Ngo Zavala and Pique Ro 2022

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/357612945
Gender, Life Domains, and Intimate Partner

Violence Perpetration: A Partial Test of Agnew’s
General Theory of Crime and Delinquency
Article in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · January 2022

DOI: 10.1177/00224278211048946
CITATION READS
1 148
3 authors:
Fawn T. Ngo Egbert Zavala

University of South Florida University of Texas at El Paso
40 PUBLICATIONS 543 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 322 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Alex R Piquero
University of Texas at Dallas
627 PUBLICATIONS 33,666 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Pittsburgh Girls Study View project
Ability School Engagement Trial (ASEP) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Egbert Zavala on 09 January 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Research Article
Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency
1–43
Gender, Life © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Domains, and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00224278211048946
Intimate Partner journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc
Violence
Perpetration: A
Partial Test of
Agnew’s General
Theory of Crime and
Delinquency
Fawn T. Ngo1 , Egbert Zavala2 ,
and Alex R. Piquero3,4
Abstract
Objectives: We assess the proposed mechanisms outlined in Agnew’s
General Theory of Crime and Delinquency about gender differences in
crime and deviance (gender differences are due to differences between
males and females in their standing on the life domains or differences in
1
Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, Sarasota, FL, USA
2
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA
3
University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
4
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Fawn T. Ngo. Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences,
University of South Florida, 8350 N. Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, FL 34243, USA.
Email: fawnngo@usf.edu
2 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 0(0)
the effect of the life domains on the phenomenon among males and females)
in accounting for sex differences in intimate partner violence (IPV) among a
sample of young adults. Methods: Drawing data from the International Dating
Violence Study (IDVS) and employing the negative binomial regression
method, we examined the effects of six self-domains, four family domains,
one school/work domain, and one peer domain measures on IPV. Results:
Although males reported a higher frequency across all five life domains com-
pared to females, the number of life domain variables that were significantly
related to IPV among females was greater than the number among males.
Further, the effects of the life domain variables on IPV were different for
males and females with the peer variable (criminal peers) exhibiting the
greatest effect on IPV among males and the self-domain (anger issues) dem-
onstrating the greatest effect on IPV among females. Conclusions: Agnew’s
theory is well suited to assess sex differences in IPV.
Keywords
Agnew’s integrated general theory, life domains, intimate partner violence,
sex (gender) differences
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as physical, sexual, or psychologi-
cal harm perpetrated by a current or former romantic partner, is a significant
legal, social, and public health problem (Saltzman et al. 2002). In the United
States (U.S.), it is estimated that one in three women and one in four men
have experienced physical and/or sexual aggression, and nearly half of all
women and men have experienced psychological and verbal aggression
by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime (Smith et al. 2017).
The consequences of IPV are well documented in the literature. Notably,
it has been suggested that even mild and infrequent forms of IPV have impli-
cations for the victim’s physical and mental well-being and his/her relation-
ship functioning (McNeal and Amato 1998; Umberson et al. 1998;
Lawrence and Bradbury 2001; Lawrence et al. 2009).
To understand IPV, several theoretical models and typologies of IPV perpe-
tration have been articulated. However, the literature still lacks a theoretical
framework that provides systematic connections among the vast assortment of
risk factors. In their review of IPV theories, Langer and Lawrence (2010)
noted that “a greater understanding of IPV and future investigations of IPV
need to be guided by comprehensive theories that incorporate multiple
Ngo et al. 3
theoretical perspectives, model the dynamic and interactional nature of IPV, and
emphasize variables or processes that can be targeted in interventions” (p. 369).
Currently, there is one theory that not only integrates the key insights from the
dominant theoretical perspectives on crime and deviance that are pertinent to
IPV—namely, biological, psychological, control, strain, and social learning—
but also organizes known risk factors of IPV as identified in these major
crime theories and prior research into an integrated perspective. The theory
also posits direct, indirect, and reciprocal effects among risk factors and crime,
and the nonlinear and/or contemporaneous effects of the risk factors on crime
and one another. The theory is Agnew’s (2005) General Theory of Crime and
Delinquency and to date, it has not been applied to examine IPV perpetration,
a crime of serious human and policy significance, but we believe could offer
important promise in this space—at least in a preliminary fashion.
In this paper, we examine the efficacy of Agnew’s theory in understand-
ing gender differences in IPV perpetration. Agnew’s perspective is well
suited for exploring this topic because the theory was developed to
account for both within- and between-individual patterns of offending.
According to Agnew, a range of individual and social variables within
five life spheres or domains (e.g., self, family, school, work, and peer)
affect crime and deviance, and group differences in crime rates, including
sex differences, are either due to (1) differences in the standing on the life
domains between the groups or (2) differences in the effects of the life
domains on crime among the groups. Hence, a key inquiry the present
study seeks to assess is the extent to which the above-proposed processes
from Agnew’s theoretical framework may help illuminate our understanding
of IPV perpetration among a sample of male and female young adults. In so
doing, our analysis offers a preliminary application of Agnew’s theory to
IPV in general, and then to gender differences in IPV perpetration in partic-
ular, that can be built upon, elaborated, and extended in future inquiry.
The remainder of our paper is organized as follows. First, we introduce
Agnew’s theory and describe how IPV risk factors identified in prior
research are categorized within Agnew’s framework. We also outline the
propositions related to gender differences in crime and deviance posited
in Agnew’s theory. Next, we introduce our data and methods. Finally, we
present our results and discuss the implications of our findings.
Agnew’s General Theory of Crime and Delinquency

In the field of criminology, Agnew is best known for his efforts at revitaliz-
ing traditional strain perspectives (Cohen 1955; Cloward and Ohlin 1960;
Merton 1968), and in particular, for his general strain theory (GST; 1992). In
2005, Agnew moved beyond the strain framework and developed a theoret-
ical perspective that essentially integrates the core arguments from the major
criminological perspectives with the risk factors and criminogenic character-
istics that are known to directly influence crime and deviance. From the
leading crime theories, i.e., control, strain, social learning, biopsychological,
deterrence, social support, and labeling, Agnew theorizes that crime is more
likely to occur when the constraints against it are low and the motivations for
it are high. Agnew defines constraints as factors that prevent individuals
from engaging in crime and motivations as forces that either “push” or
“pull” individuals to commit a crime.
Agnew also stipulates that a host of individual and social variables affect the
constraints against and motivations for crime. These variables represent the
leading causes of crime identified from major criminological perspectives
and empirical research. However, to keep the list of these variables manage-
able, he only focused on those variables that have moderate to large direct
effects on crime. Additionally, to simplify the complex reality between these
variables and crime (e.g., many variables affect more than one type of con-
straint or motivation), Agnew organizes them around five major life
domains (or major spheres of life): self, family, school, peers, and work.
Self-Domain
The self-domain encompasses the major traits that comprise the human
personality. Agnew proposes two super traits within the self-domain: low
self-control and irritability. The super trait of low self-control characterizes
individuals who are impulsive, risk-seeking, gravitate toward exciting and
high-energy activities, lack ambition, motivation, or perseverance, are not
bound by conventional rules and norms, and have little concern over the
long-range consequences of their behavior (Gottfredson and Hirschi
1990). The super trait of irritability refers to individuals who tend to have
an antagonistic or adversarial interactional style, respond to life events in
an aggressive or antisocial manner, attribute adverse experiences to the mali-
cious behavior of others, and show little concern for the feelings and rights
of others (Moffitt 1990; Farrington 1994; Caspi 1998; Colder and Stice
1998; Miller and Lynam 2001).
Low self-control has been found to link to IPV perpetration in prior
empirical studies. Drawing data from the Transitions into Adulthood and
Romantic Relationships Study, Baker, Klipfel, and van Dulmen (2018)
found males and females with high levels of self-control were significantly
Ngo et al. 5
less likely to engage in emotional and verbal aggression directed at their

partners relative to males and females with low levels of self-control.
Similarly, using a sample of undergraduate students from two large south-
eastern universities, Gover, Kaukinen, and Fox (2008) found that among
male students, low self-control was a significant predictor of both physical
and psychological abuse perpetration while among female students, low
self-control was significantly related to physical but not psychological
abuse perpetration (see also Jennings et al. 2011).
Prior research has also revealed a linkage between elements of the super
trait of irritability (i.e., antisocial beliefs, antisocial personality, negative
emotionality, and hostility) and perpetration of IPV. Employing data from
the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, Moffitt
et al. (2000) found that for both male and female participants, high levels
of negative emotionality (i.e., the enjoyment of frightening others and irra-
tional suspiciousness) were significantly related to partner abuse (i.e., phys-
ical violence and psychological abuse). Similarly, using a sample of
individuals with documented childhood abuse and matched controls,
White and Widom (2003) uncovered a positive association between hostility
(i.e., having urges to break or smash things and having urges to beat, injure
or harm someone) and IPV perpetration (see also Simons et al. 1995;
Jankowski et al. 1999; Andrews et al. 2000; Capaldi et al. 2001; White,
Merrill, and Koss 2001; Heyman and Slep 2002; Woodward, Fergusson,
and Horwood 2002; Ehrensaft et al. 2003, 2004; Brownridge et al. 2008;
Lussier, Farrington, and Moffitt 2009; Connolly et al. 2010; Grych and
Kinsfogel 2010; Eriksson and Mazerolle 2013).
Family Domain
The family domain emphasizes family life experiences and the interaction
between parents and children. According to Agnew, the family variables
affecting delinquency include poor parental supervision/discipline, negative
parent/juvenile bonding, family conflict, child abuse, the absence of positive
parenting, and criminal parents/siblings (Catalano and Hawkins 1986;
Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber 1986; Patterson, Crosby, and Vuchinich
1992; Sampson and Laub 1993; Agnew et al. 2000). Among adults,
Agnew suggests that individuals who are not married, negatively bonded
to their spouses, or have criminal spouses/partners have a heightened risk
of engaging in crime and deviance (Sampson and Laub 1993; Farrington
and West 1995; Horney, Osgood, and Marshall 1995; Giordano,
Cernkovich and Rudolph 2002; Piquero et al. 2002).
Findings from prior research indicate that poor parent–child relationships

and childhood abuse and neglect increase the risk of IPV perpetration.
Drawing data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationship Study, Swinford
et al. (2000) found child abuse (i.e., harsh physical discipline) predicted
dating violence. Similarly, using data from a sample of individuals with doc-
umented childhood abuse and matched controls, White and Widom (2003)
uncovered that childhood abuse and neglect were significant predictors of
IPV for both men and women. Parental monitoring and support have also
been linked to IPV. Using data from a sample of students (8th through
10th grades) from three counties in North Carolina, Foshee et al. (2011)
found family aggression (i.e., fighting among family members) and parental
monitoring (i.e., curfew time implemented by parents) were significantly
related to dating violence perpetration (see also Lavoie et al. 2002;
Ehrensaft et al. 2003; Lackey 2003; Herrenkohl et al. 2004; Linder and
Collins 2005; Renner and Slack 2006; Herrera, Wiersma, and Cleveland
2008; Leadbeater et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2009; Schnurr and Lohman 2008).
School Domain
The school domain focuses on school experiences and the interaction between
teachers and students. The school variables affecting delinquency are negative
bonding to teachers/school, poor academic performance, little time on home-
work, low educational and occupational goals, poor supervision/discipline,
negative treatment by teachers, and the absence of positive teaching (Colvin
2000; Gottfredson 2000; Thornberry et al. 2003; Agnew 2005). Among
adults, Agnew posits that crime will be high among individuals with limited
education (Thornberry and Farnworth 1982; Wright et al. 1999).
Whereas the linkage between individual and familial characteristics and
IPV has received a considerable amount of empirical attention, the number
of research studies assessing the influence of school context on IPV is
limited. Nevertheless, factors such as school attachment/bonding and per-
ceived school safety have emerged as risk factors for IPV perpetration, but it
is important to bear in mind that the evidence is inconsistent. For example,
using a sample of students from three counties in North Carolina, Foshee
et al. (2011) found school bonding (i.e., adolescents’ endorsement of the state-
ment, “my school is like my family”) was negatively related to dating violence
among girls but positively related to dating violence among boys. Similarly,
drawing data from the Three Cities Study, Schnurr and Lohman (2008) uncov-
ered that perception of an unsafe school together with family violence experi-
ence were significantly related to dating violence perpetration among
Ngo et al. 7
African-American male students, while high levels of school involvement

