Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa?

AVB-01093; No of Pages 8 Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Zeev Winstok a,⁎, Michael Weinberg b, Ronit Smadar-Dror b a b

Center for the Study of Society, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Haifa, Israel School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Haifa, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 4 June 2016 Received in revised form 30 January 2017 Accepted 30 January 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Partner violence Gender motives Status enhancement Risk reduction

a b s t r a c t This article critically reviews the literature on gender differences in intimate partner violence. The review reveals that many researchers view partner violence as an opportunity to learn about gender. This approach is examined and its limitations are pointed out. A reverse approach is proposed which views the study of gender as an opportunity to learn about partner violence. This alternative approach identifies gender motives in general and moves on to explore the expressions of these motives in violent and non-violent intimate relationships. Theoretical and practical implications for this alternative approach are suggested. An important implication is the moderating effect of the proposed approach on the ongoing controversy over the role of gender in partner violence. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The controversy over gender differences in PV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Limitations of the common approach to the study of gender differences in PV motives. 4. Violence as a gender tendency assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Towards an alternative approach to the study of PV motives . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Culture, gender motives and expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Perceived risk and gender motives expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Motives expressions in perceived low-risk situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. Gender motives match and mutually reinforce each other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. Gender differences in deviation from social expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Gender motives expressions in escalatory intimate partner conflicts . . . . . . . . 12. Gender determinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction Motives are what prompts individuals to act in a certain way, or at least develop an inclination for a specific behavior (Pardee, 1990). Motives describe fundamental, underlying psychological processes that

⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Haifa, Faculty of Social Welfare & Health Studies, Mount Carmel 31905, Haifa, Israel. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Z. Winstok), [email protected] (M. Weinberg), [email protected] (R. Smadar-Dror).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

impel people's thinking, feeling, and behavior in situations involving other people (Fiske, 2004, p. 16), including partner violence (PV). Such definitions emphasize the importance of addressing motives for framing and understanding any behavior. In this context, gender differences in motivations to use PV became a central and crucial part of a longstanding controversy (Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Flynn & Graham, 2010; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra, 2012; Winstok, 2012). This article critically reviews and examines the current approach to the study of physical PV motivations, and, based on this review, proposes a different approach that can advance theory and practice in the field.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022 1359-1789/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022

2

Z. Winstok et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

2. The controversy over gender differences in PV Intimate partner violence is a major public health problem associated with adverse health consequences for victims. Such violence could include physical, sexual, or emotional abuse (Rabin, Jennings, Campbell, & Bair-Merritt, 2009). National surveys of PV conducted in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s (Straus & Gelles, 1986) challenged the dominant perspective, which assumed that physical violence in intimate relationships is perpetrated mainly by men. The findings of these surveys, revealing comparable rates of perpetration of PV by men and women, initiated a long-standing controversy over a major social problem (Loseke & Kurz, 2005). The controversy over gender differences in PV takes place between two groups of scholars (Johnson, 2006) who will be addressed here as gender researchers (adherent to the feminist paradigm) and family violence researchers. The gender researchers' perspective on PV (e.g., DeKeseredy, 2011; Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 2004; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992; Johnson, 2006; Kurz, 1989) emphasizes patriarchal values which motivate men to control women's behavior, and if necessary use violence to gain such control (Bates, Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2014). Over the years, this perspective advanced the recognition of women's plight within the family. More importantly, it also played an active part in policy development (Felson, 2002; Bates et al., 2014) and, accordingly, in the establishment and design of social responses to the PV problem. These efforts generated social changes affecting most of the modern Western societies, which now, more than ever, perceive violence against women as objectionable and condemnable, requiring social intervention. This feminist perspective dominated, and still dominates, the field of PV (Winstok, 2012). Gender researchers argue that violence is one of the means used by men to enforce their control over women, while simultaneously violence is also one of the means for women to resist such male attempts (e.g., Dobash et al., 1992; Johnson, 2006; Kurz, 1989). Therefore, gender researchers argue, even if men and women exhibit similar rates of intimate PV, it is not to be interpreted or judged in the same way, since men use PV to “control” women, while women use it to free themselves from male domination. According to this approach, women's actions, even if intentionally hurtful, cannot be considered violent when used to resist men's attempts to control them. Following this line of reasoning, many gender researchers conclude that domination and control are characteristically male motives, leading men to promote violence. Violence, therefore, is a male characteristic in all of life's contexts, including in intimate relationships. Family violence researchers agree with the argument that the social structure gives men an advantage in controlling women. They also agree that control and domination motives promote the use of violence. However, they generally dispute the idea that men's gender motives for control outside of the intimate relationship necessarily seep into the intimate relationship (Winstok, 2011). Moreover, family violence researchers doubt the argument that there are differences in male and female control motives in intimate relationships (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010; Straus, 1999, Straus, 2008b). Most studies of gender differences in PV showed no significant differences in control motive in modern Western cultures (Straus, 2008b). Yet, the controversy remains perennially unresolved (Winstok, 2012). Notably, alongside the disputed facts, there is also considerable agreement regarding the results of partner violence: more women are injured than men are, (e.g., Jose & O'Leary, 2008; Hester, 2009; Simpson & Christensen, 2005; Stets & Straus, 1990), a difference that is even bigger considering partner homicide (Stöckl et al., 2013). This acknowledgment emphasizes the higher risk potential and the more severe physical consequences for women, inherent in male PV compared to female PV. However, these facts (injury and homicide) do not affect family violence researchers' symmetrical perception of partner violence perpetration, while gender researchers view it as supportive evidence for the lack of such symmetry (Winstok, 2012). It also seems that both

