated IPV were identified during the course of this review. First, significant discrepancies exist in the definition of IPV and the periodicity examined. These differences are largely related to the instrument used to collect data. Many of the studies included in this review used some form of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). Since the CTS collects data for the prior 12 months and provides standardized definitions of mild, moderate, and severe abuse, studies using this instrument yielded prevalence estimates with a greater degree of comparability. Limitations of the CTS have been identified previously (Kurz, 1989), however in the absence of a widely-accepted, validated instrument it remains a critical mechanism for measuring IPV events. Unfortunately, many of the studies included in this review used modified or alternative instruments making it difficult to accurately compare prevalence estimates. For example, studies which used a more limited definition of abuse (e.g. only severe acts) or a shorter recall period (e.g. current relationship) often yielded lower prevalence estimates that those which included multiple forms of violence (e.g. threats of violence; mild, moderate, and severe acts) and longer recall periods, particularly those that focused on lifetime perpetration of violence acts toward a partner. Additionally, we found relatively few studies that examined forms of female perpetrated IPV other than physical. Only eleven out of the 62 article included in this review examined some form of emotional violence and eight measured sexual violence. No other forms of female perpetrated IPV were found in this review. There is a growing body of research indicating that when females perpetrate violence, they are more likely to engage in forms other than physical violence, such as emotional violence or relational aggression (Archer, 2004; Crick & Grotpeter, 2005;Osterman et al., 1994;Xie, Farmer, & Cairns, 2003). Therefore, more research is needed examining perpetration in intimate relationships of the forms of violence that are more salient among females.

Second, prevalence estimates varied widely depending on the population. Investigations of IPV have often relied on purposive or convenience sampling strategies targeting those individuals at highest risk for victimization and perpetration. Research with these populations can be critical to the development of effective programs and policies targeting individuals at greatest risk, however, resulting prevalence estimates and other data may be highly skewed and therefore difficult to compare to more representative estimates, such as those obtained through randomized sampling. Few studies in this review used randomized sampling in their studies. Only three studies reported using some type of randomization for selecting participants among adolescent populations (Coker et al., 2000;DuRant, Champion, & Wolfson, 2006;Ozer, Tschann, Pasch, & Flores, 2004); whereas, no studies used random sampling among college students. Four independent studies utilized a random sampling procedure to identify adult respondents (Caetano et al., 2000;Caetano et al., 2001;Field & Caetano, 2003;Ehrensaft et al., 2003;Ehrensaft, Cohen, & Johnson, 2006;Giordano, Millhollin, Cernkovich, Pugh, & Rudolph, 1999;O’Leary & Smith Slep, 2006); and only one of these reported nationally-representative results (Caetano et al., 2000,Caetano et al., 2001;Field & Caetano, 2003).

Third, as previously discussed, only a small proportion of the studies were longitudinal in design, or reported prevalence rates at more than one time point, limiting the extent to which it was possible to identify clear differences in the trajectory of female perpetrated IPV over time. A better understanding of when and under what circumstances female perpetrated IPV develops can help researchers to better target prevention strategies.

Finally, it is important to note that even though we focused this review on female perpetrated IPV, these acts are usually not isolated or one-sided, but most often reflect a reciprocal or mutual pattern of relationship violence. Studies with all age groups indicate that bidirectional violence is more the norm than the exception. However, research indicates that the patterns of mutual aggression among heterosexual couples are complex and remain difficult to tease out given the limitations of cross-sectional and even longitudinal study designs. Evidence suggests that previous partner aggression remains one of the strongest predictors for future aggression by both males and females (Anderson, 1996;Bennett & Fineran, 1998;Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Field, 2005;Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005;Field & Caetano, 2003;Graves et al., 2005;Hines & Saudino, 2003;Luthra & Gidycz, 2006;Milan et al., 2005;O’Leary & Smith Slep 2006;Schumacher & Leonard, 2005;Smith Slep & O’Leary, 2005;White, Merrill, & Koss, 2001). While these findings may help us to better understand the broad patterns of IPV, they do not necessarily help us to understand the nuances of situational factors associated with individual events. Specifically the importance and temporal association between initiation, retaliation, and self-defense are not always evident. For example, while numerous studies have suggested that women’s violence is more likely to be in self-defense, others have found that younger females in particular may be more likely to initiate physical aggression (Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007). Similarly, although most studies report that males are more likely than females to perpetrate severe acts of violence against their partner, at least one study with female alcoholics found that despite similar overall rates of violence perpetration, female-perpetrated violence was generally more severe and more frequent (Drapkin et al., 2005). Finally, studies with couples have highlighted the importance of relationship and family dynamics in determining patterns of mutual violence among heterosexual couples (Smith Slep & O’Leary, 2005;Capaldi & Owen, 2001). Taken together, the findings presented in this review suggest that although female perpetrated IPV may contribute to broad patterns of bidirectional violence that have been observed, significant gaps remain in our understanding of the situational and background factors associated with women’s use of violence in their intimate relationships at all age levels.

