Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual Minorities: Predicting Police Officer Arrest Decisions

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) among sexual minorities (SM) remains a considerable social problem. Police response to survivors can have a significant impact on recovery, case attrition, and suspect apprehension. The present study employed a 3 (sexual orientation) × 2 (physical evidence) × 2 (trauma response) between-subjects factorial design with a sample of 467 police–participant survey responses among commissioned personnel in one of the five largest U.S. cities to examine predictors of arrest in a randomly assigned hypothetical IPV vignette while considering case and participant factors. Findings revealed arrest likelihood decreased when police were presented with an SM couple. Presence of physical evidence and increased importance on police processes increased arrest likelihood. Adherence to heteronormative IPV myths decreased arrest likelihood despite couple sexual orientation. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

police arrest decisions intimate partner violence sexual minorities domestic violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a problem among sexual minorities (SM)¹ and heterosexual populations. The frequency of IPV among SM partners is as common or more prevalent than heterosexual couples (Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, 2015). A meta-analysis of lesbian women reported mean lifetime rates of IPV perpetrated by same-sex partners at 48% (Badenes-Ribera, Frias-Navarro, Bonilla-Campos, Pons-Salvador, & Monterde-i-Bort, 2015). Findings from national data also revealed increased rates of IPV by SM males (Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013) compared with heterosexual men. Even so, estimates suggest less than half of SM IPV incidents are reported to police (Kuehnle & Sullivan, 2003).

Advocates, scholars, and policy makers have spent decades identifying criminal justice and social service strategies to mitigate survivor trauma, increase suspect apprehension, and facilitate IPV case processing. Much remains in terms of creating a trauma-informed response for survivors as police agencies have only recently begun to endorse training that informs the range of unexpected behaviors following a traumatic event. Part of the challenge in criminal justice response has been shortcomings in how police have historically responded to IPV (Lutze & Symons, 2003; Sherman & Berk, 1984). Traditionally, police perceived IPV as a family matter that did not necessitate formal intervention (Martin, 1975), and was largely the result of cultural myths that relegated responsibility to heterosexual women within the domestic sphere (Koss et al., 1994). Social movements and federal legislation have produced more progressive law enforcement responses to heterosexual IPV (Freedman, 2002), though SM IPV has been left unaddressed (Dicker, 2008). Without systematic legal protection, police response to SM IPV may be affected by individual beliefs such as homophobia or heteronormative myths, highlighting the potential for misinformation to influence who receives protection under the law.

There is a lack of research that has examined police perceptions and responses to SM IPV (Pattavina, Hirschel, Buzawa, Faggiani, & Bentley, 2007; Russell, 2018). Studies have assessed homophobia (Bernstein & Kostelac, 2002; Lyons et al., 2005), misconceptions of heterosexual IPV (DeJong, Burgess-Proctor, & Elis, 2008), and heteronormative assumptions about IPV among officers (Peterman & Dixon, 2003). Findings have suggested misinformation and general shortcomings in the traditional police response to SM survivors (Alhusen, Lucea, & Glass, 2010; Potoczniak, Mourot, Crosbie-Burnett, & Potoczniak, 2003). Indeed, this research is limited. Given its frequency and the importance of victim-centered responses, gaps present opportunities for continued assessment. Using a randomly assigned, experimental vignette design, this study employed surveys from a sample of 467 police officers commissioned at an urban police department located in one of the five largest U.S. cities to examine police adherence to homophobia, heteronormative IPV myths, and predictors of arrest in a manipulated IPV vignette.

Homophobia²

Westernized cultures have deeply entrenched notions of gender behaviors for men and women (A. G. Johnson, 1997). Guidelines have centered on heterosexism, which has suggested that heterosexuality is the only acceptable expression of sexuality (Arnott, 2000), and violation of these norms has produced consequences (Gilbert, 2002; Prokos & Padavic, 2002). Broadly, heterosexism positions heterosexuality as superior and any nonheterosexual behavior as less valued, which has facilitated sexual stigma (Herek, 2009) and homophobia. Homophobia was originally defined as intense fear, hatred, and intolerance toward “homosexuality and homosexual persons” (Weinberg, 1972, p. 15) and consists of malevolent stereotypes, negative feelings, discriminatory attitudes, and perceptions of “otherness,” directed toward SM (Arnott, 2000), who are often powerless, and face prejudice, institutional discrimination, and violence.

Police are readily positioned to protect vulnerable populations, though have been historically classified as hypermasculine due to their paramilitary structure, state-sanctioned use of force, and emphasis on masculine notions of enforcement (Lutze & Symons, 2003). Research has described some agencies as endorsing hegemonic masculinity³ (Prokos & Padavic, 2002) and engaging in institutional opposition toward SM (Bernstein & Kostelac, 2002; Colvin, 2015). Endorsement of homophobia and its institutional manifestations are particularly important to police organizations and SM survivors (Bernstein & Kostelac, 2002; Colvin, 2015).

Few studies have directly examined adherence to homophobia among police personnel, though research has demonstrated homophobic attitudes exist among officers. Correlates of endorsement have included demographic factors and have identified White, male patrol officers, who are less educated, attended religious services, and aligned their thinking process with the heterosexual group majority to endorse homophobia and report negative attitudes toward SM compared with counterparts (Bernstein, 2004; Bernstein & Kostelac, 2002; Lyons et al., 2005).

Adherence to homophobia has produced adverse consequences for individual police personnel and agencies. Bernstein and Kostelac (2002) surveyed 249 officers in a medium-sized, Southwest police department, and reported that homophobia decreased support for SM civil liberties (e.g., SM should not be allowed to teach in colleges), increased perceptions of heterosexual superiority (e.g., SM are not “cut out” for policing), increased negative stereotypes surrounding department morale (e.g., hiring SM would damage the image of policing), and increased misinformation regarding health risks associated with homosexuality (e.g., the department should not recruit SM because of the risk of HIV/AIDS).

Research has identified police use of derogatory language and the expression of hostility during verbal interactions with SM citizens (Lambda Legal, 2014; Mallory, Hasenbush, & Sears, 2015). Officers have perpetrated verbal/physical assault, held diminished perceptions of credibility, and purposefully delayed response to calls for service (CFS) from SM members (Berrill & Herek, 1990; Lambda Legal, 2014; Mallory et al., 2015). SM survivors have expressed apprehension in reporting victimization because they have anticipated secondary victimization in the form of disbelief, stigma, and insensitivity (Berrill & Herek, 1990)—which has exacerbated trauma symptoms.

