Status Compatibility and Help-Seeking Behaviors Among Female Intimate Partner Violence Victims

Abstract

Given the far-reaching social, personal, and economic costs of crime and violence, as well as the lasting health effects, understanding how women respond to domestic violence and the types of help sought are critical in addressing intimate partner violence. We use a nationally representative dataset (Canadian General Social Survey, Personal Risk, 1999) to examine the help-seeking behaviors of female intimate partner violence victims (N = 250). Although victims of violent crime often do not call the police, many victims, particularly women who have been battered by their partner rely on family, friends, social service, and mental health interventions in dealing with the consequences of violent crime. We examine the role of income, education, and employment status in shaping women’s decisions to seek help, and we treat these economic variables as symbolic and relative statuses as compared to male partners. Although family violence researchers have conceptualized the association between economic variables and the dynamics of intimate partner violence with respect to the structural dimensions of sociodemographic factors, feminist researchers connect economic power to family dynamics. Drawing on these literatures, we tap the power in marital and cohabiting relationships, rather than treating these variables as simply socioeconomic resources. Controlling for other relevant variables we estimate a series of multivariate models to examine the relationship between status compatibilities and help-seeking from both formal and informal sources. We find that status incompatibilities between partners that favor women increase the likelihood of seeking support in dealing with the impact of violence.

Keywords

intimate partner violence status compatibilities victim help-seeking

Traditionally, men have held the role of the sole provider of family income with women contributing to the family’s economic well-being through domestic work and child rearing (Pagelow, 1997). These traditional gender roles and associated power structures in intimate relationships have slowly been changing over the past four decades with an increasing number of women entering the workforce and contributing to the combined household income (Anderson, 1997; Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 1999; Hornung, McCullough, & Sugimoto, 1981). Women’s economic contributions have become increasingly important for many families’ economic well-being (Dugan et al, 1999; Kaukinen, 2004a) and traditional gender roles have become less common with the rise of the dual-employment marriages (Hornung & McCullough, 1981; Nock, 2001). Although these changes have empowered women, they have also potentially left them at risk of male-perpetrated violence as an alternative means of men maintaining power and control over women (Anderson, 1997; Dugan et al, 1999; Riger & Krieglstein, 2000). However, past research also reveals that the increased economic power and associated status of women in the family structure equips them with a greater access to symbolic and material resources they may draw on when experiencing intimate partner violence (Dugan et al, 1999).

Past theoretical and empirical examinations of status (in)compatibilities between intimate partners have focused on its association with women’s experiences of violence rather than their responses to victimization (Anderson, 1997; Hornung et al, 1981; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Kaukinen, 2004a; Lowenstein, 2005). Although some researchers have examined the role of status (in)compatibilities in relation to women’s leave-taking decisions (Riger & Krieglstein, 2000; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 2006), the process of help-seeking that enables victims to terminate the abusive relationship has generally been neglected. The current article examines women’s responses to intimate partner violence based on their relative status in the intimate relationship to gain insights on how status (in)compatibilities shape women’s help-seeking behaviors.

Below we highlight research on the changing patterns in the relative economic status of male and female partners and identify the consequences for marital satisfaction. Given that the association between status incompatibilities and increased risk of male-to-female perpetrated forms of intimate partner violence has been examined extensively by past researchers (see Hornung et al, 1981; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Vieraitis, Kovandzic, & Britto, 2008), we focus on the help-seeking behaviors of intimate partner violence victims and how these may be shaped by factors related to status (in)compatibilities, including marital dependency, marital quality/satisfaction, stress-frustration in low income couples and the distribution of resource contribution in intimate couples.

Background

Increasing Status Incompatibilities and Challenges to Male Superiority

Until the late 20th century men primarily served as the breadwinner and head of the household. A man’s status within the family power structure was clearly defined because of his economic power and his contribution to the family’s social and financial status and well-being (Hornung & McCullough, 1981; Nock, 2001; Riger & Krieglstein, 2000). With an increasing number of women achieving higher levels of education and entering the workforce, these clearly defined power structures in marital relationships have changed dramatically. Today, an increasing number of women make significant contributions to the family household income and have access to their own economic resources (Dugan et al, 1999; Kaukinen, 2004a; Nock, 2001).

In his study on the marriages of “equally dependent spouses,” Nock (2001) found that about one fifth of women in marital relationships contributed about half (between 40% and 59%) to the household income and that this form of “status parity” has becoming increasingly common among couples. Although this has led to improvements in women’s status and lowered their risk of marital dependency, this change may have implications for marital quality and satisfaction along with marital commitment. Women have increasing access to financial resources that allow them to terminate intimate relationships that are no longer satisfying (Nock, 2001; Straus et al, 2006). Some women have even moved ahead of their male intimate partners on the educational and occupational scale, contributing significantly more to the household income than their intimate partners (Anderson, 1997; Kaukinen, 2004a). Although allowing women a greater level of freedom in their mate and lifestyle selection, their empowerment may have challenged men’s role within the family. This shift in traditional gender roles has likely created status incompatibilities between some intimate partners (Kaukinen, 2004a; Rinelli, 2006). This shift may also increase the risk of male-perpetrated violence and coercive control as alternative means of regaining power and reinforcing traditional gender roles (Dugan et al, 1999; Hornung et al, 1981; Kaukinen, 2004a; Rinelli, 2006; Stark, 2007; Vieraitis et al, 2008). This phenomenon has particularly been observed in working class men with equally or more economically powerful female partners (Anderson, 1997; Riger & Krieglstein, 2000; Vieraitis et al, 2008). However, the risk of intimate partner violence victimization remains for women in traditional status couples (Riger & Krieglstein, 2000; Straus et al, 2006; Walker, 1979). Women’s lack of economic power often leaves them with fewer resources when experiencing and responding to intimate partner violence (Dugan et al, 1999; Kaukinen, 2004a; Riger & Krieglstein, 2000; Straus et al, 2006). Although a number of prior studies have examined status (in)compatibilities in relation to the risk of intimate partner violence (Anderson, 1997; Hornung & McCullough, 1981; Hotaling & Surgarman, 1990; Lowenstein, 2005; Straus et al, 2006), few have focused on how the victim’s relative status in the intimate relationship may influence her responses to intimate partner violence. For the purpose of this study, we therefore examine four different status constellations between intimate partners and how the relative status of women in each constellation may influence their help-seeking decisions when being exposed to intimate partner violence.

The Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence and Victim Help-Seeking Behaviors

Recent international victim surveys, conducted in Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States show that between 20% and 30% of female respondents report experiences of either physical or sexual intimate partner violence (Johnson & Bunge, 2001; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Mouzos & Makkai, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The phenomenon of intimate partner violence, along with its associated risk factors and consequences has been studied extensively from two different perspectives, namely the feminist and family violence perspectives (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Gelles, 1974; Johnson, 1995; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Walker, 1979). Although both bodies of research have incorporated the role of socioeconomic status in their attempts to identify risk factors for intimate partner violence, family violence approaches center on the socioeconomic status of families and links to poverty and stress-frustration (Lowenstein, 2005; Straus et al, 2006) whereas feminist approaches focus on the relative status of women in traditionally male-dominated social structures (Anderson, 1997; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Russell, 1975; Stark, 2007). Regardless of the approach taken with respect to the role of status as a risk factor, there is consensus amongst researchers that the effects of intimate partner violence are detrimental and that the nature and extent of emotional, physical and sexual intimate partner violence are associated with victims’ help-seeking behaviors (Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005; Gondolf & Fisher, 1988; Leone, Johnson, & Cohan, 2007; Walker, 1979).

Although quality and quantity of different services have improved since the women’s movement in the late 1960s (Doerner & Lab, 2005; Stark, 2007), past research reveals an underutilization of service responses available to intimate partner violence victims (Fugate, Landis, Riordan, & Naureckas, 2005; Kaukinen, 2004a). Victims predominantly talk to informal sources, including family and friends (Goodkind, Dutton, Vankos, & Weinfurt, 2005; Meyer, 2010; Moe, 2007) wheres more formalized sources, including law enforcement, medical services, and specialized victim services remain underused (Carcach, 1997; Felson & Paré 2005; Fugate et al, 2005; Kaukinen, 2004b; Mouzos & Makkai, 2004; Wolf, Ly, Hobart, & Kernic, 2003).

A variety of victim demographics, including age, education, socioeconomic, and marital status have been associated with the nature and extent of victims’ help-seeking behaviors by past research (Akers & Kaukinen, 2009; Kaukinen, 2004b; Koepsell, Kernic, & Holt, 2006; Ruiz-Perez, Mata-Pariente, & Plazaola-Castano, 2006; Stark, 2007). However, most of these factors have been examined as victim characteristics rather than examining the victim’s status relative to their male partner within the intimate relationship. For the purpose of this study, we examine victims’ decisions to seek help from a range of different sources, including the police, medical practitioners, social services, legal services/lawyers, family members and friends. Education- and employment-related factors are examined in relation to status (in)compatibilities between intimate partners while other demographic factors are used as victim-related control variables.

Status, Intimate Partner Violence and Help-Seeking Strategies

Depending on the theoretical approach, status may be viewed as an absolute or relative concept. According to Marxist theories, female status is absolute because of women’s traditionally oppressed status in society (Vieraitis et al, 2008). Feminist approaches, however, define status as a relative concept, generally measured against another unit, that is male status. As male status has traditionally been defined in terms of economic power in the family men have enjoyed a higher status relative to their partner (Hornung et al, 1981; Vieraitis et al, 2008). Despite changing trends in gender roles, the majority of couples remain in the traditional status constellation.

Traditional Status Couples

Traditional status couples favor men as women contribute significantly less to the household income (Kaukinen, 2004a; Rinelli, 2006). Power imbalances experienced by this status constellation are associated with traditional gender roles. Such imbalances may generate greater levels of marital dependency in women (Anderson, 1997; Kaukinen, 2004a) and also are associated with greater levels of marital satisfaction in men (Anderson, 1997). Some research suggests that men in traditional status compatibility relationships are less likely to use violence, emotional abuse, and coercive control against their female partner as they are able to demonstrate power through their economic contributions to the household (Anderson, 1997; Hornung et al, 1981). Other academics have argued that the power imbalances present in these relationships elevate a woman’s risk of intimate partner violence. Although the male partner may not feel the need to abuse and control his female partner to demonstrate power, he may do so simply because of his partner’s dependency (Riger & Krieglstein, 2000). Marital dependency has been identified as a barrier to seeking help and terminating an abusive relationship (Bui, 2003; Wolf et al, 2003). Consequently, this perspective hypothesizes a decreased likelihood of seeking help among victims in this status constellation.

Parity Status Couples

Past research on status compatibilities identified two forms of status parity between intimate partners—one where both partners are employed and one where both partners are unemployed. In the first scenario, both partners contribute somewhere between 40% to 65% of the household income (Anderson, 1997; Kaukinen, 2004a; Nock, 2001). As suggested by Nock (2001), this status constellation is becoming increasingly common. These couples are also referred to as “equally dependent spouses” as both partners rely on the other’s financial contribution for the stability of the household (Nock, 2001). Some research shows high levels of marital quality (Bailey & Peterson, 1995; Kaukinen, 2004a; Pridemore & Freilich, 2005) and lower risk of intimate partner violence among these couples. Feminists suggest that the increasing economic power of these women may present a challenge to masculinity and male superiority, which increases the risk of a violent “backlash” against these women by their intimate partners (Anderson, 1997; Hornung et al, 1981, Pridemore & Freilich, 2005; Riger & Krieglstein, 2000; Russell, 1975). However, if these women experience intimate partner violence they have the resources to terminate the abusive relationship. Overall, relationships among these types of status parity couples are more likely to be terminated once marital conflict arises (Anderson, 1997; Nock, 2001). In short, these women can be more selective about their choice of partner and their financial independence allows them to terminate the relationship when marital satisfaction erodes (Rinelli, 2006). This suggests an increased likelihood of help-seeking where male and female partners are of equal status.

