Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 16, 2026
09:12
The Resident-intruder Paradigm: A Standardized Test for Aggression, Violence and Social Stress
Published on: July 4, 2013
72.8K
Gender Differences in Intimate Partner Violence in Current and Prior Relationships
Zohre Ahmadabadi1, Jackob M Najman1,2, Gail M Williams1
1School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, Australia.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
|January 4, 2018
Summary
Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects both men and women, challenging traditional views. This study found males in current relationships report higher IPV rates than females, and abusive relationships often end.
Area of Science:
- Sociology
- Psychology
- Public Health
Background:
- Traditional research often portrays intimate partner violence (IPV) as primarily male-perpetrated.
- Emerging evidence suggests a gender symmetry model in family violence, indicating more balanced perpetration and victimization.
- Understanding gender dynamics in IPV is crucial for effective intervention and prevention strategies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine gender differences in intimate partner violence (IPV) among young adults in both current and prior relationships.
- To investigate the prevalence and patterns of IPV across different relationship statuses (currently in a relationship vs. not).
- To compare male and female experiences of IPV, particularly within ongoing relationships.
Main Methods:
- Utilized data from 2,060 young adults (62.1% female) from the 30-year follow-up of the Mater Hospital and University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy (MUSP).
- Employed the Composite Abuse Scale to measure IPV within the past 12 months of respondents' most recent relationship.
- Analyzed gender disparities in IPV experiences based on current relationship status and past relationship history.
Main Results:
- Similar proportions of males and females reported exiting previous relationships due to violence.
- Individuals not currently in a relationship reported significantly higher rates of IPV compared to those in a relationship.
- Males in current relationships reported experiencing more forms of IPV more frequently than females in current relationships.
- IPV was more prevalent in relationships that ended than in those that continued; males were more likely to remain in abusive relationships.
Conclusions:
- Intimate partner violence (IPV) frequently involves both male and female perpetrators and victims, supporting gender symmetry.
- Males in current relationships report higher IPV experiences than females, suggesting distinct patterns within ongoing partnerships.
- Abusive relationships characterized by higher IPV rates are more likely to dissolve, though males may remain in such dynamics longer.
Related Concept Videos
02:12Relationship Formation
46.3K
What do you think is the single most influential factor in determining with whom you become friends and whom you form romantic relationships? You might be surprised to learn that the answer is simple: the people with whom you have the most contact. This most important factor is proximity. You are more likely to be friends with people you have regular contact with. For example, there are decades of research that shows that you are more likely to become friends with people who live in your dorm,...
46.3K
01:30Socioemotional Experience and Gender Development
342
Social-emotional experiences and cultural influences play significant roles in shaping gender development. During middle childhood, from ages 6 to 11, peer groups become dominant in reinforcing gender norms. Children in this age group often align with same-gender peer groups, which actively encourage behaviors that conform to traditional gender roles. For instance, boys may be discouraged from engaging in activities perceived as feminine, reinforcing culturally dictated norms about masculinity...
342
01:28Ending Relationships
207
The dissolution of intimate relationships presents complex emotional and psychological challenges, particularly when emotional bonds are strong, the relationship is long-standing, and perceived alternatives are limited. This distress often intensifies in romantic breakups, where the initiator may experience greater turmoil than the rejected partner. Contributing factors include residual attachment, guilt over causing pain, and uncertainty about how to manage the situation. The stress is further...
207
01:14Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Relationship: Duration of Dose-Effect Relationship
24
For drugs producing a quantal response, onset occurs when plasma concentration reaches a minimum effective level (Cmin). The drug's action duration depends on how long the plasma concentration remains above Cmin.Two primary factors influence this duration: dose size and the rate of drug removal from the action site. Both depend on the drug's redistribution to poorly perfused tissues and elimination processes. A larger dose promotes rapid onset and prolongs the effect's duration.Consider a...
24
01:16Electric Potential and Potential Difference
5.8K
Suppose a positive test charge moves away from a positive static charge, then the Coulomb force does positive work, and its electric potential energy decreases. The potential energy per unit charge is defined as the electric potential. The electric potential is independent of the test charge.
When a test charge moves from the initial to the final position, the electric potential difference between those positions is defined as the ratio of the change in the potential energy to the charge on the...
When a test charge moves from the initial to the final position, the electric potential difference between those positions is defined as the ratio of the change in the potential energy to the charge on the...
5.8K
01:05Difference from Background: Limit of Detection
8.5K
The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
8.5K