Personality and Situational Correlates of Self‐reported Reasons for Intimate Partner Violence among Women versus Men Referred for Batterers' Intervention

Ross, Jody

doi:10.1002/bsl.1004

Cited by 58 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, findings across studies are quite mixed with some suggesting a stronger association for women and others suggesting a stronger association for men. In a nationally representative sample (Ross, 2011), for both men and women, emotional dysregulation was strongly related to both borderline traits and defensive violence, whereas retaliatory violence was associated with BPD in men, but not in women (rather, this type of violence in women was associated with situational contexts). Walsh and colleagues (2010) found that female perpetrators with B/D traits were most likely to be characterized by victimization, compared to their male B/D counterparts who were more likely to be characterized by additional antisocial traits.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Borderline personality disorder and related constructs as risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration

Jackson

Sippel

Mota

et al. 2015

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this manuscript we systematically reviewed 29 articles from 2010 to 2014 that addressed the association between borderline personality disorder (BPD) and intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration, with particular attention paid to the role of perpetrator sex. Our primary objective was to provide a summary of (1) the operationalization and measurement of BPD and IPV, (2) mechanisms of the BPD–IPV association, and (3)the current understanding of the role of perpetrator sex related to BPD and IPV. We observed three distinct operational definitions of BPD which are measured in a variety of ways. IPV measurement tends to be more consistent. Further, emotion perception, impulsivity, attachment, and substance use are proposed mechanisms to explain the BPD IPV relation. The findings regarding potential perpetrator sex differences in the BPD–IPV association are mixed. Finally, we also provide recommendations for future research and clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Borderline personality disorder and related constructs as risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration

Jackson

Sippel

Mota

et al. 2015

Aggression and Violent Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This association is less consistent in the literature partly because IPV is a complex phenomenon which may not be fully explained by a single factor or simple model [7], [23], [24]. For example, sensation seeking was associated with IPV perpetration among couples in one study [25], but not in another study conducted among male undergraduates [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

History of Childhood Abuse, Sensation Seeking, and Intimate Partner Violence under/Not under the Influence of a Substance: A Cross-Sectional Study in Russia

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo examine correlates of perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence (IPV) under and not under the influence of a substance, we conducted a study among women in Russia.MethodsIn 2011, a cross-sectional survey was conducted among patients receiving services at a clinic for sexually transmitted infections in St. Petersburg, Russia. Multinomial logistic regression was used for analysis.ResultsOf 299 women, 104 (34.8%) and 113 (37.8%) reported a history of IPV perpetration and victimization, respectively. Nearly half (47.1%) of perpetrators and 61.1% of victims reported that the latest IPV event (perpetration and victimization, respectively) was experienced under the influence of a substance. Factors independently associated with IPV victimization under the influence of a substance were alcohol misuse and a higher number of lifetime sex partners, whereas only experience of childhood abuse (emotional and physical abuse) was independently associated with IPV victimization that did not occur under the influence of a substance. Childhood physical abuse, lower age of first sex, sensation seeking, and alcohol misuse were independently associated with IPV perpetration under the influence of a substance, while only childhood abuse (emotional and physical abuse) was independently associated with IPV perpetration that did not occur under the influence of a substance.ConclusionsIPV under and not under the influence of a substance had different correlates (e.g., alcohol misuse and sensation seeking). Despite the strong association between substance use and IPV, experience of childhood abuse is an important predictor of IPV perpetration and victimization in Russia, above and beyond substance use.

show abstract

“…For example, Harned (2001) compared men and women’s motives for dating violence and found that women were more likely to perpetrate physical aggression because of anger/jealousy than men. Similarly, in a sample of men and women court-ordered to batterer intervention programs (BIPs), Ross (2011) found that women were more likely to report being violent in response to infidelity than men. Results further indicated that men were more likely to report retaliation and women self-defense as primary motivators for partner aggression.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Gender Comparison of Motivations for Physical Dating Violence Among College Students

Elmquist

Wolford‐Clevenger

Zapor

et al. 2014

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are limited empirical investigations that directly compare men and women’s motivations, or reasons, for perpetrating physical dating violence (DV). In an attempt to further understand whether men and women have similar or different motives for physical DV, the purpose of the current study was to conduct a gender comparison motives in a sample of male (n = 163) and female (n = 319) college students. Motivations for physical DV were classified according to seven broad categories proposed by Langhinrichsen-Rohling and colleagues (2012): (a) power/control, (b) self-defense, (c) expression of negative emotion (e.g., anger), (d) communication difficulties, (e) retaliation, (f) jealousy, and (g) other (e.g., because it was sexually arousing, the influence of alcohol, the influence of drugs). The prevalence of physical violence perpetration in the overall sample was 29.4%. Results indicated that communication difficulties and self-defense were among the most frequently endorsed motive categories for both male and female perpetrated dating violence. In addition, results demonstrated gender similarity in all of the examined motive categories. Research and clinical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Personality and Situational Correlates of Self‐reported Reasons for Intimate Partner Violence among Women versus Men Referred for Batterers' Intervention

Cited by 58 publications

References 34 publications

Borderline personality disorder and related constructs as risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration

Borderline personality disorder and related constructs as risk factors for intimate partner violence perpetration

History of Childhood Abuse, Sensation Seeking, and Intimate Partner Violence under/Not under the Influence of a Substance: A Cross-Sectional Study in Russia

A Gender Comparison of Motivations for Physical Dating Violence Among College Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About