Practice

The evidence reviewed here suggests that girls and women perpetrate a significant amount of IPV against their male partners. Although the focus of this review was not on interventions to prevent or disrupt the cycle of female-perpetrated violence (or IPV more generally), a recent review byWhitaker et al. (2006) suggests that primary prevention strategies have not, to date, been targeted to girls or provided sex-specific curriculum. Future efforts to prevent dating violence among adolescent and young adult populations should, at the very least, explicitly include content on female perpetration and, when available and appropriate, provide sex-specific interventions.

At least one nationally representative survey of young adults has shown that among relationships that included some violence, nearly 50% were reciprocally violent (Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007). These findings suggest that a substantial number of women seeking services for victimization may also be perpetrators of IPV. Taken in light of recent findings related to the increased risk for frequent and severe IPV victimization among female perpetrators, service providers who treat battered women may also need to consider addressing perpetration of IPV with their clients.

Policy

Although policy initiatives have traditionally, and rightfully, focused on generating and targeting resources toward meeting the needs of female victims of IPV and their families, the results from this review suggest that resources focused on the prevention of female-perpetrated partner violence may provide new opportunities for family violence prevention. Such policy initiatives could include: public awareness campaigns about all types of intimate partner violence; demonstration or pilot programs to test sex-specific IPV prevention programs; and promotion of educational programs focusing on the development of healthy relationships. We do not propose a cut in existing resources for violence against women programs, but rather a shift – or partial shift – in the foci of those programs to include a critical consideration of women’s use of violence in their intimate relationships and the development of appropriate responses.

Research

The evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that further research is needed on the development and maintenance of violent behaviors in female youth. Although female-perpetrated IPV has been studied in populations across the lifespan, none of the studies reviewed examined the same individuals over a long enough period of time to determine the developmental trajectory of IPV perpetration among females. This gap in the evidence base could be addressed through longitudinal research with both nationally representative and “at risk” populations. Specifically, researchers can improve rigor in this area of inquiry through the use of well-defined measures, well-defined samples and random sampling techniques. Additional research is needed on the timing and predictors of the initiation of violence behaviors towards intimate partners as well as potential mediators of continued IPV perpetration by females. Longitudinal research is needed to better understand the association between individual, relationship, and contextual factors that contribute to female perpetrated IPV across the lifespan. Such efforts, pursued in conjunction with rigorous evaluation of primary prevention strategies, are needed to extend the current evidence base and support the development of effective programs and policies to prevent and address female perpetration of IPV.