together with family violence exposure were significant predictors of dating
violence perpetration among Hispanic female students. In a longitudinal
study involving a sample of adolescents, Spriggs and colleagues (2009)
found that after controlling for race/ethnicity and age, school economic disad-
vantage (measured as the socioeconomic status (SES) levels of family partic-
ipants at the school) did not predict dating violence victimization among male
students. For female students, those from disadvantaged families attending
more economically advantaged schools had a heightened risk of experiencing
psychological and physical victimization.
Peer Domain
The peer domain concerns individuals’ relations with their peers and the
context of the interaction between individuals and peers. The peer variables
posited by Agnew to increase the likelihood of criminal offending are asso-
ciations with criminal/deviant peers and unstructured and unsupervised time
youth spent with their peers (Akers 1998; Colvin 2000; Cernkovich and
Giordano 2001; Haynie 2001; Warr 2002; Huizinga et al. 2003; Agnew
2005). Agnew also postulates that while adults are less influenced by
peers given the centrality of their work and relationship commitment,
peers may occupy a central role in the lives of adults who are not
married, unemployed, or employed in “bad” jobs (Crutchfield and
Pitchford 1997; Cernkovich and Giordano 2001; Warr 2002).
There is evidence that associating with deviant peers is related to IPV per-
petration. Drawing data from the Safe Dates Study, Arriaga and Foshee
(2004) found adolescents with friends who were perpetrators of dating vio-
lence were significantly more likely to engage in dating violence relative to
adolescents without such friends. Similarly, relying on data from the Three
Cities Study, Schnurr and Lohman (2008) found increased involvement with
antisocial peers was linked to dating violence perpetration for both male and
female adolescents. Miller et al. (2009) also employed a sample of students
(6th grade) and uncovered that dating violence perpetration was positively
related to peer deviance (see also Kinsfogel and Grych 2004; Gagné,
Lavoie, and Hébert 2005; Linder and Collins 2005; Schad et al. 2008;
Williams, Ghandour, and Kub 2008; Foshee et al. 2011).
Work Domain
The work domain underscores individuals’ employment experiences and
their interactions with supervisors and coworkers. According to Agnew,
work-related factors that affect crime and deviance include unemployment,

poor bonding to work, poor work performance, poor working condition,
poor supervision, and criminal coworkers (Crutchfield and Pitchford
1997; Rutter et al. 1998; Colvin 2000; Laub and Sampson 2001;
Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph 2002; Piquero et al. 2002). It is note-
worthy that the work domain only applies to adults since children and
most adolescents typically do not work.
A handful of studies have explored the impact of IPV on employment
status and productivity. Employing a sample of 512 predominantly Asian
American and Pacific Islander young women living in Hawaii, Crowne
et al. (2011) report both concurrent and longitudinal negative associations
between IPV and employment stability (see also McFarlane et al. 2000;
Alexander 2011). Howell and Pugliesi (1988) also found blue-collar occu-
pation predicted IPV after controlling for age, exposure to parental aggres-
sion, low SES, and occupational and employment status while Pan, Neidig,
and O’Leary (1994) uncovered a negative relationship between employment
income and IPV.1
Gender Differences in IPV Perpetration

Contrary to conventional findings that males tend to engage in crime and
delinquency at a disproportionate rate relative to females, some researchers
have found that women are just as likely as men to engage in IPV (i.e., the
gender symmetry thesis; Straus 2009). Further, there is no clear consensus in
the literature about whether men and women share the same risk factors for
perpetrating IPV (Spencer, Cafferky, and Stith 2016). Agnew’s (2005) inte-
grated theory is well suited for exploring the seemingly contradictory evi-
dence on IPV perpetration among males and females because it is designed
to explain why certain groups have higher crime rates than others. Agnew
proposes two mechanisms to account for group differences in crime rates:
(1) the groups differ in their standing on the life domains and (2) the life
domains have larger effects on crime among some groups than others.
Concerning the first mechanism, Agnew attributes group differences in
crime rates to the fact that members of some groups are more likely than
members of other groups to have traits conducive to crime, experience
family problems, have negative school experience, associate with criminal
peers, and/or have work problems. For instance, Agnew would attribute the
evidence that men are primarily the perpetrators and women are primarily
the victims of IPV (i.e., the gender asymmetry thesis) to the fact that males
are more likely than females to be high in irritability and low in self-control,
Ngo et al. 9
to be poorly supervised and harshly disciplined by parents, to have weaker

family ties as adults, and to associate more with criminal peers.
Concerning the second mechanism, Agnew suggests that group differ-
ences in crime rates are due to differences in the effects of the life domain
on crime among males and females. It is noteworthy that Agnew contends
that family factors will have a larger effect on crime among females while
work-related factors will have a larger effect on crime among males
(Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph 2002; Simons et al. 2002). Agnew
premised the above suppositions on the fact that despite substantial
changes in the relationship between sex, work roles, and family roles over
the last few decades, women are still more committed to and affected by
their family life than men, and men are still more committed to and affected
by their work-life than women. To date, no study has sought to apply the
above insights from Agnew’s perspective to examine gender differences
in IPV perpetration.
Current Study
The focus of the current study is on assessing the proposed mechanisms out-
lined in Agnew’s theory about gender differences in crime and deviance
(i.e., gender differences in crime are either due to differences between
males and females in their standing on the life domains or differences in
the effect of the life domains on the phenomenon among males and
females) concerning IPV perpetration. We seek to investigate which mech-
anism(s) accounts for the phenomenon among male and female participants
in our study.
Study Hypotheses
Since there is evidence indicating that males perpetrate IPV at a higher rate
relative to females (i.e., the gender asymmetry thesis) as well as evidence
that males and females perpetrate IPV at equal rates (i.e., the gender symme-
try thesis), we do not have any prior assumptions or expectations regarding
the level of IPV perpetration between males and females in our sample.
Concerning group differences in crime and deviance, Agnew’s first propo-
sition is that the differences are due to differences in the standing on the life
domains between the groups. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1: There will be significant differences in the level standing of the life
domains between males and females.
Agnew’s second proposition posits that group differences are due to differ-
ences in the effects of the life domains on crime among the groups. Thus,
we propose the following hypothesis:
H2: The effects of the life domain variables on IPV perpetration will be dif-
ferent for males and females.
Agnew also asserts that work-related risk factors will have a greater effect on crime
among adult males while family risk factors will exhibit a larger effect on crime
among adult females. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses:
H3: The work domain variable will exhibit the largest effect on IPV perpetra-
tion relative to the other life domain variables among males.
H4: The family domain variables will exhibit the largest effect on IPV perpe-
tration relative to the other life domain variables among females.
Methods
Data
Data for the current study came from the International Dating Violence Study
(IDVS) that involves researchers from 68 universities in 32 nations (Straus
2011). After obtaining approval from each university internal review board
(IRB), the researchers administered the survey to college students enrolled
in mostly criminal justice, sociology, and psychology courses between the
years 2001 and 2006.2 The response rates of the study ranged from a low of
20 percent to as high as 100 percent, with 80 percent of researchers reporting
a response rate of 65 percent or above. Participating students were given infor-
mation about the nature and purpose of the study (i.e., to gather data on IPV
perpetration and victimization) and assured that no identifying information
will be collected. Before starting the survey, respondents were instructed to
think about their current partner, or, if they were single at the time of the
survey, to think about their last relationship that lasted a month or more
when answering items contained in the survey.
For the current study, only the sample from the U.S. (N = 4,162) is used
to focus on one single cultural context, which is consistent with other studies
that have used these data to examine the prevalence, correlates, and conse-
quences of IPV among young adults (Sabina and Straus 2008; Paat and
Markham 2016; Meade et al. 2017; Sabina, Schally, and Marciniec 2017;
Graham et al. 2019) but not doing so within the context of Agnew’s
Ngo et al. 11
integrated theory and specifically with respect to gender differences in IPV

and its correlates. The demographic characteristics for the full, male, and
female samples are presented in Table 1. As shown, the majority of the
sample was female (68 percent) and the mean age of the sample was 22
years. Similarly, the mean age for both male and female samples was also
22 years. Besides gender and age, the IDVS does not include other demo-
graphic information such as race or ethnicity.
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable, IPV Perpetration (α = 0.79) was measured using 12
items asking respondents if they have committed violent and aggressive acts
toward their intimate partners in the past 12 months (e.g., twisted their arm
or hair, pushed or shoved them, used a knife or gun on them; see Appendix
A for the items that were employed to construct IPV Perpetration).3 The
original response categories for this variable consisted of an 8-point
Likert-type scale: 1 = Once in the past year, 2 = Twice in the past year, 3
= 3–5 times in the past year, 4 = 6–10 times in the past year, 5 = 11–20
times in the past year, 6 = More than 20 times in the past year, 7 = Not in
the past year but it did happen before, and 8 = This has never happened.
For this study, the responses were recoded to 0 = This has never happened,
1 = Not in the past year but it did happen before, 2 = Once in the past year,
3 = Twice in the past year, 4 = 3–5 times in the past year, 5 = 6–10 times
in the past year, 6 = 11–20 times in the past year, and 7 = More than 20
times in the past year.4 The above items were summed together with
higher scores indicating higher levels of IPV perpetration.
Life Domain Variables

To identify the life domain measures for our study, we employ the list of
variables assigned to the five life domains included in Agnew’s theory.
Hence, our life domain measures reflect the life domain variables posited
by Agnew to directly affect crime and deviance. Our life domain measures
also represent several risk factors of IPV identified in prior research. The
items employed to construct the life domain scales in this study, as well
as all other factor scales, are provided in Appendix A.
Self-Domain Measures. Our self-domain encompasses six variables: Low

Self-Control, Authoritarian Personality, Negative Attribution, Anger Issues,
Hostility toward Men, and Hostility toward Women. These variables have
12
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for all of the Variables in the Study.
Males Females Full Sample

