SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Article 1: Witte, T.H. & Kendra, R. (2010). Risk recognition and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2199-2216.
Summary: In this study, the authors seek to determine if female victims of intimate partner violence show deficits in risk recognition during physically violent encounters. Using pre-taped vignettes and recorded participants’ reactions, the authors found that victims of intimate partner violence are less likely to recognize risk compared to individuals who have not been victims of intimate partner violence.
Questions to Consider:
1. Why might victims of intimate partner violence show deficits in risk recognition?
2. Are deficits in risk recognition limited to victims that are female? What are the implications of this research for male victims?
3. What are the implications for intimate partner violence prevention programs?
Article 2: Campbell, J.C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464-1477.
Summary: This article explores the utilization of shelter and domestic violence advocacy programs by women who were killed or the victim of attempted femicide. Using nationally representative data from 12 cities, the author found relatively few female victims used shelter of domestic violence advocacy services before they were killed. Women had a higher likelihood of receiving medical care as a result of their victimization than social programming.
Questions to Consider:
1. What might explain the high proportion of femicides that are killed by an intimate partner compared to male homicides?
2. In what way(s) can domestic advocacy and health care system workers work together to address instances of domestic violence?
3. How can domestic advocates improve upon the identification of female victims?
Article 3: Bair-Meritt, M.H., Crowne, S.S., Thompson, D.A., Sibinga, E., Trent, M. & Campbell, J. (2010). Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women’s motivations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11(4), 178-189.
Summary: This article provides a systematic examination of the evidence regarding women’s motivations for using intimate partner violence. Primarily using interviews and questionnaires, the authors found that common themes were anger and the inability to get and keep a partner’s attention, as well as self-defense and retaliation. Programmatic implications are discussed.
Questions to Consider:
1. Do you think that motivations for the use of intimate partner violence may differ based on sexual orientation? Gender?
2. Under what situational context(s) can the motivation to use intimate partner violence change?
3. In what way(s) can intimate partner violence prevention and treatment programs address a female victims’ anger in order to prevent an IPV response?
Article 4: Henrichs, J., Bogaerts, S., Sijtsema, J. & Klerx-van Mierlo, F. (2014). Intimate partner violence perpetrators in a forensic psychiatric outpatient setting: Criminal history, psychopathology, and victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(12), 2109-2128.
Summary: This article examines the profiles of intimate partner violence perpetrators in a sample of Dutch forensic psychiatric patients. The authors investigated the criminological, psychopathological, and victimological differences between perpetrators of intimate partner violence and perpetrators of violence that did not involve an intimate partner. There were very few differences between the groups. However, perpetrators of intimate partner violence were more likely to have higher rates of victimizations and intermittent explosive disorder.
Questions to Consider:
1. Why might higher rates of physical victimization correspond more to perpetration of intimate partner violence than other violent perpetration?
2. Would you expect perpetrators of intimate partner violence to show higher rates of intermittent explosive disorder than other perpetrators? Why or why not?
3. Why should future research continue to explore the link between childhood victimization and the perpetration of violence?
Article 5: Sijtsema, J.J., Baan, L., & Bogaerts, S. (2014). Associations between dysfunctional personality traits and intimate partner violence in perpetrators and victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(13), 2418-2438.
Summary: This article examines the roles of borderline and antisocial personality traits in both psychological and physical forms of intimate partner violence. Using self-reports and reports from partners, results showed that the perpetrator of intimate partner violence displayed higher antisocial personality traits than victims. There were no discernible differences observed when examining borderline traits and self-reported violence. The authors conclude that borderline traits are associated with intimate partner violence overall, and antisocial personality traits are associated with physical intimate partner violence.
Questions to Consider:
1. Why might antisocial personality traits be associated with physical forms of intimate partner violence but not psychological forms of IPV?
2. If dysfunctional personality traits and gender are influential in the display and reporting of intimate partner violence, how might practitioners use this knowledge to address instances of IPV?
3. Are programs equipped to treat psychological and physical batterers? What if a perpetrator commits just one form of intimate partner violence? Or a perpetrators traits are only related to one form of IPV? How can programs treat the perpetrator?