See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6610117

Gender‐Based Violence

Chapter in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · December 2006

DOI: 10.1196/annals.1385.024 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

103 74,272

2 authors:

Nancy Felipe Russo Angela Pirlott

Arizona State University Saint Xavier University
141 PUBLICATIONS 5,186 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 952 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Angela Pirlott on 07 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Gender-Based Violence
Concepts, Methods, and Findings
NANCY FELIPE RUSSO AND ANGELA PIRLOTT
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Arizona, USA

ABSTRACT: The United Nations has identified gender-based violence

against women as a global health and development issue, and a host
of policies, public education, and action programs aimed at reducing
gender-based violence have been undertaken around the world. This ar-
ticle highlights new conceptualizations, methodological issues, and se-
lected research findings that can inform such activities. In addition to
describing recent research findings that document relationships between
gender, power, sexuality, and intimate violence cross-nationally, it identi-
fies cultural factors, including linkages between sex and violence through
media images that may increase women’s risk for violence, and profiles a
host of negative physical, mental, and behavioral health outcomes asso-
ciated with victimization including unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
More research is needed to identify the causes, dynamics, and outcomes
of gender-based violence, including media effects, and to articulate how
different forms of such violence vary in outcomes depending on cultural
context.

KEYWORDS: gender-based violence; gender; intimate partner violence;

domestic violence; reproduction; media effects

INTRODUCTION

Women in Asia and the Middle East are killed in the name of honor. Girls
in West Africa undergo genital mutilation in the name of custom. Migrant and
refugee women in Western Europe are attacked for not accepting the social
mores of their host community. Young girls in southern Africa are raped
and infected with HIV/AIDs because the perpetrators believe that sex with
virgins will cure them of their disease. And in the richest, most developed
countries of the world, women are battered to death by their partners (Amnesty
International, 2004, p. iii-iv).
The United Nations has identified gender-based violence against women
as a global health and development issue, and a host of policies and public
Address for correspondence: Nancy Felipe Russo, Department of Psychology, Box 871104, ASU,
Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. Voice: 480-965-0380; fax: 480-965-8544.
e-mail: Nancy.russo@asu.edu

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1087: 178–205 (2006). 

C 2006 New York Academy of Sciences.

doi: 10.1196/annals.1385.024

178
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 179

education programs have been undertaken around the world that aim at reduc-
ing such gender-based violence (United Nations, 1989). This article highlights
new conceptualizations, methodological issues, and research findings that can
inform such activities, particularly with regard to intimate partner violence.
Our focus on gender-based violence against women is not to imply that
women are never violent against men. The rates and forms of violence, includ-
ing intimate partner violence, vary widely across cultures (Kishor & Johnson,
2004). In the United States, recent studies have reported that women and men
commonly commit violent acts such as shoving, hitting, or throwing objects
against each other, and have found little difference in prevalence rates for such
acts by gender (Archer, 2000, 2002; Brush, 1990, 2005; Frieze, 2005; Frieze
& Mettugh, 2005; Frieze & McHugh, 2005).
Gender shapes the meaning of violent acts differently for women and men,
however, and that meaning varies widely depending on the situational and
cultural context. For example, severity of specific physical acts will be rated
differently depending on whether or not the perpetrator of the act is male
or female (Marshall, 1992a, 1992b). A full understanding of gender-based
violence requires going beyond a focus on sex differences in rates and ratings
of specific acts to examine how various aspects of gender shape the predictors,
dynamics, and outcomes of violence for both women and men.
Interdisciplinary research will make critical contributions to this examina-
tion for it must take place on multiple levels. Psychological meaning of acts
and experiences for the perpetrator, victim, and outside observer will reflect
the situational, structural, and cultural context. In particular, the cultural dis-
course that justifies gender differences in social and economic status, objecti-
fies women, and sexualizes violence needs to be incorporated in the analysis
of the dynamics of gender-based violence. We highlight some of the elements
of gender-based violence that can differ for women and men, with our goal
to encourage more complex, multilevel approaches in the study of how such
violence is experienced in the lives of women and men.
Our focus here on gender-based violence against women should be taken as a
reflection of the need to limit our scope and not as a dismissal of the importance
of understanding how gender affects violence by and toward both women and
men. Indeed, violence is an interpersonal behavior and both a stimulus as well
as a consequence of interaction. A full understanding of gender’s impact on
violence against women requires considering women’s behaviors toward their
partners as well, including their violent behaviors.

THEORIZING GENDER AND ITS RELATION

TO INTIMATE VIOLENCE

Research that has examined gender differences in violence against women all
too often equates gender with the categories of male and female. Gender thus is
treated as a personal attribute of the individual (e.g., Archer, 2003). However,
180 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

theoretical conceptions of gender have evolved far beyond traditional “sex

difference” models. Research findings based on such models have some use-
fulness but are not very informative with regard to understanding the dynamics
of gender as currently conceptualized.
Today gender is theorized as a complex, multilevel cultural construct that
determines the meanings of being female or male in a particular situational
context (Anderson, 2005; Deaux & Major, 1987; Frable, 1997; Hamilton &
Russo, 2006; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999). In Western society, gender
is typically organized around the social categories of male versus female and
assigned at birth based on biological sex (which may be defined anatomically or
genetically, depending on the situation). The cultural package that constitutes
the meaning of one’s gender assignment to a category should not be confused
with the category itself.
Gender can be thought of as a package of many interconnected elements—
including gendered traits, emotions, values, expectations, norms, roles, envi-
ronments, and institutions—that change and evolve within and across cultures
and over time. Gender is also a “master” (or a meta-) status that determines
social position in society, one that typically accords women with less power,
privilege, and resources than men (Bourne & Russo, 1998).
Gender defines the appropriateness of behavioral, psychological, and social
characteristics of males and females over the life cycle, and shapes the way we
construe ourselves (Cross & Madsen, 1997). When doing so it interacts with
other dimensions of social difference, and the dynamics of the various elements
of gender may differ depending on one’s specific mix of social identities and
roles. For example, in some contexts, being a good mother who devotes herself
to her children is the role expectation for being a wife, and the roles are highly
compatible. In contrast, in another context being a good wife may mean serving
as a trophy for your husband’s success and sending children off to boarding
school so that you can make your husband’s needs the priority in your life.
The need to appreciate the complex dynamics of social identity and differ-
ence led Russo and Vaz (2001) to argue that researchers need to develop a
“diversity mindfulness” that appreciates the complex interplay of the intersec-
tions of gender and other dimensions of difference (p. 280). Age, ethnicity,
race, sexual orientation, class, physical ability, and size are among the social
dimensions associated with stigmatized identities that may elicit prejudice and
discrimination, confer differential access to power and privilege, and converge
with gender to magnify or diminish risk for experiencing violence.
Gender’s “rules” (i.e., expected behaviors, rewards, and sanctions for violat-
ing those expectations) change over the life cycle. Sometimes there is abrupt
change as a result of discrete life events such as losing one’s virginity, get-
ting married, having one’s first child, or starting a new job. Gender organizes
women’s roles at home and work in ways that place extraordinary burdens on
women while at the same time limiting their access to coping resources. The
dramatic changes in women’s workforce status and participation that have oc-
curred over the last five decades have not been accompanied by a concomitant
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 181

sharing of responsibilities in the family (Coltrane, 2000; Steil, 1997; Tichenor,

2005). Gendered inequalities at home and at work create gender differences
in perceived entitlements and give different meanings to the resources women
and men bring to their relationships. Although such inequalities are associated
with risk and outcomes for experiencing violence, the relationship is complex
(Steil, 1997; Tichenor, 2005).
Reducing gender-based violence will require new theories that articulate
how various aspects of gender mediate and moderate the effects of social,
psychological, and biological factors over the life cycle and influence the risk,
experience, and outcomes of interpersonal violence between women and men.
One thing that can be concluded at present, however, is that the predictors,
meanings, and outcomes of gender-based violence are multifaceted and differ
for women and men—as perpetrators and as victims.

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Gender-based violence against women has been defined as “any act that
results in, or is likely to result in physical, sexual, or psychological harm
or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life” (United
Nations, 1995, Platform for Action D.112). This definition, which emerged
from the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing, represents an
international consensus on how to conceptualize the dynamics of gender-based
violence and encompasses child sexual abuse, coercive sex, rape, stalking, and
intimate partner violence.
The term “gender-based” is used because such violence is shaped by gen-
der roles and status in society. Gender-based violence against women does
not encompass every violent act a woman may happen to experience (being
threatened by a weapon during a robbery, for example). A complex mix of
gender-related cultural values, beliefs, norms, and social institutions implic-
itly and even explicitly have supported intimate partner violence and provided
little recourse for its victims (Koss, Bailet, & Yuan, Herrera, & Lichter, 2003;
Koss, Goodman, Browne, Fitzgerald, Keita, & Russo, 1994; Russo, 2006). In
particular, gender roles and expectations, male entitlement, sexual objectifica-
tion, and discrepancies in power and status have legitimized, rendered invisible,
sexualized, and helped to perpetuate violence against women.

