Long-Term Consequences of Intimate Partner Abuse on Physical Health,Emotional Well-Being,and Problem Behaviors

Abstract

This study examines the physical health, emotional well-being, and problem behavior outcomes associated with intimate partner abuse (IPA) victimization and perpetration experiences by analyzing a nationally representative, prospective, and longitudinal sample of 879 men and women collected from the National Youth Survey Family Study (NYSFS) and assessed across a period of 9 years from 1993 to 2003. Using multivariate regression techniques, it was found that both men and women experience numerous negative outcomes associated with their IPA victimization and perpetration experiences. Implications of these findings are discussed, as are the study’s limitations, and future research directions.

Keywords

intimate partner abuse depression offending substance use body mass index

Introduction

The prevalence of intimate partner abuse (IPA) is high (Bonomi et al., 2006; Morse, 1995) and is correlated with numerous negative effects for both women and men (Campbell, 2002; Coker et al., 2002), but the research documenting long-term outcomes is sparse. Understanding the negative consequences of IPA and the effects it has on both men and women is an important but difficult question to address in extant literature given the need for longitudinal data. Existing research focuses on risk factors for IPA (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012), using clinical or cross-sectional samples (Campbell, Kub, Belknap, & Templin, 1997; McCauley et al., 1995), and primarily studies outcomes of victimization on women (Zlotnick, Johnson, & Kohn, 2006). The overreliance on cross-sectional designs is problematic because with cross-sectional designs, there are issues with establishing temporal order and, as such, investigating cause and effect (Menard & Elliott, 1990). In addition, with cross-sectional data, there are issues with retrospective data with long recall periods (Menard & Elliott, 1990). Also, there is much debate as to gender differences in IPA and to what extent there is mutual violence (Archer, 2000; Morse, 1995).

Given that extant literature in this area is lacking in nationally representative, longitudinal data analysis and focuses primarily on IPA outcomes for women, the current study aims to extend research in this area in a number of noteworthy ways. First, a national, longitudinal, and prospective sample of women and men will be analyzed to explore the long-term negative outcomes associated with IPA. Second, IPA victimization and perpetration measures will be separated into minor and violent categories, which are further defined in the “Methods” section of this article. This separation allows us to better understand the differences between minor and violent victimization and perpetration with regard to negative outcomes and gender differences. Third, the lagged dependent variable is controlled for. By controlling for prior involvement with the outcomes, important confounds are eliminated, such as involvement in the behavior influencing IPA experiences.

Literature Review

Physical Health

A number of the negative physical health consequences relating to IPA have been documented in extant literature; however, the long-term physical effects resulting from IPA have not been as well documented (Coker, Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000; Logan, Walker, Cole, & Leukefeld, 2002). Results from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) indicate that 4,741,000 women and 5,565,000 men experienced physical IPA in the 12 months preceding the survey (Black et al., 2011). Lifetime estimates of IPA victimization indicate that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner (Black et al., 2011). Regarding injuries, approximately 14% of women and 3.5% of men are injured as a result of IPA (Breiding et al., 2014).

There is not much specific research on the physical health outcomes of male victims of IPA. This could be because male IPA victims often do not report their victimization due to embarrassment or fear of ridicule or disbelief by law enforcement (Drijber, Reijnders, & Ceelen, 2012). However, what is available suggests that men experience similar forms of mental and physical abuse as women (Drijber et al., 2012; Du-Plat Jones, 2006; George & Yarwood, 2004). For women, those who are abused by intimate partners are more likely to be injured than those who are assaulted by non-intimates (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The injuries sustained by abused woman can vary in severity, from scratches and bruises to burns and bullet wounds (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). There may also be an increased risk of traumatic brain injuries among abused women; the risk varies depending on length and severity of violence (Corrigan, Wolfe, Mysiw, Jackson, & Bogner, 2003; Jackson, Philp, Nuttall, & Diller, 2002; Monahan & O’Leary, 1999).

The general health of individuals, both male and female, who report experiencing abuse, is significantly poorer than individuals who do not experience abuse (Coker et al., 2002; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; Logan et al., 2002; Plichta, 2004). Indirectly, IPA victimization may contribute to gastrointestinal disorders or other, stress-related problems for women (Plichta, 2004). Overall, abused women note that they experience more chronic conditions, such as fibromyalgia and irritable bowel syndrome, surgeries, hospitalizations, and visits to doctors than non-abused women (Logan et al., 2002). In addition, abused women are more likely to experience sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pain, bladder, kidney, and urinary tract infections, broken bones, seizures, headaches, stomach ulcers, spastic colon, indigestion, and hypertension (Coker et al., 2000). Abused women may be involved in unhealthy weight control behaviors, including vomiting and the use of laxatives (Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001) and may have overall worse diets than non-abused women (McNutt, Carlson, Persaud, & Postmus, 2002). Abused men report impotence and other sexual problems and loss of weight and appetite (George & Yarwood, 2004).

Emotional Well-Being

Depression is the most common health problem reported by abused populations (Campbell, 2002; Campbell et al., 1997; Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005; Gleason, 1993). The length and severity of abuse are related to the extent of mental health issues experienced by abused women (Bonomi et al., 2006; Campbell et al., 1997; Dutton et al., 2006). Other mental health issues reported by abused men and women include suicidal thoughts and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Astin, Ogland-Hand, Coleman, & Foy, 1995; George & Yarwood, 2004; Golding, 1999). Research indicates that female victims are 3 to 5 times more likely than non-victims to experience depression, suicidal thoughts, PTSD, and substance use (Dutton et al., 2006; Golding, 1999). Zlotnick, Johnson, and Kohn (2006) found in their study of a community sample of married or cohabitating women that abused women were more likely than non-abused women to report symptoms of depression, functional impairment, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction in a 5-year follow-up period. However, they only studied outcomes for women, whereas the current study uses a sample of both men and women. In the Male Domestic Violence Victims Survey, George and Yarwood (2004) reported that male victims of IPA noted significant loss of confidence and self-esteem, severe anxiety, mistrust of women, severe depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts in response to IPA victimization experiences. In addition, male victims report feeling deeply ashamed, frightened, guilty, and confused, and have a loss of self-worth (Du-Plat Jones, 2006; Leonard, 2003).