The second form of status parity addresses couples in which both partners are unemployed and economically disadvantaged. Past research reveals low levels of marital quality and satisfaction in these couples along with a high risk of violence. Intimate partner violence may escalate in this status constellation as a result of stress-frustration or as a form of punishment of the victim where men blame their female partners for their socially marginalized situation (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Riger & Krieglstein, 2000; Rinelli, 2006; Straus et al, 2006). These victims are not only at the highest risk of experiencing conflict but also at the highest risk of being trapped in the abusive relationship because of their lack of access to financial resources. Accordingly, within this type of status parity, women should be less likely to seek help.

Reversed Status Couples

Although a growing number of women are entering the workforce with increasingly higher levels of education, this status constellation remains less common (Anderson, 1997; Kaukinen, 2004a; Rinelli, 2006). Feminist approaches, including resource theory, propose a high risk of victimization for women living in this status constellation as the “backlash effect” (discussed above) applies even more to couples where women’s education and economic resources exceed those of their male partners (Anderson, 1997; Hornung et al, 1981). Violence becomes an alternative tool for men to reestablish traditional gendered power imbalances in these relationships (Anderson, 1997; Pridemore & Freilich, 2005; Rinelli, 2006). However, Dugan et al (1999) have also found that although women in reverse status couples are at an elevated risk of a severe “backlash effect,” they are also more likely to terminate the relationship before the violence takes lethal forms. Similar to women in parity status couples where both partners are employed, this research suggests that women in reverse status couples are less likely to tolerate abuse and are therefore more likely to access relevant support sources to address their situation.

Method

To examine the impact of status compatibility on women’s decisions to seek help in cases of male perpetrated intimate partner violence we draw on data from the 1999 Canadian General Social Survey, Personal Risk collected by Statistics Canada (2000) will hereafter be referred to as CGSS. This is one of a very few publicly available, large-scale, representative surveys with information on both women’s and men’s financial contributions to the household that also includes data on intimate partner violence among heterosexual married and cohabiting couples. Newer and more recent data collected by Statistics Canada are not currently publicly available. More importantly, the analysis of these newer Canadian datasets, including data on intimate partner violence is only accessible for analysis via a Statistics Canada Data Agreement and the analyses may only be conducted in a Statistics Canada Data Consortium Institution. The final sample for the 1999 CGSS consisted of 25,876 Canadian men and women (15 years of age and above), an overall response rate of 81%. The survey collected detailed information on the most recent incident of spousal victimization in the 12 months prior to the survey as well as victimization experiences within the 5 years prior to the survey. Because physical violence in intimate relationships is statistically rare, the analyses presented below use the 5-year time period (see Akers & Kaukinen, 2009; Kaukinen, 2004a for a discussion). Although the use of large-scale representative data helps to avoid some of the problems associated with clinical sample bias, a different form of selectivity might potentially bias the results. The CGSS data, similar to other community samples, typically underrepresent the most severe and violent forms of intimate partner abuse (Johnson, 1995) and women participating in national surveys are less likely to report incidents of violence as criminal matters, thus potentially underestimating intimate partner violence (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992, p. 75). The sample used in our analyses may therefore not include all women who are victims of the most severe types of intimate partner violence. Our study may therefore somewhat underestimate the effect of status compatibility on the most severe types of violence. After selecting only the married and cohabitating women who have experienced physical violence from the larger sample of 25,876 Canadian men and women and omitting those with missing data on the dependent variable, 250 women respondents were available for the analyses.

Variables: Physical Violence in Intimate Relationships

The measure of partner violence used to define our sample for the analyses is similar to that used by other researchers using surveys measuring intimate partner violence (see Tjaden & Thoennes, 1999) and the Violence and Threats of Violence against Women and Men in the United States Survey, 1994 -1996). Among the sample of victims used in the analyses, all of the women had experienced at least one type of violent victimization across all of the violence items (see Table 1). Among victims, the experiences with violence across the individual violence items ranged from 32% to 74% for threats, pushes, slaps, and thrown objects and 2% to 21% for the most severe forms of violence (such as sexual assault, choking, kicking, beatings, and threats with a weapon).

Table 1.

Variable Coding and Descriptive Statistics (N = 250) Measuring Intimate Partner Violence and Help-Seeking Behavior

Variables	Description	M	SD	Range
Physical violence
Threats	“Has your partner threatened to hit with fist/other object”	0.56	0.50	0-1
Thrown	“Has your partner thrown anything at you that could hurt you?”	0.32	0.47	0-1
Pushed, and so forth.	“Has your partner pushed, grabbed or shoved you in a way that could have hurt you?	0.74	0.44	0-1
Slapped	“Has your partner slapped you?”	0.30	0.46	0-1
Kicked or hit	“Has your partner kicked, bit you or hit you with his fist?”	0.21	0.41	0-1
Hit with object	“Has your partner hit you with something that could have hurt?”	0.11	0.31	0-1
Beaten	“Has your partner beaten you?”	0.14	0.35	0-1
Choked	“Has your partner choked you?”	0.12	0.32	0-1
Threat with gun	“Has your partner threatened to use a gun or knife on you?”	0.02	0.15	0-1
Forced sex	“Has you partner forced you into an unwanted sexual activity, by threatening you, holding you down or hurting you in some way?”	0.07	0.25	0-1
Help-seeking measures
Police	Reported incident to police	0.22	0.41	0-1
Social services	Sought help from social services	0.24	0.43	0-1
Mental health	Sought help from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or doctor	0.38	0.49	0-1
Lawyer	Sought assistance from a legal resource	0.12	0.32	0-1
Family/friend	Sought help from family/friend/neighbor	0.69	0.46	0-1
Clergy	Sought help from a member of the clergy	0.09	0.28	0-1

