Cited by 201Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesCrime Patterns and Interventions

Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Research: Scientific Progress, Scientific Challenges, and Gender

Hamby, Sherry·2014·Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status of scientific knowledge on intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence, with a particular focus on the measurement of gender patterns. A multimethod analysis of estimates for the incidence and prevalence of intimate and sexual aggression reveals consistencies across some methodologies and inconsistencies across others. In particular, self-report using behavioral checklists such as the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales yields results that are very discrepant from other research findings. Contrary to some assertions, self-report studies using simple checklists do not represent “most data” on intimate violence; there are large criminological and public health databases that warrant attention. When these sources are considered and placed in the context of other data on violence and aggression, a clear pattern of gender asymmetry emerges, with males perpetrating more physical and sexual violence than females for virtually every form of violence ever studied. Violence research has been hampered by the conservative forces that affect most social science research, including peer review, grant review, and tenure review processes that discourage methodological innovation and reward incremental research studies. We need to focus resources on scientific and technological innovation to better understand violent phenomena and better serve all those involved in violence. Two examples of self-report methods that do not produce gender symmetry are described.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1524838014520723

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals who seek support such as emergency medical care, police intervention, legal protection, or housing may have less access to informal supports that will meet their needs.

    “Additionally, individuals who seek support such as emergency medical care, police intervention, legal protection, or housing may be experiencing more severe violence and may have less access to informal supports that will meet their needs (Hamby, 2014).”
  • Individuals who seek support such as emergency medical care, police intervention, legal protection, or housing may be experiencing more severe violence.

    “Additionally, individuals who seek support such as emergency medical care, police intervention, legal protection, or housing may be experiencing more severe violence and may have less access to informal supports that will meet their needs (Hamby, 2014).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 201

Authors
Hamby, S.
Affiliations
Sewanee: The University of the South (US)
Corresponding author
Hamby, Sherry
Venue
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Published
2014-01-24
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
149-158
ISSN
  • 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8324
OpenAlex
W2124079545
Cited by
201
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6
FWCI
19.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
intimate partner violence, sexual violence, violence measurement, Revised Conflict Tactics Scales

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review