1. Anderson PB. Correlates of college women's self-reports of heterosexual aggression. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment. 1996;8:121–131. [Google Scholar]
2. Anderson PB. Variations in college women's self-reported heterosexual aggression. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment. 1998;10:283–292. [Google Scholar]
3. Andrews JA, Capaldi D, Foster SL, Hops H. Adolescent and family predictors of physical aggression, communication, and satisfaction in young adult couples: a prospective analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2000;68(2):195–208. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.68.2.195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Archer J. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin. 2000;126:651–680. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Archer J. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology. 2004;8(4):291–322. [Google Scholar]
6. Armstrong TG, Wernke JY, Medina KL, Schafer J. Do partners agree about the occurrence of intimate partner violence? A review of the current literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2002;3(3):181–193. [Google Scholar]
7. Arriaga XB, Foshee VA. Adolescent dating violence: do adolescents follow in their friends', or their parents', footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2004;19:162–184. doi: 10.1177/0886260503260247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Bennett L, Fineran S. Sexual and severe physical violence among high school students. Power beliefs, gender, and relationship. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1998;68:645–652. doi: 10.1037/h0080373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Beyers JM, Leonard JM, Mays VK, Rose LA. Gender differences in the perception of courtship abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2000;15:451–466. [Google Scholar]
10. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Health outcomes in women with physical and sexual intimate partner violence exposure. Journal of Women's Health. 2007;16:987–997. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Caetano R, Ramisetty-Mikler S, Field C. Unidirectional and bidirectional intimate partner violence among White, Black and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Violence and Victims. 2005;20:398–406. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Caetano R, Schafer J, Field CA, Nelson S. Agreements on reports of intimate partner violence among White, Black and Hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2002;17:1308–1322. [Google Scholar]
13. Caetano R, Schafer J, Cunradi CB. Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcohol Research and Health. 2001;25:58–65. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Caetano R, Cunradi CB, Schafer J, Clark CL. Intimate partner violence and drinking patterns among white, black, and hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Substance Abuse. 2000;11:123–138. doi: 10.1016/s0899-3289(00)00015-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Campbell JC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002;359:1331–1336. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Campbell J, Jones AS, Dienemann J, Kub J, Schollenberger J, O'Campo P, et al. Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2002;162:1157–1163. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.10.1157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Cano A, Vivian D. Are life stressors associated with marital violence? Journal of Family Psychology. 2003;17:302–314. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Capaldi DM, Kim HK, Shortt JW. Observed initiation and reciprocity of physical aggression in young at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence. 2007;22(2):101–111. doi: 10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Capaldi DM, Owen LD. Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples: Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology. 2001;15:425–440. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.15.3.425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) Physical dating violence among high school students--United States. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2006;55:532–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Cercone JJ, Beach SR, Arias I. Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims. 2005;20:207–218. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Chapple CL. Examining intergenerational violence: violent role modeling or weak parental controls? Violence and Victims. 2003;18:143–162. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Chase KA, Treboux D, O'Leary KD, Strassberg Z. Specificity of dating aggression and its justification among high-risk adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1998;26:467–473. doi: 10.1023/a:1022651818834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Chase KA, O'Farrell TJ, Murphy CM, Fals-Stewart W, Murphy M. Factors associated with partner violence among female alcoholic patients and their male partners. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2003;64:137–149. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2003.64.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Chermack ST, Fuller BE, Blow FC. Predictors of expressed partner and non-partner violence among patients in substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2000;58:43–54. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(99)00067-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Chermack ST, Walton MA, Fuller BE, Blow FC. Correlates of expressed and received violence across relationship types among men and women substance abusers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2001;15:140–151. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.15.2.140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Cogan R, Ballinger BC. Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2006;21:924–935. doi: 10.1177/0886260506289177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Coker AL, McKeown RE, Sanderson M, Davis KE, Valois RF, Huebner ES. Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2000;19:220–227. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00227-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development. 1995;66:710–722. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Cunradi CB, Bersamin M, Ames G. Agreement on intimate parnter violence among a sample of blue-collar couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, E-pub ahead of print. 2008 doi: 10.1177/0886260508317189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Cunradi CB, Caetano R, Clark CL, Schafer J. Alcohol-related problems and intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 1999;23:1492–1501. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Drapkin ML, McCrady BS, Swingle JM, Epstein EE. Exploring bidirectional couple violence in a clinical sample of female alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66:213–219. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. DuRant RH, Champion H, Wolfson M. The relationship between watching professional wrestling on television and engaging in date fighting among high school students. Pediatrics. 2006;118:e265–e272. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-2098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Durose M, Harlow C, Langan P, Motivans M, Rantala R, Smith E. Family violence statistics including statistics on strangers and acquaintances. (NCJ 207846) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington DC; 2005. [Google Scholar]
