000 03682nab a22004097a 4500
999 _c8086
_d8086
005 20250625151634.0
008 230412s2023 -nz|| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _aAFVC
100 _91129
_aFanslow, Janet L.
245 _aEvidence of gender asymmetry in intimate partner violence experience at the population-level
_cJanet Fanslow, Brooklyn M. Mellar, Pauline Gulliver and Tracey McIntosh
260 _bSage,
_c2023
500 _aJournal of Interpersonal Violence, 2023, First published online, 9 April 2023
520 _aClaims of “gender symmetry” in intimate partner violence (IPV) prevalence are contested, with resolution of the issue complicated by methodological and measurement challenges. This study explores gendered differences in the distribution of IPV exposure at the population-level, considering multiple types of IPV exposure. The subjects comprised of 1,431 ever-partnered women and 1,355 ever-partnered men. Data from a nationally representative population-based cross-sectional survey were used to compare men and women’s IPV experiences. Twenty-three IPV acts were assessed across IPV types (moderate physical, severe physical, sexual, psychological, controlling behaviors, economic). Proportions were presented by gender for the number of individual IPV acts experienced per IPV type, and the frequency of these acts (none, once, few times, or many times). A composite exposure score was developed to assess the number of acts and their frequency within types by comparing scores in tertiles and across types by correlations. Women reported greater overall prevalence of 20 of the 23 individual IPV acts assessed. Across all assessed acts, women comprised a substantially greater proportion of those who reported experiencing individual acts “many times.” Women experienced more severe and more frequent IPV than men based on self-reported experience of IPV acts, and by the frequency with which acts were experienced. Significant differences between men and women’s exposure scores were observed for all six assessed types, with greater proportions of women scoring in the upper tertiles. This study provides evidence of gender asymmetry in experiences of IPV at the population level. While men do experience IPV victimization, there remains need for directed and substantial resource allocation for intervention and therapeutic responses to women’s exposure to IPV, and for primary prevention with men. Going forward, IPV measurement tools that consider frequency, severity, or co-occurring types of IPV are needed. (Authors' abstract). Record #8086
650 _aABUSED WOMEN
_925
650 _aABUSED MEN
_924
650 _aCOERCIVE CONTROL
_95771
650 _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE
_9203
650 _aECONOMIC ABUSE
_93432
650 0 _aGENDER SYMMETRY DEBATE
_96447
650 _aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
_9431
650 4 _aPHYSICAL ABUSE
_9439
650 _aPREVALENCE
_9457
650 4 _aPSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE
_9472
650 4 _aSEXUAL VIOLENCE
_9531
650 _aSURVEYS
_9592
650 4 _aVICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
_9624
650 0 _aVICTIMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE
_96716
650 0 _a2019 NZ Family Violence Study | He Koiora Matapopore
_99837
651 4 _aNEW ZEALAND
_92588
700 _aMellar, Brooklyn M.
_911655
700 _92705
_aGulliver, Pauline
700 _aMcIntosh, Tracey.
_92985
773 0 _tJournal of Interpersonal Violence, 2023, First published online, 9 April 2023
830 _aJournal of Interpersonal Violence
_94621
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231163646
_zDOI: 10.1177/08862605231163646 (Open access)
942 _2ddc
_cARTICLE
_hnews119