Review Article

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE

1-11
A Meta-Analysis of Risk Markers for Intimate ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships DOI: 10.1177/1524838017708784
journals.sagepub.com/home/tva

Jonathan G. Kimmes1, Allen B. Mallory2, Chelsea Spencer3,

Austin R. Beck3, Bryan Cafferky4, and Sandra M. Stith3

Abstract
Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) has largely focused on heterosexual relationships, but, in recent years, researchers
have expanded their focus to include same-sex relationships. Using meta-analytic techniques, this study was conducted to
examine the relative strength of various risk markers for men and women being perpetrators and victims of physical IPV in same-
sex relationships. Articles were identified through research search engines and screened to identify articles fitting the inclusion
criteria, a process that resulted in 24 studies and 114 effect sizes for the meta-analysis. The strongest risk marker among those
with at least two effect sizes for both male and female perpetration was psychological abuse perpetration. The strongest risk
marker among those with at least two effect sizes for IPV victimization was also perpetration of psychological abuse for males and
psychological abuse victimization for females. Among same-sex-specific risk markers, internalized homophobia and fusion were
the strongest predictors for being perpetrators of IPV for men and women, respectively. HIV status and internalized homophobia
were the strongest risk markers for IPV victimization for men and women, respectively. Of 10 comparisons between men and
women in risk markers for IPV perpetration and victimization, only 1 significant difference was found. The results suggest that
although same-sex and heterosexual relationships may share a number of risk markers for IPV, there are risk markers for physical
IPV unique to same-sex relationships. Further research and increased specificity in measurement are needed to better study and
understand the influence of same-sex-specific risk markers for IPV.

Keywords
intimate partner violence, same-sex relationships, risk markers, meta-analysis

