Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan University of Central Lancashire

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan University of Central Lancashire"— Presentation transcript:

1 Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan University of Central Lancashire
Does Gender Matter? Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan University of Central Lancashire

2 Overview Do men differentially target women?
Is patriarchy the cause on male IPV What are the risk factors for male IPV Are men more ‘controlling’ than women Longitudinal research on risk factors for IPV in men & women

3 Do Men Target Women? Women are less likely than men to be victims of violence & most violence against women is not IPV (BSC, 2006/07) When men (and women) aggress their victims are typically MEN not women Some analysis suggests that a man is less likely to use violence against his wife during a conflict than he is to use it against a stranger (Felson, 2002) Internationally, rates for violence against women are much lower than rates of violence against men, although they do correlate r=.88 (Dijk, Mayhew & Killias, 1990; WHO, 1995)

4 Evidence for Sex-Similarity
Archer (2000) Meta-analysis use of IPV 82 studies (approx 65,000 men & women) Women > to use one or more act of physical aggression & to use frequently Men > to inflict injury (62% of those injured were women) Archer (2006) cross-national meta-analysis Longitudinal studies (see Dutton, 2007, for review) Fiebert’s 2007 bibliography > 200 studies Counter evidence? Sample on your DV e.g. Dobash & Dobash (2004)

5 Men’s IPV & Patriarchy Little support for relationship between patriarchy & IPV (Sugarman & Frankel, 1996) “The contribution of hostile talk [about women] to later [partner] aggression was relatively small when concurrent antisocial behaviour was controlled” (Capaldi et al., 2001: 70)

6 Oregon Youth Study (Capaldi et al., 2001)


8 Stith et al (2004) Exosystem risk factors: Moderate: Life stress
Weak: Age: SES, Unemployed, low income Microsystem risk factors: Strong: Use of emotional abuse; forced sex Moderate: Past history of violence; marital satisfaction Weak: Jealousy Ontogentic risk factors: Strong: Illicit drug use; approval of use violence Moderate: Traditional sex-role ideology, anger/hostility, alcohol abuse, depression “…This meta-analysis provides support for the importance of examining intimate partner violence from a multifactorial perspective”.

9 Behavioural Control & IPV
Women with partners who exhibit patriarchal dominance (through preventing access to the family income, for example) have far higher odds of IPV (Brownridge, 2002) Stark (2007) “…the pattern of intimidation, isolation and control… is unique to men’s abuse of women” (p.102) Johnson’s typology Graham-Kevan & Archer (2003a; 2003b), Johnson (1999; Johnson & Leone, 2000) Limitations of previous studies: “Sampling on the DV” Felson (2006)

10 Gender Symmetry in Controlling Behaviours
Graham-Kevan & Archer (2005) 399 men & 951 women: Gender symmetry even with same profile as 2003 study Replicated: Bates & Graham-Kevan (2007) men & women Meta-analysis of controlling behaviour (Graham-Kevan, Archer & Coyne, in preparation) Controlling behaviours & BIP members (Graham-Kevan & Hamel, in preparation) Controlling behaviour & male victims (Graham-Kevan et al., ongoing study)

11 Control: Emergence of the Next Explanation?
If no sex-differences… Then the use of controlling behaviours must be ‘different’ for men and women? (e.g. Dasgupta, 1999) IPV literature men’s controlling behaviours co-occur with: beliefs about aggression, hostility, personality disorder (e.g. Dixon & Browne, 2003: Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994)

12 Control & Beliefs about Aggression (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003)
IPV perpetrators: 57 men & 58 women EXPAGG, CBS-R Control similarly related to instrumental beliefs in both men & women

13 Control & Reactive/Proactive Aggression (Knight & Graham-Kevan, 2007)
142 men & women Raine et al Proactive/Reactive Aggression Scale Control related to reactive IPV & proactive IPV Rs between .55 & .50

14 Entitlement (Tottle & Graham-Kevan, 2005)
50 men & 50 women CBS, Interpersonal dependency (Hirschfield et al 1997), Entitlement Attitudes Scale (Nadkarni et al 1989) Control related to Dependency, entitlement: particularly narcissistic expectations/self promotion

15 Trait Aggression (Hall & Graham-Kevan, 2004)
54 women and 46 men CTS, CBS, B-D AQ Control strongly related to assault, indirect aggression, irritability, negativity, resentment, suspiciousness, verbal hostility & guilt (r’s between .50 and .81)

16 Control, IPV & PD (Graham-Kevan, 2007b)
100 men & 175 women IPDE-SQ, CBS, CTS Control related to IPV, paranoid, borderline (men only), antisocial, narcissistic, histrionic (women only) rs between .77 & .28

17 Longitudinal Studies & IPV
Longitudinal studies (e.g. Daly et al., 2000; Ehrensaft et al. 2004; 2006; Giordano, et al., 1999; Moffitt et al., 2001; Serbin, et al., 2004) “… individuals (men & women) who go on to perpetrate partner violence are more stably impulsive, angry, self-centered and experience greater affective instability” (Ehrensaft, et al., 2006: 480)

18 Conclusions Lack of sex-differences in IPV, control or IPV/Control typology Control related to proactive/instrumental aggression, hostile beliefs, trait aggression & personality disorder traits Suggests those who use Control & IPV have similar profiles to other aggressive offenders Not all IPV is the same: Functional Analysis Interventions should be based on risk factors (Gilchrist, Johnson, Takriti, Weston, Beech & Kebbell, 2003)


Download ppt "Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan University of Central Lancashire"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google