(N = 1,288) (N = 2,874) (N= 4,162)
Collinearity VIF
Variable Mean (%) SD Mean (%) SD Mean(%) SD Min Max Tolerance
Sex
Male — — — — 32.00 — — — — —
Female — — — — 68.00 — — — — —
Dependent Variable
IPV perpetration 2.13 5.09 2.95* 6.08 2.69 5.80 0 58 — —
Control Variables
Age 21.55 4.17 21.71 5.25 21.66 4.93 18 45 .92 1.08
Drug abuse 5.47* 2.16 4.78 1.57 5.01 1.81 4 16 .68 1.47
Prior violence 7.44* 2.72 5.68 2.12 6.25 2.47 4 16 .56 1.78
IPV victimization 2.77 6.03 2.55 6.06 2.62 6.06 0 68 .86 1.17
Self-Domain
Low self-control 13.53* 3.31 11.41 3.12 12.09 3.33 7 28 .44 2.26
Authoritarian personality 5.66* 1.58 5.35 1.51 5.45 1.54 3 12 .69 1.46
Negative attribution 7.93* 2.18 7.64 2.30 7.73 2.27 4 16 .49 2.05
Anger issues 10.62 2.33 11.06* 2.27 10.92 2.30 5 20 .80 1.25
Hostility toward men 10.34 2.35 10.53** 2.47 10.47 2.43 5 20 .74 1.36
Hostility toward women 9.92* 2.70 9.18 2.60 9.42 2.66 5 20 .65 1.55
Family Domain
Conflict with partner 16.78* 3.88 16.08 4.25 16.30 4.15 8 32 .51 2.00
Child neglect 12.99* 1.80 12.74 1.81 12.82 1.81 6 21 .84 1.19
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)
Males Females Full Sample

(N = 1,288) (N = 2,874) (N= 4,162)
Collinearity VIF
Variable Mean (%) SD Mean (%) SD Mean(%) SD Min Max Tolerance
Child abuse 8.67* 2.80 7.91 2.53 8.15 2.57 5 20 .62 1.61
Child sexual abuse 5.05 1.88 5.12 2.06 5.10 2.00 4 16 .80 1.26
Work/school domain
Discontent with work/school 3.82* 1.09 3.53 1.05 3.62 1.07 2 8 .76 1.32
Peer domain
Criminal peers 2.80* .89 2.42 .96 2.54 .95 1 4 .85 1.18
Note: *p < .001, **p < .01; IPV = Intimate Partner Violence; Min = Minimum; Max = Maximum; VIF = variance inflation factor.
13
been linked to IPV perpetration (see, e.g., Moffitt et al. 2000; Swinford et al.
2000; White and Widom 2003; Kim and Capaldi 2004; Gover, Kaukinen, and
Fox 2008; Jennings et al. 2011; Baker, Klipfel, and van Dulmen 2018) as well
as align with the individual characteristics of irritability and low self-control
proposed by Agnew (2005:42–45). Low Self-Control (α = 0.75) was measured
using seven items (e.g., I often do things that other people think are dangerous,
I don’t think about what I do will affect other people), Authoritarian
Personality (α = 0.62) was measured using three items (e.g., sometimes I
have to remind my partner of who’s boss, I generally have the final say
when my partner and I disagree), and Negative Attribution (α = 0.70) was mea-
sured using four items (e.g., it is usually my partner’s fault when I get mad, my
partner does things just to annoy me).
On the other hand, Anger Issues (α = .63) was created using six items (e.g.,
when I’m mad at my partner I say what I think without thinking about the con-
sequences, there is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner
hassles me), Hostility toward Men (α = 0.69) was created using five items
(e.g., men are rude, men irritate me a lot), and Hostility toward Women (α =
0.77) was also created using five items (e.g., women are rude, women treat
men badly). The response categories for all the items used to measure the self-
domain variables include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 =
Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree and the responses were summed
together with a higher score indicating a higher level of a particular self-
domain measure (i.e., higher levels of Low Self-Control, higher levels of
Authoritarian Personality,).
Family Domain Measures. Our family domain consists of four variables:

Conflicts with Partner, Child Neglect, Child Abuse, and Child Sexual Abuse.
Similar to the self-domain variables, our family domain measures have been
linked to IPV in prior research (Gelles and Straus 1988; Swinford et al.
2000; White and Widom 2003) as well as align with the key family domain
variables encompassed in Agnew’s (2005:45–49) perspective. Conflicts with
Partner (α = 0.76) was captured with nine questions (e.g., my partner and I dis-
agree about how much money to spend when we go places, my partner and I
disagree about telling other people about things that happened between us)
while Child Neglect (α = 0.74) was measured using eight statements (e.g.,
my parents did not care if I got into trouble in school, my parents did not
comfort me when I was upset). Similarly, Child Abuse (α = 0.64) was captured
using five statements (e.g., when I was less than 12 years old I was spanked or
hit a lot by my mother/father, when I was a teenager I was hit a lot by my
mother/father,) and Child Sexual Abuse (α = 0.74) was created using four
Ngo et al. 15
items (e.g., before I was 18 an adult in my family made me look at or touch

their private parts or looked at or touched mine, before I was 18 an adult in
my family had sex with me). The response categories for all the items used
to create the family domain variables include a 4-point Likert-type scale that
ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree and the responses
were summed together with a higher score denoting a higher level of a partic-
ular family domain measure (i.e., higher levels of Conflicts with Partner,
higher levels of Child Neglect,).
School/Work Domain Measure. The IDVS does not include separate mea-
sures for the school and work domains, a limitation we return to later in
the manuscript. Hence, the variable Discontent with School/Work (α =
0.33)5 was created to represent both domains. This variable was measured
using two statements: “People at work or school don’t get along with me”
and “I don’t like my work or classes.” Respondents marked their answers
using a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly
Agree) and the responses were summed together, with higher scores indicat-
ing higher levels of discontent with school/work. It is noteworthy that our
school/work domain variable has been linked to IPV in prior research
(Schnurr and Lohman 2008; Spriggs et al. 2009; Foshee et al. 2011) and
aligns with the key school and work domain variables outlined in
Agnew’s (2005:49–55) theory.
Peer Domain Measure. The peer domain variable, Criminal Peers, was cap-
tured using the following statement: “I have friends who have committed
crimes.” Respondents marked their answers using a 4-point Likert-type
scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree) with higher scores
denoting higher levels of association with criminal peers. Similar to the
school/work domain measure, our peer domain variable has been found to
be related to IPV in prior research (Arriaga and Foshee 2004; Schnurr and
Lohman 2008; Miller et al. 2009) and aligns with the key peer domain var-
iables suggested by Agnew (2005:51–53).
Control Variables
Given the evidence that IPV declines with age (Kim et al. 2008), substance
use is related to IPV perpetration (Feingold, Kerr, and Capaldi 2008), and
the association between non-relationship aggression and IPV (Herrera,
Wiersma, and Cleveland 2008), Age, Drug Abuse, and Prior Violence
were included as control variables in the study. Age is a continuous variable
and measured in years. Drug Abuse (α = 0.69) was captured using four state-
ments (e.g., In the past I used coke, crack, or harder drugs more than once or
twice, I worry I have a drug problem,) and Prior Violence (α = 0.73) was
created using four statements, (e.g., Before the age of 15, I physically
attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them, before the age
of 15, I hit or threatened to hit my parents).
Relatedly, given the evidence on the association between IPV perpetration
and victimization (Jennings et al. 2011), IPV Victimization (α = 0.82) was also
included as a control variable. The same items that were used to measure IPV
Perpetration were alternatively presented in the context of the respondent
being victimized by these acts to create IPV Victimization (e.g., your partner
twisted your arm or hair, your partner pushed or shoved you, your partner
used a knife or gun on you). Respondents marked their answers using an
8-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 = Once in the past year, 2 = Twice in the
past year, 3 = 3–5 times in the past year, 4 = 6–10 times in the past year, 5
= 11–20 times in the past year, 6 = More than 20 times in the past year, 7 =
Not in the past year but it did happen before, and 8 = This has never happened).
The original responses were recoded to 0 = This has never happened, 1 = Not
in the past year but it did happen before, 2 = Once in the past year, 3 = Twice in
the past year, 4 = 3–5 times in the past year, 5 = 6–10 times in the past year, 6
= 11–20 times in the past year, and 7 = More than 20 times in the past year. All
the items were summed together with higher scores indicating higher levels of
IPV victimization. The descriptive statistics for the life domain and control var-
iables for the full, male, and female samples are provided in Table 1.
Analytical Plan
To assess the hypothesis that males and females differ in their standing on
the life domain variables (Hypothesis 1), we perform a series of mean dif-
ference tests on the reported frequencies for all the life domain variables
across gender. To examine the hypotheses that the effects of the life
domain variables on IPV perpetration are different for males and females
(Hypothesis 2), the work domain variable exhibits the greatest effect on
IPV perpetration relative to the other life domain variables among males
(Hypothesis 3), the family domain variables exhibit the largest effect on
IPV perpetration relative to the other life domain variables among females
(Hypothesis 4), and given that our dependent variable is a count variable
with a mean-variance inequality in favor of over-dispersion (Mean = 2.69;
SD = 5.80), we estimate two negative binomial regression models (one for
the male sample and the other for the female sample) in which IPV
Ngo et al. 17
Perpetration was regressed on the life domain variables (e.g., Low

Self-Control, Authoritarian Personality, Negative Attribution, Anger
Issues, Hostility toward Men, Hostility toward Women, Conflicts with
Partner, Child Neglect, Child Abuse, Child Sexual Abuse, Discontent with
School/Work, and Criminal Peers) while controlling for Age, Drug Abuse,
Prior Violence, and IPV Victimization. We also conduct a series of coeffi-
cient comparison tests (Paternoster et al. 1998) to determine whether the
effects of the life domain measures on IPV perpetration are significantly dif-
ferent between males and females (i.e., to provide a formal test for
Hypothesis 2). The negative binomial regression models were estimated
using SPSS Version 27.
Results
Table 1 shows the reported frequencies for IPV perpetration by males and
females. According to the results, the mean level of reported IPV perpetra-
tion for females (Mean = 2.95) was significantly higher than the mean level
reported for males (Mean = 2.13). To assess differences in the standing on
the life domains between males and females (Hypothesis 1), we performed
a series of mean difference tests on the reported frequencies for the life
domain variables. Within the self-domain, relative to females, males
reported significantly higher levels of low self-control, authoritarian per-
sonality, negative attribution, and hostility toward women. Conversely, rel-
ative to males, females exhibited a significantly higher level of anger issues
and hostility toward men (Table 1).
Similarly, within the family domain, males reported a significantly higher
level of conflict with partner, child neglect, and child abuse relative to
females. No significant sex differences were found for child sexual abuse.
With regard to the school/work and peer domains, males reported signifi-
cantly greater negative experiences at school/work (discontent with
school/work) and higher levels of association with criminal peers (criminal
peers) than females. Accordingly, our results suggest some evidence of sex
differences in the standing on the life domains with males in our sample
appearing to possess more risk factors—as well as higher levels for some
risk factors—for IPV relative to females.
To determine whether the effects of the life domain variables on IPV
perpetration are different for males and females (Hypothesis 2), the work
domain variable exhibits the greatest effect on IPV perpetration relative to
the other life domain variables among males (Hypothesis 3), and the
family domain variables exhibit the largest effect on IPV perpetration
relative to the other life domain variables among females (Hypothesis 4),
we estimated two negative binomial regression models (one for males and
the other for females) in which IPV perpetration was regressed on the life
domain variables while holding age, drug abuse, prior violence, and IPV
victimization constant. The results for the male sample are shown in
Table 2 and the results for the female sample are shown in Table 3.
The results from Table 2 reveal that among males, two self-domain varia-
bles, anger issues and hostility toward men, were significant predictors of IPV
perpetration. According to the results, for a one unit increase in anger issues,
the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by 8 percent (IRR = 1.083, p <
.001) and for a one unit increase in hostility toward men, the incident rate of
IPV perpetration increased by 4 percent (IRR = 1.043, p < .05). None of the
other self-domain variables were related to the outcome variable. Among the
family domain variables, only child sexual abuse was a significant predictor
of IPV perpetration. For a one unit increase in child sexual abuse, the incident
rate of IPV perpetration increased by 8 percent (IRR = 1.079, p < .001). The
peer domain variable, criminal peers, also exhibited a significant association
with the outcome variable in that for a one unit increase in criminal peers,
the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by 10 percent (IRR = 1.101,
p < .05). On the other hand, the school/work domain variable (discontent
with work/school) was not related to the outcome variable.
Concerning the magnitudes of the effects of the life domain variables on
the outcome variable, the results from Table 2 indicate that the peer domain
variable (criminal peers) exhibited the greatest effect (IRR = 1.101, p < .05)
on IPV perpetration relative to the other life domain variables. Hence, we
did not find support for Hypothesis 3 (the work domain variable will
exhibit the greatest effect on IPV perpetration relative to the other life
domain variables among males). Among the control variables, we found
IPV victimization was significantly related to the outcome variable. For
every unit increase in IPV victimization, the incident rate of IPV perpetra-
tion increased by 23 percent (IRR = 1.231, p < .001).
Shifting our attention to the female sample, the results from Table 3
reveal that four of the six self-domain variables (e.g., authoritarian person-
ality, negative attribution, anger issues, and hostility toward women) were
significantly related to IPV perpetration. For every unit increase in authori-
tarian personality, the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by
6 percent (IRR = 1.061, p < .01) and for every unit increase in negative attri-
bution, the incident rate increased by 3 percent (IRR = 1.031, p < .05).
Similarly, a one unit increase in anger issues resulted in a 16 percent
increase in the incident rate of IPV perpetration (IRR = 1.160, p < .001).
Ngo et al. 19
Table 2. Negative Binomial Regressions of Life Domains on IPV Perpetration among

