1. PV rates1 PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE Physical aggression only Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism” Dating partner violence

2. PV rates2 ARCHER META-ANALYSIS 82 studies with data on both men and women “women were significantly more likely than men to have used physical aggression toward their partners and to have used it more frequently” (p. 664). effect size small (d = -.05) (Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta- analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–681) BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 175 STUDIES BY FIEBERT No statistical analysis, but same conclusion

3. PV rates3 PREVALENCE RATES FROM NATIONAL SURVEYS StudyFemaleMale 1985 National Survey of Family Violence11.3% Overall 3.0% severe 12.1% 4.4% 1992 National Alcohol and Family Violence Survey9.1% overall 1.9% severe 9.5% overall 4.5% severe 2001National Violence Against Women Survey1.3%0.9% National Crime Victimization Survey0.43%0.08% Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study40.9%47.4% 1992 National Youth Survey20.2% overall 5.7% severe 34.1% overall 13.8% severe

4. PV rates4 U.S. NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE SURVEYS AS REPORTED BY WOMEN ASSAULTS BY: MenWOMEN A. MINOR ASSAULTS `1975 8.6 8.3 `1985 7.2 7.4 199210.510.0 B. SEVERE ASSAULTS 19754.14.4 19854.24.2 19922.42.9

5. PV rates5 ASSAULTS BY: MEN WOMEN Minor assaults as reported by female partner17.417.7 Severe assaults as reported by female partner 6.5 6.2

6. PV rates6 N=8,000 RATE =1.3% US NATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SURVEY ASSAULTS IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS CARRIED OUT TO PROVE THAT GENDER SYMMETRY IS WRONG. BUT FOUND THAT WOMEN COMMIT 38% OF PARTNER ASSAULTS (Tjaden et al., 2000)

7. PV rates7 THREE CANADIAN STUDIES BY ACADEMICS ASSAULTS BY: HUSBWIFE A. OVERALL ASSAULT RATE 1981 Calgary Study (n=562)10.3%13.2% (Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988) 1986 Canada National Study (n=954)17.8%23.3% (Lupri, 1990) 1987 Alberta Study (n-708)11.2%12.4% (Kennedy & Dutton, 1989) B. SEVERE ASSAULT RATE 1981 Calgary Study (n=562)4.8%10.7% (Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988) 1986 Canada National Study (n=954)10.1%12.9% (Lupri, 1990) 1987 Alberta Study (n=708)2.3%4.7% (Kennedy & Dutton, 1989)

8. PV rates8 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SURVEY, 1999 MENWOMEN ASSAULTED BY A PARTNER IN LAST 5 YEARS7%8% PHYSICALLY INJURED BY PARTNER13%40% RECEIVED MEDICAL ATTENTION3%15% FEARED FOR THEIR LIFE7%38% Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile 2000. Statistics Canada, July 2000. Publication 85-224-XIE

9. PV rates9 TRANSLATE PARTNER VIOLENCE PERCENTAGE RATES INTO RATES PER 100,000 FBI rates: per 100,000o aggravated assaults 190 per 100,000 Severe assaults by male partners 4.1% = 4,100 per 100,000 Severe assaults by female partners 4.2% = 4,200 per 100,000 (partner violence rates are as reported by women in 1985 NFVS)

10. PV rates10 WOMENS SHARE OF HOMICIDE 2,OOO = 35%

11. PV rates11

12. PV rates12 ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF “BEATEN WIVES” RANGES FROM 6,250,000 TO 189,000 DEPENDING ON THE CRITERIA Straus, M. A. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for public policy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19-47). Cincinnati: Anderson

