Female Perpetration of Violence

NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Trauma Violence Abuse. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 March 31.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript
Published in final edited form as:

Trauma Violence Abuse. 2008 October ; 9(4): 227249. doi:10.1177/1524838008324418.
FEMALE PERPETRATION OF VIOLENCE IN HETEROSEXUAL

INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS: ADOLESCENCE THROUGH
ADULTHOOD
Jessica Roberts Williams, PhD, MPH, RN1, Reem M. Ghandour, MPA2, and Joan E. Kub, PhD,
APRN, BC1
1The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 525 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD 21205-2110.
2The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 614 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD
21205-2110.
Abstract
This article critically reviews 62 empirical studies that examine the prevalence of female perpetrated
intimate partner violence across three distinct populations (adolescents, college students, and adults).
All studies were published between 1996 and 2006 and reported prevalence rates of physical,
emotional, and/or sexual violence perpetrated by females in heterosexual intimate relationships. The
highest rates were found for emotional violence, followed by physical and sexual violence.
Prevalence rates varied widely within each population, most likely due to methodological and
sampling differences across studies. Few longitudinal studies existed, limiting the extent to which
we could identify developmental patterns associated with female perpetrated intimate partner
violence. Differences and similarities across populations are highlighted. Methodological difficulties
of this area of inquiry as well as implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.
Keywords
intimate partner violence; female perpetration; adolescents; college students; adults; prevalence
Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional abuse,
or threat of abuse, by a current or former spouse or partner is a critical public health concern
(Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelly, 2002). Nearly one-quarter of U.S. women and 7.6%
of men report having been raped and/or physically assaulted at some point in their lifetime by
a current or past spouse, cohabitating partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, or date (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). Women who experience IPV are significantly more likely to experience
adverse health outcomes compared to those who have not experienced IPV (Bonomi,
Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2007). Health consequences of IPV include chronic
gynecological, central nervous system, and stress-related health problems (Campbell et al.,
2002; Kernic et al., 2002) as well as depression, post traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse
and suicidality (Campbell, 2002; Dutton et al., 2006; Woods et al., 2005).
To date, most studies on IPV have focused on the victimization of women and girls rather than
their male counterparts. This is due to the fact that a greater proportion of women report
experiencing IPV; women are victimized at about five times the rate of men (Rennison &
Corresponding Author: Jessica Roberts Williams, PhD, MPH, RN, The Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 46834 Willowood
Place, Sterling, VA 20165, phone: 410-243-3910, fax: 410-502-5481, email: jrober65@son.jhmi.edu.
Williams et al.
Page 2
Welchans, 2000). Similarly, females accounted for 84.3% of spouse abuse victims and 85.9%
of victims of violence between boy/girlfriends between 1998 and 2002 (Durose et al., 2005).
Male-perpetrated IPV has also been shown to be more injurious for women and result in more
severe short and long term sequalae (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Consequently, women are
also more likely to be killed as a result of IPV. In 2004, 32.7% of female homicide victims
were killed by an intimate partner, whereas, only 3.1% of male homicides were committed by
female intimate partners (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).
Recent evidence has shown that IPV is not limited to adult populations, but, unfortunately, is
also quite common among adolescents and young adults. Exposure to intimate partner violence
is now being documented at younger and younger ages. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) have estimated that between 12% and 20%, or nearly one-fifth, of middle
and high school students experience physical or psychological abuse in dating relationships
(CDC, 2006). The prevalence of dating violence among adolescent samples has been shown
to vary by racial and ethnic subgroups with African American female adolescents being at
increased risk for victimization (Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997; Rickert, Wiemann,
Vaughan, & White, 2004). As with adult victims, experience of dating violence among
adolescents has been associated with increased participation in health risk behaviors, including
sexual intercourse, attempted suicide, episodic heavy drinking, and physical fighting (CDC,
2006).
In recent years, researchers have begun to extend this body of research to examine female
perpetration of violence in intimate relationships. There is increasing evidence to suggest that
women commit as much or more IPV as men (Archer, 2000; Melton & Belknap, 2003). Among
adolescents, research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence in
intimate relationships than males (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Foshee et al., 1996; Hickman,
Jaycox, & Aronoff, 2004; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O'Leary, &
Gonzalez, 2007; Schwartz, O'Leary, & Kendziora, 1997; Spencer & Bryant, 2000; Wolfe et
al., 2001). In addition, data also suggest that females who perpetrate IPV may experience more
violent or frequent IPV victimization (Bennett & Fineran, 1998; Capaldi & Owen, 2001;
Kernsmith, 2005; Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; Milan, Lewis, Ethier, Kershaw, & Ickovics, 2005).
The purpose of this review is to describe the prevalence of female perpetrated violence in
heterosexual intimate relationships, discuss the related methodological difficulties, and
identify areas of future research. This review will also focus on how the perpetration of IPV
by women differs across the lifespan and highlight areas for future prevention and treatment
research.
Methods
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.
Williams et al.
Page 3
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 selfdefined 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 allinclusive 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
8th9th 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
Williams et al.
Page 4
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 and West 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 10th-12th
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
8th9th 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
Williams et al.
Page 5
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 (34.146.2% 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, FalsStewart, & 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 by Chase 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,
OLeary 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
Williams et al.
Page 6
and Warner (2002) found that 11% reported perpetrating sexual violence against an intimate
partner in the past year.
Discussion
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.
Williams et al.
Page 7
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; OLeary & Smith Slep, 2006); and only one of these reported nationallyrepresentative 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
Williams et al.
Page 8
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, RamisettyMikler, & Field, 2005; Cercone, Beach, & Arias, 2005; Field & Caetano, 2003; Graves et al.,
2005; Hines & Saudino, 2003; Luthra & Gidycz, 2006; Milan et al., 2005; OLeary & Smith
Slep 2006; Schumacher & Leonard, 2005; Smith Slep & OLeary, 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 womens 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 & OLeary,
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 womens use of violence in their intimate relationships at
all age levels.
Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