sides of the controversy assign strong significance to attitudes towards violence against women, which are formed in a wide range of social processes (Flood & Pease, 2009) because they affect understanding, coping and intervening with PV. Researchers on both sides of the controversy study partners' motives for using violence (see, for example, Straus, 2008b, on the one hand, and Hamberger & Guse, 2002, on the other). Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that they agree that PV patterns should be examined based on the relationships between motivation and behavior. Furthermore, based on their interpretation of their research findings, it seems that both sides also agree that these patterns can be used to learn about each gender's contribution to PV. Despite these agreements, however, they usually differ in their conclusions. Accordingly, feminist gender researchers (e.g., Hamberger & Guse, 2002) often conclude towards the validation of the gender asymmetry argument, whereas family violence researchers (e.g., Straus, 2008a, 2008b) frequently validate the gender symmetry argument. A recent example which demonstrates these differences are studies conducted by Johnson, Leone, and Xu (2014), in comparison to Bates et al. (2014), both examining the pattern of intimate terrorism. This pattern combines motivation for dominance and control with intimate partner violence. The study by Johnson et al. found that the pattern is mostly predominant among men, while the study by Bates et al. found similar rates of the pattern for both genders. However, despite the discrepancy between the conclusions, it appears that both studies agree that gender can be studied through partner violence. This agreement supports the argument regarding gender and partner violence, as it suggests expanding the consequences of partner violence from an intimate issue to a gender issue which can reflect the female status in all general aspects. Additional support for the notion (that both sides in the controversy agree that PV can be used to study gender) is reflected in the parties' arguments and counterarguments during heated disputes. Often, gender symmetry researchers who claim that men and women use the same rates of violence are accused of being anti-feminist. In other words, arguing that women use similar rates of PV as men is perceived as taking a stand against women in general. On the other hand, many of those blamed for being misogynistic emphasize their support of feminism and contend that they are being accused for political reasons which have nothing to do with science. An example of such mutual allegations can be found in an article by Felson (2006), titled “Is violence against women about women or about violence?” and in a response to this article by DeKeseredy (2007). Alternatively, such tendencies can be identified in an article by Straus (2008a, 2008b) describing his experience as a family violence researcher. Such denunciations reveal the underlying nature of the controversy not as necessarily addressing PV but rather as revolving around the images of men and women as reflected by PV, and their social implications. 3. Limitations of the common approach to the study of gender differences in PV motives In many cases, researchers who study motives of PV provide no clearly defined theoretical framework and concept, nor what should and should not be included on this concept. The study of PV motives is limited in two aspects: the approach to PV motives, and the selection of the motives on which it is founded. The common approach to the study of gender differences in PV motives starts out by pinpointing the violent partners, followed by identifying these partners' control motives. If the men who are identified as violent report using violence for domination and/or control purposes more than the women who are identified as violent, then, it is argued, the thesis of gender researchers is supported. If there are no gender differences in the reporting, then, it is argued, the thesis is refuted. This common approach to PV motives is limited, first, because it presents no clear characterization of the concept (i.e., motivations). This

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022

Z. Winstok et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

vague and unclear concept is found throughout the three most recent meta-analyses of the subject (Bair-Merritt et al., 2010; Flynn & Graham, 2010; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). Flynn and Graham (2010) based their approach to PV motives on Causal Attribution Theory. They argued that this theory is “useful for understanding the importance of perceptions surrounding PV… Attribution theory focuses on the ways in which people explain the events that happen to them and on how these perceptions are determined by their perspective in the event (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).” Notably, although these authors mention the term “motives,” they avoid describing their article as a review of motives and present it as a review of “Why did it happen?” Contrary to their article, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2012) explicitly referred to motives: “It has typically been assumed that aggression is a goal-directed behavior such that people are motivated to perpetrate violence with the expectation that their violent behavior will in some way benefit them, despite its obvious negative consequences (Buss, 1961). Benefits to the aggressor could include regaining a sense of power or control, protecting the self from ongoing physical or emotional pain (i.e., self-defense), transmitting communication about intrapersonal (i.e., anger) or interpersonal processes (i.e., relationship dissatisfaction, jealousy), or retaliating for past injustices (i.e., infidelity). Theoretically, each of these perceived benefits could then be expected to function as a primary motivation for the production of violence.” The Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars and Misra approach indicates that motives are targeted benefits, and violence is the means for achieving those benefits. However, combining the Flynn and Graham (2010) approach with the Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2012) approach yields a study of accounts for violence, not of motives. An early research in this field, by Bograd (1988), used the term “accounts” to include excuses, justifications, and explanations. The study was based on interpretive paradigms (Wilson, 1970), arguing that “when actions fall outside the bound of expectations, people offer accounts to make them more understandable or acceptable to themselves or to others.” The conceptual ambiguity of motives in the study of PV is also apparent in what is being measured and explored in the field of PV motives. Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2012) identified the following seven distinct categories which are typically measured and explored by researchers of PV motives: (1) power/control, (2) self-defense, (3) expression of negative emotion (i.e., anger), (4) communication difficulties, (5) retaliation, (6) jealousy, and (7) other (such as alcohol). Apparently, while the first and second categories could be motives, goals and/or accounts, and the fifth could partially be a motive, it is doubtful that the rest of the categories (third, fourth, sixth and seventh) can be addressed as a motive for violence. For example, the third category is anger, which is an emotion. Anger affects human behavior, but is it a motive? Maybe indirectly. Is it a goal? Probably not. An account? Perhaps. Or, for example, alcohol. Is alcohol, which is included by some researchers in their studies (e.g., Lavoie, Robitaille, & Hebert, 2000; Olson & Lloyd, 2005; Stuart et al., 2006), a motive? The common approach to the study of PV motives is limited not only because the concept was not defined clearly, but also because this approach assumes that through intimate violence, which is a deviation from the norm in modern Western societies (Winstok, 2014), one can learn about gender. Thus, according to such an approach, gender differences in the use of violence in intimate contexts, which is the exception in intimate relationships, necessarily indicates general gender motives. The present article challenges the assumption that it is possible to learn about gender motives by studying motives for violence in intimate relationships, and proposes an opposite approach, in which one can learn about PV by studying general gender motives. This approach will be further addressed and described below. 4. Violence as a gender tendency assumption Before presenting an alternative approach linking gender, motivation and violence, let us look at the origin of existing perspectives that view PV research as an opportunity to study gender. One of the

