CDC Nisvs Ipv Report 2013 v17 Single A

Intimate Partner Violence
in the United States — 2010
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Division of Violence Prevention
Intimate Partner Violence in the United States — 2010 is a publication
of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Thomas Frieden, MD, MPH, Director

Daniel Sosin, MD, MPH, FACP, Acting Director

Howard Spivak, MD, Director
Suggested Citation:
Breiding, M.J., Chen J., & Black, M.C. (2014). Intimate Partner Violence in the
United States — 2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Intimate Partner Violence
in the United States — 2010
February 2014

Atlanta, Georgia
ii The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tables and Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Key findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Implications for prevention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Background and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Survey instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Survey administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Statistical testing and inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Additional methodological information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Prevalence and Frequency of Individual Forms of Intimate Partner Violence. . . . . 13

Sexual violence by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Physical violence by an intimate partner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Stalking by an intimate partner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Psychological aggression by an intimate partner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Control of reproductive or sexual health by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Overlap of rape, physical violence, and stalking across relationships in lifetime reports
of violence by an intimate partner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by Sociodemographic Characteristics. . . 27

Prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner by race/ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . 27
Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner by sexual orientation. . . . . .30
Twelve-month prevalence of intimate partner rape, physical violence, or stalking
by current household income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Twelve-month prevalence of intimate partner rape, physical violence, or stalking by age
at time of survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Twelve-month prevalence of intimate partner rape, physical violence, or stalking by experiences
of food and housing insecurity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner among U.S. natives
and foreign-born residents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4. Impact of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner
with IPV-related impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Distribution of IPV-related impacts among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence,
or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner with physical injury . . . . 40
Distribution of physical injury types among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence,
or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 iii
5 . Accumulation of Intimate Partner Violence Behaviors Experienced

by Individual Perpetrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Maximum number of sexually violent behaviors experienced in an individual relationship . . . . . . . . .43
Maximum number of physically violent behaviors experienced in an individual relationship . . . . . . . .45
Maximum number of stalking behaviors experienced in an individual relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Maximum number of psychologically aggressive behaviors experienced in an individual relationship . . . 47
Maximum number of IPV-related impacts experienced in an individual relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Overlap of rape, physical violence, and stalking within relationships in lifetime reports
of violence by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
6 . Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Number of perpetrators in lifetime reports of violence by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Sex of perpetrator among victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . .51
Age at the time of first IPV experience among those who experienced rape, physical violence,
or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
7 . Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate Partner Violence Victimization . . . . . .55

Services needed among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an
intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Services received among victims who needed services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Disclosure among lifetime victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . 57
Degree of helpfulness of disclosure among those who disclosed lifetime rape, physical violence,
or stalking by an intimate partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
8 . Physical and Mental Health Conditions by Victimization History . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9 . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Highlights and cross-cutting findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
10 . Implications for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Primary prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Secondary and tertiary prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix A: Violence Victimization and Other Domains Assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Violence domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Other domains assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
Appendix B: Victimization Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

iv The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010
TABLES AND FIGURES

Section 2 Prevalence and Frequency of Individual Forms of Intimate Partner Violence
Table 2.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2.2 Twelve-month Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 2.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 2.2 Twelve-month Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 2.3 Number of Times Individual Physically Violent Behaviors Were Experienced
among Victims of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . 17
Table 2.3 Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2.4 Lifetime Reports of Stalking by an Intimate Partner among Victims by Type of Tactic
Experienced — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 2.5 Lifetime Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 2.6 Twelve-month Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 2.7 Number of Times Individual Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Were Experienced among
Victims of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . 23
Figure 2.8 Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking among
Women — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 2.9 Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking among
Men — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Section 3 Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by

Sociodemographic Characteristics
Table 3.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner,
by Race/Ethnicity — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
by Race/Ethnicity — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 3.3 Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner,
by Race/Ethnicity — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
by Sexual Orientation — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
by Sexual Orientation — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
by Current Household Income — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
by Age at Time of Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
by Experiences of Food and Housing Insecurity within the 12 months Prior to Taking
the Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 3.9 Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate
Partner, U.S. Natives and Foreign-Born — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 v
Section 4 Impact of Intimate Partner Violence

Figure 4.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate
Partner with IPV-related Impact — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Figure 4.2 Distribution of IPV-related Impacts among Victims of Rape, Physical Violence,
or Stalking by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Table 4.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner
with Specific IPV-related Injuries — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Figure 4.3 Distribution of Specific IPV-related Injuries Experienced among Female and Male
Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 . . . . . .41
Section 5 Accumulation of Intimate Partner Violence Behaviors Experienced

by Individual Perpetrators
Figure 5.1 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Sexually Violent Behaviors Experienced
by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Figure 5.2 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Physically Violent Behaviors Experienced
by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
Figure 5.3 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Victims,
Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Figure 5.4 Distribution of the Number of Discrete Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Experienced
by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Figure 5.5 Distribution of the Number of Discrete IPV-related Impacts by Victims, Maximum
Number by an Individual Perpetrator — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Table 5.1 Lifetime Prevalence of Overlapping Forms of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Individual Perpetrator — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
Section 6 Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization

Figure 6.1 Number of Perpetrators among those Who Experienced Rape, Physical Violence,
or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
Figure 6.2 Age at Time of First IPV among Female Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Figure 6.3 Age at Time of First IPV among Male Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
Section 7 Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate Partner Violence Victimization

Figure 7.1 Services Needed among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Table 7.1 Proportion of Female Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Intimate Partner Who Received Needed Services — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
Figure 7.2 Disclosure among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Table 7.2 Degree of Helpfulness of Various Sources among those Who Disclosed Lifetime Rape,
Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Section 8 Physical and Mental Health Conditions by Victimization History

Table 8.1 Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Conditions among those with
and without a History of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate
Partner — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Table 8.2 Association between Physical and Mental Health Conditions and the Experience of Rape,
Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010 . . . . . 63
vi The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the following individuals who contributed to
the development and support of this report: Kathleen Basile, Linda Dahlberg,
Alex Crosby, Faye Floyd, Leroy Frazier, Jeff Hall, E. Lynn Jenkins, Melissa
Merrick, Nimesh Patel, Sharon Smith, Margie Walling, Mikel Walters, Paula
Orlosky Williams, and RTI International. Finally, we would like to acknowledge
Mark Stevens for his significant contribution in providing statistical support
for this report.
Recognition is given to the team of people that substantially contributed
to the original development of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey, including: Kathleen Basile, Michele Black, Matthew Breiding,
James Mercy, Linda Saltzman, and Sharon Smith (contributors listed in
alphabetical order).
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a that increase the risk of HIV, and which is a measure of an estimate’s
significant public health problem. endorse other unhealthy behaviors reliability, was calculated for all
IPV includes physical violence, (Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008; estimates in this report. If the RSE
sexual violence, stalking, and Coker et al., 2002). was greater than 30%, the estimate
psychological aggression (including was deemed unreliable and is
coercive tactics) by a current or Findings in this report are based not reported. Consideration was
former intimate partner. In addition on data from the National Intimate also given to the case count. If the
to the immediate impact, IPV has Partner and Sexual Violence Survey estimate was based on a numerator
lifelong consequences. A number (NISVS). NISVS is an ongoing, < 20, the estimate is also not
of studies have shown that beyond nationally representative, random reported. Estimates for certain types
injury and death, victims of IPV digit dial telephone survey of violence reported by subgroups
are more likely to report a range that collects information about are not shown because the number
of acute and chronic mental and experiences of intimate partner of people reporting a specific type
physical health conditions (Black, violence, sexual violence, and of victimization was too few to
2011; Coker, Smith, & Fadden, stalking from non-institutionalized calculate a reliable estimate. These
2005; Coker, Davis, Arias, Desai, English- and/or Spanish-speaking non-reportable estimates are noted
Sanderson, Brandt, & Smith, 2002). women and men aged 18 or older in the report so the reader can easily
Many survivors of these forms of in the United States. This report determine what was assessed and
violence experience physical injury; provides findings from the 2010 data where gaps remain.
depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, collection pertaining to intimate
and suicide attempts; and other partner violence. Some of the key A detailed description of the
health conditions such as gastro- topics covered in this report are: violence types measured, as well as
intestinal disorders, substance • Overall lifetime and 12-month the verbatim violence victimization
abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, prevalence of IPV victimization questions, are presented in the
and gynecological or pregnancy • Prevalence of IPV victimization Appendices of the report.
complications. These conditions by sociodemographic variables,
can lead to hospitalization, such as race/ethnicity, sexual
disability, or death. orientation, and income Key Findings
During the past decade, our • Impact of IPV victimization Sexual Violence by an
understanding of the biological • Characteristics of IPV victimization Intimate Partner
response to acute and chronic such as number of lifetime • Nearly 1 in 10 women in the
stress that links IPV with negative perpetrators, sex of perpetrator, United States (9.4%) has been
health conditions has deepened and age at first IPV victimization raped by an intimate partner
(Black, 2011; Crofford, 2007; • Services needed and disclosure in her lifetime, including
Pico-Alfonso, Garcia-Linares, related to IPV victimization completed forced penetration,
Celda-Navarro, Herbert, & Martinez, attempted forced penetration,
2004). Additionally, a number of or alcohol/drug facilitated
The findings presented in this completed penetration.
behavioral factors are likely to report are based on complete
play a role in the link between IPV interviews from the NISVS survey. • Approximately 1 in 45 men
and adverse health conditions, as Complete interviews were (2.2%) has been made to
victims of IPV are more likely to obtained from 16,507 adults (9,086 penetrate an intimate partner
smoke, engage in heavy/binge women and 7,421 men) in 2010. during his lifetime.
drinking, engage in behaviors The relative standard error (RSE),
2 The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey | Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010
• An estimated 16.9% of women an intimate partner in the lifetime prevalence of rape,

and 8.0% of men have experienced 12 months preceding the physical violence, or stalking
sexual violence other than rape survey than women (18.1% compared to White non-Hispanic
(being made to penetrate an and 13.9%, respectively). men (28.2%).
intimate partner, sexual coercion,
unwanted sexual contact, and Overlap of Rape, Physical Rape, Physical Violence,
non-contact unwanted sexual Violence, and Stalking or Stalking by an Intimate
experiences) by an intimate • Among those who experienced Partner, by Sexual Orientation
partner in their lifetime. rape, physical violence, or stalking • Bisexual women had a significantly
by an intimate partner in their higher prevalence of lifetime
Physical Violence by an lifetime, male victims (92.1%) rape, physical violence, or
Intimate Partner were significantly more likely stalking by an intimate partner
• Women and men experienced than female victims (56.8%) to (61.1%) compared to lesbian
many types of physical violence experience physical violence only. women (43.8%) and heterosexual
ranging from being slapped • Among male victims, 6.3% women (35.0%).
to having a knife or gun used experienced both physical • The lifetime prevalence of rape,
against them. violence and stalking in their physical violence, or stalking by
• Women had a significantly higher lifetime; too few men reported an intimate partner was 29.0%
lifetime prevalence of severe other combinations of rape, among heterosexual men, 37.3%
physical violence by an intimate physical violence, and stalking to among bisexual men, and 26.0%
partner (24.3%) compared to produce reliable estimates. among gay men.
men (13.8%). • Among female victims, 14.4%
• Approximately 2.7% of women experienced physical violence Rape, Physical Violence,
and 2.0% of men experienced and stalking; 8.7% experienced or Stalking by an Intimate
severe physical violence in the both rape and physical violence; Partner by Food and
12 months preceding the survey. 12.5% experienced rape, physical Housing Insecurity
violence, and stalking. • Women and men who
Stalking by an Intimate Partner experienced food insecurity
• Women had a significantly higher Rape, Physical Violence, in the past 12 months (11.6%
lifetime prevalence of stalking or Stalking by an Intimate and 8.2%, respectively) had a
by an intimate partner (10.7%) Partner, by Race/Ethnicity significantly higher 12-month
compared to men (2.1%). • Black non-Hispanic women prevalence of rape, physical
(43.7%) and multiracial non- violence, or stalking by an
• Women had a significantly higher
Hispanic women (53.8%) had intimate partner compared to
12-month prevalence of stalking
a significantly higher lifetime women and men who did not
by an intimate partner (2.8%)
prevalence of rape, physical experience food insecurity (3.2%
compared to men (0.5%).
violence, or stalking by an and 4.0%, respectively).
intimate partner, compared to • Women and men who
Psychological Aggression
White non-Hispanic women experienced housing insecurity
by an Intimate Partner
(34.6%); Asian or Pacific in the past 12 months (10.0%
• Nearly half of U.S. women
Islander non-Hispanic women and 7.9%, respectively) had a
(48.4%) and half of U.S. men
(19.6%) had significantly lower significantly higher 12-month
(48.8%) have experienced at least
prevalence than White non- prevalence of rape, physical
one psychologically aggressive
Hispanic women. violence, or stalking by an
behavior by an intimate partner
• American Indian or Alaska Native intimate partner compared to
during their lifetime.
non-Hispanic men (45.3%), Black women and men who did not
• Men had a significantly higher experience housing insecurity
non-Hispanic men (38.6%), and
prevalence of experiencing (2.3% and 3.1%, respectively).
multiracial non-Hispanic men
psychological aggression from
(39.3%) had a significantly higher
Impact of Violence by an • Among victims of psychological who reported that they always
Intimate Partner aggression by an intimate received those services (49.0%).
• Women were significantly more partner, the proportion of female • Less than 50% of women who
likely than men to experience victims that experienced more needed housing or victim’s
rape, physical violence, or than the median number (four or advocate services during their
stalking by an intimate partner more) of unique psychologically lifetime received them.
and report at least one impact aggressive behaviors by an
• Among victims of rape, physical
related to experiencing these individual intimate partner was
violence, or stalking by an
or other forms of violent higher than the proportion of
intimate partner, the proportion
behavior in the relationship (e.g., male victims.
that disclosed their victimization
psychological aggression, being
to someone was higher among
made to penetrate someone else, Age at the Time of First women (84.2%) than among
sexual coercion). IPV Victimization men (60.9%). The proportion of
• Female victims of rape, physical • Among those who ever men that described disclosure as
violence, or stalking were experienced rape, physical “very helpful” was significantly
significantly more likely than violence, or stalking by an lower than the proportion of
male victims to experience intimate partner, more than women that described disclosure
each of the IPV-related impacts 1 in 5 female victims (22.4%) as “very helpful” for the following
measured including fear, concern and more than 1 in 7 male victims sources of disclosure: police,
for safety, need for medical care, (15.0%) experienced some form psychologists/counselors,
injury, need for housing services, of intimate partner violence for friends, and family members.
and having missed at least one the first time between the ages
• Among victims of lifetime rape,
day of work or school. of 11 and 17 years.
physical violence, or stalking
• 47.1% of female victims and by an intimate partner, 21.1%
Maximum Number of Violent 38.6% of male victims were of female victims and 5.6% of
Behaviors Experienced in an between 18 and 24 years of age male victims disclosed their
Individual Relationship when they first experienced victimization to a doctor or nurse.
• Among victims of sexual violence violence by an intimate partner.
by an intimate partner, the
Health Conditions
proportion of female victims Need for Services, Disclosure • Men and women with a lifetime
that experienced more than the • Female victims of rape, physical history of rape, physical violence,
median number (two or more) of violence, or stalking were or stalking by an intimate partner
unique sexually violent behaviors significantly more likely than were more likely to report
by an individual intimate partner male victims to report a need frequent headaches, chronic
was higher than the proportion for services at some point pain, difficulty sleeping, activity
of male victims. during their lifetime due to their limitations, and poor physical
• Among victims of physical experience with IPV (36.4% and health in general compared to
violence by an intimate partner, 15.6%, respectively). those without a history of these
the proportion of female victims • Among victims of rape, physical forms of IPV. Women who have
that experienced more than the violence, or stalking who experienced these forms of
median number (three or more) reported a need for services violence were also more likely
of unique physically violent at some point during their to report asthma, irritable bowel
behaviors by an individual lifetime, the proportion of men syndrome, diabetes, and poor
intimate partner was higher than who reported that they always mental health compared to
the proportion of male victims. received those services (33.0%) women who did not experience
was significantly lower than the these forms of violence.
proportion of female victims
Implications for This report identified groups that violence. While much is known
are at most risk for IPV victimization. about risks factors at the individual
Prevention While primary prevention programs and couple level, there have been
Centers for Disease Control and exist, it is unknown whether they few studies examining community
Prevention's (CDC’s) key focus on are effective within specific groups and societal-level factors related
preventing IPV is the promotion of of people, particularly among those to perpetration of IPV. As risk
respectful, nonviolent relationships identified in this report as being and protective factors for IPV
through individual, relationship, most at risk. Further work needs to perpetration are better understood,
community, and societal change. be done to adapt and test existing additional research is needed to
This strategy is focused on strategies for specific groups as well develop and evaluate strategies to
principles such as identifying ways as develop and test other strategies effectively prevent the first-time
to interrupt the development of IPV to determine whether they are perpetration of IPV. This includes
perpetration; better understanding effective in preventing IPV. research that addresses the social
the factors that contribute to and economic conditions such as
respectful relationships and protect Positive and healthy parent- poverty, sexism, and other forms of
against IPV; creating and evaluating child relationships can provide discrimination and social exclusion
new approaches to prevention; the foundation for the primary that increase risk for perpetration
and building community capacity prevention of IPV. Children benefit and victimization. Such research
to implement strategies that from safe, stable, and nurturing will complement efforts focused on
are based on the best available familial environments that preventing initial victimization and
evidence. Community capacity can facilitate respectful interactions the recurrence of victimization.
be enhanced by building upon and and open communication. Other
joining well-organized, broad-based opportunities to build parent-child Beyond primary prevention,
coalitions that effectively create relationships include programs to secondary and tertiary prevention
change in communities. promote effective parenting skills programs are essential for
and efforts to include and support mitigating the short- and long-term
The principal focus of CDC is relationships between fathers and consequences of IPV among
primary prevention, prioritizing the children. Beyond providing children victims, as well as reducing the
prevention of public health burdens, an opportunity to share with their violence-related health burden
such as IPV, from occurring in the parents the experiences they have across the life span. This report
first place. This report suggests had with dating violence and other examined a range of services
that IPV victimization begins at forms of violence, parents who that victims reported needing as
an early age with nearly 70% of model healthy, respectful intimate a result of IPV at some point in
female victims and nearly 54% of relationships free from violence their lifetime and whether they
male victims having experienced foster these relationship patterns received them, including medical
IPV prior to age 25. This suggests in their children. care, housing, victim’s advocacy,
that primary prevention of IPV legal and community services. The
must begin at an early age. CDC’s The focus of this report is on vast majority of women who were
approach to primary prevention describing the public health burden victims of IPV indicated that they
of IPV is the promotion of healthy of victimization. In order to better needed medical services; nearly half
relationship behaviors among understand how to prevent partner needed housing, victim’s advocacy,
young people, with the goal of violence, CDC also supports work and community services; and a third
reaching adolescents prior to their that seeks to better understand needed legal services. Among the
first relationships. By influencing the causes of IPV perpetration. female victims who needed at least
relationship behaviors and patterns Research examining risk and one of these services at some point
early through dating violence protective factors is important for during their lifetime, less than half
prevention programs, it is possible understanding how perpetration indicated that they received any
to promote healthy relationship of violence develops and to of the needed services. Among the
behaviors and patterns that can be determine the optimal strategies male victims who needed at least
carried forward into adulthood. for preventing intimate partner one of these services, two-thirds
stated that they did not receive health burden of IPV in the United
any of the needed services. This States. While progress has been
indicates that, across the lifetime made in understanding factors
of the current U.S. adult population, that contribute to IPV and how to
a significant gap exists between a prevent IPV from occurring, this
need for services and the receipt report demonstrates that
of those services. Future work is much more needs to be done to
needed to understand the degree reduce the negative impact of
to which this gap exists currently, IPV on women and men in the
and whether an existing gap is due United States.
to services being unavailable or
because available services are not
being utilized. Better understanding
the barriers to service utilization
is important.
Disclosing victimization experiences