Males (N = 1,288).
Variables IRRa SE 95% CI
Control
Age .997 .010 .977–1.016
Drug abuse .973 .022 .932–1.017
Prior violence 1.028 .020 .989–1.068
IPV victimization 1.231* .009 1.210–1.252
Self-domain
Low self-control 1.002 .019 .950–1.023
Authoritarian personality 1.001 .032 .940–1.066
Negative attribution 1.039 .027 .985–1.095
Anger issues 1.083* .020 1.041–1.126
Hostility toward men 1.043*** .019 1.004–1.083
Hostility toward women 1.016 .020 .977–1.056
Family domain
Conflict with partner 1.028 .014 .999–1.057
Child neglect .962 .026 .913–1.013
Child abuse .983 .021 .944–1.024
Child sexual abuse 1.079* .028 1.033–1.126
School/work domain
Discontent with work/school .894 .069 .821–0.973
Peer domain
Criminal peers 1.101*** .054 .990–1.224
Constant .093* .465 .037–0.230
Model χ22 1681.60*
a
Incidence rate ratios.
*p < .001; ***p < .05.
Conversely, for every unit increase in hostility toward women, the incident
rate of IPV perpetration decreased by 4 percent (IRR = 0.964, p < .01).
Concerning the family domain measures, three of the four variables
(e.g., conflict with partner, child neglect, and child abuse) were significant
predictors of IPV perpetration. For every unit increase in conflict with
partner, the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by 3 percent
(IRR = 1.028, p < .001) and for every unit increase in child abuse, the inci-
dent rate of IPV perpetration increased by 4 percent (IRR = 1.041, p < .01).
On the other hand, a one unit increase in child neglect was associated with
a 5 percent decrease in the incident rate of IPV perpetration (IRR = 0.954,
p < .01). The school/work and peer domain measures were not related to
IPV perpetration.
Table 3. Negative Binomial Regressions of Life Domains on IPV Perpetration among

Females (N = 2,874).
Variables IRRa SE 95% CI
Control
Age .985** .005 .975–0.995
Drug abuse .956** .017 .924–0.989
Prior violence 1.075* .014 1.047–1.105
IPV victimization 1.188* .006 1.174–1.202
Self-domain
Low self-control 1.015 .011 .993–1.037
Authoritarian personality 1.061** .019 1.022–1.101
Negative attribution 1.031*** .015 1.002–1.062
Anger issues 1.160* .012 1.133–1.189
Hostility toward men 1.025 .013 1.000–1.051
Hostility toward women .964** .012 .943–0.987
Family domain
Conflict with partner 1.028* .008 1.012–1.044
Child neglect 0.954** .015 .926–0.982
Child abuse 1.041** .012 1.017–1.066
Child sexual abuse 1.004 .013 .978–1.031
School/work domain
Discontent with work/school .989 .027 .937–1.043
Peer domain
Criminal peers 1.051 .028 .996–1.110
Constant .080* .257 .048–0.132
Model χ22 3113.47*
a
Incidence rate ratios.
*p < .001; **p < .01; ***p < .05.
Concerning the magnitudes of the effects of the life domain variables on

IPV perpetration among females, the results from Table 3 reveal that the
self-domain variable of anger issues exhibited the largest effect (IRR =
1.160, p < .001) on IPV perpetration relative to the other life domain varia-
bles. Accordingly, our results did not provide support for Hypothesis 4 (the
family domain variables will exhibit the largest effect on IPV perpetration
relative to the other life domain variables among females), but it is important
to bear in mind that two of the four family domain variables did operate as
Agnew expected. With respect to the control variables, the results from
Table 3 also indicate that a one unit increase in age is associated with a
2 percent decrease in the incident rate of IPV perpetration (IRR = 0.985,
p < .01) and a one unit increase in drug abuse resulted in a 4 percent decrease
Ngo et al. 21
in the incident rate (IRR = 0.956, p < .01). On the other hand, a one unit
increase in prior violence led to an 8 percent increase in the incident rate
of IPV perpetration (IRR = 1.075, p < .001) and a one unit increase in IPV
victimization is associated with a 19 percent increase in the incident rate
(IRR = 1.188, p < .001).6
In addition to the above analyses, we also conducted a series of coeffi-
cient comparison tests to determine whether the effects of the life domain
variables on IPV perpetration are different between males and females.
The results for these tests are presented in Table 4 and indicate that 4 of
the 12 life domain measures emerged as being significantly different
across gender. As can be seen, the effects of two self-domain variables
(e.g., anger issues and hostility toward women) and two family domain var-
iables (e.g., child abuse and child sexual abuse) on IPV perpetration were
significantly different between males and females. Among the self-domain
variables, anger issues were a significant predictor of IPV for both males
and females with its effect on the outcome variable being greater for
females than for males (B = .149, p < .001 and B = .079, p < .001, respec-
tively) but it bears repeating that the coefficients were positive and statisti-
cally significant for both groups. On the other hand, while the effect of
hostility toward women on IPV perpetration was not significant among
males, it exhibited a significant and negative effect on the outcome variable
among females (B = .016, p > .05 and B = −.036, p < .01, respectively).
Within the family domain, two coefficient estimates were observed to be
significantly different across gender and for each of these two z-tests, it was
the case that one of the coefficient estimates was significant among one of
the genders but not the other. First, whereas child abuse was not a significant
predictor of IPV perpetration among males it exhibited a significant effect
on the outcome variable among females (B = −.017, p > .05 and B = .040,
p < .001, respectively). Similarly, although child sexual abuse was not
related to IPV perpetration among females, it demonstrated a significant
effect on the outcome variable among males (B = .004, p > .05 and B =
.076, p < .001, respectively). In short, although we detected some coefficient
differences, the majority of comparisons did not reveal significant differ-
ences across gender.
Discussion
The goal of this research was to apply Agnew’s (2005) theoretical proposi-
tions concerning group differences in crime and deviance to examine sex
differences in IPV perpetration among a sample of young adults. Our
Table 4. Z-Tests Comparing Male and Female Regression Coefficients.
Variables Males (N = 1,288) Females (N = 2,874) z-score
Self-domain
Low self-control .014 (.019) .015 (.011) .05
Authoritarian personality .001 (.032) .059 (.019)** −1.55
Negative attribution .038 (.027) .031 (.015)*** .23
Anger issues .079 (.020)* .149 (.012)* −3.04
Hostility toward men .042 (.019)*** .025 (.013) 0.73
Hostility toward women .016 (.020) −.036 (.012)** 2.25
Family domain
Conflict with partner .027 (.014) .027 (.008)* 0.01
Child neglect −.039 (.026) −.048 (.015)* .30
Child abuse −.017 (.021) .040 (.012)* −2.37
Child sexual abuse .076 (.022)* .004 (.013) 2.82
School/work domain
Discontent with work/school −.113 (.043) −.011 (.027) −1.09
Peer domain
Criminal peers .096 (.054)*** .050 (.028) .76
Constant −2.380 (.465)* −2.528 (.257)*
Model χ2 1,681.60* 3,113.47*
Note: Entries are standardized regression coefficients; standard errors are in parentheses;
significant z-scores are bolded.
*p < .001; **p < .01; ***p < .05.
focus was on determining which mechanism (i.e., the differences are due to
differences in the standing on the life domains between the groups or the dif-
ferences are due to differences in the effects of the life domains on crime
rates among the groups) may potentially aid in illuminating any potential
differences in the levels of IPV perpetration between male and female par-
ticipants in our study. We uncovered several key findings worth further
discussion.
First, we found support for Hypothesis 1 (there will be significant differ-
ences in the reported level of the life domains between males and females) in
that, with two exceptions (e.g., anger issues and hostility toward men), the
reported frequencies for the life domain variables among males in our
sample were greater than the reported frequencies among females. Out of
the 12 life domain measures, males exhibited a greater level of risk across
9 measures relative to females. Specifically, compared to females, males
exhibited a higher level of low self-control, measures assessing irritability
(i.e., authoritarian personality, negative attribution, and hostility toward
Ngo et al. 23
women), relationship conflict, child neglect and maltreatment, negative