RECOGNIZING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

AS A PROBLEM

One of the ways that gender has differentially shaped the meaning of violent
acts by women and men is by differentially conferring legitimacy on male
violence against women. With legitimacy has come invisibility for the victims
(Keller, 1996; Stark, Flitcraft & Frazier, 1979). Marriage as social institution
182 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

has come under particular scrutiny for providing men an entitlement to batter
and rape their wives and providing legitimacy for their actions (Finklehor &
Yllö, 1985; Russell, 1990; Stets & Strauss, 1992; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz,
1980). Ironically, it was not until the late 1980s that intimate violence became
identified as the leading public health risk to adult women by the surgeon
general of the United States (Koop, 1985). The invisibility of male violence
against women is truly remarkable given its pervasiveness and profound health,
social, and economic consequences.
With the rise of what has become a global women’s movement, the legitimacy
and invisibility of such violence became challenged. Today, male gender-based
violence against women is globally recognized as a health, economic develop-
ment, and human rights concern (Amnesty International, 2004; Herrera, Koss,
Bailey, Yuan, & Lichter, 2006; Koss, Heise, & Russo, 1994; Krahé, Bieneck,
& Möller, 2005; Russo, Koss, & Goodman, 1995; National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control [NCIPC], 2003; United Nations General Assembly,
1993; World Health Organization, 2001). Yet, in many parts of the world, such
violence continues to be viewed as a private matter and is implicitly—indeed,
sometimes, explicitly—condoned.
Around the world, girls and women continue to experience gender-based
violence over the life cycle in homes, schools, churches, workplaces, the streets
and even therapeutic settings (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999; Koss,
Goodman, & Browne, 1994; Russo et al. 1995; Krahé et al. 2005; Shane &
Ellsberg, 2002). A recent transnational review of population-based survey data
found the lifetime proportion of women experiencing physical assault by an
intimate partner to range from 10% to 69% (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, &
Lozano, 2002).
In the United States, the National Violence Against Women Survey estimated
one out of five (22.1%) women to be physically assaulted in their lifetime, and
one in 13 (7.7%) to be raped by an intimate partner. An estimated 1.3 million
women experienced physical assault and more than 201,394 women had expe-
rienced rape at the hands of an intimate partner in the previous year (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). Intimate partner violence has been the most common source
of injury to women in the ages of 15 to 44 years, more frequent than muggings,
auto accidents, and cancer deaths combined (Dwyer, Smokowski, Bricout, &
Wodarski, 1995). Physical assault against both married and unmarried women
has been a widespread problem, crossing racial, sexual orientation, age, and
socioeconomic lines (Koss, 1988; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988, 1996).

NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

Today researchers are discovering new ways to conceptualize, study, inter-

vene, and prevent gender-based violence against women. The search for new
conceptualizations has identified an array of methodological issues that have
led to new challenges for researchers who seek to increase our understanding
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 183

of this complex phenomenon (Brush, Dutton, Green, Kaltman, Roesch et al.,

2006).
Feminist perspectives have qualitatively changed the way that researchers
conceptualize, operationally define, and study multifaceted forms of gendered
violence over the life cycle (Edwards, 1991; Marin & Russo, 1999). In par-
ticular, such perspectives have broadened the focus for research beyond the
psychological characteristics of the individual perpetrator and/or victim, or on
an investigation of family relationships (Yllö, 1988) and begun to reconcep-
tualize rape and other forms of male violence as forms of power and control
(Brownmiller, 1975; Dobash & Dobash, 1977; Medea & Thompson, 1974;
Russell, 1975). Although recognizing physical differences may contribute to
the dynamics of gender-based violence, in general this theorizing has empha-
sized the social construction of male violence, not the biology or pathology
of the individual (Kelly, 1988; Koss et al., 1994; McHugh, Frieze, & Browne,
1993).
There has been a shift from viewing different forms of male violence against
women as separate entities toward viewing violence as a unitary phenomenon
with diverse manifestations that vary depending on context (Koss et al., 1994).
Gender-based entitlements, power, objectification, and status are now recog-
nized as playing critical roles in the dynamics of gender-based violence. Major
institutions (including criminal justice, health, academic, scientific, military,
athletic, and religious institutions) are seen as reinforcing patriarchal values
that encourage and maintain those entitlements, foster gender-based violence,
and encourage stigmatization of voices that challenge the status quo (Koss
et al., 1994; Marin & Russo, 1999).
While gender, power, and structural dimensions of violence are recognized
as potent forces in the dynamics of gender-based violence, the emerging pic-
ture is recognized as increasingly complex (Frieze, 2005; Marin & Russo,
1999; McHugh & Frieze, 2005; McHugh, 2005). Theorizing about the rela-
tions of gender, power, and violence has gone far beyond a simplistic focus
on direct effects of patriarchal values or sex role beliefs on rates of specific
acts perpetrated by women and men. As theory has progressed, research, treat-
ment, intervention, and public policy responses to theoretical advances have
lagged behind (Dutton and Corvo [2006] critique approaches based on this
simplistic focus; although their vision of feminist perspectives is limited of
a particular radical perspective, their call for complex approaches is timely).
New knowledge based on new, integrative methods that encompass interdis-
ciplinary, biobehavioral perspectives is needed (e.g., Dutton, Green, Kaltman,
Roesch et al., 2006).

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Androcentric (i.e., male-centered) bias affects what becomes figure and
what becomes ground in our perception, influences how we interpret what
184 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

we perceive and remember, and shapes our conceptions of what is normal

versus unusual. As Edwards (1991) has observed, “There is no area where
androcentric bias is more visible and systematic than male violence against
women” (p. 14).
We focus here on gender-based intimate partner violence (IPV), which en-
compasses acts performed by an intimate partner that include physical, sexual,
and emotional abuse, including physical assault, verbal abuse, forced inter-
course, and other forms of sexual coercion as well as a variety of controlling
behaviors aimed at restricting freedom of action (e.g., isolation from family
and friends).
A variety of methodologies have been applied in the study of violence, both
qualitative and quantitative, and there are a number of data sources that include
national surveys that are used for research on gender-based violence (Hamby,
2005). The Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, & Warren, 2003) or vari-
ations thereof are arguably the most widely used of the behavioral checklists
in surveys to assess incidence, prevalence, and nature of interpersonal vio-
lence. Hamby (2005) articulates the strengths and limitations of various data
sources including those of behavioral checklists, which include underreporting,
false-negative and false-positive problems, difficulties with referent periods,
reporting load and respondent fatigue, overly brief or poorly worded questions,
effects of social norms on reporting, and the distortions that can occur in the
retrospective recall of events. The extent to which disclosure issues that differ
for men and women affect reporting of various violent acts is unknown, but the
possibility raises validity issues with regard to self-report checklists. Hamby
suggests that with regard to sensitive material, audio computer-assisted self-
interviews (audio-CASI) are “likely to be one avenue to progressing toward
a gold standard of assessment” (Hamby, 2005, p. 739). She also identifies a
number of methodologies that have been underutilized in research on gender-
based violence but have documented effectiveness in research on other forms
of relationship distress and stigmatized behavior including weekly calendar
methods and electronic diary data collected through the internet or palm-sized
computers.
In keeping with advances in cognitive science and the now recognized mod-
erating role of appraisals in determining the relationship between stressors and
mental health outcomes (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), it is important to go
beyond simply focusing on the occurrence of acts and consider their mean-
ing and context (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Dutton, Burghardt, Perrin,
Chrestman, & Halle, 1994). Violent acts may play a role in creating the mean-
ing for other, apparently more benign behaviors that become threatening in
a context of coercive control. New conceptualizations of the dynamic of vio-
lence and the role of coercive control in gender-based violence are other new
frontiers for research (Dutton & Goodman, 2005).
Postmodern perspectives, which emphasize socially constructed meanings,
are a source of new concepts and methods as well. McHugh, Livingston,
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 185

and Ford (2005), suggest that such perspectives encourage “multiple, varied,
and even inconsistent views” of intimate violence (p. 332). Their analysis chal-
lenges researchers to recognize that there is a sociohistorical context for all
research with potential to influence the research process in all its stages from
selection of topic to interpretation and dissemination of results.
Challenges to researchers who seek to study IPV arise from methodolog-
ical and ethical as well as conceptual issues (Desai & Saltzman, 2001; Ells-
berg, Heise, Pena, Agurto, & Winkvist, 2001; Schwartz, 2000; White, Smith,
Koss, & Figueredo, 2000). Confidentiality and safety of research participants
must be preserved and referral information that identifies places to go for
help made available to them. Interviewers require special training and sen-
sitivity if they are to conduct interviews in the nonjudgmental and empathic
way needed to obtain disclosure of violent events (Garcia-Moreno, Watts,
Jansen, Ellsberg, & Heise, 2003; Kishor & Johnson, 2004; WHO, 2001,
2004).
Community-based survey research is being used to document the worldwide
prevalence of violence against women (Kishor & Johnson, 2004). Not all di-
mensions of gender-based violence are typically measured in cross-national
surveys, which share the problems of self-report surveys identified above
(Hamby, 2005), and further must consider variations in cultural relevance and
meaning of the specific behaviors studied. Qualitative research will be needed
to illuminate the meanings of violence and coercive acts in the cultural contexts
in which women experience them (WHO, 2001).
Researchers have begun to focus on ethnic populations to redress the lack
of research on violence in the lives of ethnic minority women, which must
overcome silencing around intimate violence issues found in ethnic commu-
nities (Sanchez-Hucles & Dutton, 1999; Sorenson, 1996; West, 1998). Re-
searchers have investigated male-perpetrated violence in African American
(Brice-Baker, 1994; Marsh, 1993; Russo, Denious, Keita, & Koss, 1997), Na-
tive American (Chester, Robin, Koss, & Goodman, 1994; Gutierres, Russo,
& Urbanski, 1994; Norton & Manson, 1995), Hispanic American (Perilla,
Bakerman, & Norris, 1994; Sorensen & Telles, 1991; Ramos, Koss, & Russo,
1991), and Asian American populations (Song, 1996; see also Sanchez-Hucles
& Dutton, 1999).