Heteronormative Misconceptions About IPV

Myths surrounding IPV (Koss et al., 1994) proliferated among the general population and in the traditional police response to IPV (Lutze & Symons, 2003). These misconceptions are largely residue from oversimplified stereotypes about the dynamics of IPV—that women “are masochistic,” “could leave if they wanted to,” and “provoke the violence” (see Koss et al., 1994). SM have been sidelined from concerns surrounding IPV; the narrative positioned IPV as a heterosexual woman’s “problem” involving a male aggressor (Freedman, 2002). The durability of this misinformation has translated to an institutionalized agency response (Martin, 1975).

Research has suggested a lack of understanding among police regarding perpetrator motivation for violence and delays in victim decision making (DeJong et al., 2008). Officers may believe violence is mutually combative or has resulted from a “lover’s quarrel.” Police with limited IPV exposure may not recognize the barriers victims encounter when trying to leave abusive relationships, including fear of reprisal, financial dependency, and limited social support from isolation (DeJong et al., 2008). Accurate knowledge of IPV may be constrained by patriarchal attitudes and benevolent sexism,⁴ which have contributed to victim blaming (e.g., “if a women stays with her abuser then what does she expect?”), use of derogatory language toward survivors (e.g., “bitch”), and misperceptions of “real” or legitimate victims (e.g., “real victims sustain injuries”; DeJong et al., 2008; Stalans & Finn, 2006).

Victim blaming may be prominent if the victim has consumed alcohol (Stewart & Maddren, 1997), engaged in self-defense, or when police perceived the victim as the primary aggressor (Lavoie, Jacob, Hardy, & Martin, 1989). Officers have also reported misconceptions regarding injury severity—classifying cases without visible victim injury as mutually combative or relating the severity of injury to the longevity of violence within relationships. Police have minimized the seriousness of IPV CFS, assumed victim noncooperativeness, diminished credibility, and delayed decisions to intervene (DeJong et al., 2008; Stalans & Finn, 2006).

Heteronormative bias related to IPV has also been reported. Heterosexual gendered expectations have emphasized male power, control, and aggression, and female passivity, dependence, and the inability to protect oneself (A. G. Johnson, 1997). These expectations have further entrenched misinformation, especially involving SM. Male SM IPV survivors have encountered skepticism regarding their legitimacy as “real” victims because norms suggest men should protect themselves from threats, abuse, or violence (Baker, Buick, Kim, Moniz, & Nava, 2013). Credibility misconceptions are relevant when stereotypes surrounding perpetrator physique influence police perceptions of an IPV situation. If the male perpetrator is physically smaller than the male victim, police may not identify the primary aggressor (Merrill & Wolfe, 2000). Individuals may believe lesbian IPV is nonexistent as a result of adherence to “lesbian utopia,” from the assumption that women are inherently nonviolent (Gilbert, 2002; Potoczniak et al., 2003). These ideas have obscured the reality of SM IPV, disadvantaging survivors.

Police Response to SM IPV Survivors

Limited research has identified police adherence to gender bias and general misconceptions about SM IPV (but see Younglove, Kerr, & Vitello, 2002). Russell (2018) assessed police perceptions of IPV perpetrator and victim culpability, risk of harm, and credibility in vignettes among 273 officers. Participants reported heterosexual men as the most dangerous perpetrators and SM women and heterosexual men as the most culpable victims. Participants also reported heterosexual female perpetrators were least likely to inflict physical harm—reiterating the traditional IPV narrative. In addition, SM male and heterosexual female victims were attributed more credibility relative to SM female and heterosexual male victims.

Similarly, Cormier and Woodworth (2008) assessed perceptions of seriousness and sensitivity in IPV vignettes using 108 students from a Canadian university and 62 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). RCMP officers believed the perpetrator would be convicted in cases of heterosexual IPV. Students and RCMP officers perceived heterosexual IPV as the most serious compared with other relationship dyads. This study is instructive for capturing police response, but cross-national samples limit generalizability to the U.S. context.

Two studies have examined police responses to SM IPV in the United States. Tesch, Bekerian, English, and Harrington (2010) employed 91 patrol officers from five departments in Chicago. Ninety percent of participants reported responding to at least one incident of SM IPV during their career and 44% reported an arrest in at least one case of SM IPV. Pattavina et al. (2007) used the 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System to assess arrest in IPV cases reported to 2,819 police departments. There were 176,488 incidents of IPV reported to the police and 1,077 cases involved SM couples. Overall, 50% of incidents resulted in arrest. Mandatory arrest laws and offense seriousness were predictors of arrest in both heterosexual and SM IPV. Analyses on response to SM IPV revealed predictors of arrest functioned differently between the two relationship dyads. SM female IPV incidents were more likely to result in arrest if states had mandatory arrest laws compared with states without these laws—in other words, when officers were compelled to make an arrest. Alternatively, police were more likely to arrest in SM male IPV cases if the incident was classified as an aggravated assault, compared with simple assault or intimidation⁵—crime seriousness was the most salient factor for arrest among male SM couples. Furthermore, mandatory arrest policies that specifically included SM couples were related to likelihood of arrest in SM male IPV cases but not SM female IPV cases. Instead, offense seriousness predicted arrest in SM female IPV cases in states with mandatory arrest laws. Physical evidence and crime seriousness were the most important factors when officers were compelled by law to make an arrest. These two studies provide valuable insight into police response to SM IPV, though gaps remain. Previous research has not accounted for endorsement of adverse attitudes, such as homophobia and heteronormative myths, and relevant case-related factors, including presence of evidence and the credibility of the outcry witness, which have influenced case processing in criminal justice (Kaiser, O’Neal, & Spohn, 2017; Maddox, Lee, & Barker, 2011, 2012), while also considering the effect of sexual orientation on decisions to arrest.