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 by Whitaker 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 sexspecific 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
Williams et al.
Page 9
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
womens 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 welldefined 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.
Key Points of the Research Review
Female perpetrated IPV is a common occurrence among adolescents, college
students, and adults.
Emotional abuse is generally the most common form of IPV reported by female
perpetrators across populations, followed by physical and then sexual IPV.
Few longitudinal studies exist examining the prevalence of female perpetrated IPV
across the lifespan and no studies exist examining the developmental trajectory of
this form of violence.
A number of challenges exist in measuring female perpetrated IPV which lead to
difficulties in comparing prevalence rates across studies.
Acknowledgements
This review was supported by a grant from NINR F31NR009744
References
Anderson PB. Correlates of college women's self-reports of heterosexual aggression. Sexual Abuse:
Journal of Research and Treatment 1996;8:121131.
Anderson PB. Variations in college women's self-reported heterosexual aggression. Sexual Abuse:
Journal of Research and Treatment 1998;10:283292.
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):195208. [PubMed: 10780119]
Archer J. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin 2000;126:651680. [PubMed: 10989615]
Archer J. Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General
Psychology 2004;8(4):291322.
Williams et al.
Page 10

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):181193.
Arriaga XB, Foshee VA. Adolescent dating violence: do adolescents follow in their friends', or their
parents', footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2004;19:162184. [PubMed: 15006000]
Bennett L, Fineran S. Sexual and severe physical violence among high school students. Power beliefs,
gender, and relationship. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1998;68:645652. [PubMed: 9809124]
Beyers JM, Leonard JM, Mays VK, Rose LA. Gender differences in the perception of courtship abuse.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2000;15:451466.
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;16:987997.
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;20:398406.
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;17:13081322.
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;25:5865. [PubMed:
11496968]
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;11:123138.
[PubMed: 10989773]
Campbell JC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet 2002;359:13311336. [PubMed:
11965295]
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;162:11571163. [PubMed:
12020187]
Cano A, Vivian D. Are life stressors associated with marital violence? Journal of Family Psychology
2003;17:302314. [PubMed: 14562455]
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):101111. [PubMed: 17468783]
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;15:425440.
[PubMed: 11584793]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006). Physical dating violence among high school
students--United States. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2006;55:532535.
[PubMed: 16708057]
Cercone JJ, Beach SR, Arias I. Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: does similar
behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims 2005;20:207218. [PubMed: 16075667]
Chapple CL. Examining intergenerational violence: violent role modeling or weak parental controls?
Violence and Victims 2003;18:143162. [PubMed: 12816401]
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;26:467473. [PubMed:
9915653]
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;64:137149. [PubMed: 12608494]
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;58:4354. [PubMed:
10669054]
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;15:140151. [PubMed: 11419230]
Cogan R, Ballinger BC. Alcohol problems and the differentiation of partner, stranger, and general
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2006;21:924935. [PubMed: 16731992]
Williams et al.
Page 11