is a necessary first step for victims
to be able to obtain the resources
and services they need. One
primary method by which IPV
victims may disclose victimization
and receive appropriate help is
through disclosure to medical
professionals. The results in this
report suggest that a majority of
male and female victims did not
disclose their victimization to a
health care professional. While
84.2% of female victims and 60.9%
of male victims disclosed their IPV
victimization to someone, only
21% of female victims and 5.6%
of male victims reported having
disclosed their victimization to
a medical professional at some
point in their lifetime. These
findings suggest a need to better
understand how to overcome the
barriers that may prevent victims
from disclosing to a medical
professional and those barriers
that may make some medical
professionals feeling reticent to
inquire about IPV victimization,
even among those patients that
shown signs of victimization. This
report provides updated, detailed
information describing the public
1: Background and Methods
Intimate partner violence (IPV) immune, and endocrine systems with IPV victimization is necessary
includes physical violence, sexual (Black, 2011). to better inform intervention and
violence, stalking, and psychological prevention efforts.
aggression (including coercive The primary purpose of this
tactics) by a current or former report is to describe the public To address the need for greater
intimate partner. The violence health burden of IPV in the contextualization of prevalence
may occur among cohabitating or United States and to provide estimates, this report examines the:
noncohabitating romantic or sexual information about the context • Frequency of individual
partners and among opposite or of victimization experiences. By IPV behaviors
same-sex couples. IPV is a major context of victimization we are • Overlap of IPV violence types
public health problem with serious referring to factors such as the
• Impact of IPV victimization
long-term physical and mental frequency, pattern, and impacts of
health consequences, as well as the violence experienced. In recent • Experience of multiple forms of
significant social and public health years, researchers have called for IPV within individual relationships
costs (e.g., Breiding, Black, & Ryan, studies of IPV prevalence to better • Services needed as a result of
2008; Logan & Cole, 2007; Randall, examine and describe the context IPV victimization
1990). A number of studies have of victimization (Langinrichsen-
shown that, beyond injury and Rohling, 2010; Houry, Rhodes, This report also provides a more
death, victims of IPV are more likely Kemball, Click, Cerulli, McNutt, detailed and comprehensive
to report a range of negative mental & Kaslow, 2008; Harned, 2001; examination of the burden of IPV
and physical health conditions Kelly & Johnson, 2008). Moving in the United States relative to
that are both acute and chronic beyond a focus upon whether a The National Intimate Partner and
in nature (Black, 2011; Crofford, person has or has not experienced Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS):
2007; Pico-Alfonso, Garcia-Linares, IPV allows for a description of 2010 Summary Report (Black et al.,
Celda-Navarro, Herbert, & Martinez, the broad range of victimization 2011). This report presents findings
2004). For example, victims of IPV experiences. Prevalence estimates on the:
are more likely to smoke, engage can encompass, but not fully • Prevalence of individual IPV
in heavy/binge drinking, engage in describe, experiences ranging from behaviors
behaviors that increase the risk of chronic, severe IPV to one-time,
• Prevalence of IPV victimization
HIV, and endorse other unhealthy less severe IPV victimization. The
by sociodemographic variables,
behaviors (Breiding, Black, & Ryan, call by IPV researchers for greater
such as race/ethnicity, sexual
2008). Additionally, a number of context recognizes that the
orientation, recent food and
studies over the past decade have variation in motives, frequency,
housing insecurity, and income
improved our understanding of severity, chronicity, and impact,
the biologic response to acute among other factors, cannot be • Characteristics of IPV victimization
and chronic stress that links IPV fully represented by a dichotomous including the number of lifetime
with negative health conditions prevalence estimate. In other words, perpetrators, sex of perpetrator,
(Crofford, 2007; Pico-Alfonso et overall IPV prevalence estimates, and age at first IPV victimization
al., 2004). Elevated health risks while providing useful information, • Associations between IPV
have been observed in relation to are but one indicator of the public victimization and physical and
multiple body systems including health burden of a complex and mental health conditions
the nervous, cardiovascular, wide-ranging set of experiences. • Disclosure of IPV victimization
gastrointestinal, genitourinary, An improved understanding of the
reproductive, musculoskeletal, range of experiences associated
Further, it includes confidence characteristics of respondents, landline telephone and 54.8% were
intervals around prevalence demographic characteristics of conducted by cell phone.
estimates, as well as statistical perpetrators (age, sex, race/ethnicity),
testing comparing prevalence and detailed information about The overall weighted response
between sociodemographic groups the patterns and impact of the rate for the 2010 National Intimate
(e.g., sex, race/ethnicity, income violence by specific perpetrators. Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
level) to inform prevention practice For example, NISVS: ranged from 27.5% to 33.6%. This
by identifying populations at • Links each individual act range reflects differences in how
greatest risk of IPV victimization. of violence with a specific the proportion of the unknowns
perpetrator, enabling the that are eligible is estimated.
collection of all forms of The weighted cooperation rate
Methods violence committed by a specific was 81.3%. A primary difference
perpetrator and allowing for between response and cooperation
Data Source an examination of how different rates is that a percentage of
Data for this report are from the forms of violence co-occur telephone numbers with unknown
National Intimate Partner and Sexual across the life span and within household status are part of the
Violence Survey (NISVS), which was individual relationships denominator in calculating a
launched by the Centers for Disease response rate. The cooperation rate
• Collects information on a range
Control and Prevention's (CDC’s) reflects the proportion who agreed
of negative impacts (e.g., injury,
National Center for Injury Prevention to participate in the interview
absence from school or work,
and Control in 2010. NISVS is an among those who were contacted
need for medical care) resulting
ongoing, national random digit and determined to be eligible. The
from experiences of violence by
dial telephone survey of the cooperation rate obtained for the
individual perpetrators
non-institutionalized English- and/ 2010 NISVS data collection indicates
or Spanish-speaking U.S. population • Gathers information from
that once contact was made and
aged 18 or older. NISVS assesses a respondents on a range of
eligibility determined, the majority
broad range of experiences related short- and long-term physical
of respondents chose to participate
to sexual violence, stalking, and and mental health conditions
in the interview.
intimate partner violence. It was that may be associated with the
designed to provide national and experience of violence
state level prevalence estimates
for lifetime victimization and NISVS uses a dual-frame sampling
Survey Instrument
victimization in the 12 months strategy that includes both The median length of the interview
prior to taking the survey. While landline and cell phones. was 24.7 minutes. The survey
the current report is limited to NISVS began collecting data in included behaviorally specific
violence perpetrated by an intimate January 2010 from 50 states and questions that assess intimate
partner, the NISVS survey collects the District of Columbia. This report partner violence experiences related
information about sexual violence is based on data that was gathered to sexual violence; physical violence;
by any perpetrator, stalking by any from January 22, 2010, through stalking; psychological aggression
perpetrator, physical violence by December 31, 2010. In 2010, a including expressive aggression and
an intimate partner, psychological total of 18,049 interviews were coercive control; and control of repro-
aggression by an intimate partner, conducted (9,970 women and ductive or sexual health. Questions
and control of reproductive or sexual 8,079 men) in the U.S. general were asked in relation to violence
health by an intimate partner. population. This includes 16,507 experienced over the lifetime and
completed and 1,542 partially during the 12 months prior to the
In addition to collecting lifetime completed interviews. A total interview. A description of the
and 12-month prevalence data, of 9,086 women and 7,421 violence types measured is provided
the survey collects information men completed the survey. in Appendix A. A list of the specific
on the age at the time of the Approximately 45.2% of interviews violence victimization questions used
first victimization, demographic were conducted by respondents' in the survey is in Appendix B.
Survey Administration physically or emotionally unsafe. if the respondent completed

Interviewers also checked in with the screening, demographic,
Graduated Informed the respondents several times general health questions, and all
Consent Process during the interview to make sure questions on all five sets of violence
Following recommended guidelines they wanted to proceed. At the victimization, as applicable. The
for sensitive study topics such as IPV end of the interview, respondents estimated number of victims
(Sullivan & Cain, 2004; WHO, 2001), were provided telephone numbers affected by a particular form of
a graduated informed consent for the National Domestic Violence violence was calculated based on
protocol was used. Specifically, Hotline and the Rape, Abuse & U.S. population estimates from the
to ensure respondent safety and Incest National Network. census projections by state, sex,
confidentiality, the initial person age, and race/ethnicity (http://www.
who answered the telephone was census.gov/popest/states/asrh/).
provided general non-specific
information about the survey topic.
Statistical Testing
Analyses were conducted stratified
The specific topics of the survey and Inference by the sex of the respondent.
(e.g., physical aggression, harassing Statistical inference for prevalence As prevalence and population
behaviors, and unwanted sexual and population estimates estimates were based on a sample
activity) were only revealed to the were made based on weighted population, there is a degree of
individual respondent selected. analyses, where complex sample uncertainty associated with these
After a single adult respondent in a design features, such as dual estimates. The smaller the sample
household was randomly selected sampling frames, stratified upon which an estimate is based,
to participate, the interviewer sampling, and unequal sample the less precise the estimate
administered an International selection probabilities, were becomes and the more difficult
Review Board (IRB)-approved taken into account. All analyses it is to distinguish the findings
informed consent that provided were conducted using SUDAAN™ from what could have occurred
information on the voluntary statistical software for analyzing by chance. The relative standard
and confidential nature of the data collected through complex error (RSE) is a measure of an
survey, the benefits and risks of sample design. estimate’s reliability. The RSE was
participation, the survey topic, and calculated for all estimates in this
telephone numbers to speak with Within categories of violence report. If the RSE was greater than
staff from the CDC or project staff (e.g., any physical violence by an 30%, the estimate was deemed
from the Research Triangle Institute, intimate partner, other sexual unreliable and was not reported.
International (RTI) (contracted by violence by an intimate partner), Consideration also was given to
the CDC to administer the survey). respondents who reported the case count. If the estimate
more than one subcategory of was based on a numerator less
Respondent Safety violence are included only once than or equal to 20, the estimate
Interviewers were trained to in the summary estimate, but is also not reported. Tables where
remind respondents that they are included in each relevant specific estimates are missing due
could skip any question and could subcategory. The denominators to high RSEs or small case counts
stop the interview at any time. in prevalence calculations include are presented in full with missing
Interviewers also established a persons who answered a question unreliable estimates noted by an
safety plan with the respondents or responded with don’t know or asterisk so that the reader can
so that respondents would refused. Missing data (instances in clearly see what was assessed and
know what to do if they needed which all questions for constructing where data gaps remain.
to stop an interview for safety an outcome of interest were not
reasons. Specifically, interviewers fully administered) were excluded Statistical significance testing was
suggested that respondents answer from analyses. The estimates conducted comparing prevalence
questions in a private setting presented in this report are based estimates of subgroups when both
and instructed them to just say on complete interviews. An estimates met the reliability criteria.
“goodbye” if at any time they felt interview is defined as “complete” A two-tailed t-test (alpha = .05)
was conducted to assess the interviewer recruitment, training,

difference in prevalence between and monitoring; and sample
two groups. A statistically distributions and demographic
significant difference in prevalence characteristics (Black et al., 2011).
was established between two
estimates when p < .05. In addition,
a number of health conditions were
assessed in this survey and were
examined with respect to lifetime
rape, physical violence, or stalking
by an intimate partner. Chi-square
tests were conducted to examine
the association between
victimization and dichotomous
health conditions, controlling
for relevant sociodemographic
variables and other forms of
victimization measured by
NISVS (rape and stalking by
non-intimates). A p-value of
.05 was set as the threshold for
establishing statistical significance.
Statistical analyses for this report
were performed by statisticians
from the CDC.
Additional
Methodological
Information
The 2010 NISVS Summary Report
provides additional methodological
information related to the 2010
NISVS including features that
distinguish NISVS from other
national surveys; efforts to ensure
data quality and respondent
confidentiality; IRB and OMB
approval; mid-year changes to
the survey instrument; weighting
procedures; response rate and
cooperation rate formulas;
sampling strategy; data quality
assurance; survey development;
cognitive testing of the survey
instrument; advance letters sent
to respondents; incentives to
respondents for participation;
2: Prevalence and Frequency of Individual

Forms of Intimate Partner Violence
Sexual Violence by facilitated penetration. Too few
men reported rape by an intimate Nearly 1 in 10 women
an Intimate Partner partner to produce reliable
Lifetime Prevalence estimates for overall rape or in the U.S. has
Nearly 1 in 10 women in the United individual types of rape.
States (9.4% or approximately been raped by an
11.2 million) has been raped by Approximately 1 in 6 women intimate partner in
an intimate partner in her lifetime (15.9% or nearly 19 million) and
(Table 2.1). More specifically, 1 in 12 men in the United States her lifetime; 2.2% of
6.6% of women have experienced (8.0% or approximately 9 million),
completed forced penetration have experienced sexual violence U.S. men have been
by an intimate partner, 2.5% other than rape by an intimate made to penetrate
have experienced attempted partner in their lifetime. Women
forced penetration, and 3.4% had a significantly higher lifetime an intimate partner.
have experienced alcohol/drug prevalence of sexual violence
Table 2.1
Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010
Women Men
Estimated Estimated
Weighted % 95% CI Number of Weighted % 95% CI Number of
Victims1 Victims1
Rape 9.4# 8.5 – 10.3 11,162,000 *
Completed forced penetration 6.6# 5.9 – 7.4 7,859,000 *
Attempted forced penetration 2.5# 2.1 – 3.0 2,975,000 *
Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration 3.4# 2.9 – 4.0 4,098,000 *
Other Sexual Violence 15.9† 14.8 – 17.1 18,973,000 8.0 7.1 – 9.0 9,050,000
Made to penetrate * 2.2# 1.7 – 2.7 2,442,000
Sexual coercion2 9.8† 8.9 – 10.8 11,681,000 4.2 3.5 – 5.0 4,744,000
Unwanted sexual contact3 6.4† 5.7 – 7.2 7,633,000 2.6 2.1 – 3.3 2,999,000
Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences4 7.8† 7.0 – 8.7 9,298,000 2.7 2.2 – 3.3 3,049,000
1 Rounded to the nearest thousand.
2 Pressured in a nonphysical way (includes, for example, threatening to end the relationship, using influence or authority).
3 Includes unwanted kissing in a sexual way, fondling, or grabbing sexual body parts.
4 Includes someone exposing their sexual body parts, flashing, or masturbating in front of the victim, someone making a victim show
his or her body parts, someone making a victim look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, or someone harassing the victim in
a public place in a way that made the victim feel unsafe.
* Estimate is not reported; relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20.
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.
# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a reliable
estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.
other than rape by an intimate Twelve-month Prevalence

partner compared to men (p < .05). In the 12 months prior to taking
Approximately 1 in 4 However, approximately 2.2% of the survey, 0.6% or an estimated
women and nearly men have been made to penetrate 686,000 women in the United States
an intimate partner at some point were raped by an intimate partner
1 in 7 men in the U.S. in their lifetime; too few women (Table 2.2). Too few men reported
were made to penetrate an intimate rape by an intimate partner in the
have experienced partner to produce a reliable 12 months prior to taking the survey
severe physical estimate. The lifetime prevalence of to produce a reliable estimate.
sexual coercion, unwanted sexual Also, 2.3% of women, and 2.5%
violence by an intimate contact, and non-contact unwanted of men, experienced other forms
sexual experiences by an intimate of sexual violence by an intimate
partner at some point partner were all significantly higher partner in the 12 months prior to
in their lifetime. for women than men (p < .05). the survey. Approximately 0.5% of
men were made to penetrate an
intimate partner in the 12 months
Table 2.2
12-month Prevalence of Sexual Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men,
NISVS 2010
Women Men
Estimated Estimated
Weighted % 95% CI Number Weighted % 95% CI Number
of Victims1 of Victims1
Rape 0.6# 0.4 – 0.9 686,000 *
Completed forced penetration 0.4# 0.2 – 0.7 472,000 *
Attempted forced penetration * *
Completed alcohol/drug facilitated penetration * *
Other Sexual Violence 2.3 1.9 – 2.8 2,747,000 2.5 2.0 – 3.1 2,793,000
Made to penetrate * 0.5# 0.3 – 0.9 586,000
Sexual coercion2 1.7† 1.3 – 2.1 1,978,000 1.0 0.7 – 1.4 1,143,000
Unwanted sexual contact3 0.5 0.4 – 0.8 645,000 0.9 0.6 – 1.4 1,031,000
Non-contact unwanted sexual experiences4 0.7 0.5 – 1.0 836,000 0.8 0.5 – 1.2 882,000
2 Pressured in a nonphysical way (includes, for example, threatening to end the relationship, using influence or authority).
3 Includes unwanted kissing in a sexual way, fondling, or grabbing sexual body parts.
4 Includes someone exposing their sexual body parts, flashing, or masturbating in front of the victim, someone making a victim show his or
her body parts, someone making a victim look at or participate in sexual photos or movies, or someone harassing the victim in a public
place in a way that made the victim feel unsafe.
preceding the survey, whereas too partner in their lifetime, compared with a fist or something hard; being
few women were made to penetrate to 28.1% of men, a statistically kicked; being slammed against
an intimate partner to produce a significant difference (p < .05) something; being hurt by choking
reliable estimate. With the exception (Figure 2.1). Examining the or suffocating; being beaten; being
of sexual coercion, where the prevalence of more severe burned on purpose; and having a
12-month estimate was significantly forms of physical violence, gun or knife used on them.
higher for women than men (p < .05), 24.3% of women (or approximately
none of the other estimates were 29 million) have experienced severe Approximately 1 in 3 women
significantly different. physical violence by an intimate (30.4%) and 1 in 4 men (25.6%) in
partner in their lifetime, compared the United States has been slapped,
to 13.8% of men (approximately pushed, or shoved by an intimate
Physical Violence by 15.6 million), also a statistically partner at some point in their
significant difference (p < .05). lifetime. The lifetime prevalence
an Intimate Partner Additionally, prevalence of the of being slapped, pushed, or
Lifetime Prevalence following severe physically violent shoved by an intimate partner was
Approximately 32.9% of women in behaviors were significantly higher significantly higher among women
the United States have experienced (p < .05) for women than men: compared to men (p < .05).
physical violence by an intimate being hurt by pulling hair; being hit
Figure 2.1
Lifetime Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men,
NISVS 2010
Any physical violence 32.9†
28.1
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 30.4†

25.6
Slapped 20.4†
18.3
Pushed or shoved 27.5†

19.4
Any severe physical violence 24.3†

13.8
Hurt by pulling hair 10.4†

2.9
Hit with a fist or something hard 14.2†

9.4
Kicked 4.3
7.1† Women
Slammed against something 17.2† Men
2.7
Tried to hurt by choking or suffocating 9.7†
1.1
Beaten 11.2†
2.6
Burned on purpose 1.1†
0.6
Used a knife or gun 4.6†
2.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent

Twelve-month Prevalence higher for women (p < .05). All other violent behaviors among victims
The prevalence of physical violence comparisons that were conducted of physical violence by an intimate
victimization by an intimate partner were not statistically significant. partner. The proportion experiencing
in the 12 months prior to taking the the following behaviors 11 or more
survey was 4.0% among women Frequency of Individual times was significantly higher (p < .05)
compared to 4.7% among men Physically Violent Behaviors for female victims, in comparison
(Figure 2.2). The prevalence of severe Respondents who reported that to male victims: slapped, pushed,
physical violence victimization they had experienced a particular or shoved; hurt by pulling hair; hit
by an intimate partner in the 12 physically violent behavior were with a fist or something hard; kicked;
months prior to taking the survey asked how many times in their and beaten. Formal statistical testing
was 2.7% among women compared lifetime they had experienced that comparing the frequency of being
to 2.0% among men. The 12-month behavior by that specific intimate hurt by choking or suffocating 11 or
prevalence of being slapped and partner. Response options included more times, comparing women and
being kicked was significantly higher once, two to five times, six to 10 men, was not undertaken because
for men, whereas the prevalence times, 11 to 50 times, or more than the number of men reporting this
of being hurt by hair pulling, being 50 times. Figure 2.3 displays the behavior 11 or more times within
slammed against something, and higher frequency categories (11 to 50, an individual relationship was too
being beaten was significantly more than 50) of individual physically small to generate a reliable estimate.
Figure 2.2
12-month Prevalence of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men,
NISVS 2010
Any physical violence 4.0
4.7
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 3.6
4.5
Slapped 1.6
2.7†
Pushed or shoved 3.4
3.8
Any severe physical violence 2.7
2.0
Hurt by pulling hair 0.8† Women
0.3
1.1
Hit with a fist or something hard 1.4 Men
Kicked 0.3
0.7†
Slammed against something 1.5†
0.4
Tried to hurt by choking or suffocating 0.9#
*
Beaten 0.7†
0.3
Burned on purpose *
*
Used a knife or gun *
*
0 1 2 3 4 5
Percent

# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate
a reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.
Similarly, the number of women and Stalking by an victim felt very fearful or believed
men who reported the following that they or someone close to
behaviors 11 or more times was too Intimate Partner them would be harmed or killed
small to generate reliable estimates Lifetime and was significantly higher for women
for statistical testing between groups: 12-month Prevalence (10.7% or an estimated 12.8 million)
being burned on purpose and having The lifetime prevalence of stalking than for men (2.1% or an estimated
a knife or gun used on them. by an intimate partner in which the 2.4 million), p < .05 (Table 2.3).
Figure 2.3
Number of Times Individual Physically Violent Behaviors Were Experienced among
Victims of Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010
W† 15.2 12.0
Slapped
M 6.9 3.1
W† 17.7 11.6
Pushed or shoved
M 11.3 4.3
W† 18.7 10.6
Hit with a fist or something hard
M 10.8 3.8 11-50 times
W† 17.5 8.3
Kicked
M 6.7 * >50 times
W† 20.2 10.5
Hurt by pulling hair
M 14.2 *
W = Women
Slammed against something W 15.2 8.7
M * M = Men
W# 9.8 5.0
Tried to hurt by choking or suffocating
M *
W† * 21.2 17.3
Beaten
M *
W# *
Burned on purpose
M *
W# *
Used a knife or gun
M *
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percent
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in the proportion of victims that experienced the behavior 11 or more times in an individual relationship.

