Sex Roles, Vol. 52, Nos.

11/12, June 2005 (

C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-4201-0

Understanding Gender and Intimate Partner Violence

from an International Perspective

Barbara Krahé,1,2 Steffen Bieneck,1 and Ingrid Möller1

This paper reviews the international literature on intimate partner violence with a focus on
gender differences in perpetration and victimization rates. A total of 35 studies from 21 coun-
tries are discussed that report prevalence or incidence rates of men’s and women’s involve-
ment in physical and/or sexual aggression against an intimate partner. In addition, evidence
on risk factors as well as consequences of intimate partner violence for men and women is
presented. Conceptual and methodological differences between the studies and the lack of
comparable databases within countries are discussed as limitations of the evidence, and per-
spectives for future research are outlined in the framework of cross-cultural psychology.

KEY WORDS: intimate partner violence; gender differences; cross-cultural psychology.

Studies on intimate partner violence outside
North America are few and far between, and studies
examining gender differences in the perpetration or
victimization by intimate violence in relationships
are even rarer. The debate about equal or unequal
involvement of men and women in violence against
an intimate partner has taken place almost exclu-
sively on the basis of North American evidence
(Currie, 1998; Dasgupta, 2002; Dobash & Dobash,
2004; Kimmel, 2002; Straus & Gelles, 1990; White
& Koss, 1991). In Archer’s (2000) meta-analysis of
sex differences in aggression between heterosexual
partners, no more than 7 out of the total 82 studies in-
cluded were conducted outside North America. With
regard to women’s use of sexual aggression against
male partners, the most comprehensive collection of
studies so far does not contain any data from outside
North America (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson,
1998). Across the world, the dominant perspective
on intimate violence casts men into the role of
perpetrators and women into the role of victims.
The “World Report on Violence and Health,” pub-
1 University
of Potsdam, Germany.
2 Towhom correspondence should be addressed at Department of
Psychology, University of Potsdam, Postfach 60 15 53, D-14415
Potsdam, Germany; e-mail: krahe@rz.uni-potsdam.de.
lished by the World Health Organization in 2002,
acknowledges the possibility that women can be
violent toward their partners. However, when re-
viewing prevalence, risk factors, and consequences
of intimate partner violence worldwide, only men’s
violence against women is considered because “the
overwhelming burden of partner violence is borne
by women at the hands of men” (Krug, Dahlberg,
Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002, p. 89).
The present paper reviews evidence on both
physical and sexual partner violence from sources
outside North America. Physical partner violence
refers to actions based on the intention to inflict phys-
ical harm on an intimate partner. Sexual violence
refers to the use or threat of physical violence or
the exploitation of a partner’s inability to offer re-
sistance to force her or him to engage in sexual acts.
More broadly, sexual aggression includes all behav-
iors carried out with the intention to make a partner
engage in sexual activity against her or his will (e.g.,
Krahé, Waizenhöfer, & Möller, 2003).
The focus will be on studies that provide evi-
dence (a) comparing levels of men’s and women’s
violence against an intimate partner, or (b) looking
at gender differences in victimization by relationship
violence. Bond (2004) has noted that cultures differ
in terms of constraints and affordances that impinge