Efforts to address the issue of intimate partner violence (IPV)
have primarily targeted heterosexual relationships and largely
neglected same-sex relationships (Baker, Buick, Kim, Moniz,
& Nava, 2013). As Carvalho, Lewis, Derlega, Winstead, and
Viggiano (2011) noted, “domestic violence programs and shel-
ters are often unprepared to deal with victims of same-sex IPV”
(p. 502). A growing number of researchers have responded to
the imperative to conduct research on IPV in same-sex relation-
ships, and a meta-analysis of research on risk markers for IPV
in same-sex relationships is necessary to inform subsequent
research. Because IPV is very complex with many types of
violence (i.e., physical, psychological, sexual) that have differ-
ing prevalence rates (Black et al., 2011) and consequences
(Dutton, Goodman, & Bennett, 2001; Pico-Alfonso, 2005),
we chose to focus solely on physical IPV in order to gain a
clearer understanding of one type of IPV in same-sex relation-
ships. Furthermore, in this article, we use the term, IPV as
synonymous with physical IPV, even though there are different
types of IPV. Ultimately, a meta-analysis of the research on
risk markers for physical IPV perpetration and victimization in
same-sex relationships may facilitate the development and
implementation of prevention and treatment programs for
physical IPV in same-sex relationships.
Despite a recent influx of research focused on examining
risk markers for physical IPV in same-sex relationships, it
has not yet been unified through a meta-analytic review,
making it difficult to assess the progress, or lack thereof,
researchers have made in terms of this collaborative enter-
prise. In this study, we sought to use a meta-analysis to
draw actionable conclusions from the incipient area of
research on physical IPV for both males and females in
same-sex relationships and to identify deficiencies in the
research that can be targeted in future studies.
1
Department of Child and Family Sciences, College of Human Sciences, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
2
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
3
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
4
Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jonathan G. Kimmes, Department of Child and Family Sciences, College of
Human Sciences, Florida State University, Sandels Building 218, Tallahassee, FL
32306, USA.
Email: jkimmes@fsu.edu
2 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
Existing Meta-Analytic Research on Risk Markers for IPV the risk markers would remain statistically significant if only
Most previous meta-analytic work has addressed risk markers
for IPV in the general population and has not specifically
addressed IPV in same-sex relationships. For example, Stith,
Smith, Penn, Ward, and Tritt (2004) included evidence from 85
studies to identify risk markers most strongly related to IPV
perpetration and victimization. They were able to calculate
effect sizes for 16 perpetration risk markers and 9 victimization
risk markers. The strongest effect sizes were found between
perpetration and the following five risk markers: psychological
abuse, forced sex, illicit drug use, attitudes condoning marital
violence, and marital satisfaction. More recently, Stith et al.
(2014) were able to identify 80 risk markers for IPV in the
general population. The strongest risk markers for perpetration
were prior victimization, stalking, prior psychological abuse,
prior perpetration, borderline personality disorder, anger, and
approval of violence. The strongest risk markers for IPV victi-
mization were prior perpetration, prior victimization, psycho-
logical abuse, and perpetrators’ use of power and control.
Although we are beginning to learn more about risk markers
for IPV, in general, research on risk markers for IPV in same-
sex relationships is much more limited.
Existing Research on Risk Markers for IPV in Same-Sex
Relationships
In a review of the literature of the risk markers for all types of
IPV in same-sex relationships, Edwards, Sylaska, and Neal
(2015) concluded that increased risk for IPV victimization was
associated with a number of variables, including witnessing
IPV as a child, victimization in peer networks, and physical
and psychological health problems. Although these findings
contribute to the literature related to same-sex IPV, it is impor-
tant to note that the researchers did not make a distinction
between risk markers for the different kinds of IPV; rather,
studies were incorporated into the review that examined the
relationship between various potential risk markers and phys-
ical, psychological, or sexual IPV. Furthermore, the investiga-
tion did not clearly distinguish between risk markers for males
and females, so it is uncertain whether risk markers differ
between male and female same-sex relationships. In the current
meta-analysis, therefore, we sought to expand upon Edwards
and colleagues’ (2015) work by exploring whether or not the
risk markers are moderated by gender.
In a recent meta-analytic study, Buller, Devries, Howard,
and Bacchus (2014) explored risk markers for IPV in men who
have sex with men. Nineteen studies met the researchers’ inclu-
sion criteria. They found that being a victim of IPV in same-sex
relationships was associated with substance use, being HIV
positive, depressive symptoms, and engagement in unprotected
anal sex. Perpetration of IPV, on the other hand, was only
associated with substance use. However, like the investigation
from Edwards and colleagues (2015), the researchers included
studies that measured at least one form of IPV (i.e., physical,
sexual, or psychological). Consequently, it is uncertain whether
studies that assessed physical IPV were included. Another lim-
itation of this study is that articles examining IPV in female
same-sex relationships were not included, so the degree to
which the risk markers for IPV differ between male and female
same-sex relationships could not be examined. Although there
have been meta-analyses in which researchers examine the
prevalence of IPV in female same-sex relationships (e.g.,
Badenes-Ribera, Frias-Navarro, Bonilla-Campos, Pons-
Salvador, & Monterde-i-Bort, 2015), we were not able to find
a meta-analysis in which risk markers for IPV in female same-
sex relationships were explored.
Another limitation of previous literature reviews and meta-
analyses has been the operationalization of same-sex relation-
ships. Previous reviews include articles based on lesbian, gay,
and bisexual (LGB) identity (e.g., Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal,
2015; Mason et al., 2014) or sexual behavior (e.g., Buller,
Devries, Howard, & Bacchus, 2014). This can be problematic
because participants in the included studies may not have been
in a same-sex relationship—that is, they may have had sex with
someone of the same-sex or identify as LGB but not have been
in a same-sex relationship. This critique of studies on IPV in
same-sex relationships has been detailed by previous research-
ers (see Baker et al., 2013). Thus, our meta-analysis adds to
understanding risk markers for physical IPV in same-sex rela-
tionships by including studies that explicitly indicate that par-
ticipants were reporting on IPV in a current same-sex
relationship or in a specific previous same-sex relationship
rather than by sexual behavior or sexual identity.
IPV in same-sex relationships is a relatively new research
area, but finding threads that link existing studies using meta-
analysis may help to draw general conclusions that can inform
program development and implementation. In the present
study, we use a meta-analysis in an attempt to synthesize find-