Purpose of the Present Study

A narrow body of research has assessed police perceptions of, and responses to, SM IPV, and has relied heavily on descriptive/bivariate analyses or has employed non–U.S. samples. These endeavors have provided an instructive starting point; additional, in-depth examination of police perceptions of SM IPV survivors is warranted. The purpose of the current study was to assess police endorsement of homophobia, heteronormative IPV myths, and arrest in response to IPV among a large sample of officers commissioned at an urban police department located in the one of the five largest U.S. cities. The present study addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: To what degree do police officers endorse homophobic attitudes?

Research Question 2: To what degree do police officers endorse heteronormative myths about IPV?

Research Question 3: What police participant- and case-related factors are most important in predicting police arrest decisions in an IPV vignette?

Method

Data used were part of a larger study on police training and response to sexual and family violence. Online surveys were collected using Qualtrics after police participated in an agency-wide, mandated 4-hr training block that addressed sexual and family violence during the 2016 to 2017 training cycle.⁶ Training began on September 1, 2016, and was finalized on August 31, 2017. The agency’s 5,300 personnel completed the training. Following each session, voluntary and anonymous participation was solicited through announcements and the distribution of a postcard with instructions and the URL link to access the survey, described as “Police Attitudes About Crime and Victimization.” Participation was incentivized through police legal counsel–approved tiered contributions to a charitable organization benefiting law enforcement; individual participants did not directly receive anything of value.

Once online, participants were provided with an institutional review board–approved consent statement. The survey captured demographic information and police experiences, attitudes concerning victims, perceptions of sexual assault and family violence, and responses to a randomly assigned, manipulated, vignette. Survey completion took 25 min and reminder emails were sent from the agency at 2-week, 4-week, and 8-week intervals following training (see Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014). Online survey administration yielded 1,221 responses, or a response rate of 23%.⁷ Of those, 467 cases contained completed data.

Sample Demographics

The mean age of participants was 44.82 years (range = 25.00-64.00 years). The majority of the sample were men (n = 354, 75.8%) compared with women (n = 113, 24.2%). More than half of the participants reported race/ethnicity as “White” (n = 254, 54.3%), followed by “Latino/a” (n = 98, 21.0%), “African American” (n = 72, 15.4%), “Asian/Pacific Islander” (n = 31, 6.6%), “Native American/Alaska Native” (n = 2, 0.4%), and “Other” (n = 10, 2.1%). More than a third of participants reported a 4-year college degree (n = 173, 37.0%) and 30.0% (n = 140) reported a graduate degree. Participants averaged 18.15 years of experience (range = 1.00-42.00 years) and 62.3% identified their rank as a “police officer” (n = 291), compared with “sergeant” (n = 124, 26.6%), “lieutenant” (n = 42, 9.0%), “captain” (n = 9, 1.9%), or “assistant chief/higher” (n = 1, 0.2%). More than one third of participants were assigned to “patrol” (n = 164, 35.1%) or “investigation” (n = 179, 38.3%), whereas 26% (n = 124) were “administrative personnel.”

Domestic Violence (DV) Vignettes

This study used a 3 (sexual orientation) × 2 (presence of evidence) × 2 (victim trauma response) factorial design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 12 vignettes from Menaker and Franklin (2015) that were modified to reflect police intervention and manipulations of interest. Modification was in collaboration with Special Victims’ Division supervisory staff to ensure the scenario was realistic. The IPV scenario described a 19-year-old victim who called 911 to report a physical assault and police responded to the scene. Each vignette presented a prototypic intimate relationship involving a slow escalation of violence, followed by pleas for forgiveness over time. The current incident involved a dispute over finances that escalated to physical violence. The victim filed a formal report with police and the perpetrator provided a statement that the victim was “at fault” and had instigated the altercation.⁸

Sexual Orientation

Four vignettes portrayed a heterosexual couple (Briana and Mike), four vignettes portrayed an SM female couple (Briana and Diane), and four vignettes portrayed an SM male couple (Jimmy and Mike). For the purpose of the regression analysis, a single binary variable captured sexual orientation (heterosexual couple = 0 [n = 155, 33.2%], SM couple = 1 [n = 312, 66.8%]). ANCOVA used a sexual orientation variable separating the couples into three different categories.

Physical Evidence

Six vignettes depicted a victim with visible injury: “the police noticed that [victim]⁹ had a bloody lip and a red mark on the side of his or her face.” The remaining six vignettes explicitly noted, “no obvious signs of bruising on [victim].” A binary variable captured the presence of physical evidence (no = 0 [n = 246, 52.7%], yes = 1 [n = 221, 47.3%]).

Stereotypical Trauma Response

Six vignettes portrayed a victim who filed a police report and presented with expressive emotionality, behavioral displays of upset, and a linear recollection of events—expectations cited among police for how a credible victim would behave (Ask, 2010; Maddox et al., 2011, 2012). Stereotypical trauma response was described: “[victim] was crying and shaking while she/he recalled the details of the incident.” The remaining six vignettes portrayed a victim who reports to police and presents with flat affect and fragmented memory: “[victim] was unemotional. Her/his story was disjointed, and she/he had a difficult time providing a clear description of the events that took place during the incident.” A binary variable captured stereotypical trauma response (no = 0 [n = 229, 49.0%], yes = 1 [n = 238, 51.9%]).

Dependent Variable: Likelihood of Arrest With Victim Cooperation¹⁰

Arrest was captured with one item, “How likely is it that you would arrest [perpetrator] in this situation if [victim] was willing to cooperate?”¹¹ Responses were captured on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 6 (extremely likely). Victim cooperation was explicitly stated as research has demonstrated the imperative role of victim cooperation in case processing (Kaiser et al., 2017; Wells, Campbell, & Franklin, 2016).

Independent Variables

Homophobia

An initial pool of five items was generated from the Cognitive Negativism Subscale (CNS) of Wright, Adams, and Bernat’s (1999) 24-item Homophobia Scale. The CNS measured adverse cognitions toward SM. Items were captured on a 6-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).¹² Items included statements: “Homosexuality is acceptable to me” and “Marriage between same-sex individuals is all right with me.” The five items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and promax rotation, which produced one factor that comprised of five items with an eigenvalue greater than 1 that accounted for 57.31% of the variance. Factor loadings ranged from .497 to .948 and were summed. Mean scores were calculated, and higher scores represented increasingly negative cognitions. Mean values for the five items that comprised CNS ranged from 2.46 to 3.47 and standard deviations ranged from 1.70 to 1.91, indicating adequate variability (α = .869).

