Intimate Partner Violence and the Victim-Offender Overlap

• Author: Marie Skubak Tillyer,Emily M. Wright
• Published date: 01 February 2014
• Date: 01 February 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0022427813484315
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Intimate Partner

Violence and the

Victim-Offender

Overlap

Marie Skubak Tillyer

1

and Emily M. Wright

2

Abstract

Objectives: Examine the prevalence and correlates of intimate partner vio-

lence (IPV) victimization and offending, as well as the overlap of these

experiences. Method: Data from wave 4 of the National Longitudinal Study

of Adolescent Health were analyzed to examine IPV among adults ages 24

to 33. A multinomial logistic regression model was estimated to determine

whether the correlates of IPV vary across victims, perpetrators, and victim-

perpetrators. Results: Approximatel y 20% of respondents rep orted some IPV

involvement in the past year, one-third of whom reported victimization and

perpetration.The victim-offenderoverlap wasobserved for males and females

across various measures of IPV. Bivariate correlations suggest victimization

and perpetration have common corr elates. Multivariate analysis , however,

reveals considerable differences once we distinguish between victims, offen-

ders, and victim-offenders and control for other variables. Perpetrators and

victim-perpetrators were more likely to live with a nonspouse partner; feel

isolated; display negative temperaments; and reportsubstance use problems.

1

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at San Antonio, TX, USA

2

University of Nebraska at Omaha, NE, USA

Corresponding Author:

Marie Skubak Tillyer, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at San Antonio,

501 W. Cesar E. Chavez Blvd., San Antonio, TX 78207, USA.

Email: marie.tillyer@utsa.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2014, Vol 51(1) 29-55

ªThe Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022427813484315

jrcd.sagepub.com

‘‘Victimsonly’’ were morelikely to live with children and havelower household

incomes. Conclusions: The victim-offender overlap exists for IPV across a

variety of measures. Though perpetrators and victim-perpetrators have

similar characteristics, those who are victims only appear distinctly differ-

ent. We discuss the implications for theory, policy, and research.

Keywords

victim-offender overlap, intimate partner violence

Strangers do not always present the greatest threat of criminal perpetra-

tion—in fact, we are more likely to be victimized in our own homes by our

loved ones rather than attacked by strangers on the street (Straus, Gelles,

and Steinmetz 2006). Estimates from the National Violence against Women

and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence surveys report that

up to 36 percent of females and 29 percent of males have experienced some

form of violence by their intimate partner during their lifetime (Black et al.

2011; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). Further, recent data show that while the

majority of cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) processed by state

courts involve a male defendant and a female victim, approximately 12

percent involve a female offender and a male victim (Smith and Farole

2009). These figures challenge traditional stereotypes about the gender of

IPV victims and offenders (e.g., Straus 2011) and raise the question of

whether those involved in IPV can be neatly categorized as ‘‘victims’’ and

‘‘offenders.’’

Research on criminal victimization and offending more generally

demonstrates that victims and perpetrators of crime are not necessarily

distinct groups. Rather, there is considerable overlap in these populations

(Jennings, Piquero, and Reingle 2012; Lauritsen and Laub 2007). Several

explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, including the notion

that victims and offenders share common routine activities and similar traits

that create opportunities for both criminal victimization and offending.

There has been little empirical attention paid, however, to whether the

victim-offender overlap exists among those involved in IPV. This omission

in the research may be due in part to long-held beliefs that IPV is an expres-

sion of male domination over women (see the feminist perspective on

domestic violence, e.g., Dobash and Dobash 1979; Dobash et al. 1992;

Lawson 2012); individuals, therefore, are assumed to be victims or perpe-

trators of IPV.

30 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51(1)