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;19:220227. [PubMed: 11064224]
Crick NR, Grotpeter JK. Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child
Development 1995;66:710722. [PubMed: 7789197]
Cunradi CB, Bersamin M, Ames G. Agreement on intimate parnter violence among a sample of bluecollar couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, E-pub ahead of print. 2008
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;23:14921501.
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;66:213219. [PubMed: 15957672]
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:e265e272.
[PubMed: 16882771]
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.
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;21:955968. [PubMed:
16731994]
Dye ML, Eckhardt CI. Anger, irrational beliefs, and dysfunctional attitudes in violent dating relationships.
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;71:741753. [PubMed: 12924679]
Ehrensaft MK, Cohen P, Johnson JG. Development of personality disorder symptoms and the risk for
partner violence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 2006;115:474483. [PubMed: 16866588]
Elliott DS. Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination. The American
Society of Criminology 1993 presidential address. Criminology 1994;32:121.
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;31:373385.
Fiebert MS, Gonzalez DM. College women who initiate assaults on their male partners and the reasons
offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports 1997;80:583590. [PubMed: 9129375]
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;27:14511458.
Foshee VA. Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Healht
Education Research 1996;11:275286.
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;12:3947. [PubMed: 8909623]
Giordano PC, Millhollin TJ, Cernkovich SA, Pugh MD, Rudolph JL. Delinquency, identity, and women's
involvement in relationship violence. Criminology 1999;37:1740.
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;29:278289.
Harned MS. Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating
violence. Violence and Victims 2001;16:269285. [PubMed: 11437117]
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;19:123136.
[PubMed: 15384450]
Hickman LJ, Jaycox LH, Aronoff J. Dating violence among adolescents: prevalence, gender distribution,
and prevention program effectiveness. Trauma Violence & Abuse 2004;5:123142.
Williams et al.
Page 12

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;18:197217.
[PubMed: 12816404]
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;156:549555.
Kernsmith P. Exerting power or striking back: A gendered comparison of motivations for domestic
violence perpetration. Violence and Victims 2005;20:173185. [PubMed: 16075665]
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;18:8296.
[PubMed: 14992612]
Kurz D. Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender &
Society 1989;3:501513.
Lewis SF, Travea L, Fremouw WJ. Characteristics of female perpetrators and victims of dating violence.
Lichter EL, McCloskey LA. The effects of childhood exposure to marital violence on adolescent genderrole beliefs and dating violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly 2004;28:344357.
Luthra R, Gidycz CA. Dating violence among college men and women: evaluation of a theoretical model.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2006;21:717731. [PubMed: 16672738]
Malik S, Sorenson SB, Aneshensel CS. Community and dating violence among adolescents: perpetration
and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health 1997;21:291302. [PubMed: 9358292]
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. [PubMed: 15830914]
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;165:4144.
[PubMed: 10658427]
Melton HC, Belknap J. He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially
reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2003;30:328348.
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;170:705709.
[PubMed: 16173214]
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;29:302312.
Moffitt TE. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental
taxonomy. Psychological Review 1993;100:674701. [PubMed: 8255953]
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;40:298304.
[PubMed: 17367721]
Murphy BS, Stevens SJ, McGrath RA, Wexler HK, Reardon D. Women and violence: A different look.
Drugs & Society 1998;13:131144.
Murphy CM, Blumenthal DR. The mediating influence of interpersonal problems on the intergenerational
transmission of relationship aggression. Personal Relationships 2000;7:203218.
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;73:288293. [PubMed: 12921209]
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;11:7185. [PubMed: 9479677]
O'Leary SG, Smith Slep AM. Precipitants of partner aggression. Journal of Family Psychology
2006;20:344347. [PubMed: 16756412]
O'Leary SG, Smith Slep AM. A dyadic longitudinal model of adolescent dating aggression. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 2003;32(3):314327. [PubMed: 12881021]
Williams et al.
Page 13