Work dissatisfaction is another issue that is relatively common among abused men and women, and there are two related workplace issues: (a) IPA victimization affecting work outcomes and (b) IPA perpetrators going to victims’ workplaces and committing violence.¹ The focus of the current study is the first workplace issue, IPA victimization affecting work outcomes for which there is limited research. Work dissatisfaction is included because understanding how IPA victimization and perpetration experiences can influence the work environment is important for a more complete understanding of the emotional well-being consequences of IPA. Available research on work dissatisfaction suggests that an increase in violence at home results in an increase in absenteeism, a decrease in work productivity, and an increased risk of job loss (Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004; Riger, Raja, & Camacho, 2002; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Tolman & Rosen, 2001). The long-term consequences of IPA experiences on work-related outcomes for abused women include inconsistent work histories, underemployment, and a reduction in earnings (Brush, 2003; Tolman & Raphael, 2000). For men, IPA victimization is associated with neglecting work responsibilities and job loss (George & Yarwood, 2004).

In addition to work dissatisfaction, relationship dissatisfaction and relationship instability are often found in abusive relationships, but it is difficult to establish whether or not relationship dissatisfaction and relationship instability cause IPA victimization/perpetration or whether IPA victimization/perpetration causes relationship dissatisfaction and relationship instability (Capaldi et al., 2012; Stith, Green, Smith, & Ward, 2008). Extant literature suggests that high levels of marital discord and low levels of marital satisfaction are risk markers for IPA (Aldarondo & Sugarman, 1996; Cano & Vivian, 2003; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1990; Stith et al., 2008; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). Lower levels of relationship satisfaction are not exclusive to married couples; dating violence victims report lower levels of relationship satisfaction, as well (Cramer, 2003; Dye & Eckhardt, 2000; Kaura & Lohman, 2007; Testa & Leonard, 2001; Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 2002). Katz, Kuffel, and Coblentz (2002) found that the seriousness of the relationship moderated the effect that partner violence had on relationship satisfaction; women in serious dating relationships were overall less satisfied with their relationships than were women in non-serious relationships when partner violence was a factor. This is, however, not always the case as other researchers have found that partner violence may be unrelated to relationship satisfaction and may not work to alter an individual’s satisfaction (Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Gray & Foshee, 1997).

Problem Behaviors

Substance use has a well-documented relationship with IPA. In fact, substance abuse is one of the most frequently reported health problems in abused women and it has also been noted in abused men (Campbell, 2002; Coker et al., 2002). Research indicates that abused women are 5 times more likely to abuse substances than are non-abused women (Dutton et al., 2006). It is often found that women may use substances as a coping mechanism for the abuse they are experiencing (Humphreys, Regan, River, & Thiara, 2005; Kaysen et al., 2008; Khantzian, 1997; Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997; Kyriacou et al., 1999; Logan et al., 2002; Manhal-Baugus, 1998; Quigley & Leonard, 2000; Testa, Livingston, & Leonard, 2003; Wingood, DiClemente, & Raj, 2000). The substances often used by abused women include not only alcohol but also marijuana and illicit drugs (Logan et al., 2002). A reciprocal relationship between substance use and victimization has been suggested; women respond to abuse by increasing substance use, which in turn increases their risk of re-victimization (Kilpatrick et al., 1997).

Offending behaviors are often seen as a precursor or predictor of IPA perpetration, as opposed to an outcome of IPA perpetration and victimization. As such, perpetration experiences are found to be associated with offending behaviors for adult women (Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999). For adults, researchers note that early problem behaviors are found to predict later IPA perpetration (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Capaldi, Dishion, Stoolmiller, & Yoerger, 2001; Ehrensaft, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2004; Lussier, Farrington, & Moffitt, 2009; Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998). Given that there is scant research that examines offending as an outcome of IPA perpetration and victimization, excluding research that examines IPA perpetration recidivism, this is a limitation in extant research that should be addressed. Not only do abused populations have substance use, arrest, and offending behavior problems related to abuse, but they may also engage in increased risky sexual behavior. Deviant sexual behavior and a high number of sexual partners are often found among women who have been victimized in relationships (Logan et al., 2002; Plichta, 2004). In addition, abused women are at an increased risk of STDs (Raj, Reed, Welles, Santana, & Silverman, 2008). Male perpetrators of IPA are found to have recent sexually transmitted infection (STI)/HIV diagnoses, to have more unprotected sex, to participate in the sex trade, to have a high number of sexual partners, and to be unfaithful to their partners (El-Bassel et al., 2001; Raj et al., 2008; Santana, Raj, Decker, La Marche, & Silverman, 2006).

To summarize, the physical, emotional, and mental health costs of IPA appear to be high. Few studies, however, have been able to document the toll that IPA takes long term. Given this gap in the literature, the current study will explore long-term consequences of IPA victimization and IPA perpetration on negative outcomes. As such, the current study extends previous research by Simmons, Knight, and Menard (2015), in which a sample of women and men from the National Youth Survey Family Study (NYSFS) were analyzed regarding their IPA experiences and substance use and depression outcomes 3 years later. This study seeks to delve deeper into IPA experiences by broadening the outcomes examined to include physical health outcomes, emotional well-being outcomes, and other problem behavior outcomes across a 9-year period. The goals of the current study are to test the following six hypotheses.

Long-Term Consequences of IPA for Women

Female Hypothesis 1: For women, IPA victimization and perpetration (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with negative physical health outcomes 9 years later (at Time 2 or Time 3).

Female Hypothesis 2: For women, IPA victimization and perpetration (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with negative emotional outcomes 9 years later (at Time 2 or Time 3).

