Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence (NCJ 181867)

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

research report

Extent, Nature, and

Consequences of Intimate

Partner Violence

Findings From the National

Violence Against Women Survey

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

Extent, Nature, and

Consequences of Intimate

Partner Violence

Patricia Tjaden

Nancy Thoennes

July 2000

NCJ 181867

Findings From the National

Violence Against Women Survey

Julie E. Samuels

Acting Director, National Institute of Justice

Stephen B. Thacker

Acting Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

This research was sponsored jointly by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention under NIJ Grant # 93–IJ–CX–0012. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are solely

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Justice or the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

AND PREVENTION

iii

Executive Summary

This report presents findings from the National

Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey on

the extent, nature, and consequences of inti-

mate partner violence in the United States.

The National Institute of Justice and the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

cosponsored the survey through a grant to the

Center for Policy Research. The survey con-

sists of telephone interviews with a nationally

representative sample of 8,000 U.S. women

and 8,000 U.S. men about their experiences as

victims of various forms of violence, including

intimate partner violence.

The survey compares intimate partner victim-

ization rates among women and men, specific

racial groups, Hispanics and non-Hispanics,

and same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants.

It also examines risk factors associated with

intimate partner violence, the rate of injury

among rape and physical assault victims,

injured victims’ use of medical services, and

victims’ involvement with the justice system.

Analysis of the survey data produced the

following results:

● Intimate partner violence is pervasive in

U.S. society. Nearly 25 percent of surveyed

women and 7.6 percent of surveyed men

said they were raped and/or physically

assaulted by a current or former spouse,

cohabiting partner, or date at some time

in their lifetime; 1.5 percent of surveyed

women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men

said they were raped and/or physically

assaulted by a partner in the previous 12

months. According to these estimates, ap-

proximately 1.5 million women and 834,732

men are raped and/or physically assaulted

by an intimate partner annually in the

United States. Because many victims are

victimized more than once, the number of

intimate partner victimizations exceeds the

number of intimate partner victims annually.

Thus, approximately 4.8 million intimate

partner rapes and physical assaults are per-

petrated against U.S. women annually, and

approximately 2.9 million intimate partner

physical assaults are committed against U.S.

men annually. These findings suggest that

intimate partner violence is a serious crimi-

nal justice and public health concern.

● Stalking by intimates is more prevalent than

previously thought. Almost 5 percent of sur-

veyed women and 0.6 percent of surveyed

men reported being stalked by a current or

former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at

some time in their lifetime; 0.5 percent of

surveyed women and 0.2 percent of sur-

veyed men reported being stalked by such a

partner in the previous 12 months. Accord-

ing to these estimates, 503,485 women and

185,496 men are stalked by an intimate

partner annually in the United States. These

estimates exceed previous nonscientific

“guesstimates” of stalking prevalence in the

general population. These findings suggest

that intimate partner stalking is a serious

criminal justice problem, and States should

continue to develop constitutionally sound

and effective antistalking statutes and inter-

vention strategies.

● Women experience more intimate partner

violence than do men. The NVAW survey

found that women are significantly more

likely than men to report being victims of

intimate partner violence whether it is rape,

physical assault, or stalking and whether

the timeframe is the person’s lifetime or the

previous 12 months. These findings support

data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’

National Crime Victimization Survey,

which consistently show women are at sig-

nificantly greater risk of intimate partner

violence than are men. However, they con-

tradict data from the National Family Vio-

lence Survey, which consistently show men

and women are equally likely to be physi-

cally assaulted by an intimate partner. Stud-

ies are needed to determine how different

survey methodologies affect women’s and

men’s responses to questions about intimate

partner violence.

● Rates of intimate partner violence vary sig-

nificantly among women of diverse racial

backgrounds. The survey found that Asian/

Pacific Islander women and men tend to re-

port lower rates of intimate partner violence

than do women and men from other minor-

ity backgrounds, and African-American and

American Indian/Alaska Native women and

men report higher rates. However, differ-

ences among minority groups diminish

when other sociodemographic and relation-

ship variables are controlled. More research

is needed to determine how much of the dif-

ference in intimate partner prevalence rates

among women and men of different racial

and ethnic backgrounds can be explained

by the respondent’s willingness to disclose

intimate partner violence and how much by

social, demographic, and environmental

factors. Research is also needed to deter-

mine how prevalence rates vary among

women and men of diverse American

Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific

Islander groups.

● Violence perpetrated against women by inti-

mates is often accompanied by emotionally

abusive and controlling behavior. The sur-

vey found that women whose partners were

jealous, controlling, or verbally abusive

were significantly more likely to report

being raped, physically assaulted, and/or

stalked by their partners, even when other

sociodemographic and relationship character-

istics were controlled. Indeed, having a ver-

bally abusive partner was the variable most

likely to predict that a woman would be

victimized by an intimate partner. These

findings support the theory that violence

perpetrated against women by intimates is

often part of a systematic pattern of domi-

nance and control.

● Women experience more chronic and injuri-

ous physical assaults at the hands of intimate

partners than do men. The survey found that

women who were physically assaulted by an

intimate partner averaged 6.9 physical as-

saults by the same partner, but men averaged

4.4 assaults. The survey also found that 41.5

percent of the women who were physically

assaulted by an intimate partner were injured

during their most recent assault, compared

with 19.9 percent of the men. These findings

suggest that research aimed at understanding

and preventing intimate partner violence

against women should be stressed.

● Women living with female intimate partners

experience less intimate partner violence

than women living with male intimate part-

ners. Slightly more than 11 percent of the

women who had lived with a woman as part

of a couple reported being raped, physically

assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabi-

tant, but 30.4 percent of the women who

had married or lived with a man as part of a

couple reported such violence by a husband

or male cohabitant. These findings suggest

that lesbian couples experience less intimate

partner violence than do heterosexual

couples; however, more research is needed

to support or refute this conclusion.

● Men living with male intimate partners expe-

rience more intimate partner violence than do

men who live with female intimate partners.

Approximately 15 percent of the men who

had lived with a man as a couple reported

being raped, physically assaulted, and/or

stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.7 per-

cent of the men who had married or lived

with a woman as a couple reported such vio-

lence by a wife or female cohabitant. These

findings, combined with those presented in

the previous bullet, provide further evidence

that intimate partner violence is perpetrated

primarily by men, whether against male or

female intimates. Thus, strategies for pre-

venting intimate partner violence should

focus on risks posed by men.

● The U.S. medical community treats millions

of intimate partner rapes and physical as-

saults annually. Of the estimated 4.8 million

intimate partner rapes and physical assaults

perpetrated against women annually, ap-

proximately 2 million will result in an injury

to the victim, and 552,192 will result in some

type of medical treatment to the victim. Of

the estimated 2.9 million intimate partner

physical assaults perpetrated against men an-

nually, 581,391 will result in an injury to the

victim, and 124,999 will result in some type

of medical treatment to the victim. Many

medically treated victims receive multiple

forms of care (e.g., ambulance services,

emergency room care, or physical therapy)

and multiple treatments (e.g., several days

in the hospital) for the same victimization.

Therefore, the number of medical personnel

treating injuries annually is in the millions.

To better meet the needs of intimate partner

violence victims, medical professionals

should receive training on the physical con-

sequences of intimate partner violence and

appropriate medical intervention strategies.

● Most intimate partner victimizations are not

reported to the police. Approximately one-

fifth of all rapes, one-quarter of all physical

assaults, and one-half of all stalkings perpe-

trated against female respondents by inti-

mates were reported to the police. Even

fewer rapes, physical assaults, and stalkings

perpetrated against male respondents by inti-

mates were reported. The majority of victims

who did not report their victimization to the

police thought the police would not or could

not do anything on their behalf. These find-

ings suggest that most victims of intimate

partner violence do not consider the justice

system an appropriate vehicle for resolving

conflicts with intimates.

vii

Acknowledgments

The authors thank staff at both the National

Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in

particular Lois Mock at NIJ and Linda

Saltzman at CDC, for their advice and

support in conducting the research.

The authors also thank Marcie-jo Kresnow,

mathematical statistician at CDC, and anony-

mous NIJ peer reviewers for their thorough

review and helpful comments on drafts of this

report. Finally, the authors thank Christine

Allison and Gay Dizinski at the Center for

Policy Research for their help in producing and

scrutinizing drafts of the report.

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Defining Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Prevalence and Incidence of Intimate Partner Violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Intimate partner rape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Intimate partner physical assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Intimate partner stalking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Comparison With Previous Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Intimate partner rape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Intimate partner physical assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Intimate partner stalking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Women Experience More Intimate Partner Violence Than Do Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Deciphering Disparities in Survey Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Racial Minorities and Hispanics . . . . . . 25

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Among Same-Sex Cohabitants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Risk Factors Associated With Intimate Partner Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Point in Relationship When Violence Occurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Frequency and Duration of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Rate of Injury Among Victims of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault . . . . . . . . . 41

Risk factors associated with injury. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Victims’ Use of Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Estimates of medical services utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Victims’ Involvement With the Justice System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Reporting to the police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Police response to reports of intimate partner violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Reasons for not reporting victimization to the police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Criminal prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Temporary restraining orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Estimates of justice system utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime and in Previous 12 Months,

by Type of Victimization and Gender

Exhibit 2. Number of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victimizations Perpetrated by

Intimate Partners Annually, by Victim Gender

Exhibit 3. Persons Physically Assaulted by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Type of Assault

and Victim Gender

Exhibit 4. Estimated Standard Errors Multiplied by the z-Score (1.96) for a 95-Percent

Confidence Level, by Sample or Subsample Size

Exhibit 5. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender, Type of

Victimization, and White/Nonwhite Status of Victim

Exhibit 6. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender, Type of

Victimization, and Victim Race

Exhibit 7. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender, Type of

Victimization, and Hispanic/Non-Hispanic Origin of Victim

Exhibit 8. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender, Type of

Victimization, and History of Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Cohabitation

Exhibit 9. Rate of Intimate Partner Victimization, by Perpetrator Gender, Victim Gender, and

History of Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Cohabitation

Exhibit 10. Distribution of Female Victims of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and

Stalking, by Point in Relationship When the Violence Occurred

Exhibit 11. Distribution of Rape and Physical Assault Victims, by Frequency and Duration of

Victimization and Gender

Exhibit 12. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault Victims, by Injury,

Type of Medical Care Received, and Gender

Exhibit 13. Distribution of Injured Rape and Physical Assault Victims, by Type of Injury

Sustained: Women Only

Exhibit 14. Average Number of Medical Care Visits for Intimate Partner Rape and Physical

Assault Victims, by Type of Medical Care and Gender

xii

Exhibit 15. Average Annual Injury and Medical Utilization Estimates for Adult Victims of

Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault, by Gender

Exhibit 16. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victims,

by Law Enforcement Outcomes and Gender

Exhibit 17. Distribution of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victims Who Did Not Report

Their Victimization to the Police, by Reasons for Not Reporting and Gender

Exhibit 18. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victims,

by Prosecution Outcomes and Gender

Exhibit 19. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victims,

by Protective Order Outcomes and Gender

Exhibit 20. Average Annual Justice System Utilization Estimates for Adult Victims of Intimate

Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking, by Gender

Introduction

Research on intimate partner violence has in-

creased dramatically over the past 20 years.

While greatly enhancing public awareness and

understanding of this serious social problem,

this research has also created much controversy

and confusion. Findings of intimate partner vic-

timization vary widely from study to study.

Some studies conclude that women and men are

equally likely to be victimized by their partners,

but others conclude that women are more likely

to be victimized.

Some studies conclude that

minorities and whites suffer equal rates of inti-

mate partner violence,

and others conclude that

minorities suffer higher rates.

In addition, there are many gaps in the scientific

literature on intimate partner violence, such as

the level of violence committed against men and

women by same-sex intimates.

Little empirical

data exist on the relationship between different

forms of intimate partner violence, such as emo-

tional abuse and physical assault.

Finally, little

is known of the consequences of intimate partner

violence, including rate of injury and victims’

use of medical and justice system services.

This Research Report addresses these and other

issues related to intimate partner violence. The

information presented in this report is based on

findings from the National Violence Against

Women (NVAW) Survey, a national telephone

survey jointly sponsored by the National Insti-

tute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC). The survey,

which was conducted from November 1995 to

May 1996, consists of telephone interviews with

a representative sample of 8,000 U.S. women

and 8,000 U.S. men. Survey respondents were

queried about their experiences as victims of

various forms of violence, including rape,

physical assault, and stalking by intimate

partners. Victimized respondents were asked

detailed questions about the characteristics and

consequences of their victimization, including

the extent and nature of any injuries they sus-

tained, their use of medical services, and their

involvement with the justice system.

This Research Report also summarizes the

survey’s findings on victimization rates among

women and men, specific racial groups, Hispan-

ics and non-Hispanics, and opposite-sex and

same-sex cohabitants. It examines risk factors

associated with intimate partner violence, rates

of injury among rape and physical assault vic-

tims, injured victims’ use of medical services,

and victims’ involvement with the justice sys-

tem. Although this report focuses on women’s

and men’s experiences as victims of intimate

partner violence, complete details about men’s

and women’s experiences as victims of rape,

physical assault, and stalking by all types of

assailants are contained in earlier NIJ and CDC

reports (see sidebar, “Other Publications in the

Series”).

Because of the sensitive nature of the survey,

state-of-the-art techniques were used to protect

the confidentiality of the information being

sought and to minimize the potential for

retraumatizing victims of violence and

jeopardizing the safety of respondents.

● The sample was generated through random-

digit dialing, thereby ensuring that only a 10-

digit telephone number linked the respondent

to the survey. The area code and telephone

exchanges were included as part of the com-

pleted interview for each case in the dataset

for analysis purposes, but the last four digits

of the telephone number were eliminated.

● The survey introduction informed respondents

that their answers would be kept confidential

and that participation in the survey was

voluntary.

● Respondents were given a toll-free number to

call to verify the authenticity of the survey or

to respond to the survey at a later date. Re-

spondents also were told to use this number

should they need to hang up suddenly during

the interview.

● Only female interviewers interviewed female

respondents. (To measure the possible effects

of interviewer gender on male responses to

survey questions, half of the male respondents

were interviewed by male interviewers and

half by female interviewers.)

● Interviewers were instructed to schedule a

callback interview if they thought someone

was listening to the interview on another

line or was in the room with the respondent.

● Interviewers, out of concern that the interview

might cause some victims of violence to expe-

rience emotional trauma, were provided with

rape crisis and domestic violence hotline tele-

phone numbers from around the country. If a

respondent showed signs of distress, he or

she was provided with an appropriate hotline

referral.

In addition to lessening the possibility that re-

spondents might be harmed due to their partici-

pation in the survey, these techniques improved

the quality of the information gathered.

Other Publications in the Series

Other publications related to the National

Violence Against Women Survey include:

● Stalking in America: Findings From the

National Violence Against Women Survey,

Research in Brief, by Patricia Tjaden and

Nancy Thoennes, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute

of Justice, 1998, NCJ 169592.

● Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences

of Violence Against Women: Findings From

the National Violence Against Women

Survey, Research in Brief, by Patricia

Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1998, NCJ 172837.

● Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences

of Violence Against Women, Research

Report, by Patricia Tjaden and Nancy

Thoennes, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

forthcoming.

To obtain copies of these documents, visit

NIJ’s Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

or contact the National Criminal Justice

Service at P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD

20849–6000, 800–851–3420 or 301–519–

5500, or send an e-mail message to

askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Additional reports in

the series are forthcoming.

Also of interest:

● National Violence Against Women Method-

ology Report by Patricia Tjaden, Steven

Leadbetter, John Boyle, and Robert A.

Bardwell, Atlanta: Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control, forthcoming.

Learn about the availability of this report and

other CDC family and intimate violence pre-

vention activities by visiting the National Cen-

ter for Injury Prevention and Control’s Web

site at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fivpt.