ings from previous researchers. Although researchers have con-
ducted meta-analyses in exploring the prevalence of same-sex
IPV and risk markers for physical, sexual, or psychological IPV
for men in same-sex relationships, this is, to our knowledge, the
first meta-analysis of risk markers for physical IPV for both
males and females in same-sex couples.
Sexual Minority Stressors and Same-Sex IPV
Same-sex and heterosexual couples may share a number of risk
markers, but there may also be differences between these popu-
lations in terms of risk markers for IPV, which may be
explained, in part, by the differences in the nature of gender
socialization experienced by men and women (McClennen,
2005). That is, beyond the ostensible similarities between risk
markers for IPV among same-sex couples and heterosexual
couples, it is also important to consider that individuals in
same-sex relationships may contend with additional risk mar-
kers. For example, “fusion” has been studied as a risk factor for
IPV in female same-sex relationships. Fusion is a term that
refers to the high level of closeness or lack of boundaries
between partners that may lead to anxiety, tension, or a loss
Kimmes et al.
of individuality in a relationship. Although lack of differentia-
tion has been studied as a risk marker for IPV in heterosexual
relationships, fusion, which can result from lack of differentia-
tion, has been frequently examined with regard to lesbian rela-
tionships (e.g., Causby, Lockhart, White, & Green, 1995;
Milletich, Gummienny, Kelley, & D’Lima, 2014). Providing
a conceptual framework for risk markers in same-sex relation-
ships, Meyer (1995, 2013) posited that the higher prevalence of
mental health disorders in sexual minorities relative to hetero-
sexuals could be explained by various forms of minority stress,
which include forms of stress due to stigma, prejudice, and
discrimination within one’s social milieu.
Several sexual minority stressors have been identified
within previous research. In this study, we examine a variety
of types of minority stressors. “Internalized homophobia,” for
example, is a minority stressor that refers to the internalization
of negative societal views about the minority population of
which one is a member (Newcomb & Mustanski, 2011).
“Stigma consciousness” is a minority stressor used to describe
the extent to which stigmatized groups expect to be stereotyped
and experience discrimination (Carvalho, Lewis, Derlega,
Winstead, & Viggiano, 2011). Another minority stressor is
called “outness,” which refers to the degree to which one is
open about their sexual identity with family, friends, and col-
leagues (Steele, Tinmouth, & Lu, 2006). We also examined the
same-sex-specific risk marker called “homophobic controlling
behaviors,” which is a term used to describe acts perpetrated by
partners that internalize negative attitudes about homosexuality
or threatening to reveal the partner’s sexual orientation to
friends, family, and other individuals who are important in his
or her life (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2015).
For individuals in same-sex relationships, minority stressors
may increase the risk of perpetrating physical IPV, being a
victim of physical IPV, or both. However, despite the recent
profusion of research that has provided empirical support link-
ing minority stressors to a number psychological outcomes
including depressive symptoms (Hatzenbuehler, Nolen-
Hoeksema, & Erickson, 2008), anxiety (Lehavot & Simoni,
2011), suicide ideation (Meyer, 1995), and loneliness (Szy-
manski, Chung, & Balsam, 2001), the association between
minority stressors and IPV has received little attention from
researchers. To integrate Meyer’s theory into prevention and
intervention programs, more research is needed to establish an
empirical relationship between minority stressors and IPV in
same-sex relationships. We address this need by including
same-sex-specific risk markers in our analysis to examine the
strength of these risk markers.
Present Study
In this study, we endeavored to make progress toward three
primary goals, including (1) examine the relative strength of
various risk markers for IPV in same-sex relationships, (2)
compare risk markers for IPV perpetration versus victimization
for men and women in same-sex relationships, and (3) compare
the strength of risk markers between men and women in same-
3
sex relationships to explore possible gender differences.
Results from this research can aid in the development of efforts
for education, advocacy, and policy related to IPV in same-sex
relationships. In this meta-analysis, we elected to only include
studies which assessed the relationships between risk markers
and physical IPV. Therefore, if the study did not distinguish
between various types of abuse and the identified risk marker,
it was not included in this article.
Method
We searched published and unpublished studies from 1980 to
2016 which were found in search engines (ProQuest Research
Library, ProQuest Theses and Dissertations Global, Psy-
cINFO, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts)
by using key terms related to couple (i.e., couple, intimate
partner, romantic partner, dating partner, marital, spouse,
husband, wife), sexual orientation (i.e., lesbian, same-sex,
gay, men who have sex with men, women who have sex with
women), and partner aggression (i.e., abuse, aggression,
domestic violence, batter, maltreatment, violence, victim).
We also screened the reference lists from four meta-analy-
sis/reviews reporting about IPV in same-sex relationships
(i.e., Badenes-Ribera et al., 2015; Buller et al., 2014; Burke
& Follingstad, 1999; Edwards et al., 2015).
Studies were included in the present study if (a) the outcome
measured perpetration or victimization of physical IPV in
same-sex relationships, (b) the study included statistical infor-
mation sufficient for calculating one (or more) bivariate effect
size, (c) the study was published in English, and (d) the study
had an adult sample which identified as being in current or
previous same-sex adult romantic relationships. Studies were
excluded if (a) they did not differentiate between different
forms of IPV (e.g., physical, psychological, or sexual), (b) they
did not differentiate between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgen-
der, and questioning (LGBTQ) samples, or (c) coders could not
determine whether the risk markers were measured about a
same-sex relationship—this usually manifested in studies that
recruited participants only by their sexual identity or only as
having sex with the partners of the same sex but not that the
participants had actually been in a same-sex relationship where
physical IPV was present. Furthermore, psychological abuse
was only examined as a risk marker when the abuse occurred
in the same relationship as the IPV.
A total of 690 studies (553 from search engines and 142
from reference lists) were screened, and 24 studies (114 effect
sizes) met our criteria for inclusion (see Figure 1). Of these 114
effect sizes, 43 were for men in same-sex relationship, while 71
effect sizes were for women in same-sex relationships. We
followed recommended meta-analysis coding procedures
(Card, 2012; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). A graduate research
coding team used a 37-item code sheet to capture pertinent
information from each included study. Each study was cross-
coded, and if cross-coders could not resolve coding discrepan-
cies, they met with a project leader to collectively arrive at a
deeper understanding of the data (Hawkins, Blanchard,
4 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)

