Understanding the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice and policy

Abstract

Theoretical perspectives underlying hypotheses about the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence are important as they inform professionals how they should best respond to reduce or eliminate this social problem. Therefore, it is crucial that practice led initiatives are driven by theory that is supported by good quality empirical evidence. This review aims to provide a synthesis of methodologically sound research to understand how intimate partner violence is best conceptualized, and what the implications of this evidence based theory hold for practice and policy. A wealth of evidence supporting the need to further explore and respond to the spectrum of partner violence from a gender inclusive perspective is demonstrated. Implications of the evidence for multidisciplinary work, prevention, assessment, treatment, and policy related to intimate partner violence are discussed.

Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

“…However, if surveys fail to ask questions about perpetration (and perpetration by both members of the couple), or frame the context of violence as criminal rather than behaviours which take place within conflict in a relationship, underreporting is likely to be common, particularly in respect to female perpetration and male victimisation (Straus, 1999). Therefore, the accuracy of surveys that do not adopt a neutral context to assess the rate of male and female perpetration and victimisation in couples, in national representative community samples, can be questioned (Dixon, Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2012;Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011;Dixon & Santovena, 2012). It is important to give careful consideration to the methodology used in studies before citing their figures as representing the true nature and 6 prevalence of IPV experienced by all members of the general population.…”

“…Such inconsistencies have notoriously resulted in different methodological approaches to research in this area. As a result it is very difficult to compare prevalence and incidence rates across surveys and time, which is problematic because it is important to establish the base rates of IPV experienced by men and women to inform service provision and guide assessment (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011).…”

“…A non biased scientific approach to understanding the problem provides valid and reliable outcomes that professionals can use to guide practice with victims and perpetrators. Arguably, despite this recognition, the value of such work has not been accepted in the domain of IPV (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011;Dixon, Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2012). This chapter provides the reader with a critical overview of the IPV literature which highlights discrepancies in theoretical explanations of IPV and empirical research methodology and findings derived from these theories.…”

“…Indeed, little support for the relationship between patriarchy and IPV exists (e.g., Sugarman & Frankel, 1996). Therefore, if such 'bed rock' beliefs are not an accurate representation of the true nature of the problem they may prove detrimental to the successful reduction and prevention of IPV 2011;Dixon, Archer, GrahamKevan, 2012).…”

“…It is concluded that the methodology used in research studies should be critically evaluated before reaching conclusions about the implications it holds for furthering understanding about the true nature of IPV. Furthermore, professionals should understand the potential for both sexes to aggress so that unbiased, open minded assessments can take place (Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011)..…”