...1984; Walker, 1984). This approach implied IPV was unilateral with regard to gender; males inflicted violence and females sustained violence. However, another body of research implying bilateral violence has developed. These studies, conducted primarily with college and high school students, measured both perpetration and victimization among males and females (Arias, Samios, O'Leary, 1987; Makepeace, 1986; Thompson, 1991; White & Koss, 1991). An accumulation of results from a broad range of samples (e.g., Cantos, Neidig, & O'Leary, 1994; Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Umberson, Anderson, Glick, & Shapiro, 1998) suggests IPV is usually bilateral. Despite this evidence, many questions about males' and females' use of violence remain. Foremost among unresolved questions is the issue of whether mutual violence perpetrated by both the man and the woman within a relationship should be labeled symmetrical, implying that violent acts by one partner are balanced by violent acts by the other. When gender differences in perpetration have been considered, comparisons were not necessarily made between males and females in the same relationship (e.g., Archer, 2000). Although these comparisons suggest similar rates of perpetration by both genders, they do not allow for the identification of patterns that may exist within relationships. That is, similar rates of perpetration by males and females in general do not necessarily imply similar rates of violence in terms of frequency or severity by both partners, and thus symmetry, within relationships.

To address the issue of gender symmetry within mutually violent relationships, we propose a typology of mutual violence that explicitly addresses the symmetry of IPV within relationships. We use the term mutual to refer generally to relationships in which both partners perpetrate IPV, with no emphasis on the frequency or severity of violent acts. The term symmetrical indicates no difference between partners in either frequency or severity of perpetrated IPV. With asymmetrical mutual IPV, there is a primary perpetrator. In asymmetrical mutual violence, the male or female primary perpetrator (MPP and FPP, respectively) engages in more frequent and/or more severe violence. The primary perpetrator could be determined on the basis of either the frequency of violent acts, or by the severity of violent acts, depending on the purpose and methods of the study. We consider both frequency and severity to identify primary perpetrators and then establish whether asymmetry within patterns was due to an imbalance in frequency or severity. By making these distinctions, our identified patterns of mutual violence may help researchers to more effectively examine rates, causes, courses, and consequences of IPV, and may help practitioners to intervene more effectively. A body of research showing that different patterns of mutual IPV have different implications would help advocates address policy issues such as dual arrest.

Contradictory Findings

Researchers have assessed mutuality by determining whether participants have both perpetrated and experienced violence (e.g., Gray & Foshee, 1997; Katz, Kuffel, & Coblentz, 2002; Umberson et al., 1998). Studies clearly show that most violence in relationships is mutual (e.g., Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Katz et al., 2002; Umberson et al., 1998). The largest proportion of violent relationships categorized as mutually violent was 84%, reported by Cantos and colleagues (1994) in their study of couples mandated to receive treatment for IPV. In addition, research on gender differences and similarities in IPV shows that women are as likely as men (Marshall & Rose, 1990; Riggs & O'Leary, 1996; Thompson, 1991; White & Koss, 1991) or more likely than men (Arias et al., 1987; Bradbury & Lawrence, 1999; Clark, Beckett, Wells, & Dungee-Anderson, 1994; Morse, 1995; Riggs, O'Leary, & Breslin, 1990) to perpetrate violence. Archer's (2000) meta-analysis showed that women were slightly more likely to perpetrate physical (nonsexual) acts of IPV. Altogether, these results would appear to suggest that gender symmetry would exist in mutually violent relationships.

However, studies have also shown women are less likely to perpetrate severe violence than men (Rand, 1997; Rennison, 2002), although there have been differences by ethnicity. Additional research on IPV severity shows that men use more dangerous and injurious forms of violence than do women (Brown, 1997; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus et al., 1980). For example, men are at least 1.5 times more likely than women to use severe violence against their partner (Straus et al., 1980; Swan & Snow, 2002), including lethal violence (Saunders & Browne, 2000). Thus, taking research on mutuality together with research on severity would suggest that IPV is likely mutual, but asymmetrical with men using more severe violence than women.