Dependent Variable: Help-Seeking and Police Reporting

The survey respondents were asked about the various help-seeking strategies used in dealing with their experiences with intimate partner violence. Informal help-seeking includes help sought from family, friends, and neighbors. Women were also asked whether they had sought help from a doctor, mental health professional (psychiatrist or psychologist) and/or social service agency (crisis center, hot line; battered women’s shelter; homeless shelter; community, family center; social services, welfare; victim advocacy agency; or support group). Respondents also indicated whether the incident was brought to the attention of the police and if they themselves had called the police. Consistent with previous research, the majority of the women did not report their experiences with violence to the police (Bachman, 1995; Bachman & Coker, 1998; Gartner & Macmillan, 1995). Among the women in the survey used in our analyses, we found that 22% of physical assault victims reported their victimization to the police. Although many victims do not seek assistance from the police, we found that alternative sources of social support are important to women dealing with the impact of violence, 69% of physical assault victims seeking help from a family member or friend. Women also seek help from psychiatrists and other doctors, 38% of physically victimized women sought this type of professional help. Women also make use of social service agencies in dealing with violence, 24% of physical assault victims went to a social service agency. Women also used two other diverse sources of social support, 12% sought assistance from a lawyer and 9% relied on faith-based assistance from a member of the clergy. Some research suggests that men are as likely to experience partner violence (Reid et al., 2008), yet male victims of intimate partner violence are even less likely than women to seek help and that there are likely fewer services specifically designed to address their needs (Hines & Douglas, 2011). A similar analysis of the factors associated with men’s decisions to seek help in dealing with intimate partner violence are not possible with the CGSS data. Among the male victims in the CGSS data, only 19 called the police, 7 contacted a lawyer, 1 had contacted a crisis center, and no men in the data had gone to a shelter. The CGSS data do not support the ability to estimate a multivariate analysis of men’s help-seeking. This is therefore an area of research for future data collection efforts.

Status Compatibility Between Intimate Partners

Descriptions and univariate statistics (means and standard deviations) for the status compatibility measures and control variables are outlined in Table 2. The variables measuring the female respondent’s and her partner’s education and income are ordinal-level variables. Income was coded as a 12-category variable denoting income amounts from none to US$100,000 or more. Education was coded as a 10-category variable denoting educational levels from none to Doctorate, Master’s and some graduate. Although these variables are not truly interval, they approximate interval level variables having 10 or more levels. Employment status is a dummy variable denoting those who are currently employed. Given that the goal was to examine the relationship between men’s and women’s relative socioeconomic status (status compatibility) on help-seeking behaviors, we do not present statistical models in the results section that examine the main effects of the socioeconomic variables for men and women. In this article we adopt a modified version of Kaukinen’s (2004) measures of status compatibility for employment, education, and income. Status compatibility between partners for employment is measured using four dummy coded variables. For status parity relationships there are two separate dummy variables, one for both partners employed and one for both partners unemployed. The dummy variable for traditional status incompatibility denotes when a woman is unemployed and her husband is employed. Finally, status reversal is measured with a dummy variable denoting when a woman is employed and her husband is unemployed.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Variables in the Model, (N = 250)

Variables	M	SD	Range
Employment
Respondent employed	0.65	0.48	0-1
Spouse employed	0.84	0.37	0-1
Respondent employed & partner employed	0.57	0.50	0-1
Respondent unemployed & partner employed	0.24	0.43	0-1
Respondent employed & partner unemployed	0.06	0.24	0-1
Respondent unemployed & partner unemployed	0.09	0.29	0-1
Education
Respondent’s education (1 = no education to elementary to 10 = doctorate/master’s/some graduate)	5.84	2.65	1-10
Spouse’s education (same as above)	4.64	2.73	1-10
Education parity (ratio = 1)	0.32	0.47	0-1
Woman more educated (ratio > 1)	0.45	0.50	0-1
Woman less educated (ration < 1)	0.24	0.43	0-1
Income
Respondent’s income (1 = no income to 12 = US$100,000 or more)	4.81	2.21	1-12
Household income (same as above)
Income parity (woman earns 45% to 65% of household income)	0.22	0.41	0-1
Woman earns more (> 65% of household income)	0.19	0.39	0-1
Woman earns less (< 45% of household income)	0.41	0.50	0-1
Woman does not know household income	0.18	0.39	0-1
Controls
Age (16 to 80 years and older)	37.79	11.18	16-80
Spouse’s age (1 = 15-24 to 7 = 75 and older)	3.14	1.21	1-7
Visible minority (1 = yes)	0.10	0.29	0-1
Aboriginal status (1 = yes)	0.17	0.38	0-1
Married (1 = yes)	0.74	0.44	0-1
Length of relationship (1 = less than 5 years to 6 = 36 years of more)	13.87	10.97	1-6
Household size (1= couple only, 0 = other)	0.36	0.48	0-1
Disability (1 = yes)	0.13	0.33	0-1
Spouse was drinking during the incident (1 = yes)	0.36	0.48	0-1
Respondent’s child(ren) witnessed the incident (1 = yes)	0.40	0.50	0-1
Respondent feared for her safety during the incident (1 = yes)	0.21	0.41	0-1

