Hitting Back

Abstract

This article explores women’s use of physical violence in the context of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). Data were drawn from the New Zealand Violence Against Women Study, a cross-sectional household survey conducted using a population-based cluster-sampling scheme. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with women’s use of physical violence against their partners when they were being physically hurt. Of the 843 women who had experienced physical violence perpetrated by an intimate partner, 64% reported fighting back at least once or twice whereas 36% never fought back. Analyses showed that women’s use of violence more than once or twice was associated with experience of severe IPV, IPV that had “a lot of effect” on their mental health, and with children being present when the woman was being physically abused. Women’s use of physical violence only once or twice was associated with both partners having alcohol problems and both having been exposed to violence as a child. Of the women who fought back, 66% reported that this did not result in the violence stopping.

Keywords

intimate partner violence women’s use of violence factors associated with women’s use of violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) describes any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological, or sexual harm to those in the relationship. IPV occurs across all socio-economic, religious, and cultural groups (World Health Organization [WHO], 2013a; WHO/London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2010). The overwhelming global burden of IPV is borne by women, with approximately 30% of women experiencing physical or sexual IPV (WHO, 2013b). However, there is a body of research that suggests symmetry in the perpetration and experience of IPV by both men and women (see Dobash & Dobash, 2004, for a review of the debate in this area).

Respondents who took part in the WHO Multi-Country Study of Violence Against Women (García-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2005) were asked how they had responded to the physical IPV they had experienced. Of those women who reported that their partner had been physically violent to them, between 6% (in Ethiopia and Bangladesh provinces) and 79% of women (in Brazil city) reported that at some time they had fought back against their partner. Women who had experienced severe physical violence were more likely to “hit back” than women who experienced moderate violence (García-Moreno, et al., 2005).

A number of motivations for using violence have been identified within the international literature, including self-defense, fear, defense of children, control, and retribution (see Swan & Snow, 2006, for a comprehensive exploration of the literature in this area). Women who live in socio-economically deprived areas are more likely to experience violence from an intimate partner as well as being more likely to use violence (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, 2003). Indeed, Swan and Snow (2006) report that once socio-economic differences are accounted for, the majority of the difference in prevalence of violence between cultural groups is also accounted for.

In 2002, Worcester challenged the research community to take the issue of women’s use of violence seriously, and to be open to the concept that women and girls are learning that violence is “an effective way to have power in a society that often limits their opportunity for healthy control in their own lives” (p. 1415). Swan and Snow’s seminal paper on the development of a theoretical understanding of women’s use of violence highlights the importance of understanding this phenomenon within the context of women’s victimization by male partners as well as the historical context of women’s experiences of childhood trauma. They highlight the need to study women’s violence within social, cultural, and historical contexts, also acknowledging the potential impact of mental health disorders (Swan & Snow, 2006).

Dobash and Dobash (2004) also highlight the need to understand women’s use of violence in the context of violence they have experienced by men. From their investigation of IPV reported by couples, Dobash and Dobash documented that the violence experienced by men generally (although not always) had inconsequential emotional impact, resulted in less severe injuries, and was experienced in the context of self-defense or self-protection. The violence rarely affected the men’s sense of safety or well-being. The authors suggested that their findings made it impossible to construe “the violence of men and women as either equivalent or reciprocal” (Dobash & Dobash, 2004, p. 343).

This investigation of women’s use of violence occurs within the context of research on IPV perpetrated by men over their female partners (García-Moreno et al., 2005; Walters et al., 2013; WHO/London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2010). In this study, we sought to develop an understanding of the factors associated with women’s use of violence in the context of a violent situation. By focusing on women who were currently experiencing violence, we sought to contextualize this use of violence in an acknowledgment that the use of violence when confronted with the reality of experiencing violence is likely to have different determinants than the use of violence outside a violent situation. Using data from a population-based sample of New Zealand women, the current study sought to identify factors associated with the likelihood that a woman will use physical violence in response to IPV.

Method

Study Design

The data reported are from the New Zealand Violence Against Women Study, a cross-sectional survey conducted by the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland. This study replicated the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence (García-Moreno et al., 2005).