Notes

1. For example, lifetime rates of victimization by an

intimate range from 9 to 30 percent for women and

from 13 to 16 percent for men. See Nisonoff, L.,

and I. Bittman, “Spouse Abuse: Incidence and

Relationship to Selected Demographic Variables,”

Victimology 4 (1979): 131–140; Peterson, R., “So-

cial Class, Social Learning, and Wife Abuse,” Social

Service Review 50 (1980): 390–406; Schulman, M.,

A Survey of Spousal Violence Against Women In

Kentucky, Study Number 792701, Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assis-

tance Administration, 1979; Teske, R.H.C., and M.L.

Parker, Spouse Abuse in Texas: A Study of Women’s

Attitudes and Experiences, Newark, New Jersey:

Criminal Justice/National Center for Crime and

Delinquency, John Cotton Dana Library, 1983;

Scanzoni, J., Sex Roles, Women’s Work, and Marital

Conflict, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington

Books, 1978.

2. Schafer, J., R. Caetano, C.L. Clark, “Rates of Inti-

mate Partner Violence in the United States,” Ameri-

can Journal of Public Health 88 (11) (1998): 1702–

1704; Straus, M.A., “Trends in Cultural Norms and

Rates of Partner Violence: An Update to 1992,”

in Understanding Partner Violence: Prevalence,

Causes, Consequences, and Solutions, Families in

Focus Series, eds. M.A. Straus and S.M. Smith,

Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations,

1995: 30–33; Straus, M., and R. Gelles, “Societal

Change and Change in Family Violence From 1975

to 1985 as Revealed by Two National Surveys,”

Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (1987):

465–479.

3. Bachman, R., Violence Against Women: A

National Crime Victimization Survey Report, Wash-

ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 145325; Bachman, R.,

and L.E. Saltzman, Violence Against Women: Esti-

mates From the Redesigned Survey, Special Report,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1995, NCJ 154348;

Gaquin, D., “Spouse Abuse: Data from the National

Crime Survey,” Victimology 2 (1977–78): 634–643;

Greenfeld, L., M.R. Rand, D. Craven, P.A. Klaus,

C.A. Perkins, C. Ringel, G. Warchol, C. Matson,

and J.A. Fox, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of

Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses,

Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Factbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1998, NCJ 167237; Klaus, P., and M. Rand, Family

Violence, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1984, NCJ 093449.

4. Bachman, Violence Against Women: A National

Crime Victimization Survey Report.

5. For example, see Bachman, R., Death and Vio-

lence on the Reservation: Homicide, Family Vio-

lence, and Suicide in American Indian Populations,

Westport, Connecticut: Auburn House, 1992;

Cazenave, N.A., and M.A. Straus, “Race, Class,

Network Embeddedness and Family Violence: A

Search for Potent Support Systems,” Journal of

Comparative Family Studies 10 (3) (1979): 281–

300; Gelles, R., “Violence in the Family: A Review

of Research in the Seventies,” Journal of Marriage

and the Family 42 (1980): 873–885; Hampton, R.L.,

“Family Violence and Homicides in the Black Com-

munity: Are They Linked?” in Violence in the Black

Family: Correlates and Consequences, ed. R.L.

Hampton, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1987: 135–

187; Neff, J.A., B. Holamon, and T.D. Schluter,

“Spousal Violence Among Anglos, Blacks, and

Mexican Americans: The Role of Demographic

Variables, Psychological Predictors, and Alcohol

Consumption,” Journal of Family Violence 10 (1)

(1995): 1–21; Shoemaker, D.J., and J.S. Williams,

“The Subculture of Violence and Ethnicity,” Journal

of Criminal Justice 15 (6) (1987): 461–472; and

Behind Closed Doors, ed. Straus, M.A., R.J. Gelles,

and S. Steinmetz, Newbury Park, California: Sage

Publications, 1980.

6. Renzetti, C.M., “Violence and Abuse Among

Same-Sex Couples,” in Violence Between Intimate

Partners: Patterns, Causes, and Effects, ed.

Cardarelli, A.P., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997:

70–89.

7. National Research Council, Understanding

Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.:

National Academy Press, 1996: 4–5.

8. Ibid.

Defining Intimate Partner Violence

There is currently little consensus among re-

searchers on exactly how to define the term

“intimate partner violence.”

As a result, defini-

tions of the term vary widely from study to

study, making comparisons difficult. One source

of controversy revolves around whether to limit

the definition of the term to acts carried out with

the intention of, or perceived intention of, caus-

ing physical pain or injury to another person.

Although this approach presents a narrow defini-

tion of intimate partner violence that can be

readily operationalized, it ignores the myriad

behaviors that persons may use to control, in-

timidate, and otherwise dominate another person

in the context of an intimate relationship. These

behaviors may include acts such as verbal abuse,

imprisonment, humiliation, stalking, and denial

of access to financial resources, shelter, or

services.

Another source of controversy revolves around

whether to limit the definition of the term to

violence occurring between persons who are

married or living together as a couple or to in-

clude persons who are dating or who consider

themselves a couple but live in separate domi-

ciles. At present the research literature is bifur-

cated, with some studies focusing on violence

occurring in marital or heterosexual cohabiting

relationships and others focusing on violence

occurring in heterosexual dating relationships.

Only a handful of studies examine violence in

same-sex cohabiting or dating relationships.

The definition of intimate partner violence used

in the NVAW Survey includes rape, physical

assault, and stalking perpetrated by current and

former dates, spouses, and cohabiting partners,

with cohabiting meaning living together at least

some of the time as a couple. Both same-sex

and opposite-sex cohabitants are included in the

definition. The survey’s definition of intimate

partner violence resembles the one developed

by CDC

because it includes violence occurring

between persons who have a current or former

dating, marital, or cohabiting relationship and

same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. However,

it deviates from CDC’s definition because it in-

cludes stalking as well as rape and physical assault.

For purposes of the survey, “rape” is defined as

an event that occurs without the victim’s consent

and involves the use of threat or force to pen-

etrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis,

tongue, fingers, or object or the victim’s mouth

by penis. The definition includes both attempted

and completed rape. “Physical assault” is defined

as behaviors that threaten, attempt, or actually

inflict physical harm. The definition includes

a wide range of behaviors, from slapping, push-

ing, and shoving to using a gun. “Stalking” is

defined as a course of conduct directed at a

specific person involving repeated visual or

physical proximity; nonconsensual communica-

tion; verbal, written, or implied threats; or a

combination thereof that would cause fear in a

reasonable person, with “repeated” meaning on

two or more occasions. The definition of stalk-

ing used in the survey does not require stalkers

to make a credible threat against victims, but it

does require victims to feel a high level of fear.

The specific questions used to screen respon-

dents for rape, physical assault, and stalking

victimization are behaviorally specific and are

designed to leave little doubt in the respondent’s

mind as to what is being measured (see sidebar,

“Survey Screening Questions”).

Survey Screening Questions

Rape: Five questions were used to screen

respondents for completed and attempted

rape victimization:

● [Female respondents only] Has a man or

boy ever made you have sex by using force

or threatening to harm you or someone

close to you? Just so there is no mistake,

by sex we mean putting his penis in your

vagina.

● Has anyone, male or female, ever made you

have oral sex by using force or threat of

force? Just so there is no mistake, by oral

sex we mean that a man or boy put his penis

in your mouth or someone, male or female,

penetrated your vagina or anus with their

mouth.

● Has anyone ever made you have anal sex by

using force or threat of force? Just so there

is no mistake, by anal sex we mean that a

man or boy put his penis in your anus.

● Has anyone, male or female, ever put

fingers or objects in your vagina or anus

against your will or by using force or

threats?

● Has anyone, male or female, ever attempted

to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex

against your will but intercourse or penetra-

tion did not occur?

Physical assault: A modified version of the

original Conflict Tactics Scale was used to

screen respondents for physical assault they

experienced as an adult at the hands of

another adult:

● Not counting any incidents you have already

mentioned, after you became an adult, did

any other adult, male or female, ever:

— Throw something at you that could hurt?

— Push, grab, or shove you?

— Pull your hair?

— Slap or hit you?

— Kick or bite you?

— Choke or attempt to drown you?

— Hit you with some object?

— Beat you up?

— Threaten you with a gun?

— Threaten you with a knife or other

weapon?

— Use a gun on you?

— Use a knife or other weapon on you?

Stalking: The following questions were

used to screen respondents for stalking

victimization:

● Not including bill collectors, telephone

solicitors, or other salespeople, has

anyone, male or female, ever:

— Followed or spied on you?

— Sent you unsolicited letters or written

correspondence?

— Made unsolicited phone calls to you?

— Stood outside your home, school, or

workplace?

— Showed up at places you were even

though he or she had no business being

there?

— Left unwanted items for you to find?

— Tried to communicate in other ways

against your will?

— Vandalized your property or destroyed

something you loved?

Respondents who answered yes to one or

more of these questions were asked whether

anyone had ever done any of these things on

Notes

1. National Research Council, Understanding

Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.:

National Academy Press, 1996: 9–10.

2. Saltzman, L.E., J.L. Fanslow, P.M. McMahon,

and G.A. Shelley, Intimate Partner Violence Surveil-

lance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data

Elements, Atlanta: National Center for Injury Pre-

vention and Control, Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention, 1999.

more than one occasion and whether they felt

frightened or feared bodily harm as a result of

these behaviors. Only respondents who re-

ported being victimized on more than one oc-

casion and who were very frightened or feared

bodily harm were counted as stalking victims.

Victim-perpetrator relationship: Respon-

dents who answered affirmatively to the rape,

physical assault, and/or stalking screening

questions were asked whether their attacker

was a current or ex-spouse, a male live-in

partner, a female live-in partner, a relative,

someone else they knew, or a stranger. Re-

spondents disclosing victimization by an ex-

spouse or cohabiting partner were asked to

further identify which spouse/partner victim-

ized them (e.g., first ex-husband, current male

live-in partner). Respondents disclosing vic-

timization by a relative were asked to further

specify which relative victimized them (e.g.,

father, brother, uncle, cousin). Finally, respon-

dents disclosing victimization by someone

else they knew were asked to further specify

the relationship they had with this person

(e.g., date, boss, teacher, neighbor). Only

victimizations perpetrated by current and

former spouses, same-sex and opposite-sex

cohabiting partners, and dates are included

in the analyses discussed in this report.

a. Rape screening questions were adapted from

those used in The National Women’s Study, Rape in

America: A Report to the Nation, National Victim

Center and the Crime Victims Research and Treatment

Center, Arlington, Virginia, April 23, 1992: 15.

b. Straus, M., “Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and

Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scale,” Journal of

Marriage and the Family 41 (1979): 75–88.

Prevalence and Incidence of Intimate

Partner Violence

The NVAW Survey generated information on

both the prevalence and incidence of intimate

partner violence. “Prevalence” refers to the per-

centage of persons within a demographic group

(e.g., female or male) who are victimized during

a specific period, such as the person’s lifetime or

the previous 12 months. “Incidence” refers to the

number of separate victimizations or incidents of

violence committed against persons within a demo-

graphic group during a specific period. Incidence

can also be expressed as a victimization rate,

which is obtained by dividing the number of vic-

timizations committed against persons in a de-

mographic group by the number of persons in

that demographic group and setting the rate to a

standard population base, such as 1,000 persons.

Intimate partner rape

Using a definition of rape that includes com-

pleted or attempted forced vaginal, oral, and

anal sex, the survey found 7.7 percent of

Exhibit 1. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime and in

Previous 12 Months, by Type of Victimization and Gender

In Lifetime

Percent Number

Women Men Women Men

Type of Victimization (

= 8,000) (

= 8,000) (100,697,000) (92,748,000)

Rape

b***

7.7 0.3 7,753,669 278,244

Physical assault

b***

22.1 7.4 22,254,037 6,863,352

Rape and/or physical assault

b***

24.8 7.6 24,972,856 7,048,848

Stalking

b***

4.8 0.6 4,833,456 556,488

Total victimized

b***

25.5 7.9 25,677,735 7,327,092

In Previous 12 Months

Percent Number

Women Men Women Men

Type of Violence (

= 8,000) (

= 8,000) (100,697,000) (92,748,000)

Rape 0.2 —

201,394 —

Physical assault

1.3 0.9 1,309,061 834,732

Rape and/or physical assault

1.5 0.9

1,510,455 834,732

Stalking

b**

0.5 0.2 503,485 185,496

Total victimized

b***

1.8 1.1 1,812,546 1,020,228

Based on estimates of women and men 18 years of age and older: Wetrogen, S.I.,

Projections of the Population of States by

Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2010

, Current Population Reports, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988: 25–1017.

Differences between women and men are statistically significant: χ

, *

≤ .05, **

≤ .01,

***p

≤ .001.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five victims.

Because only three men reported being raped by an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, the percentage of men physically

assaulted and physically assaulted and/or raped is the same.

surveyed women and 0.3 percent of surveyed

men reported being raped by a current or former

intimate partner at some time in their lifetime,

and 0.2 percent (n = 16) of surveyed women re-

ported being raped by a partner in the 12 months

preceding the survey. Based on U.S. Census esti-

mates of the number of women aged 18 years

and older in the country, an estimated 201,394

women were forcibly raped by an intimate

partner in the 12 months preceding the survey

(exhibit 1). [The number of male rape victims

(n < 5) was insufficient to reliably calculate

annual prevalence estimates for men.]

Because women raped by an intimate partner in

the previous 12 months averaged 1.6 rapes, the

incidence of intimate partner rape (number of

separate victimizations) exceeded the prevalence

of intimate partner rape (number of victims).

Thus, there were an estimated 322,230 intimate

partner rapes committed against U.S. women dur-

ing the 12 months preceding the survey. (This na-

tional estimate is based on only 16 women who

reported being raped by an intimate partner in the

previous 12 months and should be viewed with

caution.) This figure equates to an annual victim-

ization rate of 3.2 intimate partner rapes per 1,000

U.S. women aged 18 years and older (322,230 ÷

100,697,000 = 0.0032 x 1,000 = 3.2) (exhibit 2).

Intimate partner physical assault

Using a definition of physical assault that in-

cludes a range of behaviors, from slapping and

hitting to using a gun, the survey found that 22.1

percent of surveyed women and 7.4 percent of

surveyed men reported being physically assaulted

by a current or former intimate partner at some

time in their lifetime, whereas 1.3 percent of all

surveyed women and 0.9 percent of all surveyed

men reported being physically assaulted by such a

partner in the previous 12 months. Thus, approxi-

mately 1.3 million women and 834,732 men were

physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the

12 months preceding the survey (exhibit 1).

Because women and men who were physically

assaulted by an intimate partner in the previous

12 months averaged 3.4 and 3.5 physical as-

saults, respectively, there were approximately

4.5 million intimate partner physical assaults

perpetrated against women and approximately

2.9 million intimate partner physical assaults

perpetrated against men in the 12 months pre-

ceding the survey. These figures equate to an

annual victimization rate of 44.2 intimate part-

ner physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. women aged

18 years and older (4,450,807 ÷ 100,697,000 =

0.0442 x 1,000 = 44.2) and 31.5 intimate partner

Exhibit 2. Number of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victimizations

Perpetrated by Intimate Partners Annually, by Victim Gender

Number Average Number Total Number Annual Rate of

Type of of of Victimizations of Victimization per

Victimization Victims per Victim

Victimizations 1,000 Persons

Women

Rape

201,394 1.6

322,230

3.2

Physical assault 1,309,061 3.4 4,450,807 44.2

Stalking 503,485 1.0 503,485 5.0

Men

Rape

— — — —

Physical assault 834,732 3.5 2,921,562 31.5

Stalking 185,496 1.0 185,496 1.8

The standard error of the mean is 0.5 for female rape victims, 0.6 for female physical assault victims, and 0.6 for male

physical assault victims. Because stalking by definition means repeated acts and because no victim was stalked by more than

one perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey, the number of stalking victimizations was imputed to be the same as the

number of stalking victims. Thus, the average number of stalking victimizations per victim is 1.0.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five victims.

physical assaults per 1,000 U.S. men aged 18

years and older (2,921,562 ÷ 92,748,000 =

0.0315 x 1,000 = 31.5) (exhibit 2).