Orcutt HK, Garcia M, Pickett SM. Female-perpetrated intimate partner violence and romantic attachment
style in a college student sample. Violence and Victims 2005;20:287302. [PubMed: 16180368]
Osterman K, Bjorkqvist K, Lagerspetz KM, Kaukiainen A, Huesmann LR, Fraczek A. Peer and selfestimated aggression and victimization in 8-year-old children from five ethnic groups. Aggressive
Behavior 1994;20:411428.
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;34:6471. [PubMed: 14706407]
Perry AR, Fromuth ME. Courtship violence using couple data: characteristics and perceptions. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 2005;20:10781095. [PubMed: 16051728]
Rennison, CM.; Welchans, S. Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: intimate partner violence. U.S.
Department of Justice; 2000. (Rep. No. NCJ 178247)
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;158:11321139.
Ridley CA, Feldman CM. Female domestic violence toward male partners: exploring conflict responses
and outcomes. Journal of Family Violence 2003;18:157170.
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;167:959963.
[PubMed: 12502167]
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.
Schafer J, Caetano R, Clark CL. Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American Journal
of Public Health 1998;88(11):17021704. [PubMed: 9807541]
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;73:2837. [PubMed: 15709829]
Schumacher JA, Smith Slep AM. Attitudes and dating aggression: a cognitive dissonance approach.
Prevention Science 2004;5:231243. [PubMed: 15566049]
Schwartz M, O'Leary SG, Kendziora KT. Dating aggression among high school students. Violence and
Victims 1997;12:295305. [PubMed: 9591350]
Siegel JA. Aggressive behavior among women sexually abused as children. Violence and Victims
2000;15:235255. [PubMed: 11200100]
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;73:435444. [PubMed:
15982141]
Spencer GA, Bryant SA. Dating violence: a comparison of rural, suburban, and urban teens. Journal of
Adolescent Health 2000;27:302305. [PubMed: 11044701]
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;19:413434. [PubMed: 15726936]
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;17:315340.
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;20:335359.
[PubMed: 16180371]
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.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Homicide trends in the U.S.: Intimate partner
homicide. 2006. Retrieved on October 1, 2007 from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm
Williams et al.
Page 14

United States Department of Health and Human Services. Youth violence: a report of the Surgeon
General. 2001. Retrieved on September 21, 2007 from
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence
West CM, Rose S. Dating aggression among low income African American youth: An examination of
gender differences and antagonistic beliefs. Violence Against Woman 2000;6:470494.
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;97:941947. [PubMed: 17395835]
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;11:151166.
White HR, Chen PH. Problem drinking and intimate partner violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol
2002;63:205214. [PubMed: 12033697]
White JW, Merrill LL, Koss MP. Predictors of premilitary courtship violence in a Navy recruit sample.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2001;16:910927.
Wolf KA, Foshee VA. Family violence, anger expression styles, and adolescent dating violence. Journal
of Family Violence 2003;18:309316.
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;13:277293. [PubMed: 11433803]
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. [PubMed: 16292017]
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):355375.


N=526 (280
females) 89
grades students
attending a
rural public
middle school;
83%
Caucasian,
13% African
American, 1%
Hispanic, 3%
Other;
longitudinal (6
months)
N=463 (273
females) 912
grade students
attending two
high schools in
the Chicago
metro area;
34% African
American,
27% Hispanic,
23%
Caucasian,
16% Other
N=980 (500
females) 911
grade students
attending a
high school in
a medium
sized
suburban/rural
city; 86.4%
Caucasian,
5.2% African
American,
2.7% Native
American,
2.2% Asian,
3.5% Hispanic
N=95 (34
females) 14
19 year olds
attending a
drop-out
Bennett & Fineran

(1998)
Chapple (2003)
Chase, Treboux,
OLeary, & Strassberg
(1998)
sample
Arriaga & Foshee

(2004)
Adolescent Samples
source

TABLE 1
Conflict Tactics Scale
One question on the

frequency of hitting a dating
partner
Three questions on the

frequency of perpetrating
severe physical violence and
sexual violence against a
dating or ex-partner
Revised Conflict Tactics

Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical (past year)
Physical (lifetime)
Severe physical and sexual

aggression (past year);
combined in one measure
Moderate and severe physical

aggression (lifetime)
Type of Violence
68.079.0
17.0
4.0
17.025.0
(moderate)
11.017.0
(severe)
Physical
Results (%) Emotional
Prevalence of Female Perpetrated Violence in Heterosexual Relationships by Adolescent, College, and Adult Samples
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 15

N=5,414
(2,836
females)
stratified
cluster sample
of 912 grade
students who
took part in the
South Carolina
Youth Risk
Behavior
Survey; 49.4%
Caucasian,
44.3% African
American,
1.8% Hispanic,
1.1% Asian,
0.9% Native
American,
2.6% Other
N=2228 (1078
females)
simple random
sample of 912
grade students
attending
public high
schools in one
county system
in North
Carolina;
61.4%
Caucasian,
29.4% African
American,
2.8% Hispanic,
1.2% Native
American,
0.9% Asian,
4.3% Other
N=254 (160
females) 912
grade students
attending three
public high
schools in the
Coker et al. (2000)
DuRant, Champion, &

Wolfson (2006)
Feiring, Deblinger,
Hoch-Espada, &
Haworth (2002)
prevention
program; 65%
Caucasian,
14% African
American, 9%
Hispanic, 12%
Other
Conflict in Relationships
Measure
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Methods/Measures
Severe physical violence (past

year); Forced sex (lifetime)
Type of Violence
sample
29.0
9.4
9.0
Physical
source
4.2
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 16