807 0360-0025/05/0600-0807/0

C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
808
on their members and channel their behavior into
similar patterns. In line with this view, intimate
partner violence can be regarded as shaped by
socioeconomic variables, gender roles and the
normative acceptance of aggression that are char-
acteristic of a given society (Vandello & Cohen,
2003). Indeed, feminist accounts of partner violence
highlight the causal role of patriarchical power struc-
tures in explaining men’s violence against women
(e.g., Marin & Russo, 1999), and historical analyses
have shown that the very conceptualization of forced
sexual intercourse as an offence against women’s
right to sexual self-determination is a relatively
recent development (Brownmiller, 1975). Analyses
of partner violence across cultures deal with a similar
relativity: whether or not a particular behavior, such
as physically assaulting a woman for resisting her
partner’s demands, is considered partner aggression
in a society depends to a significant degree on
socially shared norms concerning gender relations
and the acceptance of violence (Levinson, 1989).
It should be clarified at the outset that the
present review does not aspire to provide a compar-
ative cross-cultural analysis of intimate partner vio-
lence or, indeed, the role of gender in the victimiza-
tion by and/or perpetration of partner violence. Such
an endeavor is precluded (a) by the fragmented na-
ture of the available database, (b) by methodological
problems that undermine the comparability of differ-
ent studies, such as differences in the definition and
measurement of partner violence or sample compo-
sition, and (c) by a lack of evidence linking data on
partner violence to cultural parameters. These con-
straints and limitations will be discussed in more de-
tail in the final section of the paper. Instead, the aim
of this review is a more modest one, namely to sum-
marize the available evidence on the scale of partner
violence and the role of gender differences in coun-
tries outside North America.
THE MEASUREMENT OF INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE
One of the difficulties in assessing the scope of
partner violence, both within and across countries,
is the heterogeneity of instruments used to measure
violent behavior against a partner. Methods vary in
terms of what questions are asked and how they
are asked, and findings are invariably affected by
these differences. Nonetheless, two research instru-
ments stand out as the most prominent measures of
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
partner violence: the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS,
Straus, 1979; CTS2, Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy,
& Sugarman, 1996) providing a measure of physi-
cal aggression in relationships, and the Sexual Ex-
periences Survey (SES; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski,
1987; Koss & Oros, 1982) measuring sexual aggres-
sion. These instruments provide behavioral descrip-
tions of various forms of physical or sexual aggres-
sion (rather than value-laden labels, such as “rape”).
They are typically administered in a written for-
mat, usually under anonymous conditions, and can be
used to obtain data both from the perpetrator and the
victim perspective. The CTS (or the slightly modified
and extended version of the CTS2) and the SES have
been widely used in international studies, as will be
apparent from the studies presented later. However,
it is not always clear how carefully they were trans-
lated or adapted for use in a foreign language (e.g.,
whether or not standard back translation procedures
were used) and whether or not the reliability of the
new versions was established (e.g., Krahé, Reimer,
Scheinberger-Olwig, & Fritsche, 1999). Besides the
CTS and SES, many ad hoc instruments and sets
of questions have been used to measure both phys-
ical and sexual aggression, their number and format
often prescribed by the particular methods of data
collection and the time and space constraints associ-
ated with them. Regardless of the instruments used,
an important methodological distinction refers to the
time period for which reports of partner violence are
elicited. In prevalence studies, respondents are asked
to indicate whether or not they have ever experi-
enced or committed acts of partner violence (in their
lifetime, since adulthood, since getting married). In
contrast, incidence studies collect information about
whether a person has experienced or committed part-
ner violence in a defined period of time, such as the
last 12 months. It is obvious that this difference in
the temporal frame of reference must be taken into
account when interpreting the findings.
Another important aspect to bear in mind when
looking at rates of partner violence is the pop-
ulation from which respondents are drawn. Com-
munity samples comprise members of the general
public that can be drawn on the basis of random
sampling, representative stratification, or availability
(“convenience samples”). In contrast, clinical sam-
ples are composed of participants who represent a
risk group for intimate partner violence and/or seek
some form of professional help from counseling or
medical agencies. The two ways of sampling yield dif-
ferent results. Findings based on community samples
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective
generally underestimate the problem, whereas fig-
ures from clinical samples can overestimate the ex-
tent of intimate partner violence in the general pop-
ulation. In addition, the two methods may uncover
distinct forms of intimate partner violence, differing
both in terms of severity and in terms of the under-
lying motivational dynamics (cf. Johnson’s, 1995, dis-
tinction between common couple violence and patri-
archal terrorism). However, both ways of sampling
are important in order to investigate different facets
of violence in intimate partnerships.
PREVIOUS REVIEWS
Three recent reviews were located in the inter-
national literature that provided information across
different countries about women’s victimization by
male partner violence (Hagemann-White, 2001; Krug
et al., 2002; Kury, Chouaf, Obergfell-Fuchs, &
Woessner, 2004). They are relevant to the present re-
view in that they focus on the traditional perspective
of female victims and male perpetrators, providing a
background against which findings concerning male
victimization and female perpetration as well as gen-
der differences can be interpreted.
The worldwide review by Krug et al. (2002) for
the World Health Organization presented reports
from women on physical victimization by a partner
from 32 countries (5 African, 11 Latin American
and Caribbean, 6 European and 4 Eastern Mediter-
ranean, 8 from the Asian and Western Pacific region,
along with Canada and the United States; Krug et al.,
2002, Table 4.1) In addition, two studies were in-
cluded from India and Thailand on men’s reported
use of violence against a female partner. This com-
pilation reflects, first and foremost, vast differences
in methodology: sample size (ranging from N = 111
in Norway to N = 89,199 in India), sample type
(all women, married women only, pregnant women
only), time period covered (lifetime, last 12 months,
last 3 months), and age range of respondents. The au-
thors do not report the type of instrument or method
of data collection used in the individual studies, but
there is every reason to assume that there was also
wide variation in that respect.
Apart from showing that intimate partner vio-
lence does occur on a substantial scale across the
world, the findings cannot do more than delin-
eate the upper and lower boundaries of the prob-
lem. For lifetime prevalence, the highest figures
reported came from Nicaragua and Papua New
809
Guinea (69 and 67%, respectively, of ever mar-
ried/partnered women reporting physical assault by
a partner). The lowest prevalence figures came from
Paraguay (10% of ever married/partnered women)
and the Philippines (10% in a sample of pregnant
women). Twelve-months incidence was highest in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestine (52% of cur-
rently married/partnered women) and lowest in the
U.S. (1.3% of all women, including those who had
never been in a relationship). However, as Krug
et al. (2002) acknowledge, the methodological dif-
ferences preclude any comparison of the absolute
incidence and prevalence rates across the different
countries.
The other two reviews are restricted in scope
to European countries. Hagemann-White (2001) re-
viewed 11 studies from 9 European countries that de-
scribed the level of physical and/or sexual violence in
intimate relationships in community samples. As in
the Krug et al. (2002) review, we see a wide varia-
tion in prevalence rates between 8% (Denmark; past
partner) and 45% (Finland; past cohabitation part-
ner), attributable to a large extent to differences in
methodology (Hagemann-White, 2001, p. 733). Dis-
cussing the problems involved in defining and mea-
suring intimate partner violence in a way that re-
flects gendered representations of violence, she calls
for “developing standards of measurement that re-
spect subjective meanings and thereby admit a plu-
rality of cultures and customs, rather than imposing a
standard template on the experience of what is or is
not violence” (Hagemann-White, 2001, p. 755). Kury
et al. (2004) examined European prevalence rates
for partner violence from six studies, three of which
had already been included in the Hagemann-White
(2001) review. Two of the new studies, from Spain
and Sweden, only included women. In the Swedish
survey, prevalence rates for partner violence varied
between 8 and 20% in relation to respondents’ age.
In the Spanish study, 12.9% of the surveyed women
reported physical or severe physical abuse from a
partner during the last 12 months, and 16.2% re-
ported sexual abuse or severe sexual abuse (Medina-
Ariza & Barberet, 2003). Kury et al. (2004) discuss
the findings from their review in the context of so-
cial and socioeconomic changes in Europe over the
last decades, such as rising poverty rates that they re-
gard as conducive to an increase in family violence
generally and intimate partner violence in particular.
However, in the absence of studies linking changes in
partner violence rates to economic or social parame-
ters, these explanations remain tentative.
810
PRESENT SAMPLE OF STUDIES
Studies were included in the present review if
they covered samples outside North America and
provided primary quantitative data on the incidence
or prevalence of physical and/or sexual partner vi-
olence from one or more of the following perspec-
tives: (a) female victimization, (b) male perpetration,
(c) female perpetration, and (d) male victimization.
Studies limited to the traditional perspective of fe-
male victimization by male partners were included
only if they came from Non-European countries or—
in the case of European studies—have not been cov-
ered in the previous reviews by Hagemann-White
(2001) and Kury et al. (2004). A total of 35 stud-
ies from 21 countries were identified on the basis of
these criteria. With three exceptions (BMFSFJ, 2004;
Luedtke & Lamnek, 2002; Mirrlees-Black, 1999),
all studies were published in academic journals or
books.
As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to evalu-
ate and compare studies that used different mea-
sures of intimate partner violence. Studies that ex-
amined physical aggression using the Conflict Tactics
Scales should be comparable with each other. How-
ever, the findings are not always based on the orig-
inal CTS items but on modified versions. Compar-
isons between studies looking at sexual aggression
are even more complicated. Haj-Yahia (2000a) used
the CTS2, whereas the surveys by Krahé (Krahé,
1998; Krahé & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2002) developed
German versions of the SES (Krahé et al., 1999).
The remaining studies developed their own ques-
tionnaires and interviews, sometimes based on focus
group discussions to establish the cultural meaning
of intimate partner violence (e.g., Deyessa, Kassaye,
Demeke, & Taffa, 1998).
The focus of our review is on physical and sex-
ual violence in relationships. Nevertheless, it is im-
portant to recognize that relationship aggression can
take the form of psychological abuse, also termed
verbal or emotional aggression. Psychological abuse
includes insults and humiliation or controlling be-
havior by the partner. It is widely recognized that
physical aggression is almost always accompanied by
psychological abuse, which may have equal or even
more lasting emotional effects than physical aggres-
sion. Some of the reviewed studies included psycho-
logical abuse, but only a few reported prevalence
rates (e.g. Tang, 1999a, 1999b, for “verbal abuse”;
Eisikovits, Winstock, & Fishman, 2004, for “shouting
and humiliation”; Haj-Yahia, 2000a, for “psychologi-
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
cal aggression”). Other studies discuss psychological
abuse as a potential risk factor for physical violence
(e.g. Bradley, Smith, Long, & O’Dowd, 2002). We
will look at the co-morbidity of different forms of in-
timate partner violence after reviewing the evidence
on physical and sexual violence.
From the perspective of gender differences, it
would have been interesting to include information
about intimate violence in gay or lesbian relation-
ships and relate it to men’s and women’s involvement
in partner violence in heterosexual relationships.
Unfortunately, the number of studies on same-sex
violence was too small for this purpose (see, how-
ever, Krahé, Schütze, Fritsche, & Waizenhöfer,
2000; Toro-Alfonso & Rodriguez-Madera, 2004).
Therefore, the present review is limited to partner
violence in heterosexual relationships.
Of the 35 studies included, 14 provide preva-
lence data on intimate partner violence, 15 present
incidence data, and 6 provide both prevalence and in-
cidence data. To make the figures more easily inter-
pretable, prevalence and incidence findings are pre-
sented separately. Table I summarizes the prevalence
findings, Table II summarizes the incidence findings.
Results from studies providing both prevalence and
incidence rates are split up and feature separately in
the respective tables.
The majority of studies (N = 29) included
community samples, only 6 studies involved clinical
samples (patients presenting at emergency depart-
ments or counseling agencies, in one instance men
convicted of intimate partner violence). Nineteen
studies included only female respondents, 14 studies
included men and women, and 2 studies included all-
male samples. Eighteen studies examined physical
violence only, 6 studies looked at sexual aggression
only, and 11 studies reported both physical and sex-
ual aggression (some of these also reported verbal or
psychological aggression, which was not in the focus
of this review and is therefore not included in the
tables). About half of the studies (N = 19) used the
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS or CTS2), sometimes
with modifications. Five studies used the SES in the
original version or in modification. The remaining
studies employed a variety of instruments loosely
connected to the CTS or designed on the basis of
piloting in the respective country.
As Tables I and II show, there is a considerable
heterogeneity between the studies in methodology
and findings. To impose some structure on the ma-
terial that may make it easier to arrive at conclusions
about this diverse body of evidence, the discussion
 Table I. Prevalence Rates for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
Prevalence rates for
Measure of IPV Male Female Male Female
Author (Year) Country Sample and timeframe perpetration perpetration victimization victimization
Arscott-Mills Jamaica Clinical sample of 187 25-item questionnaire 90% physical assault,
(2001) women attending (experiences of violence, 59% sexual assault
Women’s Crisis Centre type of injury); lifetime
for IPV (18–59 years)
BMFSFJ Germany Representative sample of CTS, items from Sexual 23% physical violence,
(2004) 10,624 women (16–85 Experiences Survey (SES), 7% sexual violence
years) lifetime
Bradley et al. Ireland Community sample of 20-item domestic violence 39% violent behavior
(2002) 1,692 women with questionnaire (similar to (of these: 46%
relationship experience CTS); lifetime injured)
attending general
practice (16–84 years)
Carrado et al. UK Representative sample of 5 items on physical assault 10% physical 11% physical 18% physical 13% physical assault
(1996) 894 men and 971 derived from CTS; lifetime assault assault assault ever, ever, 5% in current
women (over 15 years) ever ever 11% in current relationship
relationship
Castro et al. Mexico Community sample of 12 items on physical violence, 12.1% physical
(2003) 914 pregnant women 3 items on sexual violence violence, 10.0%
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective

attending prenatal based on Index of Spouse sexual violence

health clinics (mean Abuse and Severity of
age = 25; SD = 5.5) Violence Against Women
Scale; lifetime before
pregnancy
Deyessa et al. Ethiopia Representative sample of 6-item questionnaire; since 45% physical abuse; of
(1998) 673 married women getting married these: 76% slapped
(mean age = 35.6; with fist, 53% kicked
SD = 10.6) or hit, 34% hit or
beaten
Ellsberg et al. Nicaragua Representative sample of CTS, sexual abuse by partner; 52% any physical
(2000) 360 women ever lifetime violence, 31%
married or living with a physical violence
partner (15–49 years) during pregnancy,
21% sexual abuse
Grimstad Norway Community sample of CTS; lifetime 15% moderate physical
et al. 174 new mothers (age violence, 5% severe
(1999) not given) physical violence
Jackson et al. New Zealand Community sample of Questionnaire regarding 67.4% unwanted 76.9% unwanted sexual
(2000) 200 female and 173 violence in dating sexual activity, activity, 21.0%
male high school relationships; lifetime 19.0% physical physical violence
students (16–20 years) violence
811
 Table I. Continued.
Krahé (1998) Germany Community sample of Sexual Experiences Survey 44.7% any 54.5% any sexual
812