Female Hypothesis 3: For women, IPA victimization and perpetration (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with problem behavior 9 years later (at Time 2 or Time 3).

Long-Term Consequences of IPA for Men

Male Hypothesis 1: For men, IPA victimization and perpetration (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with negative physical health outcomes 9 years later (at Time 2 or Time 3).

Male Hypothesis 2: For men, IPA victimization and perpetration (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with negative emotional outcomes 9 years later (at Time 2 or Time 3).

Male Hypothesis 3: For men, IPA victimization and perpetration (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with problem behavior 9 years later (at Time 2 or Time 3).

Method

Data

The NYSFS is a nationally representative, longitudinal, and prospective study that followed respondents over much of their life course using mostly household interviews (Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989). The NYSFS began in 1977 with 1,725 adolescent participants (ages 11-17) and their family members. To test the hypotheses in the current study, data are drawn from Waves 9, 10, and 11 of the NYSFS. Wave 9 was collected in 1993 when respondents were 26 to 34 years old, Wave 10 was collected in 2002 when respondents were 35 to 44 years old, and Wave 11 was collected in 2003 when respondents were 36 to 45 years old. Waves 9, 10, and 11 were selected given the 9- and 10-year difference between the waves, which is important for understanding the long-term consequences of IPA. Retention was 78% for Wave 9, 75% for Wave 10, and 70% for Wave 11. Given the 28-year time span of the study, these retention rates are quite reasonable as compared with other longitudinal studies (Menard, 2012; Menard, Morris, Gerber, & Covey, 2011). Wave 9, Wave 10, and Wave 11 will hereafter be referred to as Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 for clarification purposes.

Analytic sample

For the current study, the analytic sample was created in the following stages. First, inclusion was limited to those respondents who were in romantic relationships and who answered the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) about their relationships at Time 1 (n = 1,002). Second, from those respondents who answered the CTS at Time 1, only those who were still enrolled in the study at Time 2 or Time 3 were retained. Respondents did not need to be in a relationship at follow-up to be included in the analytic sample. Therefore, the final analytic sample size is n = 879. Given the construction of the analytic sample, missing data are minimal (i.e., between 2% and 9% depending on the measure) and are described along with the descriptive statistics in Table 1; case-wise deletion was used when data were missing (please see Table 2 for descriptive statistics by gender).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Total Sample.

Measures	M	SD	Range	n	Wave	Missing n
Independent variables
Minor IPA Victimization	0.55	—	0-1	879	9	0
Violent IPA Victimization	0.11	—	0-1	879	9	0
Minor IPA Perpetration	0.60	—	0-1	879	9	0
Violent IPA Perpetration	0.08	—	0-1	879	9	0
Control variables
Male	0.47	—	0-1	879	9	0
Non-White	0.16	—	0-1	879	9	0
Education Level	13.50	2.16	6-17	879	9	0
Age	30.30	2.04	27-34	879	9	0
Public Assistance	0.03	—	0-1	879	9	0
Lagged dependent variables
Physical Health Restrictions	0.15	—	0-1	879	9	0
BMI	25.19	4.79	16.36-57.65	875	9	4
Work Satisfaction	3.15	0.96	0-4	777	9	0
Relationship Satisfaction	3.34	1.07	0-4	847	9	32
Relationship Stability	29.62	5.27	0-40	864	9	15
Deviant Beliefs	24.43	6.18	17-45	861	9	18
Depression	0.07	—	0-1	877	9	2
Marijuana Use	0.21	—	0-1	879	9	0
Other Drug Use	0.23	—	0-1	879	9	0
Alcohol Use (ln)	2.69	1.74	0-6.80	879	9	0
Arrest	0.04	—	0-1	879	9	0
Offending Behaviors	0.08	—	0-1	879	9	0
Dependent variables
Physical Health Restrictions	0.25	—	0-1	879	10 and 11	0
BMI	28.00	5.98	16.45-58.24	875	10 and 11	4
Work Satisfaction	3.54	0.69	0-4	816	10 and 11	0
Relationship Satisfaction	3.65	0.74	0-4	785	10 and 11	0
Relationship Stability	32.04	4.49	9-40	785	10 and 11	0
Deviant Beliefs	25.20	6.57	17-56	879	10 and 11	0
Depression	0.10	—	0-1	802	11	77
Marijuana Use	0.12	—	0-1	808	11	71
Other Drug Use	0.18	—	0-1	808	11	71
Alcohol Use (ln)	2.64	1.86	0-7.69	807	11	72
Arrest	0.03	—	0-1	879	10 and 11	0
Offending Behaviors	0.05	—	0-1	879	10 and 11	0
Deviant Sexual Behavior	2.23	1.49	1-9	861	9	18

Note. The maximum score across Waves 10 and 11 was selected. BMI, relationship satisfaction, relationship stability, deviant beliefs, and deviant sexual behaviors are missing 4, 32, 15, 18, and 18 cases, respectively. There was no valid response given for these items. The 71 missing cases for depression, marijuana use, drug use, and alcohol use are missing because these measures were only selected from Wave 11 given that Wave 10’s recall period for these measures was 6 months instead of a year. There were 71 participants who were involved in Waves 9 and 10, but were not involved in Wave 11. For the additional six cases missing for depression, no valid response was given for these participants. Missing is zero for the primary dependent variables: work satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and relationship stability, but the n is lower because only those who had a job or were living with their partner/spouse, respectively, answered the questions for these measures. IPA = intimate partner abuse; BMI = body mass index.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics Split by Gender.