35. Dutton MA, Green BL, Kaltman SI, Roesch DM, Zeffiro TA, Krause ED. Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2006;21:955–968. doi: 10.1177/0886260506289178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Dye ML, Eckhardt CI. Anger, irrational beliefs, and dysfunctional attitudes in violent dating relationships. Violence and Victims. 2000;15:337–350. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Ehrensaft MK, Cohen P, Brown J, Smailes E, Chen H, Johnson JG. Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2003;71:741–753. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.71.4.741. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Ehrensaft MK, Cohen P, Johnson JG. Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk for partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2006;115:474–483. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.115.3.474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Elliott DS. Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination. The American Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology. 1994;32:1–21. [Google Scholar]
40. Feiring C, Deblinger D, Hoch-Espada A, Haworth T. Romantic relationship aggression and attitudes in high school students: the role of gender, grade, and attachment and emotional styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2002;31:373–385. [Google Scholar]
41. Fiebert MS, Gonzalez DM. College women who initiate assaults on their male partners and the reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports. 1997;80:583–590. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.583. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Field CA, Caetano R. Longitudinal model predicting partner violence among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2003;27:1451–1458. doi: 10.1097/01.ALC.0000086066.70540.8C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Foshee VA. Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Healht Education Research. 1996;11:275–286. [Google Scholar]
44. Foshee VA, Linderq GF, Bauman KE, Langwick SA, Arriaga XB, Heath JL, et al. The Safe Dates Project: theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1996;12:39–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Giordano PC, Millhollin TJ, Cernkovich SA, Pugh MD, Rudolph JL. Delinquency, identity, and women's involvement in relationship violence. Criminology. 1999;37:17–40. [Google Scholar]
46. Graves KN, Sechrist SM, White JW, Paradise MJ. Intimate partner violence perpetrated by college women within the context of a history of victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2005;29:278–289. [Google Scholar]
47. Harned MS. Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims. 2001;16:269–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Herrenkohl TI, Mason WA, Kosterman R, Lengua LJ, Hawkins JD, Abbott RD. Pathways from physical childhood abuse to partner violence in young adulthood. Violence and Victims. 2004;19:123–136. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.2.123.64099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Hickman LJ, Jaycox LH, Aronoff J. Dating violence among adolescents: prevalence, gender distribution, and prevention program effectiveness. Trauma Violence & Abuse. 2004;5:123–142. doi: 10.1177/1524838003262332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Hines DA, Saudino KJ. Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and Victims. 2003;18:197–217. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Kernic MA, Holt VL, Wolf ME, McKnight B, Huebner CE, Rivara FP. Academic and school health issues among children exposed to maternal intimate partner abuse. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2002;156:549–555. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.156.6.549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Kernsmith P. Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Violence and Victims. 2005;20:173–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Kim HK, Capaldi DM. The association of antisocial behavior and depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004;18:82–96. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Kurz D. Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender & Society. 1989;3:501–513. [Google Scholar]
55. Lewis SF, Travea L, Fremouw WJ. Characteristics of female perpetrators and victims of dating violence. Violence and Victims. 2002;17:593–606. doi: 10.1891/vivi.17.5.593.33711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Lichter EL, McCloskey LA. The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence on adolescent gender-role beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2004;28:344–357. [Google Scholar]
57. Luthra R, Gidycz CA. Dating violence among college men and women: evaluation of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2006;21:717–731. doi: 10.1177/0886260506287312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Malik S, Sorenson SB, Aneshensel CS. Community and dating violence among adolescents: perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health. 1997;21:291–302. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(97)00143-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Martino SC, Collins RL, Ellickson PL. Cross-lagged relationships between substance use and intimate partner violence among a sample of young adult women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2005;66:139–148. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2005.66.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. McCarroll JE, Ursano RJ, Liu X, Thayer LE, Newby JH, Norwood AE, et al. Deployment and the probability of spousal aggression by U.S. Army soldiers. Military Medicine. 2000;165:41–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Melton HC, Belknap J. He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2003;30:328–348. [Google Scholar]
62. Merrill LL, Crouch JL, Thomsen CJ, Guimond J, Milner JS. Perpetration of severe intimate partner violence: premilitary and second year of service rates. Military Medicine. 2005;170:705–709. doi: 10.7205/milmed.170.8.705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Milan S, Lewis J, Ethier K, Kershaw T, Ickovics JR. Relationship violence among adolescent mothers: Frequency, dyadic nature, and implications for relationship dissolution and mental health. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2005;29:302–312. [Google Scholar]
64. Moffitt TE. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review. 1993;100:674–701. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Munoz-Rivas MJ, Grana JL, O'Leary KD, Gonzalez MP. Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2007;40:298–304. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Murphy BS, Stevens SJ, McGrath RA, Wexler HK, Reardon D. Women and violence: A different look. Drugs & Society. 1998;13:131–144. [Google Scholar]
67. Murphy CM, Blumenthal DR. The mediating influence of interpersonal problems on the intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression. Personal Relationships. 2000;7:203–218. [Google Scholar]