Results from the survey show that most physical

assaults committed against women and men by

intimates are relatively minor and consist of

pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hit-

ting. Fewer women and men reported that an

intimate threw something that could hurt them,

pulled their hair, kicked or beat them, or threat-

ened them with a knife or gun. Only a negligible

number reported that an intimate actually used a

knife or gun on them (exhibit 3).

Intimate partner stalking

Using a definition of stalking that requires vic-

tims to feel a high level of fear, the survey found

that 4.8 percent of surveyed women and 0.6 per-

cent of surveyed men reported being stalked by

a current or former intimate partner at some time

in their lifetime; 0.5 percent of surveyed women

and 0.2 percent of surveyed men reported being

stalked by such a partner in the 12 months pre-

ceding the survey. These figures equate to an

estimated 503,485 women and 185,496 men

who were stalked by an intimate partner in the

12 months preceding the survey (exhibit 1).

Because stalking by definition involves repeated

acts of harassment and intimidation and because

no respondent reported being stalked by more

than one intimate in the 12 months preceding

the survey, the incidence of intimate partner

stalking is equivalent to the prevalence of

intimate partner stalking. Thus, there were an

estimated 503,485 stalking victimizations per-

petrated against women and 185,496 stalking

victimizations perpetrated against men by

intimates in the year preceding the survey

(exhibit 2). These figures equate to an annual

victimization rate of 5 intimate partner stalkings

per 1,000 U.S. women aged 18 years and older

(503,485 ÷ 100,697,000 = 0.005 x 1,000 = 5.0)

and 1.8 intimate partner stalkings per 1,000

U.S. men aged 18 years and older (185,496 ÷

97,748,000 = 0.0018 x 1,000 = 1.8) (exhibit 2).

Note

1. Koss, M.P., and M.R. Harvey, The Rape Victim:

Clinical and Community Interventions, 2d ed.

Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications,

1991: 8–9.

Exhibit 3. Persons Physically Assaulted by an Intimate

Partner in Lifetime, by Type of Assault and Victim Gender

Women (%) Men (%)

Type of assault

(

= 8,000) (

= 8,000)

Threw something that could hurt 8.1 4.4

Pushed, grabbed, shoved 18.1 5.4

Pulled hair 9.1 2.3

Slapped, hit 16.0 5.5

Kicked, bit 5.5 2.6

Choked, tried to drown 6.1 0.5

Hit with object 5.0 3.2

Beat up 8.5 0.6

Threatened with gun 3.5 0.4

Threatened with knife 2.8 1.6

Used gun 0.7 0.1

Used knife 0.9 0.8

Total reporting physical assault by intimate partner 22.1 7.4

With the exception of “used gun” and “used knife,” differences between women and men are statistically significant: χ

≤ .001.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Comparison With Previous Estimates

Intimate partner rape

No previous national survey has generated esti-

mates of the lifetime prevalence of intimate

partner rape.

However, a study of 930 women

in San Francisco found that 8 percent were sur-

vivors of marital rape,

and a study of 323 ever-

married/cohabited women in Boston found that

10 percent were survivors of wife or partner

rape.

Though not directly comparable, the

NVAW Survey finding that 7.7 percent of U.S.

women have been raped by an intimate partner

at some time in their lifetime is similar to these

earlier community-based estimates.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime

Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is admin-

istered yearly, generates annual rape and sexual

assault victimization estimates for women and

men. One study based on 1992–93 NCVS data

found that the average annual rate of rape and

sexual assault by an intimate was 1.0 per 1,000

women aged 12 years and older.

This estimate

is lower than the average annual rate of intimate

partner rape for women generated by the NVAW

Survey, which is 3.2 per 1,000 women aged 18

years and older (exhibit 2). However, direct

comparisons between the findings of the two

surveys are difficult to make because estimates

reported by the two surveys refer to somewhat

different populations and sexual victimizations,

and the two surveys differ substantially method-

ologically (see “Deciphering Disparities in Sur-

vey Findings”).

Intimate partner physical assault

Several community-based studies have gener-

ated estimates of the lifetime prevalence of

physical assault by an intimate. Estimates from

these surveys range from 9 to 30 percent for

women and from 13 to 16 percent for men (see

note 1 in “Introduction”). In addition, a 1997

Gallup poll, which surveyed a nationally repre-

sentative sample of 434 women and 438 men,

found that 22 percent of women and 8 percent of

men have been physically abused by a spouse or

companion.

NVAW Survey estimates that 22.1

percent of women and 7.4 percent of men have

been physically assaulted by an intimate at some

time in their lifetime are nearly identical to the

Gallup estimates.

National estimates of the annual rate of physical

assault by an intimate come from two primary

sources—the previously mentioned NCVS and

the National Family Violence Survey (NFVS),

which was first conducted in 1975 and then re-

peated in 1985. Portions of the NFVS were also

included in the 1992 National Alcohol and Fam-

ily Violence Survey and a special component of

the 1995 National Alcohol Survey.

Annual rates of physical assault by an intimate

generated from the NVAW Survey are substan-

tially higher than those generated by the NCVS.

One study based on 1992–93 NCVS data found

that the average annual rate of simple and aggra-

vated assault by an intimate was 7.6 per 1,000

women aged 12 years and older and 1.3 per 1,000

men aged 12 years and older.

A more recent

study that used 1996 NCVS data and Federal

Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report

homicide data—and combined data on intimate

partner murder, rape, sexual assault, robbery,

aggravated assault, and simple assault—found the

annual rate of violent victimization by an intimate

was 7.5 per 1,000 women aged 12 years and older

and 1.4 per 1,000 men aged 12 years and older.

In comparison, the NVAW Survey annual rate of

physical assault by an intimate was 44.2 per 1,000

women aged 18 years and older and 31.5 per

1,000 men aged 18 years and older. Thus, the

NVAW Survey annual rate of physical assault by

an intimate far exceeds the NCVS annual rate of

violent victimization by an intimate.

On the other hand, annual rates of physical

assault generated from the NVAW Survey are

substantially lower than those generated by the

NFVS. The 1975 and 1985 NFVS found that

11 to 12 percent of married/cohabiting women

and 12 percent of married/cohabiting men were

physically assaulted by their intimate partner an-

nually.

The 1992 National Alcohol and Family

Violence Survey found that approximately 1.9

percent of married/cohabiting women were se-

verely assaulted by a male partner annually, and

approximately 4.5 percent of married/cohabiting

men were severely assaulted by a female partner

annually.

The 1995 National Alcohol Survey

found that 5.2 to 13.6 percent of married/cohab-

iting couples experienced male-to-female part-

ner violence, and 6.2 to 18.2 percent of married/

cohabiting couples experienced female-to-male

intimate partner violence.

In comparison,

the NVAW Survey found that only 1.3 percent

of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed

men were physically assaulted by a current or

former intimate partner annually. The disparity

in NFVS and NVAW findings is particularly

striking because both surveys used similar

behaviorally specific questions to screen

respondents for physical assault victimization.

As discussed in this report (see “Deciphering

Disparities in Survey Findings”), studies are

needed to determine why the NCVS, NFVS, and

NVAW Survey produced such disparate findings

on the prevalence and incidence of intimate part-

ner violence in the United States.

Intimate partner stalking

Prior to the NVAW Survey, information on stalk-

ing prevalence was limited to guesses provided

by mental health professionals based on their

work with known stalkers. The most frequently

cited “guesstimate” was made by forensic psy-

chiatrist Dr. Park Dietz, who reported in 1992

that 5 percent of U.S. women are stalked at

some time in their lifetime, and 500,000 are

stalked annually.

Because these figures pertain

to stalking by all types of perpetrators, not just

intimates, it is fair to say the NVAW Survey

estimates—that 4.8 percent of women have

been stalked by an intimate in their lifetime

and 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate

each year—are higher than previous stalking

estimates.

Notes

1. The National Women’s Study generated estimates

of the prevalence of rape by all types of assailants

but not by intimates; see Rape in America: A Report

to the Nation, Arlington, Virginia: National Victim

Center and the Crime Victims Research and Treat-

ment Center, April 23, 1992.

2. Russell, D.E.H., Rape in Marriage, Indianapolis:

Indiana University Press, 1990.

3. Finklehor, D., and K. Yllo, License To Rape:

Sexual Abuse of Wives, New York: Holt, Rinehart,

and Winston, 1985.

4. Bachman, R., and L.E. Saltzman, Violence

Against Women: Estimates From the Redesigned

Survey, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-

partment of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1995, NCJ 154348.

5. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bureau of Justice Sta-

tistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics—

1997, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998: 198, NCJ 171147,

table 3.39.

6. Bachman and Saltzman, Violence Against

Women: Estimates From the Redesigned Survey,

note 4.

7. Greenfeld, L., M.R. Rand, D. Craven, P.A. Klaus,

C.A. Perkins, C. Ringel, G. Warchol, C. Matson, and

J.A. Fox, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on

Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends,

and Girlfriends, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Factbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998, NCJ

167237.

8. Straus, M., and R. Gelles, “Societal Change and

Change in Family Violence From 1975 to 1985 as

Revealed by Two National Surveys,” Journal of

Marriage and the Family 48 (1987): 465–479.

9. Straus, M.A., “Trends in Cultural Norms and

Rates of Partner Violence: An Update to 1992,”

in Understanding Partner Violence: Prevalence,

Causes, Consequences, and Solutions, Families

in Focus Series, eds. M.A. Straus and S.M. Smith,

Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations,

1995: 30–33.

10. Schafer, J., R. Caetano, and C.L. Clark, “Rates

of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States,”

American Journal of Public Health 88 (11) (1998):

1702–1704.

11. Puente, M., “Legislators Tackling the Terror

of Stalking: But Some Experts Say Measures Are

Vague,” USA Today, July 21, 1992.

Women Experience More Intimate Partner

Violence Than Do Men

As shown in exhibit 1, the NVAW Survey found

that women were significantly more likely than

men to report being victimized by an intimate

partner, whether the period was the individual’s

lifetime or the 12 months preceding the survey

and whether the type of violence was rape,

physical assault, or stalking. Moreover, the sur-

vey found that differences between women’s and

men’s rates of physical assault by an intimate

partner become greater as the seriousness of the

assault increases. For example, women were two

or three times more likely than men to report that

an intimate partner threw something that could

hurt them or pushed, grabbed, or shoved them.

However, they were 7 to 14 times more likely to

report that an intimate partner beat them up,

choked or tried to drown them, or threatened

them with a gun or knife (exhibit 3).

The NVAW Survey finding that women are sig-

nificantly more likely than men to report being

victimized by an intimate partner supports re-

sults from the NCVS, which have consistently

shown that women are at significantly greater

risk of intimate partner violence (see note 3 in

“Introduction”). However, it contradicts results

from the NFVS, which have consistently shown

that men and women are nearly equally likely to

be physically assaulted by marital or cohabiting

partners (see note 2 in “Introduction”).

It is difficult to explain why the NCVS, NFVS,

and NVAW Survey generated such disparate

estimates of intimate partner violence or why

the NCVS and NVAW Survey produced evi-

dence of asymmetry in women’s and men’s risk

of intimate partner violence while the NFVS

produced evidence of symmetry. For years, re-

searchers have attributed the low rate of intimate

partner violence uncovered by the NCVS to the

fact that it is administered in the context of a

crime survey. Because they reflect only violence

perpetrated by intimates that victims are willing

to label as criminal and report to interviewers,

estimates of intimate partner violence generated

from the NCVS are thought to underestimate

the true amount of intimate partner violence.

At first glance, results from the NVAW Survey ap-

pear to support this theory. The NVAW Survey—

which was administered in the context of a survey

on personal safety rather than crime—generated

substantially higher intimate partner victimization

rates than those generated by the NCVS. It is

likely, however, that methodological factors other

than the overall context in which the two surveys

were administered account for some of the differ-

ences in the findings.

For example, the two surveys differ substantially

with respect to sample design and survey admin-

istration. The NVAW Survey sample was drawn

by random-digit dialing from a database of

households with a telephone (see sidebar, “Sur-

vey Methodology”). Moreover, NVAW Survey

interviewers used state-of-the-art techniques

to protect the confidentiality of the respondents

and minimize the potential for retraumatizing

victims of violence. In comparison, the NCVS

sample consists of housing units (e.g., ad-

dresses) selected from a stratified multistage

cluster sample. When a sample unit is

selected for inclusion in the NCVS, U.S. Census

workers interview all individuals in the house-

hold 12 years of age and older every 6 months

for 3 years. Thus, after the first interview, re-

spondents know the contents of the survey. This

may pose a problem for victims of domestic vio-

lence who may be afraid that disclosing abuse

by a family member may put them in danger

of further abuse. Although census interviewers

document whether others were present during

the interview, time and budget constraints prevent

them from ensuring privacy during an interview.

In addition, screening questions used by the

NVAW Survey and the NCVS differ substantially.

For example, the NVAW Survey uses 5 ques-

tions to screen respondents for rapes they may

have sustained over their lifetime and 12 ques-

tions to screen respondents for physical assaults

they may have sustained as adults (see sidebar,

“Survey Screening Questions”). Respondents

disclosing victimization are asked additional

questions about the victim-perpetrator relation-

ship and the frequency, duration, and consequences

of their victimization. In comparison, the NCVS

uses four questions—each with multiple compo-

nents—to screen respondents for threats, physi-

cal and sexual attacks, and property crimes they

may have experienced in different locations and

by different offenders.

Although empirical data

on this issue are lacking, researchers assume that

both the number of screening questions used

and the manner in which they are asked affect

disclosure rates.

Another possible reason for the difference in the

NVAW Survey and NCVS findings is that published

NCVS estimates count series victimization—reports

of six or more crimes within a 6-month period for

which the respondent cannot recall details of each

crime—as a single victimization. Thus, published

Deciphering Disparities in Survey Findings

Survey Methodology

The National Violence Against Women

(NVAW) Survey was conducted from No-

vember 1995 to May 1996 by interviewers

at Schulman, Ronca, Bucuvalas, Inc. (SRBI)

under the direction of John Boyle.

The au-

thors of this report designed the survey and

conducted the analysis.

The sample was drawn by random-digit

dialing from a database of households with

a telephone in the 50 States and the District

of Columbia. The sample was administered

by U.S. Census region. Within each region, a

simple random sample of working residential

“hundreds banks” of phone numbers was

drawn. (A hundreds bank is the first 8 digits

of any 10-digit telephone number.) A ran-

domly generated 2-digit number was ap-

pended to each randomly sampled hundreds

bank to produce the full 10-digit, random-

digit number. Separate banks of numbers

were generated for male and female respon-

dents. These random-digit numbers were

called by SRBI interviewers from their cen-

tral telephone facility, where nonworking

and nonresidential numbers were screened

out. Once a residential household was

reached, eligible adults were identified. In

households with more than one eligible adult,

the adult with the most recent birthday was

selected as the designated respondent.

A total of 8,000 women and 8,005 men 18

years of age and older were interviewed

using a computer-assisted telephone inter-

viewing (CATI) system. (Five completed in-

terviews with men were subsequently elimi-

nated from the sample during data editing

due to an excessive amount of inconsistent

and missing data.) Only female interviewers

surveyed female respondents. To test for pos-

sible bias introduced by the gender of the in-

terviewer, a split-sample approach was used

in the male sample whereby half of the inter-

views were conducted by female interviewers

and half by male interviewers. A Spanish-

language translation was administered by

bilingual interviewers to Spanish-speaking

respondents.

To determine how representative the sample

was, select demographic characteristics of the

NVAW Survey sample were compared with

demographic characteristics of the general

population as measured by the U.S. Census

Bureau’s 1995 Current Population Survey of

adult men and women. Sample weighting

was considered to correct for possible biases

introduced by the fact that some households

had multiple phone lines and multiple eli-

gibles and for over- and underrepresentation

of selected subgroups. Although there were

some instances of over- and underrepresenta-

tion, the overall unweighted prevalence rates

for rape, physical assault, and stalking were

not significantly different from their respec-

tive weighted rates. As a result, sample

weighting was not used in the analysis of

the survey data.