N= 1965 (990
females) 89
grade students
attending 14
schools in a
rural district of
North
Carolina;
75.9%
Caucasian,
24.1% Other
N=411 females
(203 pregnant)
1419 year
olds from 10
hospital,
community
and high
school clinics
in Connecticut;
41% African
American,
40% Hispanic,
9% Caucasian,
10% Other
N=206 (120
females) 10
12 grade
students
attending
seven high
schools in
Suffolk
County, New
York; 59.2%
Caucasian,
17.5% African
American,
9.2% Hispanic,
3.3% Asian
American,
10.8% Other
N=247 (112
females) 16
20 year olds
randomly
Foshee (1996)
Milan, Lewis, Ethier,

Kershaw, & Ickovics
(2005)
OLeary & Smith Slep

(2003)
Ozer, Tschann, Pasch,

& Flores (2004)
Philadelphia
metro area;
79%
Caucasian,
17% African
American, 4%
Other
Scale
Modified Conflict Tactics

Scale

Scale
18 questions on the
different forms of physical
and sexual violence against a
dating partner
Methods/Measures
Physical (current relationship)
Mild and severe physical

violence (past year)
Mild, moderate, and severe

physical violence; sexual
violence (lifetime)
Type of Violence
sample
12.5
30.6
14.0 (mild)
30.0 (severe)
27.8 (overall)
25.8 (mild)
16.4
(moderate)
11.1 (severe)
Physical
source
1.2
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 17

N=398 (227
females) 10
12 grade
students
attending
seven high
schools in
Long Island;
53.7%
Caucasian,
18.9% African
American,
14.9%
Hispanic, 1.8%
Asian, 10.7%
Other
N=228 (106
females) high
school students
from two
suburban
public school
districts;
86.8%
Caucasian,
3.8% African
American,
2.8% Asian,
2.8% Hispanic,
3.8% Other
N=171 (88
females) 16
24 year olds
attending Job
Corps training
in a large
Midwestern
city; 100%
African
American
N=1,405 (89
grade students
attending
schools in a
rural county in
North
Schumacher & Smith

Slep (2004)
Schwartz, OLeary, &

Kendziora (1997)
West & Rose (2000)
Wolf & Foshee (2003)
selected from
membership in
a large HMO;
51% Mexican
Americans,
49%
Caucasian
18 questions on the
different forms of physical
and sexual violence against a
dating partner

Scale

Scale

Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical and sexual violence,

included in same scale
(lifetime)
Psychological aggression,
mild and severe physical and
sexual aggression (lifetime)
Physical (lifetime)
Verbal (current or most recent

relationship)
Type of Violence
sample
28.0
53.566.3
(mild)
16.347.1
(severe)
44.3
Physical
36.588.6
94.0
source
8.019.5
(mild)
4.610.3
(severe)
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 18

N=461 females
attending three
New York City
(East) colleges
and one
midsized
commuter
university in
Louisiana
(South); 1859
years old
(mean age
22.3)
N = 480 (240
females)
undergraduate
students
attending a
large western
university;
mean age 19.4;
90%
Caucasian,
10% Other
N=414 (225
females)
undergraduate
students
attending a
large
southeastern
university;
mean age 19.0;
87%
Caucasian, 8%
African
American, 3 %
Hispanic, 1%
Asian, 2%
Other
N=1415 (958
females)
undergraduate
students
attending a
large
Anderson (1998,1996)
Beyers, Leonard,
Mays, & Rose (2000)
Cercone, Beach, &

Arias (2005)
Cogan & Ballinger

(2006)
College Samples
Carolina; 82%
Caucasian,
18% African
American

Scale
3 questions assessing the

frequency and severity of
perpetration of emotional,
physical, and sexual
violence in a dating
relationship
Sexually Aggressive
Behaviors Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical and Verbal (past

year)
Minor and severe

psychological and physical
aggression (lifetime)
Physical, Emotional, and

Sexual (lifetime)
Sexual coercion, sexual abuse,

physically forced sexual
contact (lifetime)
Type of Violence
sample
30.7
38.7 (mild)
15.1 (severe)
11.7
Physical
65.5
89.3 (mild)
26.7 (severe)
40.4
source
2.1
Overall:
34.1(South)
;46.2
(East)
Coercion
25.7(South)
28.5(East)
Abuse:
7.3(South);
21.1(East)
Force
Contact:
1.6(South)
7.1(East)
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 19