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE, ENTITLEMENTS,

AND SOCIAL CONTROL

Researchers are beginning to study how IPV reflects assumptions of male

entitlement and privilege and functions as a form of social control that main-
tains a subordinate social and political status for women (Koss, Goodman,
et al., 1994; Marin & Russo, 1999). Men who connect masculinity with be-
ing able to control and dominate their partners are more likely to be abusive
186 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

(Goodrum, Umberson, & Anderson, 2001). Gender-based violence may reflect

the discrepancy between men’s belief that they should be more powerful than
their partners and the reality of their power. Men who perceive they are not
as powerful as they “should be” may seek to redress the situation through use
of physical dominance (Dutton, 1988). Research suggests that dissatisfaction
with the level of power in dating relationships is correlated with violence for
both women and men, but the predictors of using violence differ depending on
the perpetrator’s gender (Kaura & Allen, 2004).
The link between male intimate partner violence and a variety of socially
controlling behaviors has been found cross-culturally. Kishor and Johnson
(2004) found a strong link between intimate partner violence and husbands’
controlling behaviors, specifically (1) becoming jealous or angry if the wife
talks with another man, (2) frequently accusing her of being unfaithful, (3)
not permitting her to meet girlfriends, (4) limiting her contact with her family,
(5) insisting on knowing where she is all the time, and (6) not trusting her with
money. The risk for violence directly increased with the number of controlling
behaviors on the part of the husband across the diverse cultures studied (Kishor
& Johnson, 2004). More needs to be known about the meanings of violence or
threat of violence as it is used to control women in specific contexts.
Stigma and the associated emotion of shame combine to become a powerful
form of social control. Gender-based violence is experienced as both stigmatiz-
ing and shameful (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003; Eisikovits & Enosh, 1997).
Shame has also been identified as a factor in inhibiting women from disclos-
ing their experiences of violence to others and from seeking help (Giles-Sims,
1998). Shame may also moderate outcomes of violence. One study found that
shame was a key predictor for the relation between psychological violence and
PTSD (Street & Arias, 2001).
Although the relationship of stigma to psychological and interpersonal re-
lationships has burgeoned in recent years, the dynamics of stigmatization,
shame, power, and gender-based violence continues to be a neglected area of
research. As Link and Phelan (2001) have emphasized, stigma depends on
power—social, political, and economic—but even power dynamics per se is
all too often overlooked in analyses of stigma. As they point out, “there is a
tendency to focus on the attributes associated with those [stigmatizing] con-
ditions rather than on power differences between people who have them and
people who do not” (p. 375).
In particular, the relationship of gender role transgressions to various forms
of stigma and its associated sanctions, which include rejection and social ex-
clusion, need to be more fully understood. That knowledge can provide a
foundation for building women’s resistance to stigmatizing cultural messages.
Research on the relationship of stigma to self-esteem suggests that the causal
dynamics are complex. For example, there is a relationship between greater
exposure to sexism, threat appraisals, and reductions in self-esteem among
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 187

pessimistic women that is not found among optimistic women (Kaiser, Major,
& McCoy, 2004).
At the same time, research on how to foster social change that could re-
duce stigmatization as a force for the enforcement of gender role norms that
support gender-based violence is needed. As Link and Phelan (2001) point
out, intervening in the stigma process either requires (1) producing funda-
mental changes in beliefs and attitudes or (2) changing the power relations
that enable dominate groups to act on those stigmatizing beliefs and attitudes.
The potential for success of either approach will depend on knowledge of
the interrelationships among entitlements, power, stigma, and gender-based
violence.

LINKS AMONG GENDER, POWER, AND SEXUALITY

Social structures themselves often reflect inequitable gender relationships
that serve to maintain the legitimacy of male violence. Relationships between
female workers and male employers, wives and husbands, female patients and
male doctors, female athletes and male coaches, for example, share common
structural and ideological features that place women in positions of subordi-
nation to men.
These inequities reinforce a patriarchal worldview in which women’s subor-
dination is normal, natural, and expected, and where powerful and competent
women are stigmatized and disliked (Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 1999,
2001). Further, some studies in the United States have found that for some
men (in particular men who are likely to sexually harass women), power and
sexuality are linked such that women’s subordination is associated with sexual
attractiveness (Bargh, Raymond, Strack, & Pryor 1995; Pryor 1987; Pryor &
Stoller, 1994). Although the dynamics of the linkages have yet to be fully un-
derstood, experimental research by Bargh et al. (1995) in which either power
or sex was primed in male participants high in likelihood to sexually harass,
suggests that priming power encourages thoughts of sexuality and not vice
versa.
There has been a great deal of theoretical, methodological, and substan-
tive work that has found sexual objectification to be a powerful influence on
women’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in Western culture (Frederickson
& Roberts, 1997; McKinley, 1996; McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Tiggemann &
Kuring, 2004). Although more knowledge is needed, some research suggests
that sexualization of violence and objectification of women contribute to ex-
posure to abusive experiences. Research examining the link between women’s
objectification experiences (OE), daily hassles, coercive sexual experiences,
and depressive symptoms in college women found that the most important con-
tributors to the effect of OE frequency were being called degrading, gender-
stereotyped names, and being the target of offensive (sexualized) gestures
188 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

(Burnett, 1995). However, the tendency to rely on the opinions and evaluations
of others moderated this relationship.
In developed societies in particular, the media are powerful cultural forces
that model interactions between men and women. Insofar as the media provide
models that perpetuate gendered inequalities, reinforce and perpetuate ide-
ologies of male dominance (physical and sexual), sexualize violence, and ob-
jectify women, they provide mechanisms for gender to influence violence
against women. Understanding the dynamics of gender-based violence can
be informed by examining through a cultural lens how the media socializes,
normalizes, and advocates such ideologies, leading to links between sex and
power that operate beyond conscious awareness.

MEDIA INFLUENCES

Mass media influence our perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors related

to gender as well as violence through many channels including radio, tele-
vision, movies, magazines, and the Internet. The impact of media exposure
to sexual and violent content including pornographic content (Caputi, 2003;
Jensen, 1995; Russell, 1980, 1988; Silbert & Pines, 1984; Sommers & Check,
1987) thus becomes of central concern for researchers who seek to understand
the determinants of gender-based violence against women in technologically
developed societies. Teenagers spend about half of their waking hours en-
gaged in some form of media: an estimated 3 hours of watching television,
1.5 hours listening to music, less than 1 hour watching movies, three-fourths
of an hour reading, and one-half hour on the computer per day (Brown, Steele,
& Walsh-Childers, 2002). Researchers predict that by the time a 7-year old
reaches 70 years, they will have spent 7–10 years of his or her life in front of a
television (Roberts, 2000). By the age of 14 years, it is estimated that the av-
erage American child has viewed more then 8,000 murders and 100,000 other
acts of violence on television alone (Huston, Donnerstein, Fairchild, Feshbach,
Katz, Murray, Rubinstein, Wilcox, & Zuckerman, 1992). Although findings
from correlational designs are problematic with regard to causality, effects of
exposure to violence against and sexual degradation of women have been doc-
umented in experimental studies as well (Linz, Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1984;
1988; Mulac, Jansma, & Linz, 2002).
Media have been found to perpetuate rape myths by portraying sexual vi-
olence against women in television and movies congruent with such beliefs
(Brinson, 1992). Rape myths include belief that: (a) the victim is promiscuous;
(b) it is the victim’s fault; (c) the victim wanted to be raped; (d) the victim lies
about the rape (Burt, 1980); or (e) the rapist is psychologically or biologically
unable to resist his sexual impulses (Groth, 1979). Television and movies tell
the tale of rape such that “it is acceptable to rape and be raped in certain circum-
stances, especially when the victims and offenders fail to fit mythical profiles”
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 189

(Bufkin & Eschholz, 2000, p. 1338). Some evidence suggests that exposure to
violent pornography in particular cannot only affect men (Demaré, Briere, &
Lips, 1988; Donnerstein, 1980)-–it can affect women’s attitudes and fantasies
about rape as well (Corne, Briere & Esses, 1992).
Media provide social learning tools for children and teens in developing their
ideas about appropriate norms in different behaviors (Bryant & Zillman, 1994)
including those related to sex and aggression. For example, 61% of teens aged
13–15 years have been found to depend on television and movies for sources
of information about sex, STDs, drugs, alcohol, and violence (Kaiser Family
Foundation, 1999); more than half report learning about pregnancy and birth
control from television; and more than half of girls report learning about sex
from magazines (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1996). Communica-
tions researchers critique the media for failing to provide an accurate portrait
of reality on these important matters (e.g., Huston, Wartella, & Donnerstein,
1998; Lowry & Shidler, 1993). Although it is recognized that media can play
a powerful role in communicating values, setting norms, and establishing ex-
pectations for behavior, the full impact of media influences on gender-based
violence has yet to be documented.