Data were analyzed using SPSS Base 7.0 for

Windows software. Measures of association

were calculated between nominal-level

independent and dependent variables. The

chi-square statistic was used to test for statis-

tically significant differences between two

groups (e.g., men and women), and the

Tukey’s B statistic was used to test for statis-

tically significant differences among two or

more groups (e.g., whites, African-Americans,

Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indian/

Alaska Natives, and mixed-race persons). Any

estimates based on fewer than five responses

were deemed unreliable and, therefore, were

not tested for statistically significant differ-

ences between or among groups and were not

presented in the tables. Because estimates pre-

sented in this report generally exclude “don’t

know,” “refused,” and other invalid responses,

sample and subsample sizes (n’s) vary from

table to table.

Because the actual number of victims that is

insufficient to reliably calculate estimates

varies depending on the rarity of the exposure

and the denominator of the subgroup being

analyzed, the relative standard error (RSE)

was calculated for each estimate presented.

(RSE is the ratio of the standard error divided

by the actual point estimate.) Estimates with

RSEs that exceed 30 percent were deemed un-

stable and were not tested for statistically sig-

nificant differences between or among groups.

These estimates have been identified in the

tables and should be viewed with caution.

The estimates from this survey, as from any

sample survey, are subject to random sam-

pling error. Exhibit 4 presents the estimated

standard errors multiplied by the z-score

(1.96) for specified sample and subsample

sizes of 16,000 or less at different response

distributions of dichotomous variables (e.g.,

raped/not raped, injured/not injured). These

estimated standard errors can be used to

determine the extent to which sample esti-

mates will be distributed (bounded) around

the population parameter (i.e., the true pop-

ulation distribution). As exhibit 4 shows,

larger sample and subsample sizes produce

smaller estimated bounds. Thus, the esti-

mated bound at the 95-percent confidence

level for a sample or subsample of 8,000 is

1.1 percentage points if the response distri-

bution is a 50/50 split, whereas the estimated

bound at the 95-percent confidence level for

a sample or subsample of 50 is 14 percentage

points if the response distribution is a 50/50

split.

a. John Boyle, Ph.D., is senior vice president and

director of the Government and Social Research

Division at SRBI. Dr. Boyle, who specializes in pub-

lic policy research in the area of health and violence,

also manages the firm’s Washington, D.C., office.

b. A technical report describing the survey methods in

more detail and recording sample characteristics and

prevalence rates using weighted and unweighted data

will be available from the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (see sidebar, “Other Publications in

the Series”).

NCVS estimates of the number of intimate partner

rapes, sexual assaults, and physical assaults are

lower than would be obtained by including all inci-

dents reported to its survey interviewers. To produce

NCVS estimates more directly comparable to those

generated by the NVAW Survey, each crime in a se-

ries of victimizations reported to NCVS interviewers

would have to be counted.

Finally, the sampling errors associated with

the estimates from the NVAW Survey and the

NCVS would have to be compared to determine

whether estimates generated by the two surveys

actually differ or whether apparent differences

are not statistically significant.

Differences between the NVAW Survey and the

NFVS estimates are somewhat harder to explain

because the two surveys used similar sampling

strategies and the Conflict Tactics Scale to

screen respondents for physical assaults by

intimates (see sidebar, “Survey Screening Ques-

tions”). Straus argues the NVAW Survey gener-

ated annual rates of physical assault by an

intimate partner that were substantially lower

than those generated by the NFVS because it

was presented to respondents as a survey on

personal safety.

According to Straus, the term

“personal safety” led many respondents to

perceive the NVAW Survey as a crime study

and, therefore, to restrict their reports to “real

crimes.”

Aside from being inherently unconvincing—

the terms “crime” and “personal safety” conjure

very different images—this explanation fails to

explain why the NVAW Survey generated high

lifetime intimate partner victimization rates that

are generally consistent with findings from other

surveys or why the NVAW Survey uncovered

high rates of other forms of family violence, such

as incest and physical abuse of children by adult

caretakers.

It is unlikely that using the term “per-

sonal safety” in the NVAW Survey introduction

would have set up a perceptual screen for intimate

partner violence experienced in the previous 12

months but not for intimate partner violence expe-

rienced over the course of the respondent’s life-

time. Similarly, it is unlikely that using the term

“personal safety” in the NVAW Survey introduc-

tion would have set up a perceptual screen for one

type of family violence (e.g., physical assaults

by marital/cohabiting partners) but not for other

types of family violence (e.g., incest and physical

assault by caretakers in childhood).

A more plausible explanation for the disparity in

the NFVS and NVAW Survey findings is the dif-

ferent ways the two surveys frame and introduce

screening questions about intimate partner vio-

lence. In the NFVS, respondents are queried

about specific acts of intimate partner violence

they may have committed or sustained against

their current partner. Published NFVS estimates

of the number of women and men who experi-

ence intimate partner violence annually count

reports of both perpetration and victimization.

In other words, if a woman reports that she as-

saulted her husband, her report is counted as a

male victimization. Similarly, if a man reports

that he assaulted his wife, his report is counted

Exhibit 4. Estimated Standard Errors Multiplied by the

-Score

(1.96) for a 95-Percent Confidence Level, by Sample or Subsample Size

Percentage of Sample or Subsample Giving Certain Response or Displaying

Certain Characteristics for Percentages Exactly or Approximately Equal to:

Size of Sample

or Subsample 10 or 90 20 or 80 30 or 70 40 or 60 50

16,000 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8

12,000 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9

8,000 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1

4,000 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5

3,000 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8

2,000 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2

1,500 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.5

1,300 1.6 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7

1,200 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8

1,100 1.8 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.0

1,000 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.1

900 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.3

800 2.1 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.5

700 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.7

600 2.4 3.2 3.7 3.9 4.0

500 2.6 3.5 4.0 4.3 4.4

400 2.9 3.9 4.5 4.8 4.9

300 3.4 4.5 5.2 5.6 5.7

200 4.2 5.6 6.4 6.8 6.9

150 4.8 6.4 7.4 7.9 8.0

100 5.9 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.8

75 6.8 9.1 10.4 11.2 11.4

50 8.4 11.2 12.8 13.7 14.0

as a female victimization. To produce NFVS

estimates directly comparable with NVAW Sur-

vey estimates, perpetrations reported to NFVS

interviewers would have to be excluded.

In addition, the NFVS introduces screening

questions about intimate partner violence perpe-

tration and victimization with an exculpatory

statement that acknowledges the pervasiveness

of marital/partner conflict. Although this ap-

proach may seem more accepting of intimate

partner violence and, therefore, more likely to

result in disclosure of intimate partner violence,

it may also be considered more leading.

Finally, the NFVS frames its screening ques-

tions in terms of how many times in the past 12

months respondents have committed or sustained

these violent acts rather than whether they have

ever committed or sustained these violent acts.

This approach assumes intimate partner violence

is the norm and requires respondents who nei-

ther committed nor sustained such violence to

provide an answer to the contrary.

By contrast, the NVAW Survey queries respon-

dents only about their experiences with victim-

ization. Furthermore, the NVAW Survey does

not use an exculpatory statement to introduce

screening questions. Rather than asking respon-

dents how many times they have sustained acts

of intimate partner violence in the past 12

months, the NVAW Survey asks respondents

whether they ever sustained violent acts at the

hands of any type of perpetrator and, if so,

whether their perpetrator was a current or past

intimate partner. Only respondents who report

they have ever experienced such acts are asked

whether these acts were perpetrated in the past

12 months. While this approach may be consid-

ered less accepting of intimate partner violence

and therefore less likely to result in disclosure,

it may also be considered less leading.

In summary, it is likely that the manner in which

screening questions are introduced and framed

has more of an effect on intimate partner victim-

ization rates than does the overall context in

which the survey is administered. Clearly, more

research is needed to fully understand how

methodological factors such as sample design,

survey administration, survey introduction, and

question wording affect research findings on

intimate partner violence.

Notes

1. Klaus, P., and M. Rand, Family Violence, Special

Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-

tice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984, NCJ 093449;

Straus, M.A., “Physical Assault by Wives: A Major

Social Problem,” in Current Controversies on

Family Violence, eds. R.J. Gelles and D.R. Loeske,

Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1993:

67–87.

2. The four screening questions used in the

NCVS are:

1) Were you attacked or threatened, OR did

you have something stolen from you:

a) At home, including the porch or yard?

b) At or near a friend’s, relative’s, or

neighbor’s home?

c) At work or school?

d) In a place such as a storage shed or laundry

room, a shopping mall, restaurant, bank, or

airport?

e) While riding in any vehicle?

f) On the street or in a parking lot?

g) At such places as a party, theater, gym,

picnic area, bowling lanes, or while fishing

or hunting?

2) Other than any incidents already mentioned,

has anyone attacked or threatened you in any

of these ways:

a) With any weapon, for instance, a gun or

knife?

b) With anything like a baseball bat, frying

pan, scissors, or a stick?

c) By something thrown, such as a rock or

bottle?

d) Include any grabbing, punching, or

choking?

e) Any rape, attempted rape, or other type

of sexual attack?

Women and Children 9 (1) (1986): 22–23; Koss,

M.P., “Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of

Prevalence Research Methods,” Journal of Interper-

sonal Violence 8 (2) (1993): 198–222; Schuman, H.,

and S. Presser, Questions and Answers in Attitude

Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording,

and Content, New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1981;

Sudman, S., and N.M. Bradburn, Response Effects in

Surveys: A Review and Synthesis, Chicago: Aldine

Publishing Company, 1974.

4. Straus, M.A., “The Controversy Over Domestic

Violence by Women: A Methodological, Theoretical,

and Sociology of Science Analysis,” in Violence in

Intimate Relationships, eds. X.B. Arriaga and S.

Oskamp, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publica-

tions, 1999.

5. For example, 40 percent of surveyed women and

54 percent of surveyed men said they were physi-

cally assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker. In

addition, 9 percent of surveyed women said they

were raped before age 18. Of these rape victims, 76

percent were raped by a relative. See Tjaden, P., and

N. Thoennes, Final Report on Prevalence, Inci-

dence, and Consequences of Violence Against

Women, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, forthcoming.

f) Any face-to-face threats?

g) Any attack or threat of use of force by

anyone at all?

Please mention it even if you are not certain

it was a crime.

3) People often don’t think of incidents committed

by someone they know. Did you have some

thing stolen from you, OR were you attacked or

threatened by:

a) Someone at work or school?

b) A neighbor or friend?

c) A relative or family member?

d) Any other person you’ve met or known?

4) Incidents involving forced or unwanted

sexual acts are often difficult to talk about.

Have you been forced or coerced to engage

in unwanted sexual activity by:

a) Someone you didn’t know before?

b) A casual acquaintance?

c) Someone you know well?

3. For example, see Helton, A.M., “The Pregnant

Battered Women,” Responses to Victimization of

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence

Among Racial Minorities and Hispanics

As noted, previous studies have produced

contradictory findings as to whether race and

ethnicity affect one’s risk for involvement in

intimate partner violence (see notes 4 and 5 in

“Introduction”). Most of these studies compare

victimization rates of only one minority group

with those of whites, and others compare victim-

ization rates of all minority groups with those

of whites. None compare victimization rates of

several diverse racial groups.

To determine victimization rates for women and

men of diverse racial backgrounds, respondents

to the NVAW Survey were asked whether they

would best classify themselves as white, black

or African-American, Asian or Pacific Islander,

American Indian or Alaska Native, or of mixed

race. They were also asked whether they were of

Hispanic origin. The response rate on both these

questions was very high (98 and 99 percent,

respectively).

When data on African-American, Asian/Pacific

Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and

mixed-race respondents are combined, nonwhite

women and men report significantly more inti-

mate partner violence than do their white coun-

terparts (exhibit 5). These findings suggest that

all racial minorities experience more intimate

partner violence than do whites.

However, a comparison of intimate partner vic-

timization rates among persons of specific racial

backgrounds shows that different types of minori-

ties report significantly different rates of intimate

partner violence. In general, American Indian/

Alaska Native women report significantly higher

rates of intimate partner violence than do women

of other racial backgrounds, and Asian/Pacific

Islander women and men report significantly lower

rates (exhibit 6). These findings underscore the

need for research on intimate partner violence

among specific racial and ethnic groups. As the

Exhibit 5. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender,

Type of Victimization, and White/Nonwhite Status of Victim

Persons Victimized in Lifetime (%)

Victim Gender/Type of Victimization White Nonwhite

Women (

= 6,452) (

= 1,398)

Rape 7.7 7.8

Physical assault

b***

21.3 25.5

Stalking 4.7 5.0

Total victimized

b**

24.8 28.6

Men (

= 6,424) (

= 1,335)

Rape 0.2 0.5

Physical assault

b**

7.2 9.1

Stalking

0.6 1.1

Total victimized

b**

7.5 10.0

The nonwhite category consists of African-American, Native American/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, and mixed-race

respondents.

Differences between whites and nonwhites are statistically significant: χ

≤ .05,

**p

≤ .01,

***p

≤ .001.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

survey results show, combining data on different

minorities may exaggerate differences between

whites and nonwhites and, at the same time,

obscure very large differences among persons

of diverse minority backgrounds.

The finding that American Indians/Alaska Na-

tive women report significantly higher rates of

intimate partner violence is consistent with

previous research that shows American Indian

couples are significantly more violent than their

white counterparts.

However, a paucity of infor-

mation on violence against American Indians

makes it difficult to explain why they report

more intimate partner violence. How much of

the difference in intimate partner victimization

rates among American Indian/Alaska Native

women and those of other racial backgrounds

may be explained by differences in willingness

to report victimization to interviewers and how

much by actual victimization experiences is un-

clear and requires further study. Moreover, there

may be significant differences in intimate part-

ner victimization rates among women (and men)

of diverse American Indian tribes and Alaska

Native communities that cannot be discerned

from the survey. Finally, research is needed to

ascertain how much of the difference in intimate

partner victimization rates among Native Ameri-

cans and persons of different racial backgrounds

may be explained by demographic, social, and

environmental factors.

Because information on violence against Asian/

Pacific Islander women and men is also limited,

it is difficult to explain why they reported sig-

nificantly less intimate partner violence than did

women and men of other racial backgrounds. It

has been suggested that traditional Asian values

emphasizing close family ties and harmony may

discourage Asian women from disclosing physi-

cal and emotional abuse by intimates.

Thus, the

lower intimate partner victimization rates found

among Asian/Pacific Islander women may be, at

Exhibit 6. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime,

by Victim Gender, Type of Victimization, and Victim Race

Persons Victimized in Lifetime (%)

American

Asian Indian/

Victim Gender/ African- Pacific Alaska Mixed

Type of Victimization White American Islander Native Race

Women (

= 6,452) (

= 780) (

= 133) (

= 88) (

= 397)

Rape

7.7 7.4 3.8

15.9 8.1

Physical assault

c,d

21.3 26.3 12.8 30.7 27.0

Stalking 4.7 4.2 —

10.2

6.3

Total victimized

24.8 29.1 15.0 37.5 30.2

Men (

= 6,424) (

= 659) (

= 165) (

= 105) (

= 406)

Rape 0.2 0.9

—

Physical assault 7.2 10.8 —

11.4 8.6

Stalking 0.6 1.1

—

1.2

Total victimized 7.5 12.0 3.0

12.4 9.1

Estimates for American Indian/Alaska Native women are significantly higher than those for white and African-American women:

Tukey’s B,

≤ .05.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; estimates not included in statistical testing.

Estimates for Asian/Pacific Islander women are significantly lower than those for African-American, American Indian/Alaska

Native, and mixed-race women: Tukey’s B,

≤ .05.

