Measuring Risk Point of View

Are men and women equally violent to

intimate partners?

Abstract Angela Taft

Violence against women is a significant La Trobe University, Victoria
public health issue. One form of violence
against women, intimate partner abuse or Kelsey Hegarty
domestic violence, is prevalent in Australia. University of Melbourne, Victoria
In this article, we summarise the main
theoretical and methodological debates Michael Flood
informing prevalence research in this area.
Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory
We explain why studies finding equivalent
victimisation and perpetration rates
between the sexes are conceptually and

D
omestic violence is a controversial tional abuse in past ones. 5 Domestic
methodologically flawed and why coercion
area. The many other names for it violence/partner abuse should not be defined
and control are fundamental to the
– (intimate) partner abuse, woman solely by the presence of violent behaviour,
definition and measurement of partner
abuse, wife abuse, spouse abuse, battering but by violent behaviour used to control or
abuse. We conclude that while male victims
and family violence – reflect the many theo- punish one partner and by an asymmetry in
of partner abuse certainly exist, male
retical and conceptual backgrounds behind the violence. Several researchers of men who
victims of other forms of male violence are
more prevalent. A focus on gendered risk of differing definitions of the problem. The abuse female partners have conceptualised
violence in public health policy should concept always includes at least one form of different forms of violence between partners.
target male-to-male public violence and abuse, usually physical violence, by one in- Neidig (1984) outlined two types of physi-
male-to-female intimate partner abuse. timate partner against the other. A recent cal violence, ‘expressive’ and ‘instrumental’,
(Aust N Z J Public Health 2001; 25: 498-500) population study purported to show that that occur in relationships and proposes that
Australian men and women were equally an individual could be located at any point
violent to intimate partners.1 We discuss why between these two extremes. Expressive
this and other similar studies are both con- violence occurs as a result of escalating con-
ceptually and methodologically flawed, in flict between partners where it is easy to iden-
order to inform better public health policy tify the precipitating event and both partners
and debate. are involved in the escalation although not
International bodies including the World equally. Instrumental violence is the delib-
Health Organization have recognised that erate use of violence as a tool to punish or
violence against women is a leading cause control the behaviour of the partner.6
of health damage to women and children Johnson (1995) also identifies different
with major social and economic conse- forms of violence. He argues that some fami-
quences. Australia has responded with a wide lies suffer from occasional outbursts of vio-
range of policy and program responses, mak- lence by either husbands or wives during
ing it an important focus of public health conflicts (common couple violence), while
concern.2-4 other families are terrorised by systematic
male violence (patriarchal terrorism). Still
other families may experience both. Tolman
Conceptual debates (1995) suggests that with emotional abuse,
There is considerable debate over differ- conflicts in non-abusive relationships may
ing definitions of domestic violence. Defi- be characterised at times by verbal aggres-
nitions range from physical violence only in sion or withdrawal of affection on the part
current relationships to those including emo- of either partner. He discriminates, however,

Submitted: June 2001 Correspondence to:

Angela Taft, c/o The Centre for the Study of Mothers’ and Children’s Health, 251 Faraday Street,
Accepted: September 2001
Carlton, Victoria 3053. Fax: (03) 8341 8571; e-mail: [email protected]

498 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2001 VOL. 25 NO. 6
Measuring Risk Are men and women equally violent to intimate partners?