3

premises supporting this approach is that violence is a tendency across life contexts. It is assumed that because men are more violent than women in extra-familial contexts, they are likely to be more violent in the family relationship as well (i.e., once violent, always violent). From this point, a further conclusion is that violence is a gender tendency across social contexts. This perception is a major contributor to the formation of the widespread approach to PV with violence as a gender tendency across social contexts. Hamby's (2014) article exemplifies the notion that violence is a gender tendency. She argues that the family violence researchers' finding that men and women use similar rates of PV, and that men and women use violence for the same reasons, is false. Hamby demonstrates her argument by comparing the findings of CTS-based studies (Straus, 1979; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), which measure PV only, with findings of studies based on crime data outside the family as well. While CTS-based studies show gender symmetry in PV, crime-based studies find gender asymmetry in PV. Hamby's explanation for these differences is that CTS-based studies provide false findings, and not that violence is a context-dependent phenomenon. The mere comparison, and the conclusion that Hamby draws, attests to the perception that violence is considered to be a tendency apparent in similar gender proportions inside and outside the intimate relationship. Men are more violent than women outside of intimate relationships; hence they must be more violent inside these relationships as well. However, Hamby does not offer empirical evidence to support this presumption (Winstok, 2015). Straus (2008a, 2008b) identified the inclination to make intuitive, empirically unfounded associations between the gender violence phenomena, leading to erroneous conclusions regarding PV, as Hamby and other researchers have made. He listed a series of established, although irrelevant, empirical facts that may contribute to the misguided perception that men are mostly violent towards their female partners: high representation of male gender in findings of studies on crimes that are unrelated to PV; high representation of female gender in media coverage of battered wives; law enforcement (arrests, prosecution, convictions and penalization) aimed to a large extent – if not in all cases – at men; violence prevention and intervention programs for men; protection programs for women; and gender stereotypes. Clearly, these facts are insufficient to substantiate the notion that men, rather than women, use violence in intimate relationships. However, it seems that when research findings do not conform to the dominant PV perception that men are more violent than women are, the findings are often ignored or regarded as false (Straus, 2009). 5. Towards an alternative approach to the study of PV motives As previously mentioned, the main argument in this article is that the study of gender provides an opportunity to learn about PV, and not vice-versa, as is the common practice in the field of PV today. To lay the foundation for this alternative approach, theories that identify motivational differences between the genders in general are needed, followed by a further examination of their implications for PV. The alternative approach proposed here is based on two central complementary theories focusing on gender differences in general and aggression or violence in particular. The first theory is the Sexual Selection Theory (Archer, 1996; Daly & Wilson, 1988), which locates the origins of gender differences (referred to as sex in this literature) in human evolution. According to this theory, men along the history of evolution concentrated on reproductive competition, for which social status had crucial importance. Women, by contrast, concentrated on pregnancy, birth, and child rearing, for which personal security and safety had crucial importance. The second theory is the Social Role Theory (Bettencourt & Kernahan, 1997; Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). This theory also locates the basis of gender behavior differences as originating from the historical division of labor. Roles produce expectancies about gendered characteristics, leading to different patterns of behavior