Estimates for African-American women are significantly higher than those for white women: Tukey’s B,

≤ .05.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five victims.

least in part, an artifact of underreporting. There

may also be significant differences in rates of

intimate partner violence between Asian and

Pacific Islander women that cannot be discerned

from the survey because data on these two

groups are combined. Finally, there may be

significant differences between Asian/Pacific

Islander women born in this country and those

who immigrated. A recent nonrepresentative

study of immigrant Korean women found that

60 percent had been battered by their husbands.

Clearly, more research is recommended on vio-

lence committed by intimates against Asian and

Pacific Islander women.

The survey found little difference in Hispanic

and non-Hispanic women’s reports of intimate

partner physical assault and intimate partner

stalking. However, Hispanic women were sig-

nificantly more likely than non-Hispanic women

to report that they were raped by a current or

former intimate partner at some time in their

lifetime (exhibit 7). These findings are notewor-

thy because previously published NVAW Survey

findings show that Hispanic women report sig-

nificantly less rape victimization than do non-

Hispanic women when all types of perpetrators

are considered.

Future research should focus on

why Hispanic women are less likely to be raped

by a nonintimate but more likely to be raped by

an intimate.

The survey found no significant difference in

reports of intimate partner violence among

Hispanic and non-Hispanic men (exhibit 7).

However, this finding must be viewed with

caution, given the small number of Hispanic

male victims.

Notes

1. Bachman, R., Death and Violence on the Reserva-

tion: Homicide, Family Violence, and Suicide in

American Indian Populations, Westport, Connecti-

cut: Auburn House, 1992.

2. National Research Council, Understanding Vio-

lence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: National

Academy Press, 1996: 40–41.

Exhibit 7. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender,

Type of Victimization, and Hispanic/Non-Hispanic Origin of Victim

Persons Victimized in Lifetime (%)

Victim Gender/Type of Victimization Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

Women (

= 628) (

= 7,317)

Rape

7.9 5.7

Physical assault 21.2 22.1

Stalking 4.8 4.8

Total victimized 23.4 25.6

Men (

= 581) (

= 7,335)

Rape —

0.3

Physical assault 6.5 7.5

Stalking —

0.7

Total victimized 7.4 8.0

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics are statistically significant: χ

≤ .05.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five victims.

4. Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, Prevalence,

Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against

Women: Findings From the National Violence

Against Women Survey, Research in Brief; Washing-

ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National In-

stitute of Justice, 1998, NCJ 172837.

3. Song, Y.I., “Battered Korean Women in Urban

America: The Relationship of Cultural Conflict to

Wife Abuse,” unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Ohio State University, Columbus, 1986.

Research on violence in same-sex relationships

has been limited to studies of small, unrepresen-

tative samples of gay and lesbian couples. Re-

sults from these studies suggest that same-sex

couples are about as violent as heterosexual

couples.

Although the NVAW Survey did not ask respon-

dents about their sexual orientation, it did ask

them whether they had ever lived with a same-

sex partner as part of a couple. As such, it is pos-

sible to compare intimate partner victimization

rates among women and men who have a history

of same-sex cohabitation with women and men

who have a history of marital/opposite-sex

cohabitation only.

The survey found that 1 percent of surveyed

women (n = 79) and 0.8 percent of surveyed men

(n = 65) reported living with a same-sex intimate

partner at least once in their lifetime, and 90 percent

of surveyed women (n = 7,193) and 86 percent

of surveyed men (n = 6,879) reported marrying/

living with an opposite-sex partner but never

with a same-sex partner. For brevity’s sake,

the former will be referred to as same-sex

cohabitants and the latter will be referred to as

opposite-sex cohabitants. It is unknown how

many same-sex or opposite-sex cohabitants

identified themselves as homosexual, bisexual,

or heterosexual at the time of the interview.

Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence

Among Same-Sex Cohabitants

Exhibit 8. Persons Victimized by an Intimate Partner in Lifetime, by Victim Gender,

Type of Victimization, and History of Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Cohabitation

Persons Victimized in Lifetime (%)

History of Same-Sex History of Opposite-Sex

Victim Gender/Type of Victimization Cohabitation

Cohabitation

Women (

= 79) (

= 7,193)

Rape 11.4

4.4

Physical assault

35.4 20.4

Stalking —

4.1

Total victimized

d**

39.2 21.7

Men (

= 65) (

= 6,879)

Rape —

0.2

Physical assault

21.5 7.1

Stalking —

0.5

Total victimized

d**

23.1 7.4

Subsample consists of respondents who have ever lived with a same-sex intimate partner.

Subsample consists of respondents who have ever married and/or lived with an opposite-sex intimate partner but never with a

same-sex intimate partner.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Differences between same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants are statistically significant: χ

≤ .01,

**p

≤ .001.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five individuals.

partner victimization rates among same-sex and

opposite-sex cohabitants by perpetrator gender

produced some interesting findings: 30.4 percent

of same-sex cohabiting women reported being

victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 per-

cent reported being victimized by a female part-

ner. Thus, same-sex cohabiting women were

nearly three times more likely to report being

victimized by a male partner than by a female

partner. Moreover, opposite-sex cohabiting

women were nearly twice as likely to report

being victimized by a male partner than were

same-sex cohabiting women by a female partner

(20.3 percent and 11.4 percent) (exhibit 9).

The survey found that same-sex cohabitants

reported significantly more intimate partner

violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants.

Among women, 39.2 percent of the same-sex

cohabitants and 21.7 percent of the opposite-

sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically

assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting

partner at some time in their lifetime. Among

men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent

and 7.4 percent (exhibit 8).

At first glance, these findings suggest that both

male and female same-sex couples experience

more intimate partner violence than do opposite-

sex couples. However, a comparison of intimate

Exhibit 9. Rate of Intimate Partner Victimization, by Perpetrator Gender, Victim Gender,

and History of Same-Sex/Opposite-Sex Cohabitation

Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Husband/Male Cohabiting Partner

Women Men

Same-sex

cohabitation

(

= 79)

Opposite-sex

cohabitation

(

= 7,193)

Same-sex

cohabitation

(

= 65)

Opposite-sex

cohabitation

(

= 6,879)

Women Men

Same-sex

cohabitation

(

= 79)

Opposite-sex

cohabitation

(

= 7,193)

Same-sex

cohabitation

(

= 65)

Opposite-sex

cohabitation

(

= 6,879)

Persons Victimized in Lifetime by Wife/Female Cohabiting Partner

30.4%

20.3%

15.4%

11.4%

10.8%

7.7%

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

Somewhat different patterns were found for

men. Like their female counterparts, same-sex

cohabiting men were more likely to report being

victimized by a male partner than by a female

partner. Specifically, 15.4 percent of same-sex

cohabiting men reported being raped, physically

assaulted, and/or stalked by a male partner, but

10.8 percent reported such violence by a female

partner. However, same-sex cohabiting men

were nearly twice as likely to report being vic-

timized by a male partner than were opposite-

sex cohabiting men by a female partner (15.4

percent and 7.7 percent). These findings suggest

that intimate partner violence is perpetrated pri-

marily by men, whether against male or female

partners.

Note

1. Brand, P., and A. Kidd, “Frequency of Physical

Aggression in Heterosexual and Female Homosexual

Dyads,” Psychological Reports 59 (1986): 1307–1313;

Lie, G., and S. Gentlewarrior, “Intimate Violence in

Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Find-

ings and Practice Implications,” Journal of Social

Service Research 15 (1991): 41–59; Lockhart, L.,

B. White, V. Causby, and A. Issac, “Letting Out the

Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships,” Journal

of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469–492; Perry,

S., “Lesbian Alcohol and Marijuana Use: Correlates

of HIV Risk Behaviors and Abusive Relationships,”

Journal of Proactive Drugs 27 (1995): 413–419;

Renzetti, C.M., “Violence and Abuse Among

Same-Sex Couples,” in Violence Between Intimate

Partners: Patterns, Causes, and Effects, ed. A.P.

Cardarelli, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997: 70–89;

Schilit, R., G. Lie, and M. Montagne, “Substance

Use as a Correlate of Violence in Intimate Lesbian

Relationships,” Journal of Homosexuality 19 (1990):

51–65; Waldner-Haugrud, L.K., L.V. Gratch, and

B. Magruder, “Victimization and Perpetration Rates

of Violence in Gay and Lesbian Relationships: Gen-

der Issues Explored,” Violence and Victims 12 (2)

(1997): 173–184; Waldner-Haugrud, L.K., and L.V.

Gratch, “Sexual Coercion in Gay/Lesbian Relation-

ships: Descriptives and Gender Differences,” Vio-

lence and Victims 12 (1) (1997): 87–98; Waterman,

C., L. Dawson, and M. Bologna, “Sexual Coercion

in Gay Male and Lesbian Relationships: Predictors

and Implications for Support Services,” Journal of

Sex Research 26 (1989): 118–124.

Risk factors are characteristics associated with

an increased likelihood that a problem behavior

will occur. It is important to note that the pres-

ence of a risk factor does not mean that the be-

havior will necessarily occur, only that the odds

of it occurring are greater.

Numerous studies have examined risk factors

associated with intimate partner violence. Re-

sults from these studies show that unmarried,

cohabiting couples have higher rates of intimate

partner violence than do married couples

; mi-

norities have higher rates of intimate partner

violence than do whites (see note 5 in “Introduc-

tion”); lower income women have higher rates of

intimate partner violence than do higher income

women

; less educated women have higher rates

of intimate partner violence than do more edu-

cated women

; and couples with income, educa-

tional, or occupational status disparities have

higher rates of intimate partner violence than

do couples with no status disparity.

Research

also shows that experiencing and/or witnessing

violence in one’s family of origin increases one’s

chances of being a perpetrator or victim of inti-

mate partner violence.

In addition, research

shows that wife assault is more common in

families where power is concentrated in the

hands of the husband or male partner and the

husband makes most of the decisions regarding

family finances and strictly controls when and

where his wife or female partner goes.

Finally,

research suggests that persons with a disability

are at greater risk of violence,

although there is

no empirical evidence that having a disability

increases one’s risk of intimate partner violence.

To increase understanding of risk factors associ-

ated with intimate partner violence, logistic

regressions were conducted using a backward

stepwise procedure on respondents married or

cohabiting with a partner at the time of the inter-

view to determine what characteristics of the re-

lationship, respondent, or partner differentiated

those who reported being victimized by their

current partner from those who did not. Separate

analyses were conducted for women (n = 4,896)

and men (n = 5,056).

In each of the logistic regressions, the dependent

variable was whether the respondent reported

being raped, physically assaulted, or stalked by

his or her current spouse or cohabiting partner.

The independent variables were as follows:

● Whether the respondent was cohabiting

versus married.

● Whether the respondent was white, African-

American, American Indian/Alaska Native,

Asian/Pacific Islander, or mixed race.

● Whether the respondent was Hispanic.

● Whether the respondent’s race and/or His-

panic origin was different from the partner’s.

● Whether the respondent’s education level was

a high school diploma or less.

● Whether the respondent’s education level was

higher than the partner’s.

● Whether the respondent was physically

assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker.

● Whether the partner was jealous or

possessive.

● Whether the partner denied the respondent

access to family, friends, or family income.

● Whether the partner called the respondent

names or shouted or swore at the respondent

in front of other people.

● Whether the respondent was physically

disabled when the relationship started.

Risk Factors Associated With Intimate

Partner Violence

violence perpetrated against women by male

partners is part of a systematic pattern of domi-

nance and control, or what some researchers

have called “patriarchal terrorism.”

Results of the logistic regressions for both

women and men support the theory that couples

with status disparities experience more intimate

partner violence than do couples with no status

disparities. Women were significantly more

likely to report violence by a current partner

if their education level was greater than their

partner’s, and men were significantly more

likely to report being victimized by their current

partner if their race and/or Hispanic origin was

different from their partner’s (see tables I and II

in sidebar, “Results of the Logistic Regressions”).

Notes

1. Yllo, K., and M. Straus, “Interpersonal Violence

Among Married and Cohabiting Couples,” Family

Relations 30 (1981): 339–347; Stets, J.E., and M.A.

Straus, “The Marriage License as a Hitting License:

A Comparison of Assaults in Dating, Cohabiting,

and Married Couples,” Journal of Family Violence

4 (2) (1989): 161–180; Ellis, L., Theories of Rape:

Inquiries Into the Causes of Sexual Aggression,

New York: Hemisphere Books, 1989.

2. Bachman, R., Violence Against Women: A Na-

tional Crime Victimization Survey Report, Washing-

ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 145325; Bachman, R.,

and L.E. Saltzman, Violence Against Women: Esti-

mates From the Redesigned Survey, Special Report,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bu-

reau of Justice Statistics, 1995, NCJ 154348; Behind

Closed Doors, eds. Straus, M.A., R.J. Gelles, and S.

Steinmetz, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publica-

tions, 1980; Zawit, M.W., Violence Between Inti-

mates, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-

tice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994, NCJ 149259.

3. Ibid., Bachman and Saltzman; ibid., Zawit;

Hornung, C.A., B.C. McCullough, and T. Sugimoto,

“Status Relationships in Marriage, Risk Factors in

Spouse Abuse,” Journal of Marriage and the Family

43 (1981): 675–692.

The logistic regressions were designed to pro-

vide a measure by which the relative importance

of the independent variables could be assessed

and to determine which variables increased the

odds that a woman or man would be victimized

by an intimate partner. Income variables were

not included in the analyses because of the

large number of respondents who refused to

provide information about their or their partner’s

income.

The results of the logistic regression reveal a

strong link between child maltreatment and

subsequent victimization by an intimate partner.

Women and men who were physically assaulted

as children by adult caretakers were signifi-

cantly more likely to report being victimized by

their current partner, even when the effects of

other independent variables were controlled

(see tables I and II in sidebar, “Results of the

Logistic Regressions”). It is possible that per-

sons victimized as children by adult caretakers

were more tolerant of persons who engaged in

violent and threatening behaviors as adults and,

therefore, more likely to get involved with abu-

sive partners. However, it is also possible that

respondents who reported one type of victimiza-

tion (e.g., child maltreatment) were simply more

willing to report other types of victimization

(e.g., intimate partner violence). Clearly, more

research is recommended on the possible link

between childhood victimization and intimate

partner victimization.

Results of the logistic regression for women,

but not men, support previous research that

shows unmarried couples are at greater risk of

intimate partner violence than married couples,

and African-American couples are at greater

risk than white couples. They also show a

strong link between violence and emotionally

abusive and controlling behavior in intimate

relationships. Indeed, having a verbally abusive

partner was associated with the largest change

in the odds that a woman would be victimized

by an intimate partner (see table I in sidebar,

“Results of the Logistic Regressions”). These

findings support the theory that much of the

Results of the Logistic Regressions

I. Best Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of

Intimate Partner Violence for Women

Variable

S.E. Exp(

)

-value

Respondent was cohabiting 0.5562 0.24 1.7441 0.018

Respondent was white –0.4171 0.17 0.6590 0.021

Respondent was African-American 0.2988 0.24 1.3483 0.014

Respondent was Asian/Pacific Islander –0.2048 0.40 0.8148 0.208

Respondent was American Indian/Alaska Native 0.3854 0.43 1.4702 0.609

Respondent’s education level was higher than

partner’s 0.3400 0.14 1.4049 0.019

Respondent was physically assaulted as a child

by a caretaker 0.9546 0.14 2.5976 0.000

Partner was jealous or possessive 0.9597 0.16 2.6109 0.000

Partner was denied access to family, friends,

or income 0.4466 0.21 1.5630 0.031

Partner was verbally abusive 2.0324 0.15 7.6325 0.000

Constant –4.4202 0.30

II. Best Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of Intimate Partner

Violence for Men

Variable

S.E. Exp(

)

-value

Respondent was cohabiting –0.4307 0.25 0.6501 0.085

Respondent’s race/Hispanic origin was different

from partner’s 0.6697 0.22 1.9537 0.002

Respondent was physically assaulted as a child

by a caretaker 1.1356 0.21 3.1131 0.000

Constant –4.0239 0.29

III.Best Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of Injury for Female

Intimate Partner Rape Victims*

Variable

S.E. Exp(

)

-value

Victim was Hispanic 1.4219 0.66 4.1449 0.031

Victim was 18–25 years old 0.7486 0.41 2.1140 0.070

Perpetrator threatened to harm or kill 1.2620 0.26 3.5324 0.000

Perpetrator used a weapon 0.9467 0.50 2.5773 0.057

Perpetrator was using drugs or alcohol 0.4395 0.27 1.5519 0.010

Perpetrator was a spouse 0.5286 0.26 1.6966 0.041

Perpetrator was a cohabiting partner –0.7862 0.20 0.4556 0.000

Constant –1.3332 0.26

(continued)

4. Ibid., Hornung, McCullough, and Sugimoto.

5. Hotaling, G.T., and D.B. Sugarman, “An Analysis

of Risk Markers in Husband-to-Wife Violence,”

Journal of Family Violence 5 (1990): 1–13;

Kaufman, K.G., J.L. Jasinski, and E. Aldarondo,

“Sociocultural Status and Incidence of Marital

Violence in Hispanic Families,” Violence and

Victims 9 (3) (1994): 207–222.