With respect to employment, the majority of respondents are in a dual-earner family (57%), one quarter (24%) are unemployed while their husband is employed, and 9% are unemployed as is their husband. Only 6% of the respondents are in a status reversal couple (she is employed and her husband is not employed). The reference category for the multivariate analyses is both partners unemployed (9%). Status compatibility between partners for education was measured using an interval level variable. This variable was constructed by making a ratio of the respondent’s education and her male partner’s education. Among the women in the CGSS, most have similar educational backgrounds to their partners (i.e., 32% have similar educational attainment, ratio = 1), 24% of women are less educated (ratio < 1), and 45% have a higher level of education (ratio > 1). The variable measuring the woman respondent’s education is included in the model to control for level of education. Including the woman’s education permits for an examination of the relationship between compatibility in education and violence and abuse that is not a function of the level of education of either partner. Income compatibility is measured with four separate dummy coded variables. The income parity variable denotes women who contribute 45% to 65% to the household income. This differs slightly from Nock’s (2001) marriages of equally dependent spouses that tapped women’s contributions ranging from 40% to 59%. Two dummy coded variables are used to represent traditional income incompatibility favoring male partners. One dummy variable is used to denote couples in which the woman earns less money than her partner (less than 45% of the family income). The other measure of traditional status incompatibility is a dummy variable denoting women who do not know the household income. Status reversal denotes couples in which the woman earns greater than 65% of the family income. Given that income is a focal variable in the analysis and there were a large number of cases (18%) in which women did not know the household income, we did not impute missing values on household income or use these to construct a ratio of the woman’s income relative to the household income. Rather, we use the variable “household income unknown” as a dummy variable in the analysis and give meaning to the data missing on household income. We conceptualize not knowing the household income as traditional status incompatibility. Among those women who do not know the household income, 43% did not have an income of their own. This points to the economic disadvantage these women have in their relationship in both not having an income to rely on, or serve to assist in leaving a violent relationship, but also not being sure of their household’s economic well-being. This variable also provides a control for the cases in which the household income was missing. In the analyses the contrast category is the variable measuring women who do not know the household income. Approximately one fifth of couples are marriages of equally dependent spouses (22%) and 41% of women earn substantially less than their partners, contributing less than 45% to the household income. In addition, 19% of women are in status reversal couples. As noted, 18% do not know the household income. The ordinal level income variable for the woman respondent is also included in the analyses to control for level of income on the risk of physical violence and emotional abuse.

Control Variables: The Factors Associated With Help-Seeking Behaviors

We controlled for sociodemographic and incident-specific characteristics that are important predictors of police reporting and help-seeking behaviors. Respondent age is a continuous variable and relationship length is an ordinal-level variable. Marital status (cohabitation is the reference category) and disability are included as dummy variables. Among the sample of women in the survey, 74% are legally married and 13% reported some form of long-term physical disability. A dummy variable also denotes respondents who self-report being from a visible minority group (i.e., Black, Afro-Caribbean, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arab, etc.) or identify as Aboriginal or First Nations people of Canada. White women are the reference category. Among the victims in the survey, 10% identify as a visible minority and 17% identify as an Aboriginal woman. Dummy variables denote incident specific characteristics: A partner who was drinking alcohol before or during the abusive incident (36%), respondents whose child(ren) witnessed the incident (40%), and respondents who feared for her safety during the incident (21%). Aside from the discussion of the protocol for dealing with the data missing on the dependent variable and for household income, missing data on explanatory variables (less than 6%) were substituted with the valid mean.

Analysis

For our multivariate analyses we conducted a series of binary logit models. The contrast is between each type of help-seeking and not engaging in that help-seeking. For example in Table 3, Equation 2 the contrast is between family/friend help-seeking and not seeking help from a family member or friend. The six equations presented in Table 3 are not mutually exclusive contrasts. We present the findings for the main effects and status compatibility variables tapping the education, income, and employment coefficients across the six equations representing the help-seeking contrasts.

Table 3.

Summary of Logistic Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Help-Seeking (N =250)

	Equation 1	Equation 2	Equation 3	Equation 4	Equation 5	Equation 6
	Any Help-Seeking	Family/Friend	Police	Mental Health	Social Services	Lawyer
Predictor	B (e^B)	B (e^B)	B (e^B)	B (e^B)	B (e^B)	B (e^B)
Education
Education ratio	0.33* (1.40)	0.25 (1.29)	0.29* (1.34)	0.29* (1.34)	−0.08 (0.92)	0.03 (1.03)
Woman’s education	−0.05 (0.96)	−0.03 (0.97)	−0.02 (0.98)	0.01 (1.01)	−0.04 (0.92)	0.04 (1.04)
Income
Income parity	0.09 (1.09)	−0.07 (0.92)	−0.44 (0.64)	0.45 (1.57)	0.84 (2.31)	−0.61 (0.54)
Woman earns more than partner	0.43 (1.54)	0.47 (1.60)	0.15 (1.16)	0.30 (1.35)	0.75 (2.11)	−2.29** (0.10)
Woman’s income	−0.17* (0.84)	−0.15 (0.86)	−0.16 (0.85)	−0.18* (0.83)	−0.21* (0.81)	−0.10 (0.91)
Employment
Women employed & partner employed	1.21** (3.35)	1.24** (3.46)	0.16 (1.17)	0.47 (1.60)	−0.03 (0.97)	1.05 (2.86)
Woman unemployed & partner employed	0.64 (1.89)	0.67 (1.95)	−1.24* (0.29)	−0.28 (0.75)	−0.22 (0.81)	0.49 (1.63)
Woman employed & partner unemployed	1.83** (6.23)	1.92** (6.81)	−0.97 (0.38)	0.29 (1.33)	−1.13 (0.32)	2.67* (14.43)
X ²	26.461	24.674	30.277	39.125	34.392	22.657
df	16	16	16	16	16	16

Note: Other variables in the model: Demographic variables (victim’s age, race, disability), relationship variables (marital status, relationship length, couple-only household), and incident variables (spouse was drinking during the incident, respondent’s child(ren) witnessed the incident, respondent feared for her safety during the incident).

p < 0.1. **p < 0.05.

Status Compatibility and Help-Seeking Behaviors

We begin with an examination of the effects of education. Prior to examining the findings for the status compatibility measure of education, we look at the main effects of education. The main effects of education suggest that a woman’s education is not an important factor associated with help-seeking behaviors, police reporting, and leaving an abusive relationship. With respect to education compatibility, Equations 1, 3, and 4 suggest that the education compatibility variable (education ratio) is significantly associated with seeking help. Equation 1 of Table 3 represents the contrast for any help-seeking (a composite of family/friend, police, mental health, social service, and legal). The findings suggest that, controlling for the woman’s level of educational attainment, women with higher levels of education (relative to their partners) are more likely seek help. Although higher levels of education do not significantly affect help-seeking (main effect of education, B = −0.05 ns), the statistical association between the education ratio and the help-seeking composite measure suggests that as a woman’s educational attainment increases relative to that of her partner, she is more likely to seek help in dealing with partner violence (e^0.33 = 1.40, p = 0.060). The direction and magnitude of the effect is similar for Equations 3 and 4 (police reporting is e^0.29 = 1.34, p = 0.078) and mental health help-seeking is (e^0.29 = 1.34, p = 0.057). Women’s higher levels of education (relative to her male partner) increase the likelihood of engaging in police reporting and help-seeking from mental health professions. We conclude that it is not educational attainment per se that is associated with help-seeking, but rather greater educational attainment as compared to her partner that affect help-seeking behaviors.

