This article provides a review of research literature on women who use violence with intimate partners. The central purpose is to inform service providers in the military and civilian communities who work with domestically violent women. The major points of this review are as follows: (a) women's violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partners; (b) in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents; (c) women and men are equally likely to initiate physical violence in relationships involving less serious "situational couple violence," and in relationships in which serious and very violent "intimate terrorism" occurs, men are much more likely to be perpetrators and women victims; (d) women's physical violence is more likely than men's violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men's physical violence is more likely than women's to be driven by control motives; (e) studies of couples in mutually violent relationships find more negative effects for women than for men; and (f) because of the many differences in behaviors and motivations between women's and men's violence, interventions based on male models of partner violence are likely not effective for many women.

An integrative review of three theories that explain why some individuals engage in persistent pursuit-coercive control theory, relational goal pursuit, and attachment theoryis presented. The meta-analytic evidence pointing to persistent pursuit as a gendered behavior is reviewed, and coercive control theory is used to explain gender differences. The strong conceptual and empirical overlap between coercive control as a form of intimate partner violence and persistent pursuit is examined. It is suggested that persistent pursuit measures do not adequately assess behaviors that may be used more commonly by women, such as use of physical attractiveness or gossip to damage one's reputation. Given the promising empirical support for the theories, longitudinal and comparative evaluations, with new methods are needed.

The present study examines the role of anger and victimization in women's use of aggression in heterosexual intimate relationships. The sample was composed of 108 women, primarily African American, urban, and poor, who had used violence against a partner in the previous 6 months. Path modeling was used to examine the interrelationships among anger, women's aggressive behavior, victimization, childhood abuse experiences, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression. Results revealed that almost all of the women experienced violence from their partners. Greater frequency of victimization from partners and experiences of childhood abuse increased the likelihood that women would use aggression against their partners. Victimization from partners and childhood abuse also increased the likelihood that women would experience symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression. Women with more symptoms of posttraumatic stress were also more likely to express anger outwardly towards others. Expressing anger outwardly toward others, in turn, predicted an increased likelihood of using aggression against partners.

Surveys of psychological aggression have been plagued by a variety of conceptual and measurement problems. A new measure was devised to more systematically cover a full range of psychologically aggressive actions; to include items for each dimension/category at a milder, moderate, and severe level; to be applicable to dating as well as marital relationships; and to utilize items that were broader in nature to capture all instances of particular types of psychological aggression. Three hundred and eighty-three college students rated the 51 items as to their degree of "psychological abusiveness." The 17 categories were rated as mostly distinct from each other; almost every category had statistically distinct mild, moderate and severe items; the overall scale yielded basically normal psychometric properties; and the total score, as well as the scores for the mild, moderate, and severe items, all had very high internal consistency. Ratings of these items appear to be distinct from social desirability as well as from a number of attitudinal response sets, and only sex of the participant was significantly, although weakly, correlated with overall ratings of the psychological aggression items. This measure may provide for more systematic investigation into the concept of psychological aggression.

No abstract

Theories and measures of women’s aggression in intimate relationships are only beginning to be developed. This study provides a first step in conceptualizing the measurement of women’s aggression by examining how well three widely used measures perform in assessing women’s perpetration of and victimization by aggression in their intimate relationships with men (i.e., the Conflict Tactics Scales 2; Straus, Hamby, & Warren, 2003, the Sexual Experiences Survey; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987, and the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory; Tolman, 1999). These constructs were examined in a diverse sample of 412 African American, Latina, and White women who had all recently used physical aggression against a male intimate partner. The factor structures and psychometric properties of perpetration and victimization models using these measures were compared. Results indicate that the factor structure of women’s perpetration differs from that of women’s victimization in theoretically meaningful ways. In the victimization model, all factors performed well in contributing to the measurement of the latent victimization construct. In contrast, the perpetration model performed well in assessing women’s physical and psychological aggression, but performed poorly in assessing women’s sexual aggression, coercive control, and jealous monitoring. Findings suggest that the power and control model of intimate partner violence may apply well to women’s victimization, but not as well to their perpetration.

Surveys of psychological aggression have been plagued by a variety of conceptual and measurement problems. A new measure was devised to more systematically cover a full range of psychologically aggressive actions; to include items for each dimension/category at a milder, moderate, and severe level; to be applicable to dating as well as marital relationships; and to utilize items that were broader in nature to capture all instances of particular types of psychological aggression. Three hundred and eighty-three college students rated the 51 items as to their degree of "psychological abusiveness." The 17 categories were rated as mostly distinct from each other; almost every category had statistically distinct mild, moderate and severe items; the overall scale yielded basically normal psychometric properties; and the total score, as well as the scores for the mild, moderate, and severe items, all had very high internal consistency. Ratings of these items appear to be distinct from social desirability as well as from a number of attitudinal response sets, and only sex of the participant was significantly, although weakly, correlated with overall ratings of the psychological aggression items. This measure may provide for more systematic investigation into the concept of psychological aggression.

No abstract