experiences with work/school, and associations with antisocial peers
(Table 1).
However, despite having a greater proportion of risk factors of IPV, males
in the current study reported a significantly lower level of IPV perpetration
relative to females (Table 1). While prior research has also reported similar
findings (Moffitt et al. 2001), it does contradict some conventional assump-
tions about IPV perpetration thereby raising the possibility that our findings
could be attributed to males in our sample possessing protective factors that
serve to prevent or buffer the risk of engaging in IPV, that there may be some
under-/overreporting differences between the genders on IPV perpetration,
or that such conventional assumptions simply do not square away with
empirical reality. It is noteworthy that prior research has identified several
protective factors of IPV including help-seeking behavior, self-esteem, and
life skills (Gerino et al. 2018). Yet, protective factors are generally studied
less extensively when compared to risk factors. Given the above evidence
and that our data do not include protective measures of IPV, we encourage
future research to examine and identify the characteristics and actions that
potentially decrease the likelihood of IPV victimization both within and
across intimate relationships. This line of work is crucial and warranted in
providing direction for IPV prevention and intervention programs.
Second, we uncovered that some of the effects of the life domain varia-
bles on IPV were different for males and females in our study. This finding
provided support for Hypothesis 2 (the effects of the life domain variables
on IPV perpetration will be different for males and females). Relative to
the male sample, the number of life domain variables exhibiting a significant
effect with the outcome variable (IPV perpetration) is greater in the female
sample (Tables 2 and 3). Further, the results from our coefficient comparison
tests indicate that the effects of four life domain variables (e.g., anger issues,
hostility toward women, child abuse, and child sexual abuse) on IPV perpe-
tration were significantly different between males and females (Table 4), but
many more others were not different between the two groups. Although
having high levels of hostility toward women and child abuse did not influ-
ence the likelihood of IPV perpetration among males, they significantly
increased the risk of such behavior among females. Conversely, experienc-
ing high levels of child sexual abuse did not seem to impact the likelihood of
engaging in IPV among females but such experience heightened the risk of
IPV among males. On the other hand, having high levels of anger issues was
a risk factor for IPV for both males and females in our sample, its influence
on the likelihood of IPV perpetration, though significant for both groups,
was somewhat stronger for females relative to males. Taken together, our
results suggest that males and females in our sample appear to share some
of the same risk factors, but not all of them, and in several cases the risk
factors operate to a different degree and in different ways (i.e., sign
differences).
Third, among the life domain measures, we uncovered that the peer var-
iable (criminal peers) exhibited the greatest effect on IPV perpetration in the
male sample (Table 2). Hence, our results did not provide support for
Hypothesis 3 (the work domain variable will exhibit the largest effect on
IPV perpetration relative to the other life domain variables among males).
It is plausible that our null finding between the work domain variable
and IPV perpetration among males is due to how the variable was measured.
As noted previously, our data do not include separate measures for the school
and work domains, and hence, the variable discontent with school/work was
created to represent both domains in our study. The above finding could also
be attributed to the cross-sectional nature of our data. Given the evidence that
IPV is negatively related to employment stability (Crowne et al. 2011), we
were unable to longitudinally determine the time ordering of the relationship
between the work domain variable and IPV perpetration (i.e., discontent with
work could have preceded IPV perpetration). And it could also be the case
that “work” for this sample is not considered in the sense as it would full-time
work in the form of a career among older adults who are no longer in college.
We encourage future research to utilize separate measures for the work
domain as well as incorporate additional variables that we did not include
in our study (e.g., commitment to school or work, attachment to a partner,
etc.) to explore sex differences in IPV over time.7
Relatedly, it is instructive that while Agnew theorizes that the magnitude
of the association between criminal peers and offending will decrease
among male adults in light of the centrality of their employment and
marital commitment, he also posits that deviant peers will have a major
impact among adults who are not employed and adults who are not
married. Since our data do not include information about marital and
employment statuses, we advocate future research to explore the above
proposition suggested by Agnew.
Fourth, among female participants, we discovered that the self-domain
variable of anger issues exhibited the greatest effect on IPV perpetration rel-
ative to the other life domain variables (Table 3). Thus, we did not find
support for Hypothesis 4 (the family domain variables will exhibit the
largest effect on IPV perpetration relative to the other life domain variables
among females). It is noteworthy that the measure of anger issues is a salient
Ngo et al. 25
risk factor of IPV for both males and females in our sample, albeit it exhib-
ited a greater effect on the outcome variable among females relative to males
(Table 4). While negative emotions occupy a less central role in Agnew’s
integrated theory than in GST (Agnew 1992), they are conceptualized as sig-
nificant motivation sources in his integrated perspective. Given our finding
that the inability to control one’s anger is a crucial risk factor for IPV for
both males and females, we encourage future research to incorporate mea-
sures of negative emotions in their test of Agnew’s integrated theory.
Taking account of negative emotions may hold the key to our understanding
as to why some people are more likely than others to engage in crime as well
as why crime is more likely in some situations than others.
Returning to Agnew’s propositions concerning group differences in
crime and deviance, (i.e., group differences in crime and deviance could
either be due to differences in the standing on the life domains between
the groups or differences in the effects of the life domains on crime
among the groups), the results from our study appear to provide support
for the latter because although males in our sample possessed more risk
factors of IPV than female participants, the effects of these factors on IPV
were different between the sexes at the bivariate level (Table 1).
Specifically, females in our sample reported a lower frequency across all
five life domains compared to males yet, the number of life domain variables
that were significantly related to IPV perpetration among females was
greater than the number among males. Further, the effects of the life
domain variables on IPV perpetration appeared to be different (and at
times greater) for females than for females than for males, but for the
most part, there were more similarities than differences across gender.
Policy Implications
One of the key findings that emerged in the current study is that having anger
issues is a significant risk factor of IPV for both males and females. This finding
aligns with the evidence from a systematic review on IPV (Norlander and
Eckhardt 2005). Hence, targeting anger and offering anger management
education is crucial for treating and preventing IPV. In anger management, vio-
lence is generally seen as a momentary outburst of anger and thus, the focus in
treatment tends to be on managing emotions (Burton n.d.). There is evidence
that the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in conjunction with
other therapies such as relaxation techniques, problem-solving strategies,
etc., in anger management treatment is effective in helping participants
feel more in control of their anger (Nesset et al. 2019).
Another key finding documented in the current study is that association

with criminal peers heightened the risk of IPV perpetration among males.
This finding is not surprising given the evidence that individuals tend to
select friends with similar interests and behavior as well as dating partners
is usually selected from the same peer group (Yamaguchi and Kandel
1993; Kim and Capaldi 2004). Relatedly, there is evidence that IPV typi-
cally starts in middle school (at the age of 12 years; O’Leary and Slep
2012) and appears to be somewhat stable (Fritz, O’Leary, and Foshee
2003). Hence, early prevention and intervention are key in combating
IPV. In recent years, several effective prevention and intervention programs
targeting perpetration and victimization of IPV among adolescents have
been identified. For example, Safe Dates (Stith et al. 2004), a school-based
prevention intervention program, offers a curriculum consisting of sessions
on personal safety, communication strategies, sexuality, tips for safe dating,
consequences of abusive behaviors, identification of abusive relationships,
and related health problem-solving skills. The focus of the program is on
fostering relationship skills (prevention) and addressing emotional/psycho-
logical abuse (intervention). Safe Dates also encompasses a community
component that includes school project newsletters, an information
session for parents, and a manual on how to prevent violence in the commu-
nity. It is noteworthy that comprehensive IPV prevention interventions
based in both school and community are effective in preventing IPV perpe-
tration and victimization among adolescents (De Koker et al. 2014).
The results from our study also suggest that, although there is some overlap in
the risk factors across gender (such as anger issues), males and females do not
appear to share all the same—or same level of—risk factors of IPV. While
there continues to be a debate on whether there is a need for gender-neutral or
gender-specific theories of crime (see Smith and Paternoster 1987; Piquero
et al. 2005), currently, the evidence on the effectiveness of gender-neutral and
gender-specific prevention and intervention programs for IPV is inconclusive
(see De Koker et al. 2014). While more research is needed to determine
whether a gender-neutral approach works better than a focused approach target-
ing males and females separately in preventing and addressing IPV, it would be
prudent to take into account the possibility that factors influencing IPV perpetra-
tion may be different for males and females when designing interventions.
In the end, we believe the pressing issue in combating and preventing
IPV is to promote healthy, respectful, nonviolent relationships. Prevention
strategies such as Teach Safe and Healthy Relationship Skills that focus
on promoting social and emotional competency among youth and building
healthy relationships among young couples and Disrupt the Developmental
Ngo et al. 27
Pathways toward Partner Violence that emphasize parenting and interper-

sonal skills, preschool enrichment with family engagement, and home visi-
tation are promising strategies in curbing IPV (Piquero, Farrington, Welsh,
et al. 2009; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020).
Study Limitations
To be sure, our study is not without limitations. First, our study involved
cross-sectional, quantitative, and self-reported data, and hence, definitive
causal relationships cannot be established and no information on contextual
factors was available to aid with the interpretation of the results. Second,
other measures of the life domains were not available in the IDVS. For
instance, we did not have separate measures for the work and school
domains. While we believe our combined measure of school/work domain
represents a fair assessment of the participants’ school and work experiences
since our sample consists of college students and there is evidence that many
college students work (Amour 2019), however, having a separate school
domain measure and work domain measure may provide additional insights
into the impact of the life domains on IPV perpetration. Relatedly, although
certainly within the spirit of Agnew’s theory, our peer domain variable was
measured using a single (but critical) item. Hence, we encourage future
research to incorporate additional life domain measures (e.g., employment
status, marital status, etc.) and employ life domain scales to assess
Agnew’s theory. Third, we employed a general measure of IPV in our
study albeit there are subtypes of IPV perpetration including intimate terror-
ism, mutual violence control, violent resistance, and situational couple vio-
lence (Johnson 2006). Thus, we encourage future research to extend our
work by applying Agnew’s theory and assess sex differences in the
effects of the life domains on specific types of IPV perpetration as well as
offending and violence more generally (see, e.g., Theobald et al. 2016).
Lastly, Agnew posits that the variables in each domain increase crime by
reducing the constraints against crime and increasing the motivations for
crime, each life domain directly affects crime and indirectly affects crime
through its effects on the other domains, the life domain interacts in affecting
crime and one another, and the life domains have nonlinear and largely con-
temporaneous effects on crime and one another. Exploration of these issues
is beyond the space available to us in this paper, but it is important to be con-
sidered in subsequent work to continue empirically investigating various
relationships contained in Agnew’s theory, including mediation and moder-
ation analyses, vis-à-vis IPV.
Conclusions
Our study represents a preliminary assessment of Agnew’s (2005) general
theory of crime and delinquency in helping us understand IPV perpetration
and the extent to which the life domains outlined in his theory operate in the
same manner across gender in a sample of young adults. Overall, our results
provide some support for Agnew’s conjectures about group differences in
offending, but also some challenges to his expectations, at least within the
context of IPV within the current data. Accordingly, we advocate future
research to apply the above ideas for future work and examine gender dif-
ferences in IPV using different populations (e.g., clinical samples, adoles-
cent samples, senior samples, etc.), a more expansive list of life domain
variables, and with additional types of violence not fully considered
within these data. We hope our research will inspire future research to
employ Agnew’s perspective to continue the quest of unpacking the rela-
tionship between gender and this type of violence.
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, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
ORCID iD
Fawn T. Ngo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-4004
Notes
1. It is important to note, however, that research from Sherman et al. (1992) within
the context of the domestic violence experiments showed that arrest increased
recidivism among the unemployed (and the unmarried).
2. For a comprehensive description of the IDVS, see Straus (2011).
3. The items employed to measure IPV perpetration were derived from the revised
Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-R; Straus et al. 1996). It is important to note that the
CTS-R has been criticized for not capturing the context in which violence occurs
or the motivations for using violence (Kimmel 2002).
4. To be sure, while the majority of response options (options 1–6) for the IPV per-
petration variable reference the past year, the original coding scheme include an
Ngo et al. 29
option for perpetration that occurred (at least) over a year ago (option 7).
Although technically not matching the other response options, we feel that the
loss of information (over 136 cases who selected this response) along with the
fact that selecting this response is perpetration was not prudent. Thus, we opted
to retain this response option.
5. The Cronbach’s alpha for the school/work measure is very low (.33) but results
from the principal component exploratory reveal all the items loaded on a
single factor with all loadings were >.78 (see Appendix A). Also, the bivariate
correlation between the two items was, r = .203, p < .001.
6. In analyses not shown (but available upon request), we repeated both sets of anal-
yses for males and females without the IPV victimization measure (Jennings et al.
2011). Without IPV victimization as a control variable, the following variables
became significant among males—negative attribution, hostility toward
women, conflict with partner, child neglect, and child abuse—while hostility
toward men and criminal peers became insignificant. Further, all the significant
variables were positively related to the IPV perpetration except for child
neglect, which was negatively related to the outcome variable. Among females,
hostility toward men and child sexual abuse became significantly and positively
related to IPV perpetration, while authoritarian personality became insignificant.
7. This is also made more apparent during the COVID-19 crisis and the lockdown
orders which have been related to increases in domestic violence (Piquero et al.
2021), some of which may be attributable to the stress, anxiety, and anger asso-
ciated with not just the lockdown but its ancillary effects such as unemployment
and increased alcohol and substance use and abuse.
References
Agnew, R. 1992. “Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and
Delinquency.” Criminology 30(1):47-88.
Agnew, R. 2005. Why Do Criminals Offend? A General Theory of Crime and
Delinquency. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Agnew, R., C. Rebellon, and S. Thaxton. 2000. “A General Strain Theory Approach
to Families and Crime.” Pp. 113-138 in Families, Crime and Criminal Justice,
edited by G. L. Fox and M. L. Benson. Amsterdam: JAI.
Akers, R. L. 1998. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime
and Deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Alexander, P. C. 2011. “Childhood Maltreatment, Intimate Partner Violence, Work
Interference and Women’s Employment.” Journal of Family Violence 26(4):255-
261.
Amour, M. S. 2019. “Working College Students.” https://www.insidehighered.com/

