Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Purpose. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive social problem in the U.S. One quarter of women is victimized by their male partners in their lifetime, and one out of six victims is revictimized (Cho, 2007). The police have actively intervened in IPV since the 1980s, in which police officers are encouraged to arrest the batterer. The majority of studies reported a significant decrease in IPV when arrest was made. However, most studies focused on IPV against women, overlooking IPV against men. Considering 8% of men are victimized by their female partners in their lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), the lack of research on this population should be addressed. The nature of IPV against men and the effect of arrest on male victims are mostly unknown. This study attempted to fill this gap by utilizing nationally representative sample.

Method. This study used the National Crime Victimization Survey from 1987 to 2003. It annually gathers detailed crime data from 100,000 individuals across the country. The target population of the study was IPV victims age 18 and over. A total of 2,760 victims (2,462 women and 298 men) were included. Victims' age, race, household income, marital status, number of children, type of violence, revictimization, arrest, use of a weapon, and injury were examined. Chi-square tests were conducted to examine differences between IPV against women and IPV against men. Two separate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine if the effect of arrest on women was different from that on men.

Results. There was no difference in demographics between male and female victims. However, fewer men were revictimized (11%) than women (16%). The police arrested more male batterers (24%) than female batterers (18%). More men (28%) experienced aggravated assault than women (17%), while more women (7%) were raped or sexually assaulted than men (1%). More female batterers (39%) used weapons in IPV than male batterers (20%). But more women (60%) received injuries than men (41%). In regard to the effect of arrest, male victims showed no significant difference in the odds of revictimization after arrest was made (exp(β) = 1.37, p = .52), while female victims showed a 45% decrease in revictimization when arrest was made (exp(β) = .55, p < .01).

Implications. The results showed that men also suffered from IPV, the nature of which was different from women. Arrest was not effective in reducing the chance of revictimization for men, while it was effective for women. Although much more women are victimized by IPV than men (1% versus 0.2%, Rennison & Welchans, 2000), the results suggest that men should be considered as the IPV population and more research is needed. It is needed to further investigate why there is difference in the effect of arrest between IPV against men and IPV against women, and how circumstantial factors affect revictimization. Also, intervention strategies for male victims should be developed, different from female victims. Finally, social work practice needs to be more inclusive for male victims and develop male specific services.