adolescents, 197 men (SES); lifetime sexual victimization, 16.8%

(M = 19.2 years) and aggression, through physical
194 women (mean 14.7% force
age = 17.7 years) through
physical
force
Krahé and Germany Community sample of SES; lifetime 21.6% any 30.3% any sexual
Scheinberger- 456 women (M = 18.4 sexual victimization, 3.3%
Olwig years) and 524 men aggression, rape through
(2002) (mean age = 18.7 3.6% rape exploitation, 1.8%
years) through rape through
exploita- physical force
tion, 0.2 %
rape
through
physical
force
Krahé, Germany Study 1: community Men’s Non-consensual Sexual Study 1: 11.7%
Scheinberger- sample of 247 men Experiences Survey sexual
Olwig, & (mean age = 18.3 (adaptation of the SES); aggression;
Bieneck years); Study 2: lifetime Study 2: 17.6%
(2003) community sample of sexual
153 men (mean age = aggression
22.3 years)
Krahé, Germany Community sample of Women’s Sexual Aggression 6.0% sexual
Waizenhöfer, 248 women (mean Survey (adaptation of the aggression
& Möller age = 18.1 years) SES); lifetime
(2003)
Kury et al. Germany Student sample of 309 SES; lifetime 3.6% mild sexual
(2004) women, (mean age = victimization, 33.7%
23 years) moderate
victimization, 1.6%
severe victimization
Luedtke and Germany Random sample of 1,236 Telephone interviews; lifetime 6.0% physical 2.7% physical violence
Lamnek households, (age not violence
(2002) given)
Maman et al. Tanzania Sample of 245 women CTS; lifetime total sample: 37.6%
(2002) attending health clinics physical abuse,
for HIV test (18–55 16.3% sexual abuse;
years) HIV negative
(N = 172): 28.3%
physical violence,
23.0% sexual
violence, HIV
positive (N = 73):
52.2% physical
violence, 44.1%
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller

sexual violence
 Mirrlees-Black UK Representative sample of Crime survey; lifetime 14.9% physical 22.7% physical assault
(1999) 6,098 women and 5,146 assault
men (16–59 years)
Robbé et al. Australia Clinical sample of 522 Items from CTS; lifetime 8.5% total 19.3% total physical,
(1996) female and 475 male physical, sexual, or emotional
patients attending sexual, or abuse, of these:
hospital emergency emotional 17.5% weapon used,
services (age > 16 abuse, of 28.7% sexual abuse
years) these: 11.9%
weapon used,
10% sexual
abuse
Roberts et al. Australia Clinical sample of 553 CTS; lifetime 4.1% total 16.1% total physical,
(1996) female and 670 male physical, sexual, or emotional
patients attending sexual, or abuse: of these:
hospital emergency emotional 21.1% weapon used,
services (age > 16 abuse; of 28.8% sexual abuse
years) these: 36.8%
weapon used,
12.3% sexual
abuse
Römkens (1997) The Netherlands Representative sample of Semi-structured interviews; 10.6% 20.8% unilateral
1,016 women (20–60 lifetime unilateral violence, 9% mild
years) violence violence, 4.8%
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective

moderate violence,
6.3% severe or very
severe violence;
7.4% sexual force,

Note. Studies given in the table are marked with asterisk in the reference list.
813
 Table II. Incidence Rates for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
814

Prevalence rates for

Measure of IPV Male Female Male Female
Author (Year) Country Sample and timeframe perpetration perpetration victimization victimization
Castro et al. Mexico Community sample of 12 items on physical violence, 10.6% physical
(2003) 914 pregnant women 3 items on sexual violence violence, 8.1% sexual
attending prenatal based on Index of Spouse violence
health clinics (mean Abuse and Severity of
age = 25; SD = 5.5) Violence Against Women
Scale; during pregnancy
Deyessa et al. Ethiopia Representative sample of ad hoc questionnaire, 10% physical abuse; of
(1998) 673 married women last 3 months these: 60% slapped
(mean age= 35.6; with fist, 52% kicked
SD = 10.6) or hit, 29% hit or
beaten
Dobash and UK Clinical sample of 95 men Global frequency of violent 69.5% 53.7% 60% physical 78.9% physical
Dobash convicted of IPV and acts, 9 specific forms of IPV, physical physical violence, of violence, of these
(2004) their female partners similar to CTS; violence; of violence, of these 20% 88.4% slapped,
(total N = 190) (age last 12 months these: these: slapped, 78.9% kicked body
not given) 82.1% 29.5% 17.9% kicked
slapped, slapped, body
54% 23.2%
kicked kicked
body body
Eisikovits Israel Representative sample of Questions referring to physical 6% all physical
et al. 2,544 women living violence (breaking things, violence, 1.7%
(2004) with a partner or moderate violence, severe severe physical
having lived with a violence); last 12 months violence, 6.1%
partner for at least 1 threats of violence
year in the last 5 years
(mean age = 43.1;
SD = 16.0)
Ellsberg et al. Nicaragua Representative 360 CTS; last 12 months 27% any physical
(2000) women ever married or violence, 20% severe
living with a partner physical violence
(15–49 years)
Grimstad Norway Community sample of CTS; during pregnancy 3% moderate physical
et al. 174 new mothers (age violence, 1% severe
(1999) not given) physical violence,
Hadi (2000) Bangladesh Random sample of 500 Structured interview about 26.8% sexual violence
married women (mean forced sex by husband; last
age = 30.5) 12 months
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
Haj-Yahia Israel Random sample of 1,111 CTS2; engagement period 19% physical violence,
(2000a) engaged Arab women (maximum 2 years) 13% sexual coercion
(16–38 years)
Haj-Yahia Palestine Study 1: random sample Questionnaire consisting of First (second) survey:
(2000b) of 2410 married women items from: CTS 52% (54%) physical
(17–65 years); Study 2: Psychological Maltreatment violence, 37.6%
random sample of of Women Inventory (40%) sexual abuse
1,334 married women Measure of Wife Abuse
(17–69 years) Index of Spouse Abuse
Abusive Behavior
Inventory; last 12 months
Kim and Korea Representative sample of CTS; last 12 months 27.8% total 15.8% total
Emery 1,279 married or violence violence
(2003) cohabitation men (>20 27.4% 15.5% minor,
years) minor, 2.8% severe
8.0%
severe
Kim and Korea Random sample of 88 CTS; last 12 months 20.8% total 6.3% total
Sung men and 56 women physical physical
(2001) (>60 years) violence, violence,
20.2% 6.3%
minor minor,
5.6% 1.4 %
severe severe
Magdol et al. New Zealand Representative sample of CTS; last 12 months 21.8% any 37.2% any 34.1% any 27.1% any physical
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective

(1997) 425 women and 436 physical physical physical violence, 26.1%
men (20–21 years) violence, violence, violence, minor, 12.7% severe
21.8% 35.8% 31.8% minor,
minor: minor, 21.2% severe
5.7% 18.6%
severe severe
Maman et al. Tanzania Sample of 245 women CTS; last 3 months Total sample: 11.4%
(2002) attending health clinics physical abuse, HIV
for HIV tests negative (N = 172),
(18–55 years) 9.3% physical
violence, HIV
positive (N = 73),
16.4% physical
Maziak Syria Community sample of Repeated beating of any form 23% physical violence,
(2002) 412 women (no age at least three times; last all women, 26%
provided) 12 months married women
Mirrlees- UK Representative sample of Crime survey; last 12 months 4.2% partner’s 4.2% partner’s use of
Black 6,098 women and 5,146 use of force force
(1999) men (16–59 years)
Piispa (2004) Finland Representative sample of Modified CTS; in current 7.5% physical violence,
4,955 women partnership during the last of these: 37% less
(18–74 years) 5 years severe violence, 41%
more severe violence
815
 816

Table II. continued.