MUSIC—A NEW FRONTIER FOR RESEARCH IN

UNDERSTANDING LINKS BETWEEN GENDER AND
SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

The impact of new technology that substantially increases both audio and
visual exposure to popular music in particular has yet to be fully felt, but even
the current levels of such exposure have raised concerns due to the violent and
sexual nature of its content. In a recent content analysis of six types of media,
Pardun, L’Engle, and Brown (2005) found that music contained substantially
more sexual content (40%) than movies (12%), television (11%), magazines
(8%), Internet web sites (6%), or newspapers (1%). Furthermore, music was
more likely to focus on sexual innuendos, sexual intercourse, divorce, and
deteriorating relationships as compared to other forms of media.
Music reflects its larger social and political context, and mysogynism in
popular music is not new—derogatory views of women have been expressed
in many genres including rock, country, and the blues. In particular, rap music
emerged in the 1970s as a vehicle for expressing ideas and emotions related to
the experience of blacks in the United States. The dominance of misogynistic
themes in rap did not emerge until the late 1980s but is now a constant theme
with many popular artists including Ice T., N.W.A., and 2 Live Crew (Adams
& Fuller, 2006).
Hip hop, rap, and heavy metal have been the target of most discussion due to
their extremely violent and sexual nature (Greeson & Williams, 1986; Perry,
2003; St. Lawrence & Joyner, 1991). Violent themes are common with research
190 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

reporting from 15% to 50% of rap music videos as containing violent imagery
(Gow, 1990; Greeson & Williams, 1986; Sherman & Dominick, 1986). In
addition to normalizing antisocial behavior in general, rap lyrics promulgate
themes of rape, torture, abuse, and other forms of degradation of women.
Zimmerman (1992) found that in particular gangster rap music, which is be-
coming more “mainstream” in popular culture, portrays women as sex objects
and victims of sexual violence. Similar concerns have been voiced about the
content of heavy metal rock music (St. Lawrence & Joyner, 1991).
Research has documented the negative impact of sexual and violent music
on attitudes toward women. Wester, Crown, Quatman, and Heesacker (1997)
found that even brief exposure to sexually violent rap music in participants
unfamiliar with the genre increased belief in adversarial sexual relationships.
Heavy metal music has also been known to increase men’s sex-role stereotyp-
ing and perceived entitlements including the view that “a woman should never
contradict her husband in public,” and negative attitudes regarding vocational,
education, and intellectual roles of women (St. Lawrence & Joyner, 1991). Re-
search by Barongan and Hall (1996) found that participants exposed to misog-
ynous music were significantly more likely to act aggressively toward female
confederates and to misperceive their reactions, concluding that “misogynous
music facilitates sexually aggressive behavior and supports the relationship
between cognitive distortions and sexual aggression” (p.195). Other research
suggests that exposure to such music increases hostile and aggressive thoughts
(Anderson, Carnagey, & Eubanks, 2003), and that long-term exposure to vio-
lent music can lead to more permanent hostility toward women (Anderson &
Bushman, 2002).
The combination of visual imagery with lyrical messages makes music
videos an especially potent source of information about social roles, con-
sumerism, and culture (Sun & Lull, 1986). Music videos predominantly rely
on themes of implicit sexuality, objectification, dominance, and implicit ag-
gression (Vincent, Davis, & Boruszkowski, 1987). Males display dominant
and aggressive behaviors while women behave in subservient and implicitly
sexual ways. Women are also the recipients of implicit, explicit, and aggressive
advances, and are portrayed as enjoying aggressive sex (Sommers-Flanagan,
Sommers-Flanagan, & Davis, 1993).
Evidence suggests that the storylines shown in music videos shape con-
sumer attitudes and schemas, particularly gender-role schemas. Frequent mu-
sic video exposure is associated with holding more stereotypical sexual and
gender role attitudes as well as stronger acceptance of women as sex objects
and support of dating as a game (Ward, 2002; Ward, Hansbrough, & Walker,
2005). In addition, exposure to traditional imagery in music videos is asso-
ciated with adversarial sexual beliefs (Kalof, 1999). Furthermore, research
suggests that greater exposure to violent rap music videos is associated with
greater acceptance of violence: participants viewing violent music videos were
found more likely to accept the use of violence, report a higher likelihood to
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 191

use violence, and accept violence against women (Johnson, Jackson, & Gatto
1995).
As Adams and Fuller (2006) point out, the roots and impact of mysogynism in
rap music must be understood in the history and context of racism in the United
States, which includes racialized misogyny. Fully understanding the meanings
and impact of exposure to such themes on women and men of diverse class and
ethnicity will require consideration of this historical and situational context and
multilevel approaches. Media influences have been found to shape perceptions,
beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that link power, sexuality, and violence against
women. Given the rapid spread of new technology, opportunity for exposure to
music containing messages of explicit sexualized violence against women will
continue to increase dramatically. The concomitant need for more sophisticated
understandings of how gender, race, and class intersect to mediate and moderate
the meanings and outcomes of such exposure makes prevention activities in
this area an urgent priority.
Mass media can be used to promote sexualized views of women, foster links
between sexuality and subordination, and reinforce behaviors and practices
that undermine gender-based violence. But it can also be used as a means to
educate the public about the pervasiveness, multiple manifestations, causes,
and consequences of such violence. There is now a growing body of inter-
disciplinary research on gender-based violence that is being applied in public
education programs, reflected in criminal justice and health care systems, and
influencing new laws and policies cross-nationally that provide models for
designed evidence-based culturally-sensitive prevention and intervention pro-
grams (Heise et al. 1999; Jasinski & Williams, 1998; Koss et al., 2003; Koss,
et al., 1994; Renzetti, Edleson, & Bergen, 2001; Russo, Koss, & Ramos, 2000;
World Health Organization [WHO], 2002, 2004).

OUTCOMES OF VIOLENCE

The destructive effects of male violence extend beyond the woman to her
family and society. The negative physical and mental health effects have con-
comitant social and economic costs. In the United States alone, the costs of
intimate violence are estimated to exceed $5.8 billion each year. More than
two-thirds of that cost ($ 4.1 billion) goes for direct medical and mental health
care service delivery (NCIPC, 2003).
Women who have been victimized suffer both immediate and long-range
consequences to their physical and mental well-being, and these consequences
are similar for multiple forms of victimization (Browne, 1997; Coker, Smith,
King, & McKeown, 2000; Goodman, Koss & Russo., 1993; Heise et al., 1999;
Herrera, et al., 2006; Koss & Heslet, 1992; Koss, et al., 2003; Krug et al.,
2002; Resnick, Acierno, & Kilpatrick, 1997). Although many effects are im-
mediately apparent following the violent episode(s), other effects may surface
192 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

as intermittent problems or may last for years (Goodman et al., 1993; Koss &
Heslet, 1992; Koss et al. 1991). Depression and anxiety increase with ongo-
ing violence (Sutherland, Bybee, & Sullivan, 1998) and decrease as violence
diminishes or stops (Campbell & Sullivan, 1994). Revictimization compli-
cates the understanding of outcomes (Beitchman et al., 1992). Women who
experience child sexual abuse have higher risk for experiencing rape and
other forms of victimization in adulthood (Resnick, Acierno, & Kilpatrick,
1997; Russo & Denious, 2001; Wyatt, Guthrie, & Notgrass, 1992; Koss, et al.,
2003).
Indirect effects of partner violence can be far reaching. One of the major
indirect consequences of gender-based violence is the effect on children who
may witness or be involved in the abuse (for reviews, see Geffner, Jaffe, &
Suderman, 2000; Holden, Geffner, & Jouriles, 1998; Koss et al., 2003). Vio-
lence against women and against children is highly correlated—if one is being
abused, it is likely that the other is as well. Even when children are not abused
themselves, witnessing partner violence may have far-reaching consequences.
Male children who have witnessed a father batter a mother are more likely
to use violence in their own adult lives than those from nonabusive homes
(Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). In addition, partner violence in the home
is predictive of children’s general psychopathology (McCloskey et al., 1995).
Even sibling and parental warmth fail to buffer the negative effects of partner
violence on children’s mental health.
That violence has multiple biological, neurological, physiological, biolog-
ical, behaviorial, social, and economic consequences for women and their
families is no longer in doubt. The focus now is on identifying the pathways
between the various forms of IPV and its multiple outcomes that so compli-
cate the development of effective prevention and treatment (Babcock, Green,
& Robie, 2004). New integrative and interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives
as well as multilevel methods that encompass biobehavioral and sociocultural
perspectives are needed (e.g., Dutton et al., 2006).