Table 1. Same-Sex-Specific Risk Markers for Men’s Perpetration and

Search Engines Reference Lists Victimization of Physical IPV.
(n = 553) (n = 142)
Risk Marker k Mean ES LL UL

Men
Total Studies Identified
(n = 675)
Physical IPV Perpetration
Internalized homophobia 2 .23*** .11 .33
Duplicates Outness 2 .10 .44 .26
Excluded Studies  n=21 Stigma consciousness 2 .02 .07 .12
Physical IPV victimization
Studies Screened
(N = 654) HIV status 2 .20 .06 .44
Stigma consciousness 2 .03 .07 .13
First Review: Read Title and Abstract Women
Excluded Studies  n=532
Physical IPV perpetration
Fusion 3 .14** .06 .22
Studies Screened
(N = 122) Reviewed Complete Text Internalized homophobia 3 .09* .00 .18
# of studies excluded Physical IPV victimization
Excluded Studies  n=98
Reasons for exclusiona: Internalized homophobia 4 .11 .02 .24
31.6% Did not separate IPV types Outness 2 .09 .33 .48
9.2% IPV not outcome
22.5% Did not separate LGBTQ sample Fusion 5 .01 .25 .28
Studies Included 26.5% No usable effect size
(N =24) 20.4% Not same-sex relationships Note. Random effects models calculate an effect size using both sample error
Effect Sizes from Studies 5.1% Special population
(k= 114) 1.0 % Only had 1 ES for same-sex within and between studies. These are simple reports of the overall effect size
specific risk markers in study or, for other for a risk marker in one gender and in one direction, so only within study
risk markers, did not have enough effect sample error is used in the calculation; therefore, effects sizes from Table 1
sizes to run at least one comparative
analysis (excluded during analysis may differ from those in Tables 2–5. k ¼ number of studies; mean ES ¼ mean
process) effect size; mean SE ¼ mean standard error; LL ¼ lower limit of confidence
interval; UL ¼ upper limit of confidence interval; IPV ¼ intimate partner
violence.
Figure 1. Flow process in selecting primary studies. aPercentages add *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
up to more than 100% because studies had multiple reasons for
exclusion.
rate (n ¼ 2). Finally, we conducted three tests to evaluate the
possible effects of publication bias: the trim-and-fill test (Duval
Baldwin, & Fawcett, 2008). Overall coding agreement was 99.2%. & Tweedie, 2000), the fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1979), and
We used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2.0 (Bor- Orwin’s fail-safe N (Orwin, 1983). Finally, we interpreted the
enstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005) to enter, calculate, magnitude of mean effect sizes using Cohen’s (1992) sug-
and analyze effect sizes for physical IPV perpetration and vic- gested criteria of trivial (r < .01), small (r ¼ .10), medium (r
timization. The overall effect size for all same-sex-specific risk ¼ .30), and large (r ¼ .50).
markers with at least two reported were effect sizes included.
However, other risk markers were not included if they did not
have enough effect sizes to run at least one comparative anal- Results
ysis, either within men and women groups or between men and
women groups. In order to compare the strength of two groups,
Same-Sex-Specific Risk Markers
each group must have at least two effect sizes. The online supplementary material includes references for all
We theorized there would be real population differences studies in the final analysis, along with the characteristics of all
between studies, so we used a random-effects model to aggre- of the effect sizes in the final analysis organized by study,
gate mean effect sizes for each risk marker. The random-effects gender, and risk marker. Consistent with previous reviews,
approach accounts for both between-study variance and within- we did not find many studies that explored same-sex-specific
study variance (fixed-effect only accounts for within-study var- risk markers related to physical IPV perpetration or victimiza-
iance), which allows for generalized inferences that can extend tion. The same-sex-specific risk markers with at least two
beyond the studies in this meta-analysis (Card, 2012). A effect sizes were examined for men and women (see Table
random-effects model was also used to compare males and 1). For men, internalized homophobia (r ¼ .23, p < .001) was
females as well as perpetration and victimization within men found to be a significant same-sex-specific risk marker of per-
and women. Every meta-analysis suffers from the “file drawer petration of physical IPV, but this was not the case for outness
problem” (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). One way we addressed and stigma consciousness. We also did not find evidence that
this was by including unpublished articles (i.e., theses and dis- HIV status or stigma consciousness was a significant risk mar-
sertations) which may have nonsignificant findings. We also ker for physical IPV victimization for men.
made attempts to contact authors (n ¼ 8) who reported usable For women in same-sex relationships, one of the two sig-
data but did not separate types of IPV, sexual orientation, or nificant same-sex-specific risk markers for physical IPV per-
separate the sample by relationship status with a 25% success petration was fusion (r ¼ .14, p < .01). Internalized
Kimmes et al. 5

Table 2. Risk Markers for Men in Same-Sex Relationships.