Table 2.3
Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and Men,
NISVS 2010
Lifetime 12-month
Weighted % 95% CI Estimated Number of Victims1 Weighted % 95% CI Estimated Number of Victims1
Women 10.7† 9.8 – 11.7 12,786,000 2.8† 2.3 – 3.4 3,353,000
Men 2.1 1.7 – 2.8 2,427,000 0.5 0.3 – 0.7 519,000
Similarly, the 12-month prevalence commonly reported tactics

of stalking by an intimate partner in experienced include: receiving
which the victim felt very fearful or unwanted phone calls (77.4% of
Nearly half of women
believed that they or someone close female victims; 83.7% of male and men in the U.S.
to them would be harmed or killed victims); being approached, such
was significantly higher for women as at home or work (64.8% of have experienced
(2.8% or an estimated 3.4 million) female victims; 52.1% of male
than men (0.5% or an estimated victims); and being watched or
psychological
519,000), p < .05). followed (37.4% of female victims; aggression by an
28.1% of male victims) (Figure
Tactics Used in Lifetime 2.4). There were no significant intimate partner
Reports of Stalking differences between female and
Victimization by an male victims with respect to
in their lifetime.
Intimate Partner the likelihood of experiencing
Among lifetime victims of stalking particular stalking tactics.
by an intimate partner, the most
Figure 2.4
Lifetime Reports of Stalking by an Intimate Partner among Victims by Type of Tactic
Experienced — NISVS 2010
100
83.7
77.4 Women
80
Men
64.8
60
52.1
Percent
40 37.4
26.9 28.1 26.3

23.4
17.8
20
12.1#
8.8#
* *
0
Unwanted Unwanted Unwanted Watched or Approached Left strange Snuck into
phone calls emails or gifts followed or showed up items home or car
messages
# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a
reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.
Psychological have experienced at least one by an intimate partner during

psychologically aggressive their lifetime. Four in 10 women
Aggression by an behavior by an intimate partner (41.1%) and 4 in 10 men (42.5%)
Intimate Partner during their lifetime (Figure 2.5). have experienced at least one
Four in 10 women (40.3%) and form of coercive control by an
Lifetime Prevalence
approximately 3 in 10 men (31.9%) intimate partner during their
Nearly half of all women (48.4%)
have experienced at least one lifetime. The lifetime prevalence
and half of all men (48.8%)
form of expressive aggression of experiencing expressive
Figure 2.5
Lifetime Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women and
Men, NISVS 2010
Any psychological aggression 48.4

48.8
Any expressive aggression 40.3†
31.9
Acted very angry in a way that seemed dangerous 23.3†
12.9
Told you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough 19.7†
13.5
25.9†
Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid 16.5
Insulted, humiliated, made fun of 23.4†
12.6
15.8†
Told you no one else would want you 7.3
41.1
Any coercive control 42.5
17.9†
Tried to keep from seeing family and friends 12.0
Made decisions that should have been yours to make 16.9†
15.1
Kept track of by demanding to know where you were 25.4
and what you were doing 26.8
Made threats of physical harm 18.7†
8.5
Threatened to hurt himself/herself or commit suicide 15.2†
because he/she was upset 10.5
Threatened to hurt pet or take pet away 4.7†
1.8
Threatened to hurt someone you love 5.9†
1.7
Hurt someone you love 5.5†
2.3
Threatened to take your child away from you 8.8† Women
5.5
Kept you from leaving when you wanted to go 14.8† Men
8.3
Kept you from having your own money to use 9.1†
5.5
Destroyed something that was important to you 16.3†
12.2
Said things like, "if I can't have you then no one can." 11.2†
6.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence

aggression by an intimate partner good enough; being called names

was significantly higher for women, like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid; being
compared to men (p < .05). With insulted, humiliated, or made fun
Nearly 1 in 9 women
the exception of having an intimate of; and being told no one else and more than 1 in
partner keeping track of them by would want them (p < .05). There
demanding to know where they were no significant differences for 48 men in the U.S.
were and what they were doing, the remaining specific expressive
the lifetime prevalence of individual aggression behaviors.
have experienced
psychologically aggressive stalking by an
behaviors was significantly higher The prevalence of coercive control
among women, compared to by an intimate partner in the intimate partner at
men (p < .05). 12 months prior to taking the
survey was significantly higher
some point in their
Twelve-month Prevalence among men (15.2%) than among lives in which they
The prevalence of psychological women (10.7%) (p < .05). With
aggression by an intimate partner respect to the specific coercive felt very fearful or
was significantly higher among control behaviors, men had a
men (18.1%) than among women significantly higher 12-month
believed that they
(13.9%) in the 12 months preceding prevalence (p < .05) than women or someone close
the survey, p < .05 (Figure 2.6). in relation to having a partner
who made decisions that should to them would be
The overall prevalence of expressive have been theirs to make, and
aggression by an intimate partner having a partner who kept track
harmed or killed.
in the 12 months prior to the survey of them by demanding where
was not significantly different (p < .05) they were and what they were
between women and men (10.4% doing. Women had a significantly
and 9.3%, respectively), although higher 12-month prevalence
there were significant differences (p < .05) than men with regard to
for specific behaviors. Women had having an intimate partner who
a significantly higher 12-month made threats to physically harm
prevalence (p < .05), compared to them. There were no significant
men, with respect to being told differences for the remaining
they were a loser, a failure, or not specific coercive control behaviors.
Figure 2.6
12-month Prevalence of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner — U.S. Women
and Men, NISVS 2010
13.9
Any psychological aggression 18.1†
Any expressive aggression 10.4
9.3
Acted very angry in a way that seemed dangerous 3.5
3.1
Told you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough 4.6†
3.5
Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid 6.5†
4.8
Insulted, humiliated, made fun of 4.7†
3.4
Told you no one else would want you 2.6†
1.6
Any coercive control 10.7
15.2†
Tried to keep from seeing family and friends 2.3
2.8
Made decisions that should have been yours to decide 3.2
5.8†
Kept track of by demanding to know where you were 6.0
and what you were doing 9.2†
Made threats of physical harm 2.4†
1.6
Threatened to hurt himself/herself or commit suicide 2.2
because he/she was upset 2.0
0.5
Threatened to hurt pet or take pet away 0.4
0.8
Threatened to hurt someone you love 0.5
0.7
Hurt someone you love 0.6 Women
1.3
Threatened to take your child away from you 1.3 Men
Kept you from leaving when you wanted to go 2.0
2.0
1.2
Kept you from having your own money to use 1.6
Destroyed something that was important to you 2.1
1.7
Said things like, "if I can't have you then no one can." 1.6
1.8
0 5 10 15 20
Percent

Frequency of Individual generate a reliable estimate for at 14.4% of female victims and
Psychologically least one of the comparison groups: 6.3% of male victims experienced
Aggressive Behaviors partner threatened to hurt or take a physical violence and stalking, a
Respondents who reported that pet away. statistically significant difference
they had experienced a particular (p < .05). Too few men reported
psychologically aggressive behavior other combinations of rape, physical
were asked how many times in their Control of Reproductive violence, and stalking to produce
lifetime they had experienced that reliable estimates. Among female
behavior by that specific intimate
or Sexual Health by an victims, 12.5% experienced all
partner. Response options included: Intimate Partner three forms; 8.7% experienced both
once, two to five times, six to 10 rape and physical violence; 4.4%
Approximately 4.8% of women in
times, 11 to 50 times, or more than experienced rape only; and 2.6%
the United States had an intimate
50 times. Figure 2.7 displays the experienced stalking only.
partner who tried to get them
percentage of women and men who
pregnant when they did not
experienced each of the individual Among those who experienced
want to become pregnant, while
psychologically aggressive physical violence only, there were no
8.7% of men in the United States
behaviors 11 to 50 times, and more significant differences in prevalence
have had an intimate partner
than 50 times, within an individual between female and male victims
who tried to get pregnant when
relationship. The proportion of who reported experiencing severe
they did not want her to become
female victims that experienced a physical violence only by a partner
pregnant, a statistically significant
particular behavior 11 or more times (10.3% and 8.7%, respectively).
difference, p < .05 (data not shown).
within an intimate relationship For victims who experienced a
Approximately 6.7% of women in
was significantly higher than the combination of severe physical
the United States had an intimate
proportion of male victims that violence and slapping, pushing, or
partner who refused to use a
experienced a particular behavior shoving by a partner, the prevalence
condom, while 3.8% of men in the
11 or more times with respect was significantly higher for female
United States have had an intimate
to the following psychologically victims than male victims (55.4%
partner who refused to use a
aggressive behaviors: partner acted and 37.5%, respectively; p < .05).
condom, a statistically significant
very angry in a way that seemed The prevalence of experiencing
difference, p < .05.
dangerous; were told they were a slapping, pushing, or shoving only
loser, a failure or not good enough; was significantly higher among male
called names like ugly, fat, crazy, or victims than female victims (53.8%
stupid; were insulted, humiliated, Overlap of Rape, and 34.3%, respectively; p < .05).
or made fun of; told no one else Physical Violence,
would want them; partner made
decisions that should have been
and Stalking across
theirs to make; partner kept track Relationships in
of them by demanding to know Lifetime Reports
where they were and what they
were doing; partner made threats
of Violence by an
to physically harm them; kept them Intimate Partner
from having their own money to
Among those who experienced
use; partner destroyed something
that was important to them; partner
by an intimate partner in their
said things like “if I can’t have you
lifetime, male victims (92.1%) were
then no one can.” The difference
significantly more likely than female
in the frequency of the following
victims (56.8%) to experience
behavior was not tested as the
physical violence only, (p < .05)
number reporting a frequency of
(Figures 2.8 and 2.9). In addition,
11 or more times was too small to
Figure 2.7
Number of Times Individual Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Were Experienced
among Victims of Psychological Aggression by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010
Acted very angry in a way that seemed dangerous M 18.9 11.7
W† 20.4 21.9
Told you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough M 20.5 17.5
W† 26.8 35.2
Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid M 20.1 19.4

W† 26.3 29.7
Insulted, humiliated, made fun of M 16.9 12.6

W† 24.9 19.2
Told you no one else would want you M 13.1 16.6

W† 24.9 26.0
Tried to keep from seeing family and friends M 28.0 22.2

W 28.2 28.3
Made decisions that should have been yours to decide

M 28.3 22.6
W† 30.8 32.5
Kept track of by demanding to know where M 29.0 36.0

you were and what you were doing W† 28.4 45.2
Made threats of physical harm M 19.5 10.3

W† 25.0 21.8
Threatened to hurt himself/herself or commit M 13.3 3.3

suicide because he/she was upset W 13.0 3.8
11 to 50 times
Threatened to hurt pet or take pet away M *
W# 10.3 6.0
> 50 times
Threatened to hurt someone you love M * W = Women

W# 22.6 14.3
M = Men
Hurt someone you love M 18.4 15.2
W 16.6 15.0
Threatened to take your child away from you M 14.6 13.8

W 14.9 10.5
Kept you from leaving when you wanted to go M 20.3 12.2

W 23.7 14.6
Kept you from having your own money to use M 28.5 33.3
W† 31.6 42.9
Destroyed something that was important to you

M 10.5 3.5
W† 19.6 9.3
M 13.8 12.9
Said things like, "if I can't have you then no one can."
W† 23.3 22.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in the proportion of victims that experienced the behavior 11 or more times in an individual relationship.
Figure 2 .8
Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, and Stalking among
Women — NISVS 2010
Severe physical violence only

Rape, physical 10.3%
violence
and stalking
12.5%
Physical violence
and stalking Severe physical
14.4% Physical violence only Slapped, pushed, violence and
slapped, pushed,
56.8% shoved only
or shoved
Rape and stalking 34.3%
Rape and physical 55.4%
0.6%
violence
8.7%
Stalking only 2.6%

Rape only 4.4%
Figure 2 .9
Overlap of Lifetime Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Violence, and Stalking among
Men — NISVS 2010
Other combinations *
Slapped, pushed,
shoved only
53.8%
Physical violence only
92.1%
Severe physical
violence and slapped,
pushed, or shoved
37.5%
Physical violence
and stalking Severe physical
6.3% violence only
8.7%
3: Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence

by Sociodemographic Characteristics
Prior research has established that Prevalence of Rape,
the prevalence of intimate partner
violence can vary with respect to Physical Violence, More than 4 in 10
a number of sociodemographic or Stalking by an lesbian women, 6 in
characteristics. This section Intimate Partner
examines the prevalence of rape, 10 bisexual women
physical violence, or stalking by Race/Ethnicity
by an intimate partner by race/ Lifetime Prevalence and, more than 1
ethnicity, current household among Women
income, respondent age, sexual
in 3 heterosexual
Approximately 4 out of every 10
orientation, the experience of Black non-Hispanic women women have
food or housing security within (43.7%) and American Indian or
the preceding 12 months, and Alaska Native women (46.0%), and
experienced rape,
whether the respondent was
born inside or outside of the
1 in 2 multiracial non-Hispanic physical violence,
women (53.8%) in the United
United States. Both lifetime and States have been a victim of rape, and/or stalking by
12-month prevalence are examined physical violence, or stalking by an
except in cases where a particular intimate partner in their lifetime
an intimate partner
sociodemographic characteristic
is unlikely to have bearing on a
(Table 3.1). About one-third of during their lifetime.
White non-Hispanic women
particular prevalence estimate (e.g., (34.6%), more than one-third of
the experience of food or housing Hispanic women (37.1%), and
security within the preceding about one-fifth of Asian or Pacific
12 months on lifetime prevalence) Islander non-Hispanic women
or if there are an insufficient number (19.6%) have experienced rape,
of reliable estimates in which to physical violence, or stalking
present a table (e.g., 12-month by an intimate partner in their
prevalence by sexual orientation). lifetime. Black and multiracial
non-Hispanic women had a
As a point of reference for the significantly higher prevalence
demographic comparisons, of rape, physical violence, or
approximately 35.6% of women stalking by an intimate partner
and 28.5% of men in the United compared to White non-Hispanic
States have experienced rape, women (p < .05); Asian or Pacific
physical violence, or stalking by Islander non-Hispanic women
an intimate partner at some point had significantly lower prevalence
in their lifetime (p < .05), and 5.9% compared to White non-Hispanic
and 5.0%, respectively, experienced women (p < .05).
by an intimate partner in the
12 months preceding the survey
(data not shown).
Table 3 .1
Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner,
by Race/Ethnicity1 — U .S . Women, NISVS 2010
Non-Hispanic
American
Asian or
Indian or
Hispanic Black White Pacific Multiracial
Alaska
Islander
Native
Weighted % 8.4 12.2 9.2 20.1†
Rape 95% CI 6.1 – 11.6 9.4 – 15.6 8.2 – 10.3 * * 14.2 – 27.8
Estimated Number of Victims2 1,273,000 1,768,000 7,475,000 273,000
Weighted % 35.2 41.0† 31.7 45.9† 50.4†
Physical
95% CI 30.3 – 40.5 36.4 – 45.7 30.1 – 33.4 * 33.3 – 59.0 41.9 – 58.9
violence
Estimated Number of Victims2 5,317,000 5,955,000 25,746,000 399,000 683,000
Weighted % 10.6 14.6† 10.4 18.9†
Stalking 95% CI 8.0 – 14.0 11.3 – 18.6 9.3 – 11.5 * * 13.2 – 26.3
Rape, Weighted % 37.1 43.7† 34.6 19.6† 46.0 53.8†

physical
95% CI 32.1 – 42.4 39.0 – 48.4 32.9 – 36.3 11.8 – 30.7 33.5 – 59.2 45.2 – 62.2
violence,
or stalking Estimated Number of Victims2 5,596,000 6,349,000 28,053,000 1,110,000 400,000 729,000
1 Race/ethnicity was self-identified. The American Indian or Alaska Native designation does not indicate being enrolled or affiliated
with a tribe.
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to White non-Hispanic women.
Lifetime Prevalence by an intimate partner during non-Hispanic men had significantly

among Men their lifetime (Table 3.2). The higher prevalence of rape, physical
Nearly half (45.3%) of American estimated prevalence of these violence, or stalking compared to
Indian or Alaska Native men and forms of violence by an intimate White non-Hispanic men (p < .05).
almost 4 out of every 10 Black partner among Hispanic and White
and multiracial non-Hispanic men non-Hispanic men was 26.6% and Twelve-month Prevalence
(38.6% and 39.3%, respectively) in 28.2%, respectively. American among Women
the United States have experienced Indian or Alaska Native men, Black Black non-Hispanic women had
rape, physical violence, or stalking non-Hispanic men, and multiracial a significantly higher prevalence
Table 3 .2
by Race/Ethnicity1 — U .S . Men, NISVS 2010
Non-Hispanic
American
Asian or
Indian or
Hispanic Black White Pacific Multiracial
Alaska
Islander
Native
Weighted %
Rape 95% CI * * * * * *
Estimated Number of Victims2
Weighted % 26.3 36.8† 28.1 45.3† 38.8†