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022

4

Z. Winstok et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

that are transmitted to future generations through socialization processes. Two basic social expectations, and consequently, two basic gender motives, can be identified according to these two theories. These expectations and motives can promote various behaviors, which are not necessarily violent, in various contexts and situations, namely: Status Enhancement and Risk Reduction. These social expectations and motives are grounded in gender: status enhancement characterizing men more than women, and risk reduction characterizing women more than men (Campbell, 1999; Winstok & Straus, 2011). The following example can demonstrate social expectations in this context: In 2014, Israeli journalist Hadas Shtaif reported in a morning newscast that a robber entered a jewelry store managed by a married couple. The robber demanded at gunpoint that they hand over all the jewelry. When the robber was not paying attention, the man used the opportunity to flee from the store, while the woman stayed in the store, refused to hand over the jewelry to the robber, and began to fight with him. This report raises two questions: Was the man's flight behavior appropriate? Was the woman's fighting behavior appropriate? Had the case been that the woman fled the store while the man stayed behind to fight the robber, would the story be perceived differently? The reporter felt uncomfortable, since the man in the story behaved quite the opposite of what was expected of his gender, and instead of defending his wife and their business, he chose to run away; likewise, the woman's behavior was the opposite of what was expected of her gender, as she chose to confront the robber. In an earlier study, Winstok and Straus (2011) tested the notion that gender-related social expectations, goals, and roles originate from gender-based motivations (i.e., status enhancement and risk reduction), and that these motivations promote different behaviors in different social contexts and situations. Their study addressed the intended escalatory tendency in eight hypothetical situations in which the provocateur's identity (partner or stranger, male or female) and the provocation (verbal or physical aggression) were manipulated. In their study, they found that women's escalation tendency (i.e., response to aggressive provocation) was most severe in response to their male partner's provocation (verbal and physical), and least severe in response to the male strangers' provocation. Men's escalation tendency was most severe in response to provocation by male strangers, and least severe in response to their partner's provocation. These findings indicated that for women, the aggressive response tendency was consistent with risk reduction. Therefore, women used the most severe aggression against the opponent who was perceived as the least dangerous (i.e., their partner). The findings also indicated that for men, the aggressive response tendency was consistent with status enhancement. Therefore, men used the most severe aggression against the most dangerous opponent (i.e., male stranger). Following this concept, the findings of the study suggest that men who use violence against their intimate partners deviate from the expectations, motives and proper behaviors of their gender in the context of intimate relationships. Based on these findings, it would appear that men who are violent towards their female partners do not represent common and expected male behavior. If one accepts the assumption that deviation from social expectations, such as in the case of PV, entails a mental cost (i.e., depression, low self-esteem or post-trauma), then exploring these costs as related to PV may provide additional support for the theoretical framework of gender motives. It is important to emphasize that assuming that a mental state can result from violence, does not counter the possibility that a mental state can be a cause of violence. Pilot studies of depression levels among men and women who meet social expectations and maintain a non-violent relationship, compared to those who live in various types of violent relationships (i.e., man-only, woman-only, and both-partner violent couples), may provide additional support for the theoretical framework presented here (Winstok & Straus, 2014). Findings show that general depression levels of men and women who adhere to social

expectations and have a non-violent relationship were lower than depression levels of men and women in violent relationships (Graham, Bernards, Flynn, Tremblay, & Wells, 2012). Winstok and Straus (2014) argued that depression levels among men and women in violent relationships depend on the type of dyad (who is the violent party: is it only the man, only the woman or both?) and the social expectations from each gender. The depression levels of men in woman-only violent dyads are higher than in non-violent dyads, possibly since these men failed to maintain a non-violent relationship. The depression levels of men in man-only violent dyads are even higher, possibly since these men failed by being violent against their intimate partners. The depression levels of men in both-partner violent dyads are highest, possibly since these men failed the most: not only are they violent against their female partners, their female partners are also violent against them. It appears that depression levels in men reflect the level of their deviance from social expectations of their gender, which seeks to increase status enhancement. Nevertheless women's exposure to PV, too, is associated with more chronic health problems and depressive symptoms (Humphreys & Lee, 2009; Winstok & Straus, 2011). Accordingly, depression levels in women also reflect their level of deviation from social expectations of their gender which strives to increase risk reduction. Women in non-violent relationships exhibit the lowest depression levels. Women in woman-only violent relationships exhibited higher levels of depression. Higher levels of depression were also found among women in both-partner violent dyads. The highest female depression levels were found in manonly violent dyads. Winstok and Straus (2011, 2014), and the newscast report mentioned above, provide certain indications of how men and women experience and express their gender motives within and outside of their intimate relationships. Yet, gender motives, experience and behaviors are also connected to culture, which varies across time, place and audience. Thus, culture needs to be a key factor in understanding and describing gender motives and expressions in all social contexts, including intimate relationships (Vandello & Cohen, 2008). Therefore, the meaning attributed by Winstok and Straus to their aforementioned research finding seems to be limited to modern Western societies from which they were derived. The possibility that in other societies gender motives are experienced and expressed differently needs to be explored. Nevertheless, although status enhancement motivates mostly men, while risk reduction motivates mostly women, exceptions must be taken into consideration. There can be cases of men motivated by risk reduction and women motivated by status enhancement for various reasons. For instance, it is possible that men will strive for risk reduction when they believe that status enhancement is not possible and any attempt to achieve it would yield the opposite. The same is true for women. The case of the jewelry shop robbery may be an example of such a rare tendency.