N=347 (152
females)
undergraduate
students
attending a
medium sized
southern
university;
mean age 19.5;
91%
Caucasian,
6.3% African
American, 1%
Asian, 0.8%
Hispanic, 0.4%
Native
American
N=978 female
undergraduate
students
attending
community
colleges and
state
universities in
southern
California;
primarily
between 2030
years old; 50%
Caucasian,
21% Hispanic,
16% Asian/
Pacific
Islander, 8%
African
American, 2%
Native
American, 4%
Other
N=1300
female
undergraduate
students
attending a
Dye & Eckhardt

(2000)
Fiebert & Gonzalez

(1997)
Graves, Sechrist,
White, & Paradise
(2005)
southwestern
university;
mean age 18.7;
85.5%
Caucasian,
12% Hispanic,
2.2% African
American
One question on the

physical violence against a
boyfriend or spouse

Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical (during adolescence

or past year)
Physical (past five years)
Type of Violence
sample
51.4
(adolescent)
35.4 (year 1)
34.9 (year 2)
31.6 (year 3)
29.0
25.3
Physical
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 20

N=874 (489
females)
undergraduate
and graduate
students; 17
52 years old
(mean age
21.3); 76%
Caucasian, 9%
Asian
American, 6%
African
American, 3%
East Asian, 3%
Hispanic, 3%
Other
N=481 (302
females)
undergraduate
students
attending a
large
northeastern
predominantly
upper-middle
class
university;
mean age 19.1;
77%
Caucasian,
13% Asian, 5%
Hispanic, 2%
African
American, 3%
Other
N=300 female
undergraduate
students
Harned (2001)
Hines & Saudino

(2003)
Lewis, Travea, &

Fremouw (2002)
medium sized
university in a
semi-urban
setting in the
Southwest;
75.1%
Caucasian,
21.5% African
American,
0.9% Native
American,
1.2% Hispanic,
1.4% Asian;
longitudinal (4
years)

Scale

Scale; Abusive Behavior
Inventory; Sexual
Experiences Survey
Methods/Measures
Physical (past 18 months)
Minor and severe physical

aggression, psychological
aggression, and sexual
coercion (past year)
Physical, Psychological, and

Sexual (since attending the
university)
Type of Violence
sample
23.0
35.0 (overall)
34.0 (minor)
7.5 (severe)
19.0
25.5 (year 4)
Physical
86.0
85.0
source
13.5
8.0
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 21

N=200 (100
females)
students
attending a
large
Midwestern
university; 18
24 year olds
(mean age
18.8); 93.5%
Caucasian,
6.5% Other
N=207 female
university
students; 18
25 year olds
(mean age
20.0); 69%
Caucasian,
15% African
American,
10% Asian, 2%
Caribbean or
African
descent, 1%
Hispanic, 1%
Native
American, 2%
Other
N=457 female
undergraduate
students
attending a
large
Midwestern
university;
98% under 24
years old; 61%
Caucasian,
25% African
American,
6.4% Asian,
Luthra & Gidycz

(2006)
Murphy & Blumenthal

(2000)
Orcutt, Garcia, &

Pickett (2005)
attending West
Virginia
University;
1837 year
olds (mean age
19.3); 94%
Caucasian, 2%
African
American, 2%
Hispanic, 2%
Asian
Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical (lifetime)
Physical (current or most

recent dating partner)
Type of Violence
sample
39.0
36.0
25.0
Physical
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 22

N=653 (442
females)
students
attending a
small
Northeastern
university;
median age
19.0; 97%
Caucasian, 3%
Other
Straus & Ramirez

(2004)
N=2,880
(1,440
couples)
nationallyrepresentative
probability
sample; 18+
year olds;
38.5%
Caucasian,
24.9% African
American,
36.6%
Hispanic;
longitudinal (5
years)
N=498 (258
females)
couples
seeking marital
therapy and
community
Caetano et al. (2000,

2001); Cunradi,
Caetano, Clark, &
Schafer (1999)
Cano & Vivian (2003)
Adult Samples
N=100 (50
couples)
students
attending a
public
Southeastern
university; 18
24 year olds
(mean age
19.0); 78%
Caucasian,
18% African
American, 4%
Other
Perry & Fromuth

(2005)
4.8% Hispanic,
0.4% Native
American,
2.4% Other
Scale

Scale

Scale

Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical (current relationship)
Type of Violence
sample
15.9
(moderate)
41.5 (severe)
30.0 (African
American)
21.0 (Hispanic)
16.0 (Caucasian)
32.0
36.0
Physical
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 23

N=318 (159
females) male
participants
and their
female
partners in
longitudinal
study of at-risk
youth in
metropolitan
area of
Oregon; mean
age 20.8; 90%
of male sample
Caucasian
N=103
alcoholic
females
seeking
couples-based
outpatient
treatment in
Massachusetts;
mean age 40.0;
92%
Caucasian, 3%
African
American, 3%
Hispanic, 2%
Native
American
N=252 (126
females) in
substance
abuse
treatment;
mean age 37.6;
64.3%
Caucasian,
23.4% African
American,
4.8% Hispanic
N=218 (109
females)
alcoholic
patients and
their male
partners in
New Jersey;
Capaldi & Owen