news/2019/11/18/most-college-students-work-and-thats-both-good-and-bad.
Andrews, J. A., S. L. Foster, D. Capaldi, and H. Hops. 2000. “Adolescent and Family
Predictors of Physical Aggression, Communication, and Satisfaction in Young
Adult Couples: A Prospective Analysis.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 68(2):195-208.
Arriaga, X. B. and V. A. Foshee. 2004. “Adolescent Dating Violence: Do
Adolescents Follow in Their Friends’, or Their Parents’, Footsteps?.” Journal
of Interpersonal Violence 19(2):162-184.
Baker, E. A., K. M. Klipfel, and M. H. van Dulmen. 2018. “Self-Control and
Emotional and Verbal Aggression in Dating Relationships: A Dyadic
Understanding.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 33(22):3551-3571.
Brownridge, D. A., K. L. Chan, D. Hiebert-Murphy, J. Ristock, A. Tiwari,
W. C. Leung, and S. C. Santos. 2008. “The Elevated Risk for Non-Lethal
Post-Separation Violence in Canada: A Comparison of Separated,
Divorced, and Married Women.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence
23(1):117-135.
Burton, K. n.d. “Anger Management Versus Domestic Violence – What’s the
Difference?” https://centralargroup.com/angermanagementversusdomesticviolence.
Capaldi, D. M., T. J. Dishion, M. Stoolmiller, and K. Yoerger. 2001. “Aggression
Toward Female Partners by At-Risk Young Men: The Contribution of Male
Adolescent Friendships.” Developmental Psychology 37(1):61-73.
Caspi, A. 1998. “Personality Development Across the Life Course.” Pp. 311-388
in Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality
Development edited by W. Damon and N. Eisenberg. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Catalano, R. F. and J. D. Hawkins. 1986. “The Social Development Model: A
Theory of Antisocial Behavior.” Paper presented at the Safeco Lectureship on
Crime and Delinquency, University of Washington, Seattle.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. “Intimate Partner Violence:
Prevention Strategies.” https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartner
violence/prevention.html.
Cernkovich, S. A. and P. C. Giordano. 2001. “Stability and Change in Antisocial
Behavior: The Transition from Adolescence to Early Adulthood.” Criminology
39(2):371-410.
Cloward, R. A. and L. E. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of
Delinquent Gangs. NY: The Free Press.
Cohen, A. K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. NY: The Free
Press.
Ngo et al. 31
Colder, C. R. and E. Stice. 1998. “A Longitudinal Study of the Interactive Effects of

Impulsivity and Anger on Adolescent Problem Behavior.” Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 27(3):255-274.
Colvin, M. 2000. Crime and Coercion: An Integrated Theory of Chronic
Criminality. NY: Springer.
Connolly, J., A. Nocentini, E. Menesini, D. Pepler, W. Craig, and
T. S. Williams. 2010. “Adolescent Dating Aggression in Canada and
Italy: A Cross-National Comparison.” International Journal of Behavioral
Development 34(2):98-105.
Crowne, S. S., H. Juon, M. Ensminger, L. Burrell, E. McFarlane, and A. Duggan.
2011. “Concurrent and Long-Term Impact of Intimate Partner Violence
on Employment Stability.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26(6):
1282-1304.
Crutchfield, R. D. and S. R. Pitchford. 1997. “Work and Crime: The Effects of Labor
Stratification.” Social Forces 76(1):93-118.
De Koker, P., C. Mathews, M. Zuch, S. Bastien, and A. J. Mason-Jones. 2014. “A
Systematic Review of Interventions for Preventing Adolescent Intimate Partner
Violence.” Journal of Adolescent Health 54(1):3-13.
Ehrensaft, M. K., P. Cohen, J. Brown, E. Smailes, H. N. Chen, and J. G. Johnson.
2003. “Intergenerational Transmission of Partner Violence: A 20-Year
Prospective Study.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 71(4):741-
753.
Ehrensaft, M. K., T. E. Moffitt, and A. Caspi. 2004. “Clinically Abusive
Relationships in an Unselected Birth Cohort: Men’s and Women’s
Participation and Developmental Antecedents.” Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 113(2):258-270.
Eriksson, L. and P. Mazerolle. 2013. “A General Strain Theory of Intimate Partner
Homicide.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 18(5):462-470.
Farrington, D. 1994. “Early Developmental Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency.”
RSA Journal 142(54):22-34.
Farrington, D. P. and D. J. West. 1995. “Effects of Marriage, Separation, and
Children on Offending by Adult Males.” Current Perspectives on Aging and
the Life Cycle 4(1):249-281.
Feingold, A., D. C. R. Kerr, and D. M. Capaldi. 2008. “Associations of Substance
Use Problems with Intimate Partner Violence for At-Risk Men in Long-Term
Relationships.” Journal of Family Psychology 22(3):429-438.
Foshee, V. A., H. L. M. Reyes, S. T. Ennett, C. Suchindran, J. P. Mathias,
K. J. Karriker-Jaffe, K. E. Bauman, and T. S. Benefield. 2011. “Risk and
Protective Factors Distinguishing Profiles of Adolescent Peer and Dating
Violence Perpetration.” Journal of Adolescent Health 48(4):344-350.
Fritz, P. A., K. D. O’Leary, and V. A. Foshee. 2003. “Stability of Adolescent

Dating Aggression among Eighth and Ninth Grade Students.” Poster presented
at the meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy,
Boston, MA.
Gagné, M. H., F. Lavoie, and M. Hébert. 2005. “Victimization During Childhood
and Revictimization in Dating Relationships in Adolescent Girls.” Child Abuse
& Neglect 29(10):1155-1172.
Gelles, R. J. and M. A. Straus. 1988. Intimate Violence. NY: Simon & Schuster.
Gerino, E., A. M. Caldarera, L. Curti, P. Brustia, and L. Rollé. 2018. “Intimate
Partner Violence in the Golden Age: Systematic Review of Risk and Protective
Factors.” Frontiers in Psychology 9(1):1595.
Giordano, P. C., S. A. Cernkovich, and J. L. Rudolph. 2002. “Gender, Crime, and
Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation.” American Journal
of Sociology 107(4):990-1064.
Gottfredson, D. C. 2000. Schools and Delinquency. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gottfredson, M. R. and T. Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gover, A. R., C. Kaukinen, and K. A. Fox. 2008. “The Relationship Between
Violence in the Family of Origin and Dating Violence among College
Students.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23(12):1667-1693.
Graham, L. M., T. M. Jensen, A. D. Givens, G. L. Bowen, and C. F. Rizo. 2019.
“Intimate Partner Violence among Same-Sex Couples in College: A Propensity
Score Analysis.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34(8):1583-1610.
Grych, J. H. and K. M. Kinsfogel. 2010. “Exploring the Role of Attachment Style in
the Relation Between Family Aggression and Abuse in Adolescent Dating
Relationships.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma 19(6):
624-640.
Haynie, D. L. 2001. “Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter?.”
American Journal of Sociology 106(4):1013-1057.
Herrenkohl, T. I., W. A. Mason, R. Kosterman, L. J. Lengua, J. D. Hawkins, and
R. D. Abbott. 2004. “Pathways from Physical Childhood Abuse to Partner
Violence in Young Adulthood.” Violence and Victims 19(2):123-136.
Herrera, V. M., J. D. Wiersma, and H. H. Cleveland. 2008. “The Influence of
Individual and Partner Characteristics on the Perpetration of Intimate Partner
Violence in Young Adult Relationships.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence
37(3):284-296.
Heyman, R. E. and A. M. S. Slep. 2002. “Do Child Abuse and Interparental
Violence Lead to Adulthood Family Violence?.” Journal of Marriage and
Family 64(4):864-870.
Ngo et al. 33
Horney, J., D. W. Osgood, and I. H. Marshall. 1995. “Criminal Careers in the