Physical
95% CI 21.9 – 31.2 31.6 – 42.3 26.3 – 29.9 * 31.5 – 59.8 29.4 – 49.2
violence
Weighted % 1.7
Stalking 95% CI * * 1.2 – 2.3 * * *
Estimated Number of Victims2 1,282,000
Rape, Weighted % 26.6 38.6† 28.2 45.3† 39.3†

physical
95% CI 22.2 – 31.6 33.3 – 44.2 26.4 – 30.0 * 31.5 – 59.8 29.8 – 49.6
violence,
or stalking Estimated Number of Victims2 4,331,000 4,820,000 21,596,000 365,000 513,000
with a tribe.
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to White non-Hispanic men.
(p < .05) of rape, physical violence, Twelve-month Prevalence Lifetime Prevalence

or stalking by an intimate partner in among Men
the 12 months prior to the survey, Approximately 9.9% of Black
of Rape, Physical
compared to White non-Hispanic non-Hispanic men in the United Violence, or Stalking
women (9.2% and 5.1%, respectively) States experienced rape, physical by an Intimate Partner
(Table 3.3). Among other racial/ violence, or stalking by an intimate
ethnic groups, 8.7% of multiracial partner in the 12 months preceding by Sexual Orientation
non-Hispanic women and 8.1% of the survey, as compared to 6.2% Prevalence among Women
Hispanic women experienced rape, of Hispanic men and 4.2% of More than 4 in 10 lesbian
physical violence, or stalking in White non-Hispanic men. Black women (43.8%), 6 in 10 bisexual
the 12 months prior to the survey. non-Hispanic men had a significantly women (61.1%), and over 1 in
Prevalence of these forms of violence higher 12-month prevalence of 3 heterosexual women (35.0%)
were not significantly different rape, physical violence, or stalking have experienced rape, physical
than the prevalence among White as compared to White non-Hispanic violence, or stalking by an intimate
non-Hispanic women (p < .05). men (p < .05). partner at some point in their
Table 3 .3
Twelve-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner,
by Race/Ethnicity1 — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010
Non-Hispanic
Asian or American
Hispanic Black White Pacific Indian or Multiracial
Islander Alaska Native
Weighted % 8.1 9.2† 5.1 8.7
Women 95% CI 5.6 – 11.6 6.6 – 12.5 4.3 – 6.2 * * 5.0 – 14.6
Weighted % 6.2 9.9† 4.2
Men 95% CI 4.2 – 9.2 7.0 – 13.9 3.5 – 5.1 * * *
Estimated Number of Victims2 1,016,000 1,240,000 3,247,000
with a tribe.
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to White non-Hispanic women/men.
lifetime (Table 3.4). This translates some point in their lifetime (Table partner violence by sexual
to 714,000 lesbian women, 3.5). No significant differences orientation is available in The
2.0 million bisexual women, and in prevalence were found when National Intimate Partner and Sexual
38.3 million heterosexual women. comparing gay, bisexual, and Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on
The prevalence of lifetime rape, heterosexual men. This translates Victimization by Sexual Orientation
physical violence, or stalking to 708,000 gay men, 711,000 (Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013).
by an intimate partner was bisexual men, and 30.3 million
significantly higher among bisexual heterosexual men. However, these
women compared to lesbian and numbers predominantly represent Twelve-month Prevalence
heterosexual women (p < .05), the experience of physical violence
whereas there was no significant as too few men reported rape, of Intimate Partner
difference in prevalence between and too few gay and bisexual men Rape, Physical Violence,
lesbian and heterosexual women. reported stalking, to produce or Stalking by Current
reliable estimates. The prevalence
Prevalence among Men of physical violence by an intimate Household Income
More than 1 in 4 gay men (26.0%), partner was 25.2% among gay men, Prevalence among Women
more than 1 in 3 bisexual men 37.3% among bisexual men, and The 12-month prevalence of rape,
(37.3%), and nearly 3 in 10 28.7% among heterosexual men. physical violence, or stalking by an
heterosexual men (29.0%) have intimate partner was significantly
experienced rape, physical violence, More detailed information related higher among women with a
or stalking by an intimate partner at to the prevalence of intimate combined household income of
Table 3.4
by Sexual Orientation1 — U.S. Women, NISVS 2010
Lesbian Bisexual Heterosexual
Estimated Estimated Estimated

Weighted Weighted Weighted
95% CI Number 95% CI Number 95% CI Number
% % %
of Victims2 of Victims2 of Victims2
Rape HB * 22.1 14.9-31.5 731,000 9.1 8.3-10.1 9,984,000

Physical violence HB, BL 40.4 28.8-53.2 659,000 56.9 46.6-66.7 1,886,000 32.3 30.8-33.9 35,291,000
Stalking HB * 31.1 22.0-42.0 1,030,000 10.2 9.3-11.2 11,126,000
Rape, physical violence,

43.8 31.8-56.6 714,000 61.1 50.7-70.6 2,024,000 35.0 33.5-36.6 38,290,000
or stalking HB, BL
1 Sexual orientation is self-identified.

HB Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence between heterosexual and bisexual groups.
BL Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence between bisexual and lesbian groups.
Table 3.5
by Sexual Orientation1 — U.S. Men, NISVS 2010
Gay Bisexual Heterosexual
Estimated Estimated Estimated

Weighted Weighted Weighted
95% CI Number 95% CI Number 95% CI Number
% % %
of Victims2 of Victims2 of Victims2
Rape * * *
Physical violence 25.2 16.7 – 36.1 685,000 37.3 24.1 – 52.7 711,000 28.7 27.1 – 30.3 29,926,000
Stalking * * 2.1 1.6 – 2.8 2,222,000
Rape, physical
26.0 17.4 – 37.0 708,000 37.3 24.1 – 52.7 711,000 29.0 27.4 – 30.7 30,250,000
violence, or stalking
1 Sexual orientation is self-identified.
Table 3.6
by Current Household Income — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010
Under $25k $25k to < $50k $50k to < $75k $75k+
Weighted % 9.7† 5.9† 3.0 2.8

Women 95% CI 8.0 – 11.8 4.2 – 8.1 2.0 – 4.5 2.0 – 3.9
Estimated Number of Victims1 3,789,000 1,646,000 485,000 754,000
Weighted % 6.9† 6.6† 2.9 3.4
Men 95% CI 5.4 – 8.9 4.9 – 8.7 1.8 – 4.6 2.4 – 4.8
Estimated Number of Victims1 2,129,000 1,715,000 474,000 1,114,000
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to the $75k+ income group. Statistical comparisons are made
across level of income, not across sex of respondent.
less than $25,000, and between Twelve-month Prevalence among Men

$25,000 and $50,000, than for Approximately 9.8% of men who
women with a combined income Prevalence of Intimate were 18 to 24 years old at the time
over $75,000, p < .05 (Table 3.6). Partner Rape, Physical of the survey experienced rape,
The prevalence of rape, physical Violence, or Stalking by physical violence, or stalking by an
violence, or stalking by an intimate intimate partner in the 12 months
partner reported by women in Age at Time of Survey preceding the survey, as compared
these income groups was 9.7% Prevalence among Women to 8.6% of men 25 to 34 years of
and 5.9%, respectively, compared Approximately 14.8% of women age, 5.6% of men 35 to 44 years
with 2.8% for women in the highest who were 18 to 24 years old at the of age, 3.3% of men 45 to 54 years
income group. time of the survey experienced of age, and 1.4% of men 55 years
rape, physical violence, or stalking of age or older. The 12-month
Prevalence among Men by an intimate partner in the 12 prevalence of rape, physical
The 12-month prevalence of rape, months preceding the survey, as violence, or stalking by an intimate
physical violence, or stalking by an compared to 8.7% of women 25 to partner was significantly lower
intimate partner was significantly 34 years of age, 7.3% of women 35 among men in the three older
higher among men with a to 44 years of age, 4.1% of women age groups compared with 18 to
combined household income of 45 to 54 years of age, and 1.4% of 24 year old men (p < .05). There
less than $25,000, and between women 55 years of age or older were no significant differences in
$25,000 and $50,000, than for men (Table 3.7). Women aged 25 years prevalence between men in the
with a combined income over and older at the time of the survey 25 to 34 age group compared with
$75,000 (p < .05). The prevalence of had a significantly lower 12-month 18 to 24 year old men.
rape, physical violence, or stalking prevalence of rape, physical
by an intimate partner reported violence, or stalking by an intimate
by men in these income groups partner, compared to those in the 18
was 6.9% and 6.6%, respectively, to 24 year old age group (p < .05).
compared with 3.4% for men in the
highest income group.
Table 3.7
by Age at Time of Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010
18-24 years 25-34 years 35-44 years 45-54 years 55+ years
Weighted % 14.8 8.7† 7.3† 4.1† 1.4†
Women 95% CI 11.2 – 19.3 6.8 – 11.2 5.2 – 10.1 3.0 – 5.7 0.9 – 2.3
Weighted % 9.8 8.6 5.6† 3.3† 1.4†
Men 95% CI 7.3 – 13.2 6.5 – 11.3 4.0 – 7.7 2.2 – 4.8 0.8 – 2.3
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence when compared to 18 to 24 year old women/men. Statistical comparisons are
made across age at time of survey, not across sex of respondent.
Twelve-month having enough money to pay your housing insecurity (2.3%) in the
rent or mortgage?” Responses of 12 months prior to taking the
Prevalence of Intimate “always,”“usually,” or “sometimes” survey (p < .05).
Partner Rape, Physical were classified as a “yes” response;
Violence, or Stalking responses of “rarely” or “never” were Prevalence among Men
classified as a “no” response. The 12-month prevalence of rape,
by Experiences of Food physical violence, or stalking
and Housing Insecurity The 12-month prevalence of rape, by an intimate partner was
physical violence, or stalking by an significantly higher among men
Prevalence among Women intimate partner was significantly who experienced food insecurity
Food and housing insecurity higher among women who in the 12 months prior to taking
are two key measures of the experienced food insecurity in the survey (8.2%) compared to
potential influence of the social the 12 months prior to taking the those who did not experience food
environment on health. In the survey (11.6%) compared to those insecurity (4.0%; p < .05). Similarly,
National Intimate Partner and who did not experience food men who experienced housing
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) insecurity (3.2%; p < .05). Similarly, insecurity had a significantly
they were measured using two women who experienced housing higher prevalence of rape, physical
questions: “In the past 12 months, insecurity had a significantly violence, or stalking by an intimate
how often would you say you were higher prevalence of rape, physical partner in the 12 months prior to
worried or stressed about having violence, or stalking by an intimate the survey (7.9%), compared with
enough money to buy nutritious partner in the 12 months prior to those who did not experience
meals?” and “In the past 12 months, the survey (10.0%) compared with housing insecurity (3.1%) in the
how often would you say that you those who did not experience past 12 months (p < .05).
were worried or stressed about
Table 3.8
by Experiences of Food and Housing Insecurity within the 12 Months Prior to Taking
the Survey — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010
Food Insecurity Housing Insecurity
Yes No Yes No
Weighted % 11.6† 3.2 10.0† 2.3
95% CI 9.6 – 13.9 2.6 – 3.9 8.5 – 11.7 1.8 – 3.0
Women
Estimated Number of
4,388,000 2,594,000 5,506,000 1,475,000
Victims1
Weighted % 8.2† 4.0 7.9† 3.1
95% CI 6.4 – 10.5 3.3 – 4.8 6.5 – 9.6 2.4 – 3.9
Men
Estimated Number of
2,281,000 3,410,000 3,637,000 2,054,000
Victims1
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence. Statistical comparisons are made across food and housing insecurity status,
not across sex of respondent.
Prevalence of Rape, to women born outside of the United by an intimate partner in the
States (24.0%), p < .05 (Table 3.9). 12 months preceding the survey,
Physical Violence, Similarly, men who were born in the compared to 4.1% of women born
or Stalking by an United States were significantly more outside of the United States. Among
Intimate Partner likely to experience rape, physical men, 5.1% who were born in the
violence, or stalking by an intimate United States experienced rape,
among U .S . Natives and partner in their lifetime (30.2%), physical violence, or stalking by an
Foreign-Born Residents compared to men born outside of intimate partner in the 12 months
the United States (17.0%; p < .05). preceding the survey, compared
Lifetime Prevalence to 4.6% of men born outside of
The lifetime prevalence of rape, Twelve-month Prevalence the United States. The differences
physical violence, or stalking by an Approximately 6.1% of women born between native and foreign-born
intimate partner was significantly in the United States experienced populations were not statistically
higher among those women born in rape, physical violence, or stalking significant for women or men.
the United States (37.3%), compared
Table 3 .9
Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate
Partner, U .S . Natives and Foreign-Born — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010
U.S. Native Foreign-Born
Weighted % 37.3† 24.0
Lifetime 95% CI 35.7 – 38.9 19.5 – 29.2
Estimated Number of Victims1 37,435,000 3,903,000
Women
Weighted % 6.1 4.1
12-month 95% CI 5.3 – 7.1 2.3 – 7.0
Estimated Number of Victims1 6,152,000 660,000
Weighted % 30.2† 17.0
Lifetime 95% CI 28.6 – 32.0 13.5 – 21.3
Estimated Number of Victims1 28,506,000 2,851,000
Men
Weighted % 5.1 4.6
12-month 95% CI 4.4 – 6.1 2.9 – 7.3
Estimated Number of Victims1 4,851,000 774,000
† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence. Statistical comparisons are made across birthplace, not across sex of respondent.
4: Impact of Intimate Partner Violence
To inform intimate partner violence regard to the time period in which

prevention efforts and achieve a impact occurred, and asked in
more complete picture of the true relation to the totality of intimate 1 in 10 women and
burden of intimate partner violence partner violence experienced nearly 1 in 25 men
within populations, it is important (sexual violence, physical violence,
to measure and understand factors stalking, psychological aggression, have experienced
beyond whether or not a person and control of reproductive or
has ever experienced IPV. Evidence sexual health) in that relationship. rape, physical violence,
from several studies suggests a A description of the IPV-related or stalking by an
dose-response effect of violence; impacts assessed is provided in
as the frequency and severity of Appendix A. intimate partner and
violence increases, the impact of
the violence on the health of victims missed at least one
also becomes increasingly severe Lifetime Prevalence of day of work or school
(Campbell, 2002; Cox, Coles, Nortje,
Bradley, Chatfield, Thompson, & Rape, Physical Violence, as a result of these or
Menon, 2006). However, given that or Stalking by an
IPV victimization can range from a other forms of intimate
Intimate Partner with
single act experienced once (e.g., partner violence in
one slap) to multiple acts of severe IPV-related Impact
violence over the course of many Nearly 3 in 10 women (28.8%) and that relationship.
years, it is difficult to represent nearly 1 in 10 men (9.9%) have
this variation in the severity of experienced rape, physical violence,
violence experienced by victims in a or stalking by an intimate partner
straightforward manner. and reported at least one measured
impact related to experiencing these
or other forms of violent behavior in
To address these issues, the National
that relationship (Figure 4.1). Women
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
were significantly more likely than
Survey (NISVS) included a number
men to experience rape, physical
of questions to assess a range of
violence, or stalking by an intimate
impacts that victims of IPV may
partner during their lifetime and
have experienced. This information
experience an IPV-related impact as
provides not only a measure
a result of these or other forms of
of the severity of the violence
violence in that relationship (p < .05).
experienced, but also documents
the magnitude of particular negative More than 1 in 4 women (25.7%)
impacts to better focus preventive was fearful, more than 1 in 5 women
services and response. Impact was (22.2%) was concerned for her
measured using a set of indicators safety, and more than 1 in 5 women
that represent a range of direct (22.3%) experienced at least one
impacts that may be experienced post-traumatic stress disorder
by victims of IPV. IPV-related (PTSD) symptom as a result
impact was assessed in relation to of violence experienced in a
individual perpetrators, without relationship in which
Figure 4.1
Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner with
IPV-related Impact — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010
28.8†
Any IPV-related impact1,2,3 9.9
Fearful 25.7†
5.2
Concerned for safety 22.2†
4.5
Any PTSD symptoms4 22.3†
4.7
Injury 14.8†
4.0
Needed medical care 7.9†
1.6
2.4†
Needed housing services
0.4 Women
2.7#
Needed victim's advocate services
*
Men
Needed legal services 7.6†
3.1
Contacted crisis hotline 2.1#
*
Missed at least one day of work/school 10.0†
3.9
Contracted a sexually transmitted disease5 1.5#
*
Became pregnant5 1.7#
NA
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percent
1 Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any PTSD symptoms, need for health care, injury, contacting a
crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least one day of work or school.
For those who reported being raped, it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease or having become pregnant (if female).
2 IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual
violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and control of reproductive or sexual health) in that relationship.
3 By definition, all stalking incidents result in impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and/or concern for safety.
4 Includes: nightmares; tried not to think about or avoided being reminded of; felt constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled; felt
numb or detached.
5 Asked only of those who reported rape by an intimate partner.
* Estimate not reported; relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20.
rape, physical violence, or stalking In contrast, 1 in 20 men (5.2%) Women had a significantly higher
occurred. More than 1 in 7 women was fearful, 1 in 25 men (4.0%) lifetime prevalence (p < .05) than men
(14.8%) experienced an injury and experienced an injury, and nearly for a number of individual IPV-related
1 in 10 women (10.0%) missed at 1 in 25 men (3.9%) missed at least impacts including: being fearful, being
least one day of work or school, as a one day of work or school as a concerned for safety, experiencing
result of violence experienced in a result of violence experienced in a one or more PTSD symptoms, being
relationship in which rape, physical relationship in which rape, physical injured, needing medical care,
violence, or stalking took place. violence, or stalking occurred. needing housing services, needing
legal services, and having missed at
least one day of work or school.
Distribution of Among victims of rape, physical Among women who experienced

violence, or stalking by an intimate rape, physical violence, or
IPV-related Impacts partner, approximately 8 in 10 women stalking by an intimate partner,
among Lifetime Victims (80.8%) and more than 1 in 3 men 72.2% were fearful, 62.3% were
of Rape, Physical (34.7%) experienced one or more concerned for their safety, 62.6%
of the impacts measured within a experienced at least one PTSD
Violence, or Stalking relationship, a statistically significant symptom, 41.6% were injured as
by an Intimate Partner difference (p < .05) (Figure 4.2). a result of the violence, and 28.0%
Figure 4.2
Distribution of IPV-related Impacts among Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010
Any IPV-related impact1,2,3 80.8†