68. Newby JH, Ursano RJ, McCarroll JE, Martin LT, Norwood AE, Fullerton CS. Spousal aggression by U.S. Army female soldiers toward employed and unemployed civilian husbands. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2003;73:288–293. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.73.3.288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. O'Keefe M. Posttraumatic stress disorder among incarcerated battered women: A comparison of battered women who killed their abusers and those incarcerated for other offenses. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1998;11:71–85. doi: 10.1023/A:1024457116085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. O'Leary SG, Smith Slep AM. Precipitants of partner aggression. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006;20:344–347. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. O'Leary SG, Smith Slep AM. A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2003;32(3):314–327. doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3203_01. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Orcutt HK, Garcia M, Pickett SM. Female-perpetrated intimate partner violence and romantic attachment style in a college student sample. Violence and Victims. 2005;20:287–302. doi: 10.1891/vivi.20.3.287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Osterman K, Bjorkqvist K, Lagerspetz KM, Kaukiainen A, Huesmann LR, Fraczek A. Peer and self-estimated aggression and victimization in 8-year-old children from five ethnic groups. Aggressive Behavior. 1994;20:411–428. [Google Scholar]
74. Ozer EJ, Tschann JM, Pasch LA, Flores E. Violence perpetration across peer and partner relationships: co-occurrence and longitudinal patterns among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2004;34:64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2002.12.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Perry AR, Fromuth ME. Courtship violence using couple data: characteristics and perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2005;20:1078–1095. doi: 10.1177/0886260505278106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Rennison CM, Welchans S. U.S. Department of Justice; Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: intimate partner violence. 2000 (Rep. No. NCJ 178247)
77. Rickert VI, Wiemann CM, Vaughan RD, White JW. Rates and risk factors for sexual violence among an ethnically diverse sample of adolescents. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2004;158:1132–1139. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.158.12.1132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Ridley CA, Feldman CM. Female domestic violence toward male partners: exploring conflict responses and outcomes. Journal of Family Violence. 2003;18:157–170. [Google Scholar]
79. Rosen LN, Parmley AM, Knudson KH, Fancher P. Gender differences in the experience of intimate partner violence among active duty U.S. Army soldiers. Military Medicine. 2002;167:959–963. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Saltzman LE, Fanslow JL, McMahon PM, Shelly GA. Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2002. [Google Scholar]
81. Schafer J, Caetano R, Clark CL. Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 1998;88(11):1702–1704. doi: 10.2105/ajph.88.11.1702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Schumacher JA, Leonard KE. Husbands' and wives' marital adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73:28–37. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.28. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Schumacher JA, Smith Slep AM. Attitudes and dating aggression: a cognitive dissonance approach. Prevention Science. 2004;5:231–243. doi: 10.1023/b:prev.0000045357.19100.77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Schwartz M, O'Leary SG, Kendziora KT. Dating aggression among high school students. Violence and Victims. 1997;12:295–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Siegel JA. Aggressive behavior among women sexually abused as children. Violence and Victims. 2000;15:235–255. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
86. Smith Slep AM, O'Leary SG. Parent and partner violence in families with young children: rates, patterns, and connections. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005;73:435–444. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Spencer GA, Bryant SA. Dating violence: a comparison of rural, suburban, and urban teens. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2000;27:302–305. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(00)00125-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Straus MA, Ramirez IL. Criminal history and assault of dating partners: the role of type of prior crime, age of onset, and gender. Violence and Victims. 2004;19:413–434. doi: 10.1891/vivi.19.4.413.64164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Sugihara Y, Warner JA. Dominance and domestic abuse among Mexican Americans: Gender differences in the etiology of violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence. 2002;17:315–340. [Google Scholar]
90. Temple JR, Weston R, Marshall LL. Physical and mental health outcomes of women in nonviolent, unilaterally violent, and mutually violent relationships. Violence and Victims. 2005;20:335–359. doi: 10.1891/vivi.20.3.335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence aginst women: findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 2000. [Google Scholar]
92. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.: Intimate partner homicide. 2006 Retrieved on October 1, 2007 fromhttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm.
93. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Youth violence: a report of the Surgeon General. 2001 Retrieved on September 21, 2007 fromhttp://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence.
94. West CM, Rose S. Dating aggression among low income African American youth: An examination of gender differences and antagonistic beliefs. Violence Against Woman. 2000;6:470–494. [Google Scholar]
95. Whitaker DJ, Haileyesus T, Swahn M, Saltzman LS. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97:941–947. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Whitaker DJ, Morrison S, Lindquist C, Hawkins SR, O'Neil J, Nesius AM, et al. A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2006;11:151–166. [Google Scholar]
97. White HR, Chen PH. Problem drinking and intimate partner violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2002;63:205–214. doi: 10.15288/jsa.2002.63.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. White JW, Merrill LL, Koss MP. Predictors of premilitary courtship violence in a Navy recruit sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2001;16:910–927. [Google Scholar]
99. Wolf KA, Foshee VA. Family violence, anger expression styles, and adolescent dating violence. Journal of Family Violence. 2003;18:309–316. [Google Scholar]
100. Wolfe DA, Scott K, Reitzel-Jaffe D, Wekerle C, Grasley C, Straatman AL. Development and validation of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory. Psychological Assessment. 2001;13:277–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Woods SJ, Wineman NM, Page GG, Hall RJ, Alexander TS, Campbell JC. Predicting immune status in women from PTSD and childhood and adult violence. Advances in Nursing Science. 2005;28:306–319. doi: 10.1097/00012272-200510000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Xie H, Farmer TW, Cairns BD. Different forms of aggression among inner-city African-American children: Gender, configurations and school social networks. Journal of School Psychology. 2003;41(5):355–375. [Google Scholar]