Romito, Italy Clinical sample of 510 Questionnaire on physical, 18.2% physical or
Saurel- women attending sexual, psychological sexual violence by
Cubizolles, emergency violence, last 12 months current or former
and Crisma departments, advisory partner
(2001) clinics and social
service centers
(18–92 years)
Swart et al. South Africa Community sample of CTS2; last 12 months 35.3% 43.5% 37.8% physical 41.7% physical
(2002) 434 male and 494 physical physical violence, 25% violence, 18.9% with
female secondary violence, violence, with injury injury
school students 26.8% with 16.3% with
(13–23 years) injury injury
Tang (1999a) Hong Kong Random sample of 518 CTS; last 12 months 7.6% minor 11.1% minor violence,
married Chinese men violence, 1.8% 1.5% severe violence
and 752 married severe
Chinese women violence
(18–79 years)
Tang (1999b) Hong Kong Random sample of 1,132 CTS; last 12 months 10% all physical
Chinese married violence, 9.8% minor
women (18–75 years) violence, 1.4%
severe violence
Wetzels et al. Germany Representative sample, CTS; last 5 years 4.9% physical 6.5% physical violence
(1995) 1,902 men and 2,104 violence
women, >16 years

Note. Studies given in the table are marked with asterisk in the reference list.
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective 817

of prevalence and incidence rates is organized into
three sections: First, we will briefly discuss the ev-
idence concerning women’s victimization by male
partners. Even though our focus is on gender differ-
ences in intimate partner violence, these studies are
relevant to this review because they contribute to the
internationalization of domestic violence research.
Secondly, we will discuss the studies that compare
victimization rates by men and women. Finally, we
will look at the small set of studies comparing men’s
and women’s perpetration rates of partner violence.
Women’s Victimization by Intimate Partners
It is impossible to derive comparative conclu-
sions about the scale of women’s victimization in re-
lationships from these data due to methodological
differences in sampling procedures, measurement,
data collection, and analysis. However, it should be
noted that the majority of studies used relatively
large sample sizes, and many relied on random or
stratified sampling procedures to enhance the qual-
ity of the data. Therefore, despite the limits in terms
of comparability, they represent an important step
towards accumulating an international database on
which future studies can build.

Thirty-three of the 35 studies included in this re- Studies Comparing Women’s

view present evidence on the rate of women’s expe- and Men’s Victimization Rates
rience of physical violence from an intimate partner,
19 are confined to this perspective. Not counting the Twelve of the 35 studies provided comparative
clinical sample of women in Jamaica seeking help data on the rate of women’s and men’s victimiza-
for intimate partner violence (Arscott-Mills, 2001), tion by intimate partner violence. To facilitate the in-
the highest prevalence rates were reported from terpretation of their main findings, these studies are
Nicaragua (52%; Ellsberg, Pena, Herrera, Lilestrand, summarized in Table III. Again, the first impression
& Winkvist, 2000) and Ethiopia (45%, Deyessa et al., is that of a substantial variation in both prevalence
1998). The lowest prevalence rates were reported and incidence rates across the studies. In terms of the
from a German (2.7%; Luedtke & Lamnek, 2002) debate on gender symmetries or asymmetries in vic-
and a Mexican sample (12.1%, Castro, Peek-Asa, timization, the results are also mixed. Three studies
& Ruiz, 2003). The highest incidence rates were
reported from Palestine (52 and 54%; Haj-Yahia,
Table III. Comparative Studies of Victimization by Women and
2000b) and South Africa (41.7%; Swart, Stevens, & Men Through Physical Partner Violence
Ricardo, 2002).
Physical violence
Data about women’s sexual victimization are victimization (%)
provided by 16 of the 35 studies. Figures vary con-
siderably across different samples. Lifetime preva- Women Men Study∗
lence rates range from 7% in a German sample Prevalence
(BMFSFJ, 2004) and 10% in the Mexican sample Australia 19.3a 8.5a Robbé et al. (1996)
Australia 16.1a 4.1a Roberts et al. (1996)
(Castro et al., 2003) to 76.9% in the New Zealand
Germany 2.7 6.0 Luedtke and
sample (Jackson, Cram, & Seymour, 2000). How- Lamnek (2002)
ever, the latter study used a broad definition of sexual New Zealand 21 19 Jackson et al. (2000)
victimization (“unwanted sexual activity”), whereas The Netherlands 20.8 7.4 Römkens (1997)
the former presented three specific items referring UK 13 18 Carrado et al. (1996)
UK 22.7 14.9 Mirrless-Black (1999)
to verbal pressure and use of force. Clinical stud-
Incidence
ies found lifetime prevalences from 44% for HIV- Germany 6.5 4.9 Wetzels et al. (1995)
positive women from Tanzania (Maman et al., 2002) Hong Kong 12.6 9.4 Tang (1999a)
to 59% for Jamaican women attending a Women’s New Zealand 27.1 34.1 Magdol et al. (1997)
Crisis Center (Arscott-Mills, 2001). As expected, in- South Africa 41.7 37.8 Swart et al. (2002)
UK 78.9b 60b Dobash and
cidence rates are somewhat lower, but also display a
Dobash (2004)
substantial range in magnitude. The lowest rate was UK 4.2 4.2 Mirrlees-Black (1999)
reported for the Mexican sample (8.1%; Castro et al.,
∗ More detailed information about the studies is provided in
2003), followed by Israel (16%; Haj-Yahia, 2000a),
Tables I and II.
Bangladesh (26.8%; Hadi, 2000) and Palestine (37.6 a Combined figures for any physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.
and 40% from the two surveys conducted by bSample consisted of men convicted of intimate partner violence

Haj-Yahia, 2000b). and their female partners.