Measures	Male Respondents			Female Respondents
Measures	M	SD	Range	M	SD	Range
Independent variables
Minor IPA Victimization	0.53	—	0-1	0.56	—	0-1
Violent IPA Victimization	0.15	—	0-1	0.07	—	0-1
Minor IPA Perpetration	0.52	—	0-1	0.68	—	0-1
Violent IPA Perpetration	0.05	—	0-1	0.12	—	0-1
Control variables
Non-White	0.17	—	0-1	0.15	—	0-1
Education Level	13.59	2.27	7-17	13.42	2.05	6-17
Age	30.37	2.06	27-34	30.25	2.03	27-34
Public Assistance	0.02	—	0-1	0.04	—	0-1
Lagged dependent variables
Physical Health Restrictions	0.13	—	0-1	0.16	—	0-1
BMI	26.07	3.82	18.13-45.78	24.42	5.40	16.36-57.65
Work Satisfaction	3.18	0.95	0-4	3.12	0.96	0-4
Relationship Satisfaction	3.47	0.93	0-4	3.23	1.16	0-4
Relationship Stability	29.87	4.99	1-40	29.38	5.51	0-40
Deviant Beliefs	25.63	6.41	17-45	23.40	5.78	17-41
Depression	0.06	—	0-1	0.09	—	0-1
Marijuana Use	0.27	—	0-1	0.16	—	0-1
Other Drug Use	0.21	—	0-1	0.25	—	0-1
Alcohol Use (ln)	3.14	1.83	0-6.22	2.30	1.55	0-6.80
Arrest	0.07	—	0-1	0.01	—	0-1
Offending Behaviors	0.11	—	0-1	0.05	—	0-1
Dependent variables
Physical Health Restrictions	0.23	—	0-1	0.26	—	0-1
BMI	28.46	4.91	18.13-50.75	27.59	6.76	16.45-58.24
Work Satisfaction	3.55	0.65	0-4	3.54	0.73	0-4
Relationship Satisfaction	3.74	0.58	0-4	3.57	0.85	0-4
Relationship Stability	32.27	4.20	9-40	29.95	7.75	9-40
Deviant Beliefs	26.86	6.87	17-55	23.75	5.93	17-56
Depression	0.07	—	0-1	0.12	—	0-1
Marijuana Use	0.16	—	0-1	0.09	—	0-1
Other Drug Use	0.14	—	0-1	0.20	—	0-1
Alcohol Use (ln)	2.94	1.96	0-7.60	2.38	1.72	0-7.69
Arrest	0.06	—	0-1	0.002	—	0-1
Offending Behaviors	0.07	—	0-1	0.03	—	0-1
Deviant Sexual Behaviors	2.84	1.62	1-9	1.71	1.13	1-8

Note. IPA = intimate partner abuse; BMI = body mass index.

Measures

Independent variables

The primary independent variable for this research study is IPA collected at Time 1 using questions from the CTS (Straus, 1979). The NYSFS uses questions from the CTS to measure IPA victimization and perpetration (Straus, 1979). In total, 20 CTS items were included in the NYSFS survey. Of these, 10 items were used in the current study. Items were excluded to be consistent across waves. Intimate partner abuse was broken into four index measures: minor IPA victimization, violent IPA victimization, minor IPA perpetration, and violent IPA perpetration. IPA was separated into these four index measures to better ascertain the effects of each form of violence. Minor IPA victimization and minor IPA perpetration summed five prevalence measures, including questions about insulting/swearing, throwing things, pushing, grabbing, and shoving, threatening to hit or throw something, and slapping. Violent IPA victimization and violent IPA perpetration summed five prevalence measures, including questions about kicking, biting, and hitting, hitting with something, beating up, threatening to use a gun or knife, and using a knife or firing a gun.

Although some of the questions included in the minor IPA indexes could, potentially, be considered violent forms of IPA depending on the individuals involved, these questions were categorized based on the assumption that there are certain acts that involve more injury than others, and existing literature consistently uses this minor/violent dichotomy (Mihalic & Elliott, 1997; Morse, 1995; Simmons et al., 2015; Testa et al., 2003). Therefore, those acts in which there is a greater risk of injury were classified as violent IPA. These independent variables were then transformed into annual prevalence scores, 0 = did not experience in the past 12 months, 1 = did experience in the past 12 months. Given that only a few people had either perpetrated or experienced the most severe forms of IPA (e.g., threatening to use a gun or knife and using a knife or firing a gun), while others were more likely to experience more frequently the less severe forms of IPA, dichotomous measures of IPA were thought to provide the best representation of the IPA experiences of this sample.

Control variables

In an effort to limit spurious effects, a number of demographic control variables were included in the current study as previous research indicates the importance of these demographic characteristics in understanding IPA (Capaldi et al., 2012). The demographic control variables for this study were collected from Time 1 and include gender (47% male), race (16% non-White), education, in number of years including college (M = 13.50; SD = 2.16), age (M = 30.30; SD = 2.04), and receipt of public assistance in the prior year (3%). Other control variables include the lagged dependent variables measured at Time 1 (all using the same coding as described for the dependent variables measured at Time 2 and Time 3). Following Menard (2008), the lagged dependent variables were included as controls to account for previous participation in or experiences of an outcome, and by controlling for lagged dependent variables, time-stable traits are controlled for; thus, change in the outcome can be attributed to IPA experiences more precisely. The only models that did not include the lagged dependent variables were the deviant sexual behavior models because this measure was only collected at Time 1.

Dependent variables

There were three broad categories of dependent variables for this study: physical health, emotional well-being, and problem behaviors. Physical health includes physical health restrictions and body mass index (BMI). Emotional well-being includes work satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, relationship stability, deviant beliefs, and depression. Problem behaviors include marijuana use, alcohol use, other drug use, arrest, offending behaviors, and deviant sexual behavior. Unless otherwise noted, for the dependent variables, the maximum score across Times 2 and 3 was retained to maximize the analytic sample size and to account for intermittency in behaviors that may occur as individuals get older.

Physical health

Physical health restriction is a one-item, dichotomous measure asking respondents whether they have any physical problems that restrict their activities based on existing research that suggests individuals who experience IPA may have long-term physical health problems. Answers are coded 0 = no physical restrictions, 1 = physical restrictions. BMI (M = 25.19; SD = 4.79) was calculated using the equation, (weight / height²) × 703.0704 (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2014).