Adherence to Heteronormative IPV Myths

An initial pool of 18 items was generated from the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale (Peters, 2008), which has been previously validated (α = .88). Items captured adherence to IPV myths. Items were measured on a 6-point, Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Items included statements: “Domestic violence does not affect many people” and “When a man is violent toward his partner, it is because he lost control of his temper.” The 18 items were subjected to EFA with MLE and promax rotation (Osborne, 2015), which produced one factor that comprised of 15 items with an eigenvalue greater than 1, accounting for 33.75% of the variance. Factor loadings ranged from .410 to .769 and were summed. Mean scores were calculated and higher scores indicated stronger endorsement of myths. Mean values for the 15 items that comprised the index ranged from 1.34 to 2.21 and standard deviations ranged from 0.845 to 1.43, indicating adequate variability (α = .888).

Perceived Objectives in Domestic Violence (DV) Response

To control for participant ideas about how to approach an IPV CFS, two indices captured operational and process objectives in IPV response. An initial pool of nine items was generated from a modified version of the Objectives for Handling Domestic Violence Scale¹³ (Stalans & Finn, 2006). Items were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 (extremely unimportant) to 6 (extremely important). The nine items were subjected to EFA with MLE and promax rotation, which produced two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 53.99% of the variance. The first factor comprised six items, with loadings from .409 to .875, and was labeled DV policing processes. Items included statements: “To remain as objective as possible” and “To handle disputes with an even-handed assessment of the facts.” The six items were summed and mean scores were calculated, with higher values indicating increased importance on process objectives. Mean values for these six items ranged from 4.78 to 5.75 and standard deviations ranged from 0.88 to 1.37, indicating adequate variability (α = .863). The second factor comprised three items, with loadings from .428 to .808, and was labeled DV policing operations. Items included statements “To handle disputes in a timely manner” and “To handle the dispute with minimal resources needed.” The three items were summed and mean scores were calculated with higher scores indicating increased importance on policing operations. Mean values for the three items ranged from 4.08 to 4.82 and standard deviations from 1.33 to 1.59 indicating adequate variability (α = .615).

Control Variables

Six variables were included as control measures: sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, current rank, years of service, and number of “family violence” calls responded to in the previous 12 months.¹⁴ Sex was a dichotomous variable (male = 1 [n = 354, 75.8%], female = 2 [n = 113, 24.2%]). Race/ethnicity was recoded into three dummy variables: “White” (n = 254, 54.3%), “Latino/a” (n = 98, 21.0%), and “African American” (n = 72, 15.4%), with “White” as the reference category. Years of service was a continuous variable that captured years employed in law enforcement (M = 18.15 years, SD = 9.50 years). Number of family violence calls was an ordinal variable that captured how many “family violence” calls participants had responded to in the past 12 months (none = 1 [n = 290, 62.1%], one to five = 2 [n = 63, 13.5%], six to 10 = 3 [n = 23, 4.9%], 11 to 20 = 4 [n = 31, 6.6%], 21 or more = 5 [n = 60, 12.8%]).

Analytic Strategy

First, univariate statistics, Spearman bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations of variables were calculated, addressing Research Questions 1 and 2. Research Question 3 was assessed using multivariate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. A main effects model was estimated to assess the effect of vignette manipulations on arrest. Moderation models were estimated that included two-way and three-way interaction terms using vignette manipulations. This strategy was to determine whether and the extent to which vignette manipulations (a) significantly predicted arrest and (b) produced an interaction effect, while independent predictors and control variables were considered (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).¹⁵ Following estimation of the OLS regression, post hoc analyses were conducted, including a between-subjects factorial ANCOVA with 3 (sexual orientation) × 2 (physical evidence) × 2 (trauma response) manipulations separating the sexual orientation conditions into three groups and including the covariates that emerged as significant from the OLS regression model.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Across all vignettes, participants indicated they would be relatively likely to arrest the perpetrator (M = 4.98, SD = 1.42). Participants scored just above the scale midpoint on the homophobia index (M = 3.06, SD = 1.46) and below the scale midpoint on the heteronormative IPV myth adherence index (M = 1.79, SD = 0.73). Participants indicated DV policing processes (M = 5.44, SD = 0.83) and DV policing operations (M = 4.39, SD = 1.07) were important objectives when responding to IPV CFS.

Table 1 presents the Spearman bivariate correlations. There was a statistically significant, negative relation between arrest and heteronormative IPV myths, r_s(466) = −.201, p < .001. The remaining variables were not significantly related to arrest. In assessing relations between independent variables, several findings emerged. Homophobia was statistically significant and positively related to heteronormative IPV myths, r_s(466) = .278, p < .001, and years of service, r_s(466) = .250, p < .001. Homophobia was statistically significant and negatively related to educational attainment, r_s(466) = −.119, p = .010, and sex (male = 1, female = 2), r_s(466) = −.345, p < .001. Heteronormative IPV myths was statistically significant and negatively related to DV police processes, r_s(466) = −.145, p = .002, years of service, r_s(466) = −.096, p = .038, and sex, r_s(466) = −.131, p = .004. Finally, DV police processes was statistically significant and positively related to DV police operations, r_s(466) = .418, p < .001.