818
showed substantially higher rates for women’s vic-
timization compared to men’s: the two Australian
studies by Robbé et al. (1996; 19.3% vs. 8.5%) and
by Roberts, O’Toole, Raphael, Lawrence, and Ashby
(1996; 16.1% vs. 4.1%) as well as the Dutch study
by Römkens (1997; 20.8% vs. 7.4%). Five studies re-
ported similar levels of victimization for women and
men: the New Zealand study by Jackson et al. (2000),
the German study by Wetzels, Greve, Mecklenburg,
Bilsky, and Pfeiffer (1995), the study with Hong
Kong Chinese by Tang (1999a), the South African
study by Swart et al. (2002) and the UK study by
Dobash and Dobash (2004). Three studies found
higher victimization rates for men than for women:
the German study by Luedtke and Lamnek (2002; 6.0
vs. 2.7%), the UK study by Carrado, George, Loxam,
Jones, and Templar (1996; 18 vs. 13%), and the New
Zealand study by Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, Newman,
Fagan, and Silva (1997; 34.1 vs. 27.1%). Finally, the
study by Mirrlees-Black (1999) provided divergent
results for lifetime prevalence and 12-months inci-
dence: while lifetime victimization rates were higher
for women (23%) than for men (15%), incidence fig-
ures were exactly the same for both men and women.
Only one study directly compared women’s and
men’s sexual victimization rates. In their sample
of New Zealand adolescents, Jackson et al. (2000)
found prevalence rates for experience of unwanted
sexual activity of 76.9% for women and 67.4% by
men. In contrast, two German studies looking at
women’s and men’s sexual victimization by an in-
timate partner on the basis of very similar mea-
sures (Krahé & Scheinberger-Olwig, 2002; Krahé,
Scheinberger-Olwig, & Bieneck, 2003) found higher
victimization rates for women (30.1%) than for men
(11.7% for an adolescent and 17.6% for a young
adult sample).
Studies Comparing Men’s and Women’s
Perpetration Rates
Five studies presented comparative information
about men’s and women’s involvement as perpetra-
tors of intimate partner violence. Their findings, sum-
marized in Table IV, match the diversity observed in
the studies comparing victimization rates. The only
prevalence study (Carrado et al., 1996) found al-
most identical perpetration rates for men (10%) and
women (11%) in a UK sample. The remaining four
incidence studies showed asymmetries, but are di-
vided in terms of their direction. In two of these stud-
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
Table IV. Comparative Studies of Perpetration of Intimate
Partner Violence by Men and Women
Physical violence
perpetration (%)
Women Men Study∗
Prevalence
UK 11 10 Carrado et al. (1996)
Incidence
Korea 6.3 20.8 Kim and Sung (2001)
New Zealand 37.2 21.8 Magdol et al. (1997)
South Africa 43.5 35.3 Swart et al. (2002)
UK 53.7a 69.5a Dobash and
Dobash (2004)
∗ More detailed information about the studies is provided in Ta-
bles I and II.
a Sample consisted of men convicted of intimate partner violence
and their female partners.
ies, from Korea (Kim & Sung, 2001) and the UK
(Dobash & Dobash, 2004), perpetration rates were
higher for men than for women, in the other two
studies from New Zealand (Magdol et al., 1997) and
South Africa (Swart et al., 2002), perpetration rates
were higher for women than for men. With respect to
sexual aggression, the German data by Krahé (Krahé
& Scheinberger-Olwig, 2002; Krahé, Waizenhöfer, &
Bieneck, 2003) found a higher prevalence of sex-
ual aggression toward an intimate partner for men
(21.6%) than for women (6.0%).
Overall, the international literature reflects the
same degree of inconsistency concerning men’s and
women’s equal vs. unequal vulnerability to and per-
petration of intimate partner violence that is char-
acteristic of the North American body of evidence
(e.g., Saunders, 2002). An important question raised
by comparative analyses of men’s and women’s in-
volvement in intimate partner violence refers to
the extent to which perpetration and victimization
reports can be related to each other. Only four
studies presented data from men and women on
both perpetration and victimization, providing a full
cross-classification of gender and perspective (victim
vs. perpetrator). These are the studies by Carrado
et al. (1996; UK), Dobash and Dobash (2004; UK),
Magdol et al. (1997; New Zealand), and Swart et al.
(2002, South Africa). However, with the exception
of the Dobash and Dobash study, even these studies
do not shed light on the reciprocal perception of inti-
mate partner violence because respondents reported
only their personal perception of perpetration and
victimization unrelated to the perceptions of their
partners.
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective
Dobash and Dobash (2004) studied 95 British
couples where the husband had been convicted and
arrested for some form of domestic violence. This
study is interesting not so much because of the ab-
solute scale of partner violence uncovered (which
was bound to be high given that all male partici-
pants had been convicted for a domestic violence of-
fence) but for providing truly reciprocal reports of
perpetration and victimization from the two mem-
bers of a couple. In their sample, 78.9% of women
and 60% of men reported that they had been vic-
timized by their partner, and 69.5% of men as com-
pared to 53.7% of women acknowledged at least
one violent incident against their partner in the last
12 months. These findings suggest two conclusions:
(a) men’s violence against women was higher than
women’s violence against men, as reflected in both
perpetrator and victim perceptions; and (b) victim-
ization rates were higher than the corresponding per-
petration rates (e.g., female victimization: 78.9% vs.
male perpetration: 69.5%). This means that perpe-
trators reported less violence than their partner felt
subjected to. However, this difference was signifi-
cant only for men’s violence against women. When
asked to assess the seriousness of the violent inci-
dents, significantly more women than men perceived
men’s violence against the female partner as very
serious (46.0% of women vs. 27.7% of men). No
such difference was found with respect to the pro-
portion of men and women who regarded women’s
violence as very serious, which in any case was much
lower (5.3% among men and 4.9% among women).
Dobash and Dobash (2004, p. 343) concluded that
men and women “tend to agree about the nature,
frequency, and impact of the violence perpetrated by
women, but disagree about men’s violence.”
Co-Morbidity
The present review focused on physical and
sexual violence between intimate partners. However,
it needs to be recognized that these forms of partner
violence tend to co-occur and are often accompanied
by psychological or emotional abuse. Studies includ-
ing measures of psychological or emotional abuse
revealed a high degree of co-morbidity between
the different forms of partner violence: physical
and sexual violence were commonly accompanied
by psychological/emotional abuse (Eisikovits et al.,
2004; Ellsberg et al., 2000; Grimstad, Schei, Backe,
& Jacobsen, 1999; Römkens, 1997). These findings
819
add to a large and consistent body of evidence
from North America showing the co-occurrence of
different forms of partner violence (e.g., Barnett,
Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 1997).
Consequences of Physical and Sexual Victimization
The consequences of physical and/or sexual
abuse have been examined predominantly for fe-
male victims. Many serious physical and mental
health problems are considered to result from phys-
ical or sexual abuse by an intimate partner. Some
of these problems are immediate, such as injuries
and shock, and some are long term in nature, such
as increased levels of anxiety or depression. The
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE,
1999) provided the following classification of ad-
verse health outcomes of violence against women:
physical health (e.g., injuries, functional impairment
or permanent disability), negative health behaviors
(e.g., excessive alcohol consumption or drug abuse),
chronic conditions (e.g., somatic complaints or
chronic pain syndromes), reproductive health (e.g.,
unwanted pregnancy, STIs/HIV, unsafe abortion or
miscarriage, low birth weight), and mental health
(post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, low self-
esteem, sexual dysfunction, phobias, or eating
disorders).
The adverse consequences of intimate partner
victimization were also apparent in many of the sam-
ples of the studies in this review. In terms of im-
mediate physical health consequences, a substantial
proportion of victims suffered physical injuries. Stud-
ies that recorded whether or not victims were in-
jured by their partner’s acts of violence found in-
jury rates among victims from 25% (Swart et al.’s,
2002, study of South African adolescents) to 64%
(BMFSFJ, 2004, Germany; and Römkens, 1997, The
Netherlands). In the two studies using victim sam-
ples (Arscott-Mills, 2001, Jamaica; and Dobash &
Dobash, 2004, UK), nearly all the victims had suf-
fered injuries.
In the studies that compared men’s and women’s
victimization, injury rates were found to be higher
for women than for men (Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Swart
et al., 2002). This finding supports a large body of
evidence from the North American literature show-
ing that risk of injury as a consequence of intimate
partner violence varies as a function of gender. For
example, Rennison and Welchan’s (2000) analysis of
data from the National Crime Victimization Survey
from 1993 to 1998 showed that a greater proportion
820
of women than men were injured in violent
confrontations with an intimate partner. Archer’s
(2000) meta-analysis also revealed that significantly
more women than men were injured by their
partners.
With respect to the psychological consequences