(2001)
Chase, OFarrell,
Murphy, Fals-Stewart,
& Murphy (2003)
Chermack, Fuller, &

Blow (2000);
Chermack, Walton,
Fuller, & Blow (2001)
Drapkin, McCrady,
Swingle, & Epstein
(2005)
controls not
seeking
therapy; 3340
year olds
Scale

Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical (past year and during

young adulthood)
Type of Violence
sample
13.7 (kicked, bitten,

or hit)
5.6 (beaten up)
25.6
(moderate)
33.9 (severe)
68.0 (overall)
50.0 (severe)
13.0 (past year) 43.0

(during young
adulthood)
Physical
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 24

N=543 (298
females)
individuals
followed 20+
years through
Children in the
Community
study in two
New York
counties; mean
age 31.0; 91%
Caucasian
N=2,050
(1,025 racially
homogeneous
couples)
married or
cohabitating at
two time
points;
nationallyrepresentative
probability
sample; 18+
year olds;
38.5%
Caucasian,
24.9% African
American,
36.6%
Hispanic;
longitudinal (5
years)
N=721 (397
females)
individuals
followed from
adolescence to
young
adulthood in
Ohio; 1219
year olds; 47%
Caucasian,
53% nonCaucasian
N=644 (330
females)
reporting
involvement in
an intimate
Ehrensaft et al.
(2003); Ehrensaft,
Cohen, & Johnson
(2006)
Field & Caetano

(2003)
Giordano, Millhollin,
Cernkovich, Pugh, &
Rudolph (1999)
Herrenkohl et al.
(2004)
mean age 44.0;

96%
Caucasian
Three questions on the
types of physical violence

Scale

Scale

Scale
Methods/Measures
Type of Violence
sample
6.2 (pushed,
grabbed, shoved)
6.7 (hit, threw
something)
61.1 (overall)
27.6 (hit, threw
something)
21.6 (hit, tried to hit
with something)
8.3 (threatened with
knife)
2.6 (used gun or
knife against
spouse)
24.0 (African
American, T1)
20.8 (Hispanic, T1)
13.1 (Caucasian,
T1)
22.2 (African
American, T2)
19.5 (Hispanic, T2)
9.8 (Caucasian, T2)
22.0
7.0 (inflicted injury)
Physical
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 25

N=158 (79
couples) male
participants
and their
female
partners in
longitudinal
study of at-risk
youth in
metropolitan
area of
Oregon; mean
age 20.8 (Time
2) and 23.4
(Time 3); 90%
of male sample
Caucasian;
longitudinal (6
years).
N=509 females
living with a
partner or
spouse at two
time points;
participants
originally
recruited from
eight school
districts in
California and
Oregon; mean
age 23.5 (Time
1) and 29.4
years (Time 2);
74%
Caucasian,
10% Hispanic,
5% African
American, 6%
Asian
N=26,835
(1,315
females)
married Army
Kim & Capaldi (2004)
Martino, Collins, &

Ellickson (2005)
McCarroll et al. (2000)
relationship in
the past year;
24 year olds;
47%
Caucasian,
24% African
American,
21% Asian, 9%
Other
Scale
One question on frequency

of hitting or threatening to hit
a spouse or live-in partner
Conflict Tactics Scale;

Adjustment with Partner
Scale; Dyadic Social Skills
Questionnaire; Family and
Peer Process Code (for
interaction tasks)
Methods/Measures
Type of Violence
sample
24.2 (moderate)
8.0 (severe)
19.4 (Time 1)
17.0 (Time 2)
58.0 (Time 2)
49.0 (Time 3)
3.0 (kicked, bit,

punched)
Physical
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 26

N=963 (421
females)
military
personnel at a
recruit training
center in
Illinois;
participants
followed for
years post
enlistment;
mean age 19.8
at baseline;
57%
Caucasian,
19% African
American,
13% Hispanic
N=98 females
enrolled in a
residential
drug treatment
center in
Tucson, AZ;
mean age 30.7;
64.3%
Caucasian,
16.3% African
American,
12.2%
Hispanic, 7.1%
Native
American
N=1,185
married active
duty female
soldiers living
on 38 military
installments in
U.S.; mean age
30.1 years;
55.7
Caucasian,
44.3% African
American
Merrill, Crouch,
Thomsen, Guimond,
& Milner (2005)
Murphy, Stevens,
McGrath, Wexler, &
Reardon (1998)
Newby et al. (2003)
soldiers living
on 47 active
duty Army
installations in
U.S.; 62.6%
Caucasian,
37.4% nonCaucasian
Violence Questionnaire
Methods/Measures
Physical, Verbal, Sexual