Table 1:

Summary of Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Study Variables

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Decision to arrest	—
2. Homophobia	−.06	—
3. Heteronormative IPV myth adherence	−.20**	.28**	—
4. DV policing processes	.06	.04	−.15**	—
5. DV policing operations	.01	.06	−.01	.42**	—
6. Number of IPV calls in the last 12 months	−.01	−.06	−.03	.02	.03	—
7. Years of service	.06	.25**	−.10*	−.06	−.06	−.27**	—
8. Sex	.04	−.35*	−.13**	.01	.07	−.03	−.20*	—
9. Education	.02	−.12*	−.03	−.03	.04	−.09	−.06	.17**	—
M	4.98	3.06	1.79	5.44	4.39	1.95	18.15
SD	1.42	1.46	0.73	0.83	1.08	1.45	9.50

Note. For all scales, higher scores are indicative of more extreme responding in the direction of the constructed assessment. IPV = intimate partner violence; DV = domestic violence.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Multiple OLS Regression Predicting Officer Decision to Arrest

Table 2 presents the results of the multivariate OLS regression model predicting arrest.¹⁶ The regression equation in Model 1 was significant, R² = 0.19, F(14, 452) = 7.49, p < .001. Sexual orientation was a statistically significant, negative predictor of arrest, b = −0.38, t(453) = −2.94, p = .003, indicating that arrest was less likely when an SM couple was involved in the scenario, despite victim willingness to cooperate. Presence of physical evidence was a statistically significant, positive predictor of arrest, b = 1.00, t(453) = 8.207, p < .001, and the magnitude of this relation was strong. Heteronormative IPV myths was a statistically significant, negative predictor of arrest, b = −0.29, t(453) = −3.34, p = .001, suggesting IPV myth adherence decreased arrest, after considering sexual orientation and whether there was evidence to support an IPV claim. Police processes in handling DV cases was a statistically significant, positive predictor of arrest, b = −0.17, t(453) = 2.03, p = .043. The remaining variables were not significant. Semipartial correlations were calculated and indicated that sexual orientation accounted for 2% of the variance in arrest. Approximately 12.25% of the variance in arrest was accounted for by physical evidence, 2% of the variance in arrest was accounted for by heteronormative IPV myths, and 1% of the variance in arrest was accounted for by DV police processes. Post hoc analyses estimating difference of means in the arrest variable across manipulations using independent samples t tests not presented in tabular form produced findings that replicated those presented in the OLS models, where mean levels of arrest were significantly higher when physical evidence was present and when the incident involved SM. Homophobia was not a statistically significant covariate of arrest in a generalized linear model.

Table 2:

Multivariate OLS Regression Models Predicting Decision to Arrest With Victim Cooperation

Independent variables	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3
Independent variables	b	β	t ratio	sr ²	b	β	t Ratio	sr ²	b	β	t Ratio	sr ²
Sexual orientation	−0.38	−0.13	−2.93*	−.13	−0.70	−0.23	−3.12*	−.13	−0.73	−0.24	−2.82*	−.12
Physical evidence	1.00	0.35	8.13*	.35	0.84	0.30	3.46*	.15	0.81	0.28	2.70*	.12
Trauma response	0.14	0.05	1.17	.05	−0.04	−0.02	−0.18	−.01	−0.08	−0.03	−0.27	−.01
Homophobia	0.29	0.03	0.62	.03	0.04	0.04	0.73	.03	0.03	0.05	0.72	.03
IPV myth adherence	−0.29	−0.15	−3.20*	−.14	−0.29	−0.15	−3.21*	−.14	−0.29	−0.15	−3.20*	−.14
DV policing processes	0.18	0.10	2.08*	.09	0.19	0.11	2.18*	.09	0.19	0.11	2.17*	.09
DV policing operations	−0.01	−0.01	−0.10	−.00	−0.02	−0.02	−0.29	−.01	−0.02	−0.02	−0.29	−.01
Participant sex	0.15	0.05	0.95	.04	0.15	0.05	0.98	.04	0.15	0.05	0.97	.04
African American	−0.03	−0.01	−0.17	−.01	−0.03	−0.01	−0.14	−.01	−0.03	−0.01	−0.14	−.01
Latino/a	−0.06	−0.02	−0.38	−.02	−0.07	−0.02	−0.48	−.02	−0.08	−0.02	−0.47	−.02
Education	0.01	0.01	0.15	.01	0.01	0.01	0.23	.01	0.01	0.01	0.23	.01
Rank	0.03	0.01	0.27	.01	0.01	0.01	0.13	.01	0.01	0.01	0.13	.01
Years of service	0.00	0.01	0.27	.01	0.00	0.01	0.23	.01	0.00	0.01	0.23	.01
Number of IPV CFS in 12 months	0.02	0.02	0.60	.02	0.02	0.02	0.53	.02	0.02	0.02	0.52	.02
Sexual orientation × Trauma response					0.35	0.12	1.35	.06	0.40	0.13	1.13	.05
Sexual orientation × Physical evidence					0.31	0.10	1.18	.05	0.36	0.12	0.99	.04
Physical evidence × Trauma response					−0.11	−0.03	−0.45	−.02	−0.04	−0.01	−0.08	−.00
Sexual orientation × Physical evidence × Trauma response									−0.11	−0.03	−0.22	−.01
Constant	3.86		6.54*		4.05		6.75*		4.07		6.69*
Model R	.43				.44				.44
R ²	.16				.16				.16
F	7.34*				6.24*				5.89*

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares; sr² = semipartial correlations; IPV = intimate partner violence; DV = domestic violence; CFS = calls for service.

p < .05.

Model 2 in Table 2 presents the results of the OLS regression moderation analyses that include the two-way interaction terms accounting for the three vignette manipulations. The regression equation in Model 2 was significant, R² = .19, F(17, 449) = 6.362, p < .001, though results indicate no significant moderating effects based on interaction terms. A three-way interaction term was added to identify whether sexual orientation × physical evidence × trauma response had a predictive effect on arrest. Model 3 produced a significant regression equation R² = .19, F(18, 448) = 6.00, p < .001, but the three-way interaction was not significant.

ANCOVA Predicting Officer Decision to Arrest

An independent between-groups factorial ANCOVA was conducted to determine whether significant differences emerged between sexual orientation, physical evidence, and trauma response on arrest controlling for IPV myth adherence and DV police processes—significant covariates in the OLS regression model. The ANCOVA yielded a significant main effect of sexual orientation on arrest after controlling for IPV myths and DV police processes, F(11, 494) = 4.49, p = .012, η² = .018. In addition, there was a significant main effect of physical evidence on arrest while controlling for covariates F(11, 494) = 62.97, p < .001, η² = .113. Interactions were not significant. To assess the nature of the mean differences between arrest for the three sexual orientation groups, the factorial ANCOVA was followed by Bonferonni and Games-Howell tests (Field, 2002). The difference in arrest between the heterosexual couple and the same-sex female couple was significant, but not between the heterosexual couple and the same-sex male couple, or the two SM couples, indicating that heterosexual IPV was more likely to result in arrest compared with either scenarios describing SM IPV. A visual depiction of the means and 95% confidence intervals are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Bar Chart With Arrest Decision Likelihood Means and 95% Confidence Intervals Across Couple Sexual Orientation Groups

Discussion

SM IPV remains a concern due to its frequency and the serious consequences experienced by survivors. Research has noted deficits in the criminal justice system response such as adverse reactions to survivors, case attrition, and secondary victimization from police. These shortcomings have underscored areas for improvement in addressing SM IPV (Alhusen et al., 2010; Pattavina et al., 2007; Russell, 2018; Tesch et al., 2010). The present study contributed to the narrow body of research on police endorsement of homophobia, adherence to heteronormative IPV myths, and arrest in response to IPV using a sample of 467 police responses to an IPV vignette. Several findings are worthy of additional discussion.