VIOLENCE AND REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES

Reproductive consequences of intimate violence including childhood sexual

abuse, rape, and partner violence, include high-risk sexual behavior and sexu-
ally transmitted diseases (Koss et al., 1991; Sturm, Carr, Luxenberg, Swoyer,
& Cicero, 1990).
In particular, IPV and unwanted pregnancy would be expected to be linked
for a variety of reasons (see Russo & Denious, 1998). Violent partners are
more likely to demand unprotected sex and refuse to use a condom (Russo &
Denious, 2001). Having a child also increases a women’s dependency on her
partner and, for him, it becomes an additional point of leverage to exercise
control via threats to harm the child (Ptacek, 1997).
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 193

Indeed, unwanted pregnancy is highly correlated with exposure to intimate

violence including childhood physical and sexual abuse, rape, and partner
violence (Dietz, Spitz, Anda, Williamson, McMahon et al., 2000; Russo &
Denious, 2001; Wyatt, Guthrie, & Notgrass, 1992). In the United States, among
new mothers who reported that their husband or partner had “physically hurt”
them during the 12 months before delivery, 70% also reported their pregnancy
was unintended (Gazmararian et al. 1995). The positive association is strongest
among unmarried women, reminding us that national surveys that focus solely
on married women underestimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence
in women’s lives (Gazmararian et al., 1995).
Cross-culturally, Kishor and Johnson (2004) found that in eight of nine coun-
tries studied, experiencing partner violence was linked with a higher likelihood
of having an unwanted birth. The extent to which forced pregnancy might be
used as a tactic to keep women from leaving a violent relationship is unknown.
Also unknown is the level of contribution forced pregnancy may make to the
persistence of high rates of unintended pregnancy around the globe (Russo,
2006).
A focus on pregnancy intendedness or wantedness among children born
does not encompass what are arguably the most unwanted pregnancies, that is,
those terminated by abortion. Differential access to abortion may contribute to
differences in rates of unwanted pregnancies ending in births across countries,
making cross-cultural comparisons problematic. Research on violence in the
lives of women who have abortions confirms a strong link between violence and
unintended and unwanted pregnancy. Women who report having an abortion
are more likely to report experiencing childhood physical and/or sexual abuse,
being a victim of rape (by someone other than the intimate partner), having a
violent partner, and having a partner who refused to wear a condom (Russo &
Denious, 2001).
Analyses of data from the National Comorbidity Survey comparing women
who had an abortion versus delivery on their first pregnancy found a similar
pattern of results with regard to experience of rape, molestation, child physical
abuse, being held captive/kidnapped/threatened with a weapon, or being phys-
ically attacked: 39% of women in the abortion group experienced some type of
violence compared to 26.8% of women in the birth group. In particular, women
in the abortion group had significantly higher rates of rape (15.1% vs. 7.5%)
and molestation (18.3% vs. 11.6%), respectively. Women who reported multi-
ple abortions (an indicator of repeat unwanted pregnancy) were significantly
more likely to be physically attacked (21.5%) than women who reported none
(6.7%) or one (7.9%) abortion; 41% of women who had two or more abortions
experienced some form of violence (Steinberg & Russo, 2007).
These findings have important implications for policy and practice in the
context of the current sociopolitical context in which some researchers are
seeking to prove that abortion has damaging health consequences to justify
public policies restricting abortion access (Russo & Denious, 2005). Insofar as
194 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

such efforts encourage women who have histories of victimization or currently

live in violent contexts to attribute their mental health problems to their abortion
experience, such efforts may set back the progress that has been made in helping
women focus on and deal with the consequences of experiencing such violence.
It has even been suggested that a history of abortion may serve as a marker for
identifying patients at risk for mental health problems (e.g., Cougle, Reardon,
& Coleman, 2004).
But when experience of violence and other covariates are properly con-
trolled, having an abortion is not found to have a significant effect on men-
tal health outcomes, whether generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety, or
PTSD are measured. However, being raped, physically attacked, and held cap-
tive/threatened with a weapon continue to be independent predictors of mental
health outcomes when pregnancy outcome and relevant covariates are con-
trolled. These findings are congruent with the results of numerous studies,
including longitudinal research, that support a causative role for victimization
in the development of negative mental health outcomes as well as risk for
unwanted pregnancy (e.g., Dietz, Spitz, & Anda, 2000).
Thus, emphasizing abortion as a marker or screening factor is inappropriate
insofar as focusing on abortion distracts attention from factors that actually do
increase risk for mental health problems. It is the violence in women’s lives that
is associated with unwanted pregnancy—violence that occurs and puts women
at higher risk for mental health problems regardless of pregnancy outcome. It
is important that clinicians explore the effects of violence in women’s lives to
avoid misattribution of the negative mental health outcomes of victimization
to having an abortion (Rubin & Russo, 2004). To do otherwise may be to
impede full understanding of the origins of women’s mental health problems
and prolong their psychological distress.

CONCLUSION

Gender-based violence is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that is expe-

rienced differently by women and men. As such, sophisticated approaches in
theory and method are needed to conceptualize and study the factors that medi-
ate and moderate the relation of gender to the experience of intimate violence.
Such violence takes multiple forms, is rooted in patriarchal social structures
and cultural roles of women and men, and is reinforced by media images.
The psychological, social, and behavioral effects of such violence on women,
men, families, and society are widespread and long lasting, Understanding,
predicting, and preventing gender-based violence will require a complex and
comprehensive approach that intervenes at individual, interpersonal, and struc-
tural levels and that is responsive to cultural difference.
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 195

REFERENCES

Amnesty International (2004). It’s in our hands: Stop violence against women. Osney
Mead, Oxford, United Kingdom: Alden Press.
ADAMS,T. M. & FULLER, D B. (2006). The words have changed but the ideology remains
the same: Misogynistic lyrics in rap music. Journal of Black Studies, 36, 938–957.
ANDERSON, C.A. & BUSHMAN, B.J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 53, 2377–2378.
ANDERSON, C.A., CARNAGEY, N.L. & EUBANKS, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media:
The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960–971.
ANDERSON, K.L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex
Roles, 52, 853–865.
ANDERSON, K.L. & UMBERSON, D. (2001) Gendering violence: Masculinity and power
in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15, 358–380.
ARCHER, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.
ARCHER, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual
partners: A meta- analytic review. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351.
BABCOCK, J.C., GREEN, C.E. & ROBIE C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work?
A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology
Review, 23, 1023–1053.
BAIR-MERRITT, M.H., BLACKSTONE, M. & FEUDTNER, C. (2006) Physical health out-
comes of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence: A systematic review.
Pediatrics, 117, 278–290.
BARGH, J.A., RAYMOND, P., PRYOR, J.B. & STRACK, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the
underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual
harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
768–781.
BARONGAN, C. & HALL, G. (1996). The influence of misogynous rap music on sexual
aggression against women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 195–207.
BEITCHMAN, J.H., ZUCKER, K.J., HOOD, J.E., DACOSTA, G.A., AKMAN, D. & CASSAVIA,
E. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 16, 101–118.
BERNS, N. (2001). Degendering the problem and gendering the blame: Political dis-
course on violence against women. Gender & Society, 15, 262–281.
BOURNE, L.E. JR. & RUSSO, N.F. (1998). Psychology: Behavior in Context. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton.
BRICE-BAKER, J.R. (1994). Domestic Violence in African-American and African-
Caribbean families. Special Issue: Multicultural views on domestic violence.
Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 3, 23–38.
BRINSON, S. (1992). The use and opposition of rape myths in prime-time television
dramas. Sex Roles, 27, 359–375.
BROWN, J.D., STEELE, J.R. & WALSH-CHILDERS, K. (Ed.) (2002). Sexual teens, sexual
media: Investigating media’s influence on adolescent sexuality. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
BROWNE, A. (1997). Violence in marriage: Until death do us part? In A.P. Cardarelli
(Ed). Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects (pp. 48–
69). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
196 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