Risk Marker k Mean ES LL UL Mean SE Direction k Mean ES LL UL Qb

Alcohol abuse 5 .31*** .23 .39 .01 Perpetration 3 .27*** .14 .40 0.68
Victimization 2 .34*** .23 .45
Child abuse in family of origin 8 .16*** .08 .24 .01 Perpetration 4 .15* .03 .27 0.04
Victimization 4 .17*** .06 .27
Education 4 .004 .22 .23 .004 Perpetration 2 .04 0.28 .36 0.10
Victimization 2 .03 .32 .27
Perpetrating psych abuse 5 .53*** .47 .59 .01 Perpetration 2 .55*** .41 .66 0.07
Victimization 3 .53*** .46 .59
Stigma consciousness 4 .02 .04 .09 .00 Perpetration 2 .02 .07 .12 0.01
Victimization 2 .03 .06 .12
Witnessing IPV 8 .13* .04 .22 .00 Perpetration 5 .09* .00 .17 2.10
Victimization 3 .18*** .09 .27
Note. k ¼ number of studies; mean ES ¼ mean effect size; mean SE ¼ mean standard error; LL ¼ lower limit of confidence interval; UL ¼ upper limit of confidence
interval; Qb ¼ Cochran’s Q test of heterogeneity between studies; IPV ¼ intimate partner violence.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Table 3. Risk Markers for Women in Same-Sex Relationships.

Risk Marker k Mean ES LL UL Mean SE Direction k Mean ES LL UL Qb

Alcohol abuse 14 .16*** .11 .002 .01 Perpetration 8 .19*** .13 .24 1.78
Victimization 6 .13*** .08 .19
Anger 4 .23*** .19 .28 .002 Perpetration 2 .26*** .20 .31 1.10
Victimization 2 .21*** .16 .27
Child abuse in family of origin 4 .15* .06 .25 .01 Perpetration 2 .16* .04 .26 0.01
Victimization 2 .15 .03 .32
Fusion 8 .05 .12 .22 .04 Perpetration 3 .11 .17 .36 0.28
Victimization 5 .01 .20 .23
Internalized homophobia 7 .11* .02 .19 .01 Perpetration 3 .11 .02 .22 0.02
Victimization 4 .11 .003 .22
Poor mental healtha 4 .13 .19 .43 .07 Perpetration 2 .05 .39 .31 1.88
Victimization 2 .28 .03 .54
Perpetrating psych abuse 6 .54*** .46 .61 .01 Perpetration 3 .57*** .49 .65 1.54
Victimization 3 .50*** .40 .58
Self-esteem 7 .04 .21 .14 .03 Perpetration 4 .04 .19 .27 1.03
Victimization 3 .14 .40 .13
Victim of psych abuse 10 .50*** .44 .55 .003 Perpetration 4 .47*** .39 .53 1.75
Victimization 6 .52*** .47 .57
Note. k ¼ number of studies; mean ES ¼ mean effect size; mean SE ¼ mean standard error; LL ¼ lower limit of confidence interval; UL ¼ upper limit of confidence
interval; Qb ¼ Cochran’s Q test of heterogeneity between studies.
a
Studies for mental health were reporting on psychological problems and lower levels of mental health.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

homophobia (r ¼ .09, p < .05) was the other significant same-
sex-specific risk marker for physical IPV perpetration. The
three risk markers for physical IPV victimization, which
included internalized homophobia, outness, and fusion, did not
reach statistical significance.
Comparing Strengths of Risk Markers in Men’s Same-Sex
Relationships
Tables 2 and 3 present results of moderator analyses with
direction of violence (perpetration or victimization) with those
variables (same-sex specific and nonspecific) when two or
more effect sizes were available. There were no significant
differences in strength of risk markers for male physical IPV
perpetration and victimization in same-sex relationships (see
Table 2). The strongest risk markers for IPV perpetration were
“perpetrating psychological abuse” (r ¼ .55, p < .001), “victim
of psychological abuse” (r ¼ .48, p < .001), alcohol abuse (r ¼
.27, p < .001), experiencing child abuse in family of origin
(FOO; r ¼ .15, p < .001), and witnessing parental IPV (r ¼
.09, p < .05). Stigma consciousness—the extent to which
stigmatized groups expect to be stereotyped and experience
discrimination—and education level were not significantly
related to IPV perpetration. Perpetration of psychological
abuse and being a victim of psychological abuse were large
effect sizes, and alcohol abuse, experiencing child abuse in
6 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)

Table 4. Men Versus Women Perpetration in Same-Sex Relationships.