6. Frieze, I., and A. Browne, “Violence in Marriage,”

in Family Violence, eds. L. Ohlin and M. Tonry,

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989: 163–

218; Levinson, D., Violence in Cross-Cultural

Perspective, Newbury Park, California: Sage

Publications, 1989.

7. Sobsey, D., Violence and Abuse in the Lives of

People With Disabilities: The End of Silent Accep-

tance? Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing

Company, 1994; Sobsey, D., and C. Varnhagen,

“Sexual Abuse, Assault, and Exploitation of Indi-

viduals With Disabilities,” Child Sexual Abuse:

Critical Perspectives on Prevention, Intervention,

and Treatment, eds. C. Gagley and R.J. Thomlinson,

Toronto: Wall and Emerson, 1991: 203–216.

8. Johnson, M.P., “Patriarchal Terrorism and Com-

mon Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence

Against Women,” Journal of Marriage and the

Family 57 (1995): 283–294.

(continued)

IV. Best Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of Injury for Female

Victims of Intimate Partner Physical Assault*

Variable

S.E. Exp(

)

-value

Perpetrator threatened to harm or kill 0.9683 0.13 2.6335 0.000

Perpetrator was using drugs or alcohol 0.5225 0.12 1.6863 0.000

Constant –9.749 0.10

V. Best Model of the Relationship Between Independent Variables and Risk of Injury for Male

Victims of Intimate Partner Physical Assault*

Variable

S.E. Exp(

)

-value

Perpetrator threatened to harm or kill 0.7987 0.28 2.2226 0.005

Perpetrator used a weapon 0.6341 0.31 1.8865 0.0438

Constant –1.7944 0.15

Note: Several statistics are presented in tables I–V. The logistic coefficients (

) and their standard errors (S.E.) can be interpreted

as the change associated with a unit change in the explanatory variable when all other variables in the model are held constant.

The regression coefficients can be more easily understood if quoted as an odds ratio. The odds ratio [Exp(

)] provides the ratio of

the odds of the

(the probability of an event happening) in the group responding

yes

to the explanatory variable relative to the

group responding

to the explanatory variable while all other variables are held constant. For example, an odds ratio of 1

indicates changes in the explanatory variable do not lead to changes in the odds of

; a ratio of less than 1 indicates the odds of

decrease as

increases; and a ratio of greater than 1 indicates the odds of

increase as

increases. Variables are considered

significant if they have a

-value of ≤.05.

*These findings are discussed in “Rate of Injury Among Victims of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault.”

Point in Relationship When Violence Occurs

It is a common belief that the termination of a

relationship poses an increased risk for, or esca-

lation of, intimate partner violence. This as-

sumption is based on two types of evidence:

Divorced or separated women report more inti-

mate partner violence than do married women.

Also, interviews with men who have killed their

wives indicate that either threats of separation by

their partner or actual separation are most often

the precipitating events that lead to the murder.

The NVAW Survey found that married women

who lived apart from their husbands were nearly

four times more likely to report that their hus-

bands had raped, physically assaulted, and/or

stalked them than were women who lived with

their husbands (20 percent and 5.4 percent).

Similarly, married men who lived apart from

their wives were nearly three times more likely

to report that their wives had victimized them

than were men who lived with their wives (7.0

percent and 2.4 percent). These findings suggest

that termination of a relationship poses an in-

creased risk of intimate partner violence for both

women and men. However, it should be noted

that the survey data do not indicate whether the

violence happened before, after, or at the time

the couple separated. Thus, it is unclear whether

the separation triggered the violence or the vio-

lence triggered the separation.

To test the assumption that the termination of

a relationship leads to an increased risk of inti-

mate partner violence, the NVAW Survey asked

women victimized by a former spouse or cohab-

iting partner whether their victimization oc-

curred before, after, or both before and after the

relationship ended. Only 6.3 percent of the rape

victims and 4.2 percent of the physical assault

victims said their victimization started after the

relationship ended (exhibit 10). These findings

suggest most rapes and physical assaults perpe-

trated against women by intimates occur in the

context of an ongoing rather than terminated

Exhibit 10. Distribution of Female Victims of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and

Stalking, by Point in Relationship When the Violence Occurred

Rape victims

(

= 288)

Physical assault

victims

(

= 1,061)

Stalking victims

(

= 263)

69.1%

24.7%

6.3%

18.2%

36.4%

20.8%

42.8%

4.2%

77.6%

Before relationship ended

Both before and after relationship ended

After relationship ended

Note: Estimates are based on responses from women who were victimized by a former spouse or cohabiting partner since age 18.

relationship. In comparison, 42.8 percent of

the stalking victims said their victimization

started after the relationship ended. Thus, stalk-

ing is more likely to occur in the context of a

terminated relationship than is rape or physical

assault.

It is not possible to ascertain from the data

whether violence occurring before the relation-

ship ended was linked to threats about leaving

the relationship. It is also unclear whether

women who said they were victimized before

and after the relationship ended experienced

more severe violence at the time of separation.

Finally, it is important to note that when a rela-

tionship ends is a matter of interpretation rather

than objective reality. Some women may have

equated the end of the relationship with when

they or their partner first started talking about

leaving the relationship, whereas others may

have equated it with the formal dissolution of

a marriage. Clearly, more research is needed on

how terminating a relationship increases the risk

of intimate partner violence for women and men.

Notes

1. Klaus, P., and M. Rand, Family Violence, Special

Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Jus-

tice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1984, NCJ 093449;

Stark, E., and A. Flitcraft, “Violence Among Inti-

mates: An Epidemiological Review,” in Handbook

of Family Violence, ed. V.B. Van Hasselt, New York:

Plenum Press, 1988: 307–308; Zawit, M.W., Vio-

lence Between Intimates, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1994, NCJ 149259.

2. Bernard, M.L., and J.L. Bernard, “Violent Intimacy:

The Family as a Model for Love Relationships,” Fam-

ily Relations 32 (1983): 283–286; Daly, M., and M.

Wilson, “Evolutionary Social Psychology and Fam-

ily Homicide,” Science 242 (1988): 519–524.

Frequency and Duration of Intimate Partner

Rape and Physical Assault

Results from the NVAW Survey confirm previous

reports that much of the violence perpetrated

against women by intimates is chronic in nature.

Approximately half (51.2 percent) of the women

raped by an intimate and two-thirds (65.5 percent)

of the women physically assaulted by an intimate

said they were victimized multiple times by the

same partner. (Stalking victims were not asked

how many times they were stalked by the same

partner because stalking by definition means re-

peated acts of threat and harassment.) Overall, fe-

male rape victims averaged 4.5 rapes by the same

partner, and female physical assault victims aver-

aged 6.9 assaults. Among women who were vic-

timized multiple times by the same partner, 62.6

percent of the rape victims and 69.5 percent of the

assault victims said their victimization lasted

a year or more. On average, women who were

raped multiple times said their victimization

occurred over 3.8 years, and women who were

physically assaulted multiple times said their vic-

timization occurred over 4.5 years (exhibit 11).

The survey also found that much of the violence

perpetrated against men by intimates is chronic

in nature. Two-thirds (66.2 percent) of the physi-

cally assaulted men said they were assaulted

more than once by the same intimate partner.

Of these, 66.2 percent said their victimization

lasted a year or more. On average, male victims

of intimate partner physical assault reported 4.4

assaults by the same partner. On average, men

Exhibit 11. Distribution of Rape and Physical Assault Victims, by Frequency and

Duration of Victimization and Gender

Rape Physical Assault

Victims (%) Victims (%)

Frequency/Duration of Victimization Women Women Men

Number of times victimized by the same partner (

= 373) (

= 1,229) (

= 517)

1 48.8 34.5 33.8

2–9 36.0 45.7 55.6

10 or more 15.2 19.8 10.6

Average number of times victimized

4.5 (0.4) 6.9

(0.4) 4.4 (0.3)

Number of years victimized by the same partner

(

= 187) (

= 794) (

= 337)

Less than 1 37.4 30.5 33.8

1–5 39.5 42.9 43.7

More than 5 23.1 26.6 22.5

Average number of years victimized

3.8 (0.4) 4.5

(0.2) 3.6 (0.3)

Estimates are based on responses from women and men victimized by an intimate since age 18. Estimates not calculated for

male rape victims because there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.

Numbers in parentheses are standard errors of the mean.

Differences between women and men are statistically different: Student’s t.

Estimates are based on responses from women and men assaulted multiple times by the same intimate.

(Estimates were not calculated for male rape

victims because there were fewer than five

victims when stratified by variables.)

Note

1. Langen, P.A., and C.A. Innes, Preventing Domes-

tic Violence Against Women, Special Report, Wash-

ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1986, NCJ 102037.

reporting multiple assaults said their victimiza-

tion lasted 3.6 years (exhibit 11). Although much

of the physical assault perpetrated against men

by intimates is chronic, it is important to note

that both the average frequency and the average

duration of physical assaults perpetrated against

women by intimates are significantly higher than

the average frequency/duration of physical as-

saults perpetrated against men by intimates.

Rate of Injury Among Victims of Intimate

Partner Rape and Physical Assault

To generate information on the extent and nature

of injuries associated with violent victimization,

respondents disclosing rape and physical assault

were asked whether they were injured during

their most recent victimization and, if so, the

types of injuries they sustained. (Respondents

disclosing stalking victimization were not asked

these questions because the definition of stalking

used in the survey does not include behaviors

that inflict physical harm.)

Exhibit 12. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault Victims,

by Injury, Type of Medical Care Received, and Gender

Rape Victims (%) Physical Assault Victims (%)

Injury/Medical Care Women Women Men

Was victim injured? (

= 439) (

= 1,451) (

= 542)

Yes 36.2 41.5

19.9

No 63.8 58.5 80.1

Did injured victim receive medical care?

(

= 158) (

= 598) (

= 107)

Yes 31.0 28.1 21.5

No 69.0 71.9 78.5

Type of medical care received

(

= 49) (

= 168) (

= 23)

Hospital 79.6 78.6 82.6

Physician 59.2 51.8 43.5

Dental 18.4

9.5 —

Ambulance/paramedic 20.4 14.9 —

Physical therapy 22.4 8.9 —

Type of hospital care received

(

= 39) (

= 132) (

= 19)

Emergency room 51.3 59.1 63.2

Outpatient 30.8 24.2 —

Overnight 17.9

16.7 —

Note: Total percentages for type of medical and hospital care received exceed 100 percent because some victims had multiple

forms of medical/hospital care.

Estimates are based on the most recent intimate partner rape/physical assault since age 18. Estimates were not calculated for

male rape victims because there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.

Differences between women and men are statistically significant: χ

≤ .001.

Estimates are based on responses from injured victims.

Estimates are based on responses from victims who received medical care.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

Estimates were not calculated on fewer than five individuals.

Estimates are based on responses from victims who received hospital care.

The survey found that 36.2 percent of the women

raped by an intimate since age 18 sustained an

injury other than the rape itself during their most

recent victimization. (Estimates were not calcu-

lated for male rape victims because there were

fewer than five victims when stratified by vari-

ables.) The survey also found that women physi-

cally assaulted by an intimate were more than

twice as likely as their male counterparts (41.5

percent and 19.9 percent, respectively) to be

joints, head or spinal cord injuries, chipped or

broken teeth, or internal injuries (exhibit 13).

Risk factors associated with injury

Logistic regression was used to determine what

characteristics of the victim, perpetrator, and

incident may increase the risk of injury during

intimate partner rapes and physical assaults.

Separate regressions, using a backward stepwise

procedure, were conducted for female victims of

intimate partner rape (n = 374), female victims

of intimate partner physical assault (n = 1,254),

and male victims of intimate partner physical

assault (n = 479).

In each of the regressions, the dependent vari-

able was whether the victim was injured during

her or his most recent victimization by an

intimate. The independent variables were as

follows:

● Whether the perpetrator was a spouse, cohab-

iting partner, or date.

injured during their most recent victimization (ex-

hibit 12). This finding supports previous research

that shows women are more likely than men to be

injured during an assault by an intimate.

Injury estimates for female victims of intimate

partner violence generated by the NVAW Survey

are somewhat lower than injury estimates gener-

ated by the NCVS. A recent study conducted by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 51 percent

of the assaults perpetrated against women by intimates

during 1992–96 resulted in some type of injury to

the victim.

The higher rate of injury uncovered by

the NCVS suggests that the context in which that

study is administered and the type of screening

questions used leads respondents to report more

serious types of assaults to interviewers.

Most of the women who were injured during their

most recent intimate partner rape or physical as-

sault sustained relatively minor injuries, such as

scratches, bruises, and welts. Relatively few

women sustained more serious types of injuries,

such as lacerations, broken bones, dislocated

Exhibit 13. Distribution of Injured Rape and Physical Assault Victims,

by Type of Injury Sustained: Women Only

0 1020304050607080

Scratch, bruise, welt

Laceration, knife wound

Broken bone, dislocated joint

Head and spinal cord injury

Sore muscle, sprain, strain

Internal injury

Broken tooth

Burn

Knocked unconscious

Rape victims (

= 159)

Physical assault victims (

= 602)

Estimates are based on the most recent intimate partner victimization since age 18.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five individuals.

72.3

76.1

15.1

8.8

5.7

11.3

6.9

8.8

6.5

3.8

5.7

3.8

0.8

1.3

0.8

0.0

● Whether the victim was white, African-

American, American Indian/Alaska Native,

Asian/Pacific Islander, or mixed race.

● Whether the victim was Hispanic.

● Whether the victim was 18 to 25 years of age.

● Whether the incident occurred in the victim’s

or perpetrator’s home.

● Whether the perpetrator threatened to harm or

kill the victim or someone close to the victim.

● Whether the perpetrator used a weapon.

● Whether the victim was using drugs or

alcohol at the time of the incident.

● Whether the perpetrator was using drugs or

alcohol at the time of the incident.

Results of the logistic regression show that

women raped by an intimate partner were signifi-

cantly more likely to be injured if they were

Hispanic, if their perpetrator was a spouse or

cohabiting partner (rather than a date), if their

perpetrator threatened to harm or kill them or

someone close to them, and if their perpetrator

was using drugs or alcohol at the time of the

incident (see table III in sidebar, “Results of the

Logistic Regressions” in “Risk Factors Associated

With Intimate Partner Violence”).

In comparison, women who were physically as-

saulted by an intimate partner were significantly

more likely to be injured if their perpetrator threat-

ened to harm or kill them or someone close to them

and if the perpetrator was using drugs or alcohol at

the time of the incident (see table IV in sidebar,

“Results of the Logistic Regressions” in “Risk Fac-

tors Associated With Intimate Partner Violence”).

Finally, results of the logistic regression show that

men who were physically assaulted by an intimate

partner were significantly more likely to be injured

if their perpetrator threatened to harm or kill them

or someone close to them and if their perpetrator

used a weapon (see table V in sidebar, “Results of

the Logistic Regressions” in “Risk Factors Associ-

ated With Intimate Partner Violence”).