BROWNMILLER, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
BRUSH, L. (1990). Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Method-
ological issues in the National Survey of Families and Households. Gender &
Society, 4, 56–67.
BRUSH, L. (2005). Philosophical and political issues in research on women’s violence
and aggression. Sex Roles, 52, 867–874.
BRYANT, J. & ZILLMAN, D. (Eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp.
17–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
BUCHBINDER, E. & EISIKOVITS, Z. (2003). Battered women’s entrapment in shame:
A phenomenological study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 355–
366.
BURNETT, R. (1995). Gendered objectification experiences: Construct validity, im-
plications for depression and phenomenology. Dissertation. Duke University.
(Summary available at www.JeanHamiltonMD.com).
BUFKIN, J. & ESCHHOLZ, S. (2000). Images of sex and rape: A content analysis of
popular film. Violence Against Women, 6, 1317–1344.
BURT, M. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.
CAMPBELL, J.C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359,
1331–1336.
CAMPBELL, J.C. & LEWANDOWSKI, L.A. (1997). Mental and physical health effects of
intimate partner violence on women and children. Psychiatric Clinics of North
America, 20(2), 353–374.
CAPUTI, J. (2003). Everyday pornography. In G. Dines & J. Humez (Eds.) Race, Gender,
and Class in Media (pp. 434–450). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
CHESTER, B., ROBIN, R., KOSS, M. & GOODMAN, D. (1994). Grandmother dishonored:
Violence against women by male partners in American Indian communities.
Special Issue: Violence against women of color. Violence and Victims, 9, 249–
258.
COKER, A.L., DAVIS, K.E., ARIAS, I., DESAI, S., SANDERSON, M., BRANDT, H.M. &
SMITH, P.H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence
for men and women, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260–268.
COKER, A.L., SMITH, P.H., BETHEA, L., KING, M. & MCKEOWN, R.E. (2000). Physical
health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence.
Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 451–457.
COLTRANE, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social
embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62,
1208–1233.
CORNE, S., BRIERE, J. & ESSES, L.M. (1992). Women’s attitudes and fantasies about
rape as a function of early exposure to pornography. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7, 454–461.
COUGLE J.R., REARDON D.C. & COLEMAN, P. K. (2004). Generalized anxiety following
unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: a cohort study
of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
19, 137–146.
DEAUX, K. & MAJOR, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of
gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389.
DEMARÉ, D., BRIERE, J. & LIPS, H.M. (1988). Violent pornography and self-reported
likelihood of sexual aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 140–153.
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 197

DEKESEREDY, W.S. & SCHWARTZ, M.D. (1998). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in
intimate heterosexual relationships: A critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. U.S.
Department of Justice, Violence Against Women Online Resources. Available at
http://www.vaw.uma.edu/documents/vawnet/ctscritique/ctscritique.html.
DESAI, S. & SALTZMAN, L.E. (2001). Measurement issues for violence against women.
In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson & R. K. Bergen (Eds.) Sourcebook on violence
against women (pp. 35–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DIETZ, P., SPITZ, A.M., ANDA, R.F., WILLIAMSON, D.G., MCMAHON, P.M., SANTELLI,
J.S., NORDENBERG, D.F., FILETTI, V.J. & KENDRICK, J. S. (2000). Unintended preg-
nancy among adult women exposed to abuse or household dysfunction dur-
ing their childhood, Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1259–
1364.
DOBASH, R.P. & DOBASH, R.E. (1977). Violence against wives: A case against patri-
archy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
DONNERSTEIN, E. (1980). Aggressive erotica and violence against women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 269–277.
DUTTON, D.G. (1988). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate rela-
tionships. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
DUTTON, M.A., BURGHARDT, K.J., PERRIN, S.G., CHRESTMAN, K.R. & HAILE, P.M.
(1994). Battered women’s cognitive schemata. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7,
237–255.
DUTTON, M.A. & GOODMAN, L. (2005). Coercive control and intimate partner violence:
toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743–756.
DUTTON, M.A., GOODMAN, L.A. & BENNET, L. (1999). Court-involved battered
women’s responses to violence: The role of psychological, physical, and sex-
ual abuse. Violence and Victims, 14, 89–104.
DUTTON, M.A., GREEN, B., KALTMAN, S. I., ROESCH, D.M., ZEFFIRO, T.A., KRAUSE, E.D.
(2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955–968.
DWYER, D.C., SMOKOWSKI, P.R., BRICOUT, J.C. & WODARSKI, J.S. (1995). Domestic
violence research: Theoretical and practical implications for social work. Clinical
Social Work Journal, 23, 185–198.
EDWARDS, A. (1991). Male violence in feminist theory: An analysis of the chang-
ing conceptions of sex/gender violence and male dominance. In J. Hamner &
M. Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence, and social control (pp. 13–29). Atlantic
Highands, NJ: Humanities Press International.
EISIKOVITS, Z.C. & ENOSH, G. (1997). Awareness of guilt and shame in intimate vio-
lence. Violence and Victims, 12, 307–322.
ELLSBERG, M.C.L., HEISE, L., PENA, R., AGURTO, S. & WINKVIST, A. (2001). Research-
ing domestic violence against women: Methodological and ethical considera-
tions. Studies in Family Planning, 32, 1–16.
FINKELHOR, D. & YLLÖ, K. (1985). License to rape: Sexual abuse of wives. New York:
Holt, Reinhardt, and Winston.
FISCHER, A.R. & GOOD, G.E. (1998). New directions for the study of gender role
attitudes: A cluster analytic investigation of masculinity ideologies. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 22, 371–384.
FOLKMAN, S. & MOSKOWITZ, J.T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review
of Psychology, 55, 745–774.
FOLLINGSTAD, D.R., BRADLEY, R.G., LAUGHLIN, J.E. & BURKE, L. (1999). Risks fac-
tor and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency
198 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

and severity levels in a college sample. Violence and Victims, 14, 365–
380.
FRABLE, D.E.S. (1997). Gender, Racial, Ethnic, Sexual, and Class Identities. Annual
Review of Psychology 48, 139–62.
FREDRICKSON, B. & ROBERTS, T-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Towards an un-
derstanding of women’s lived experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
173–206.
FRIEZE, I.H. (2000). Violence in close relationships—development of a research area:
Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 681–684.
FRIEZE, I.H. (2005). Female violence against intimate partners: An introduction. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 29, 229–237.
FRIEZE, I.H. & DAVIS, K. (2002). Perspectives on stalking research. In K.E. Davis,
I.H. Frieze & R.D. Mariuro (Eds.), Stalking: Perspectives on victims and their
perpetrators (pp. 1–5). New York, NY: Springer.
FRIEZE, I.H. & MCHUGH, M.(Eds.) (2005). Female violence against intimate partners.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, Whole No. 3.
GARCIA-MORENO, C., WATTS, C., JANSEN, H., ELLSBERG, M. & HEISE, L. (2003). Re-
sponding to violence against women: WHO’s multicountry study on women’s
health and domestic violence. Health and Human Rights, 6(2), 113–127. Avail-
able from http://www.who.int/gender/documents/en/vawhealthandhumanrights.
pdf.
GAZMARARIAN, J.A., , M.M., SALTZMAN, L.E., JOHNSON, C.H., BRUCE, F.C., MARKS,
J.S. & ZAHNISER, S.C. (1995). The relationship between pregnancy intendedness
and physical violence in mothers of newborns. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 85,
1031–1038.
GEFFNER, R., JAFFE, P.G. & SUDERMANN, M. (2000). Children exposed to domestic
violence: Current research, interventions, prevention, & policy development.
New York, NY: Haworth Press.
GILES-SIMS, J. (1998). The aftermath of partner violence. In J.L. Jasinski & L.M.
Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of re-
search (pp. 44–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
GOODMAN, L.A., KOSS, M.P. & RUSSO, N.F. (1993). Violence against women: Physi-
cal and mental health effects. Part I: Research findings. Applied & Preventive
Psychology: Current Scientific Perspectives, 2, 79–89.
GOODRUM, S., UMBERSON, D. & ANDERSON, K.L. (2001). The batterer’s view of the self
and others in domestic violence. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 221–241.
GOW, J. (1990). The relationship between violent and sexual images and the popularity
of music videos. Popular Music and Society, 14(4), 1–10.
GREESON, L.E. & WILLIAMS, R.A. (1986). Social implications of music videos for
youth. Youth and Society, 18, 177–189.
GROTH, A. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY:
Plenum.
GUTIERRES, S.E., RUSSO, N.F., URBANSKI, L. (1994). Sociocultural and psychological
factors in American Indian drug use: Implications for treatment. International
Journal of the Addictions, 29, 1761–1786.
HAMBY, S. (2005). Measuring gender differences in partner violence: Implications
from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior. Sex
Roles, 52(11), 725–742.
HAMILTON, J.A. & RUSSO, N.F. (2006). Women and depression: Research theory and
social policy. In C.L.M. keyes & S.H. Goodman (Eds.), Women and Depression:
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 199