Risk Markers k Mean ES LL UL Mean SE Gender k Mean ES LL UL Qb

Alcohol abuse 11 .21*** .13 .28 .003 Women 8 .19*** .06 .33 1.43
Men 3 .27*** .02 .45
Child abuse in family of origin 6 .15*** .08 .22 .01 Women 2 .16* .04 .26 0.01
Men 4 .15** .06 .24
Education 5 .15 .06 .34 .04 Women 3 .24* .01 .44 1.40
Men 2 .02 .25 .29
Internalized homophobia 5 .15* .02 .28 .01 Women 3 .09* .01 .18 2.88
Men 2 .23** .11 .36
Perpetrating psych abuse 5 .48*** .43 .69 .01 Women 3 .57*** .41 .56 0.11
Men 2 .55*** .49 .65
Witnessing parental IPV 7 .09* .02 .17 .01 Women 2 .11 .01 .24 0.11
Men 5 .09 .0002 .17
Victim of psychological abuse 7 .47*** .39 .54 .01 Women 4 .46*** .36 .55 0.11
Men 3 .49*** .37 .59
Note. It is not unusual to see slight shifts in ES when looking at different moderators, but these shift are negligible when there are a large number of ES—this shift
may more noticeable here due to the small number of ES. Thus, risk markers ES and significance levels from Tables 2 and 3 for perpetration may differ slightly in
Table 4. k ¼ number of studies; mean ES ¼ mean effect size; mean SE ¼ mean standard error; LL ¼ lower limit of confidence interval; UL ¼ upper limit of
confidence interval; Qb ¼ Cochran’s Q test of heterogeneity between studies; IPV ¼ intimate partner violence.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

FOO, and witnessing parental IPV were small effect sizes for
IPV perpetration among men in same-sex relationships.
The strongest risk marker for IPV victimization for men in
same-sex relationships was perpetrating psychological abuse (r
¼ .53, p < .001), followed by being a victim of psychological
abuse (r ¼ .49, p < .001), alcohol abuse (r ¼ .34, p < .001),
witnessing parental IPV (r ¼ .18, p < .001), and experiencing
child abuse in FOO (r ¼ .17, p < .001). Stigma consciousness
was not a significant risk marker for victimization. The effect
sizes for being a victim of physical IPV were large for perpe-
trating and being a victim of psychological abuse, medium for
alcohol abuse, and small for witnessing parental IPV and
experiencing child abuse in FOO.
Comparing Strengths of Risk Markers in Women’s
Same-Sex Relationships
There were no significant differences in risk markers for
female IPV perpetration or victimization (see Table 3). The
strongest risk marker for female perpetration in same-sex rela-
tionships was perpetrating psychological abuse (r ¼ .57, p <
.001), followed by being a victim of psychological abuse (r ¼
.47, p < .001), anger (r ¼ .26, p < .001), alcohol abuse (r ¼ .19,
p < .001), and child abuse in FOO (r ¼ .16, p < .05). Overall,
fusion, internalized homophobia, self-esteem, and poor mental
health were not significant risk markers for female IPV perpe-
tration. Perpetrating and being a victim of psychological vio-
lence were large effect sizes, and anger, alcohol abuse, and
child abuse in FOO were small effect sizes for female IPV
perpetration.
The strongest risk markers for physical IPV victimization
for women in same-sex relationships was being a victim of
psychological abuse (r ¼ .52, p < .001), perpetrating psycho-
logical abuse (r ¼ .50, p < .001), anger (r ¼ .21, p < .001), and
alcohol abuse (r ¼ .13, p < .05). Child abuse in FOO, fusion,
internalized homophobia, self-esteem, and poor mental health
were not significant risk markers for IPV victimization for
women in same-sex relationships. Perpetrating and being a
victim of psychological abuse were large effect sizes and anger
and alcohol abuse were small effect sizes.
Gender Differences
There were no significant differences in strength of risk mar-
kers for male versus female perpetration of physical IPV in
same-sex relationships (see Table 4). There was a significant
difference, Q (2) ¼ 22.56, p < .001, for alcohol abuse as a risk
marker for physical IPV victimization—alcohol abuse was a
stronger risk marker for IPV victimization for men (r ¼ .36, p <
.001) than women (r ¼ .14, p < .001; see Table 5).
Publication Bias
Due to the low number of empirical same-sex IPV research
reports available at the time of this meta-analysis, we were
unable to test for the potential impact of publication bias on
several risk markers (see Table 6). This lack of available effect
sizes challenges the assumption behind publication bias tests
regarding the presence of an ample pool of research, which
may not reflect this particular field. For the risk markers that
did have enough effect sizes to test for publication bias, we first
used Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim-and-fill test, which uses
a funnel plot to analyze (using random effects) asymmetrical
distributions of included effect sizes to assess the publication
bias of potential missing studies on our aggregated effect size.
The trim-and-fill results suggested the impact of publication
bias was trivial. Next, fail-safe Ns were estimated for each risk
factor to evaluate the number of potential missing null studies
Kimmes et al.
Table 5. Men Versus Women Victimization in Same-Sex Relationships.
Risk Marker k Mean ES LL UL
Alcohol abuse 8 .24* .03 .44
Child abuse in family of origin 6 .16*** .05 .27
Perpetrating psych abuse 6 .51*** .43 .58
Note. It is not unusual to see slight shifts in ES when looking at different moderators, but these shift are negligible when there are a large number of ES—this shift
may more noticeable here due to the small number of ES. Thus, risk markers ES and significance levels from Tables 2 and 3 for victimization may differ slightly in
Table 5. k ¼ number of studies; mean ES ¼ mean effect size; mean SE ¼ mean standard error; LL ¼ lower limit of confidence interval; UL ¼ upper limit of
confidence interval; Qb ¼ Cochran’s Q test of heterogeneity between studies.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed)
needed to push the mean effect size above the p < .05 threshold
(Rosenthal, 1979).
Rosenthal (1979) recommends a threshold of 5k þ 10 to
guard against biased results, but it has been noted that this
threshold has not been empirically tested since it was devel-
oped (Card, 2012). It has also been suggested that the number
of studies expected to be unpublished in an area will likely
depend on the field (Rosenthal, 1979). Thus, given the small
number studies on risk markers for physical IPV in same-sex
relationships, it is not surprising that there were a number of
risk markers that did not meet this threshold (see Table 6). For
female perpetrators, fusion, self-esteem, and internalized
homophobia did not meet this threshold. For female victims
of physical IPV, internalized homophobia did not meet this
threshold. For male perpetrators of physical IPV, alcohol abuse
and child abuse in FOO did not meet this criterion. Lastly, for
male victims of physical IPV, witnessing parental IPV and
child abuse in the FOO did not meet this threshold. With the
exception of self-esteem, all of the risk markers mentioned
above would require multiple studies to render the significance
null. Clearly, more studies are needed to examine the signifi-
cance of relationships between these risk markers and physical
IPV in same-sex relationships and results should be interpreted
with this in mind.
Finally, Orwin’s fail-safe Ns were estimated by testing how
many potential missing studies with an effect size magnitude of
r ¼ .00 would be needed to reduce our mean effect size down to
r ¼ .10 (the lower limit of small effect sizes; Cohen 1992;
Orwin, 1983). Although results indicated alcohol abuse and
female victimization needed only one missing effect size of r
¼ .00, the other results suggest our risk markers were robust
against publication bias.
Discussion
Table 7 summarizes the key findings from the meta-analysis.
Overall, our finding that there were no significant differences
in the strength of risk markers in terms of their associations
with perpetration versus victimization is not surprising given
the high rate of bidirectional IPV found in previous research
with heterosexual couples. For example, Whitaker, Haileyesus,
7
Mean SE Gender k Mean ES LL UL Qb
.01 Women 6 .14*** .09 .18 22.56***
Men 2 .36*** .28 .43
.01 Women 2 .14 .09 .35 0.06
Men 4 .17* .04 .29
.01 Women 3 .50*** .42 .57 0.29
Men 3 .52*** .45 .59
Swahn, and Saltzman (2007) found that a quarter of all couples
will experience violence at some point in their relationship, and
over half of this violence will be mutual. This high rate of
bidirectional violence is likely to apply to individuals in
same-sex relationships also. Similarly, the lack of differences
in the prediction of IPV risk factors for men versus women in
same-sex relationships is also supported by the research in
heterosexual relationships (Stith et al., 2004, 2014, 2016).
For men in same-sex relationships, significant risk markers
for both IPV perpetration and victimization included perpe-
tration of psychological abuse, being a victim of psychologi-
cal abuse, alcohol abuse, and witnessing parental IPV. We did
not find evidence that these risk markers differed in strength
as risk markers for IPV perpetration versus victimization.
Although experiencing child abuse in FOO was a significant
risk marker of IPV perpetration for men in same-sex relation-
ships, it was not a significant risk marker for IPV
victimization.
For women in same-sex relationships, several risk markers
were associated with IPV perpetration and victimization,
including alcohol abuse, anger, psychological abuse perpetra-
tion, and psychological abuse victimization. It is important to
note that there was not statistical evidence that the strength of
the risk markers differed between those who perpetrated IPV
and those who were victims of IPV. The finding that psycho-
logical abuse was a strong risk marker for IPV perpetration and
victimization was similar to findings in general meta-analyses
(Stith et al., 2004, 2014). When comparing risk markers for
IPV between men and women, we found that alcohol abuse was
a significantly stronger risk marker for male IPV victimization
than for female IPV victimization.
A primary finding in our review of same-sex-specific risk
markers was that the research on them was extremely limited.
In fact, several same-sex-specific risk markers for physical IPV
victimization in men had one effect size and thus could not be
examined in the meta-analysis, including being a victim of
homophobic controlling behaviors, having a history of sex
work, risky sexual behaviors, and outness. For physical IPV
victimization in women, only one effect size was found for
being a victim of homophobic controlling behaviors. This high-
lights the need for researchers of IPV in same-sex relationships
8 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)