Concerning Research Question 1, results indicate some participant adherence to homophobia, a finding that reiterates previous research noting endorsement of negative attitudes toward SM (Bernstein, 2004; Lyons et al., 2005). Endorsement of homophobic attitudes among system personnel contributes to disadvantageous stereotypes that further hinder formal disclosure and delay intervention by social services and/or the provision of appropriate resources for survivors or programming for perpetrators. Research should continue to assess homophobia among other system personnel (e.g., prosecutors, advocates) in terms of how these attitudes can hinder the help-seeking behaviors of SM survivors.

The current study was concerned with the degree to which police officers adhered to heteronormative IPV myths. Police in this sample did not strongly adhere to these myths. That said, heteronormative myths significantly predicted arrest, independent of sexual orientation and physical evidence in the OLS model. Specifically, increased adherence to heteronormative myths surrounding IPV corresponded with a decrease in arrest, after holding victim cooperation constant and controlling for physical evidence. Findings emphasize the continued impact of long-held stereotypes that have been detrimental for all IPV survivors. Educational programming targeting officers should focus on dismantling heteronormative myths that undermine the seriousness of IPV and hinder victim-centered police responses.

Research Question 3 assessed participant- and case-related predictors of arrest. DV policing operations was a significant predictor of arrest in the OLS model. Participants who reported increased value on police processes such as objectivity, justice, even-handed assessment of facts, and notions of enforcement reported an increased likelihood of arrest. The magnitude of this relationship was moderate and the semipartial correlation coefficient identified police processes as accounting for only 1% of the unique variance in arrest. It would be interesting to examine the predictive power of police processes on arrest if additional characteristics were manipulated in a vignette, including victim willingness to cooperate, identification of the primary aggressor, and repeat CFS to the same location.

Findings underscore the importance of the couple’s sexual orientation as a predictor of arrest. When the vignette described an SM couple, participants reported they were unlikely to make an arrest compared with when the couple was heterosexual. These results appeared in both the OLS regression model and the ANCOVA. Findings reiterate the continued presence of adverse attitudes directed toward SM IPV survivors (see also Cormier & Woodworth, 2008; Russell, 2018). This is particularly interesting in a multivariate context where overt homophobia did not predict arrest, affirming the continued presence of implicit biases surrounding heterosexual IPV in terms of attributions about danger, seriousness, and severity—all of which have warranted swift intervention compared to the perception of SM IPV incidents.

Finally, physical evidence (i.e., visible injury) was the strongest predictor of arrest. This finding replicates research on criminal justice decision making more generally where crime seriousness leads to formal case processing (Hirschel & Hutchison, 2001). Demonstrable injury tangibly reflects the severity of violence, leaving less room for discretion among officers trying to calculate factors that should encourage formal criminal justice involvement and suspect apprehension (Dichter, Marcus, Morabito, & Rhodes, 2011). Future research should continue to assess the role of physical evidence to determine whether there is a threshold that must be met to facilitate formal processing and/or the operation of physical evidence when the victim has acted in self-defense. Although couple sexual orientation and trauma responses produced negligible effects, presence of physical evidence represented a proxy for offense seriousness. Other factors that may have influenced the arrest decision include the likelihood that the district attorney would formally process the case. Accounting for the role of prosecutorial decision making may have an impact on police decisions to arrest. Future research should include these considerations.

Findings are not without limitations. Data were comprised of responses from officers via online surveys, with a response rate of 20% and a completion rate of 50%. Although strategies were employed to increase participation, the percent of usable data in the present survey are comparable with other online surveys that have sampled officers (Renzetti, Bush, Castellanos, & Hunt, 2015). Results should be interpreted accordingly. This study assessed police responses at a large, diverse metropolitan agency, and research should consider responses from police in rural areas with more homogeneous populations. Although police personnel in the present study reported experience with IPV complainants, they were not asked about their experience in responding to SM IPV. This would have been insightful, given the metropolitan nature of the agency and the manner in which this exposure may have influenced responses. Future research should continue to explore arrest decisions for IPV while considering experience in addressing the myriad complainants that seek police assistance. Moreover, the current study did not depict a heterosexual female perpetrator in the vignette. Although this type of IPV does occur, perpetrators depicted here parallel IPV typologies where males most often perpetrate fear-inducing, intimate terrorism in relationships (M. P. Johnson, 2008). It would be useful to examine responses to heterosexual IPV perpetrated by females to determine whether predictors of arrest differ. This study used the CNS of the Homophobia Scale, which assesses perceptions of SM; however, studies have noted the benefits of measuring attitudes toward lesbian women and gay men separately (Herek, 2004). It would be beneficial to assess attitudes toward these two distinct social groups. In addition, responses to individual items on the CNS demonstrate the need to focus on specific aspects of homophobia, particularly cultural-sensitivity training on human inclusivity, diversity, and cognitive behavioral strategies that dismantle heteronormative myths surrounding SM. Furthermore, this study assessed participant responses to SM IPV by using vignettes. Research has noted the usefulness of vignettes for victimization (Schwartz, 2000), and the degree to which intentions to act has predicted actual behavior (Kim & Hunter, 1993). Although existing research has employed this strategy, the inclusion of a manipulation check on sexual orientation would have been useful. It would also be fruitful to examine redacted case notes to explore whether sexual orientation has influenced arrest in IPV cases. Finally, these data were collected as part of a larger grant-funded project following participation in an agency-wide mandatory training. Although curricula did not address SM IPV, training did include material on gender violence and response to sexual assault and family violence. It is possible that this may have had an effect on arrest for IPV more generally and findings should be interpreted with some caution.¹⁷