Our main effects of income suggest that higher levels of income reduce the likelihood of seeking help generally or seeking assistance from a social service agency or mental health provider. For Equations 1, 4, and 5 of Table 3, we find that higher incomes reduce a woman’s odds of seeking help as measured by the composite, mental health, and social service help-seeking variable (e^−0.17 = 0.84 [p = 0.091], e^−0.18 = 0.83 [p = 0.066], and e^−0.21 = 0.81 [p = 0.055] respectively). These findings are not consistent with economic dependency perspectives, which suggest that diminished educational and occupational resources and skills inhibit a woman from leaving an abusive relationship, reinforcing her dependence on marriage. Rather, perhaps women with higher levels of income perceive they have more to lose in disclosing their violent experiences to these sources of assistance. With respect to income compatibility, the findings in Table 3 demonstrate only one significant relationship between the status compatibility measures for income and help-seeking. The coefficient in Equation 6 indicates that women earning more than a male partner are significantly less likely to seek help from legal resources (e^−2.29 = 0.10). These findings are consistent with the main effects of income for women. Women with higher incomes generally and women earning more than a male partner are less likely to access resources in dealing with partner violence. Although these findings contrast with the marital dependency perspectives, they are consistent with the notion that women with higher incomes are perhaps more able to address partner violence without tapping into formal resources given their access to financial assets.

With respect to employment, we find that employment increases a woman’s likelihood of seeking help. The findings in Equation 1 show that women who are employed (whether their partner is employed or unemployed) are significantly more likely to seek help from any given support source (e^1.21 = 3.35 and e^1.83 = 6.23 respectively) as compared to their unemployed counterparts. Similarly, the findings in Equation 2 show a significant association between employment compatibility and help-seeking. That is, a woman’s employment (whether her partner is employed or unemployed) increases family and friend help-seeking (e^1.24 = 3.46 and e^1.92 = 6.81 respectively). Interestingly, our findings in Equation 3 show that unemployed women (when her partner is employed) are less likely to report to the police (e^−1.24 = 0.29, p = 0.091). These findings are consistent with the economic dependency perspective and suggest the importance of employment for women in ending violent relationships.

We controlled for a number of factors research suggest are associated with women’s help-seeking behaviors. We find that some of these victim and relationship variables reduce women’s likelihood of seeking help. Across the composite measure, family and friend, mental health, and social service help-seeking, women with a disability are less likely to seek help. We also find that the longer a couple has been together the less likely women are to report to the police and seek help from mental health, social service, and legal services. Women in a couple only household were also less likely to access social services interventions. We also find two factors that increased the likelihood of seeking help. Older women are more likely to call the police and seek help from mental health and social service providers. We find that minority women are more likely to call the police. This is consistent with work suggesting minority women may view the police as a community caretaker (Auger, Doob, Auger, & Driben, 1992).

Discussion

This article has contributed to the intimate partner violence literature and research on victim decision-making by highlighting the importance of examining the variety of help-seeking strategies used by female victims of intimate partner violence. Although we have noted that the nature and availability of victim services has improved over the past several decades, informal sources of help and social support, including family and friends continue to be the primary source women turn to in dealing with the aftermath of violence in their intimate relationship. At the same time more formalized support sources are less often used by victims. With respect to the predictors of seeking help, we find that education is one of the most consistent predictors of help-seeking. Women whose educational level is paired with or exceeding their partner’s education seek help from a variety of sources including family and friends, the police, and health professionals. Education likely shapes women’s knowledge of the role of these support sources in providing avenues to ending violent relationships. Consistent with the literature on status incompatibilities, with respect to education our finding suggests that women in reverse status couples are less likely to tolerate abuse and are therefore likely to access relevant support sources in their decisions to end a violent intimate relationship. Women’s employment also increases the odds they will seek help from family and friends, whereas unemployed women, who are dependent on their employed partner are less likely to call the police. These findings are largely consistent with marital dependency perspectives that suggest women who are dependent on male partners for their economic well-being are less able to end and leave violent relationships.

In contrast, higher levels of income for women reduce the likelihood of health, social service, and legal help-seeking. This finding may at first be viewed to be at odds with marital dependency perspectives and perhaps consistent with the status compatibility framework that views economic roles as having an important symbolic nature. But, perhaps these higher income women may be less likely to expose their experiences of victimization in the home to others, keeping it a private matter, for fear of consequences to their employment and economic standing. These women may be more able to address partner violence without tapping victim support services given their access to financial assets. Our findings with respect to education, income, and employment point to the need to continue to examine the complex way in which these factors shape women’s decisions to call the police, seek help, and leave abusive relationships.

Our research and the findings presented in this article are relevant to empirical, theoretical, and methodological work in a number of areas, including sociology, psychology, and criminology, while providing a number of contributions to the wider help-seeking literature. Our empirical research points to the need to continue to measure the types of help-seeking strategies used by women dealing with the aftermath of violence. Crime and violence are social phenomena that have a number of consequences for the individual victims and society at large, our research indicates that while a small number of women seek formal sources of help including a legal and criminal justice responses to violence, the majority seek help from family and friends. With respect to theory, the application of theories of intimate partner violence victimization to an understanding of victim decision-making suggest that many of the factors associated with the risk of violence may also shape women’s ability to put an end to partner violence. The help-seeking measures examined in our research highlight the need to expand our conceptualization and measurement of victim decision-making, moving beyond examinations of police reporting and social service utilization.