34.7
Fearful 72.2†
18.4
Concerned for safety 62.3†
15.7
Any PTSD symptoms4 62.6†
16.4
Injury 41.6†
13.9
Needed medical care 22.1†
5.5
Needed housing services 6.9†
1.5
Needed victim's advocate services 7.5#
*
Needed legal services 21.2†
10.8
Contacted crisis hotline 5.9#
*
28.0†
Women
Missed at least one day of work/school 13.6
4.3#
Men
Contracted a sexually transmitted disease5
*
Became pregnant5 4.8#
NA
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
1 Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any PTSD symptoms, need for health care, injury,
contacting a crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed at least
one day of work or school. For those who reported being raped, it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease
or having become pregnant (if female).
2 IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced
(sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and control of reproductive or sexual health)
in that relationship.
3 By definition, all stalking incidents result in impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and/or concern for safety.
4 Includes: nightmares; tried not to think about or avoided being reminded of; felt constantly on guard, watchful, or easily startled;
felt numb or detached.
5 Asked only of those who reported rape by an intimate partner.
* Estimate not reported; relative standard error > 30% or cell size ≤ 20.
missed at least one day of work other forms of violence in that States experienced rape, physical
or school as a result of these or relationship including: being violence, or stalking by an intimate
other forms of violence in that fearful, being concerned for safety, partner and reported at least one
relationship. In contrast, among experiencing one or more PTSD injury related to experiencing these
men who experienced rape, symptoms, being injured, needing or other forms of violent behavior
physical violence, or stalking by medical care, needing housing within that relationship. In terms
an intimate partner, 18.4% were services, needing legal services, of severity, 12.8% of women and
fearful, 15.7% were concerned for and having missed at least one day 3.1% of men have experienced
their safety, 16.4% experienced at of work or school (p < .05). minor scratches or bruises; 10.4%
least one PTSD symptom, 13.9% of women and 2.3% of men have
were injured, and 13.6% missed at experienced cuts, major bruises, or a
least one day of work or school as Lifetime Prevalence of black eye; 3.2% of women and 0.6%
a result of these or other forms of of men have experienced broken
violence in that relationship. Rape, Physical Violence, bones or teeth; 5.2% of women and
or Stalking by an 0.5% of men have been knocked
Among victims of rape, physical Intimate Partner with out; and 4.4% of women and 1.1%
violence, or stalking by an intimate of men have experienced some
partner, a significantly higher Physical Injury other type of injury (Table 4.1). The
proportion of women than men As mentioned previously, more prevalence of each type of injury
experienced individual IPV-related than 1 in 7 women (14.8%) and was significantly higher for women
impacts as a result of these or 1 in 25 men (4.0%) in the United compared to men (p < .05).
Table 4.1
Lifetime Prevalence of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner with
Specific IPV-related Injuries1 — U.S. Women and Men, NISVS 2010
Women Men
Estimated Estimated
Type of Injury Weighted % 95% CI Number Weighted % 95% CI Number
Any injury 14.8† 13.7 – 15.9 17,640,000 4.0 3.4 – 4.7 4,483,000
Minor bruises or scratches 12.8† 11.8 – 13.9 15,257,000 3.1 2.6 – 3.8 3,540,000
Cuts, major bruises, or black eyes 10.4† 9.5 – 11.4 12,395,000 2.3 1.9 – 2.9 2,647,000
Broken bones or teeth 3.2† 2.7 – 3.7 3,773,000 0.6 0.4 – 1.0 729,000
Knocked out after getting hit, slammed
5.2† 4.6 – 5.9 6,202,000 0.5 0.3 – 0.9 581,000
against something, or choked
Other injury 4.4† 3.8 – 5.0 5,204,000 1.1 0.8 – 1.5 1,257,000
1 IPV-related injury was assessed in relation to specific perpetrators and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual violence,
physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and control of reproductive or sexual health) in that relationship.
Distribution of Physical intimate partner reported at least

one injury related to experiencing Among victims of rape,
Injury Types among these or other forms of violent
Lifetime Victims of behavior in that relationship. Figure physical violence, or
Rape, Physical Violence, 4.3 shows the proportion of victims stalking by an intimate
that experienced specific injuries
or Stalking by an as a result of violence within a partner, approximately
Intimate Partner relationship in which rape, physical 4 in 10 female victims
violence, or stalking occurred.
As shown in Figure 4.2, 41.6% of Female victims were significantly and 1 in 7 male
female victims and 13.9% of male more likely than male victims to
victims who experienced rape, victims reported
experience each of the individual
physical violence, or stalking by an types of injuries (p < .05). experiencing a physical
injury as a result of
the violence within
that relationship.
Figure 4 .3
Distribution of Specific IPV-related Injuries1 Experienced among Female and Male Victims
of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010
41.6†
Any injury
13.9
36.0†
Minor bruises or scratches
11.0
Cuts, major bruises, or black eyes 29.2†

8.2
Broken bones or teeth 8.9†

2.3
Women
Knocked out after getting hit, slammed 14.6†
against something, or choked
Men
1.8
12.3†
Other injury
3.9
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent
1 IPV-related injury was assessed in relation to specific perpetrators and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual violence,
physical violence, stalking, expressive aggression, coercive control, and control of reproductive or sexual health) in that relationship.
5: A
ccumulation of Intimate Partner Violence
Behaviors Experienced by Individual Perpetrators
The unique method of data This section provides information Maximum Number
collection utilized by the National related to:
Intimate Partner and Sexual • The total number of unique of Sexually Violent
Violence Survey (NISVS) allows behaviors experienced by victims Behaviors Experienced
for an examination of the totality in an individual relationship, within in an Individual
of a victimization experience each of the four violence subtypes
related to individual intimate (sexual violence, physical violence, Relationship
partners. Specifically, by linking stalking, and psychological NISVS measures nine types of
violent behaviors experienced aggression), with the maximum sexually violent behaviors: rape
to specific intimate partner(s), number utilized for those with (completed forced penetration,
NISVS is better able to describe multiple perpetrators attempted forced penetration,
the victim’s experience within a • The total number of unique alcohol/drug facilitated
particular relationship. Whereas impacts experienced by victims penetration); being made
previous methods only allow for an to penetrate someone else
• The prevalence of the overlap
examination of a victim’s experience (completed forced penetration,
of rape, physical violence, and
across multiple perpetrators, they attempted forced penetration,
stalking within a single relationship
do not allow for the disentangling alcohol/drug facilitated
of violent behaviors by perpetrators. penetration); sexual coercion,
The method utilized by NISVS allows The following analyses examine
unwanted sexual contact; and
for a better understanding of the violence experienced in individual
non-contact, unwanted sexual
context in which an individual act of relationships across the life span.
experiences. Figure 5.1 displays a
violence is experienced, specifically For those with multiple perpetrators,
distribution describing the largest
whether an act of violence occurred the maximum number of violent
number of discrete sexually violent
in isolation or whether the violence behaviors experienced is analyzed.
behaviors experienced by an
was part of a larger pattern of For example, if a respondent
individual intimate partner. Across
violent behaviors. This method reported an intimate partner that
male and female victims, the
can also be utilized to connect the perpetrated two unique physically
median number of unique sexually
combined victimization experiences violent behaviors, and another that
violent behaviors experienced
within an individual relationship to perpetrated five unique physically
was one. Among victims of sexual
specific impacts experienced as a violent behaviors, they would be
violence by an intimate partner, the
result of victimization. considered to have experienced five
proportion of female victims that
unique physically violent behaviors
experienced more than the median
within an individual relationship.
number (two or more) of unique
sexually violent behaviors by an
individual intimate partner was
higher than the proportion of male
victims (p < .05).
Figure 5.1
Distribution of the Number of Discrete Sexually Violent Behaviors Experienced
by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010
54.4
1
72.8
22.7
Sexually Violent Behaviors Experienced2
2
13.9
Women
12.4 Men
3
8.0
5.7
4
*
3.6
5
*
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent
1 Victims who experienced sexual violence by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in which
they experienced the largest number of discrete sexually violent behaviors.
2 E stimates not reported for > 5 behaviors experienced, relative standard error > 30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.
Maximum Number a distribution of the maximum of physical violence by an intimate

number of discrete physically violent partner, the proportion of female
of Physically Violent behaviors experienced among victims that experienced more than
Behaviors Experienced victims of physical violence by an the median number (three or more)
in an Individual individual intimate partner. Across of unique physically violent behaviors
male and female victims of physical by an individual intimate partner was
Relationship violence, the median number of higher than the proportion of male
NISVS measures 10 discrete physically unique physically violent behaviors victims (p < .05).
violent behaviors. Figure 5.2 provides experienced was two. Among victims
Figure 5.2
Distribution of the Number of Discrete Physically Violent Behaviors Experienced by Victims,
Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010
27.7
1
45.6
16.1
2
24.0
Physically Violent Behaviors Experienced2
12.6
3
13.4
4 10.1
7.8
5 7.5
3.8 Women
6 7.9
2.1 Men
7 7.7
1.8
8 5.7
*
9 3.8
*
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent
1 Victims who experienced physical violence by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in
which they experienced the largest number of discrete physically violent behaviors.
2 Estimates not reported for > 9 behaviors experienced, relative standard error >30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.
Maximum Number of provides a distribution of the was two. There was no significant
maximum number of discrete difference between male and
Stalking Behaviors stalking behaviors experienced female victims of stalking with
Experienced in an by an individual intimate partner regard to having experienced more
Individual Relationship among stalking victims. Across than the median number (three or
male and female victims of stalking, more) of unique stalking behaviors
NISVS measures seven discrete the median number of unique by an individual intimate partner.
stalking behaviors. Figure 5.3 stalking behaviors experienced
Figure 5.3
Distribution of the Number of Discrete Stalking Behaviors Experienced by Victims,
Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010
29.6
1
44.2
26.2
2
16.8
Stalking Behaviors Experienced2
19.3
3
24.4 Women
15.7 Men
4
*
6.0
5
*
2.7
6
*
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent
1 Victims who experienced stalking by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in which they
experienced the largest number of discrete stalking behaviors. Individual stalking behaviors are counted only when the criteria for
stalking were met with respect to an individual perpetrator. Consequently, those who are shown as having experienced one stalking
behavior will have experienced that behavior multiple times by the same perpetrator.
2 Estimates not reported for > 6 behaviors experienced, relative standard error > 30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.
Maximum Number of the largest number of discrete aggression by an intimate partner,

psychologically aggressive the proportion of female victims
of Psychologically behaviors experienced by an that experienced more than the
Aggressive Behaviors individual intimate partner among median number (four or more) of
Experienced in an victims of psychological aggression. unique psychologically aggressive
Across male and female victims of behaviors by an individual intimate
Individual Relationship stalking, the median number of partner was higher than the
NISVS measured a total of 18 discrete unique psychologically aggressive proportion of male victims (p < .05).
psychologically aggressive behaviors. behaviors experienced was three.
Figure 5.4 provides a distribution Among victims of psychological
Figure 5.4
Distribution of the Number of Discrete Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Experienced
by Victims, Maximum Number by an Individual Perpetrator1 — NISVS 2010
1 22.0
33.6
2 13.4
18.4
3 9.0
14.2
4 8.4
9.1
Psychologically Aggressive Behaviors Experienced2
5 7.1
6.3
6 6.7
4.5
7 6.4
3.1
8 4.8
3.4
9 4.2
2.5
Women
10 4.2
1.5
Men
11 2.6
1.6
12 2.5
1.1
13 2.7
*
14 2.5
*
15 1.6
*
16 1.0
*
17 0.6
*
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Percent
1 Victims who experienced psychological aggression by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship
in which they experienced the largest number of discrete psychologically aggressive behaviors.
2 Estimates not reported for > 17 behaviors experienced, relative standard error >30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.
Maximum Number of Figure 5.5 displays the distribution impacts experienced. Among
of the largest number of discrete victims of rape, physical violence, or
IPV-related Impacts IPV-related impacts experienced by stalking by an intimate partner that
Experienced in an victims as a result of IPV perpetrated experienced IPV-related impact, the
Individual Relationship by an individual intimate partner. proportion of female victims that
Examining the maximum number experienced more than the median
NISVS measures 11 different of IPV-related impacts experienced number (three or more) of unique
intimate partner violence as a result of IPV perpetrated by impacts by an individual intimate
(IPV)-related impacts for women an individual intimate partner, the partner was higher than the
and men, as well as pregnancy as median number was three unique proportion of male victims (p < .05).
a consequence of rape for women.
Figure 5.5
Distribution of the Number of Discrete IPV-related Impacts1 by Victims, Maximum Number
by an Individual Perpetrator2 — NISVS 2010
1 10.6
29.9
2 12.2
22.8
3 20.1
15.4
18.1
IPV-Related Impacts Experienced3
4
14.0
5 14.2
9.8
11.3
6
4.5
Women
6.5
7
* Men
3.9
8
*
9 1.7
*
1.0
10
*
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Percent
1 Includes experiencing any of the following: being fearful, concerned for safety, any post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, need for
health care, injury, contacting a crisis hotline, need for housing services, need for victim’s advocate services, need for legal services, missed
at least one day of work or school. For those who reported being raped, it also includes having contracted a sexually transmitted disease
or having become pregnant. IPV-related impact questions were assessed in relation to specific perpetrators, without regard to the time
period in which they occurred, and asked in relation to any form of IPV experienced (sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, expressive
aggression, coercive control, and control of reproductive or sexual health) in that relationship. By definition, all stalking incidents result in
impact because the definition of stalking includes the impacts of fear and concern for safety.
2 Victims who experienced IPV-related impact by multiple intimate partners are included once in relation to the relationship in which they
experienced the largest number of discrete impacts.
3 Estimates not reported for > 10 impacts experienced, relative standard error > 30%, or cell size ≤ 20 for both women and men.
Overlap of Rape, of different forms of violence the same relationship to produce

within an individual relationship. reliable estimates. Also, 8.7% of
Physical Violence, Approximately 6.2% of women in U.S. women have experienced
and Stalking within the United States have experienced physical violence and stalking in
Relationships in rape and physical violence in the same relationship, as compared
the same relationship, whereas to 1.7% of U.S. men, a statistically
Lifetime Reports too few men reported both rape significant difference (p < .05).
of Violence by an and physical violence in the Finally, 3.5% of women experienced
same relationship to produce all three forms of violence (rape,
Intimate Partner reliable estimates (Table 5.1). physical violence, stalking) in the
In contrast to the analyses in Approximately 3.9% of U.S. women same relationship, whereas too
Section 3 that examined the have experienced rape and stalking few men reported all three forms
overlap of violence across the in the same relationship during in the same relationship to produce
life span, NISVS data can also their lifetime, while too few men reliable estimates.
be used to look at the overlap reported both rape and stalking in
Table 5 .1
Lifetime Prevalence of Overlapping Forms of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking
by an Individual Perpetrator — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010
Women Men
Estimated Estimated
Violence Experienced Weighted % 95% CI Number Weighted % 95% CI Number
Rape and physical violence 6.2# 5.5 – 7.0 7,377,000 *
Rape and stalking 3.9# 3.3 – 4.5 4,622,000 *
Physical violence and stalking 8.7† 7.9 – 9.7 10,407,000 1.7 1.3 – 2.2 1,875,000
Rape, physical violence, and stalking 3.5# 3.0 – 4.1 4,195,000 *
6: Characteristics of Intimate Partner

Violence Victimization
This section describes a number Sex of Perpetrator Age at the Time of First
of characteristics of intimate
partner violence (IPV) victimization, among Victims of IPV Experience among
including the number of lifetime Rape, Physical Violence, those Who Experienced
perpetrators among victims, the or Stalking by an Rape, Physical Violence,
sex of perpetrators, and the age of
victims of rape, physical violence, Intimate Partner or Stalking by an
or stalking at the time of the first Approximately 97.1% of female Intimate Partner
IPV victimization. victims of rape, physical violence, or Among those who ever experienced
stalking by an intimate partner had rape, physical violence, or stalking
Number of Perpetrators only male perpetrators, whereas by an intimate partner, more than
2.1% had only female perpetrators
in Lifetime Reports (data not shown). Among men,
1 in 5 female victims (22.4%) and
more than 1 in 7 male victims
of Violence by an 96.9% who experienced rape, (15.0%) experienced some form
Intimate Partner physical violence, or stalking by an of intimate partner violence for
intimate partner had only female the first time between the ages of
The majority of women (70.8%) and perpetrators, whereas 2.8% had only
men (73.1%) who ever experienced 11 and 17 years (Figures 6.2 and
male perpetrators. The number of 6.3). Additionally, 47.1% of female
rape, physical violence, or stalking by female and male victims reporting
an intimate partner were victimized victims and 38.6% of male victims
victimization by both male and were between 18 and 24 years of
by one partner only (Figure 6.1). female perpetrators was too small
Approximately 20.9% of female age when they first experienced
to produce a reliable estimate. violence by an intimate partner.
victims and 18.6% of male victims
were victimized by two partners;
and 8.3% of female victims and 8.3%
of male victims were victimized by
three or more intimate partners.
Figure 6.1
Number of Perpetrators among those Who Experienced Rape, Physical Violence, or
Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010
Women 70.8% 20.9% 8.3%
Men 73.1% 18.6% 8.3%
1 2 3 or more
Figure 6 .2
1 in 5 women and
Age at Time of First IPV1 among Female Victims of Rape,
Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — 1 in 7 men who ever
NISVS 2010
2.5%
experienced rape,
physical violence,
6.8%
or stalking by an
11-17
22.4% intimate partner first
18-24
21.1% experienced some
25-34
35-44
form of intimate
45+ partner violence
47.1% between 11 and
17 years of age.
1 IPV includes physical violence, all forms of sexual violence, stalking, psychological
aggression, and control of reproductive or sexual health.
Figure 6 .3
Age at Time of First IPV1 among Male Victims of Rape,
Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner —
NISVS 2010
15.0%
11-17
5.5% 18-24
38.6%
25-34
10.3%
35-44
45+
30.6%
1 IPV includes physical violence, all forms of sexual violence, stalking, psychological
aggression, and control of reproductive or sexual health.
7: Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate

Partner Violence Victimization
In addition to understanding the a relationship and also their patterns Services Needed among
number of people who are victims of disclosure. Further, this section
of intimate partner violence (IPV), describes the proportion of victims Lifetime Victims of
it is also important to estimate the who received services among those Rape, Physical Violence,
number of people who need services who needed them, as well as the or Stalking by an
as a result of victimization, as well perceived helpfulness of disclosure
as the number who were able to among victims that disclosed their Intimate Partner
receive the needed services. These victimization experience. Questions Among lifetime victims of rape,
estimates inform efforts to provide a about services and disclosure were physical violence, or stalking by an
coordinated community response asked in relation to the violence intimate partner, female victims
for victims of IPV. It also provides experienced by an individual perpe- (36.4%, or 15.5 million women) were
information that is necessary to trator and for any violence committed significantly more likely than male
focus preventive services and allocate by that perpetrator. It is important to victims (15.6%, or 5.0 million men)
resources to the most heavily note that victimization experiences to report that they needed services
affected populations. This section could have occurred several years ago as a result of these or other forms
estimates the proportion of IPV and that the service needs reported of violence they experienced in
victims that needed services as a relate to the victimization and not the relationship (Figure 7.1). With
result of the violence experienced in to any particular time period. respect to specific service needs as
Figure 7.1
Services Needed among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an
Intimate Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010
36.4†
Any services
15.6
22.1†
Medical care
5.5
6.9†
Housing services
1.5
Women
7.5#
Victim's advocate services
* Men
6.1†
Community services
1.1
21.2†
Legal services
10.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percent
a result of the violence experienced Services Received care, 89.5% said that they always
in the relationship, 22.1% of female received them. Among the 2.4% of
victims needed medical care, among Victims who women in the United States who
21.2% needed legal services, 7.5% Needed Services experienced rape, physical violence,
needed victim’s advocate services, or stalking and reported they
Female Victims who
6.9% needed housing services, needed housing services, 48.3%
Needed Services
and 6.1% needed community always received them. Additionally,
Among lifetime victims of rape,
services. Among men who were among the 2.7% of women in the
physical violence, or stalking, those
victims of rape, physical violence, United States who experienced
who reported a need for each of
or stalking by an intimate partner, rape, physical violence, or stalking
the individual services were asked
10.8% needed legal services, 5.5% and reported they needed victim’s
whether they ever received that
needed medical care, 1.5% needed advocate services, 46.4% always
service. Overall, approximately half
housing services, and 1.1% needed received them. Among the 7.6% of
of the female victims (49.0%) who
community services. For each of women in the United States who
needed services reported that they
these services, except for advocacy experienced rape, physical violence,
always received the services that
services, the proportion of female or stalking and reported they
were needed (Table 7.1). However,
victims reporting that they needed needed legal services, 33.1% always
44.9% of female victims who
a particular service was significantly received them. Finally, among the
needed services reported that they
higher than the proportion of male women in the United States who
did not receive any of the needed
victims who said they needed experienced rape, physical violence,
services. Additionally, 6.1% of
the same service (p < .05). Formal or stalking and reported they
female victims who needed services
statistical testing comparing the needed community services, 49.6%
reported that they received some
need for advocacy services was not always received them.
but not all of the needed services.
undertaken because the number
With respect to specific services,
of men reporting the need for Male Victims who
among the 7.9% of women in the
advocacy services was too small Needed Services
United States who experienced
to generate a reliable estimate. Among victims of rape, physical
violence, or stalking who reported
and reported they needed medical
a need for services, the proportion
Table 7.1
Proportion of Female Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate
Partner Who Received Needed Services — NISVS 20101
Always Received Needed Service(s) Did Not Receive Any Needed Service(s)
Service Weighted % 95% CI Weighted % 95% CI
Any services 49.0 44.7 – 53.3 44.9 40.7 – 49.2
Medical care 89.5 84.8 – 92.9 9.1 5.9 – 13.6
Housing services 48.3 38.7 – 58.0 51.5 41.8 – 61.1
Victim’s advocate services 46.4 37.5 – 55.6 50.4 41.3 – 59.4
Community services 49.6 39.5 – 59.8 45.1 35.2 – 55.3
Legal services 33.1 28.5 – 38.1 63.6 58.4 – 68.4
1 6.1% of female victims who needed services received some but not all of the needed services. Too few female victims received some
but not all needed services, for the individual services, to calculate reliable estimates.
of men who reported that they physical violence, or stalking and Disclosure among
always received those services reported they needed legal services,
(33.0%) was significantly lower than 10.9% always received those services, Lifetime Victims of
the proportion of female victims significantly lower than the 33.1% Rape, Physical Violence,
who reported that they always of female victims that needed legal or Stalking by an
received those services (49.0%), services and always received those
p < .05. Nearly 2 in 3 male victims services (p < .05). Too few male victims Intimate Partner
(65.7%) who reported a need for reported a need for other individual Among victims of lifetime rape,
services never received any of the services to calculate reliable estimates physical violence, or stalking by an
needed services (data not shown). that break down the degree to which intimate partner, 84.2% of women
individual services were received, and 60.9% of men disclosed the
With respect to specific services, and, therefore, formal statistical violence
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 they experienced
40 to another
among the 3.1% of men in the comparisons between women and person (Figure 7.2). The proportion
United States who experienced rape, men were not made. Percent
of female victims who disclosed
Figure 7.2
Disclosure among Lifetime Victims of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate
Partner, by Sex — NISVS 2010
84.2†
Any disclosure
60.9
36.3†
Police
12.6
21.1†
Doctor/Nurse
5.6
36.5†
Psychologist/Counselor
18.7
Women
5.9#
Crisis hotline Men
*
Friend 70.6†
48.4
Family member 51.9†