Short-Term: Intra-Individual Variability in Crime and its Relation to Local Life
Circumstances.” American Sociological Review 60(5):655-673.
Howell, M. J. and K. L. Pugliesi. 1988. “Husbands Who Harm: Predicting Spousal
Violence by Men.” Journal of Family Violence 3(1):15-27.
Huizinga, D., A. W. Weiher, R. Espiritu, and F. Esbensen. 2003. “Delinquency and
Crime.” Pp. 47–91 in Taking Stock of Delinquency, edited by T. P. Thornberry
and M. D. Krohn. Boston, MA: Springer.
Jankowski, M. K., H. Leitenberg, K. Henning, and P. Coffey. 1999. “Intergenerational
Transmission of Dating Aggression as a Function of Witnessing Only Same Sex
Parents vs. Opposite Sex Parents vs. both Parents as Perpetrators of Domestic
Violence.” Journal of Family Violence 14(3):267-279.
Jennings, W. G., M. Park, E. A. Tomsich, A. R. Gover, and R. L. Akers. 2011.
“Assessing the Overlap in Dating Violence Perpetration and Victimization
among South Korean College Students: The Influence of Social Learning and
Self-Control.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 36(2):188-206.
Johnson, M. P. 2006. “Violence and Abuse in Personal Relationships: Conflict,
Terror, and Resistance in Intimate Partnerships.” Pp. 557-576 in The
Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, edited by A. L. Vangelisti
and D. Perlman. London: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, H. K. and D. M. Capaldi. 2004. “The Association of Antisocial Behavior and
Depressive Symptoms Between Partners and Risk for Aggression in Romantic
Relationships.” Journal of Family Psychology 18(1):82-96.
Kim, H. K., H. K. Laurent, D. M. Capaldi, and A. Feingold. 2008. “Men’s
Aggression Toward Women: A 10-Year Panel Study.” Journal of Marriage
and Family 70(5):1169-1187.
Kimmel, M. S. 2002. “Gender Symmetry in Domestic Violence: A Substantive
and Methodological Research Review”. Violence Against Women 8(11):
1332-1363.
Kinsfogel, K. M. and J. H. Grych. 2004. “Interparental Conflict and Adolescent
Dating Relationships: Integrating Cognitive, Emotional, and Peer Influences.”
Journal of Family Psychology 18(3):505-515.
Lackey, C. 2003. “Violent Family Heritage, the Transition to Adulthood, and Later
Partner Violence.” Journal of Family Issues 24(1):74-98.
Langer, A. and E. Lawrence. 2010 “Toward an Integrated, Empirically Supported
Theory of Intimate Partner Violence.” Pp. 357-374 in Indirect and
Direct Aggression edited by K. Osterman. New York, NY: Peter Lang Printing
House.
Laub, J. H. and R. J. Sampson. 2001. “Understanding Desistance from Crime.”
Crime and Justice 28(1):1-69.
Lavoie, F., M. Hebert, R. Tremblay, F. Vitaro, L. Vezina, and P. McDuff. 2002. “History
of Family Dysfunction and Perpetration of Dating Violence by Adolescent Boys: A
Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Adolescent Health 30(5):375-383.
Lawrence, E. and T. N. Bradbury. 2001. “Physical Aggression and Marital
Dysfunction: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Journal of Family Psychology
15(1):135-154.
Lawrence, E., J. Yoon, A. Langer, and E. Ro. 2009. “Is Psychological Aggression as
Detrimental as Physical Aggression? The Independent Effects of Psychological
Aggression on Depression and Anxiety Symptoms.” Violence and Victims
24(1):20-35.
Leadbeater, B. J., E. M. Banister, W. E. Ellis, and R. Yeung. 2008. “Victimization
and Relational Aggression in Adolescent Romantic Relationships: The
Influence of Parental and Peer Behaviors, and Individual Adjustment.” Journal
of Youth and Adolescence 37(3):359-372.
Linder, J. R. and W. A. Collins. 2005. “Parent and Peer Predictors of Physical
Aggression and Conflict Management in Romantic Relationships in Early
Adulthood.” Journal of Family Psychology 19(2):252-262.
Loeber, R. and M. Stouthamer-Loeber. 1986 “Family Factors as Correlates and Predictors
of Juvenile Conduct Problems and Delinquency.” Pp. 29-149 in Crime and Justice
(Volume 7), edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lussier, P., D. P. Farrington, and T. E. Moffitt. 2009. “Is the Antisocial Child Father
of the Abusive Man? A 40-Year Prospective Longitudinal Study on the
Developmental Antecedents of Intimate Partner Violence.” Criminology
47(3):741-780.
McFarlane, J., A. Malecha, J. Gist, P. Schultz, P. Willson, and N. Fredland. 2000.
“Indicators of Intimate Partner Violence in Women’s Employment:
Implications for Workplace Action.” AAOHN Journal 48(5):215-220.
McNeal, C. and P. Amato. 1998. “Parents’ Marital Violence: Long-Term
Consequences for Children.” Journal of Family Issues 19(2):123-139.
Meade, C. N., W. G. Jennings, A. R. Gover, and T. N. Richards. 2017. “On the
Linkage Between Sexual Violence Victimization and Intimate Partner Violence
Outcomes Among Male and Female College Students.” Journal of Aggression,
Conflict, and Peace Studies 9(4):257-268.
Merton, R. K. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. NY: The Free Press.
Miller, S., D. Gorman-Smith, T. Sullivan, P. Orpinas, and T. R. Simon. 2009. “Parent
and Peer Predictors of Physical Dating Violence Perpetration in Early
Adolescence: Tests of Moderation and Gender Differences.” Journal of
Clinical and Child Adolescent Psychology 38(4):538-550.
Miller, J. D. and D. Lynam. 2001. “Structural Models of Personality and Their Relation
to Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Criminology 39(4):765-798.
Ngo et al. 35
Moffitt, T. E. 1990. “Juvenile Delinquency and Attention Deficit Disorder: Boys’

Developmental Trajectories from Age 3 to Age 15.” Child Development
61(3):893-910.
Moffitt, T. E., A. Caspi, M. Rutter, and P. Silva. 2001. Sex Differences in Antisocial
Behaviour: Conduct Disorder, Delinquency, and Violence in the Dunedin
Longitudinal Study. Cambridge Studies in Criminology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Moffitt, T. E., R. F. Krueger, A. Caspi, and J. Fagan. 2000. “Partner Abuse and
General Crime: How are They the Same? How are They Different?.”
Criminology 38(1):199-232.
Nesset, M., M. Lara-Cabrera, T. Dalsbo, S. Pedersen, J. Bjorngaard, and
T. Palmstierna. 2019. “Cognitive Behavioural Group Therapy for Male
Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review.” BMC
Psychiatry 19(1):2-13.
Norlander, B. and C. Eckhardt. 2005. “Anger, Hostility, and Male Perpetrators of
Intimate Partner Violence: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Clinical Psychology
Review 25(2):119-152.
O’Leary, K. D. and A. M. S. Slep. 2012. “Prevention of Partner Violence by
Focusing on Behaviors of Both Young Males and Females.” Prevention
Science 13(4):329-339.
Paat, Y. F. and C. Markham. 2016. “A Gendered Approach to Understanding the
Roles of Social Bonding, Personal Control, and Strain on College Dating
Violence in Emerging Adulthood.” Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma 25(8):793-811.
Pan, H. S., P. H. Neidig, and K. D. O’Leary. 1994. “Predicting Mild and Severe
Husband-to-Wife Physical Aggression.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 62(5):975-1001.
Paternoster, R., R. Brame, P. Mazerolle, and A. Piquero. 1998. “Using the Correct
Statistical Test for the Equality of Regression Coefficients.” Criminology
36(4):859-866.
Patterson, G. R., L. Crosby, and S. Vuchinich. 1992. “Predicting Risk for Early
Police Arrest.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 8(4):335-355.
Piquero, A. R., R. Brame, P. Mazerolle, and R. Haapanen. 2002. “Crime in Emerging
Adulthood.” Criminology 40(1):137-170.
Piquero, A. R., D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, et al. 2009. “Effects of Early Family/
Parent Training Programs on Antisocial Behavior and Delinquency.” Journal of
Experimental Criminology 5(2):83-120.
Piquero, N. L., A. R. Gover, J. M. MacDonald, and A. R. Piquero. 2005. “The
Influence of Delinquent Peers on Delinquency: Does Gender Matter?.” Youth
& Society 36(3):251-275.
Piquero, A., W. Jennings, E. Jemison, C. Kaukinen, and F. Knaul. 2021. “Domestic

Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic - Evidence From a Systematic Review
and Meta-Analysis”. Journal of Criminal Justice 74: 101806.
Renner, L. M. and K. S. Slack. 2006. “Intimate Partner Violence and Child
Maltreatment: Understanding Intra- and Intergenerational Connections.” Child
Abuse and Neglect 30(6):599-617.
Rutter, M., N. Mercuro, M. L. Rutter, H. Giller, and A. Hagell. 1998. Antisocial
Behavior By Young People: A Major New Review. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sabina, C., J. L. Schally, and L. Marciniec. 2017. “Problematic Alcohol and Drug
Use and the Risk of Partner Violence Victimization Among Male and Female
College Students.” Journal of Family Violence 32(3):305-316.
Sabina, C. and M. A. Straus. 2008. “Polyvictimization by Dating Partners and Mental
Health Among U.S. College Students.” Violence and Victims 23(6):667-682.
Saltzman, L. E., J. L. Fanslow, P. M. McMahon, and G. A. Shelley. 2002. Intimate
Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data
Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Sampson, R. J. and J. H. Laub. 1993. “Structural Variations in Juvenile Court
Processing: Inequality, the Underclass, and Social Control.” Law and Society
Review 27(2):285-311.
Schad, M. M., D. E. Szwedo, J. Antonishak, A. Hare, and J. P. Allen. 2008. “The
Broader Context of Relational Aggression in Adolescent Romantic
Relationships: Predictions from Peer Pressure and Links to Psychosocial
Functioning.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37(3):346-358.
Schnurr, M. P. and B. J. Lohman. 2008. “How Much Does School Matter? An
Examination of Adolescent Dating Violence Perpetration.” Journal of Youth
and Adolescence 37(3):266-283.
Sherman, L. W., D. A. Smith, J. D. Schmidt, and D. P. Rogan. 1992. “Crime,
Punishment, and Stake in Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Domestic
Violence”. American Sociological Review 57(5):680-690.
Simons, R. L., E. Stewart, L. C. Gordon, R. D. Conger, and G. H. ElderJr. 2002. “A
Test of Life- Course Explanations for Stability and Change in Antisocial
Behavior from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Criminology 40(2):401-434.
Simons, R. L., C. I. Wu, C. Johnson, and R. D. Conger. 1995. “A Test of Various
Perspectives on the Intergenerational Transmission of Domestic Violence.”
Criminology 33(1):141-172.
Smith, S. G., K. C. Basile, L. K. Gilbert, M. T. Merrick, N. Patel, M. Walling, and
A. Jain. 2017. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS):
2010–2012 State Report.
Ngo et al. 37
Smith, D. A. and R. Paternoster. 1987. “The Gender Gap in Theories of Deviance: Issues
and Evidence.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 24(2):140-172.
Spencer, C., B. Cafferky, and S. M. Stith. 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.
Spriggs, A. L., C. T. Halpern, A. H. Herring, and V. J. Schoenbach. 2009. “Family
and School Socioeconomic Disadvantage: Interactive Influences on Adolescent
Dating Violence Victimization.” Social Science & Medicine 68(11):1956-1965.
Stith, S. M., D. B. Smith, C. E. Penn, D. B. Ward, and D. Tritt. 2004. “Intimate
Partner Physical Abuse Perpetration and Victimization Risk Factors: A
Meta-Analytic Review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10(1):65-98.
Straus, M. A. 2009. “Why the Overwhelming Evidence on Partner Physical Violence
by Women has not been Perceived and is Often Denied.” Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma 18(6):552-571.
Straus, M. 2011. International Dating Violence Study, 2001–2006. Inter-University
Consortium for Political and Social Research. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/
icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/29583.
Straus, M. A., S. L. Hamby, S. Boney-Mccoy, and D. B. Sugarman. 1996. “The
Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and Preliminary
Psychometric Data”. Journal of Family Issues 17(3):283-316.
Swinford, S. P., A. DeMaris, S. A. Cernkovich, and P. C. Giordano. 2000. “Harsh
Physical Discipline in Childhood and Violence in Later Romantic
Involvements: The Mediating Role of Problem Behaviors.” Journal of
Marriage and the Family 62(2):508-519.
Theobald, D., D. P. Farrington, J. W. Coid, and A. R. Piquero. 2016. “Are Male
Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence Different from Convicted Violent
Offenders? Examination of Psychopathic Traits and Life Success in Males
from a Community Survey.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31(9):1687-1718.
Thornberry, T. P. and M. Farnworth. 1982. “Social Correlates of Criminal
Involvement: Further Evidence on the Relationship Between Social Status and
Criminal Behavior.” American Sociological Review 47(4):505-518.
Thornberry, T. P., M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte, C. A. Smith, and K. Tobin. 2003. Gangs and
Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Umberson, D., K. Anderson, J. Glick, and A. Shapiro. 1998. “Domestic Violence,
Personal Control, and Gender.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 60(2):442-452.
Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, J. W., L. L. Merrill, and M. P. Koss. 2001. “Predictors of Premilitary
Courtship Violence in a Navy Recruit Sample.” Journal of Interpersonal
Violence 16(9):910-927.
White, H. and C. Widom. 2003. “Intimate Partner Violence among Abused and
Neglected Children in Young Adulthood: The Mediating Effects of Early
Aggression, Antisocial Personality, Hostility and Alcohol Problems.”
Aggressive Behavior 29(4):332-345.
Williams, J. R., R. M. Ghandour, and J. E. Kub. 2008. “Female Perpetration of
Violence in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships: Adolescence Through
Adulthood.” Trauma Violence and Abuse 9(4):227-249.
Woodward, L. J., D. M. Fergusson, and L. J. Horwood. 2002. “Romantic Relationships
of Young People with Childhood and Adolescent Onset Antisocial Behavior
Problems.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30(3):231-243.
Wright, B. R. E., A. Caspi, T. E. Moffitt, R. A. Miech, and P. A. Silva. 1999.
“Reconsidering the Relationship Between SES and Delinquency: Causation but
not Correlation.” Criminology 37(1):175-194.
Yamaguchi, K. and D. Kandel. 1993. “Marital Homophily on Illicit Drug Use among
Young Adults: Assortative Mating or Marital Influence?.” Social Forces 72(2):
505-528.
Author biographies
Fawn T. Ngo is an associate professor of Criminology at the University of South
Florida. Her research interests include criminological theory, interpersonal violence,
cybercrime, and predictive analytic applications in criminology and criminal justice.
Her work has appeared in Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Journal of
Criminal Justice, American Journal of Criminal Justice, and Victims & Offenders:
The International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice.
Egbert Zavala is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at The