Despite these limitations, findings have important implications. Police intervention in SM and heterosexual IPV is necessary for survivor safety, subsequent help seeking, and suspect apprehension. These results affirm, however, that when IPV involved an SM couple, officers were less likely to make an arrest, despite victim willingness to cooperate. Given pervading heteronormative assumptions surrounding IPV, police training would benefit from a continued focus on dismantling misinformation surrounding SM IPV and addressing the durability of heteronormative IPV myths. These findings are useful in the assessment and intervention of more covert homonegativity among practitioners and may provide further insights to the quality of interaction that SM IPV survivors have during initial contact with officers. It would be important to identify whether similar attitudes exist among service providers responsible for direct service delivery. Indeed, social work guidelines for practice have illustrated that homonegative attitudes have impeded identification of victimization and treatment efficacy (Crisp, 2007).

In addition, the 2015 Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance to police agencies for identifying and preventing gender bias in response to sexual violence and DV have highlighted principles surrounding bias, assumptions, and stereotypes regarding victims, which may capture those held by officers directed toward SM survivors (DOJ, 2015). In one department, officers engaged in a 5-hr training focused on effective cultural competency programs for law enforcement. Knowledge and self-efficacy in working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, and queer (LGBTQ) populations increased posttraining, but apprehension in working with the LGBTQ community did not decrease (Israel, Harkness, Delucio, Ledbetter, & Avellar, 2014). Findings presented here underscore the significance of addressing the harmful role that negative attitudes may have on criminal justice intervention with SM IPV survivors. It is worth repeating the significant differences in arrest when the couple was heterosexual as compared with SM; but among SM couples, no significant differences emerged. This suggests the utility of educational programming focused on SM IPV. Augmenting training with an emphasis on IPV among SM has the potential to improve police responses for all IPV survivors who take the courageous first step to report victimization.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

The authors would like to thank the police partner agency for their cooperation and the supervisory staff at the Special Victims’ Division for their assistance, support, and instructive feedback with this project. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. This project was supported by Grant No. 2016-SI-AX-0005 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice.

ORCID iD

Cortney A. Franklin

Notes

Cortney A. Franklin, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology and director of the Crime Victims’ Institute at Sam Houston State University. Her research focuses on violence against women, including sexual assault, intimate partner violence, perceptions of sex trafficking victims, and criminal justice system responses to victims. She is the principal investigator for a federally funded Office on Violence Against Women award to evaluate police responses to sexual and family violence. She has published more than 30 peer-reviewed articles that have appeared in Psychology of Women Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Violence Against Women, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of School Violence, and Feminist Criminology.

Amanda Goodson, MA, is a fourth-year doctoral student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Her research focuses on victimology, specifically violence against women, and system responses to crime victims. Her work has appeared in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, American Journal of Criminal Justice, and Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research.

Alondra D. Garza, MA, is a first-year doctoral student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Her research focuses on victimology, violence against women, and gender and crime. Her recent work has appeared in Journal of Interpersonal Violence. She is currently a graduate research assistant for a federally funded Office on Violence Against Women award to evaluate police responses to sexual and family violence.

References

Alhusen

Lucea

Glass

(2010). Perceptions of and experiences with system response to female same-sex intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 1, 443-462.

Arnott

J. S.

(2000). Gays and lesbians in the criminal justice system. In Hendricks

J. E.

Byers

B. D.

(Eds.), Multicultural perspectives in criminal justice and criminology (pp. 222-242). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Ask

(2010). A survey of police officers’ and prosecutors’ beliefs about crime victim behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1132-1149.

Badenes-Ribera

Frias-Navarro

Bonilla-Campos

Pons-Salvador

Monterde-i-Bort

(2015). Intimate partner violence in self-identified lesbians: A meta-analysis of its prevalence. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12, 47-59.

Baker

N. L.

Buick

J. D.

Kim

S. R.

Moniz

Nava

K. L.

(2013). Lessons from examining same-sex intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 69, 182-192.

Bernstein

(2004). Paths to homophobia. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 41-55.

Bernstein

Kostelac

(2002). Lavender and blue: Attitudes about homosexuality and behavior toward lesbians and gay men among police officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18, 302-328.

Berrill

K. T.

Herek

G. M.

(1990). Primary and secondary victimization in anti-gay hate crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 401-413.

Colvin

(2015). Shared workplace experiences of lesbian and gay police officers in the United Kingdom. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38, 333-349.

10.

Connell

R. W.

(1995). Masculinities. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

11.

Cormier

N. S.

Woodworth

M. T.

(2008). Do you see what I see? The influence of gender stereotypes on student and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) perceptions of violence same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17, 478-505.

12.

Crisp

(2007). Correlates of homophobia and use of gay affirmative practice among social workers. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 14, 119-143.

13.

DeJong

Burgess-Proctor

Elis

(2008). Police officer perceptions of intimate partner violence: An analysis of observational data. Violence and Victims, 23, 683-696.

14.

Department of Justice. (2015). Identifying and preventing gender bias in law enforcement response to sexual assault and domestic violence. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-guidance-identifying-and-preventing-gender-bias-law-enforcement

15.

Dichter

M. E.

Marcus

S. C.

Morabito

M. S.

Rhodes

K. V.

(2011). Explaining the IPV arrest decision: Incident, agency, and community factors. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 22-39.

16.

Dicker

(2008). A history of U.S. feminisms. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

17.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

18.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Neal

A. M.

(2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5, 112-121.

19.

Fassinger

R. E.

Arseneau

J. R.

(2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under the umbrella”: Differentiating the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In Bieschke

K. J.

Perez

R. M.

DeBord

K. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (pp. 19-49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

20.

Field

(2002). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

Freedman

E. B.

(2002). No turning back: The history of feminism and the future of women. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

22.

Gilbert

P. R.

(2002). Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 8, 1271-1300.

23.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

24.

Herek

G. M.

(2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 6-24.

25.

Herek

G. M.

(2009). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In Hope

D. A.

(Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities (pp. 65-111). New York, NY: Springer.

26.