31.6
30.5†
Intimate partner
17.7
Other 6.6†
4.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
# Formal statistical testing was not undertaken because the number experiencing these behaviors was too small to generate a
reliable estimate for at least one of the comparison groups.
their IPV experience was significantly Degree of Helpfulness

higher than the proportion of
male victims who disclosed their of Disclosure among Among those who
experiences to someone else (p < .05). those Who Disclosed experienced rape,
Some of the most common groups of Lifetime Rape, Physical
people that victims of rape, physical physical violence, or
violence, or stalking disclosed their Violence, or Stalking by
stalking by an intimate
victimization to included: a friend an Intimate Partner
(70.6% of female victims, 48.4%
It has been well established partner during their
of male victims); a family member
(51.9% of female victims, 31.6% that disclosure of victimization lifetime, more than 1
of male victims); a psychologist or experiences can be very helpful
counselor (36.5% of female victims, to IPV victims as a way to elicit in 3 female victims and
support (Sylaska & Edwards, 2013).
18.7% of male victims); and the police
However, such disclosures also have more than 1 in 7 male
(36.3% of female victims, 12.6% of
male victims). Additionally, 21.1% led to negative reactions, such as victims reported the
of female victims and 5.6% of male victim-blaming, pressure to leave an
victims disclosed their victimization abusive relationship, or minimizing need for at least one
the abuse (Sylaska & Edwards, 2013).
to a doctor or nurse. The proportion
In the National Intimate Partner service as a result of
of female victims who disclosed their
experience with IPV was significantly and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), their victimization.
higher than the proportion of victims of IPV who disclosed their
male victims who disclosed their experience with IPV were asked
experience with IPV for each of the about the degree of helpfulness
groups of people that were examined of the disclosure (very helpful,
(p < .05). While 5.9% of female somewhat, a little, not at all) in Among those who
victims disclosed to a crisis hotline, relation to each source of help
formal statistical testing comparing consulted. Information about the experienced rape,
helpfulness of each source was
disclosure to a crisis hotline was not
asked in relation to victimization
physical violence, or
undertaken because the number of
men reporting disclosure to a crisis from each perpetrator mentioned stalking by an intimate
by the respondent.
hotline was too small to generate a partner, 84.2% of
reliable estimate.
women and 60.9% of
men disclosed their
experience with IPV
to someone else.
Female victims of rape, physical to be “not at all helpful.” A similar in proportions between male and
violence, or stalking who chose to pattern was found for male victims. female victims reporting disclosure
disclose their experiences generally to a doctor or nurse or to an
found most sources to be “very The proportion of male victims intimate partner being “very helpful”
helpful” or “somewhat helpful” who considered their disclosure is not significant. Formal statistical
(Table 7.2). With the exception of being “very helpful” is significantly testing comparing disclosure to a
disclosure to police, the percentage lower than the proportion of crisis hotline was not undertaken
of victims who found disclosure female victims who considered because the number of men
to the various sources to be “not their disclosure being “very helpful” reporting disclosure to a crisis
at all helpful” ranged from 10% for the following sources of help: hotline was too small to generate
(psychologist/counselor/friend) to police, psychologist/counselors, a reliable estimate.
15% (intimate partner). In contrast, friends, family members, and
33.7% found disclosure to the police “other” (p < .05). The difference
Table 7 .2
Degree of Helpfulness of Various Sources among those Who Disclosed Lifetime Rape, Physical
Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — NISVS 2010
Very (%) Somewhat (%) A little (%) Not at all (%)

Women
Police 36.5 22.2 14.2 33.7
Doctor/nurse 45.6 29.9 14.0 11.6
Psychologist/counselor 54.0 31.3 12.7 10.1
Crisis hotline 50.0 20.6 18.5 14.3
Friend 47.0 34.9 16.8 10.2
Family member 49.8 31.5 15.3 11.8
Intimate partner 40.6 33.7 16.0 15.0
Other 61.0 27.0 * *
Men
Police 21.0 17.8 13.1 52.0
Doctor/nurse 41.2 26.4 17.8 20.9
Psychologist/counselor 40.6 29.9 19.3 16.3
Crisis hotline * * * *
Friend 36.6 37.5 18.8 15.1
Family member 38.2 38.9 16.9 11.7
Intimate partner 34.0 30.3 14.8 23.4
Other 34.7 27.0 * *
Note: Row totals may add up to more than 100% due to the possibility of respondents disclosing to the same source more than once
related to having more than one perpetrator.
8: Physical and Mental Health Conditions

by Victimization History
Previous research suggests that result directly from a physical
victims of intimate partner injury, others may result from
violence (IPV) make more visits to the biological impacts of stress Men and women with
health providers over their lifetime; on nearly all body systems a lifetime history of
have more hospital stays; have (e.g., nervous, cardiovascular,
longer duration of hospital stays; gastrointestinal, reproductive, and rape, physical violence,
and are at risk of a wide range of immune systems). Furthermore, or stalking by an
physical, mental, reproductive, and some research indicates that
other health conditions over their victims of violence are more intimate partner were
lifetime compared to nonvictims likely to adopt health-risk coping
(Black, 2011; Coker et al., 2002). behaviors such as smoking and
more likely to report
Many studies document increased the harmful use of alcohol or drugs frequent headaches,
risk for a number of adverse (Campbell, 2002; Coker et al., 2002).
physical, mental, reproductive, and chronic pain, difficulty
other health conditions among This section compares the sleeping, activity
those who have experienced prevalence of various health
intimate partner violence. Most conditions among persons with limitations, and poor
studies that evaluate the adverse a lifetime history of rape, physical
physical health in
health consequences of intimate violence, or stalking by an intimate
partner violence are based on partner in relation to those who general compared
female victims of such violence; have not experienced these forms
less is known about the risk for of IPV in their lifetime. Respondents to those without a
adverse health events among men were asked about a number of history of these forms
(Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008). health conditions: asthma, irritable
bowel syndrome, diabetes, high of IPV. Women who
The cross-sectional nature of the blood pressure, frequent headaches, have experienced
National Intimate Partner and chronic pain, difficulty sleeping,
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) activity limitations, and whether these forms of
does not allow for a determination they considered their physical
of causality or the temporality health and mental health to be
violence were also
of violence victimization and poor. Verbatim health questions more likely to report
associated health conditions. are available within the National
However, extensive research Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence asthma, irritable bowel
describes a number of mechanisms Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report syndrome, diabetes,
that link chronic stress to a wide (Black et al., 2011).
range of adverse health conditions and poor mental
(Black, 2011). While some health
conditions may
health compared to
women who did not
experience these
forms of violence.
Among Women asthma (p < .001), irritable bowel of rape, physical violence, or
With the exception of high blood syndrome (p < .001), diabetes stalking by an intimate partner,
pressure, the prevalence of reported (p < .05), frequent headaches compared to women who have not
adverse mental and physical health (p < .001), chronic pain (p < .001), experienced these forms of violence
conditions was significantly higher difficulty sleeping (p < .001), and (p < .001). The experience of rape,
among women with a history of activity limitations (p < .001). physical violence, or stalking by an
rape, physical violence, or stalking Additionally, the percentage of intimate partner was significantly
by an intimate partner compared to women who considered their associated (p < .05) with each of
women without a history of these physical or mental health to be the health conditions except for
forms of violence (Table 8.1). This poor was significantly higher high blood pressure, even after
includes a higher prevalence of among women with a history controlling for age, race/ethnicity,
Table 8 .1
Prevalence of Physical and Mental Health Conditions among those with and without
a History of Rape, Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U .S . Women
and Men, NISVS 2010
Women Men
Weighted % Weighted %
p-value2 p-value2
Health Condition History No History1 History No History1
Asthma 23.1 15.5 < .001 14.4 13.0 ns3
Irritable bowel syndrome 12.0 7.7 < .001 4.2 3.6 ns3
Diabetes 12.9 10.3 < .05 9.7 10.6 ns3
High blood pressure 28.1 27.1 ns3 30.1 29.3 ns3
Frequent headaches 29.5 17.4 < .001 16.0 9.8 < .001
Chronic pain 30.0 17.8 < .001 23.7 13.5 < .001
Difficulty sleeping 38.4 22.4 < .001 32.7 19.1 < .001
Activity limitations 35.7 20.9 < .001 29.1 18.7 < .001
Poor physical health 6.7 2.7 < .001 4.9 2.8 < .01
Poor mental health 3.6 1.2 < .001 2.6 1.4 ns3
1 No history of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner.
2 p-values determined using chi-square test of independence in SUDAAN™.
3 Nonsignificant difference.
income, education, and the (p < .001), difficulty sleeping experience of rape and stalking
experience of rape and stalking (p < .001), activity limitations by non-intimates. There were no
by non-intimates (Table 8.2). (p < .001), and considered their significant differences between
physical health to be poor (p < .01). the two groups of men in the
Among Men Each of these health conditions prevalence of asthma, irritable
Compared to men without a history was significantly associated bowel syndrome, diabetes, high
of rape, physical violence, or stalking (p < .05) with having experienced blood pressure, and self-assessed
by an intimate partner, men with rape, physical violence, or stalking poor mental health.
such histories had a significantly by an intimate partner, even after
higher prevalence of frequent controlling for age, race/ethnicity,
headaches (p < .001), chronic pain income, education, and the
Table 8 .2
Association between Physical and Mental Health Conditions and the Experience of Rape,
Physical Violence, or Stalking by an Intimate Partner — U .S . Women and Men, NISVS 2010
Comparison of History vs. No Comparison of History vs. No

History among Women History among Men
Health Condition AOR1 95% CI AOR1 95% CI
Asthma 1.4* 1.2 – 1.7 1.1 0.9 – 1.4
Irritable bowel syndrome 1.5* 1.2 – 1.9 1.3 0.9 – 2.0
Diabetes 1.3* 1.0 – 1.6 1.0 0.8 – 1.3
High blood pressure 1.1 0.9 – 1.3 1.1 0.9 – 1.4
Frequent headaches 1.6* 1.4 – 2.0 1.4* 1.1 – 1.8
Chronic pain 1.6* 1.4 – 1.9 2.0* 1.6 – 2.4
Difficulty sleeping 1.7* 1.5 – 2.0 1.8* 1.5 – 2.2
Activity limitations 1.8* 1.5 – 2.1 1.7* 1.4 – 2.1
Poor physical health 2.0* 1.4 – 3.0 2.2* 1.4 – 3.3
Poor mental health 2.0* 1.2 – 3.3 1.4 0.8 – 2.5
1 Adjusted odds ratio controlling for age, race-ethnicity, income, education, and the experience of rape and stalking by non-intimates.
* Statistically significant, p < .05.
9: Discussion
Highlights and than rape; approximately violence experiences and do not

1 in 4 has experienced severe speak to differences in severity
Cross-Cutting Findings physical violence and nearly among victims.
Beyond reporting the overall 1 in 3 has been slapped, pushed,
prevalence of individual forms of or shoved; more than 1 in 10 has In multiple ways, the data in this
intimate partner violence (IPV), been stalked; and nearly 1 in 2 report indicate that IPV reported
the National Intimate Partner and has experienced psychological by women was typically more
Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) aggression. With regard to men’s severe and resulted in a greater
was designed to examine and lifetime experience of violence by number of negative impacts
describe in more detail the context an intimate partner: approximately than IPV victimization reported
of IPV victimization experienced 1 in 12 has experienced sexual by men. Specifically, during their
by women and men. This report violence other than rape; nearly lifetime, women were more likely
describes a number of these 1 in 7 has experienced severe than men to experience: severe
important contextual elements physical violence and 1 in 4 has physical violence; sexual violence
such as the frequency, severity, been slapped, pushed or shoved; other than rape by an intimate
and the overlap of violence types, nearly 1 in 48 has been stalked; partner; stalking by an intimate
as well as the need for services, and nearly 1 in 2 has experienced partner; and expressive aggression.
and impact of IPV victimization. psychological aggression. Furthermore, women were more
Moving beyond the primary focus likely than men to experience:
of IPV prevalence allows for a Further, the results indicate that a multiple forms of intimate partner
deeper understanding of the broad significant proportion of IPV victims violence (including rape, physical
range of victimization experiences. experience negative impacts as a violence, and stalking), both across
From a public health perspective, result of IPV victimization. Although the life span and within individual
a better understanding of the no demographic group is immune violent relationships; a need for
context in which intimate partner to these forms of violence, consistent services in general; and at least one
violence occurs is necessary to patterns emerged with respect to the of the negative IPV-related impacts
inform and focus preventive subpopulations in the United States that were measured, including
services and community responses that are most heavily affected. injury and having missed at least
to the needs of victims. one day of work or school.
Women are Disproportionately
Intimate Partner Violence Affected by Intimate Looking at the variation in IPV
Remains a Significant Public Partner Violence experiences among victims only,
Health Problem Consistent with previous national female victims were more likely than
The results presented in this studies (Tjaden & Thoennes, male victims to experience: a greater
report indicate that IPV remains a 2000), the findings in this number of discrete physically violent,
public health issue of significant report indicate that women are sexually violent, and psychologically
importance, affecting many disproportionately affected by IPV. aggressive behaviors within an
women and men in the United While women have a significantly individual violent relationship; each
States. Specifically, with regard higher lifetime prevalence of rape, of the negative IPV-related impacts
to women’s lifetime experience physical violence, or stalking by that was measured, including injury,
of violence by an intimate an intimate partner, compared need for housing services, need for
partner: nearly 1 in 10 has been to men, it is important to look victim’s advocate services, and having
raped; approximately 1 in 6 has beyond the overall numbers as missed at least one day of work or
experienced sexual violence other they encompass a wide range of school; and a greater number of
discrete IPV-related impacts within Furthermore, a comparison of the Women and Men with
an individual relationship. Finally, differences in 12-month prevalence Lower Incomes are
female victims were more likely estimates show much smaller Disproportionately Affected
than male victims to experience differences between men and by Intimate Partner Violence
more than the median number of women (e.g., unwanted sexual The 12-month prevalence of rape,
violent behaviors in an individual contact, various forms of severe physical violence, or stalking by
relationship for: sexual violence physical violence) and, in some an intimate partner was signifi-
(two or more sexually violent cases, more men than women cantly higher among women and
behaviors), physical violence (three experienced certain behaviors men with a combined household
or more physically violent behaviors), in the 12 months preceding the income of less than $25,000 and
and psychological aggression survey such as being slapped between $25,000 and $50,000
(four or more psychologically and being kicked. Additionally, than for women and men with a
aggressive behaviors). men had a higher 12-month combined income over $75,000.
prevalence of psychological The median U.S. household income
Many Men Experience Severe aggression than women. in 2010 was $49,455, so the two
IPV and Negative Impacts lowest income groups combined
Despite numerous indicators Racial/Ethnic Minorities are roughly correspond to the bottom
suggesting that women are more Disproportionately Affected 50th percentile for household
likely to experience severe IPV by Intimate Partner Violence income (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).
compared to men, and are more Consistent with other studies, This finding is consistent with
likely to be negatively impacted, the burden of IPV is not shared previous studies demonstrating
the data show that many men also equally among racial/ethnic an inverse relationship between
experience severe forms of IPV and groups. This report indicates that income and IPV prevalence
negative impacts. Specifically, in Black and multiracial non-Hispanic (Breiding, Black, & Ryan, 2008).
the United States: women had significantly higher
• Nearly 14% of men have lifetime prevalence of rape, Victimization is More
experienced severe physical physical violence, or stalking by Prevalent among
violence by an intimate partner an intimate partner, compared to Young Adults
in their lifetime. White non-Hispanic women; Asian For women and men, the 12-month
• Nearly 10% of men have or Pacific Islander non-Hispanic prevalence of rape, physical
experienced rape, physical women had significantly lower violence, or stalking was highest
violence, or stalking by an prevalence than non-Hispanic among the youngest age group
intimate partner in their lifetime White women. Also, American (18 to 24). Prevalence decreased
and experienced at least one Indian or Alaska Native men, within each subsequent age group.
IPV-related impact. as well as Black and multiracial Furthermore, nearly 60% of female
non-Hispanic men, had a victims and over 55% of male
• Approximately 4% of men
significantly higher lifetime victims first experienced some
have been physically injured
prevalence of rape, physical form of intimate partner violence
in their lifetime as a result of
violence, or stalking compared to prior to age 18.
violence experienced in an
White non-Hispanic men. These
intimate relationship.
findings may be a reflection of Victimization is Associated
• Approximately 4% of men have the many stressors that racial with Recent Food and
missed at least one day of work and ethnic minority communities Housing Insecurity
or school in their lifetime as a continue to experience. For Higher levels of 12-month
result of violence experienced in example, a number of social prevalence of rape, physical
an intimate relationship. determinants of mental and violence, or stalking by an intimate
physical health, such as low income partner were observed among
and limited access to education, those with food and housing
community resources, and services, insecurity. Additional analysis is
likely play important roles. needed to fully understand the
independent effects of income, at some point during their lifetime. disclosure to particular sources such
education, employment status, and The estimated number of men as police, psychologists/counselors,
other sociodemographic variables and women who reported that friends, family members, and “others.”
that may be related to both food they needed services as result of
and housing insecurity and to IPV. victimization in their lifetime was Intimate Partner Violence
more than 20 million. However, Is Associated with Negative
Foreign-born Adults women, in particular, had a need Physical and Mental Health
Experienced Lower Levels for housing and victim’s advocate Conditions
of Victimization services, with millions of women The findings in this report confirm
The lifetime prevalence of rape, needing each of these forms and extend the literature by
physical violence, or stalking of assistance in their lifetime. documenting the association
was significantly lower for Importantly, less than 50% of female between IPV and a wide range
adults that were born outside victims who indicated a need of adverse physical and mental
of the United States compared for housing or victim’s advocate health conditions as the findings
to those born in the United services during their lifetime presented here are the first to
States. Additional analysis is reported that they received them. examine these associations in a
needed to better understand nationally-representative dataset.
whether this finding reflects a Overall, among female victims that The significant associations
lower likelihood of experiencing needed services during their lifetime, between IPV victimization and
IPV among immigrants in their 44.9% did not receive any services. negative health outcomes
country of origin, or whether it is For male victims, nearly 2 out of 3 remained after controlling for
the result of a lower likelihood of (65.7%) that needed services during sexual violence and stalking by
experiencing IPV since arriving their lifetime did not receive any non-intimates, suggesting that IPV
in the United States. Another services. Clearly, there is a need to uniquely contributes to long-term
possible explanation is that there better understand the barriers to health difficulties.
are cultural differences in reporting receiving these services for both
violence experiences, and that women and men. Specifically, Results Provide Greater
those cultural differences, and not there is a need for an improved Context Surrounding
a true difference in prevalence, may understanding of whether the IPV Victimization
explain the differences found. barriers are largely due to lack of The methodology used in the
availability or other factors that lead survey responds to calls from
Bisexual Women are at to a victim choosing not to access the field to add greater context
Greater Risk of Victimization available services. to prevalence estimates that
Bisexual women were significantly frequently do not explicate the
more likely to experience lifetime A larger percentage of female range of severity that exists among
rape, physical violence, or stalking victims disclosed their lifetime IPV victims. Specifically, by examining
by an intimate partner, compared experiences, in general, compared to information related to individual
to lesbian and heterosexual men (84.2% and 60.9%, respectively), perpetrators, including the overlap
women. While the prevalence of and a larger percentage of female of types of IPV, discrete number
rape, physical violence, or stalking victims disclosed their IPV to of violent behaviors experienced,
for bisexual men was somewhat individual sources compared to frequency and severity of the
elevated compared to gay men and men. However, among victims violence experienced, and the
heterosexual men, there were no that disclosed their lifetime IPV impact of violence perpetrated
statistically significant differences. victimization, the proportion of men by a specific intimate partner, the
who considered the disclosure as results described in this report allow
Services and Disclosure being “very helpful” was significantly for a better understanding of the
A range of services have been lower than the proportion of women patterns of violence that exist within
needed by a large number of who considered the disclosure as individual relationships, shedding
people in the United States as a being “very helpful.” This was true light on the totality of the violence
result of having experienced IPV for disclosure in general and for experienced. Additionally, this
information allows for a description Limitations violent behaviors. However, results