Emotional well-being

Work satisfaction (M = 3.54; SD = 0.69) is one item measured by a question asking respondents how satisfied they are with their job based on research that notes individuals who experience IPA may also experience less satisfaction in their work environments. Only those who indicated on a previous question that they had a job answered this question. Relationship satisfaction (M = 3.65; SD = 0.74) is one item measured by a question asking respondents how satisfied they are with their relationship with their intimate partners; as such, only those who indicated on a previous question that they were in a relationship answered this question. Answers for both work satisfaction and relationship satisfaction range from 0 (very dissatisfied) to 4 (very satisfied). Relationship stability (M = 32.04; SD = 4.49; α = .81) is a summed eight-item scale asking respondents about how much they agree with their partners about family finances, making major decisions, vacations or recreation, demonstrations of affection, household tasks, sexual relations, friends, and philosophy of life. Again, only those who indicated on a previous question that they were in a relationship answered this question. Answers range from 0 (always disagree) to 5 (always agree). Deviant beliefs (M = 25.20; SD = 6.57; α = .89) is a summed 17-item scale asking respondents about how wrong it is to cheat on income taxes, destroy property that is not theirs, use marijuana, steal something worth less than 5 dollars, hit or threaten to hit someone for no reason, use cocaine or crack cocaine, break into a vehicle, sell hard drugs, steal something worth more than 50 dollars, get high, use prescription drugs without medical need, give or sell alcohol to minors, attack someone, speed, use force to get something from someone, hit or injure spouse, and pressure or force someone sexually. These items were reverse coded to range from 1 (an action is very wrong) to 4 (an action is not wrong at all). Depression is a prevalence score from Time 3 based on multiple items from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS), which was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.; DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1980), to determine whether a diagnosis of chronic depression, exclusive of depression resulting from prescription or nonprescription (including illicit) drugs and also exclusive of depression produced by acute conditions such as a death in the family, is appropriate (Robins, Helzer, Croughan, Williams, & Spitzer, 1981).

Problem behavior

Marijuana use is a one-item prevalence score asking respondents whether they had 0 = not used marijuana in the past 12 months or 1 = used marijuana in the past 12 months. Other drug use is an index created by summing 10 drug prevalence measures, including inhalants, barbiturates, tranquilizers, amphetamines, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, angel dust, hallucinogens, codeine, and heroin. Other drug use was then transformed into an annual prevalence score, 0 = no drug use in the past 12 months, 1 = other drug use in the past 12 months. Alcohol use (M = 2.63; SD = 1.85) is a one-item measure asking respondents how many times they had used alcohol in the past 12 months. Given that alcohol use is a normative behavior and is highly skewed, a natural logarithmic transformation was conducted to reduce skew.²

Arrest is a one-item prevalence measure asking respondents whether they had been arrested in the past year, with answers coded 0 = have not been arrested, 1 = have been arrested. The offending behavior index was created by summing 12 offending prevalence items, including destroyed or damaged other’s property, set or tried to set a building, car, or property on fire, stolen or attempted to steal a motor vehicle, used force to get something from someone, forced sexual relations, attacked someone, sold hard drugs, paid to have sexual relations with someone, been paid to have sexual relations with someone, and used checks illegally. Offending behavior was then transformed into an annual prevalence score, 0 = no offending behavior in the past 12 months, 1 = offending behavior in the past 12 months. Again, given that only a few respondents had committed some of the more serious offenses (e.g., forced sexual relations, paid to have sexual relations with someone), prevalence scores were used to better account for respondents’ participation in offending behaviors.

Deviant sexual behavior (M = 2.23; SD = 1.49; α = .66) consists of 12 summed prevalence items from Time 1 asking respondents whether they had ever purposefully/secretly watched others as they undressed or engaged in sexual acts, made sexual advances to or engaged in sexual behavior with children, purposefully exposed sexual parts of body to strangers, looked at magazines featuring nudity but not sexual activity, looked at X-rated magazines that showed people engaging in sex, looked at pornographic books that described sexual activity, watched X-rated movies or videos, sent for/looked at mail-order photographs of people engaging in sex, watched live sex shows, read or seen any types of materials other than what was mentioned, had sexual relations where engaged in cruel behavior and inflicted pain on partner, or had sexual relations where sought cruel, dominating, or abusive behavior from partner.

Results

Analytic Strategy

The statistical analyses for the current study were conducted using SPSS Version 20. First, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were analyzed for males and females separately. Second, predictors were tested in multivariate logistic and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models, depending on the distribution of the dependent variable. The sample was split by gender so we could look at gender-specific effects. Models included the following control variables and the lagged dependent variables for each outcome: age, non-White, public assistance, and education level; exceptions are noted where applicable. Given the number of outcomes tested, only the main significant effects concerning separate IPA victimization and perpetration predictors are reported below.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

In this sample, 53% of men and 56% of women experienced minor IPA victimization, 15% of men and 6.6% of women experienced violent IPA victimization, 52% of men and 68% of women perpetrated minor IPA, and 5% of men and 12% of women perpetrated violent IPA. In total, 55% of respondents experienced minor IPA victimization, 11% of respondents experienced violent IPA victimization, 60% of respondents perpetrated minor IPA, and 8% of respondents perpetrated violent IPA (see Table 2). In addition, correlations between perpetration and victimization variables were examined. Correlations indicate that both abusive women and abusive men are also more likely to be victimized by intimate partners (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Correlations Between IPA Perpetration and Victimization Variables by Gender.

Measure	Male Respondents				Female Respondents
Measure	1.	2.	3.	4.	1.	2.	3.	4.
1. Minor IPA Victimization	—	.38***	.58***	.21***	—	.24***	.65***	.28***
2. Violent IPA Victimization	—	—	.30***	.35***	—	—	.15***	.52***
3. Minor IPA Perpetration	—	—	—	.22***	—	—	—	.25***
4. Violent IPA Perpetration	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Note. IPA = intimate partner abuse.