of intimate partner violence, a strong association
between physical abuse and mental health prob-
lems was found in the Syrian sample analyzed by
Maziak (2002). In Haj-Yahia’s (2000a) Israeli study,
women victimized by both physical abuse and sex-
ual abuse showed significantly lower self-esteem as
well as higher levels of depression, stress, and anxi-
ety than did non-victimized women. Römkens (1997)
also reported a significantly higher level of psychoso-
matic and depressive complaints among victims than
among non-victims in her Dutch sample. Magdol
et al. (1997) obtained a similar pattern for their Aus-
tralian study, but they also showed that the effect was
more pronounced for female than for male victims
(this gender difference was also found by Mirrlees-
Black, 1999, in the UK). Piispa (2004) found that
older female victims of partner violence (aged be-
tween 30 and 64) in her Finnish study were more
negatively affected in terms of depression, loss of
self-esteem, and fear than younger victims (aged un-
der 30). Altogether, the findings from the present
set of studies corroborate the large body of evidence
from North American research by documenting se-
vere physical and psychological problems as a result
of intimate partner violence.
Risk Markers of Intimate Partner Violence
The need for a better understanding of the
causes of intimate partner violence is stressed by
all researchers in this field. The “ecological frame-
work” proposed by Heise (1998) is one of the most
promising approaches to understand the interplay of
personal, situational, and sociocultural factors that
combine to cause intimate partner violence. The
model tries to explain men’s violence against women
by specifying risk factors at four levels (CHANGE,
1999). The society level includes norms granting men
control over female behavior, acceptance of violence
as a means of conflict resolution, and rigid gen-
der roles. Risk factors at the community level are
poverty, low socioeconomic status, and unemploy-
ment, as well as isolation of women and family. As-
pects at the relationship level include marital con-
flict and male control of wealth and decision-making
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
in the family. The last level describes risk factors
at the level of the individual perpetrator, including
biographical experiences, such as witnessing mari-
tal violence as a child, an absent or rejecting fa-
ther, being abused as a child, and alcohol abuse
(Heise, 1998).
Several of the reviewed studies included risk
markers (i.e., variables associated with an increased
risk that may be correlated with or without being
causally related to physical and sexual violence). The
most common risk markers addressed in the present
studies were demographic variables, such as age,
level of education, and economic situation. Rates
for both victimization and perpetration declined with
age (Carrado et al., 1996, Mexico; Haj-Yahia, 2000b,
Palestine; Mirrlees-Black, 1999, UK; Tang, 1999b,
Hong Kong), indicating that younger women are par-
ticularly at risk. However, studies also taking the
age difference between partners into account showed
that relationships in which the man was considerably
older than the woman were particularly vulnerable to
intimate partner violence (Tang, 1999b).
Low level of education and financial depen-
dence were identified as risk markers of victim-
ization as well as perpetration in several of the
studies (Castro et al., 2003, Mexico; Hadi, 2000,
Bangladeshi; Haj-Yahia, 2000b, Palestine; Magdol
et al., 1997, Australia; Maman et al., 2002, Tanzania;
Maziak, 2002, Syria). However, this relationship
was not pervasive throughout the studies. Kim and
Sung’s (2001) study of elderly couples in Korea
and Tang’s (1999b) study of Hong Kong Chinese
did not find higher victimization rates in relation
to low income or unemployment. Unemployment
and low level of education were also identified
as risk markers of violence perpetration (Cas-
tro et al., 2003, Mexico; Eisikovitz et al., 2004,
Israel; Haj-Yahia, 2000b, Palestine; Mirrlees-Black,
1999, UK).
With respect to biographical variables, different
studies provided evidence that experiencing abuse as
a child and witnessing violence in one’s family of ori-
gin was a risk marker of both perpetration (Castro
et al., 2003, Mexico; Krahé, Waizenhöfer, & Möller,
2003, Germany; Swart et al., 2002, South Africa) and
victimization (Castro et al., 2003, Mexico; Ellsberg
et al., 2000, Israel; Krahé & Scheinberger-Olwig,
2002, Germany). Again, these findings are in ac-
cordance with the evidence from North American
sources, suggesting that the variables associated with
an increased risk of intimate partner violence oper-
ate in a similar fashion in different cultural settings.
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective
DISCUSSION
The studies reviewed in this paper convey one
clear message: intimate partner violence, both phys-
ical and sexual, is prevalent in many societies, not
just in Western countries but across the world, and
several of the risk markers as well as adverse conse-
quences identified in the North American literature
were also found in a diverse sample of international
studies. Beyond this broad statement, however, the
body of evidence reviewed in this paper raises more
questions than it answers. Prevalence and incidence
rates of both victimization by and perpetration of in-
timate partner violence were found to vary widely
across the studies. Concerning the controversial issue
of men’s and women’s symmetrical vs. asymmetrical
involvement in intimate partner violence, the present
evidence was unable to provide a clear answer. The
number of studies reporting similar rates of male and
female perpetration or victimization, higher rates of
victimization for women or for men, and higher per-
petration rates for men or for women were about
equally divided. Rather than discussing the findings
from individual studies, we will examine some of the
lessons to be learned from the studies included in this
review and outline directions for future research.
Limitations of the Database
A first point to be noted is that with the ex-
ception of three studies (BMFSFJ, 2004; Luedtke
& Lamnek, 2002; Mirrlees-Black, 1999), only stud-
ies were included in our review that were pub-
lished in academic journals. This decision was based
on two considerations: (a) that some form of qual-
ity control was applied to papers that passed the
standards of (generally peer-reviewed) journals; and
(b) that these studies would be easily accessible to
readers who wanted to follow up the information
provided in this review by consulting the original
sources. This is important because our review con-
centrated on the issue of prevalence or incidence
of intimate partner violence, whereas many of the
studies went beyond this and looked at predictors or
moderators of prevalence/incidence rates, contribut-
ing a host of interesting findings over and above
those presented here. The decision to include the
three studies not published in academic outlets was
made because the available online summaries were
detailed enough to appreciate the soundness of the
methodological approach. However, it needs to be
821
acknowledged that there are probably many more
data sets out there available only as unpublished re-
ports and/or in languages inaccessible to us. It is
impossible to say to what extent these data would
make substantive contributions to the international
literature on intimate partner violence and how they
would affect the conclusions based on published
data.
A further limitation of the present database
refers to the comparability of the findings. The dif-
ficulties of comparing studies that differ widely in
terms of methodology have already been pointed
out. An additional problem lies in the presentation
of the findings. All the studies we examined pre-
sented information about prevalence or incidence
rates of intimate partner violence that were aggre-
gated across individual items, even when prevalence
or incidence rates were reported for individual items.
While this is a reasonable approach enabling readers
to appreciate the general picture of partner violence
from the study, one should not be led to believe that
similar classifications reflect similar underlying be-
haviors. Some authors classified behaviors on the ba-
sis of the approach provided by the authors of the
CTS (e.g., Kim & Sung, 2001; Magdol et al., 1997;
Römkens, 1997; Tang, 1999b). Other authors used
their own criteria (e.g., Piispa, 2004) or failed to ex-
plicate them altogether. In the present review, space
limitations precluded the presentation of findings
from the 35 studies at the individual item level. In-
stead categorical data (e.g., moderate or severe vio-
lence) were reported as provided by the different au-
thors. This means, however, that moderate violence
as defined in one study may not map onto moder-
ate violence reported from another study, even when
both used the CTS at the item level.
Finally, the fact that a majority of studies in
this review used the CTS as a measure of intimate
partner violence means that they are susceptible to
the same criticisms and concerns raised about this
instrument in the North American literature (cf.
summaries by Dobash & Dobash, 2004; Frieze, 2000;
Schwartz, 2000). The most fundamental criticism is
that the CTS neglects the contextual framework in
which partner violence occurs and does nothing else
but “simply and crudely counting blows” (Schwartz,
2000, p. 821). By focusing on behavioral descriptions
of individual incidents of partner violence, the CTS
is unable to capture the dynamics of violent episodes,
such as whether an act of violence is proactive or un-
provoked as opposed to reactive or in self-defense.
The original version furthermore neglected the
822 Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller

consequences of partner violence, i.e. the presence women than by men.” This criticism also pertains to
and severity of injuries, but this was addressed by most of the studies included in the present review.
including a separate injury severity scale in the
revised CTS2. However, even with this modification,
Generalizability within Countries
reliance on act-based frequency tallies runs the risk
of equating behaviors that vary widely in their poten-
A factor that precludes firm conclusions about
tial to harm. As Dobash and Dobash (2004) pointed
the international scale of intimate partner violence
out, the item “throwing an object at your partner”
from the present set of studies is the lack of a re-
may cover such diverse acts as throwing a lamp and
liable database within each country. With few ex-
throwing a pillow, which differ not only with respect
ceptions, each country is represented by only one
to their potential to cause injuries but also possibly
study. Therefore, it is unclear to what extent the re-
in terms of the intensity of the underlying intention
ported findings are reliable and valid reflections of
to harm.
the level of intimate partner violence in that partic-
Several critics have argued that the picture of
ular country. This problem is highlighted by look-
gender symmetry, i.e., men’s and women’s equal
ing at countries for which more than one study was
involvement in intimate partner violence, portrayed
available. For instance, the findings by Luedtke and
by studies using the CTS is largely due to the fact
Lamnek (2002) suggest that prevalence rates for inti-
that decontextualized instances of violence are
mate partner victimization are higher for men than
recorded that fail to distinguish motivationally dis-
for women in Germany. In contrast, the incidence
tinct forms of intimate partner violence in which men
rates found by Wetzels et al. (1995) for victimization
and women are differentially involved (Dobash &
by physical partner violence were higher for women
Dobash, 2004; Johnson, 1995). Johnson and Ferraro
than for men in the same country. Both studies re-
(2000) highlighted this problem in their distinction
lied on large and randomly drawn community sam-
between different types of partner violence. They
ples. Similar discrepancies are apparent in the two
argued that understanding partner violence requires
New Zealand studies. Jackson et al. (2000) found
a closer analysis of the motivational basis of the
slightly higher rates of victimization for women than
aggressor and proposed three distinct manifestations
for men, whereas Magdol et al. (1997) found sub-
of intimate partner violence: (1) Common couple
stantially higher victimization rates for men than for
violence (CCV), which arises in the context of a
women. Both studies used high school samples of
specific argument, is likely to be mutual, unlikely
similar age and sample size. These examples show
to involve serious injury or escalate over time, and
that we are still a far cry from being able to assess the
the most common form of intimate partner violence
scale of intimate partner violence within a particular
in the general population; (2) Intimate terrorism
country, which would be a precondition for examin-
(IT), based on the desire to exert control over the
ing and interpreting variations between countries. In
partner, is shown more frequently in a particular
addition, one has to deal with the problem of cultural
relationship, less likely to be mutual, and more likely
variability within countries that may render the task
to lead to serious injury and to escalate over time;
of providing overall rates questionable. Some of the
(3) Violent resistance (VR), shown in response to
studies in this review related differences within their
a violent attack from the partner, is perpetrated
samples to cultural parameters, such as religious af-
almost exclusively by women. Ignoring the different
filiation and power differentials in relationships (cf.
contextual features and motivational underpinnings
later sections).
of these forms of intimate partner violence leads to
a distorted picture of the roles of men and women
as perpetrators and victims. As Johnson and Ferraro Comparability Across Countries
(2000, p. 950) argued, almost all the studies claiming
gender symmetry in intimate partner violence “use Even if there were solid national databases on
the sort of general heterosexual sample in which intimate partner violence from a range of coun-
aggregated violence only appears to be gender tries, establishing patterns of worldwide variations
symmetric because it lumps together IT, which is or similarities would remain a difficult task. One
essentially perpetrated by men; CCV, which is per- problem characterizing the present state of research
petrated slightly more often by men than by women; is the fragmented and unsystematic nature of the
and VR, which is clearly perpetrated more often by data available for cross-cultural comparison. The
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective
studies identified for this review on the basis of a
careful search of the literature are best described as
a convenience sample. There was no comprehensive
database from which we could have drawn a random
sample, nor was it possible to select studies on the ba-
sis of theoretical considerations, such as a country’s
standing on Hofstede’s (1980, 1998) dimensions of
masculinity/femininity or individualism/collectivism.
In addition, the task of comparing the scale of in-
timate partner violence across cultures faces several
interrelated conceptual and methodological prob-
lems that are widely recognized by researchers in this
field, yet still far from being adequately addressed
(see also Krug et al., 2002, p. 92). A fundamen-
tal problem refers to the perspective to be adopted
by the research as a basis for studying psychologi-
cal problems and processes in different cultures. In
cross-cultural research, this issue is discussed in terms
of the “etic” vs. “emic” distinction (Berry, Poortinga,
Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Smith & Bond, 1998).
Etic versus Emic. Structured measures like
the CTS and the SES present respondents with
behavioral definitions of different forms of partner
violence. Therefore, the use of such instruments
across different cultures should enable cross-cultural
comparisons by yielding figures on the prevalence or
incidence of partner violence unaffected by differen-
tial interpretations and evaluations of the behaviors
in question. In terms of methodological perspectives
in cross-cultural research, using the CTS or the SES
to study physical and sexual violence in diverse
countries represents a prototypical case of the etic
approach (Smith & Bond, 1998). This approach
assumes that a given construct, such as wife battering
as a form of intimate partner violence, is universally
meaningful and the phenomenon universally given,
albeit with different prevalence rates and, possibly,
different determinants. On the basis of that assump-
tion, research based on the etic approach seeks to
identify similarities and differences between cultures
with regard to the construct in question. To the
extent that researchers transfer their own definitions
and measures into another culture, they adopt an
“imposed etic” approach. In contrast, research based
on conceptualizations and measures developed
within a particular culture represents a “derived
etic” approach. In studies using the “derived etic”
approach, the aim is still to obtain evidence about
a particular construct that can be compared across
cultures, but it allows for definitions and measures of
that construct to be developed within each culture.
The majority of studies reviewed in this pa-
823
per are based on the imposed etic approach. At a
methodological level, this approach is confronted
with the problems of “functional equivalence” and
“measurement equivalence” (Berry et al., 2002).
Functional equivalence refers to the question of
whether an instrument (e.g., CTS or SES) used to
measure partner violence in one culture measures the
same underlying construct in another culture. For ex-
ample, the item “Have you had sexual intercourse
when you didn’t want to because a man threatened
or used some degree of physical force (twisting your
arm, holding you down etc.)?” is treated as a rape
item in the SES (Koss et al., 1987). Using the same
item in a different culture and interpreting the re-
ported frequencies as prevalence figures of rape as-
sumes that in that culture using force to obtain sexual
intercourse is considered unlawful in the same way
as in the Western world. This implicit assumption is
problematic and rarely put to empirical test. In fact,
even within countries, this problem applies to the
comparison of different racial or ethnic groups (e.g.,
Sanchez-Hucles & Button, 1999). The second prob-
lem, measurement equivalence, refers to the way in
which the data are collected. The standard format of
written questions used in Western cultures may be
inappropriate in cultures with low literacy rates or in
which filling in forms is not part of everyday life. In
Deyessa et al.’s (1998) Ethiopian study, for instance,
60% of the sample was illiterate. Therefore, the items
had to be read out to them in a face-to-face interview,
creating a different measurement context from pro-
viding written material under anonymous conditions.
The Human Relations Area File (HREF), pro-
viding an ethnographic archive of culture-specific in-
formation, is an example of “derived etic” informa-
tion. In his cross-cultural analysis of family violence,
Levinson (1989) drew on the HREF to establish the
prevalence and typology of wife battering across 90
cultural groups. As noted by Berry et al. (2002), a
problem with ethnographic archives like the HREF
is that the quality of the data is extremely variable.
The extent of this problem can be gauged by relat-
ing findings across cultures to control variables, such
as researchers’ language fluency and length of stay
in the respective culture. Levinson established that
reports of the frequency of wife battering in the 90
cultural groups included in his analysis were uncorre-
lated with these control variables, increasing the con-
fidence in the database.
The problems associated with the “imposed
etic” approach have long been pointed out by
researchers calling for an emic approach to
824
complement (or sometimes more radically: to sub-
stitute) the etic perspective. In the emic approach,
problems and issues for research are identified within
a particular culture, and conceptual definitions as
well as measurement tools are developed for use in
that culture on the basis of the socially shared views
of its members. The primary goal is to understand
the specific social constructions within a culture, not
the comparative analysis across cultures, which dis-
tinguishes the emic approach from the “derived etic”
approach described earlier. With regard to partner
violence, an emic approach would have to start by
analyzing whether or not a given culture has devel-
oped a perception of forms of treatment of one’s
partner that are considered illegitimate (Tedeschi
& Felson, 1994) and then go on to describe the
specific behavioral manifestations falling within that
category. Very few such studies are reported in
the international literature, not least because they
are less likely to pass the hurdles for acceptance in
mainstream international journals with their focus
on English language, quantitative methodology, and
rigorous empirical control. Of the studies considered
in this review, none is based on an emic analysis.
Relating the Scale of Intimate Partner
Violence to Cultural Parameters
A final limitation of the present body of ev-
idence to be acknowledged is that few studies at-
tempted to link the scope of physical and sexual vio-
lence to cultural variables that might provide cues to
explaining cultural variation. This is due in large part
to the fact that the studies included in this review pro-
vided primary data from a particular country without
a comparative focus. Levinson’s (1989) comparative
analysis illustrates how cultural factors can be linked
to the prevalence of partner violence to examine dif-
ferent causal explanations. He found substantial cor-
relations between the extent of wife battering and the
level of violence in other areas of social life, such as
male fighting and female fighting. These findings sup-
port the “culture patterns” model in which family vi-
olence is seen as a reflection of a general tendency
to use violence within a society. In terms of socio-
structural variables, he found, for example, that di-
vorce frequency was unrelated to wife beating across
cultural groups. However, gender differences in di-
vorce freedom, i.e. divorce being more difficult or im-
possible for the wife compared to the husband, were
positively correlated with frequency of wife beating
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
(Levinson, 1989, pp. 54 and 72). Cultural variables
may affect not only the documented scale of part-
ner violence but also the willingness to report it. As
Sanchez-Hucles and Button (1999) point out, cultural
groups with a collectivist orientation concerned pri-
marily with preserving the “face” of the family as a
social unit may show seemingly lower rates of part-
ner violence because of the unwillingness to disclose
instances of partner violence to third parties.
In the present sample of studies, Ellsberg et al.
(2000) linked their finding that 52% of the women
ever married or living with a partner experienced
physical abuse at some point in a relationship to the
dominant gender role conceptions in Nicaraguan so-
ciety. They describe two complementary concepts,
Machismo and Marianismo, that define men’s iden-
tity in terms of dominance and aggression and
women’s identity in terms of dependency and sub-
mission, respectively. Both concepts are conducive to
men’s violence against female partners in that they
highlight men’s entitlement to women and women’s
obligation to subject themselves to their husband’s
demands. They act against recognizing intimate part-
ner violence as a social problem and lead to the
stigmatization of women who identify themselves as
victims. In a similar vein, Kim and Emery (2003)
found that the rate of physical violence was consid-
erably higher in relationships characterized by male
dominance, i.e., unequal power structures favoring
men, the traditional partnership ideology in Korean
society. The findings obtained by Tang (1999a) for
Chinese respondents in Hong Kong point in the same
direction. Hadi (2000) also discussed the finding that
26% of married women in his Bangladeshi sample
had experienced forced sex from their husband in
relation to prevailing cultural norms that consider
forced intercourse by husbands for sexual gratifica-
tion as legitimate. He concluded that “given the so-
cial and cultural context of Bangladesh, it is too early