Hirschel

Hutchison

I. W.

(2001). The relative effects of offense, offender, and victim variables on the decision to prosecute domestic violence cases. Violence Against Women, 7, 46-59.

27.

Hudson

W. W.

Ricketts

W. A.

(1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372.

28.

Israel

Harkness

Delucio

Ledbetter

J. N.

Avellar

T. R.

(2014). Evaluation of police training on LGBTQ issues: Knowledge, interpersonal apprehension, and self-efficacy. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 29, 57-67.

29.

Johnson

A. G.

(1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

30.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). Typology of domestic violence: Intimate, terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

31.

Kaiser

K. A.

O’Neal

E. N.

Spohn

(2017). “Victim refuses to cooperate”: A focal concerns analysis of victim cooperation in sexual assault cases. Victims & Offenders, 12, 297-322.

32.

Kim

Hunter

(1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior. Communications Research, 20, 331-364.

33.

Kline

T. J. B.

(2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford.

34.

Koss

M. P.

Goodman

L. A.

Browne

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Keita

G. P.

Russo

N. F.

(1994). The prevalence of intimate violence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

35.

Kuehnle

Sullivan

(2003). Gay and lesbian victimization: Reporting factors in domestic violence and bias incidents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 85-96.

36.

Lambda Legal. (2014). Protected or served? Police. Retrieved from http://www.lambdalegal.org/protected-and-served/police

37.

Lavoie

Jacob

Hardy

Martin

(1989). Police attitudes in assigning responsibility for wife abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 369-388.

38.

Lutze

F. E.

Symons

(2003). The evolution of domestic violence police through masculine institutions: From discipline to protection to collaborative empowerment. Criminology & Public Policy, 2, 319-328.

39.

Lyons

P. M.

Anthony

C. M.

Davis

K. M.

Fernandez

Torres

A. N.

Marcus

D. K.

(2005). Police judgments of culpability and homophobia. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 1, 1-14.

40.

Maddox

Lee

Barker

(2011). Police empathy and victim PTSD as potential factors in rape case attrition. Journal of Police Criminal Psychology, 26, 112-117.

41.

Maddox

Lee

Barker

(2012). The impact of psychological consequences of rape on rape case attrition: The police perspective. Journal of Police Criminal Psychology, 27, 33-44.

42.

Mallory

Hasenbush

Sears

(2015). Discrimination and harassment by law enforcement officers in the LGBT community. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. Available from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/

43.

Martin

(1975). Battered wives. Volcano, CA: Volcano Press.

44.

Menaker

T. A.

Franklin

C. A.

(2015). Gendered violence and victim blame: Subject perceptions of blame and the appropriateness of services for survivors of domestic sex trafficking, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38, 395-413.

45.

Merrill

G. S.

Wolfe

V. A.

(2000). Battered gay men: An exploration of abuse, help seeking, and why they stay. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 1-30.

46.

Nix

Pickett

J. T.

Baek

Alpert

G. P.

(2017). Police research, officer surveys, and response rates. Policing & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10439463.2017.1394300

47.

Osborne

J. W.

(2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 20(2), 1-7.

48.

Pattavina

Hirschel

Buzawa

Faggiani

Bentley

(2007). A comparison of the police response to heterosexual versus same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 374-394.

49.

Peterman

L. M.

Dixon

C. G.

(2003). Domestic violence between same-sex partners: Implications for counseling, practice, and theory. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 40-47.

50.

Peters

(2008). Measuring myths about domestic violence: Development and initial validation of the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16, 1-21.

51.

Potoczniak

M. J.

Mourot

J. E.

Crosbie-Burnett

Potoczniak

D. J.

(2003). Legal and psychological perspectives on same-sex domestic violence: A multisystemic approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 252-259.

52.

Prokos

Padavic

(2002). “There oughtta be a law against bitches”: Masculinity lessons in police academy training. Gender, Work & Organization, 9, 439-459.

53.

Renzetti

C. M.

Bush

Castellanos

Hunt

(2015). Does training make a difference? An evaluation of a specialized human trafficking training module for law enforcement officers. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38, 334-350.

54.

Russell

(2018). Police perceptions in intimate partner violence cases: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41, 193-205.

55.

Schwartz

M. D.

(2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6, 815-838.

56.

Sherman

L. W.

Berk

R. A.

(1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272.

57.

Stalans

L. J.

Finn

M. A.

(2006). Public’s and police officers’ interpretation and handling of domestic violence cases: Divergent realities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1129-1155.

58.

Stewart

Maddren

(1997). Police officers’ judgements of blame in family violence: The impact of gender and alcohol. Sex Roles, 37, 921-933.

59.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

60.

Tesch

Bekerian

English

Harrington

(2010). Same-sex domestic violence: Why victims are more at risk. International Journal for Police Science & Management, 12, 526-535.

61.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). National Incident-Based Reporting System: Methodology. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2012/resources/methodology

62.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

63.

Weinberg

(1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

64.

Wells

Campbell

Franklin

(2016). Unsubmitted sexual assault kits in Houston, TX: Case characteristics, forensic testing results, and the investigation of CODIS hits. Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University.

65.

Wright

L. W.

Adams

H. E.

Bernat

(1999). Development and validation of the homophobia scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 337-347.

66.

Younglove

J. A.

Kerr

M. G.

Vitello

C. J.

(2002). Law enforcement officers’ perceptions of same sex domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 760-772.

Intimate Partner Violence Among Sexual Minorities: Predicting Police Officer Arrest Decisions

Abstract

Keywords

Homophobia 2

Heteronormative Misconceptions About IPV

Police Response to SM IPV Survivors

Purpose of the Present Study

Method

Sample Demographics

Domestic Violence (DV) Vignettes

Sexual Orientation

Physical Evidence

Stereotypical Trauma Response

Dependent Variable: Likelihood of Arrest With Victim Cooperation 10

Independent Variables

Homophobia

Adherence to Heteronormative IPV Myths

Perceived Objectives in Domestic Violence (DV) Response

Control Variables

Analytic Strategy

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations

Multiple OLS Regression Predicting Officer Decision to Arrest

ANCOVA Predicting Officer Decision to Arrest

Discussion

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

ORCID iD

Notes

References

Homophobia²

Dependent Variable: Likelihood of Arrest With Victim Cooperation¹⁰