of the range in severity of from the cognitive testing process
victimization experiences that is not The findings of this report undertaken in the development
fully represented by IPV prevalence are subject to a number of of NISVS suggested that victims
estimates that combine many limitations. Random digit dial who experienced multiple forms
diverse victimization experiences (RDD) telephone surveys face two of violence with a perpetrator would
into a binary outcome measure. substantive challenges that have have a difficult time distinguishing
the potential to affect the national which type of violence from that
Despite these methodological representativeness of the sample perpetrator resulted in a particular
improvements that shed light on population. This includes declining type of impact. For example, a
the context of IPV victimization, response rates and an increasing respondent may not be able to
the data do not speak to other key number of households without attribute their concern for safety
aspects of context, specifically, landline telephones (Peytchev, to the psychological aggression
motive on the part of perpetrator Carley-Baxter, & Black, 2011). While or the physical violence that they
(e.g., self-defense) and whether the overall response rate for the experienced. Second, because we
the victim also engaged in 2010 National Intimate Partner used victims’ reports of their age
perpetration of IPV. Prior research and Sexual Violence Survey was and relationship at the time violence
suggests that IPV is reciprocal in relatively low, the cooperation started with each perpetrator, it
many relationships (Graham-Kevan rate was high. A number of efforts was not always possible to calculate
& Archer, 2003). Consequently, it were also made to mitigate the respondent’s age or specify the
is likely that a certain number of the potential for non-response relationship at the time specific
victims identified within this report and non-coverage bias. These types of violent behavior occurred.
were themselves perpetrators include a non-response follow-up Based on the data we have
of IPV who may or may not have in which randomly selected about the relationship at the first
acted in self-defense. It is also non-responders were contacted victimization and last victimization,
possible that some of the victims and offered an increased incentive we estimate that less than 3% of
identified within this report may for participation. In addition, the perpetrators had a relationship with
have been the primary perpetrator inclusion of a cellphone component the victim that changed categories
within the relationship and that provided increased coverage of a over time between the experience
the victimization they reported growing population that would of the first and last victimizations
may have occurred solely when a have otherwise been excluded. (e.g., from acquaintance to intimate
partner was acting in self-defense. The cellphone-only population partner). All of the estimates in this
Perpetration of IPV is not measured tends to be young, low income, report reflect the relationship at the
within NISVS because data and comprised of racial/ethnic time the perpetrator first committed
from the NISVS pilot found that minorities (Peytchev, Carley-Baxter, any violence against the victim.
perpetration was significantly & Black, 2011). Importantly, these
underreported relative to demographic groups have Even though NISVS captures a full
victimization. Further, the motives a higher prevalence of IPV. range of victimization experiences,
of perpetrators were not assessed the estimates reported here likely
in NISVS, given the difficulties Follow-up questions were designed underestimate the prevalence of
a respondent would have in to reflect the victim’s experience intimate partner violence for a
accurately assessing the specific with each perpetrator across the number of reasons. These include:
motives of another person. Not victim’s lifetime. There are several (1) potential respondents that
only is asking a victim to describe limitations associated with how are currently involved in violent
the motive of a perpetrator likely these questions were asked. First, relationships may not participate
unreliable, but motives behind respondents were asked about the in the survey or fully disclose the
the violence are likely to change impact from any of the violence violence they are experiencing
over time and change with the inflicted by each perpetrator. because of concern for their safety;
specific circumstances surrounding Therefore, it is not possible to (2) although the survey gathers
multiple episodes of IPV. examine the impact of specific information on a wide range of
victimizations, it is not feasible to affect those who have experienced reluctance for respondents to
measure all of the violent behaviors recent severe IPV. Additionally, it discuss specific types of violence
that may have been experienced; is possible that those who have (e.g., forced vaginal sex) or specific
(3) given the sensitive nature of experienced recent severe IPV types of perpetrators (e.g., same
these types of violence, it is likely may be less likely to participate at sex). These are factors that might
that some respondents who all. One study found that women impact the accuracy of estimates
had been victimized did not feel who had experienced severe IPV in unpredictable ways and in a
comfortable participating or did within the past 12 months were manner that could potentially
not feel comfortable reporting their less likely to participate in a study vary across subgroups of victims
experiences because of ongoing of IPV (Waltermaurer, Ortega, & (e.g., by age or sex). Despite these
emotional trauma or the social McNutt, 2003). There are a number limitations, population-based
stigma associated with being a of potential reasons why those surveys that collect information
victim of these forms of violence; who have experienced recent directly from victims remain one
(4) although potentially mitigated severe IPV may be less willing to of the most important and most
by the use of a cell phone sample, participate in a survey. First, a victim reliable sources of data on IPV. For
RDD surveys may be less likely of severe IPV who is currently living example, the wide range of impacts
to capture populations living in with the perpetrator may fear of IPV that was measured by
institutions (e.g., nursing homes, for their safety. Second, a recent NISVS can only be captured from
military bases, college dormitories), victim of IPV who has recently the victim directly. Furthermore,
or those in prison, those living in left a relationship may be in a less population-based surveys are likely
shelters, or those who are homeless stable living arrangement, such to capture IPV victimization that
or transient; and (5) it is possible as a shelter, or temporarily living does not come to the attention of
that some respondents could no with a friend or family member, police, as well as IPV victimization
longer recall violence experiences and may be less likely to have that does not require treatment
that were less severe in nature or the opportunity to participate. or is not reported to a health
that occurred long ago. Third, those who are currently provider. Population-based surveys
involved in a particularly controlling that are carefully conducted, with
This report provides lifetime and relationship may have restricted well-trained interviewers who are
12-month prevalence estimates, or no use of a telephone. For these able to build rapport and trust
as both estimates are important reasons, 12-month prevalence with participants, are essential to
indicators of the burden of IPV. estimates of IPV victimization the collection of valid data and the
For an ongoing public health may be an underestimate of the well-being of respondents.
surveillance system, 12-month current public health burden of IPV.
prevalence estimates are important Because women are more likely to Considerations Related to
indicators needed to determine experience severe IPV compared to Combining Violence Types
the current public health burden of men, women’s 12-month prevalence Many of the results in this report
these forms of violence and to track may be particularly affected. focus on a summary measure
trends over time. However, given that examined whether a victim
the sensitivity of these outcomes, In addition to the possible experienced some combination of
there are important limitations to causes of underestimation of rape, physical violence, or stalking.
consider when interpreting the the prevalence, it is important to This summary measure utilized
12-month prevalence of IPV. As consider other potential limitations is a conservative representation,
mentioned, some respondents related to the data being based including only those violence
may be less likely to disclose IPV on self-reports. For example, types for which there is broad
victimization due to ongoing 12-month estimates may reflect a agreement regarding inclusion, but
emotional trauma or discomfort, degree of recall bias with victims most certainly excludes a number
or due to concern for their safety believing that victimization of violence types that in specific
due to an ongoing relationship experiences occurred closer in instances should be classified as
with a perpetrator. We would time than they actually did (i.e., IPV. The exclusion of certain forms
expect that this would particularly telescoping). Also, there may be of IPV from the summary measure
is not meant to suggest these and boys experience. With further

forms of IPV that were measured research, and with broader
in NISVS (i.e., sexual violence agreement within the field,
other than rape, psychological changes may be warranted to the
aggression, control of reproductive summary measure by including
or sexual health) are less important. some of the forms of IPV that are
One overriding concern about currently described outside of the
including all types of IPV measured summary measure. In so doing, a
by NISVS into a single summary broader summary measure would
measure is that by combining describe a more comprehensive
many forms of IPV, ranging from representation of IPV experiences.
severe to less severe, the meaning
of the summary measure is lost.
Specifically, the summary measure
may lead to the false impression
that all experiences are equivalent
under the umbrella of the summary
measure. However, it is important
to consider the variation in severity
that exists and is represented by
the other measures described in
this report.
The reasons for not including

specific types of IPV in the summary
measure vary. For some types of IPV,
such as psychological aggression,
there is little agreement in the field
from a measurement perspective
about when psychological
aggression becomes psychological
abuse or violence. The prevalence
estimate included in this report
describes the number of people
who experienced any form of
psychological aggression at
least once. As the understanding
of psychological aggression
improves (for example, how to
make the distinction between
psychological aggression and
psychological abuse), the ability to
appropriately describe and present
this important data will improve.
Similarly, another form of violence,
being made to penetrate someone
else, is a relatively new addition
that may be particularly important
to improve our understanding
of the sexual violence that men
10: Implications for Prevention
This report documents the public DELTA FOCUS grantees are working being most at risk. Further work
health burden that intimate partner toward changing the conditions needs to be done to test existing
violence (IPV) exerts on a wide that lead to IPV through activities strategies with specific groups, as
range of populations with differing such as: promoting healthy well as to develop and test other
demographic characteristics. relationships and communications strategies to determine whether
Consequently, a community-level skills, engaging men and boys in they are effective in preventing
response is needed to implement violence prevention, developing IPV. One of the goals of CDC’s
effective and appropriate measures youth assets and leaders, and Dating MattersTM program, which
to prevent and respond to those working with communities is a comprehensive program for
who are affected by IPV. to implement and evaluate youth, their parents, educators, and
population-level strategies that the neighborhoods in which they
prevent IPV. live, is to test evidence-based and
Primary Prevention evidence-informed strategies within
CDC places an emphasis on high-risk urban communities (Teten
The Centers for Disease Control and primary prevention, prioritizing the Tharp, 2012). By making adaptations
Prevention’s (CDC's) core strategy for prevention of IPV from occurring to existing evidence-based program
preventing IPV is the promotion of in the first place. This report components to make them more
respectful, nonviolent relationships indicates that IPV victimization culturally relevant and developing
through individual, relationship, begins early with nearly 70% of and testing other strategies tailored
community, and societal change. female victims and nearly 54% of for urban communities, this
This prevention strategy is male victims having experienced program will help identify potential
organized around the following IPV prior to age 25. This suggests strategies for groups at high-risk for
principles: understanding ways to that primary prevention of IPV teen dating violence. Outside of this
interrupt the development of IPV must begin at an early age. CDC’s specific program, continued efforts
perpetration; improving knowledge approach to primary prevention are needed to develop prevention
of factors that contribute to of IPV is the promotion of healthy strategies that address the culturally
respectful relationships and protect relationship behaviors among specific concerns of at-risk groups
against IPV; creating and evaluating young people, with the goal of across the United States.
new approaches to prevention; reaching adolescents prior to their
and building community capacity. first relationships. By influencing Efforts to build positive and healthy
Comprehensive community-based relationship behaviors and patterns parent-child relationships are
approaches building upon and early through dating violence also important for the primary
joining well-organized, broad- prevention programs, the hope is prevention of IPV. Children benefit
based coalitions are important to promote healthy relationship from safe, stable, and nurturing
and can effectively create change behaviors and patterns that can be familial environments that
in communities. One example carried forward into adulthood. facilitate respectful interactions
of these efforts, The Domestic and open communication. Other
Violence Prevention Enhancement This report identified groups that opportunities to build parent-child
and Leadership Through Alliances are at most risk for IPV victimization. relationships include programs
(DELTA) FOCUS program seeks to While primary prevention programs to promote effective parenting
prevent IPV at the national, state, exist, it is unknown whether they skills and efforts to include and
and local levels by funding states are effective within specific groups support relationships between
and communities to implement and of people, particularly among fathers and children. Beyond
evaluate IPV prevention strategies. those identified in this report as providing children an opportunity
to share with their parents the the likelihood of IPV perpetration. needed medical services; nearly
experiences they have had with Protective factors are particularly half said they needed housing,
dating violence and other forms critical to developing prevention victim’s advocacy, and community
of violence, parents who model programs as they are more likely to services; and a third of women
healthy, respectful intimate point to environments or situations needed legal services. Among the
relationships free from violence that reduce the likelihood of female victims who needed at least
foster these relationship patterns violence perpetration, in general, one of these services at some point
in their children. Furthermore, or reduce the likelihood of IPV during their lifetime, nearly half
children who have experienced perpetration in the first place did not receive any of the services
adverse childhood events, such among those who are at high risk. that were needed. Among the male
as witnessing violence between victims who needed at least one
parents, are at increased risk of Finally, as the risk and protective of these services, approximately
short- and long-term health and factors for IPV perpetration are two-thirds did not receive any of
social problems (Felitti, et al., 1998). better understood, additional the needed services. This indicates
Reducing parental IPV is likely to research is needed to develop and that a significant gap has existed
decrease the risk of IPV and other evaluate strategies to effectively over time, and may still exist,
forms of violence in the next prevent the first-time perpetration between a need for services and
generation, decrease the likelihood of IPV. This includes research that the receipt of those services. Future
of children engaging in risky addresses the social and economic work is needed to understand the
behaviors, and decrease the risk conditions that increase the risk for degree to which this gap currently
of a wide range of adverse perpetration and victimization — exists and, if so, whether this gap is
health conditions. such as poverty, food and housing due to services being unavailable
insecurity, and sexism — as well as or because available services were
The focus of this report is on other forms of discrimination and not utilized. Regardless, a better
describing the public health social exclusion. Such research will understanding of the current
burden of victimization. To better complement efforts focused on barriers to service utilization is
understand how to prevent IPV, preventing initial victimization and always important.
CDC also supports work that seeks the recurrence of victimization.
to better understand the causes Disclosing victimization
of IPV perpetration. Research experiences is a necessary first step
examining risk and protective Secondary and for victims to be able to obtain the
factors is key to understanding how resources and services they need.
perpetration of violence develops Tertiary Prevention One primary method by which IPV
and to determine the optimal Secondary and tertiary prevention victims may disclose victimization
strategies for preventing intimate programs and services are essential and receive appropriate help is
partner violence. While much is for mitigating the short- and through disclosure to medical
known about risks factors at the long-term consequences of IPV professionals. While 84.2% of
individual and couple level, there among victims, as well as reducing female victims and 60.9% of
have been few studies examining the violence-related health burden male victims disclosed their IPV
community- and societal-level across the life span. This report victimization to someone, only
factors related to perpetration of examined a range of services 21.0% of female victims and 5.0%
IPV. Identifying community and that victims reported needing as of male victims reported having
societal-level factors, while difficult, a result of IPV at some point in disclosed their victimization to
could be most useful in identifying their lifetime and whether they a medical professional at some
perpetration prevention strategies received them, including medical point in their lifetime. A number
that have the most potential for care, housing, victim’s advocacy, of medical associations (e.g.,
broad impact. In addition, future legal, and community services. The American Congress of Obstetricians
research is needed to identify vast majority of women who were [ACOG] and Gynecologists,
protective factors that decrease victims of IPV indicated that they American Medical Association [AMA])
recommend asking all patients contain adequate information