A handbook for the social, behavorial, and biomedical sciences (pp. 479–522).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
HARNED, M.S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context
and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269–285.
HARRISON, L.A. & ABRISHAMI, G. (2004). Dating violence attributes: Do they differ
for in-group and out-group members who have a history of dating violence? Sex
Roles, 51, 543–550.
HEISE, L.L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework.
Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290.
HEISE, L.L., ELLSBERG, M. & GOTTEMOELLER, M. (1999, December). Ending violence
against women. Population reports, Series L, No.11. (pp. 1–45). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Pro-
gram.
HEISE, L.L., PITANGUY, J. & GERMAIN A. (1994). Violence against women: The hidden
health burden. World Bank Discussion Paper #225. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank.
HERRERA, V.M., KOSS, M.P., BAILEY, J., YUAN, N.P. & LICHTER, E.I. (2006). Survivors
of male violence: Research and training initiatives to facilitate recovery from
depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. In J. Worell & C.D. Goodheart
(Eds.). Handbook of Girls’ and Women’s Psychological Health (pp. 455–466).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
HOLDEN, G., GEFFNER, R. & JOURILES, E. (Eds.). (1998). Children exposed to mari-
tal violence: Theory, research, and applied issues. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
HUSTON, A.C., WARTELLA, E. & DONNERSTEIN, E. (1998). Measuring the effects of
sexual content in the media. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
HUSTON, A.C, DONNERSTEIN, E., FAIRCHILD, H.H, FESHBACH, N.D, KATZ, P.A, MURRAY,
J.P, RUBINSTEIN, E.A, WILCOX, B.L & ZUCKERMAN, D. (1992). Big world, small
screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
JASINSKI, J.L. (2001). Physical violence among Anglo, African American, and Hispanic
couples: Ethnic differences in persistence and cessation. Violence and Victims,
16, 479–490.
JASINSKI, J.L. & WILLIAMS, L.M. (Eds.) (1998). Partner violence: A comprehensive
review of 20 years of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
JENKINS, S.S. & AUBÉ, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender-related constructs in
dating aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106–1118.
JENSEN, R. (1995). Pornographic lives. Violence Against Women, 1, 32–54.
JOHNSON, J., JACKSON, L. & GATTO, L. (1995). Violent attitudes and deferred academic
aspirations: Deleterious effects of exposure to rap music. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 16, 27–41.
JOHNSON, M.P., (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms
of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75, 283–294.
JOHNSON, M.P. & FERRARO K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s:
Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 948–963.
KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION. (1999, March 1). Kids ready to talk about today’s tough
issues before their parents are: Sex, AIDS, violence, and drugs/alcohol. Press
release.
KALOF, L. (1999). The effects of gender and music video imagery on sexual attitudes.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 378–385.
200 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

KAURA, S.A. & ALLEN, C.M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating
violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,
576–588.
KELLER, E.L. (1996). Invisible victims: Battered women in psychiatric and medical
emergency rooms. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 60, 1–21.
KELLY, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Min-
nesota Press.
KENNEDY, A.C., (2006). Urban adolescent mothers exposed to community, family,
and partner violence: Prevalence, outcomes, and welfare policy implications.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 44–54.
KILPATRICK, D.G. (1990). Violence as a precursor of women’s substance abuse: The
rest of the drugs-violence story. Presented in the symposium Critical Issue—
Substance Abuse and Violence: Drugs and Violent Crime. American Psycholog-
ical Association Convention, Boston MA.
KIMMEL, M.S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and
methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.
KISHOR, S. & JOHNSON, K. (2004). Profiling domestic violence: A multi–country study.
Calverton, MD: ORC Macro.
KOOP, C.E. (1985). The surgeon general’s workshop on violence and the public health.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
KOSS, M.P. (1988). Women’s mental health research agenda: Violence against women.
Women’s Mental Health Occasional Paper Series. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Mental Health.
KOSS, M.P. & HESLET, L. (1992). Somatic consequences of violence against women.
Archives of Family Medicine, 1, 53–59.
KOSS, M.P., BAILEY, J.A., YUAN, N.P., HERRERA, V. M. & LICHTER, E.L. (2003). Depres-
sion and PTSD in survivors of male violence: Research and training initiatives
to facilitate recovery. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 130–142.
KOSS, M.P., GOODMAN, L.A., BROWNE, A., FITZGERALD, L., KEITA, G.P. & RUSSO, N.F.
(1994) No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in
the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
KOSS, M.P., HEISE, L. & RUSSO, N.F. (1994). The global health burden of rape. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 18, 509–530.
KOSS, M.P., KOSS, P.G. & WOODRUFF, W.J. (1991). Deleterious effects of criminal
victimization on women’s health and medical utilization. Archives of Internal
Medicine, 151, 342–357.
KRAHÉ, B., BIENECK, S. & MÖLLER, I. (2005). Understanding gender and inti-
mate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807–
827.
KRUG, E.G., DAHLBERG, L.L., MERCY, J.A., ZWI, A.B. & LOZANO, R. (2002). World
report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
LINZ, D.G., DONNERSTEIN, E. & PENROD, S. (1984). The effects of multiple exposures
to filmed violence against women. Journal of Communication, 34, 130–147.
LINZ, D.G., DONNERSTEIN, E. & PENROD, S. (1988). Effects of long-term exposure to
violent and sexual degrading depictions of women. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 758–768.
LOWRY, D.T. & SHIDLER, J.A. (1993). Primetime TV portrayals of sex, “safe sex,” and
AIDS: A longitudinal analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 628–637.
MADRIZ, E. (1997). Images of criminals and victims: A study on women’s fear and
social control. Gender & Society, 11, 342–356.
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 201

MALAMUTH, N.M. & CENITI, J. (1986). Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent
pornography: Likelihood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against
women. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 129–137.
MALAMUTH, N.M., CHECK, J.V.P. & BRIERE, J. (1986). Sexual arousal in response to
aggression: Ideological, aggressive, and sexual correlates. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 330–340.
MARIN, A.J. & RUSSO, N.F., (1999). Feminist perspectives on male violence against
women: Critiquing O’Neil and Harway’s model. In J.M. O’Neil & M. Harway
(Eds.). New Perspectives on Violence Against Women (pp. 18–35). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
MARSH, C. (1993). Sexual assault and domestic violence in the African American
community. Western Journal of Black Studies, 17, 149–155.
MARSHALL, L.L. (1992a). Development of the severity of violence against women
scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 103–121.
MARSHALL, L.L. (1992b). The severity of violence against men scales. Journal of
Family Violence, 7, 189–203.
MCCLOSKEY, L.A., FIGUEREDO, A.J., KOSS, M.P. (1995). The effects of systemic family
violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239–1261.
MCHUGH, M.C. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner abuse. Sex Roles,
52, 717–724.
MCHUGH, M.C. & FRIEZE, I.H. (Eds.) (2005). Understanding gender and inti-
mate partner violence: Theoretical and empirical approaches. Sex Roles, 52,
Whole No. 11/12.
MCHUGH, M., FRIEZE, I.H. & BROWN, A. (1993). Research on battered women and
their assailants. In F.L. Denmark & M.A. Paludi (Eds.). Psychology of women:
Handbook of issues and theories (pp. 513–552). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.
MCHUGH, M., LIVINGSTON, N.A. & FORD, A. (2005). A postmodern approach to
women’s use of violence: Developing multiple and complex conceptualizations,
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 323–336.
MCKINLEY, N.M. (1995). Objectified body consciousness scale. In J.K. Thompson
(Ed.). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image distur-
bance (pp. 233–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
MCKINLEY, N.M. & HYDE, J.S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale:
Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–
215.
MEDEA, A. & THOMPSON, K. (1974). Against rape. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
MEYERS, M. (1997). News coverage of violence against women: Engendering blame.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
MULAC, A., JANSMA, L.L. & LINZ, D.G. (2002). Men’s behavior toward women after
viewing sexually-explicit films: Degradation makes a difference. Communication
Monographs, 69, 311–328.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL (2003). Costs of intimate
partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
NORTON, I. & MANSON, S. (1995). A silent minority: Battered American Indian women.
Journal of Family Violence, 10, 307–318.
PARDUN, C.J., L’ENGLE, K.L. & BROWN, J.D. (2005). Linking exposure to outcomes:
Early adolescents’ consumption of sexual content in six media. Mass Communi-
cation & Society, 8, 75–91.
202 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

PERILLA, J., BAKERMAN, R., NORRIS, F. (1994). Culture and domestic violence: The
ecology of abused Latinas. Violence and Victims, 9, 325–339.
PERRY, I. (2003). Who(se) am I? The identity and image of women in hip hop. In
G. Dines & J. Humez (Eds.), Gender, Race, and Class in Media (pp. 136–148).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
PRINCETON SURVEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES. (1996). The Kaiser Family Foundation
survey on teens and sex: What they say teens need to know and who they listen
to. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
PRYOR, J.B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269–290.
PRYOR, J.B., LAVITE, C.M. & STOLLER, L.M. (1993). A social psychological analysis
of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 42, 68–83.
PRYOR, J.B. & STOLLER, L.M. (1994). Sexual cognition processes in men high in the
likelihood to sexually harass. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
163–169.
PTACEK, J. (1997). The tactics and strategies of men who batter: Testimony from women
seeking extreme orders. In A.P. Cardarelli (Ed), Violence between intimate part-
ners: Patterns, causes, and effects (pp. 104–123). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
RAMOS, L., KOSS, M.P. & RUSSO, N.F. (1999). Mexican-American women ‘s definitions
of rape and sexual abuse. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21(3), 236–
265.
RANDO, R.A., ROGERS, J.R. & BRITTAN-POWELL, C.S. (1998). Gender role conflict
and college men’s sexually aggressive attitudes and behavior. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 20, 359–369.
RENZETTI, C.M., EDLESON, J.L. & BERGEN, R.K. (Eds.) (2001). Sourcebook on violence
against women. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.
RESNICK, H.S., ACIERNO, R. & KILPATRICK, D.G. (1997). Health impact of interpersonal
violence. 2: Medical and mental health outcomes. Behavioural Medicine, 23, 65–
78.
RICHARDSON, D.S. (2005), The myth of the female passivity: thirty years of revelations
about female aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 313–322.
RIDGEWAY, C.L. & SMITH-LOVIN, L. (1999). The Gender system and interaction. Annual
Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216.
ROBERTS, D.F. (2000). Media and youth: Access, exposure, and privatization. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 27, 8–14.
RUBIN, L. & RUSSO, N.F. (2004). Abortion and mental health: What therapists need to
know. Women & Therapy, 27 (3/4), 69–90.
RUDMAN, L.A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and bene-
fits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 629–645.
RUDMAN, L.A. & GLICK, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward
agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of
middle-managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–
1010.
RUDMAN, L.A. & GLICK, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward
agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 743–762.
RUSSELL, D. (1975). Rape: The victim’s perspective. New York, NY: Stein and Day.
RUSSELL, D.E.H. (1990). Rape in marriage. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 203