Female Multivariate Results

Physical health

Starting with Table 4, physical health restrictions and BMI are considered indicators of overall physical health. As can be seen in Table 5, female respondents’ history of IPA victimization and perpetration is not significantly predictive of their later physical health restrictions or BMI.

Table 4.

Regression Model Summary Table for Female Respondents’ Physical Health Outcomes.

	Physical Health Restrictions Models				BMI Models
	b	SE	p Value	OR	b	SE	p Value
Minor IPA Victimization	0.41	0.31	.19	1.50	0.29	0.46	.53
Violent IPA Victimization	0.54	.44	.22	1.72	1.41	0.75	.06^†
Minor IPA Perpetration	−0.58	0.32	.07^†	0.56	−0.42	0.48	.38
Violent IPA Perpetration	0.35	0.37	.34	1.42	0.38	0.61	.53

Note. Lagged dependent variable, age, non-White, education level, and public assistance included in all models. BMI = body mass index; OR = odds ratio; IPA = intimate partner abuse.

†

Marginally significant between .06 and .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5.

Regression Model Summary Table for Female Respondents’ Emotional Well-Being Outcomes.

	Work Satisfaction Models			Relationship Satisfaction Models			Relationship Stability Models			Deviant Beliefs Models			Depression Models
	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	OR
Minor IPA Victimization	−0.23	0.11	.03*	−0.20	0.11	.05*	−0.89	0.94	.34	0.31	0.56	.58	−0.05	0.40	.91	0.96
Violent IPA Victimization	−0.16	0.17	.35	−0.73	0.20	.000***	−4.61	1.58	.004***	0.91	0.93	.33	1.00	0.54	.06^†	2.72
Minor IPA Perpetration	0.11	0.11	.34	0.04	0.11	.74	−1.02	0.96	.29	0.48	0.59	.41	0.61	0.46	.18	1.84
Violent IPA Perpetration	0.27	0.14	.05*	−0.04	0.15	.81	1.26	1.26	.32	0.56	0.76	.46	−0.27	0.50	.59	0.77

Note. Lagged dependent variable, age, non-White, education level, and public assistance included in all models. IPA = intimate partner abuse; OR = odds ratio.

†

Marginally significant between .06 and .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Emotional well-being

Work satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, relationship stability, deviant beliefs, and depression are considered indicators of emotional well-being as seen in Table 5. First, in the analysis of work satisfaction, after adjusting for demographic factors and the lagged dependent variable, female respondents’ histories of minor IPA victimization (b = −0.23, SE = 0.11, p = .03) and violent IPA perpetration (b = 0.27, SE = 0.14, p = .05) are predictive of lower work satisfaction and higher work satisfaction, respectively. Second, in the analysis of relationship satisfaction, female respondents’ histories of minor IPA victimization (b = −0.20, SE = 0.11, p = .05) and violent IPA victimization (b = −0.73, SE = 0.20, p = .000) are predictive of lower relationship satisfaction at follow-up. Third, in the analysis of relationship stability, female respondents’ prior violent IPA victimization (b = −4.61, SE = 1.58, p = .004) is predictive of lower relationship stability at follow-up. Fourth, female respondents’ histories of IPA victimization and perpetration are not predictive of respondents’ deviant beliefs at follow-up. Fifth, for depression, female respondents’ histories of IPA victimization and perpetration are not significantly predictive of respondents’ depression symptoms at follow-up.

Problem behaviors

Marijuana use, other drug use, alcohol use, offending behaviors, and deviant sexual behavior are considered indicators of problem behaviors as shown in Table 6. First, in analysis of marijuana use, after controlling for demographic factors and the lagged dependent variable, female respondents’ history of minor IPA perpetration (b = 1.44, SE = 0.74, p = .05) is predictive of increased marijuana use at follow-up. The odds ratio of minor IPA perpetration is 4.23. The odds ratio indicates that, compared with women who did not report minor IPA perpetration at Time 1, those who did report minor IPA perpetration had 4.23 times the odds of reporting marijuana use at follow-up.

Table 6.

Regression Model Summary Table for Female Respondents’ Problem Behavior Outcomes.

	Marijuana Use Models				Other Drug Use Models				Alcohol Use (ln) Models			Offending Behaviors Models				Deviant Sexual Behavior Models
	b	SE	p Value	OR	b	SE	p Value	OR	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	OR	b	SE	p Value
Minor IPA Victimization	0.02	0.54	.97	1.02	0.07	0.33	.84	1.07	0.23	0.18	.19	0.15	0.78	.85	1.16	−0.08	0.14	.59
Violent IPA Victimization	1.21	0.64	.06^†	3.35	0.67	0.52	.19	1.95	0.07	0.30	.82	0.43	0.97	.66	1.54	0.24	0.23	.31
Minor IPA Perpetration	1.44	0.74	.05*	4.23	0.64	0.38	.09^†	1.89	−0.23	0.18	.21	1.49	1.19	.21	4.43	0.51	0.15	.001***
Violent IPA Perpetration	−0.07	0.54	.90	0.93	−0.88	0.48	.06^†	0.41	−0.59	0.24	.01**	−0.70	0.95	.46	0.50	0.16	0.19	.40

Note. Deviant sexual behavior not included in controls because it was not available in Wave 10 or 11; Lagged dependent variable, age, non-White, education level, and public assistance included in all models except aforementioned exception. Arrest excluded because not enough variation in measure. OR = odds ratio; IPA = intimate partner abuse.

†

Marginally significant between .06 and .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Second, in analysis of other drug use, female respondents’ history of IPA victimization and perpetration is not predictive of their other drug use at follow-up. Third, in analysis of alcohol use, female respondents’ history of violent IPA perpetration (b = −0.59, SE = 0.24, p = .01) is associated with lower alcohol use at follow-up. Fourth, in analysis of offending behaviors, female respondents’ history of IPA victimization and perpetration is not predictive of their offending behavior at follow-up. Fifth, female respondents’ history of minor IPA perpetration (b = 0.51, SE = 0.15, p = .001) is associated with respondents’ deviant sexual behavior. The effects for deviant sexual behavior are contemporaneous given that the questions were only asked at Time 1 which is the same wave that IPA was assessed.