that where a man isolates his partner from friends, family and The CTS has been widely criticised for:
outside resources and demands subservience, he is more likely to • measuring conflict tactics rather than coercive tactics;
use regular physical violence against her.7,8 • omitting acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and choking;
There are two popular but differing views in the current litera- • omitting incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time
ture about the context, nature and extent of intimate partner abuse. of increased danger for women; and
Sociologists interested in family systems see the family as a • not eliciting information about the intensity, context, conse-
site of conflict, reflecting broader conflict in society. Within fami- quences or meaning of the action.10,12
lies, adult partners are presumed to be equal in their power to This is the method adopted by Headey et al., who, with neither
abuse each other or the children.9 By contrast, feminist and pro- a justif ication nor definition of their concept of domestic vio-
feminist researchers of violence against women10 view male-to- lence, measured physically abusive acts only between women and
female aggression in relationships as often coercive, which reflects men in cur rent relationships. We know, both from the 1996
the patterns of male domination in most societies. Partner abuse national Women’s Safety Survey conducted by the ABS and clini-
is seen as more likely to occur in a context of unequal power cal studies, 13 that surveys of currently partnered people overlook
relationships within the family, where social attitudes support male the greater numbers of women who have experienced abuse but
authority over female family members, women’s unequal access have divorced or separated. This represented 42% of those who
to economic security and domestic violence as a private concern were abused by male intimate partners in the ABS study.14 Headey
rather than a public issue. A new and useful ecological model, et al. created dichotomised tables indicating ‘no assault’ or ‘any
Figure 1 below, attempts to integrate the different explanatory assault’ over the last 12 months. ‘Any assault’ included those who
concepts of partner abuse at differing levels (individual, couple, had experienced one violent act or those who had experienced
family or community and society) to explain abusive male six or more. The apparent gender equivalence in perpetration of
behaviour.11 violence documented in CTS studies can also be the result of the
Evidence that men and women are equally violent comes from inclusion of minor incidents of violence, which may include acts
studies using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) and Headey et al.’s of self defence or retaliation by female partners.13
study typif ies this approach. Hegarty and Roberts recently re- From a health perspective, intimate partner abuse can be better
viewed the definitions of domestic violence and consequent preva- understood as chronic behaviour that is characterised not by the
lence figures in Australian and overseas population and clinical episodes of physical violence which punctuate the relationship
studies in this journal.5 They argued that studies which find that but by the emotional and psychological abuse that the perpetrator
men and women are equally violent are commonly artefacts of uses to maintain control over their partner. Furthermore, as most
studies using the CTS. victims of partner abuse report, the physical violence is the least

Figure 1: Ecological model of factors associated with partner abuse.

Society Community Relationship Individual perpetrator

• Norms granting men • Poverty, low socio- • Marital conflict • Being male
control over female economic status, • Male control of wealth • Witnessing marital
behaviour unemployment and decision-making in violence as a child
• Acceptance of violence • Associating with the family • Absent or rejecting
as a way to resolve delinquent peers father
conflict • Isolation of • Being abused as
• Notion of masculinity women and family a child
linked to dominance, • Alcohol abuse
honor or aggression
• Rigid gender roles

Source: Heise L. Violence Against Women. 1998;4:262-290. Copyright 2001, reprinted by permission of Sage Publications.