about their experiences with IPV at on IPV (Hamberger, 2007). To
every visit and providing referrals train health care providers to
for services as indicated (AMA, effectively identify, treat, and
1992; ACOG, 1995). Further, in provide secondary prevention for
2013, the U.S. Preventive Services victims of IPV, there remains an
Task Force recommended that urgent need to raise awareness
clinicians should screen all women about the pervasiveness of IPV and
of childbearing age for IPV and the far-reaching implications for
provide or refer women who screen patient health (Block, 2005).
positive to intervention services
(Moyer, 2013). The questions about
disclosure in National Intimate Conclusion
Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey were asked in relation to To reduce the burden of intimate
the violence experienced by an partner violence in the United
individual perpetrator and were States, it is essential to have solid
not specific to any particular data to inform IPV prevention
time period. However, the efforts and to provide services
findings suggest a need to better and resources to those who have
understand any potential barriers been victimized. Additionally, it
that may prevent victims from is critical for all sectors of society,
disclosing to a medical professional including peer groups, schools,
or those that may make some medical professionals, and
medical professionals reluctant communities, to work together
to assess patients’ victimization to decrease IPV. Continued
experiences, even among those efforts are required to extend the
that show signs of victimization gains that have been made in
(Black, 2011). Victims choosing to understanding and implementing
disclose to health care providers IPV prevention strategies.
is likely to improve if clinicians
are prepared and able to ask
about IPV in a compassionate
and non-judgmental manner.
One of the largest barriers to
physicians asking about IPV is that
they frequently feel inadequate
and unprepared to appropriately
respond to a patient who reports
experiencing IPV. A study of
final-year primary care residents
regarding “perceived preparedness”
found that only 21% reported
being prepared to talk about IPV
(Park, Wolfe, Gokhale, Winichoff,
& Rigotti, 2005). The amount of
time spent on IPV training remains
quite limited and the majority
of medical textbooks still do not
References
American College of Obstetricians Breiding, M.J., Black, M.C., & Ryan, Felitti, V.J., Anda, R.F., Nordenberg,
and Gynecologists (ACOG). (1995). G.W. (2008). Prevalence and risk D., Williamson, D.F., Spitz, A.M.,
Domestic violence (ACOG factors of intimate partner violence Edwards, V., Koss, M.P., & Marks,
Technical Bulletin No. 209). in 18 U.S. states/territories, 2005. J.S. (1998). The relationship of
Washington, DC: American College American Journal of Preventive adult health status to childhood
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Medicine, 34, 112–118. abuse and household dysfunction.
American Journal of Preventive
American Medical Association. (1992). Campbell, J. (2002). Health Medicine, 14, 245–258.
American Medical Association consequences of intimate partner
Diagnostic and Treatment violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331–1336. Follingstad, D.R., Rutledge, L.L.,
Guidelines on Domestic Violence. Berg, B.J., Hause, E.S., & Polek, D.S.
Archives of Family Medicine, 1, 39–47. Coker, A.L., Davis, K.E., Arias, I., (1990). The role of emotional abuse
Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, in physically abusive relationships.
Black, M.C. (2011). Intimate partner H.M., & Smith, P.H. (2002). Physical Journal of Family Violence, 1, 37–49.
violence and adverse health and mental health effects of
consequences: Implications for intimate partner violence for men Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J.
clinicians. American Journal of and women. American Journal of (2003). Intimate terrorism and
Lifestyle Medicine, 5, 428–439. Preventive Medicine, 23, 260−268. common couple violence: A test of
Johnson’s predictions in four British
Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Coker, A.L., Smith, P.H., & Fadden, samples. Journal of Interpersonal
Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.K. (2005). Intimate partner Violence, 18, 1247–1270.
M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). violence and disabilities among
The national intimate partner and women attending family practice Hamberger, L.K. (2007). Preparing
sexual violence survey (NISVS): clinics. Journal of Women’s Health, the next generation of physicians:
2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: 14, 829–838. medical school and residency-
National Center for Injury Prevention based intimate partner violence
and Control, Centers for Disease Cox, A.L., Coles, A.J., Nortje, J., curriculum and evaluation. Trauma,
Control and Prevention. Bradley, P.G., Chatfield, D.A., Violence, and Abuse, 8, 214–225.
Thompson, S.J., & Menon, D.K.
Block, R.W. (2005). Medical student (2006). An investigation of auto- Harned, M.S. (2001). Abused
exposure to family violence issues: reactivity after head-injury. Journal Women or Abused Men? An
a model curriculum. Family Violence of Neuroimmunology, 174, 180–186. Examination of the Context and
Prevention and Health Practice, 1, 1–4. Outcomes of Dating Violence.
Crofford, L.J. (2007). Violence, stress, Violence and Victims, 16, 269–285.
Breiding, M.J., Black, M.C., & Ryan, and somatic syndromes. Trauma,
G.W. (2008). Chronic disease and Violence, & Abuse, 8, 299–313. Houry, D., Rhodes, K., Kemball, R.,
health risk behaviors associated Click, L., Cerulli, C., McNutt, L.A.,
with intimate partner violence—18 Edwards, K.M. (2012). Women's & Kaslow, N.J. (2008). Differences
U.S. states/territories, 2005. Annals disclosure of dating violence: A mixed in female and male victims and
of Epidemiology, 18, 538–544. methodological study. Feminism & perpetrators of partner violence with
Psychology, 22(4): 507–517 respect to WEB scores. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1041–55.
Kelly, J.B. & Johnson, M.P. (2008). Randall, T. (1990). Domestic Walters, M.L., Chen J., & Breiding, M.J.
Differentiation among types of violence intervention: Calls for (2013). The national intimate partner
intimate partner violence: Research more than treating injuries. and sexual violence survey (NISVS):
update and implications for Journal of the American Medical 2010 findings on victimization by
interventions. Family Court Review, Association, 264, 939–940. sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA:
46, 476–499. National Center for Injury Prevention
Sullivan, C.M., & Cain, D. (2004). and Control, Centers for Disease
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Ethical and safety considerations Control and Prevention.
Controversies involving gender and when obtaining information
intimate partner violence in the from or about battered women World Health Organization. (2001).
United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179–193. for research purposes. Journal of Putting women first: Ethical and
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 603–618. safety recommendations for research
Logan, T.K., & Cole, J. (2007). on domestic violence against
The impact of partner stalking Sylaska, K.M., & Edwards, K.M. women. (WHO Publication No.
on mental health and protective (2013). Disclosure of intimate WHO/FCH/GWH/01.1). Geneva,
order outcomes over time. partner violence to informal Switzerland: Department of Gender
Violence and Victims, 22, 546–562. social support network members: and Women’s Health.
A review of the literature.
Moyer, V.A. (2013). Screening for Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.
intimate partner violence and Advance online publication. doi:
abuse of elderly and vulnerable 10.1177/1524838013496335
adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force recommendation statement. Teten Tharp, A. (2012). Dating
Annals of Internal Medicine, 158, Matters™: The next generation of
478–486. teen dating violence prevention.
Prevention Science, 13, 398–401.
Park, E.R., Wolfe, T.J., Gokhale, M.,
Winichoff, J.P., & Rigotti, N.A. (2005). Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000).
Perceived preparedness to provide Extent, nature, and consequences of
preventive counseling: reports of intimate partner violence: findings
graduating primary care residents from the National Violence Against
at academic health centers. Journal Women Survey (NIJ Publication
of General Medicine, 20, 386–391. No. 181867). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Peytchev, A., Carley-Baxter, L.R.,
& Black, M.C. (2011). Multiple U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Income,
sources of nonobservation error in poverty, and health insurance
telephone surveys: Coverage and coverage in the United States: 2010.
nonresponse. Sociological Methods Retrieved from http://www.census.
and Research, 40, 1, 138–168. gov/prod/2011pubs/p60–239.pdf.
Last accessed: July 24, 2013.
Pico-Alfonso, M.A., Garcia-Linares,
M.I., Celda-Navarro, N., Herbert, Waltermaurer, E.M., Ortega,
J., & Martinez, M. (2004). Changes C.A., & McNutt, L. (2003). Issues
in cortisol and dehydroepian- in estimating the prevalence
drosterone in women victims of of intimate partner violence:
physical and psychological intimate Assessing the impact of abuse
partner violence. Biological status on participation bias.
Psychiatry, 56, 233–240. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
18, 959–974.
Appendix A: Violence Victimization

and Other Domains Assessed
Violence Domains man, it also includes times when female using their fingers or
a partner tried to get pregnant an object. Being made to
Five types of intimate partner when the man did not want her penetrate someone else includes
violence were measured in National to become pregnant. times when the victim was made
Intimate Partner and Sexual to, or there was an attempt to
Violence Survey (NISVS). These A list of the victimization questions make them, sexually penetrate
include sexual violence, physical used in the survey can be found in someone without the victim’s
violence, stalking, psychological Appendix B. consent because the victim was
aggression, and control of physically forced (such as being
reproductive/sexual health. Sexual Violence by an pinned or held down, or by the
• Sexual violence includes rape, Intimate Partner use of violence) or threatened with
being made to penetrate Five types of sexual violence were physical harm, or when the victim
someone else, sexual coercion, measured in NISVS. These include was drunk, high, drugged, or
unwanted sexual contact, and acts of rape (forced penetration), passed out and unable to consent.
non-contact unwanted sexual being made to penetrate someone –– Among women, this behavior
experiences, as described below. else, sexual coercion, unwanted reflects a female being made to
• Physical violence includes a range sexual contact, and non-contact orally penetrate a man’s anus or
of behaviors from slapping, unwanted sexual experiences. another female’s vagina or anus.
pushing, or shoving to severe • Rape is defined as any completed It also includes perpetrators
acts such as being beaten, or attempted unwanted vaginal attempting to make female
burned, or choked. (for women), oral, or anal victims penetrate them, though
penetration through the use of penetration did not happen.
• S talking victimization involves
physical force (such as being
a pattern of harassing or –– Among men, being made to
pinned or held down, or by the
threatening tactics used by penetrate someone else could
use of violence) or threats to
a perpetrator that is both have occurred in multiple
physically harm and includes
unwanted and causes fear or ways: being made to penetrate
times when the victim was
safety concerns in the victim as a female’s vagina or anus, or
drunk, high, drugged, or passed
described below. another man’s anus, using one’s
out and unable to consent. Rape
• Psychological aggression includes own penis; being made to
is separated into three types,
expressive aggression (such penetrate another man’s anus,
completed forced penetration,
as name calling, insulting, or or a woman’s vagina or anus,
attempted forced penetration,
humiliating an intimate partner) using one’s own mouth; being
and completed alcohol- or
and coercive control, which made to penetrate a man’s or
drug-facilitated penetration.
includes behaviors that are woman’s mouth using one’s
Among women, rape includes
intended to monitor and control own penis. It also includes
vaginal, oral, or anal penetration
or threaten an intimate partner. perpetrators attempting to
by a male using his penis. It
make male victims penetrate
• Control of reproductive or sexual also includes vaginal or anal
them, though penetration did
health includes the refusal by an penetration by a male or female
not happen.
intimate partner to use a condom. using their fingers or an object.
For a woman, it also includes Among men, rape includes oral • Sexual coercion is defined as
times when a partner tried to get or anal penetration by a male unwanted sexual penetration
her pregnant when she did not using his penis. It also includes that occurs after a person is
want to become pregnant. For a anal penetration by a male or pressured in a nonphysical way.
In NISVS, sexual coercion refers burned on purpose and having a psychologically aggressive
to unwanted vaginal, oral, or partner use a knife or gun against behavior becomes abusive and
anal sex after being pressured the victim. While slapping, pushing, should be classified as IPV. Because
in ways that included being and shoving can also be severe of the lack of consensus in the
worn down by someone who in terms of the effect on victims, field at the time of this report,
repeatedly asked for sex or this report distinguishes between the prevalence of psychologically
showed they were unhappy; these forms of violence and the aggressive behaviors is reported,
feeling pressured by being lied physical violence that is generally but is not included in the overall
to, being told promises that were categorized as severe. prevalence estimates of IPV.
untrue, having someone threaten
to end a relationship or spread Stalking by an Control of Reproductive
rumors; and sexual pressure due Intimate Partner or Sexual Health by an
to someone using their influence Stalking victimization involves a Intimate Partner
or authority. pattern of harassing or threatening Control of reproductive or sexual
• Unwanted sexual contact is tactics used by a perpetrator that is health includes the refusal by an
defined as unwanted sexual both unwanted and causes fear or intimate partner to use a condom.
experiences involving touch but safety concerns in the victim. For the For a woman, it also includes times
not sexual penetration, such as purposes of this report, a person was when a partner tried to get her
being kissed in a sexual way, or considered a stalking victim if they pregnant when she did not want to
having sexual body parts fondled experienced multiple stalking tactics become pregnant. For a man, it also
or grabbed. or a single stalking tactic multiple includes times when a partner tried
times by the same perpetrator and to get pregnant when the man did
• Non-contact unwanted sexual
felt very fearful, or believed that they not want her to become pregnant.
experiences are those unwanted
or someone close to them would be
experiences that do not involve
harmed or killed as a result of the
any touching or penetration,
perpetrator’s behavior. Other Domains Assessed
including someone exposing
their sexual body parts, flashing, IPV-related Impact
Psychological Aggression
or masturbating in front of the For each perpetrator of IPV,
by an Intimate Partner
victim, someone making a victim respondents were asked about
Psychological aggression, including
show his or her body parts, whether they had experienced:
expressive aggression and coercive
someone making a victim look at • Being fearful
control, is an important component
or participate in sexual photos or
movies, or someone harassing the
of intimate partner violence (IPV). • Being concerned for safety
Expressive aggression includes • Symptoms of post-traumatic
victim in a public place in a way
behaviors such as name-calling, stress disorder (PTSD)
that made the victim feel unsafe.
insults, and humiliation. Coercive
control includes behaviors that – Having nightmares
Physical Violence by are intended to monitor and – Trying hard not to think about
an Intimate Partner control an intimate partner it or avoiding being reminded
Physical violence includes a wide through threats to harm, of it
range of behaviors from slapping, interference with family and – Feeling constantly on guard,
pushing, or shoving to more severe friends, and limiting access to watchful, or easily startled
behaviors such as being beaten, money. Although research
burned, or choked. In this report, – Feeling numb or detached
suggests that psychological from others, activities,
severe physical violence includes aggression may be even more
being hurt by pulling hair, being hit or surroundings
harmful than physical violence
with something hard, being kicked, by an intimate partner (Follingstad, • Being injured
being slammed against something, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, • Needing health care
attempts to hurt by choking or 1990), there is little agreement • Needing housing services
suffocating, being beaten, being about how to determine when
• Needing victim’s advocate violence was experienced. This

services report describes violence for which
• Needing legal services the respondent indicated that the
perpetrator was a current or former
• Contacting a crisis hotline
intimate partner at the time when
• Missing days of work or school the violence first began.
• For those reporting rape by an
intimate partner: Services and Disclosure
– Contracting a sexually Respondents who reported
transmitted infection experiencing violence were
subsequently asked whether they
– Becoming pregnant (for women)
needed various services (e.g.,
medical care, housing services,
The questions were assessed in
advocacy services, crisis hotline). If
relation to specific perpetrators
a respondent indicated a need for
without regard to the time period
a particular service, the respondent
in which they occurred. Because
was asked whether that service was
violent acts often do not occur
received. In addition, respondents
in isolation and are frequently
who reported experiencing
experienced in the context of other
IPV were asked whether they
violence committed by the same
disclosed their victimization to
perpetrator, questions regarding
various sources (e.g., health care
the impact of the violence were
provider, family member, friend).
asked in relation to all forms of
Respondents who sought services
violence (sexual violence, physical
or disclosed their victimization were
violence, stalking, expressive
asked the degree of helpfulness of
aggression, coercive control, and
that source.
reproductive control) committed by
the perpetrator in that relationship.
Such information provides a better
understanding of how individual
and cumulative experiences of
violence interact to result in harm
to victims and provides a more
nuanced understanding of the
overall impact of violence.
Perpetrator Information
Respondents who reported
experiencing IPV were subsequently
asked to identify individual
perpetrators by initials, nickname,
or in some other general way
so that each violent behavior
reported could be tied to a specific
perpetrator. For each perpetrator
reported, respondents were asked
their age and their relationship to
the perpetrator at the time violence
first began and at the last time
Appendix B: Victimization Questions

Sexual Violence
How many people have ever… • exposed their sexual body parts to you, flashed you, or masturbated in front of you?
• made you show your sexual body parts to them? Remember, we are only asking about things
that you didn’t want to happen.
• made you look at or participate in sexual photos or movies?
How many people have ever… • harassed you while you were in a public place in a way that made you feel unsafe?
• kissed you in a sexual way? Remember, we are only asking about things that you didn’t want to happen.
• fondled or grabbed your sexual body parts?
When you were drunk, high, drugged, • had vaginal sex with you? By vaginal sex, we mean that {if female: a man or boy put his penis
or passed out and unable to consent, in your vagina} {if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}?
how many people ever… • {if male} made you perform anal sex, meaning that they made you put your penis into their anus?
• made you receive anal sex, meaning they put their penis into your anus?
• made you perform oral sex, meaning that they put their penis in your mouth or made you
penetrate their vagina or anus with your mouth?
• made you receive oral sex, meaning that they put their mouth on your {if male: penis}
{if female: vagina} or anus?
How many people have ever used physical • have vaginal sex?
force or threats to physically harm you to • {if male} perform anal sex?
make you…
• receive anal sex?
• make you perform oral sex?
• make you receive oral sex?
• put their fingers or an object in your {if female: vagina or} anus?
How many people have ever used physical • {if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen?
force or threats of physical harm to… • try to have {if female: vaginal} oral, or anal sex with you, but sex did not happen?
How many people have you had vaginal, • doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue,
oral, or anal sex with after they pressured threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you?
you by… • wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex or showing they were unhappy?
• using their authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?
Stalking Tactics
How many people have ever… • watched or followed you from a distance, or spied on you with a listening device, camera,
or GPS [global positioning system]?
• approached you or showed up in places, such as your home, workplace, or school when you
didn’t want them to be there?
• left strange or potentially threatening items for you to find?
• snuck into your home or car and did things to scare you by letting you know they had
been there?
• made unwanted phone calls to you or left you messages? This includes hang-ups, text,
or voice messages.
• sent you unwanted emails, instant messages, or sent messages through websites like
MySpace or Facebook?
• left you cards, letters, flowers, or presents when they knew you didn’t want them to?
Expressive Aggression
How many of your romantic or sexual • acted very angry toward you in a way that seemed dangerous?
partners have ever… • told you that you were a loser, a failure, or not good enough?
• called you names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid?
• insulted, humiliated, or made fun of you in front of others?
• told you that no one else would want you?
Coercive Control
How many of your romantic or sexual • tried to keep you from seeing or talking to your family or friends?
partners have ever… • made decisions for you that should have been yours to make, such as the clothes you wear,
things you eat, or the friends you have?
• kept track of you by demanding to know where you were and what you were doing?
• made threats to physically harm you?
• threatened to hurt him or herself or commit suicide when he or she was upset with you?
• threatened to hurt a pet or threatened to take a pet away?
• threatened to hurt someone you love?
• hurt someone you love?
• {if applicable} threatened to take your children away?
• kept you from leaving the house when you wanted to go?
• kept you from having money for your own use?
• destroyed something that was important to you?
• said things like, “If I can’t have you then no one can”?
Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health

How many of your romantic or sexual • {if female: tried to get you pregnant when you did not want to become pregnant; if male:
partners have ever… tried to get pregnant when you did not want them to get pregnant} or tried to stop you
from using birth control?
• refused to use a condom when you wanted them to use one?
Physical Violence
How many of your romantic or sexual • slapped you?
partners have ever… • pushed or shoved you?
• hit you with a fist or something hard?
• kicked you?
• hurt you by pulling your hair?
• slammed you against something?
• tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?
• beaten you?
• burned you on purpose?
• used a knife or gun on you?
4770 Buford Highway NE, MS-F64

Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3742
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention


CDC Nisvs Ipv Report 2013 v17 Single A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CDC Nisvs Ipv Report 2013 v17 Single A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intimate Partner Violence

in the United States — 2010

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Division of Violence Prevention

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Tables and Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

1. Background and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. Prevalence and Frequency of Individual Forms of Intimate Partner Violence. . . . . 13

3. Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by Sociodemographic Characteristics. . . 27

4. Impact of Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5 . Accumulation of Intimate Partner Violence Behaviors Experienced

6 . Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

7 . Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate Partner Violence Victimization . . . . . .55

8 . Physical and Mental Health Conditions by Victimization History . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

10 . Implications for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix A: Violence Victimization and Other Domains Assessed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Appendix B: Victimization Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

TABLES AND FIGURES

Section 3 Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence by

Section 4 Impact of Intimate Partner Violence

Section 5 Accumulation of Intimate Partner Violence Behaviors Experienced

Section 6 Characteristics of Intimate Partner Violence Victimization

Section 7 Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate Partner Violence Victimization

Section 8 Physical and Mental Health Conditions by Victimization History

We would like to acknowledge the following individuals who contributed to

Orlosky Williams, and RTI International. Finally, we would like to acknowledge

Mark Stevens for his significant contribution in providing statistical support

for this report.

Recognition is given to the team of people that substantially contributed

to the original development of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual

Violence Survey, including: Kathleen Basile, Michele Black, Matthew Breiding,

James Mercy, Linda Saltzman, and Sharon Smith (contributors listed in

• An estimated 16.9% of women an intimate partner in the lifetime prevalence of rape,

Disclosing victimization experiences

1: Background and Methods

Survey Administration physically or emotionally unsafe. if the respondent completed

was conducted to assess the interviewer recruitment, training,

2: Prevalence and Frequency of Individual

other than rape by an intimate Twelve-month Prevalence

Slapped, pushed, or shoved 30.4†

Pushed or shoved 27.5†

Any severe physical violence 24.3†

Hurt by pulling hair 10.4†

Hit with a fist or something hard 14.2†

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

Similarly, the 12-month prevalence commonly reported tactics

26.9 28.1 26.3

Psychological have experienced at least one by an intimate partner during

Any psychological aggression 48.4

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence

aggression by an intimate partner good enough; being called names

† Statistically significant difference (p < .05) in prevalence.

Called names like ugly, fat, crazy, stupid M 20.1 19.4

Insulted, humiliated, made fun of M 16.9 12.6

Told you no one else would want you M 13.1 16.6

Tried to keep from seeing family and friends M 28.0 22.2

Made decisions that should have been yours to decide

Kept track of by demanding to know where M 29.0 36.0

Made threats of physical harm M 19.5 10.3

Threatened to hurt himself/herself or commit M 13.3 3.3

2: Prevalence and Frequency of Individual

3: Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence

6: Characteristics of Intimate Partner

7: Services and Disclosure Related to Intimate

8: Physical and Mental Health Conditions