Results of the logistic regressions show a strong

link between threats of bodily injury and actual

occurrences of injury. These findings imply that

threats of violence should be taken seriously,

and violence prevention strategies should em-

phasize this fact. Results also show a strong link

between drug and alcohol use on the part of the

perpetrator and victim injury. These findings

suggest that some of the inhibitors that may

prevent persons from hurting others under ordi-

nary circumstances are relaxed when persons

are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Notes

1. Brush, L.D., “Violent Acts and Injurious Out-

comes in Married Couples: Methodological Issues

in the National Survey of Family and Households,”

Gender and Society 4 (1) (1990): 56–67; Kurz, D.,

“Interventions With Battered Women in Health Care

Settings,” Violence and Victims, 5 (1990): 243–256;

Langen, P.A., and C.A. Innes, Preventing Domestic

Violence Against Women, Special Report, Washing-

ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1986, NCJ 102037; McLeer, S.R.,

and R. Anwar, “A Study of Battered Women Presenting

in Emergency Departments,” American Journal of

Public Health 79 (1989): 65–66; Morse, B., “Beyond

the Conflict Tactics Scale: Assessing Gender Differ-

ences in Partner Violence,” Violence and Victims 10

(4) (1995): 251–272; Schwartz, M.D., “Gender and

Injury in Spousal Assault,” Sociological Focus 20

(1987): 61–75; Stark, E., A. Flitcraft, and W. Frazier,

“Medicine and Patriarchal Violence: The Social Con-

struction of a ‘Private’ Event,” International Journal

of Health Services 9 (1979): 461–493.

2. Greenfeld, L., M.R. Rand, D. Craven, P.A. Klaus,

C.A. Perkins, C. Ringel, G. Warchol, C. Matson, and

J.A. Fox, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on

Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends,

and Girlfriends, Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau

of Justice Statistics, 1998, NCJ 167237.

Victims’ Use of Medical Services

Approximately one-third (31 percent) of the

women injured during their most recent intimate

partner rape received some type of medical care

(e.g., ambulance/paramedic services, care in a

hospital emergency facility, physical therapy).

Somewhat fewer women and men who were

injured during their most recent physical assault

received some type of medical care (28.1 percent

and 21.5 percent, respectively) (exhibit 12). Injured

women and men had similar rates and types of

medical care. This indicates that injuries sustained

by women and men were similar in severity.

Some victims received more than one type of

medical care (e.g., hospitalization as well as

outpatient physical therapy), whereas others re-

ceived a specific type of medical care more than

once (e.g., 13 physical therapy sessions). Thus,

the annual number of medical treatments pro-

vided to intimate partner rape and physical

assault victims exceeds the annual number of

intimate partner victimizations that resulted in

treatment.

Estimates of medical services utilization

Exhibit 14 provides estimates of the average

number of nights spent in the hospital and the

average number of visits made to specific medi-

cal providers by adult victims of intimate partner

rape and physical assault. These estimates are

based on responses from victims who received

the specific type of medical care considered. For

example, the estimate of the average number of

nights spent in the hospital by female intimate

partner rape victims (3.9) is based only on re-

sponses by female intimate partner rape victims

treated in a hospital on an inpatient basis. Some

of the average frequency estimates are based on

a very small number of responses and, therefore,

have a relatively high margin of error (see foot-

notes c through f in exhibit 14).

Exhibit 14. Average Number of Medical Care Visits for Intimate Partner Rape

and Physical Assault Victims, by Type of Medical Care and Gender

Rape Victims Physical Assault Victims

Type of Medical Care Women

Women

Men

Emergency room visit 1.9 1.9 1.1

Outpatient visit 1.6 3.1 —

Overnight in hospital 3.9

5.7 —

Physician visit 5.2 3.2 2.0

Dental visit 2.3 4.4 —

Ambulance/paramedic visit 1.3 1.1 —

Physical therapy visit 13.4

21.1

—

Note: Estimates are based on responses from victims who received the specific type of medical treatment considered.

Estimates are based on the most recent intimate partner rape/physical assault since age 18. Estimates not calculated for

male rapevictims because there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.

The standard error of the mean for each estimate in this column is 0.5, 0.3, 1.3, 1.2, 0.4, 0.2, and 5.1, respectively.

The standard error of the mean for each estimate in this column is 0.3, 0.7, 1.7, 0.5, 1.3, 0.1, and 8.7, respectively.

The standard error of the mean for each estimate in this column is 0.1, —

, —

, 0.3, —

, —

, and —

, respectively.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five individuals.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent.

Exhibit 15 presents estimates of the number of

intimate partner rapes and physical assaults re-

sulting in injuries annually, as well as estimates

of the specific types of medical care provided

for these rapes and physical assaults annually.

The first row of estimates is based on reported

incidents of intimate partner violence in the past

12 months (see exhibit 2). The remaining esti-

mates are based on the most recent intimate part-

ner victimization since age 18 (see exhibits 12

and 14). As these estimates show, women and

men made 557,929 visits to hospital emergency

rooms for injuries sustained during rapes and

physical assaults perpetrated by intimate part-

ners in the year preceding the survey. Fully 87

percent (486,151) of these visits were made by

women. These findings support results from pre-

vious studies that show a significant number of

women who have experienced intimate partner

violence are seen in hospital emergency rooms.

The NVAW Survey estimate of women and men

treated by hospital emergency department per-

sonnel is substantially higher than an estimate

generated from the Study of Injured Victims of

Violence (SIVV), a hospital record-extraction

study conducted for the Bureau of Justice Statis-

tics by the Consumer Product Safety Commis-

sion. The SIVV found that, during 1994, hospi-

tal emergency department personnel treated an

estimated 243,400 women and men for injuries

sustained at the hands of spouses, ex-spouses,

Exhibit 15. Average Annual Injury and Medical Utilization Estimates for Adult Victims

of Intimate Partner Rape and Physical Assault, by Gender

Estimated Number of Victimizations

and Visits per Year

Rape Victims

Physical Assault Victims

Women Women Men

Victimization 322,230 4,450,807 2,921,562

Victimization resulting in injury 116,647 1,847,085 581,391

Victimization resulting in medical care 36,161 519,031 124,999

Victimization resulting in:

Hospital care 28,784 407,958 103,249

Physician care 21,407 268,858 54,375

Dental care 6,654 49,308 —

Ambulance/paramedic care 7,377 77,336 —

Physical therapy 8,100 46,194 —

Victimization resulting in hospital:

Emergency room care 14,766 241,103 65,253

Outpatient care 8,865 98,726 —

Overnight care 5,152 68,129 —

Total number of:

Emergency room visits 28,055 458,096 71,778

Outpatient visits 14,184 306,051 —

Overnights in hospital 20,093 388,335 —

Physician visits 111,316 860,346 108,750

Dental visits 15,304 216,955 —

Ambulance/paramedic visits 9,590 85,070 —

Physical therapy visits 108,540 974,693 —

All relative standard errors in this column exceed 30 percent.

Estimates not calculated on fewer than five individuals.

boyfriends, and girlfriends.

Included in the

SIVV estimate (but excluded from the NVAW

Survey estimate) is hospital emergency depart-

ment care to child and adolescent victims of

intimate partner violence, male victims of inti-

mate partner rape, and male and female victims

of intimate partner sexual assault and robbery.

Because these groups were excluded from the

NVAW Survey estimates, differences between

the two studies’ estimates are even larger than

they appear. However, the SIVV could not

identify the patient/offender relationship in 28.8

percent (407,600) of the hospital emergency

department visits identified by the study. If just

half of these visits were to victims of intimate

partner violence, NVAW Survey and SIVV

estimates would be more similar.

Notes

1. Abbott, J., R. Johnson, J. Koziol-McLain, and S.R.

Lowenstein, “Domestic Violence Against Women:

Incidence and Prevalence in an Emergency Depart-

ment,” Journal of the American Medical Association

273 (1995): 1763–1767; Dearwater, S.R., J.H. Coben,

J.C. Campbell, G. Nash, N. Glass, E. McLoughlin, and

B. Bekemeier, “Prevalence of Intimate Partner Abuse

in Women Treated at Community Hospital Emergency

Departments,” Journal of the American Medical Asso-

ciation 280 (5) (1998): 433–438; McLeer, S.R., and

R. Anwar, “A Study of Battered Women Presenting in

Emergency Departments,” American Journal of Public

Health 79 (1989): 65–66.

2. Rand, M.R., Violence-Related Injuries Treated in

Hospital Emergency Departments, Special Report,

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997, NCJ 156921.

Victims’ Involvement With the Justice System

Reporting to the police

Less than one-fifth (17.2 percent) of the women

raped by an intimate said their most recent rape

was reported to the police. Thus, of the esti-

mated 322,230 intimate partner rapes perpe-

trated against U.S. women in the 12 months

preceding the survey, only 55,424 were reported

to law enforcement. (The 322,230 estimate is

based on responses from 16 women and should

therefore be viewed with caution.) The vast ma-

jority of the reported rapes were reported within

24 hours. Most of the reports were made by the

victim, rather than a friend, relative, or other

third party (exhibit 16).

The survey found that women who were physi-

cally assaulted by an intimate were significantly

more likely than their male counterparts to report

their victimization to the police (26.7 percent and

Exhibit 16. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking

Victims, by Law Enforcement Outcomes and Gender

Rape Physical Assault Stalking

Victims (%) Victims (%) Victims (%)

Law Enforcement Outcome Women Women Men Women Men

Victimization reported to police (

= 441) (

= 1,149) (

= 541) (

= 343) (

= 47)

Reported 17.2 26.7

13.5 51.9

36.2

Not reported 82.8 73.3 86.5 48.1 63.8

Timing of report (

= 75) (

= 370) (

= 73) (

= 174) (

= 15)

Within 24 hours 92.0 94.0 91.7 78.7 80.0

After 24 hours 8.0

6.0 8.3

21.3 —

Reporter identity

(

= 75) (

= 370) (

= 73) (

= 179) (

= 16)

Victim 78.7 78.4

65.3 92.2 87.5

Other person 21.3 21.6 34.7 7.8

—

Police response

e, f

(

= 75) (

= 370) (

= 73) (

= 178) (

= 17)

Took report 77.6 76.2

64.4 67.4 64.7

Arrested or detained attacker 47.4 36.4

12.3 28.7 —

Referred victim to prosecutor or court 10.5

33.9 23.3 28.1 —

Referred victim to services —

25.1 17.8 21.3 —

Gave victim advice on self-protective

measures —

26.1 17.8 23.1 35.3

Did nothing —

11.1

19.2 18.5 —

Estimates are based on the most recent intimate partner victimization since age 18. Estimates not calculated for male rape

victims because there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.

Differences between women and men are statistically significant: χ

≤ .05.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Estimates not calculated for fewer than five victims.

Estimates are based on responses from victims whose victimization was reported to the police.

Estimates exceed 100 percent because some victims reported multiple police responses.

13.5 percent, respectively). Similarly, female

victims of intimate partner stalking were signifi-

cantly more likely than their male counterparts to

report their victimization to the police (51.9 per-

cent and 36.2 percent, respectively) (exhibit 16).

As with reports of intimate partner rape, most of

the physical assault and stalking reports were

made within 24 hours of the incident, and most

were made by the victim.

Police response to reports of intimate

partner violence

Survey findings confirm that the majority of

reports of intimate partner violence made to the

police result in an officer taking a statement,

that is, conducting a face-to-face interview with

the victim (exhibit 16). The survey found no evi-

dence that police respond differently to women

than men stalked by an intimate. However, there

is some evidence that police respond differently

to women than men who are physically assaulted

by an intimate. A comparison of police responses

to reports of physical assault committed against

women and men by intimates showed that police

were significantly more likely to take a report

and to arrest or detain the perpetrator if the victim

was female (exhibit 16). Although it is unclear

from the survey data why police respond differently

to reports of physical assaults involving female

than male victims, it is possible they do so be-

cause physical assaults committed against women

tend to be more chronic and more injurious. (See

“Frequency and Duration of Intimate Partner

Rape and Physical Assaults” and “Rate of Injury

Among Victims of Intimate Partner Rape and

Physical Assault.”)

Exhibit 17. Distribution of Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking Victims Who Did Not Report

Their Victimization to the Police, by Reasons for Not Reporting and Gender

Rape Physical Assault Stalking

Victims (%) Victims (%) Victims (%)

Women Women Men Women Men

Reason for Not Reporting

(

= 311) (

= 2,062) (

= 468) (

= 165) (

= 30)

Police couldn’t do anything 13.2 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0

Police wouldn’t believe me 7.1 61.3

c***

45.1 98.2 93.3

Fear of perpetrator 21.2 11.7

1.9

38.2

c**

16.7

Minor, one-time incident 20.3 37.9

c***

58.5 33.9 36.7

Ashamed, wanted to keep incident

private 16.1 10.4

c**

7.1 61.8 76.7

Wanted to handle it myself 7.7 7.3 5.8 7.9 —

Victim or attacker moved away —

2.4 —

12.1 —

Attacker was a police officer —

4.7 3.8 7.9 —

Too young, a child 3.5 2.2 1.5

—

Reported to the military or

someone else —

0.8

—

Didn’t want police, court involvement 5.8 32.0

c**

24.6 35.2 40.0

Wanted to protect attacker,

relationship, or children 8.7 34.8

c**

29.5 45.5 43.3

Estimates are based on the most recent intimate partner victimization since age 18. Estimates not calculated for male rape

victims because there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.

Estimates exceed 100 percent because some victims gave multiple responses.

Differences between women and men are statistically significant: χ

***p

≤ .001,

**p

≤ .05.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Estimates not calculated for fewer than five victims.

Reasons for not reporting victimization

to the police

When asked why they chose not to report their

victimization to the police, approximately one-

fifth (21.2 percent) of the female rape victims

said they were afraid their attacker would retali-

ate, and one-fifth (20.3 percent) said the rape

was a one-time or minor incident. In addition,

16 percent reported they were too ashamed or

wanted to keep the incident private, and 13

percent said the police could not do anything

(exhibit 17).

When asked why they chose not to report their

victimization to the police, nearly all of the

physical assault victims said they did not think

the police could do anything about their victim-

ization, whereas 61.5 percent of the women and

45 percent of the men said the police would not

have believed them. In addition, approximately

one-third of the women and one-quarter of the

men said they did not want the police or courts

involved (exhibit 17). These findings suggest

that many victims of intimate partner violence—

men and women alike—do not consider the jus-

tice system a viable or appropriate intervention

at the time of their victimization.

Note that significantly more women than men

chose not to report their physical assault to the

police because they were afraid of their attacker,

whereas significantly more men than women

chose not to report their physical assault to the

police because they considered it a minor or

one-time incident. These findings underscore the

fact that violence committed against women by

intimates tends to be more threatening and se-

vere than violence committed against men by

intimates.

The survey found no significant differences

between women’s and men’s reasons for not re-

porting their stalking to the police. However, these

findings should be viewed with caution given

the small number of male victims (exhibit 17).

Exhibit 18. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and

Stalking Victims, by Prosecution Outcomes and Gender

Rape Physical Assault Stalking

Victims (%) Victims (%) Victims (%)

Prosecution Outcome Women Women Men Women Men

Perpetrator was prosecuted (

= 439) (

= 1,436) (

= 544) (

= 336) (

= 47)

Yes 7.5 7.3 1.1

14.6 —

No 92.5 92.7 98.9 85.4 93.6

Perpetrator was convicted

(

= 31) (

= 96) (

< 5) (

= 40) (

< 5)

Yes 41.9 47.9 —

40.0 —

No 58.1 52.1 —

60.0 —

Perpetrator was sentenced to jail

or prison

(

= 13) (

= 45) (

< 5) (

= 16) (

< 5)

Yes 69.2 35.6 —

56.3 —

No —

64.4 —

47.1 —

Estimates are based on the most recent intimate partner victimization since age 18. Estimates not calculated for male rape

victims because there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Estimates not calculated for fewer than five victims.