2001 VOL. 25 NO. 6 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 499
Taft, Hegarty and Flood Point of view

damaging abuse they suffer: it is the relentless psychological abuse responses to violence should be gendered in focus and that the
that cripples and isolates them.15 Intimate partner abuse cannot responses to intimate partner abuse are largely and appropriately
be measured by any tool that does not characterise the abuse as a targeted to female victims and their children.
form of coercion and control and include measures of at least
physical and sexual abuse. Any measure needs to include fre-
quency and severity and report these without conflating incidence References
figures into all or nothing.13
1. Headey B, Scott D, De Vaus D. Domestic violence in Australia: Are men and
The claim that men and women are equally violent ignores a women equally violent? Aust Soc Monit 1999;2:57-62.
substantial body of conflicting evidence. Women are the majority 2. National Committee on Violence Against Women. National Strategy on Vio-
lence Against Women. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 1992.
of victims of domestic assaults both in Australia and overseas.16 3. Office for the Status of Women. Partnerships Against Domestic Violence.
They are the majority of Australian victims killed by partners.17 Canberra: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Commonwealth of
Australia, 1997.
Prevalence f igures from Australian survey research using the 4. AMA Position Statement on Domestic Violence. Canberra: Australian Medi-
Conflict Tactics Scale items shows a reasonably large proportion cal Association, 1998.
5. Hegarty K, Roberts G. How common is domestic violence against women?
of victims of violence being male, although women are four times The definition of partner abuse in prevalence studies. Aust J Public Health
more likely to be victims of an episode of physical violence in 1998;22:49-54.
6. Neidig PH, Freidman DH. Spouse Abuse: A Treatment Program for Couples.
intimate relationships.18 Australian police figures reveal that fe-
Illinois: Research Press, 1984.
males were found to be over eight times more likely to report 7. Johnson MP. Patriarchal violence and common couple violence: Two forms
victimisation than males.16 Australian crime surveys show that of violence against women. J Marriage Fam 1995;57:283-94.
8. Tolman RM, Edleson JL. Intervention for men who batter: A review of re-
women are the main reported victims of intimate violence. Larger search. In: Stith S, Straus M, editors. Understanding Partner Violence: Preva-
numbers of women than men seek shelter in refuges in Australia lence, Causes, Consequences and Solutions. Minneapolis (MA): National
Council on Family Violence, 1995. p. 262-72.
and take out protection orders.19 Similarly, the State domestic vio- 9. Gelles RJ. Through a sociological lens: Social structure and family violence.
lence phone-ins conducted in Australia over the past few years In: Gelles RJ, Loseeke DR, editors. Current Controversies in Family Vio-
lence. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications, 1993.
found that the percentage of callers who were male victims ranged 10. Yllo KA. Through a feminist lens: gender, power and violence. In: Gelles RJ,
from 4% to 7.9%.20 Researchers have also provided consistent Loseeke DR, editors. Current Controversies in Family Violence. Newbury
Park (CA): Sage Publications, 1993.
evidence in the evaluation of men’s behaviour change programs 11. Heise LL. Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Vio-
that men who use violence consistently under-report it.21 There is lence Against Women 1998;4:262-90.
12. Flood M. Claims about ‘Husband Battering’. Domestic Violence and Incest
no empirical evidence that men are more likely than women to Resource Centre (DVIRC) Newsletter 1999:3-8.
under-report to police, hospitals or to seek help. 13. Hegarty K, Sheehan M, Schonfeld C. A multidimensional definition of part-
ner abuse: development and preliminary validation of the composite abuse
If one examines the data from all agencies, e.g. police, courts, scale. J Fam Violence 1999;14:399-415.
hospitals and general practice, which respond to victims, it is clear 14. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Women’s Safety Australia 1996. Canberra:
ABS, 1996.
that while there are certainly male victims of intimate partner abuse
15. Sassetti MR. Domestic Violence. Prim Care 1993;20(2):289-304.
(at the hands of both male and female partners), the majority is 16. Ferrante A, Morgan F, Indermaur D, Harding R. Measuring the Extent of
female. A few women are victims of lesbian violence, as the ABS Domestic Violence. Sydney: Hawkins Press, 1996. p. 121.
17. Mouzos J. Femicide: The Killing of Women in Australia 1989-1998. Canberra:
study indicated. Male victims of violence are far more frequently Australian Institute of Criminology, 1999. p. 45.
assaulted by other men.17 18. Roberts GL, O’Toole BI, Lawrence J, Raphael B. Domestic violence victims
in a hospital emergency department. Med J Aust 1993;159:307-10.
If our concern is genuinely the violence done to men, then 19. Alexander JH. Wife-battering – an Australian perspective. J Fam Violence
resources for men are better targeted at male-on-male violence, 1993;8:223-51.
20. Queensland Domestic Violence Taskforce. Beyond These Walls. Brisbane:
such as that in prisons, in public places and in the workplace. Department of Family Services, Queensland Government, 1988.
Although male victims of domestic violence deserve recognition, 21. Edelson JL. Judging the success of interventions with men who batter. In:
Besharov DJ. Family Violence: Research and Policy Issues. Washington: AEI
sympathy and support just as female victims do, it is unnecessary Press, 1990, p. 131-45.
to argue that men and women are equally violent for male victims
to receive this. It is quite clear that Australian public health policy

500 AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 2001 VOL. 25 NO. 6