6. Culture, gender motives and expressions In order to understand intimate partner violence, it is important to examine the ways in which cultures construct beliefs, expectations, and norms about gender and family. Meanings of violent acts cannot be understood outside of their cultural context (Vandello & Cohen, 2008). Accordingly, gender motives are permanent constructs evident in any context and situation. Yet, their behavioral expressions are culture-dependent and may vary across societies. For example, a society that at a specific time accepts men's violence against their partners as a status-enhancing behavior, may be perceived and judged as condemnable by the same society at a different time, at which such behavior is not considered status-enhancing. Hence, the implementation of gender motives must be examined in light of the binding social tenets.

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022

Z. Winstok et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

7. Perceived risk and gender motives expressions The dominant factor that regulates status enhancement behavioral expression is the subjective risk level perceived in the social situations that men encounter. When the situation is perceived as unsafe, as with the robber entering the store, status enhancement dictates that men should display resilience, determination, bravery and accordingly, high willingness to fight while risking their lives. Seemingly, attitudes towards gender in many cultures (see: Vandello & Cohen, 2008) may promote the notion that a man who does not fulfil these requirements is a disgrace to his kind. On the other hand, when the situation is not perceived as risky, for example in a conflict with an intimate partner, status enhancement prescribes male restraint, sensitivity, caution and, accordingly, willingness to yield and withdraw. A man who behaves differently misbehaves towards himself and his gender. Winstok and Straus (2011) provide more specific characteristics in these contexts: men are required to respond ruthlessly against aggression from unfamiliar men, less so to aggression from unfamiliar women, and least so towards aggression by their own partners. This rating of the intensity of aggressive response required in various situations is consistent with men's perceived risk potential: conflicts with unfamiliar men are usually perceived as a high-risk situation, conflicts with unfamiliar women are perceived as a lesser-risk situation, and conflicts with their partners are perceived as the lowest-risk situation, if at all. Therefore, while outside of the intimate relationship status enhancement drives men to display resilience, determination and bravery, within the intimate relationship it drives men to exhibit restraint, sensitivity and consideration. Men who behave differently violate social expectations and may pay a social and personal price for it. Just like with status enhancement, the subjective risk levels perceived in the social situations that women encounter also regulate risk reduction behaviors. In a dangerous situation, such as the robbery reported above, risk reduction would drive women to display restraint, sensitivity and caution, and accordingly, willingness to yield and withdraw. However, in situations where supposedly there is no risk, there is no need for risk reduction, and women can then exhibit resilience, determination, and courage, and accordingly, willingness to fight. Winstok and Straus (2011) provide specific characteristics in these contexts as well: the perceivably least risky situation, that makes risk reduction unessential for women, is a conflict with an intimate partner, and the perceivably riskiest situation, in which risk reduction is essential for women, is in conflicts with unfamiliar men. Conflicts with unfamiliar women are an intermediate situation. It is important to note that the perception of risk is subjective, and may at times be completely disconnected from the actual risk level. This difference in itself may increase actual risk levels. For example, as mentioned, women perceive the home as a safe place, yet it is a high risk factor for the injury of women. 8. Motives expressions in perceived low-risk situations The present article focuses on intimate relationships, which typically are not expected to generate high-risk situations (Winstok, 2012). Within the theoretical framework presented, the expectation is that in perceived low-risk situations, status enhancement will be expressed differently than in perceived high-risk situations. In low-risk situations men display typical risk-reduction behaviors similar to those that women display in high-risk situations, and women display typical status enhancement behaviors similar to those that men display in high-risk situations. This does not mean that gender motives are reversed, but only that their expressions appear to be so in accord with existing social dictates. For men in perceived low-risk situations, status enhancement can be achieved by risk reduction. For women in perceived low-risk situations, the reduction of risk becomes unnecessary, as there is no fear of conflict, and status enhancement can be pursued for many reasons, especially to reduce future risks. This insight highlights the complexity of the relationship between risk reduction and status enhancement. The

5

road to status enhancement passes through risk-taking, yet the higher one's status, the lower the potential risk, because high status provides risk protection. High status-individuals are perceived as dangerous and many would avoid challenging them. Hence, risk reduction is a by-product of successful status enhancement. 9. Gender motives match and mutually reinforce each other Male status enhancement and female risk reduction in perceived low and high-risk situations match and reinforce each other across social situations, including intimate relationships. In perceived high-risk situations, men's willingness to fight allows women to flee, and women's flight willingness compels men to fight. In perceived lowrisk situations, the opposite is true. Women in general are aware of men's chivalry code by which they are expected not to hurt women (Felson, 2002; Felson & Feld, 2009). Chivalry received attention in PV research (Felson & Feld, 2009; Glick et al., 2000; Viki, Massey, & Masser, 2005) as an expression of the symbiotic relationship between sexes, which gives advantages to both men and women and establishes their relationship so that each partner brings to it what they can, and receives what they need. Status enhancement and risk reduction are not only complementing and mutually supporting; they are codependent as well. Status enhancement for men is made possible by women's risk reduction, and vice-versa. When men fail to strive for status enhancement, they hurt themselves as well as women's ability to achieve risk reduction. When women fail to strive for risk reduction, they hurt themselves as well as men's ability to achieve status enhancement. 10. Gender differences in deviation from social expectations Contrary to common gender perceptions, men's violence against their intimate partners is viewed in this article as an exception to the rule in most modern Western societies. Therefore, men who act violently towards their female partners deviate from the essence of being a man. This argument raises a new question: why are there men who are violent against their intimate partners? The answer may be that these men are exceptions. Various factors may affect the meeting and implementation of social expectations in gender-challenging situations (e.g., Abramsky et al., 2011; Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012). For instance, such factors can be exceptional situations, misunderstanding of or resistance to gender expectations, erroneous risk assessments, or inability to meet social expectations due to low levels of self-control and/or limited skills in coping with challenging situations. Is women's violence against their intimate partners also a deviation from the essence of being women, and an exception to the rule, just as it is for men? Within the proposed theoretical framework of this article, it seems that the answer to this question is not straightforward. Women in intimate relationships exhibit resilience, determination and bravery (more than men do). Indeed, there is a long road from these manners to aggressive behavior, yet it does not seem to be as contradictory to this tendency as is the case with men. In other words, the violence of women against their intimate partners is not necessarily a deviation but may rather be an extreme, unacceptable expression of disposition. The way violence by the two genders is judged may provide an indication for this argument. The public in Western societies generally tends to perceive male violence against females, including their own partners, as a serious personal, interpersonal and social problem (Winstok, 2012). It seems that this tendency is a perception founded on social gender-dependent expectations, being a cruel intolerable behavior that must not happen and is a risk to women's lives. Nevertheless, many feminist authors today acknowledge the seriousness of some violence towards men and study this using empirical data (e.g. Hester, 2013). Moreover, female PV provides men with the opportunity to show restraint, sensitivity and caution. Yet studies show that women who are violent against their partners do place themselves at risk (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, &

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022

6

Z. Winstok et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Tritt, 2004). Such violent behavior appears to breach the gender balance in intimate relationships, a breach that may relieve the man of his gender obligations, paving the way to violence against the woman. 11. Gender motives expressions in escalatory intimate partner conflicts The situational context in which partners may use violence against each other is the escalatory intimate conflict (Winstok, 2012). Although relationship issues are only one of many contributors to partner violence (for example, see the ecological model, Heise, 1998), identifying the presence of gender motives in the initiation and maintenance of intimate conflicts can also validate gender motives in PV, as discussed above, as well as provide insights into the context in which this violence manifests itself. For this purpose, the questions to be addressed are: what are the gender differences in the initiation and maintenance of intimate partner conflicts, and are these differences consistent with gender motives as described in this article? Various general tendencies of partner behavior in conflict can be discernable. Over the last few decades, a differentiation between demand (e.g., criticism and complaint) and withdrawal (e.g., defensiveness and passivity) attracted considerable attention (Schrodt, Witt, & Shimkowski, 2014). Subject to this observation, three distinct dyadic patterns were identified. Two are symmetrical, with both partners displaying the same pattern (i.e., demand/demand or withdrawal/withdrawal), and another asymmetrical (i.e., demand/withdrawal). The asymmetrical pattern, more than the symmetrical ones, was identified as bearing a destructive potential (Heavey, Layne, & Christensen, 1993) and hence received the most attention. Research conducted over the years indicated that in this pattern, women tend to demand and men to withdraw (Christensen, 1987, 1988; Christensen & Shenk, 1991). Gender motives may at least partially explain gender differences in the tendency to withdraw/demand. Considering the social expectations and the motives they generate, women have a better starting point in initiating and maintaining partner conflicts than men, because women can, but are not required to, exhibit resilience, determination and bravery in their intimate relationships, while men are required to exhibit restraint, sensitivity and caution. In these unequal conditions, it does not pay for men to initiate or maintain a conflict with their intimate partners: their chances to settle the conflict while meeting social gender dictates are lower than women's chances are. They are more likely to settle the conflict by deviating from social dictates, albeit with a greater price to pay for such deviation. A study by O'Leary, Malone, and Tyree (1994) may support the argument that in partner conflicts, men are committed to use restraint more than women, including in clinical populations that are prone to violence as well. One of the findings in this study is that in conflict situations, impulsive men and women both tend to use physical violence. However, impulsive men in conflict situations tend to use psychological violence, considered to be milder, prior to using physical violence, which is considered as more severe. Impulsive women on the other hand, in conflict situations tend to use physical violence without the interim use of psychological violence. This indicates that the process of escalation in impulsive women is quicker and less controlled than in impulsive men. This finding is consistent with the theoretical framework of gender motives discussed here, even in cases when individuals find it difficult, due to their impulsive tendency, to adhere to gender dictums, and do use violence in intimate relationships. 12. Gender determinism The arguments made so far regarding gender motives may raise objections for various reasons, mainly due to their implied gender determinism. Such determinism means that individuals are confined by their gender, and their freedom of choice is limited. Many, including

the authors of this article, consider this perspective disturbing. However, it is possible to alleviate the unsettling perceived gender determinism by suggesting that it is relative and not absolute. Another way to compensate for the disturbing implied determinism is to acknowledge that while most individuals are set in their gender, they still have freedom of choice within these limits. 13. Implications The long-standing controversy over the role of gender in PV focuses mainly on the different perceptions of the essence of PV and its implications. This attention to differences veiled the common ground at the base of the controversy: that gender can be studied by the differences between men and women living in a violent relationship. The approach proposed in this article places significant doubt in this shared premise, by also questioning the relevance of the controversy. Therefore, the suggestions made in this article can be seen as a starting point for a third standpoint, free of a-priori premises and conventions that sustain the controversy. This alternative outlook can mediate between such premises and perhaps even render the controversy redundant. The starting point of the proposed approach is gender motivations, which need not be subjected to value judgment, as these motivations may generate socially acceptable or rejected behaviors in various contexts. Although such motivations attracted ample attention, they were never implemented for understanding and intervention in PV. Operationalizing these motivations for the study of PV may significantly enrich our understanding as well as provide a starting point for new gender- and culture-sensitive interventions for coping with PV. To move towards this goal, it is necessary first to further establish the theoretical basic arguments of this approach by empirically testing questions such as: Is status enhancement a male motivation and risk reduction a female one? How are such motivations related to intimate partner relationships? How are they demonstrated in various life situations, including couple conflicts? In which conditions do such motivations inhibit PV, and in which do they promote it? What are the conditions for suppressing gender motivations, and does such a departure affect PV? Subject to the theoretical insights derived from establishing the basic arguments of this approach, it will be possible to move forward and explore ways to implement them in gender- and culture-sensitive intervention programs to prevent or reduce the use of violence in intimate relationships. 14. Summary PV motives as a central research subject, with theoretical and practical implications for understanding and coping with PV, were common to most of the articles reviewed here. However, in addressing the cumulative knowledge in the field, this article identifies and challenges the common approach to such research and the control motives examined in the framework of this approach. The main criticism of the common approach is that it erroneously considers PV as an opportunity to study gender. Based on substantiated theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence, this article proposes an alternative perspective and approach to the study of gender motives in PV, by considering gender research as an opportunity to study PV. This approach focuses on two motives: status enhancement, predominant among men, and risk reduction, predominant among women. It emphasizes that while gender motives exist in all contexts and situations, their behavioral expressions are not determinate and may change across various social contexts and situations. Risk assessment is a major factor affecting the expression of gender motives. It is such an important factor, that in extreme situations (high-risk or lack of risk), gender motives might be expressed inversely. The article also states that partner conflicts in general are perceived as low-risk situations and, accordingly, women may exhibit typical status enhancement behaviors and men may exhibit typical risk reduction behaviors. The theoretical framework proposed in this article challenges

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022

Z. Winstok et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

the common perspectives in the field, especially the perception of violence as a male attribute expressed across all social contexts, including intimate relationships. The contrary is argued, namely that male violence in intimate relationships is a major gender deviation. The reasons men use violence outside of the intimate relationship are the same reasons men do not use it in the relationship. As with any realm, however, there are exceptions to the rule.

References Abramsky, T., Watts, C. H., Garcia-Moreno, C., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Ellsberg, M., ... Heise, L. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 109. Archer, J. (1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? American Psychologist, 51, 909–917. Bair-Merritt, M. H., Crowne, S. S., Thompson, D. A., Sibinga, E., Trent, M., & Campbell, J. (2010). Why do women use intimate PV? A systematic review of women's motivations. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 11(4), 178–189. Bates, E. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2014). Testing predictions from the male control theory of men's PV. Aggressive Behavior, 40(1), 42–55. Bettencourt, A. A., & Kernahan, C. (1997). A meta-analysis of aggression in the presence of violent cues: Effects of gender differences and aversive provocations. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 447–456. Bettencourt, A. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447. Bograd, M. (1988). How battered women and abusive men account for domestic violence: Excuses, justifications, or explanations? In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research and policy perspectives (pp. 60–77). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc (323 pp). Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intrasexual aggression. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 203–252. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231. Christensen, A. (1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. In K. Hahlweg, & M. J. Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorders: The contribution of family interaction research (pp. 250–265). New York: Family Process Press. Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Noller, & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 31–52). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991). Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 458–463. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. DeKeseredy, W. S. (2007). Addressing the complexities of feminist scholarship on violence against women: A response to Richard Felson. Contexts: Understanding People in their Social Worlds Winter, 2007, 5–6. Dekeseredy, W. S. (2011). Feminist contributions to understanding woman abuse: Myths, controversies and realities. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 297–302. Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against patriarchy. New York: Free Press. Dobash, R. P., & Dobash, R. E. (2004). Women's violence in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324–349. Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital violence. Social Problems, 39, 71–91. Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330. Felson, R. (2002). Violence and gender reexamined. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Felson, R. B. (2006). “Is violence against women about women or about violence?” Contexts magazine, vol. 5, issue 2. Reprinted in the contexts reader, edited by Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper, W.W. Norton Press and the American Sociological Association. 2007. Reprinted in Ruminations on Violence, edited by Derek Pardue, Waveland Press, 2008. Felson, R. B., & Feld, S. L. (2009). When a man hits a woman: Moral evaluations and reporting violence to the police. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 477–488. Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2004. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill. Flood, M., & Pease, B. (2009). Factors influencing attitudes to violence against women. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(2), 125–142. Flynn, A., & Graham, K. (2010). “Why did it happen?” A review and conceptual framework for research on perpetrators' and victims' explanations for intimate PV. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(3), 239–251. Glick, P., Fiste, S. T., Mlandinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as a simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. Graham, K., Bernards, S., Flynn, A., Tremblay, P. F., & Wells, S. (2012). Does the relationship between depression and intimate partner aggression vary by gender, victim-perpetrator role and aggression severity? Violence and Victims, 27(5), 730–741. Hamberger, L. K., & Guse, C. E. (2002). Men's and women's use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1301–1331.