Setting and Sampling Strategy

A population-based cluster-sampling approach with a fixed number of dwellings per cluster was used. The interviews were conducted in the Territorial Local Authorities (TLA) of the following: Auckland City, Manukau City, Waitakere City, North Shore City (Auckland), Hauraki, Matamata-Piako, Waikato, and Waipa Districts (Waikato). Meshblocks were the primary sampling unit within each TLA. Within each meshblock, a randomly selected street and street number were used as the starting point for interviews. Interviewers approached 10 households within each meshblock. In Auckland, interviewers approached every fourth house; in the Waikato, interviewers approached every second household.

Recruitment and Participants

The study population for the current investigation was women aged 18 to 64 years, who were usually resident in Auckland or North Waikato and who resided in private homes. Recruitment took place over the period from March to November 2003.

In selected households with more than one eligible respondent, one woman was randomly selected. If the woman selected was available to talk, consent was sought and an interview arranged, otherwise contact details were obtained and further attempts made to set up an interview. To maximize the chance of obtaining an interview, a minimum of three return visits were made to each household at different times and on different days. The interview was conducted in the woman’s home in a room where no other people above 2 years of age were present. If the interview was interrupted, the interviewer switched to a neutral subject (such as nutrition) to ensure the safety of the study participant.

In total, 2,855 women agreed to be interviewed. This study uses the data from 843 women who reported they had experienced physical violence by an intimate partner sometime in their lifetime and who provided useable information in response to the question about use of violence in the context of IPV (see “Measures and Variables” section).

Questionnaire Development

The base questionnaire was developed by the Core Technical Team (2003) of the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence. Minor modifications were made to increase the appropriateness to the New Zealand context, and the revised questionnaire was pilot tested for acceptability. The questionnaire was produced in English and Chinese, as Mandarin/Cantonese speakers were the largest group that could not complete the questionnaire in English. Multi-lingual interviewers were used to conduct the Chinese interviews.

The questionnaire was administered as a face-to-face interview, in the participants’ own home or other private location. The study received approval from the University of Auckland Human Subjects Ethics Committee (Ref. 2002/199).

Measures and Variables

Consistent with definitions from the WHO Multi-Country Study (García-Moreno et al., 2005), intimate partners included male current or ex-partners that the women were married to or had lived with, or current male sexual partners. Where the respondent was divorced or separated from her partner, she was asked to consider the most recent or last partner when responding. Information on the variables was collected from the respondent only. Respondents were instructed to consider their current or most recent partner when answering questions concerning partner characteristics, IPV experience, and use of violence in the context of experiencing violence.

Main outcome measure

To identify variables that were associated with the respondent using physical violence when she had experienced IPV, participants were asked the following question: “During the times that you were hit, did you ever fight back physically or to defend yourself?” Participants who answered Yes were then asked the following: “How often? Would you say once or twice, several times, or most of the time?” For the purposes of the current investigation, those who responded several times or most of the time were grouped together. Don’t know or can’t remember were treated as missing data (n = 114, 12%).

Associated measures

The age of the respondent was dichotomized to those who were under 25 years and those who were 25 years or older. Respondents also reported the ethnic group/s they identified with. Reported ethnicity was prioritized as (a) Maori, (b) Pacific Island, (c) Asian, (d) Other, or (e) European.

Duration of the relationship

Respondents were asked to report how long they had been in a relationship with their current (or most recent) partner. Responses were categorized as <1 year, 1 to 5 years, and >5 years.

Severity of physical IPV

Violence was categorized as moderate or severe. Moderate IPV was defined as having been slapped or had something thrown at them, which could hurt them; or having been pushed, shoved, or had their hair pulled. Severe physical IPV was defined as having been hit with the fist or something else that could hurt them; having been kicked, dragged, or beaten up; having been choked or burnt on purpose; or having been threatened with or had used against them a gun, knife, or other weapon.

Children present during abuse

If women indicated that they had children, they were asked the following question: “For any of these incidents, were your children present or did they overhear you being beaten?” Those who answered Yes were asked the following question: “How often?” Response options were “once or twice,” “several times,” or most of the time.”

Effect on mental health

Women were asked to denote the impact of their partner’s violent behavior on their mental health as either “it has had no effect,” “a little effect,” or “a lot of effect.”

Alcohol problems

Respondents were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they or their partner had experienced any of the following problems related to their drinking: money problems, health problems, conflict with family or friends, problems with authorities, or other problems. Response options were coded as neither had problems, respondent only, partner only, and both had problems.