13. PV rates13 GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE PERPETRATION DEPENDS ON WHETHER INJURY AND FEAR ARE CRITERIA IF ASSAULT IS THE CRITERIONGender Difference in Perpetration Minor assaults (Slapping, throwing things) None Severe assaults (Punching, kicking, choking) None IF INJURY IS ADDED AS A CRITERION Female 1/3 of male rate IF FEAR IS ADDED Female rate may be only a tenth of male rate IF KEEPING PARTNER ALMOST A No data but female rate is a PRISONER BY REPEATED AND tiny fraction of male rate SEVERE ASSAULTS AND THREATS

14. PV rates14 DATING VIOLENCE FROM MELISSA HOLT PAPER

15. PV rates15 INTERNATIONAL DATING VIOLENCE STUDY (17 COUNTRIES)

16. PV rates16 PREVALENCE RATES FOR ADOLESCENTS DATING VIOLENCE Between 10% (Roscoe & Callahan, 1985) and 55% (O’Keefe, 1998). Estimates vary due to the definition of dating violence used, type of dating violence under consideration, and method of assessment. Rates tend to be the highest when emotional abuse is included considered (e.g., Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992). When defined as physically violent acts rates are between 20% (O’Keefe, Brockopp, & Chew, 1986) and 50% (Sudermann & Jaffe, 1993) Less severe forms of physical violence (e.g., slapping) are more common than extreme forms (e.g., choking) (Roscoe & Callahan, 1985; Carlson(1987) The longer the relationship, the higher the probability of violence. The same pattern also found among older dating couples (Gaertner & Foshee, 1999). (refs are in Melissa Holt December 2002 seminar paper)

17. PV rates17 AGE OF ONSET OF DATING VIOLENCE 29% experienced their first incident of dating violence between the ages of 12 and 13 40% were first victimized between the ages of 14 and 15 (Burcky et al., 1988).

18. PV rates18 DATING VIOLENCE HAS SERIOUS EFFECTS Study of 123 high school students (Burcky and colleagues, 1988) 6% No long or short term effect 56% Upset them, but no long-term effects 8% Continuing emotional disturbance such as feelings of confusion ]anger sadness remorse, lowered self-esteem

19. PV rates19 END FOR SOC 695

20. PV rates20 PREVALENCE OF PARTNER VIOLENCE Physical and psychological aggression Police statistics and crime surveys National crime victimization survey FBI supplemental homicide reports Surveys of family and psychological problems The national family violence surveys National co-morbidity study International dating violence study All but one used the CTS Archer meta analysis Past year rates versus ever occurred rates Gender differences in severity and “intimate terrorism”

21. PV rates21

22. PV rates22

23. PV rates23 Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full Report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National violence against women survey (No. NCJ 183781). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

24. PV rates24 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RATES (SEE ALSO MUTUALITY

25. PV rates25

26. PV rates26 TABLE 10. Percentage of high school students who perpetrated dating violence by sex, race/ethnicity, and grade — United States, Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2003 Perpetration by: Fes s

27. PV rates27 ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF “BEATEN WIVES” RANGES FROM 6,250,000 TO 189,000 DEPENDING ON THE CRITERIA Straus, M. A. (1991). Conceptualization and measurement of battering: Implications for public policy. In M. Steinman (Ed.), Woman battering: Policy responses (pp. 19-47). Cincinnati: Anderson

28. PV rates28

29. PV rates29

30. PV rates30

31. PV rates31

32. PV rates32

33. PV rates33

34. PV rates34

35. PV rates35

36. PV rates36 National Survey Of Families And Households (Salarai and Baldwin, 2003)

37. PV rates37 THE NATIONAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SURVEY PART OF THE MOTIVE A comprehensive, nationally representative study like the New Hampshire National Family Violence Surveys But avoid showing high perpetration rates by women by not asking about that CDC INTERVENTION Added a sample of males BIASED INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA Only “ever occurred” rates presented at first, because they show a bigger gender difference Press release focused on male predominance Correct focus: a problem in the behavior of both partners, even though male rates somewhat higher. Analogous to CDC conducting a study of high blood pressure and reporting only that Blacks have this problem more than whites

38. PV rates38