Male Respondents Multivariate Results

Physical health

Starting with Table 7, physical health restrictions and BMI are considered indicators of overall physical health. As can be seen in Table 7, male respondents’ history of IPA victimization and perpetration is not significantly predictive of their later physical health restrictions or BMI.

Table 7.

Regression Model Summary Table for Male Respondents’ Physical Health Outcomes.

	Physical Health Restrictions Models				BMI Models
	b	SE	p Value	OR	b	SE	p Value
Minor IPA Victimization	−0.04	0.33	.90	0.96	0.20	0.36	.59
Violent IPA Victimization	−0.40	0.41	.33	0.67	−0.05	0.45	.92
Minor IPA Perpetration	0.10	0.32	.76	1.10	−0.22	0.35	.53
Violent IPA Perpetration	0.75	0.57	.19	2.11	−0.88	0.71	.21

Note. Lagged dependent variable, age, non-White, education level, and public assistance included in all models. BMI = body mass index; OR = odds ratio; IPA = intimate partner abuse

†

Marginally significant between .06 and .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Emotional well-being

Work satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, relationship stability, deviant beliefs, and depression are considered indicators of emotional well-being as seen in Table 8. First, male respondents’ histories of IPA victimization and perpetration are not predictive of respondents’ work satisfaction at follow-up. Second, in the analysis of relationship satisfaction, after adjusting for demographic factors and the lagged dependent variable, male respondents’ history of violent IPA perpetration (b = −0.38, SE = 0.17, p = .02) is predictive of lower relationship satisfaction. Third, in the analysis of relationship stability, male respondents’ prior violent IPA perpetration (b = −4.32, SE = 1.79, p = .02) is predictive of lower relationship stability at follow-up. Fourth, male respondents’ histories of IPA victimization and perpetration are not predictive of respondents’ deviant beliefs at follow-up. Fifth, male respondents’ histories of IPA victimization and perpetration are not predictive of respondents’ depression symptoms at follow-up.

Table 8.

Regression Model Summary Table for Male Respondents’ Emotional Well-Being Outcomes.

	Work Satisfaction Models			Relationship Satisfaction Models			Relationship Stability Models			Deviant Beliefs Models			Depression Models
	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value
Minor IPA Victimization	0.02	0.08	.83	−0.04	0.08	.59	1.06	0.93	.26	1.02	0.68	.14	−0.34	0.58	.55
Violent IPA Victimization	−0.10	0.10	.32	0.10	0.10	.31	−1.78	1.17	.13	1.47	0.84	.08^†	0.73	0.59	.22
Minor IPA Perpetration	−0.09	0.08	.27	−0.12	0.08	.13	−1.06	0.91	.25	−0.22	0.67	.75	0.14	0.54	.79
Violent IPA Perpetration	0.02	0.16	.88	−0.38	0.17	.02*	−4.32	1.79	.02*	−0.58	1.30	.66	0.69	0.77	.37

Note. Public assistance not included in depression model because too few men received public assistance and reported depression to provide enough variation in the measure. Lagged dependent variable, age, non-White, education level, and public assistance included in all models. IPA = intimate partner abuse.

†

Marginally significant between .06 and .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Problem behaviors

Marijuana use, other drug use, alcohol use, offending behaviors, and deviant sexual behavior are considered indicators of problem behaviors as shown in Table 9. First, in analysis of marijuana use, after controlling for demographic factors and the lagged dependent variable, male respondents’ history of violent IPA victimization (b = 1.20, SE = 0.48, p = .01) is predictive of increased marijuana use at follow-up. The odds ratio of violent IPA victimization is 3.30. The odds ratio indicates that, compared with men who did not report violent IPA victimization at Time 1, those who did report violent IPA victimization had 3.30 times the odds of reporting marijuana use at follow-up.

Table 9.

Regression Model Summary Table for Male Respondents’ Problem Behavior Outcomes.

	Marijuana Use Models				Other Drug Use Models				Alcohol Use (ln) Models			Offending Behaviors Models			Deviant Sexual Behavior Models			Arrest Models
	b	SE	p Value	OR	b	SE	p Value	OR	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	b	SE	p Value	OR
Minor IPA Victimization	−0.53	0.47	.27	0.59	0.32	0.44	.47	1.38	−0.09	0.20	.67	0.02	0.66	.98	−0.09	0.20	.66	−0.03	0.63	.97	0.97
Violent IPA Victimization	1.20	0.48	.01**	3.30	0.53	0.45	.24	1.69	0.30	0.27	.26	0.56	0.54	.30	0.41	0.25	.10^†	0.50	0.58	.38	1.66
Minor IPA Perpetration	0.45	0.45	.31	1.57	0.19	0.42	.65	1.21	−0.001	0.20	.99	0.50	0.64	.43	0.67	0.20	.001***	0.52	0.60	.38	1.69
Violent IPA Perpetration	−0.73	0.72	.31	0.48	0.96	0.62	.12	2.60	−0.59	0.41	.15	1.74	0.64	.007**	0.98	0.39	.01**	0.86	0.72	.23	2.35

Note. Deviant sexual behavior not included in controls because it was not available in Wave 10 or 11; public assistance not included in marijuana model due to lack of variation in the measure; lagged dependent variable, age, non-White, education level, and public assistance included in all models except aforementioned exceptions. OR = odds ratio; IPA = intimate partner abuse.