Exposure to IPV in childhood

Exposure to violence as a child was assessed by the following question: “When you were a child, was your mother hit by your father (or her husband or boyfriend)?” And “As far as you know, was your (most recent) partner’s mother hit or beaten by her husband?” Based on the responses to both of these questions, exposure to IPV in childhood was categorized as “your mother,” “his mother,” “both mothers,” or “neither mother.”

Analysis

All analyses were conducted using StataSE 11.2., which allows for specification of the survey sampling units and strata. As responses were similar in the two locations, data for the two regions were combined. Don’t know, don’t remember, refused, and no answer responses were considered “missing data.” Missing values were excluded from the analyses.

In the first instance, descriptive statistics were generated. To identify factors associated with use of physical violence when controlling for age and ethnicity, multinomial logistic regression was conducted. Multinomial logistic regression is an extension of binary logistic regression (used for binary outcome variables), allowing more than two categories for the outcome measure. Odds ratios (ORs) were considered significant where the confidence interval (CI) did not pass through 1.

Results

Overall Prevalence of Women Fighting Back in Response to Physical IPV

Of the 843 study members who had experienced physical IPV and reported whether they had used violence in the context of IPV, 307 (36%) reported that they never fought back, 257 (31%) reported that they fought back once or twice, whereas 279 (33%) reported that they fought back more than once or twice. The relationship between each associated variable and the number of times respondents reported fighting back in response to physical IPV is presented in Table 1. ORs for each of these variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

The Number and Percentage of Women Who Experienced Physical IPV by the Number of Times They Fought Back, as a Function of Demographic, Health, and Family Variables.

	Never		Once or Twice		More Than Once or Twice
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Age (n = 843)
<25 years	11	21	24	45	18	34
≥25 years	296	37	233	29	261	33
Ethnicity (n = 843)
Maori	46	24	58	30	87	46
Pacific Island	15	29	22	42	15	29
Asian	5	33	7	47	3	20
European	198	46	140	29	150	31
Other	43	44	30	31	24	25
Length of relationship (n = 843)
<1 year	13	36	8	22	15	42
1-5 years	39	30	46	35	46	35
>5 years	255	38	203	30	218	32
Severity (n = 839)
Moderate	143	48	100	34	54	18
Severe	159	30	156	29	224	42
Children present during abuse (n = 665)
Never	121	41	99	34	75	25
Once or twice	67	42	57	36	36	23
Several times	24	22	21	19	63	58
Many/most of the time	23	23	21	21	58	57
Effect of abuse on mental health (n = 839)
No effect	126	46	81	29	68	25
A little	96	39	75	31	74	30
A lot	85	27	99	31	135	42
Alcohol problems (n = 843)
Neither	236	39	177	29	191	32
Her only	14	26	18	33	22	41
Him only	49	33	47	32	52	35
Both	8	22	15	41	14	38
Exposure to IPV in childhood (n = 843)
Neither	190	41	133	28	146	31
Her only	50	29	54	31	70	40
Him only	44	35	45	36	35	28
Both	23	30	25	33	28	37

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Table 2.

Univariate Analyses—Showing Factors Associated With the Women’s Use of Physical Violence in Response to Physical IPV by an Intimate Partner.