Table 6. Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill (Random Effects), Classic Table 7. Critical Findings.
Fail-Safe N, and Orwin’s Fail-Safe N Tests for Risk Markers Associated
With Perpetration and Victimization of IPV. 1. Significant risk markers for both IPV perpetration and
victimization for men in same-sex relationships include
Orwin’s Fail- perpetration of psychological abuse, being a victim of
Trim and Fill Safe N psychological abuse, alcohol abuse, and witnessing parental IPV
Classic 2. For men in same-sex relationships, child abuse in family of origin
Imputed Fail-Safe was a significant risk marker for IPV perpetration but not for IPV
Risk Factor k Studies N r to .10 victimization
3. For women in same-sex relationships, the significant risk markers
Female IPV perpetration of both IPV perpetration and victimization were alcohol abuse,
Alcohol abuse 8 0 194 7 anger, psychological abuse perpetration, and psychological abuse
Fusion 3 2 4 2 victimization
Internalized 3 0 6 — 4. Fusion was a significant risk marker for IPV perpetration in female,
homophobia but not male, same-sex relationships
Perpetrating psych 3 0 283 17 5. Research regarding same-sex-specific risk markers is extremely
abuse limited
Self-esteem 4 1 0 —
Victim of 4 0 287 18 Note. IPV ¼ intimate partner violence.
psychological
abuse
Female IPV victimization previous studies have compared men and women for physical
Alcohol abuse 6 1 81 2 IPV in same-sex relationships, further research is needed to
Fusion 5 0 — —
elucidate this finding. The way in which internalized homo-
Internalized 4 0 14 1
homophobia phobia relates to IPV has not been firmly established, but there
Perpetrating psych 3 1 199 14 has been speculation that the perpetrator may sometimes inten-
abuse tionally exacerbate feelings of homophobia in the victim. For
Self-esteem 3 0 — — example, some researchers have argued that IPV perpetrators
Victim of 6 0 1,163 30 may leverage the victim’s awareness of hatred of sexual mino-
psychological rities in mainstream society to reinforce the victim’s sense of
abuse
responsibility for the abuse (Balsam & Szymanski, 2005) or to
Male IPV perpetration
Alcohol abuse 3 2 16 6 convince the victim that seeking help would be futile or even
Child abuse in FOO 4 1 7 2 dangerous (Gehring & Vaske, 2015). When examining IPV
Witnessing parental 5 0 — — perpetration, it may be that the perpetrator is projecting the
IPV negative feelings they have about themselves onto their part-
Victim of 3 2 129 14 ner, leading to the use of violence (Carvalho et al., 2011).
psychological Previous research has demonstrated associations between inter-
abuse
nalized homophobia and a number of previously identified risk
Male IPV victimization
Child abuse in FOO 4 0 14 3 markers for IPV, such as psychological maladjustment (Pepper
Perpetrating psych 3 0 265 21 & Sand, 2015), low self-esteem (Szymanski et al., 2001), and
abuse alcohol abuse (Lehavot & Simoni, 2011).
Witnessing parental 3 0 8 3 Despite not being included in the meta-analysis, we found
IPV one effect size for men and one effect size for women indicat-
Note. k ¼ number of studies; IPV ¼ intimate partner violence; FOO ¼ family of
ing that being victim of homophobic controlling behaviors was
origin. a risk marker for IPV victimization. It was the strongest risk
marker that we found for both men and women’s IPV victimi-
zation. It has been speculated that individuals who experience
to include same-sex-specific risk markers in subsequent homophobia may be more socially isolated than those who do
studies. not experience homophobia (Stephenson, de Voux, & Sullivan,
Although there is a scarcity of research exploring same-sex- 2011). The social isolation that victims of IPV can experience
specific risk markers of physical IPV, we were able to may be intensified for sexual minorities who are experiencing
demonstrate that internalized homophobia was a significant homophobic controlling behaviors (Allen & Leventhal, 1999).
risk marker for IPV perpetration for both men and women. Because there was only one effect size for both men and
These findings are in line with previous findings that interna- women, it is difficult to draw conclusions, but this may be a
lized homophobia is related to physical IPV perpetration. On specific type of psychological abuse that can occur in same-sex
the other hand, we did not find a gender difference between relationships. Although being a victim of homophobic control-
men and women in same-sex relationships. This suggests that ling behaviors was a strong risk marker for being a victim of
gender does not moderate the association between internalized IPV for both men and women in same-sex relationships, there
homophobia and perpetration of physical IPV. Because few were not enough effect sizes to include in our meta-analysis;
Kimmes et al.
this suggests that homophobic controlling behaviors should be
assessed in future research regarding same-sex IPV (see Bal-
sam & Szymanski, 2005, for an example of how homophobic
control behaviors can be measured).
For men in same-sex relationships, risky sexual behaviors
and a history of sex work were risk markers for IPV victimiza-
tion in one study. It is important to note that risky sexual
behaviors could be a result of coercion and that a history of
sex work could be involuntary. IPV victimization could impact
an individual’s ability to advocate for their own sexual safety
and ability to successfully negotiate with one’s partner to prac-
tice safe sexual behaviors, such as condom use (Relf, Huang,
Campbell, & Catania, 2004).
A significant risk marker for IPV in female, but not male,
same-sex relationships was fusion, or enmeshment with one’s
partner. Fusion in lesbian relationships can lead to conflict
when there is resentment surrounding isolation from friends
and family members (Hill, 1999). It is possible that fusion
contributes to resentment toward one’s partner, which may
exacerbate the risk of IPV perpetration in female same-sex
relationships. Our finding that only one risk marker that signif-
icantly differed between men and women mirrors research on
risk markers for IPV perpetration and victimization in hetero-
sexual relationships that have found few differences between
risk markers for men and women (Spencer, Cafferky, & Stith,
2016). Although we did find that alcohol abuse was a stronger
risk marker for same-sex IPV victimization in men compared
to women, we are unaware of any theoretical orientation that
could be used to adequately explain this finding. Subsequent
studies are needed, therefore, to buttress the empirical support
for this finding and to elucidate the factors that underlie it.
Limitations and Future Research
Overall, the lack of studies examining IPV perpetration and
victimization in same-sex relationships made it difficult to
thoroughly examine a wide variety of risk markers in the
meta-analysis. Future research examining a multitude of poten-
tial risk markers for IPV perpetration and victimization in
same-sex relationships is needed. More specifically, due to the
lack of studies in which minority stressors are assessed and
examined in relation to IPV, it is imperative for researchers
to make a concerted effort to include measures of minority
stressors in subsequent studies. This is one limitation of this
meta-analysis, as many of the same-sex-specific risk markers in
this study only had two effect sizes, it makes it far more diffi-
cult to draw definitive conclusions from these results. The
inclusion of measures of minority stressors in studies of
same-sex IPV will be useful in garnering more insight into the
way in which minority stressors play a role in IPV in various
populations of sexual minorities and, thus, inform the work of
clinicians who assess and intervene with IPV perpetrators and
victims who are in same-sex relationships.
Another consideration is that our conclusions about risk
factors for men in same-sex relationships may not be as reliable
as those about risk factors for women in same-sex relationships
9
because we have 71 effect sizes for women in same-sex rela-
tionships and only 43 for men. More research on IPV in male
relationships and research exploring differences between men
and women in terms of risk markers for same-sex IPV is needed
to facilitate the development of prevention and intervention
programs that are aimed to address same-sex IPV. Studies are
also needed to better understand the factors that contribute to
such differences. For example, subsequent research may be
useful in elucidating the factors that underlie the asymmetry
in the strength of the association between alcohol abuse in men
and women that was found in the present study.
Conclusion
Findings from this study seem to parallel findings in our
ongoing meta-analysis of risk markers for IPV in heterosexual
relationships (Stith et al., 2014, 2016). That is, relationship
factors, including IPV victimization, seem to be the strongest
risk markers for IPV perpetration. Furthermore, we found that
alcohol abuse was a stronger risk marker for same-sex IPV in
men compared to women, which demonstrates that the strength
of the association between risk markers and IPV may differ
among sexual minority populations. This study highlights the
need for an increase in empirical research on risk markers for
IPV in same-sex relationships and we hope our fellow research-
ers will join us as we take on this important endeavor.
Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research
1. In order to develop successful prevention and interven-