RUSSELL, D.E.H. (1980). Pornography and violence: What does the new research say?
In L. Lederer (Ed.), Take back the night: Women on pornography (pp. 218–238).
New York, NY: William Morrow.
RUSSELL, D.E.H. (1988). Pornography and rape: A causal model. Political Psychology,
9, 41–73.
RUSSO, N.F. & DENIOUS, J. (1998). Understanding the relationship of violence
against women to unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In L.J. Beckman
& S.M. Harvey (Eds.), The new civil war: The psychology, culture, and pol-
itics of abortion (pp. 211–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
RUSSO, N.F. & DENIOUS, J.E. (2001). Violence in the lives of women having abortions:
Implications for public policy and practice. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 32, 142–150.
RUSSO, N.F. (2006). Violence against women: A global health issue. Proceedings of
the 28th International Congress of Psychology, Bejing, 2004. New York, NY:
Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Group).
RUSSO, N.F., DENIOUS, J., KEITA, G.P. & KOSS, M.P. (1997). Intimate violence and black
women’s health. Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Public
Policy, 3(3&4), 315–348.
RUSSO, N.F., KOSS, M.P. & GOODMAN, L. (1995). Male violence against women: A
global health and development issue. In Adler, L.L. & Denmark, F.L. Violence
and the prevention of violence (121–127). Westport, CT: Praeger.
RUSSO, N.F., KOSS, M.P. & RAMOS, L. (2000). Rape: A global health issue. In J. Ussher
(Ed.), Women’s health: Contemporary international perspectives (pp. 129–142).
London, UK: British Psychological Society.
SANCHEZ-HUCLES, J. & DUTTON, M.. (1999). The interaction between societal violence
and domestic violence: Racial and cultural factors. In M. Harway & J.M. O’Neil
(Eds.), What causes men’s violence against women? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
SCHWARTZ, M.S. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring
and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6, 815–
838.
SCOTT-GILIBA, E., MINNE, C., MEZEY, G.C. (1995). The psychological, behavioural
and emotional impact of surviving an abusive relationship. Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry, 6, 343–358.
SHANE, B. & ELLSBERG, M. (2002). Violence against women: effects on reproductive
health. Outlook, 20(1), 1–8.
SHERMAN, B.L. & DOMINICK, J.R. (1986). Violence and sex in music: TV and rock ‘n’
roll. Journal of Communication, 36, 79–93.
SILBERT, M.H. & PINES, A.M. (1984). Pornography and sexual abuse of women. Sex
Roles, 10, 857–869.
SILVERMAN, J.G., RAJ, A., MUCCI, L.A. & HATHAWAY, J.E. (2001). Dating violence
against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control,
sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of American Medical
Association, 286, 572–579.
SOMMERS, E.K. & CHECK, J.V. (1987). An empirical investigation of the role of pornog-
raphy in the verbal and physical abuse of women. Violence and Victims, 2, 189–
209.
SOMMERS-FLANAGAN, R., SOMMERS-FLANAGAN, J. & DAVIS, B. (1993). What’s happen-
ing on music television? A gender-role content analysis. Sex Roles, 28, 745–753.
204 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

SONG, Y.I. (1996). Battered women in Korean immigrant families: The silent scream.
New York, NY: Garland.
SORENSON, S.B. (1996). Violence against women: examining ethnic differences and
commonalities. Evaluation Review, 20, 123–145.
SORENSON, S.B. & TAYLOR, C.A. (2005). Females’ aggression toward intimate male
partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), 78–96.
SORENSON, S.B. & TELLES, C.A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in a
Mexican- American and non-Hispanic White population. Violence and Victims, 6,
3–15.
ST. LAWRENCE, J.S. & JOYNER, D.J. (1991). The effects of sexually violent rock music on
males’ acceptance of violence against women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
15, 49–63.
STARK, E. & FLITCRAFT, A. (1988). Violence among intimates: An epidemiologi-
cal review. In V.B. Van Haselt, R.L. Morrison, A.S. Bellack & M. Herson
(Eds.), Handbook of Family Violence, (pp. 213–293). New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
STARK, E. & FLITCRAFT, A. (1996). Women at risk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-
cations.
STARK, E., FLITCRAFT, A. & FRAZIER, W. (1979). Medicine and patriarchal violence:
The social construction of a “private” event. International Journal of Health
Services, 9, 461–493.
STEINBERG, J.R. & RUSSO, N.F. (2006). Abortion and anxiety disorder: What’s the
relationship? Unpublished manuscript.
STETS, J. & STRAUS, M.A. (1992). The marriage license as a hitting license. Physical
violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
STRAUS, M.A., HAMBY, S.L. & WARREN, W.L. (2003). The conflict tactic scales hand-
book. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
STRAUS, M.A. & GELLES, R.J. & STEINMETZ, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence
in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
STURM, J.T., CARR, M.E., LUXENBERG, M.G., SWOYER, J.K., CICERO, J.J. (1990). The
prevalence of Neisseria Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia trichomatous in victims of
sexual assault. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 19, 142–144.
SULLIVAN, T.P., MEESE, K.J., SWAN, S.C., MAZURE, C.M. & SNOW, D.L. (2005). Pre-
cursors and correlates of women’s violence: Child abuse traumatization, victim-
ization of women, avoidance coping, and psychological symptoms. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 29, 290–301.
SUN, S.W. & LULL, J. (1986). The adolescent audience for music videos and why they
watch. Journal of Communication, 36, 115–125.
TICHENOR, V. (2005) Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power
when she earns more, Sex Roles, 53, 191–206.
TIGGEMANN, M. & KURING, J.K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered
eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299–
311.
TJADEN, P. & THOENNES, P. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and conse-
quences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against
Women Survey. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice/Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.
TOLMAN, R.M., EDLESON, J.L. & FRENDRICH, M. (1996). The applicability of the theory
of planned behavior to abusive men’s cessation of violent behavior. Violence and
Victims, 11, 341–345.
 RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 205

UNITED NATIONS (1989). Violence against women in the family. New York, NY: United
Nations.
UNITED NATIONS (1995). Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing
4-15 September 1995. New York, NY: United Nations.
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1993, December 20). Declaration on the elim-
ination of violence against women. Proceedings of the 85th Plenary Meeting,
Geneva, Switzerland.
VAN ANDERS, S.M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women
perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 51, 511–522.
VINCENT, R.C., DAVIS, D.K. & BORUSZKOWSKI, L.A. (1987). Sexism on MTV:
The portrayal of women in rock videos. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 750–755,
941.
WARD, L.M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and as-
sumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimentational con-
firmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1–15.
WARD, L.M., HANSBROUGH, E. & WALKER, E. (2005). Contributions of music video
exposure to Black adolescents’ gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 20, 143–166.
WEST, C.M. (1998). Lifting the “political gag order”: Breaking the silence around
partner violence in ethnic minority families. In J.L. Jasinski, L.M. Williams et
al. (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research (pp.
184–209). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications.
WESTER, S., CROWN, C., QUATMAN, G. & HEESACKER, M. (1997). The influence of sex-
ually violent rap music on attitudes of men with little prior exposure. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 21, 497–508.
WESTER, S., CROWN, C., QUATMAN, G. & HEESACKER, M. (1997). The influence of sex-
ually violent rap music on attitudes of men with little prior exposure. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 21(4), 497–508.
WHITE, J.W., SMITH, P.H., KOSS, M.P. & FIGUEREDO, A.J. (2000). Intimate partner
aggression—what have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 126, 690–696.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2001). Putting women first: Ethical and safety recom-
mendations for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva, Switzer-
land: Department of Gender and Women’s Health.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2002). World report on violence and health.
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2004). Gender-based violence. Web-site:
http://www.who.int/gender/violence.
WYATT, G. (1994). Sociocultural and epidemiological issues in the assessment of do-
mestic violence. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 3, 7–21.
WYATT, G.E., GUTHRIE, D. & NOTGRASS, C.M. (1992). Differential effects of women’s
child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual revictimization. Journal of Consulting
& Clinical Psychology, 60, 167–173.
YLLÖ, K. (1988). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In K. Yllö
and M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Sage Publications:
Newbury Park, CA.
ZIMMERMAN, K. (1992, March 16). Censure for censor bills. Variety, 72–74.

View publication stats