	Never	Once or Twice		More Than Once or Twice
	OR	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Age
<25 years	Ref.
≥25 years	Ref.	0.4	[0.2, 0.9]	0.6	[0.3, 1.6]
Ethnicity
Maori	Ref.
Pacific Island	Ref.	1.16	[0.5, 2.7]	0.51	[0.2, 1.2]
Asian	Ref.	1.11	[0.3, 3.9]	0.31	[0.1, 1.5]
European	Ref.	0.51	[0.3, 1.0]	0.32	[0.2, 0.6]
Other	Ref.	0.54	[0.3, 0.9]	0.40	[0.3, 0.6]
Length of relationship
<1 year	Ref.
1-5 years	Ref.	1.8	[0.7, 4.9]	1.3	[0.5, 3.2]
>5 years	Ref.	1.1	[0.4, 2.5]	0.7	[0.3, 1.6]
Severity
Moderate	Ref.
Severe	Ref.	1.4	[1.0, 2.0]	3.8	[2.6, 5.8]
Children present during abuse
Never	Ref.
Once or twice	Ref.	1.0	[0.6, 1.6]	0.9	[0.5, 1.6]
Several times	Ref.	1.2	[0.6, 2.3]	4.9	[2.8, 8.7]
Many/most of the time	Ref.	1.0	[0.5, 2.0]	4.5	[2.5, 8.4]
Effect of abuse on mental health
No effect	Ref.
A little	Ref.	1.2	[0.8, 1.9]	1.6	[1.0, 2.5]
A lot	Ref.	1.9	[1.2, 2.9]	3.3	[2.1, 5.0]
Alcohol problems
Neither	Ref.
Her only	Ref.	1.4	[0.6, 3.3]	1.5	[0.7, 3.3]
Him only	Ref.	1.5	[0.9, 2.4]	1.4	[0.9, 2.3]
Both	Ref.	3.2	[1.3, 8.0]	2.1	[0.8, 5.3]
Exposure to IPV in Childhood
Neither	Ref.
Her only	Ref.	1.5	[0.9, 2.5]	1.9	[1.2, 3.0]
Him only	Ref.	1.5	[0.9, 2.4]	1.2	[0.7, 2.1]
Both	Ref.	1.6	[0.9, 3.1]	2.1	[1.1, 4.0]

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

At the bivariate level, women who were older than 25 years were less likely than younger women to report hitting back once or twice. Compared with women who were Maori, those who were European or of “Other” ethnicities were less likely to report hitting back more than once or twice (Table 2).

Compared with those who experienced moderate violence, those who experienced severe violence were more likely to report hitting back either once or twice or more frequently. When there were children present during the abuse, there was an increased likelihood of a woman reporting that she had hit back more than once or twice. When the woman reported that the abuse had ‘a lot of effect’ on her mental health, there was increased likelihood of hitting back, either once or twice, or more frequently (Table 2).

Compared with women who had not experienced IPV in childhood, those who had (either independently or if their partner had also experienced IPV in childhood) were more likely to report that they hit back more than once or twice (Table 2).

Factors With Significant, Independent Relationship With Women Fighting Back in Response to Physical IPV

We sought to control for the effect of age and ethnicity in the logistic regression because of the association between these variables and the experience of IPV, which, in turn, is associated with likelihood of fighting back. The multinomial logistic regression is presented in Table 3 (adjusting for age and ethnicity).

Table 3.

Multivariate Analyses (Adjusting for Age and Ethnicity)—Showing Factors That Had a Significant, Independent Relationship With the Women’s Use of Physical Violence in Response to Physical Violence by an Intimate Partner.

	Never	Once or Twice		More Than Once or Twice
	AOR	AOR	95% CI	AOR	95% CI
Length of relationship
<1 year	Ref.
1-5 years	Ref.	2.1	[0.7, 6.1]	1.2	[0.5, 2.9]
>5 years	Ref.	1.6	[0.6, 4.4]	0.8	[0.4, 1.8]
Severity
Moderate	Ref.
Severe	Ref.	1.4	[1.0, 2.0]	3.5	[2.3, 5.3]
Children present during abuse
Never	Ref.
Once or twice	Ref.	1.0	[0.6, 1.7]	0.9	[0.5, 1.6]
Several times	Ref.	1.2	[0.6, 2.5]	5.1	[2.9, 9.0]
Many/most of the time	Ref.	1.1	[0.5, 2.1]	4.7	[2.5, 8.8]
Effect of abuse on mental health
No effect	Ref.
A little	Ref.	1.3	[0.8, 1.9]	1.7	[1.1, 2.8]
A lot	Ref.	2.0	[1.3, 3.1]	3.5	[2.2, 5.5]
Alcohol problems
Neither	Ref.
Her only	Ref.	1.4	[0.3, 3.3]	1.5	[0.7, 3.3]
Him only	Ref.	1.5	[0.9, 2.4]	1.4	[0.9, 2.3]
Both	Ref.	3.2	[1.3, 8.0]	2.1	[0.8, 5.3]
Exposure to IPV in childhood
Neither	Ref.
Her only	Ref.	1.3	[0.8, 2.2]	1.6	[1.0, 2.6]
Him only	Ref.	1.3	[0.8, 2.1]	1.1	[0.6, 1.8]
Both	Ref.	1.4	[0.7, 2.6]	1.7	[0.9, 3.3]

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; IPV = intimate partner violence.