(lifetime)
Type of Violence
sample
30.735.9
(any)
23.025.8
(moderate)
7.110.1
(severe)
8.8% (physical
only)
66.7 (physical &
verbal combined)
20.0 (severe, Time

1)
12.0 (severe, Time
2)
Physical
17.5%
(verbal only)
source
0.0%
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 27
N=76 battered
women
incarcerated
for criminal
offenses in two
California
correctional
facilities; mean
age 37.0; 51%
Caucasian,
24% African
American,
17% Hispanic,
1% Asian/
Pacific
Islander, 1%
Native
American
N=453 couples
married or
cohabitating
for at least 1
year and
parenting a 37
year old child;
sample drawn
via Random
Digit Dial near
Stony Brook,
New York;
mean age
35.1; ; 81.9%
Caucasian,
18.1% nonCaucasian
N=153 females
in a
relationship for
at least six of
the prior 12
months;
recruited from
a public health
clinic; mean
age 26.9;
42.7%
Caucasian,
39.3%
Hispanic,
10.7% African
American,
2.0% Native
American,
OLeary & Smith Slep

(2006)
Ridley & Feldman

(2003)
OKeefe (1998)
Abusive Behavior Inventory

Scale-Revised; Precipitants
for Partner Aggression
Methods/Measures
Physical, Psychological (past

year)
Physical
Type of Violence
sample
67.3 (overall)
45.1 (pushing,
grabbing, shoving,
holding down)
41.2 (hitting,
slapping, biting)
33.8 (mild)
11.5 (severe)
55.3
(homicide)
Physical
95.0 (mild)
26.9 (severe)
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 28

N=576 (99
females)
married active
duty Army
personnel
living with
spouse in
Army
installations in
Alaska; mean
age 26.8
N=634 couples
from a large
northeastern
city in their
first marriage
surveyed at the
time of
marriage and
first and
second
anniversaries;
mean age 26.8;
62%
Caucasian,
31% African
American;
longitudinal (2
years)
N=136 females
aged 012
years seen in
the ED of a
large
northeastern
city for sexual
abuse followed
for 15 years;
mean age 25.5
at follow-up;
86% African
American
N=453 couples
married or
cohabitating
for at least 1
year and
parenting a 37
year-old child;
sample drawn
via Random
Rosen, Parmley,
Knudson, & Fancher
(2002)
Schumacher &
Leonard (2005)
Siegel (2000)
Smith Slep & OLeary

(2005)
1.3% Asian
American
Scale
One question about physical

violence experienced and
perpetrated in romantic or
sexual relationship

Scale; Test of Negative
Social Exchange

Scale
Methods/Measures
Physical (lifetime)
Physical, (past year)
Type of Violence
sample
44.4 (any)
20.0 (severe)
61.0
48.0 (baseline)
45.0 (Time 1)
41.0 (Time 2)
38.0 (overall)
17.0 (severe)
Physical
source
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 29

N=316 (155
females) in
South Texas;
mean age 32.0;
100%
MexicanAmerican
N=835 females
in heterosexual
relationship for
one year and
living at 200%
or less of the
FPL in Dallas,
TX; mean age
33.2; 36.2%
Caucasian,
31.1%
MexicanAmerican
N=725 (400
females) in 16
New Jersey
counties; 12
31 year olds;
90%
Caucasian
N=2,784
(1,477
females) Navy
recruits in
Orlando,
Florida; mean
age 20.1; 63%
Caucasian,
23% African
American, 7%
Hispanic, 3%
AsianAmerican,
1.8% Native
American
Sugihara & Warner

(2002)
Temple, Weston, &

Marshall (2005)
White & Chen (2002)
White, Merrill, & Koss

(2001)
Digit Dial near

Stony Brook,
New York;
mean age 35.1
years; 81.9%
Caucasian,
18.1% nonCaucasian

Scale
Severity of Violence Against

Men Scale
Dominance Scale; Revised

Methods/Measures
Physical, Psychological (past

year)
Physical (past six months)
Physical, Psychological,
Sexual Coercion (past year)
Type of Violence
sample
47.0
18.0
9.0
37.0
Physical
88.0
81.0
source
11.0
Sexual
Williams et al.
Page 30

Female Perpetration of Violence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Female Perpetration of Violence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Female Perpetration of Violence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIH Public Access

NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as: