Correlates of Intimate Partner Homicide in the Rural United States: Findings From a National Sample of Rural Counties, 2009–2016

• Published date: 01 November 2020
• Date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767919896403
• Author: Millan A. AbiNader
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767919896403

Homicide Studies

2020, Vol. 24(4) 353 –376

© 2020 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1088767919896403

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

Correlates of Intimate

Partner Homicide in the Rural

United States: Findings From

a National Sample of Rural

Counties, 2009–2016

Millan A. AbiNader1

Abstract

Intimate partner homicide (IPH) in the U.S. rural context has increased in recent

years while other types of homicide have decreased. This suggests that some rural

structural characteristics make IPH more likely in rural communities than other

forms of homicide. This study used multilevel models to examine individual- and

community-level characteristics’ association with IPH in rural counties between 2009

and 2016 in the United States. Overall, individual-level correlates were more strongly

associated with IPH than community-level correlates, although increased economic

need was associated with IPH in one of the models. Implications for individual-level

intervention, policy, and future research are discussed.

Keywords

data merging, methodology, structural causes, rural, subtypes, intimate partner,

victim/offender relationship, victimization

The intimate partner homicide (IPH) rate in rural areas increased between 1980 and

1999, while non-IPH in rural communities and all types of homicides in semiurban and

urban communities decreased (Gallup-Black, 2005). The strong patterns evidenced by

Gallup-Black’s (2005) study have been supported by later examinations of the same

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) homicide data using more sophisticated trajectory

1Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA

Corresponding Author:

Millan A. AbiNader, School of Social Work, Arizona State University, University Center, 411 N Central

Ave #800, Phoenix, AZ 85006, USA.

Email: millan.abinader@asu.edu

896403HSXXXX10.1177/1088767919896403Homicide StudiesAbiNader

research-article2020

354 Homicide Studies 24(4)

analysis methods (Jennings & Piquero, 2008). Jennings and Piquero (2008) found that

rurality consistently predicted a stable or increasing trajectory in IPH rate over the

20-year period. This established association between rural spaces and IPH incidence

suggests two patterns: (a) that some structural characteristics of the rural space make

IPH more likely in rural communities than other forms of homicide, and (b) that charac-

teristics of rural communities increase the lethality risk of intimate partner relationships

compared with other contexts. This article is concerned with exploring the first dynamic.

Despite the likely influence of place on IPH, the majority of research on IPH, and

its frequent predecessor intimate partner violence (IPV; Campbell et al., 2003), has

focused on the characteristics of the perpetrator, the victim, or their relationship rather

than on community and structural characteristics. Studies that have examined commu-

nity-level characteristics nationally have largely sampled exclusively from urban set-

tings (e.g., Dugan et al., 2003), were nationally representative but did not disaggregate

by place (e.g., Siegel et al., 2013), or have been limited to particular states (e.g., Beyer

et al., 2013). The current study sought to better understand individual- and commu-

nity-level correlates of IPH in the U.S. rural context using FBI homicide data.

Sociodemographic Correlates of IPH

Sex

Although males are more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of homicide over-

all, women are more likely to be victims of IPH than men (Catalano et al., 2009;

DeJong et al., 2011; Fridel & Fox, 2019; Garcia et al., 2007). National studies estimate

that 40% to 50% of female homicide victims were killed by an intimate partner, com-

pared with only 5% to 8% of male homicide victims in the United States (Fridel &

Fox, 2019; Jack et al., 2018). Female victims of IPH are more likely to be killed by a

male perpetrator than female victims of non-IPH (Petrosky et al., 2017). Although

male perpetrators more often murder acquaintances or family members, they also

commit the majority of IPH (Allen et al., 2018; Fox & Fridel, 2017). However, when

a female perpetrates a homicide, they are more likely to kill a family member or male

intimate partner, whereas the majority of male perpetrators kill an acquaintance or

stranger (Fridel & Fox, 2019; Liles & Moak, 2018).

Race

In the United States, Black men and women are more likely to be victims of homicide

than their fellow non-Black citizens (Fridel & Fox, 2019; Petrosky et al., 2017;

Riddell et al., 2018). Black men had the highest homicide victimization rate between

2010 and 2017 (55.3% of all male victims), compared with 41.6% White male vic-

tims, and 3.2% male victims of other races (Fridel & Fox, 2019). Among women

killed between 2003 and 2014, non-Hispanic Black women had the highest homicide

rate of any racial/ethnic subgroup followed by American Indian/Alaskan Native

women, Hispanic women, non-Hispanic White women, and finally, Asian/Pacific