Women’s use of violence against her partner on one occasion was associated with the severity of the abuse experienced (OR [severe] = 1.4, 95% CI = [1.0, 2.0]), the effect of her partner’s behavior on her mental health (OR [a lot] = 2.0, 95% CI = [1.3, 3.1]), and both partners having alcohol problems (OR [both] = 3.2; 95% CI = [1.3, 8.0]).

Women’s use of violence more than once or twice was associated with the severity of IPV she experienced (“severe” compared with “moderate”: OR = 3.5; 95% CI = [2.3, 5.3]), the presence of children during the abuse (OR [many/most of the time] = 4.7, 95% CI = [2.5, 8.8]), and the effect of their partner’s behavior on their mental health (OR [a lot] = 3.5, 95% CI = [2.2, 5.5]).

Effects of Women Fighting Back in Response to Physical IPV

Of those who reported that they had used violence in response to being physically abused, 38% indicated that the violence they suffered had subsequently become worse, whereas 32% indicated that the violence stopped and 9% of respondents indicated that the violence decreased. The remainder of the respondents indicated that there was no change in the violence they experienced (19%).

Discussion

This study provides information on the factors associated with women’s use of violence against their male partner or ex-partner, in the context of a violent episode (when he was perpetrating violence against her), using data from a large cross-sectional study of women in New Zealand. This information contributes to our understanding of the variables most strongly associated with women’s use of violence in response to physical violence by their male partner.

Overall, just over one third of women who experienced physical violence by an intimate partner reported that they never used physical violence against him. Almost one third reported using violence in the context of a violent episode once or twice, and one third indicated that they had used physical violence against their violent partner more than once or twice. Relative to respondents who described themselves as being of Maori ethnicity, women from European and “Other” ethnic groups were less likely to report having fought back more than “once or twice” (Table 2). Compared with other countries, the proportion of New Zealand women who had experienced IPV and fought back at least once or twice was mid-range (64% compared with other countries surveyed in the WHO Multi-Country Study; range from 6% in Ethiopia and Bangladesh provinces to more than 80% in Brazil and Peru).

Factors that increased the likelihood that a woman would use violence more than once or twice against her partner during a violent episode include the severity of the violence she had experienced, with those who had experienced more severe violence more likely to fight back. This finding is comparable with international data (García-Moreno et al., 2005), and is consistent with the finding that one of the most common motivations for women’s use violence is for the purpose of self-defense (Swan & Snow, 2006).

The presence of children also strongly influenced the woman’s likelihood of fighting back, with women 5 times more likely to use violence against her male partner more than once or twice if the a child was present (Table 3), suggesting that the woman may be using violence in defense of her children, a finding also reported by others in the literature (Swan & Snow, 2006). This perception of threat is not exaggerated. The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV; a nationally representative telephone survey of the victimization experiences of 4,549 youth aged 0-17 living in the contiguous United States) found a strong connection between IPV and abuse of children by the same perpetrator. Children living with an abused mother were 12 to 14 times more likely to be physically and sexually abused than children whose mothers were not abused (Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2010).

Understanding a woman’s increased likelihood of using violence against her partner when he is hurting her requires consideration of her history of violent experiences, across consecutive relationships, including if she was exposed to violence as a child (Dasgupta, 1999). These experiences are likely to have influenced her perception of danger and response to danger. As such, her actions of fighting back may be triggered by the memory of abuse and/or fear for her children (Dasgupta, 2002). Seamans, Rubin & Stabb (2007) report that women who have been victims of childhood abuse and of subsequent IPV vividly remembered their own mother’s exposure to violence and vowed not to be anything like their mothers, “and most of all, not to be a victim” (p. 55).

Respondents in the current investigation who indicated that their partner’s behavior had “a lot” of effect on their mental health were more likely to report fighting back. Previous studies have recognized mental health problems such as depression, stress-related syndromes, chemical dependency and substance (ab)use, and suicide as important primary outcomes of abuse rather than precursors (Ehrensaft, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2006; Fischbach & Herbert, 1997; García-Moreno et al., 2005). Although it was not possible in this cross-sectional survey to demonstrate causality between violence and mental health problems or other outcomes, the findings give a strong indication that mental health outcomes are associated with women’s use of violence in intimate partner relationships. In-depth analysis into the complex relationship between violence and mental health is required to develop relevant services and responses to abused women with co-occurring problems (Hager, 2011).