Our findings may offer direction for interventions and policy in dealing with violence against women. Many victims of intimate partner violence do not engage formal sources in dealing with the aftermath of victimization, rather, these victims employ help-seeking strategies that rely primarily on their immediate social network, including family and friends. Educating via bystander interventions (see Banyard, 2011) are therefore key to offering victims access to strategies for both leaving and terminating relationships with violent cohabitating and non-cohabitating intimate partners. Given the complex role of economic factors in shaping women’s decision making, policy makers need to find violence ending strategies that are consistent with the socioeconomic status of the victim. This includes the expansion of victim services including battered women’s shelters that focus on the emotional and economic needs of women and children leaving violent homes, and the expansion of employment and educational programs for those women most likely to be dependent on marriage and mental health resources that reach out to women in the workforce. Our work also suggests the need to expand the provision of victim services to employed women who would appear to be economic reliant and not needing economic resources but who would benefit from a variety of other services.

Although we have identified the help-seeking strategies used by women in dealing with the impact of intimate partner violence, our data is not without its limitations. While the 1999 CGSS is one of a few publicly available surveys with information on both women’s and men’s financial contributions to the household that also includes data on intimate partner violence among married and cohabiting couples, the age of the dataset does present limitations. It is likely that as intimate partner violence has become a growing public health and safety concern since the early 1990s, women are likely to have a greater knowledge of the resources available to assist in dealing with this type of abuse and that reporting and help-seeking decisions have changed over time. In addition there has likely been change in the role of women and a growing number of those women who have become less dependent on marriage in the past 15 years. It is important to note that research in the United States over the past 30 years, particularly after the mid- to late-1990s demonstrates a substantial decline in the risk for intimate partner violence victimization among women (Lauritsen & Heimer, 2009; Powers & Kaukinen, 2012, in press). These researchers have noted the importance of women’s economic contributions within intimate relationships as likely shaping women’s reduced risk for intimate partner violence. This is largely consistent with our findings pointing to the importance of economic resources for women leaving violent relationships. This suggests that the effects of education, income, and employment for women today in the late 2000s are likely to be even more important in help-seeking decisions. We also acknowledge that there may have been a shift in public awareness of intimate partner violence and women’s knowledge of the availability of support sources. Even within the last few years both legal and specialized support options are underused and many victims still lack awareness of the variety of services available to victims. So while the CGSS data is not the most recent available, and availability of services may have increased, the recent research on victims’ utilization of support sources is still limited by a range of complex factors, including awareness, and fear, along with economic factors. We believe that our findings on status compatibility based on the 1999 CGSS data, which has not yet been analyzed, offer a valuable contribution to our understanding of help-seeking behaviors today. Finally, it is important to note that more recent intimate partner violence data from Statistics Canada is not currently publicly available for analysis. The analyses of these newer Canadian datasets are only accessible for analysis via a Statistics Canada Data Agreement and the analyses may only be conducted in a Statistics Canada Data Consortium Institution. This limitation is important in terms of the ability of international scholars to access the data.

In addition, given the cross-sectional nature of the CGSS we are unable to clearly address how women’s income, education, and employment shape their decisions to seek help. It is also likely that women leaving violent relationships seek employment in a way to successfully navigate their escape from an abusive household. Future research will need to address the motivations and needs that lead victims to seek help and social support and their decisions to seek employment and education. This is particularly important given the far-reaching health, personal, and social impacts of violence by intimate partners (Coker et al., 2002). Although we have identified the complex role of women’s economic life in their help-seeking we are unable to address the mechanism by which these factors operate within women’s decision making.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Catherine Elizabeth Kaukinen is an associate professor in the school of public affairs at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs and is the director of graduate programs in criminal justice. She received her PhD. in sociology in 2001 from the University of Toronto. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, risk and protective factors for violent victimization, and the relationship between family structure and adolescent development. She recently conducted a National Institute of Justice sponsored project examining the effect of intensive enforcement of no-contact orders in cases of misdemeanor criminal domestic violence on victim well-being and offender recidivism. She is currently funded by the Office on Violence Against Women to implement a multicampus victim service intervention and prevention program addressing dating violence, intimate partner violence, sexual assault and stalking. Her research has appeared in Criminology, Journal of Marriage and Family, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Violence and Victims, and Health and Social Care in the Community, among other outlets.

Silke Meyer is a postdoctoral research fellow in the social wellbeing, health and housing research program at the Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR). She moved to Australia from Bremen, Germany, in 2006 to commence her PhD at Griffith University on the help-seeking decisions of women affected by intimate partner violence. She has a background in criminology, victimology and social work and has worked with victims and offenders of crime. She teaches into the curricula of the school of social science. Her current postdoctoral research focuses on cultural and regional differences in the experiences and perceptions of intimate partner violence and the related risk of homelessness among Indigenous and non-Indigenous women. Some of her other most recent research includes the evaluation of an integrated response to intimate partner violence in Queensland and a national evaluation of educational programs designed to reduce and prevent teen dating violence.

Caroline Akers is a PhD. student and is writing her dissertation on change in crime and culture across time and distance in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales during the 19th century under the advisement of Manuel Eisner. As a student from the American South, she also holds a master of arts from the University of South Carolina in criminology and criminal justice and a master of philosophy from Cambridge. Her research interests include macro-level changes across time and distance and historical criminology, in particular examining the 19th and early 20th centuries. After completing her degree, she plans to continue working in these areas. She also hopes to expand her research to include levels of crime and cultural change throughout more of the English-speaking world, such as in Canada and Australia.

References

Akers

Kaukinn

(2009). The police reporting behavior of intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 159-171.

Anderson

K. L.

(1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 59, 655-669.

Auger

D. J.

Doob

A. N.

Auger

R. P.

Driben

(1992). Crime and control in three Nishnawbe-Aski Nation communities: An exploratory investigation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34, 318-338.

Bachman

(1998). The Factors Related to Rape Reporting Behavior and Arrest: New Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8-29.

Bachman

Coker

(1995). Police involvement in domestic violence: The interactive effects of victim injury, offender’s history of violence and race. Violence and Victims, 10, 91-106.