to expect that sexual violence should be taken as a se-
rious social and health problem” (p. 801). Eisikovitz
et al. (2004, p. 745) identified differences in the rate
of intimate partner violence in their Israeli sample
as a function of religious affiliation, with traditional
Jews and Muslims reporting higher rates than liberal
Jews, concluding that “these groups share an attitudi-
nal orientation that legitimizes such behavior.” Haj-
Yahia (2000b) found that victimization rates were
higher among Muslim than among Christian women
in Palestine. In combination, these data support the-
oretical accounts of intimate partner violence de-
veloped and tested in Western societies that regard
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective
asymmetrical decision-making power in relationships
as a causal factor in intimate violence.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this paper was to bring together stud-
ies from a wide range of countries outside North
America that examined the role of gender in inti-
mate partner violence. The encouraging message to
be drawn from the studies included in our review is
that the problem of intimate partner violence is be-
coming increasingly recognized across the world. Sys-
tematic and large-scale research activities are gain-
ing momentum, not only in industrialized countries
but also in economically deprived parts of the world.
There is also a growing awareness that the traditional
perspective looking at women as victims and men as
perpetrators of intimate partner violence needs to
be expanded by considering the possibility of male
victimization and female perpetration. The findings
from these studies have been made available to the
international research community through accessible
and quality-controlled publication outlets, contribut-
ing to the development of an international database
on intimate partner violence. On the other hand, the
review has also revealed that the comparative analy-
sis of intimate partner violence across cultures needs
to overcome a number of conceptual and method-
ological problems before conclusions can be drawn
with confidence. There is still a long way to go before
a more focused picture will emerge about the level
and cultural embeddedness of intimate partner vio-
lence, but it seems that researchers across the world
are well positioned to take up the challenge.
REFERENCES
Anderson, P. B., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (Eds.) (1998). Sexually
aggressive women. New York: Guilford Press.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between hetero-
sexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bul-
letin, 126, 651–680.
*Arscott-Mills, S. (2001). Intimate partner violence in Jamaica: A
descriptive study of women who access the services of the
women’s crisis centre in Kingston. Violence Against Women,
7, 1284–1302.
Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (1997). Family
violence across the lifespan. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M.H., & Dasen, P. R.
(2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications
(2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
*BMFSFJ (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen
und Jugend) (Ed.). (2004). Lebenssituation, Sicherheit und
Gesundheit von Frauen in Deutschland. Bonn: BMFSFJ. Re-
trieved 20-09-2004: www.bmfsfj.de.
825
Bond, M. H. (2004). Culture and aggression—From context to
coercion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 62–
78.
*Bradley, F., Smith, M., Long, J., & O’Dowd, T. (2002). Re-
ported frequency of domestic violence: Cross sectional survey
of women attending general practice. British Medical Journal,
324 (7332), 271.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape.
New York: Schuster.
*Carrado, M., George, M. J., Loxam, E., Jones, L., & Tem-
plar, D. (1996). Aggression in British heterosexual relation-
ships: A descriptive analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 401–
415.
*Castro, R., Peek-Asa, C., & Ruiz, A. (2003). Violence against
women in Mexico: A study of abuse before and during
pregnancy. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1110–
1116.
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE). (1999). Pop-
ulation reports. Ending violence against women. Issues in
World Health, 17 (4).
Currie, D. H. (1998). Violent men or violent women? Whose def-
inition counts? In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate vio-
lence (pp. 97–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dasgupta, S. D. (2002). A framework for understanding women’s
use of nonlethal violence in intimate heterosexual relation-
ships. Violence against Women, 8, 1364–1389.
*Deyessa, N., Kassaye, M., Demeke, B., & Taffa, N. (1998). Mag-
nitude, type and outcomes of physical violence against mar-
ried women in Butajira, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Medi-
cal Journal, 36, 83–92.
*Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women’s violence in in-
timate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of
Criminology, 44, 324–349.
*Eisikovits, Z., Winstok, Z., & Fishman, G. (2004). The First Is-
raeli National Survey on domestic violence. Violence against
Women, 10, 729–748.
*Ellsberg, M., Pena, R., Herrera, A., Liljestrand, J., & Winkvist,
A. (2000). Candies in hell: Women’s experiences of vio-
lence in Nicaragua. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 1595–
1610.
Frieze, I. H. (2000). Violence in close relationships – Development
of a research area: Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 681–684.
*Grimstad, H., Schei, B., Backe, B., & Jacobsen, G. (1999). In-
terpersonal conflict and physical abuse in relation to preg-
nancy and infant birth weight. Journal of Women’s Health &
Gender-Based Medicine, 8, 847–853.
*Hadi, A. (2000). Prevalence and correlates of the risk of marital
sexual violence in Bangladesh. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 15, 787–805.
Hagemann-White, C. (2001). European research on the preva-
lence of violence against women. Violence against Women, 7,
732–759.
*Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2000a). Patterns of violence against engaged
Arab women from Israel and some psychological implica-
tions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 209–219.
*Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2000b). The incidence of wife abuse and bat-
tering and some sociodemographic correlates as revealed by
the two National Surveys in Palestinian Society. Journal of
Family Violence, 15, 347–374.
Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecolog-
ical framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (Ed.). (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo
dimension of national cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Jackson, S. M., Cram, F., & Seymour, F. W. (2000). Violence and
sexual coercion in high school students’ dating relationships.
Journal of Family Violence, 15, 23–36.
826
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchial terrorism and common couple
violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 57, 283–294.
Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic vi-
olence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 62, 948–963.
*Kim, J., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm con-
sensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative
sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
18, 197–219.
*Kim, J., & Sung, K. (2001). Marital violence among Korean el-
derly couples: A cultural residue. Journal of Elder Abuse and
Neglect, 13, 73–89.
Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence.
A substantive and methodological research review. Violence
against Women, 8, 1332–1363.
Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A
research instrument investigating sexual aggression and vic-
timization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50,
455–457.
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope
of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and
victimization in a national sample of higher education stu-
dents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162–
170.
*Krahé, B. (1998). Sexual aggression among adolescents: Preva-
lence and predictors in a German sample. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 22, 537–554.
Krahé, B., Reimer, T., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Fritsche, I.
(1999). Measuring sexual aggression: The reliability of the
Sexual Experiences Survey in a German sample. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14, 91–100.
*Krahé, B., & Scheinberger-Olwig, R. (2002). Sexuelle aggression.
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
*Krahé, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Bieneck, S. (2003). Men’s
reports of nonconsensual sexual interactions with women:
Prevalence and impact. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 165–
175.
Krahé, B., Schütze, S., Fritsche, I., & Waizenhöfer, E. (2000).
The prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization among
homosexual men. The Journal of Sex Research, 37, 142–
150.
*Krahé, B., Waizenhöfer, E., & Möller, I. (2003). Women’s sexual
aggression against men: Prevalence and predictors. Sex Roles,
49, 219–232.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., &
Lozano, R. (2002). World report on violence and health.
Geneva: World Health Organisation. Available online at:
www.who.org.
*Kury, H., Chouaf, S., Obergfell-Fuchs, J., & Woessner, G. (2004).
The scope of sexual victimization in Germany. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 589–602.
Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Luedtke, J., & Lamnek, S. (2002). Schläge in jeder dritten Fami-
lie. Agora, 1, 8–9.
*Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Newman, D. L., Fagan, J., &
Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a
birth cohort of 21-year-olds: Bridging the gap between clinical
and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 65, 68–78.
*Maman, S., Mbwambo, J. K., Hogan, N. M., Kilonzo, G.,
Campbell, J. C., Weiss, E., et al. (2002). HIV-positive women
report more lifetime partner violence: Findings from a vol-
untary counseling and testing clinic in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1331–
1337.
Marin, A. J., & Russo, N. F. (1999). Feminist perspectives of
male violence against women. In M. Harway & J. M. O’Neil
Krahé, Bieneck, and Möller
(Eds.), What causes men’s violence against women? (pp. 18–
35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Maziak, W. (2002, July). Violence against women. The Lancet,
360 (27), 343–344.
Medina-Ariza, J., & Barberet, R. (2003). Intimate partner violence
in Spain. Findings from a national survey. Violence against
Women, 9, 302–322.
*Mirrlees-Black, C. (1999). Domestic violence: Findings from
a new British Crime Survey self-completion questionnaire
(Home Office Research Study 191). London: Home Of-
fice. Retrieved 23–9-2004: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/
hors191.pdf.
*Piispa, M. (2004). Age and meanings of violence: Women’s ex-
periences of partner violence in Finland. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 19, 30–48.
Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, May, 2000. Re-
trieved 23–9-2004: www. ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm.
*Robbé, M. de Vries, March, L., Vinen, J., Horner, D., &
Roberts, G. (1996). Prevalence of domestic violence among
patients attending a hospital emergency department. Aus-
tralian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 20, 364–
368.
*Roberts, G. L., O’Toole, B. I., Raphael, B., Lawrence, J. M.,
& Ashby, R. (1996). Prevalence study of domestic violence
victims in an emergency department. Annals of Emergency
Medicine, 27, 747–753.
*Römkens, R. (1997). Prevalence of wife abuse in the Nether-
lands: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in
survey research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 99–
125.
*Romito, P., Saurel-Cubizolles, M. J., & Crisma M. (2001). The
relationship between parents’ violence against daughters and
violence by other perpetrators. Violence Against Women, 7,
1429–1463.
Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). The interaction
between societal violence and domestic violence. In M.
Harway & J. M. O’Neil (Eds.), What causes men’s vio-
lence against women? (pp. 183–203). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Saunders, D. G. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girl-
friends a major social problem? A review of the literature.
Violence Against Women, 8, 1424–1448.
Schwartz, M. D. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of sur-
vey data for measuring and characterizing violence against
women. Violence Against Women, 6, 815–838.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cul-
tures (2nd ed.). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence:
The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 41, 75–88.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in Ameri-
can families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145
families. Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Develop-
ment and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family
Issues, 17, 283–316.
*Swart, L., Stevens, M. S. G., & Ricardo, I. (2002). Vi-
olence in adolescents’ romantic relationships: Findings
from a survey amongst school-going youth in a South
African community. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 385–
395.
*Tang, C. (1999a). Marital power and aggression in a community
sample of Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 14, 586–602.
*Tang, C. (1999b). Wife abuse in Hong Kong Chinese families:
A community survey. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 173–
191.
Intimate Partner Violence—An International Perspective
Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and
coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Toro-Alfonso, J., & Rodriguez-Madera, S. (2004). Domestic vi-
olence in Puerto Rican gay male couples: Perceived preva-
lence, intergenerational violence, addictive behaviors and
conflict resolution skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,
639–654.
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female
fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic
827
violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
997–1010.
*Wetzels, P., Greve, W., Mecklenburg, E., Bilsky, W., &
Pfeiffer, C. (1995). Kriminalität im Leben alter Men-
schen: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung von Opfererfahrun-
gen, persönlichem Sicherheitsgefühl und Kriminalitätsfurcht.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
White, J. W., & Koss, M. P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence
in a national sample of higher education students. Violence
and Victims, 6, 247–256.