Our findings on the relationship between problem alcohol consumption and likelihood of hitting back were complex. We identified no significant relationship if only the respondent or her partner experienced problems related to their alcohol consumption. However, if both the respondent and her partner experienced problems, there was an increased likelihood that she would have hit back once or twice, but not more frequently. Alcohol consumption makes it harder to resolve conflicts peacefully by enhancing the likelihood that verbal and non-verbal cues will be misinterpreted (Hoaken, Assaad, & Pihl, 1998; Klostermann & Fals-Stewart, 2006). We hypothesize that when exposed to alcohol-related violence, alcohol consumption may enhance the likelihood of a woman hitting back, but that this may result in further violence being experienced, therefore reducing the likelihood that the woman will react this way again in the future. As highlighted by Heise, several inter-related pathways are likely to exist concerning how alcohol increases the risk of partner violence, and despite difficulties understanding the relationship between alcohol consumption and violence exposure, evidence exists concerning the effectiveness of treatment for alcohol problems in reducing the frequency and severity of abuse (Heise, 2011).

In line with previous research that indicates that in most of cases the use of violent strategies has little to no effect on the violence perpetrated (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007), half of the women who reported fighting back indicated that violence did not reduce or stop. A possible explanation for this is provided by Bair-Merritt et al. (2010) who argue that, in Western societies (including New Zealand), IPV occurs in a societal context in which men generally have more physical and social power than women, and women are socialized to assume a more passive role than men. Women, therefore, are unlikely to be successful in changing their partners’ violence, even with the use of physical violence.

Strengths and Limitations of Study

There are several limitations, which need to be considered with respect to the reported findings.

In the first instance, the cross-sectional design does not permit causal attributions to be made, such as between violence by an intimate partner and the reported outcomes. A second limitation is that, like any study based on self-report, there may be recall bias as well as biases in disclosure. Finally, all the women in this study experienced physical IPV by an intimate partner, so this study does not provide information on women’s use of violence in situations where her male partner has not used any violence.

Despite these limitations, the present study’s findings provide new information on women’s use of violence in the context of IPV victimization. Furthermore, the robust strategy and high response rate obtained by the New Zealand Violence Against Women Study provide confidence that the results are representative of New Zealand women who use violence in response to physical IPV by an intimate partner. The replication of questions from the WHO Multi-Country Study also attests to the study’s rigor and allows international comparisons to be made.

Implications

Information from the present study contributes to our understanding of factors associated with women’s use of physical violence while experiencing physical IPV. Exploration of these factors reminds us not to unfairly shut out these women from services due to their apparent “abusiveness” and points to the need to develop appropriate services and policies in response. Specifically, it is important to understand that because the woman’s violence occurred within the context of her own victimization, she is unlikely to cease her own use of violence until her partner’s violence toward her stops. She requires treatment for the physical, psychological, and mental injuries suffered, and assurance that her children are safe (Campbell, 2002; Hager, 2011; Hamby et al., 2010; Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2011; Swan, Gambone, Fields, Sullivan, & Snow, 2005). In addition, given the overlap between violence against women and child abuse, there is a need for increased efforts to integrate and coordinate policies and services responding to abused women and their children (who witness or experience actual abuse; Hamby et al., 2010). Fragmenting these services and policies will limit their ability to provide adequate safety to all survivors of violence in a family.

Practitioners working with women who use violence need to be aware of their vulnerability. Although their fighting back has been found to be a strategy for coping and “escaping” violence by their intimate partner (García-Moreno et al., 2005), such actions have also been found to have limited effect on the violence, and it may actually increase their vulnerability, as the male partner is likely to respond with an escalation of his violence (Dowd & Leisring, 2008). Practitioners can support women by ensuring appropriate organizational support and safety is provided and by helping women develop non-violent protective strategies, which target their safety and that of their children.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the women who participated in this study. The following are also acknowledged—Project manager: Cherie Lovell; Project Assistants: Margaret (Meg) Tenny and Clare Murphy; Data Manager: Vivien Lovell; Auckland and Waikato Interview Teams; and data entry staff. We thank the Advisory Group that provided important support for the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this project was provided by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (02/207). This study replicates the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence (WHO/EIP/GPE/99.3).