tion programs that address intimate partner violence
(IPV) perpetration and victimization in same-sex cou-
ples, research is needed that explores risk markers for
IPV in same-sex relationships
2. Measures of same-sex-specific risk markers should be
included in subsequent studies of IPV in same-sex rela-
tionships or in studies of risk markers of IPV that
include individuals who are sexual minorities
3. Research is needed to explore whether risk markers of
physical IPV perpetration and victimization differ
between men and women in same-sex relationships
4. It is important for clinicians who assess and intervene
with IPV perpetrators and victims who are in same-sex
relationships to consider the role of sexual minority
stressors in the cycle of abuse
5. Although there may be many similar risk markers of
physical IPV in same-sex and heterosexual relation-
ships, existing prevention and intervention programs
designed primarily for those in heterosexual relation-
ships may not adequately serve those in same-sex rela-
tionships, as these programs do not address sexual
minority stressors
10
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
The online data supplements are available at http://journals.sagepub.
com/doi/suppl/10.1177/1524838017708784.
References
Allen, C., & Leventhal, B. (1999). History, culture, and identity: What
makes GLBT battering different. In B. Leventhal & S. E. Lundy
(Eds.), Same-sex domestic violence: Strategies for change (pp.
73–81). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Badenes-Ribera, L., Frias-Navarro, D., Bonilla-Campos, A., Pons-Sal-
vador, G., & Monterde-i-Bort, H. (2015). Intimate partner violence
in self-identified lesbians: A meta-analysis of its prevalence. Sexu-
ality Research and Social Policy, 12, 47–59.
Baker, N. L., Buick, J. D., Kim, S. R., Moniz, S., & Nava, K. L.
(2013). Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner vio-
lence. Sex Roles, 69, 182–192.
Balsam, K. F., & Szymanski, D. (2005). Relationship quality and
domestic violence in women’s same-sex relationships: The role
of minority stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 258–269.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M.
L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national inti-
mate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary
report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothsteine, H. (2005).
Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2) [Computer software].
Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Buller, A. M., Devries, K. M., Howard, L. M., & Bacchus, L. J. (2014).
Associations between intimate partner violence and health among
men who have sex with men: A systematic review and meta-anal-
ysis. PLoS Medicine, 11, e1001609.
Burke, L. K., & Follingstad, D. R. (1999). Violence in lesbian and gay
relationships: Theory, prevalence, and correlational factors. Clin-
ical Psychology Review, 19, 487–512.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),
155–159.
Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carvalho, A. F., Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Viggiano,
C. (2011). Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex inti-
mate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 501–509.
Dutton, M. A., Goodman, L. A., & Bennett, L. (2001). Court involved
battered women’s responses to violence: The role of psychological,
physical, and sexual abuse. In K. D. O’Leary & R. Maiuro (Eds.),
Psychological abuse in violent domestic relationships (pp.
177–195). New York, NY: Springer.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-
based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-
analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., & Neal, A. M. (2015). Intimate
partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical
review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology
of Violence, 5, 112–121.
Gehring, K. S., & Vaske, J. C. (2015). Out in the open: The conse-
quences of intimate partner violence for victims in same-sex and
opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260515600877.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Erickson, S. J. (2008).
Minority stress predictors of HIV risk behavior, substance use, and
depressive symptoms: Results from a prospective study of
bereaved gay men. Health Psychology, 27, 455–462.
Hawkins, A., Blanchard, V., Baldwin, S., & Fawcett, E. (2008). Does
marriage and relationship education work? A meta-analytic study.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 723–734.
Hill, C. (1999). Fusion and conflict in lesbian relationships? Feminism
& Psychology, 9, 179–185.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (Eds.). (2004). Methods of meta-
analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. London,
England: Sage.
Lehavot, K., & Simoni, J. M. (2011). The impact of minority stress on
mental health and substance use among sexual minority women.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 159–170.
McClennen, J. C. (2005). Domestic violence between same-gender
partners recent findings and future research. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 20, 149–154.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56.
Meyer, I. H. (2013). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and
research evidence. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender
Diversity, 1, 3–26.
Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2011). Moderators of the relation-
ship between internalized homophobia and risky sexual behavior
in men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 40, 189–199.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157–159.
Pico-Alfonso, M. A. (2005). Psychological intimate partner vio-
lence: The major predictor of posttraumatic stress disorder in
abused women. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 29,
181–193.
Relf, M. V., Huang, B., Campbell, J., & Catania, J. (2004). Gay
identity, interpersonal violence, and HIV risk behaviors: An
empirical test of theoretical relationships among a probability-
based sample of urban men who have sex with men. Journal of
the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 15, 14–26.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null
results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.
Spencer, C., Cafferky, B., & Stith, S. M. (2016). Gender differences in
risk markers for perpetration of physical partner violence: results
from a meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8),
981–984.
Kimmes et al.
Steele, L. S., Tinmouth, J. M., & Lu, A. (2006). Regular health care
use by lesbians: A path analysis of predictive factors. Family Prac-
tice, 23, 631–636.
Stephenson, R., de Voux, A., & Sullivan, P. S. (2011). Intimate partner
violence and sexual risk-taking among men who have sex with
men in South Africa. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine,
12, 343–347.
Stith, S. M., Cafferky, B., Bird, N., Lawson, N., Smith, E., Luu, S.,
Mallory, A., & Barros Gomez, P. (2014). Overview of a meta-ana-
lytic review of risk markers for IPV. International Family Violence
and Child Victimization Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH.
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004).
Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk
factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
10(1), 65–98.
Szymanski, D. M., Chung, Y. B., & Balsam, K. F. (2001). Psychoso-
cial correlates of internalized homophobia in lesbians. Measure-
ment and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 27–41.
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S.
(2007). Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury
between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate
partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, 97(5),
941–947.
Author Biographies
Jonathan G. Kimme is an assistant professor of Family and Child
Studies at Florida State University. In addition to his work on intimate
11
partner violence, his scholarship involves investigating the link
between attachment and mindfulness and exploring the way in which
they alter perceptions in couple relationships.
Allen B. Mallory is a PhD student in the Department of Human
Development and Family Science at the University of Texas at Austin.
His research interests are in intimate partner violence, sexual commu-
nication, and health disparities in the LGBT population.
Chelsea Spencer is a PhD student in Marriage and Family Therapy
Program at Kansas State University. Chelsea’s research interests
include sexual assault on college campuses, sexual assault prevention,
and intimate partner violence.
Austin R. Beck is a PhD student at Kansas State University. Austin’s
research interests include attachment, post-traumatic growth, and inti-
mate partner violence, and he has also worked on projects involving
sexual assault.
Bryan Cafferky is an assistant professor of Marriage and Family
Therapy at Loma Linda University. Bryan teaches courses on statis-
tics, family violence, and clinical assessment. His research interests
focus on how at-risk families respond to crisis and trauma. Bryan is
currently working on research with military families and meta-analy-
ses about family violence.
Sandra M. Stith is a University distinguished professor at Kansas
State University, and her research focuses on partner violence. In
2011, APA published her book, Couples Treatment for Domestic Vio-
lence: Finding Safe Solutions, describing a treatment program devel-
oped with NIMH funding.