These apparently contradictory findings suggest that simply determining whether one or both partners perpetrate IPV is not sufficient to understand the role of gender. One way to resolve this conflict is to suggest that women may be either proportionately more likely than men to inflict violent acts, do so more frequently, or at a level that is less severe. At the same time, men may inflict violence less often, but may use more severe acts and/or men's violent acts may be more likely to cause injury due to size and strength differences. Moreover, females may perpetrate minor acts as often as males perpetrate severe acts. While such a scenario would result in an appearance of symmetry due to similar rates of IPV frequency, asymmetry would exist due to differences in IPV severity. To better understand the impact of gender in the perpetration and consequences of IPV, we argue that it is necessary to consider whether there is gender symmetry when both the frequency and severity of IPV are considered.

Types of IPV

The few studies that have made distinctions in severity of violence show that women's violence is less severe (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Neidig, & Thorn, 1995; Straus et al., 1980), supporting the possibility that the frequency of violence is female-dominated, whereas the severity of violence is male-dominated. This possibility was also suggested in research Marshall (1992a, 1992b) conducted to develop her Severity of Violence Scales. In separate studies, community men and women indicated the degree of physical harm resulting when each of 49 violent behaviors was perpetrated by women and men, respectively. Although Marshall did not test for gender differences in perceived impact, examination of the mean impact ratings (reproduced in the appendix) reveals that women perceived men's behaviors as having greater impact than men perceived the same behaviors by women. In addition to the same behaviors being weighted differently when done by men and women, Marshall found that men and women grouped behaviors differently depending on the gender of the perpetrator. For example, a man punching a woman was perceived as a severe act of IPV, but a woman punching a man was perceived as a moderate act of IPV. Marshall's research shows that the gender difference in impact further complicates the issue of symmetry within mutually violent relationships. Our contention is that, for symmetry to be present both partners must perpetrate behaviors with similar impact. Given previous research, we expected that, when considering the difference in impact, women's IPV perpetration would be perceived as equal or less severe than their male partners', even when women were the primary perpetrators.

Other types of abuse often occur in physically violent relationships. It is difficult to conceive of a relationship in which violence occurs without being accompanied by threats of violence. Indeed, this notion is so well accepted that the original Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979), the first scale used to determine whether individuals were in violent relationships, included threats of violence in the violence subscale. With past research suggesting that women perpetrate more minor IPV than men, we expected that all types of threats (i.e., mild, moderate, and severe) would be perpetrated more often by women when they are primary perpetrators.

Psychological abuse is also likely to accompany IPV (e.g., Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990), and was specifically included as a determinant in Johnson's (1995; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000) typology. Sexual aggression is another form of abuse, although it is not addressed as often as threats and psychological abuse in IPV research. Differences in the types of abuse used in relationships characterized by symmetrical, MPP. and FPP violence would emphasize the importance of considering symmetry by illustrating dimensions on which patterns of mutuality differ and may provide insights to therapists and advocates when trying to determine the pattern of mutuality in a relationship. Considering the types of violence perpetrated within specific patterns of mutual violence allows for comparison with other typologies of IPV such as Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart's (1994) typology of batterers and Johnson's (1995) typology of IPV and psychological abuse/controlling behaviors. In line with their research, we anticipated that psychological abuse and sexual aggression would be perpetrated most often by MPP-pattern men.

Because of men's relative strength and tendency to use more severe violence, it is not surprising that gender has been a primary predictor of injury (Brush, 1990). Although both men and women are harmed by violence (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), women are more likely to be injured (Stets & Pirog-Good, 1990; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994) and less likely to cause injury (Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994) than men. Women report more minor and severe injuries than do men (Moffit et al., 1997; Morse, 1995; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). Data from the National Violence Against Women Study (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) revealed a 42% injury rate for women compared to 17% for men from their most recent IPV incident, with 45% of assaulted women afraid of bodily injury or death, compared to 20% of assaulted men. Moreover, women are approximately six times more likely than men to need medical care following IPV (Hamberger, 1997; Kaufman, Kantor, & Straus, 1987; Stets & Straus, 1990). Accordingly, we expected women to be more likely to be injured as a result of the violence, regardless of the pattern of mutual IPV.

Race/Ethnicity and Gender Asymmetry

Limited research suggests race or ethnicity may be associated with our typology of mutuality. For example, African American women are more...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.



More articles from Sex Roles: A Journal of Research
Community-based norms about intimate partner violence: putting attribu..., October 01, 2005
Gender differences in playful aggression during courtship in college s..., October 01, 2005
"It depends on what you mean by starting": an exploration of how women..., October 01, 2005

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.