Gendered Physical and Emotional Health Consequences of Situational Couple Violence for Heterosexual Married and Cohabiting Couples

• Date: 01 October 2012
• DOI: 10.1177/1557085111431695
• Author: Carrie Sillito
• Published date: 01 October 2012

Feminist Criminology

7(4) 255 –281

© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

Sagepub.com/journalspermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1557085111431695

http://fcx.sagepub.com

431695FCX7410.1177/1557085

111431695SillitoFeminist Criminology

1University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Carrie Sillito, Deptartment of Sociology, University of Utah, 380 So. 1530 E. Room 301, Salt Lake City

84112, UT, USA

Email: Carrie.Sillito@soc.utah.edu

Gendered Physical

and Emotional Health

Consequences of Situational

Couple Violence for

Heterosexual Married and

Cohabiting Couples

Carrie Sillito1

Abstract

Research of intimate partner abuse has not adequately assessed the role of gender

in situational couple violence (SCV). This research examines gendered effects of SCV

on outcomes using longitudinal data from the United States National Survey of Family

and Households. Results show gender asymmetries in physical health, depression, and

fear outcomes of respondents exposed to SCV. Women exposed to physical SCV

are less likely to report good physical health and more likely to report depression

and fear than control-group women. No significant relationships are found for men.

Implications suggest inclusion of outcomes when assessing gender symmetry in

intimate partner abuse.

Keywords

domestic violence, intimate partner violence, mental health, quantitative research,

victimization, violence by women, woman abuse

Introduction

Within research of heterosexual intimate partner abuse (IPA), there is a heated debate

over the role of gender in abusive relationships. Some research indicates that men and

256 Feminist Criminology 7(4)

women use violence at approximately equal rates (Archer, 2000; Dutton, 2006;

Fiebert, 2004; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 2006). This “gender symmetrical violence”

is typically found by researchers who identify with the “family violence perspective”

(Johnson, 2006, p. 1004). Other research indicates that heterosexual IPA is gender

asymmetrical and primarily a problem of males who assault or kill female partners

(Belknap & Melton, 2005; Sillito & Salari, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000b). This

“gender asymmetrical violence” is often found by researchers who follow the “femi-

nist perspective” (Johnson, 2006, p. 1004). Although it is acknowledged that not all

research can be clearly classified as “family violence” or “feminist” research, it is

important to study the two perspectives generally to gain a better understanding of the

overall gender debate in IPA.

Researchers from both perspectives have attempted to reconcile the differences in

findings between groups. One prominent theory explains that differences in sample

selection have led the two groups to study two types of violence (Johnson, 1995, 2008).

Specifically, research from the family violence perspective generally examines samples

of low-level violence (referred to as “situational couple violence”), whereas research

from the feminist perspective generally examines samples of severe violence (“intimate

terrorism”).

However, sample selection is not the only methodological difference influencing

results of the two groups; research instruments and measurements also influence the

conflicting outcomes. This research first examines methodological differences between

family violence and feminist research, and then uses empirical research to examine

whether methodological changes reveal gender asymmetries among couples experi-

encing low-level violence.

Review of Literature

Methodological and Conceptual Differences Between Groups

As was mentioned in the introduction, current theory assumes that differences in fam-

ily violence and feminist research findings are due to sample selection. Family vio-

lence sampling techniques typically lead to research of couples experiencing

situational couple violence (SCV). Johnson, (2005) first coined the term, but it is

similar in meaning to terms couple fights (Stark, 2007, p. 234), or minor violence

(Gelles, 2007, p. 406) used by other researchers. This research uses Johnson’s term to

refer to violence that is used by both men and women, is generally not severe, results

in low rates of injuries, and does not escalate over time. SCV usually takes place in

the context of an argument, rather than in the context of a pattern of controlling behav-

ior in the relationship. Some researchers believe it is the most common form of inti-

mate partner abuse (Johnson, 2006, 2008; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000).

Research and theory (Johnson, 2008; Kimmel, 2002; Stark, 2007) have identified

that situational couple violence is often studied through the use of population surveys.

Stark explains that,