Bailey

W. C.

Peterson

R. D.

(1995). Gender inequality and violence against women: The case of murder. In: Hagan

Peterson

R. D.

(Eds.), Crime and inequality (pp. 174-205). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Banyard

(2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1, 216-229.

Bui

H. N.

(2003). Help-seeking behavior among abused immigrant women. A case of Vietnamese American Women. Violence Against Women, 9, 207-239.

Carcach

(1997). Reporting crime to the police. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice series no.123. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

10.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

Arias

Desai

Sanderson

Brandt

H. M.

Smith

P. H.

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23, 260-268.

11.

Dobash

R. E.

Dobash

R. P.

(1979). Violence against wives. New York, NY: Free Press.

12.

Dobash

R. P.

Dobash

R. E.

Wilson

Daly

(1992). The myth of sexual symmetry in marital relationships. Social Problems, 39, 71-91.

13.

Doerner

W. G.

Lab

S. P.

(2005). Victimology (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

14.

Dugan

Nagin

D. S.

Rosenfeld

(1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women’s status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies, 3, 187-214.

15.

Felson

R. B.

Paré

P. P.

(2005). The reporting of DV and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 597-610.

16.

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

L. J.

Ridder

E. M.

(2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1103-1119.

17.

Fugate

Landis

Riordan

Naureckas

Engel

(2005). Barriers to domestic violence help-seeking. Violence Against Women, 11, 290-310.

18.

Gelles

R. J.

(1974). The violent home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

19.

Gondolf

E. W.

Fisher

E. R.

(1988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative to treating learned helplessness. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

20.

Goodkind

J. R.

Dutton

M. A.

Vankos

Weinfurt

(2005). Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11, 311-336.

21.

Hines

D. A.

Douglas

E. M.

(2011). The reported availability of U.S. domestic violence services to victims who vary by age, sexual orientation, and gender. Partner Abuse, 2, 3-30.

22.

Hornung

C. A.

McCullough

B. C.

(1981). Status relationships in dual-employment marriages: Consequences for psychological well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 125-141.

23.

Hornung

C. A.

McCullough

B. C.

Sugimoto

(1981). Status relationships in marriage: Risk factors for spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 675-692.

24.

Hotaling

G. T.

Sugarman

D. B.

(1990). A risk marker analysis of assaulted wives. Journal of Family Violence, 5(1), 1-13.

25.

Johnson

Bunge

V. P.

(2001). Prevalence and consequences of spousal assault in Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 27-44.

26.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.

27.

Kaukinen

(2004a). Status compatibility, physical violence, and emotional abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, 452-471.

28.

Kaukinen

(2004b). The direct and conditional effects of race and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 967-990.

29.

Koepsell

J. K.

Kernic

M. A.

Holt

V. L.

(2006). Factors that influence battered women to leave their abusive relationships. Violence and Victims, 21, 131-147.

30.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Heimer

(2009). Gender and violent victimization, 1973-2005. [Final report for Grant No. 2007-IJ-CX-0026 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs].Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

31.

Leone

J. M.

Johnson

M. P.

Cohan

C. L.

(2007). Victim help-seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56, 427-439.

32.

Lowenstein

L. F.

(2005). Domestic violence recent research (2004-2005) Part III: Risk assessment, diagnosis and treatment. Police Journal, 78, 327-338.

33.

Meyer

(2010). Responding to intimate partner violence victimisation: Effective options for help-seeking. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice series, no.389. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

34.

Mirrlees-Black

(1999). Domestic violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey self-completion questionnaire. London, UK: Great Britain Home Office.

35.

Moe

A. M.

(2007). Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered women’s help-seeking. Violence Against Women, 13, 676-699.

36.

Mouzos

Makkai

(2004). Women’s experiences of male violence: Findings from the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey. [Research and public policy series no. 56.] Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

37.

Nock

S. L.

(2001). The marriages of equally dependent spouses. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 755-775.

38.

Pagelow

M. D.

(1997). Battered women: A historical review and some common myths. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 1, 97-116.

39.

Powers

Kaukinen

(2012, in press). Women’s employment and trends in intimate partner violence: NCVS 1980-2008. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 15.

40.

Pridemore

W. A.

Freilich

J. D.

(2005). Gender equity, traditional masculine culture, and female homicide victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 213-223.

41.

Reid

R. J.

Bonomi

A. E.

Rivara

F. P.

Anderson

M. L.

Fishman

P. A.

Carrell

D. S.

Thompson

R. S.

(2008). Intimate partner violence among men: Prevalence, chronicity, and health effects. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34, 478-485.

42.

Riger

Krieglstein

(2000). The impact of welfare reform on men’s violence against women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 631-647.

43.

Rinelli

L. N.

(2006, August 11). Explaining the differences in physical violence between married and cohabiting couples: The role of mismatching and status incompatibility. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Centre, Montreal Quebec, Canada.

44.

Ruiz-Perez

Mata-Pariente

Plazaola-Castano

(2006). Women’s response to intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1156-1168.

45.

Russell

(1975). The politics of rape: The victim’s perspective. New York, NY: Stein & Day.

46.

Stark

(2007). Coercivce control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

47.

Statistics Canada. (2000). 1999 Canadian general social survey, personal risk. Microdata file, documentation and questionnaire package. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.

48.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

(1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 465-479.

49.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(2006). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books.

50.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1999). Violence and threats of violence against women and men in the United States, 1994-1996 [Computer file]. ICPSR02566-v1. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research [producer], 1998. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor].

51.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000) Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. [NCJ No. 183781]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department. of Justice.

52.

Vieraitis

L. M.

Kovandzic

T. V.

Britto

(2008). Women’s status and risk of homicide victimization: An analysis with data disaggregated by victim-offender relationship. Homicide Studies, 12, 163-176.

53.

Walker

L. E.

(1979). The battered woman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

54.

Wolf

M. E.

Hobart

M. A.

Kernic

M. A.

(2003). Barriers to seeking police help for intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 121-129.