Patterns of Mutual and Nonmutual Spouse Abuse in the U.S. Army (1998–2002)

Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence in Young Adult Couples: Nonviolent, Unilaterally Violent, and Mutually Violent Couples

“…Moreover, current results were that for single partner estimates-for comparison only-of the proportion of MV and UV, 55% were MV and 44% were UV, and those proportions were similar to those studies using single partner estimates, for example, those finding approximately 50% MV ( Whitaker et al, 2007;Williams & Frieze, 2005). However, current classification using both partner reports of perpetration, among those reporting any violence, yielded 25% MV, and thus was closest to the findings for military couples, for example, 34% MV (McCarroll et al, 2004) and 26% MV (Teten et al, 2009). At this point in research on patterns of IPV, estimates of the prevalence of UV and MV patterns appear to vary with methods employed (e.g., method of classification, number of IPV behaviors assessed, ages and characteristics of respondents, and type of relationship), but regardless of methods used neither UV nor MV patterns were rare.…”

“…Estimates of the proportion of MV versus UV patterns, among those reporting any violence, in studies using single partner ratings, has ranged from 49% to 69% (Straus, 2008;Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn, & Saltzman, 2007;Williams & Frieze, 2005). However, those studies using both partner ratings have reported lower prevalence rates for the MV pattern, which have ranged from 26% to 34% (McCarroll, Ursano, Fan, & Newby, 2004;Teten, Sherman, & Han, 2009). …”

Drinking Level, Neighborhood Social Disorder, and Mutual Intimate Partner Violence

“…The available empirical evidence, however, suggests that there are significant differences (Caetano et al, 2005;Cunradi and Flewelling, 2005;McCarroll et al, 2004). To explore whether the associations between drinking level, neighborhood social disorder, and mutual IPV differ for NHSDA respondents reporting IPV perpetration only or IPV victimization only, additional multinomial analyses were conducted (data not shown).…”

“…Mutual IPV likely represents the majority of IPV events among couples in the general population. Moreover, the correlates of mutual IPV differ from unidirectional IPV (Caetano et al, 2005;Cunradi and Flewelling, 2005;McCarroll et al, 2004). For example, Caetano et al (2005) found that male alcohol problems were associated with increased risk of mutual IPV, but not unidirectional IPV, among a national sample of white, black, and Hispanic couples.…”

Health and Occupational Consequences of Spouse Abuse Victimization Among Male U.S. Army Soldiers

“…It is unclear if outcomes experienced by male victims are the same as those experienced by females. Some research indicates that although incidence of F-M violence may be greater than M-F, the health outcomes, particularly those immediately related to the abuse event (e.g., severe injury, IPV-related homicide), are worse for female victims (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992;Grisso, Schwarz, Miles, & Holmes, 1996;Kellermann & Mercy, 1992;McCarroll, Ursano, Fan, & Newby, 2004;Morse, 1995;Temple, Weston, & Marshall, 2005). Another study indicated that both male and female IPV victims reported greater levels of psychological distress than did nonvictims (Grandin, Lupri, & Brinkerhoff, 1998).…”