Estimates are based on responses from victims whose perpetrator was prosecuted.

Estimates are based on responses from victims whose perpetrator was convicted.

Criminal prosecution

Information from the NVAW Survey shows that

violence perpetrated against women by intimates

is rarely prosecuted. Only 7.5 percent of the

women who were raped by an intimate, 7.3

percent of the women who were physically as-

saulted by an intimate, and 14.6 percent of the

women who were stalked by an intimate said

their attacker was criminally prosecuted (exhibit

18). These figures increase to 31.1 percent,

24.7 percent, and 25.4 percent, respectively (not

shown in exhibit 18), when only victims whose

stalking was reported to the police are consid-

ered. According to women’s perceptions of the

outcome of the prosecution, less than one-half

of the intimate partner perpetrators who had

criminal charges filed against them were

convicted of a crime (exhibit 18).

The number of victims (n < 5) was insufficient

to reliably calculate prosecution estimates for

male victims of intimate partner rape or stalking.

However, prosecution estimates for male victims

of physical assault show that violence commit-

ted against men by intimates is even less likely

to be criminally prosecuted than violence com-

mitted against women by intimates. Only 1.1

percent of the men who were physically as-

saulted by an intimate since the age of 18 said

their attacker was criminally prosecuted (exhibit

18). This figure increases to 4.1 percent when

only victims whose physical assault was

reported to the police are considered.

Temporary restraining orders

The survey found that female victims of intimate

partner violence were significantly more likely

than their male counterparts to obtain a protec-

tive or restraining order against their assailant.

Specifically, 17.1 percent of the women but only

3.5 percent of the men who were physically

assaulted by an intimate obtained a restraining

order against their assailant after their most

recent victimization. Similarly, 36.6 percent

of the women but only 17 percent of the men

who were stalked by an intimate obtained a re-

straining order against their assailant (exhibit

19). These findings suggest that women are

more frightened by intimates who victimize

them. They also underscore the fact that violence

committed against women by intimates is more

chronic and severe than violence committed

against men by intimates.

Exhibit 19. Distribution of Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking

Victims, by Protective Order Outcomes and Gender

Rape Physical Assault Stalking

Victims (%) Victims (%) Victims (%)

Protective Order Outcome Women Women Men Women Men

Victim obtained a temporary (

= 433) (

= 1,420) (

= 544) (

= 333) (

= 47)

restraining order (TRO)

Yes 16.4 17.1

3.5 36.6 17.0

No 83.6 82.9 96.5 63.4 83.0

TRO was violated

(

= 71) (

= 239) (

= 19) (

= 122) (

= 8)

Yes 67.6 50.6 68.4 69.7 87.5

No 32.4 49.4 31.6

30.3 —

Estimates are based on the most recent intimate partner victimization since age 18. Estimates not calculated for male rape

victims because there were fewer than five victims when stratified by variables.

Differences between women and men are statistically significant: χ

≤ .001.

Relative standard error exceeds 30 percent; statistical tests not performed.

Estimates are based on responses from victims who obtained a TRO.

Estimates not calculated for fewer than five victims.

The survey also found that women who were

stalked by an intimate were significantly more

likely to obtain a restraining order against their

assailant than were women who were physically

assaulted or raped by an intimate. Similarly,

men who were stalked by an intimate were sig-

nificantly more likely to obtain a restraining

order than were men who were physically as-

saulted. A recent study by the American Bar

Association may help explain these findings.

The study found that victims of violence rarely

seek restraining orders as a form of early inter-

vention but rather as an act of desperation after

they have experienced extensive problems.

Because stalking by definition involves repeated

acts of harassment and threats, stalking victims

were more likely than rape or physical assault

victims to have experienced extensive problems

and to have felt a sense of desperation.

Information from the survey confirms previous

reports that most temporary restraining orders

are violated.

More than two-thirds of the re-

straining orders obtained by women against inti-

mates who raped or stalked them were violated,

and approximately one-half of the orders ob-

tained by women against intimates who physi-

cally assaulted them were violated. Similarly,

more than two-thirds of the restraining orders

obtained by men against intimates who physi-

cally assaulted them and nearly nine-tenths of

the orders obtained by men against intimates

who stalked them were violated (exhibit 19).

Estimates of justice system utilization

Exhibit 20 presents estimates of the number of inti-

mate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking

victimizations that result in a report to the police,

an arrest, a criminal filing, a conviction, and a tem-

porary restraining order annually. The first row of

estimates is based on reported incidents of intimate

partner violence in the past 12 months (see exhibit

2). The remaining estimates are based on the most

recent intimate partner victimization since age 18

(see exhibits 16, 18, and 19). According to these

estimates, law enforcement personnel receive

1,966,659 reports of intimate partner rape, physical

assault, and stalking annually. It is unclear from the

data how police personnel classify these reports.

For example, police may classify some physical

assault reports as threats or intimidation, and they

may classify some stalking cases as trespassing or

vandalism.

Exhibit 20. Average Annual Justice System Utilization Estimates for Adult Victims of

Intimate Partner Rape, Physical Assault, and Stalking, by Gender

Estimated Number of Victimizations per Year

Rape Physical Assault

Victims Victims Stalking Victims

Women

Women Men Women Men

Total victimization 322,230 4,450,807 2,921,562 503,485 185,496

Victimization with:

Report to police 55,424 1,188,365 394,411 261,309 67,150

Arrest of perpetrator 26,271 432,565 48,513 74,996 15,780

Criminal prosecution 24,167 324,909 17,529 67,467 —

Conviction 10,126 155,631 —

26,986 —

Jail/prison sentence 7,007 55,405 —

15,193 —

Temporary restraining order (TRO) 52,846 761,088 102,255 184,276 31,534

TRO violation 35,724 385,111 69,942 128,440 27,592

All relative standard errors in this column exceed 30 percent.

Estimates not calculated for fewer than five victims.

According to NVAW Survey estimates, law

enforcement personnel arrest or detain 598,125

suspects of intimate partner rape, physical as-

sault, and stalking annually, and 434,072 such

suspects are criminally prosecuted annually. It is

unclear how many of these suspects are charged

with misdemeanor versus felony crimes. It is also

unclear what specific types of charges are filed

against these suspects (e.g., simple versus aggra-

vated assault, stalking, harassment).

Survey estimates show that 1,131,999 victims

of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and

stalking obtain protective or restraining orders

against their attackers annually. Approximately

60 percent (646,809) of these orders are violated.

Notes

1. American Bar Association, Legal Interventions in

Family Violence: Research Findings and Policy Im-

plications, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

1998, NCJ 171666.

2. Ibid. The ABA study found that 60 percent of the

women with temporary restraining orders reported

the order was violated within the year after it was

issued.

Policy Implications

The NVAW Survey provides compelling evi-

dence of the prevalence, incidence, and conse-

quences of intimate partner violence in the

United States. Information generated from the

survey and presented in this report also ad-

dresses many controversial issues surrounding

intimate partner violence research, such as

whether women and men suffer equal rates

of violence at the hands of intimate partners,

whether race and Hispanic origin affect one’s

risk of intimate partner violence, and whether

violence is more prevalent among same-sex

cohabitants compared with heterosexual cohabi-

tants. Thus, information presented in this report

can help inform policy and intervention directed

at violence perpetrated against women and men

by intimate partners. Based on findings from the

survey, the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. Intimate partner violence should be treated

as a significant social problem. Analysis of

the survey data validates previous research that

shows intimate partner violence is a pervasive

and serious social problem in the United States.

According to survey estimates, approximately

1.5 million U.S. women and 834,732 U.S. men

are raped and/or physically assaulted by an inti-

mate partner annually. Because many of these

victims suffer multiple victimizations, the num-

ber of intimate partner rapes and physical as-

saults perpetrated annually exceeds the number

of intimate partner victims annually. Thus, an

estimated 322,230 rapes and 4.5 million physical

assaults are committed against U.S. women by

intimate partners annually, and an estimated 2.9

million physical assaults are committed against

U.S. men by intimate partners annually. [The es-

timated number of rapes perpetrated against U.S.

women annually is based on 16 women who re-

ported being raped by an intimate partner in the

12 months preceding the survey and should be

viewed with caution. Furthermore, the number

of male victims was insufficient (n < 5) to

calculate the number of intimate partner rapes

committed against men annually.] In addition,

503,485 U.S. women and 185,496 U.S. men are

stalked by intimates annually. Given the perva-

siveness of intimate partner rapes, physical as-

saults, and stalkings committed against women

and men annually, it is imperative that intimate

partner violence be treated as a major criminal

justice and public health concern.

2. Women report significantly more intimate

partner violence than do men. The survey

found that women were significantly more likely

than men to report being victimized by an inti-

mate partner whether the type of violence was

rape, physical assault, or stalking and whether

the period was the victim’s lifetime or the 12

months preceding the survey. Moreover, women

who were physically assaulted by an intimate

partner averaged significantly more assaults and

suffered significantly more injuries than did their

male counterparts. Given these findings, intimate

partner violence should be considered first and

foremost a crime against women, and prevention

strategies should reflect this fact.

3. Studies are needed to determine why

different national surveys have produced such

disparate findings with respect to women’s

and men’s experiences with intimate partner

violence. Prior to the NVAW Survey, national

information on women’s and men’s annual expe-

riences with physical assault by an intimate

came primarily from the Bureau of Justice Sta-

tistics’ NCVS and the NFVS. The NVAW Sur-

vey finding that women report significantly

more intimate partner violence than do men is

consistent with findings from the NCVS but

inconsistent with findings from the NFVS. Al-

though the NVAW Survey and the NFVS used

similar behaviorally specific questions to screen

respondents for physical assault, victimization

estimates generated from the NVAW Survey are

substantially lower than those generated from

the NFVS. Conversely, NVAW Survey victimiza-

tion estimates are substantially higher than those

generated from the NCVS. Studies are needed to

determine how methodological differences, such

as the context in which the survey is administered

and question wording, affect women’s and men’s

reporting of intimate partner violence.

4. Studies are needed to determine why the

prevalence of intimate partner violence varies

significantly among women of different racial

and ethnic backgrounds. The survey found that

American Indian/Alaska Native women report

significantly more intimate partner rapes than

do women from other racial backgrounds, and

Asian/Pacific Islander women report significantly

fewer intimate partner physical assaults. In addi-

tion, Hispanic women report significantly more

intimate partner rapes than do non-Hispanic

women. However, differences between minority

groups diminish when certain demographic and

relationship variables are controlled.

It is unclear from the survey data whether dif-

ferences in intimate partner victimization rates

among women of different racial and ethnic

groups are caused by differences in reporting

practices. It is also unclear how social, environ-

mental, and demographic factors intersect with

race and ethnicity to produce differences in inti-

mate partner victimization rates among women of

different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Thus,

more research is needed to establish the degree of

variance in the prevalence of intimate partner vio-

lence among women (and men) of diverse racial

and ethnic groups and to determine how much of

the variance may be explained by differences in

such factors as cultural attitudes, community ser-

vices, and income. Research is also needed to

determine whether differences exist in intimate

partner victimization rates for women of diverse

Asian/Pacific Islander groups, American Indian

tribes, and Alaska Native communities. Finally,

research is needed to determine whether differ-

ences exist in intimate partner victimization rates

among minority women born in the United States

and those who have recently immigrated.

5. Intimate partner violence is more prevalent

among male same-sex couples than female

same-sex couples. Findings from the NVAW

Survey refute earlier findings that same-sex

couples are about as violent as heterosexual

couples. Male same-sex cohabitants were more

likely to report victimization by a male partner

than were male opposite-sex cohabitants by a

female partner. In comparison, female same-sex

cohabitants reported less violence by a female

partner than did female heterosexual cohabitants

by a male partner. These findings suggest that

gay male couples are more violent than lesbian

couples, whereas lesbian couples are less violent

than heterosexual couples. These findings also

indicate that intimate partner violence is perpe-

trated primarily by men, whether against same-sex

or opposite-sex partners.

6. Violence and emotionally abusive and

controlling behavior in intimate relationships

are interrelated. The NVAW Survey provides

compelling evidence of the link between vio-

lence and emotionally abusive and controlling

behavior in intimate relationships. Women

whose partners verbally abused them, were

jealous or possessive, or denied them access to

family, friends, and family income were signifi-

cantly more likely to report being raped, physi-

cally assaulted, and/or stalked by their partners,

even when sociodemographic factors such as

race and education were controlled. These find-

ings suggest that many women in violent rela-

tionships are victims of systematic terrorism;

that is, they experience multiple forms of abuse

and control at the hands of their partners. Future

research should focus on the extent to which

violence perpetrated against women by intimate

partners consists of systematic terrorism and

the consequences of this type of victimization.

7. America’s medical community should

receive comprehensive training about the

medical needs of victims of intimate partner

rape and physical assault. The injury and

medical utilization data generated from the

NVAW Survey provide persuasive evidence of

the physical and social costs associated with in-

timate partner violence. The survey found that

in more than one-third of all rapes and physical

assaults committed against women by intimates,

the victim sustains an injury. Furthermore, in

approximately one-third of all such injury vic-

timizations, the victim receives some type of

medical care (e.g., paramedic care, treatment in

a hospital emergency facility, dental care, or

physical therapy). The survey also found that

approximately one-fifth of all physical assaults

committed against men by intimates result in an

injury to the victim, and in one-fifth of all such

injury victimizations, the victim receives some

type of medical treatment. Thus, of the estimated

7.7 million rapes and physical assaults commit-

ted against women and men annually by intimate

partners, approximately 2.5 million will result

in an injury to the victim, and approximately

680,000 will require some type of medical treat-

ment to the victim.

Because many female and male victims of inti-

mate partner rape and physical assault receive

multiple forms of care for the same injury vic-

timization, medical personnel in the United

States treat millions of intimate partner injury

victims annually. Given the large number of in-

jury victimizations committed against women

and men by intimate partners annually and the

extensive nature of medical treatment to victims

of intimate partner rape and physical assault, it

is imperative that medical professionals receive

information about the prevalence and physical

consequences of intimate partner violence and

the medical needs of victims and training on

how to make appropriate referrals for victims

with these needs.

8. The U.S. justice system community should

receive comprehensive training about the

safety needs of victims of intimate partner

violence. As previously noted, the NVAW

Survey produced dramatic confirmation of the

pervasive nature and injurious consequences of

intimate partner violence. Information from the

survey also shows that most intimate partner

rapes, physical assaults, and stalkings go unre-

ported to law enforcement. Given these findings,

criminal justice practitioners should receive

comprehensive training about the safety needs

of victims and the need to conduct community

outreach to encourage victims of intimate part-

ner violence to report their victimizations to

the police.

About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research agency of the U.S.

Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, NIJ is authorized

to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs; development of technology; and both national and international

information dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to:

• Sponsor special projects and research and development programs that will improve and strengthen the criminal justice

system and reduce or prevent crime.

• Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches for improving criminal justice.

• Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to be successful if

continued or repeated.

• Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as by private organizations to

improve criminal justice.

• Carry out research on criminal behavior.

• Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency.

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of

1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in technology, and a new

international focus. Examples of these new initiatives:

• Exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, violence within the family, sentencing reforms,

and specialized courts such as drug courts.

• Developing dual-use technologies to support national defense and local law enforcement needs.

• Establishing four regional National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers and a Border Research and

Technology Center.

• Strengthening NIJ’s links with the international community through participation in the United Nations network of

criminological institutes, the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network, and the NIJ International Center.

• Improving the online capability of NIJ’s criminal justice information clearinghouse.

• Establishing the ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) program—formerly the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)

program—to increase the number of drug-testing sites and study drug-related crime.

The Institute Director establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the

Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice

professionals and researchers in the continuing search for answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice.

To find out more about the National Institute of Justice,

please contact:

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–851–3420

e-mail: [email protected]g

To obtain an electronic version of this document, access the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

If you have questions, call or e-mail NCJRS.