Author Biographies

Janet Fanslow, PhD, is Co-Director of the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse and Associate Professor in Mental Health Promotion at the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland. Her research interests include definition and measurement of violence in the population, and and synthesis of research to inform practice.

Pauline Gulliver, PhD, is a Research Fellow at the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, University of Auckland. Her research interests include measuring readiness to change health-related behaviours, effects of violence on reproductive health, and understanding the proximal and distal factors associated with intimate partner violence.

Robyn Dixon, PhD, is Co-Director of the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse and Associate Professor at the School of Population Nursing at the University of Auckland. Her research interests include health literacy and working with children, young people, families and their communities in areas related to health, education, justice and welfare.

Irene Ayallo, PhD, is a Research Associate at the University of Auckland. Her research interests include exploring factors that influence women’s use of violence.

References

Bair-Merritt

Crowne

Thompson

Sibinga

Trent

Campbell

. (2010) Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women’s motivations. Trauma Violence Abuse. 11(4):178-89.

Benson

Fox

DeMaris

Van Wyk

(2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 207-235.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet, 359, 1331-1336.

Core Technical Team. (2003). WHO multi-country study on violence against women, questionnaire, version 10. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Gender and Health Department.

Dasgupta

S. D.

(1999). Just like men? A critical view of violence by women. In Shepard

M. F.

Pence

E. L.

(Eds.), Coordinating community responses to domestic violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 195-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dasgupta

S. D.

(2002). A framework for understanding women’s use of nonlethal violence in intimate heterosexual relationships. Violence Against Women, 8, 1364-1389.

Dobash

R. P.

Dobash

R. E.

(2004). Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 324-349.

Dowd

Leisring

P. A.

(2008). A framework for treating partner aggressive women. Violence and Victims, 23, 249-263.

Downs

W. R.

Rindels

Atkinson

(2007). Women’s use of physical and nonphysical self-defense strategies during incidents of partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 28-45.

10.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2006). Is domestic violence followed by an increased risk of psychiatric disorders among women but not among men? A longitudinal cohort study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 885-892.

11.

Fischbach

R. L.

Herbert

(1997). Domestic violence and mental health: Correlates and conundrums within and across cultures. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 1161-1176.

12.

García-Moreno

Jansen

H. A. F. M.

Ellsberg

Heise

Watts

(2005). WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

13.

Hager

(2011). Finding safety: Provision of specialised domestic violence and refuge services for women who currently find it difficult to access mainstream services: Disabled women, older women, sex workers and women with mental illness and/or drug and alcohol problems as a result of domestic violence. Wellington, NZ: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. Retrieved from http://www.communitymatters.govt.nz/vwluResources/WCMFReport10Hager/$file/WCMFReport10Hager.pdf

14.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

(2010). The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 734-741.

15.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

(2011). Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence and other family violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

16.

Heise

(2011). What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. London, England: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Retrieved from http://strive.lshtm.ac.uk/resources/what-works-prevent-partner-violence-evidence-overview

17.

Hoaken

P. N. S.

Assaad

J. M.

Pihl

R. O.

(1998). Cognitive functioning and the inhibition of alcohol-induced aggression. Journal of Alcohol Studies, 59, 599-607.

18.

Klostermann

Fals-Stewart

(2006). Intimate partner violence and alcohol use: Exploring the role of drinking in partner violence and its implications for intervention. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 11, 587-597.

19.

Seamans

C.L.

Rubin

L.J.

Stabb

S.D.

(2007). Women Domestic Violence Offenders: Lessons of Violence and Survival. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 8(2), 47-68.

20.

Swan

S. C.

Gambone

L. J.

Fields

A. M.

Sullivan

T. P.

Snow

D. L.

(2005). Women who use violence in intimate relationships: The role of anger, victimization, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression. Violence and Victims, 20, 267-285.

21.

Swan

S. C.

Snow

D. L.

(2006). The development of a theory of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 12, 1026-1045.

22.

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. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pdf

23.

Worcester

(2002). Women’s use of force: Complexities and challenges of taking the issue seriously. Violence Against Women, 8, 1390-1415.

24.

World Health Organization. (2013a). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85239/1/9789241564625_eng.pdf

25.

World Health Organization. (2013b). Intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence: Intimate partner violence prevalence by GBD region. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.IPVGBDREGION?lang=en

26.

World Health Organization/London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: Taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.