7

Hamby, S. (2014). Intimate partner and sexual violence research scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(3), 149–158. Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 16. Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women an integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. Hester, M. (2009). Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators. Violence against women research group/University of Bristol with Northern Rock Foundation. Available from: http://www.nrfoundation.org.uk/downloads/Who% 20Does% 20What% 20to% 20Whom.pdf. Hester, M. (2013). Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators in English police records. European Journal of Criminology, 10(5), 623–637. Humphreys, J., & Lee, K. A. (2009). Interpersonal violence is associated with depression and chronic physical health problems in midlife women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 30(4), 206–213. Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003–1018. Johnson, M. P., Leone, J. M., & Xu, Y. (2014). Intimate terrorism and situational couple violence in general surveys ex-spouses required. Violence Against Women, 20(2), 186–207. Jose, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (2008). Prevalence of partner aggression in representative and clinic samples. In K. D. O'leary, & A. Jose (Eds.), Psychological and physical aggression in couples: Causes and interventions (pp. 15–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future directions. Gender and Society, 3, 489–505. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate PV in the United States. Sex Roles, 62(3–4), 179–193. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., McCullars, A., & Misra, T. A. (2012). Motivations for men and women's intimate PV perpetration: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 429–468. Lavoie, F., Robitaille, L., & Hebert, M. (2000). Teen dating relationships and aggression: An exploratory study. Violence Against Women, 6(6), 6–36. Loseke, D. R., & Kurz, D. (2005). Men's violence toward women is the serious social problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 79–96) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. O'Leary, K. D., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1994). Physical aggression in early marriage: Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 594. Olson, L. N., & Lloyd, S. A. (2005). “It depends on what you mean by starting”: An exploration of how women define initiation of aggression and their motives for behaving aggressively. Sex Roles, 53(7/8), 603–617. Pardee, R. L. (1990). Motivation theories of Maslow, Herzberg. In McGregor, & McClelland (Eds.), A literature review of selected theories dealing with job satisfaction and motivation. Rabin, R. F., Jennings, J. M., Campbell, J. C., & Bair-Merritt, M. H. (2009). Intimate partner violence screening tools: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(5), 439–445. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs, 81(1), 28–58. Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2005). Spousal agreement regarding relationship aggression among treatment-seeking couples. Psychological Assessment, 17, 423–432. Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). The marriage license as a hitting license: A comparison of assaults in dating, cohabiting, and married couples. In M. A. Straus, & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 227–244). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98. Stöckl, H., Devries, K., Rotstein, A., Abrahams, N., Campbell, J., Watts, C., & Moreno, C. G. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. The Lancet, 382(9895), 859–865. Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75–88. Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In X. B. Arriaga, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships (pp. 17–44). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Straus, M. A. (2008a). Bucking the tide in family violence research. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 9(4), 191–213. Straus, M. A. (2008b). Dominance and symmetry in PV by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275. Straus, M. A. (2009). Why the overwhelming evidence on partner physical violence by women has not been perceived and is often denied. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(6), 552–571. Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 465–479. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316. Stuart, G. L., Moore, T. M., Gordon, K. C., Hellmuth, J. C., Ramsey, S. E., & Kahler, C. W. (2006). Reasons for intimate PV perpetration among arrested women. Violence Against Women, 12, 609–621.

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022

8

Z. Winstok et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2008). Culture, gender, and men's intimate partner violence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 652–667. Viki, G. T., Massey, K., & Masser, B. (2005). When chivalry backfires: Benevolent sexism and attitudes toward Myra Hindley. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 109–120. Wilson, T. P. (1970). Normative and interpretive paradigms in sociology. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Understanding everyday life (pp. 57–79). Winstok, Z. (2011). The paradigmatic cleavage on gender differences in partner violence perpetration and victimization. Journal of Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(4), 303–311. Winstok, Z. (2012). PV: A new paradigm for understanding conflict escalation. The springer series on human exceptionality. Springer.

Winstok, Z. (2014). Effects of childhood experience of violence between parents and/or parent-to-child violence on young Israeli Adults' global self-esteem. Violence and Victims, 30(4), 699–712. Winstok, Z. (2015). Critical review of Hamby’s (2014) article titled “Intimate partner and sexual violence research, scientific progress, scientific challenges, and gender”. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1524838015596962. Winstok, Z., & Straus, M. (2011). Gender differences in intended escalatory tendencies among marital partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(18), 3599–3617. Winstok, Z., & Straus, M. A. (2014). Gender differences in the link between intimate partner physical violence and depression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2), 91–101.

Please cite this article as: Winstok, Z., et al., Studying partner violence to understand gender motivations - or vice-versa? Aggression and Violent Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.022