University of Texas at El Paso, where he has been since receiving his PhD in sociol-
ogy from Kansas State University. His area of research includes intimate partner vio-
lence, testing criminological theories, victimology/victimization, and deviance. His
publications appear in Journal of Family Violence, Crime & Delinquency,
Violence & Victims, Journal of Crime and Justice, and many others.
Alex R. Piquero is professor and chair of the Department of Sociology and

Criminology and Arts & Sciences Distinguished Scholar at the University of
Miami, and professor of Criminology at Monash University in Melbourne
Australia. He is also editor of Justice Evaluation Journal. His research interests
include criminal careers, criminological theory, crime policy, evidence-based
crime prevention, and quantitative research methods. He has received several
research, teaching, and service awards and is fellow of both the American Society
of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. In 2014, he received
Ngo et al. 39
the University of Texas System Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Award and in 2018
he was inducted into the University of Texas System Academy of Distinguished
Teachers. In 2019, he received the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Bruce
Smith, Sr. Award for outstanding contributions to criminal justice In 2020 he was
recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Division of Developmental
& Life-Course Criminology of the American Society of Criminology..
Appendix A: Survey Scales and Items

Dependent Variable
IPV Perpetration (Cronbach’s alpha = .79; Factor loadings > .38)
Have you committed the following acts toward their intimate partners in
the past 12 months:
(1) Thrown something at them that could hurt

(2) Twisted their arm or hair
(3) Pushed or shoved them
(4) Used a knife or gun on them
(5) Punched or hit them with something that could hurt
(6) Choked them
(7) Slammed them against a wall
(8) Beat them up
(9) Grabbed them
(10) Slapped them
(11) Burned or scalded them
(12) Kicked them
Self-Domain Measures
Low Self-Control (Cronbach’s alpha = .75; Factor loadings > .54)
(1) There is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner

hassles me
(2) It’s all right to break the law as long as you don’t get hurt
(3) I often lie to get what I want
(4) I often do things that other people think are dangerous
(5) I have trouble following the rules at work or in school
(6) I don’t think about how what I do will affect other people
(7) I often get hurt by things that I do
Authoritarian Personality (Cronbach’s alpha = .62; Factor loadings > .61)
(1) Sometimes I have to remind my partner of who’s boss

(2) I generally have the final say when my partner and I disagree
(3) My partner needs to remember that I am in charge
Negative Attribution (Cronbach’s alpha = .70; Factor loadings > .62)
(1) It is usually my partner’s fault when I get mad

(2) My partner does things just to annoy me
(3) My partner likes to make me mad
(4) When my partner is nice to me I wonder what my partner wants
Anger Issues (Cronbach’s alpha = .63; Factor loadings > .50)
(1) There is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner

hassles me
(2) When I’m mad at my partner, I say what I think without thinking about
the consequences
(3) I can calm myself down when I am upset with my partner (reverse
coded)
(4) I can set up a time out/break during an argument with my partner
(reverse coded)
(5) Before I let myself get really mad at my partner, I think about what will
happen if I lose my temper (reverse coded)
(6) When I feel myself getting angry at my partner, I try to tell myself to
calm down (reverse coded)
Hostility toward Men (Cronbach’s alpha = .69; Factor loadings > .53)
(1) Men are rude

(2) Men treat women badly
(3) Men irritate me a lot
(4) Men are more dishonest than women
(5) Men respect women (reverse coded)
Hostility toward Women (Cronbach’s alpha = .77; Factor loadings > .60)
(1) Women are rude

(2) Women treat men badly
(3) Women irritate me a lot
Ngo et al. 41
(4) I often feel resentful of women

(5) I am easily frustrated by women
Family Domain Measures

Conflicts with Partner (Cronbach’s alpha = .76; Factor loadings > .41)
(1) My partner and I disagree about how much money to spend when we
go places
(2) My partner and I disagree about telling other people about things that
happened between us
(3) My partner and I disagree about my friends and family
(4) My partner and I disagree about his or her friends and family
(5) My partner and I disagree about whether it is okay to tell each other we
disagree
(6) My partner and I disagree about when to have sex
(7) My partner and I disagree about what types of affection are okay in
public
(8) My partner and I disagree about each other’s irritating habits
(9) My partner and I disagree about how much time we should spend
Child Neglect (Cronbach’s alpha = .74; Factor loadings > .50)
(1) My parents did not help me to do my best in school

(2) My parents did not care if I did things like shoplifting
(3) My parents did not care if I got into trouble in school
(4) My parents did not comfort me when I was upset
(5) My parents did not keep me clean
(6) My parents helped me when I had trouble understanding something
(reverse coded)
(7) My parents helped me when I had problems (reverse coded)
(8) My parents gave me enough clothes to keep me warm (reverse coded)
Child Abuse (Cronbach’s alpha = .64; Factor loadings > .61)
(1) When I was less than 12 years old, I was spanked or hit a lot by my
mother/father
(2) When I was a teenager, I was hit a lot by my mother/father
(3) When I was a kid, I saw an adult in my family who was not my mother/
father, push, shove, slap, or throw something at someone
(4) When I was a kid, I saw my mother/father kick, punch, or beat up their
partner
(5) My father/mother told me to hit back if someone hit me or insulted me
Child Sexual Abuse (Cronbach’s alpha = .74; Factor loadings > .73)
(1) Before I was 18, an adult in my family made me look at or touch their
private parts or looked at or touched mine
(2) Before I was 18, an adult in my family had sex with me
(3) Before I was 18, another kid in my family made me look at or touch
their private parts or looked at or touch mine
(4) Before I was 18, another kid in my family did things to me that I now
think was sexual abuse
School/Work Domain Measure

Discontent with School/Work (Cronbach’s alpha = .33; Factor loadings >
.78)
(1) People at work or school don’t get along with me

(2) I don’t like my work or classes
Control Variables
Drug Abuse (Cronbach’s alpha = .69; Factor loadings > .45)
(1) In the past, I used coke, crack, or harder drugs more than once or twice
(2) I worry I have a drug problem
(3) I have overdosed on drugs or had a severe health problem because of
taking drugs
(4) I have been treated for a drug problem
Prior Violence (Cronbach’s alpha = .73; Factor loadings > .63)
(1) Before the age of 15, I physically attacked someone with the idea of
seriously hurting them
(2) Before the age of 15, I hit or threatened to hit my parents
(3) Since the age of 15, I have physically attacked someone with the idea
of seriously hurting them
(4) Since the age of 15, I have hit or threatened to hit someone who is not a
member of my family
Ngo et al. 43
IPV Victimization (Cronbach’s alpha = .82; Factor loadings > .40)

Have your intimate partner committed the following acts toward you in
the past 12 months:
(1) Thrown something at you that could hurt

(2) Twisted your arm or hair
(3) Pushed or shoved you
(4) Used a knife or gun on you
(5) Punched or hit you with something that could hurt
(6) Choked you
(7) Slammed you against a wall
(8) Beat you up
(9) Grabbed you
(10) Slapped you
(11) Burned or scalded you
(12) Kicked you
V i e w p u b l i c a

Ngo Zavala and Pique Ro 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Ngo Zavala and Pique Ro 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Gender, Life Domains, and Intimate Partner

Article in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · January 2022

Fawn T. Ngo Egbert Zavala

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pittsburgh Girls Study View project

Ability School Engagement Trial (ASEP) View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Intimate Partner journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

Agnew’s General Theory of Crime and Delinquency

less likely to engage in emotional and verbal aggression directed at their

Findings from prior research indicate that poor parent–child relationships

African-American male students, while high levels of school involvement

work-related factors that affect crime and deviance include unemployment,

Gender Differences in IPV Perpetration

to be poorly supervised and harshly disciplined by parents, to have weaker

integrated theory and speciﬁcally with respect to gender differences in IPV

Life Domain Variables

Self-Domain Measures. Our self-domain encompasses six variables: Low

Males Females Full Sample

Males Females Full Sample

Family Domain Measures. Our family domain consists of four variables:

items (e.g., before I was 18 an adult in my family made me look at or touch

Perpetration was regressed on the life domain variables (e.g., Low

Table 2. Negative Binomial Regressions of Life Domains on IPV Perpetration among

Variables IRRa SE 95% CI

Table 3. Negative Binomial Regressions of Life Domains on IPV Perpetration among

Variables IRRa SE 95% CI

Concerning the magnitudes of the effects of the life domain variables on

Table 4. Z-Tests Comparing Male and Female Regression Coefﬁcients.

Variables Males (N = 1,288) Females (N = 2,874) z-score

women), relationship conﬂict, child neglect and maltreatment, negative

Another key ﬁnding documented in the current study is that association

Pathways toward Partner Violence that emphasize parenting and interper-

Declaration of Conﬂicting Interests

Amour, M. S. 2019. “Working College Students.” https://www.insidehighered.com/

Colder, C. R. and E. Stice. 1998. “A Longitudinal Study of the Interactive Effects of

Fritz, P. A., K. D. O’Leary, and V. A. Foshee. 2003. “Stability of Adolescent

Horney, J., D. W. Osgood, and I. H. Marshall. 1995. “Criminal Careers in the

Mofﬁtt, T. E. 1990. “Juvenile Delinquency and Attention Deﬁcit Disorder: Boys’

Piquero, A., W. Jennings, E. Jemison, C. Kaukinen, and F. Knaul. 2021. “Domestic

Egbert Zavala is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at The

Alex R. Piquero is professor and chair of the Department of Sociology and

Appendix A: Survey Scales and Items

(1) Thrown something at them that could hurt

(1) There is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner

Authoritarian Personality (Cronbach’s alpha = .62; Factor loadings > .61)

(1) Sometimes I have to remind my partner of who’s boss

Negative Attribution (Cronbach’s alpha = .70; Factor loadings > .62)

(1) It is usually my partner’s fault when I get mad

Anger Issues (Cronbach’s alpha = .63; Factor loadings > .50)

(1) There is nothing I can do to control my feelings when my partner

(1) Men are rude

(1) Women are rude

(4) I often feel resentful of women

Family Domain Measures

Child Neglect (Cronbach’s alpha = .74; Factor loadings > .50)

(1) My parents did not help me to do my best in school

Child Abuse (Cronbach’s alpha = .64; Factor loadings > .61)

School/Work Domain Measure

(1) People at work or school don’t get along with me

Prior Violence (Cronbach’s alpha = .73; Factor loadings > .63)

IPV Victimization (Cronbach’s alpha = .82; Factor loadings > .40)