†

Marginally significant between .06 and .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Second, male respondents’ histories of IPA victimization and perpetration are not predictive of respondents’ other drug use at follow-up. Third, male respondents’ histories of IPA victimization and perpetration are not predictive of respondents’ alcohol use at follow-up. Fourth, in analysis of offending behaviors, male respondents’ history of violent IPA perpetration (b = 1.74, SE = 0.64, p = .007) is predictive of increased offending behavior at follow-up. The odds ratio of violent IPA perpetration is 5.68. The odds ratio indicates that, compared with men who did not report violent IPA perpetration at Time 1, those who did report violent IPA perpetration had 5.68 times the odds of reporting offending behaviors at follow-up. Fifth, male respondents’ histories of violent IPA victimization (b = 0.41, SE = 0.25, p = .10) and minor IPA perpetration (b = 0.67, SE = 0.20, p = .001) are associated with respondents’ deviant sexual behavior.

Discussion

The current study seeks to extend research on the long-term negative outcomes associated with minor and violent IPA victimization and perpetration. Data from a national, longitudinal, and prospective sample collected by the NYSFS across a 9-year period were analyzed. Six hypotheses were tested while controlling for demographic factors and prior involvement in the outcome. We begin the discussion by summarizing the findings for each hypothesis.

For female respondents, two of the three hypotheses found some support and for male respondents, two hypotheses found some support. For women, first, the hypothesis that involvement with IPA (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with negative physical health outcomes at follow-up (9 years later) found no support. Second, for women, the hypothesis that involvement with IPA (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with negative emotional outcomes at follow-up (9 years later) found some support in that minor IPA victimization is predictive of work dissatisfaction, minor IPA victimization and violent IPA victimization are predictive of relationship dissatisfaction, and violent IPA victimization is predictive of relationship instability. Contrary to what is hypothesized, violent IPA perpetration is positively associated with work satisfaction for female respondents. Third, for women, the hypothesis that involvement with IPA (at Time 1) will be significantly and positively associated with problem behavior at follow-up (9 years later) found some support in that minor IPA perpetration is predictive of increased marijuana use and is associated with deviant sexual behavior. Again, contrary to what is hypothesized for female respondents, violent IPA perpetration is negatively associated with alcohol use, which suggests that a history of violent IPA perpetration is predictive of less alcohol use at follow-up.

For male respondents, first, the hypothesis that IPA victimization and perpetration experiences will have negative consequences for physical health restrictions and BMI found no support. Second, the hypothesis that IPA victimization and perpetration experiences will have negative consequences on emotional well-being found some support in that violent IPA perpetration is predictive of relationship dissatisfaction and relationship instability. Third, the hypothesis that IPA victimization and perpetration experiences will have negative consequences on problem behaviors found some support in that violent IPA victimization predicted increased marijuana use, violent IPA perpetration predicted increased offending behaviors, and violent IPA victimization and minor IPA perpetration were associated with deviant sexual behaviors. Overall, the findings of the current study suggest that both men and women are affected negatively by IPA experiences, but they may also experience effects specific to their gender. What is clear, however, is that both genders still bear negative outcomes as a result of IPA victimization and perpetration after a long time.

The key finding in the current study is that minor and violent IPA victimization and perpetration show long-term consequences on a number of varied outcomes. This is important because it illustrates the need to understand the numerous consequences of IPA and solidifies IPA’s status as a public health issue. As existing research on IPA has shown, the prevalence of IPA is high (Bonomi et al., 2006; Morse, 1995), and, as the current study finds, there are negative consequences experienced by victims and perpetrators. Overall, the results highlight the importance of longitudinal analyses, the need for separation of IPA by severity (e.g., minor and violent), and the value of separating victimization and perpetration IPA measures. In addition to finding support for our specific hypotheses, other important findings that emerged from the analyses—related to relationships, work, alcohol use, offending, and stability of prior involvement in outcomes—are discussed below.

Results from the current study indicate that violent IPA victimization experiences are particularly troubling for female victims with regard to relationship dissatisfaction and relationship stability, and violent IPA perpetration experiences predicted relationship dissatisfaction and relationship instability for male respondents. For female respondents, this finding is consistent with extant dating and marriage literature addressing relationship dissatisfaction and violent victimization (Kaura & Lohman, 2007). Stith, McCollum, Rosen, and Thomsen (2004) noted that marital discord is high in violent relationships and, as such, if marital discord is not addressed, physical violence is likely to recur given the issues within the relationship. IPA perpetration can also result in negative impacts on relationships, which can help explain why male respondents may report dissatisfaction and instability within their romantic relationships. Thus, the findings for male respondents may be attributed to a cyclical pattern of violence and relationship dissatisfaction, or it may be that male respondents perpetrate violence toward their partners and subsequently note dissatisfaction and instability in their relationships. Although relationship dissatisfaction and relationship instability may often be seen as precursors to IPA, they can also be results of IPA as found in the current study. The relationship dissatisfaction and relationship instability outcomes are not surprising given existing research that notes the negative impacts IPA experiences can have on relationships, especially regarding marital discord (Aldarondo & Sugarman, 1996; Cano & Vivian, 2003).

With regard to work dissatisfaction, for female respondents, research indicates that when there is increased violence in the home, there are increased problems within the workplace, including increased absenteeism, decreased productivity, increased risk of job loss, inconsistent work histories, underemployment, and reduced earning (Brush, 2003; Leone et al., 2004; Riger et al., 2002; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Tolman & Raphael, 2000; Tolman & Rosen, 2001). For female respondents, the unexpected positive relationship of work satisfaction with violent IPA perpetration and the negative relationship of alcohol use with violent IPA perpetration are interesting. There could be a number of explanations for these findings. One such explanation for the increase in work satisfaction is whether women’s perpetration of IPA reduced their stress levels, leading to more satisfactory work environments.

In addition, an explanation of the negative relationship of alcohol use with violent IPA perpetration is whether alcohol had played a role in past IPA and, as a result, female respondents reduced their alcohol use to try and prevent future IPA. For female respondents, minor IPA perpetration was predictive of increased marijuana use, and for male respondents, violent IPA victimization was predictive of increased marijuana use. It is no surprise that substance use, in this case, marijuana use, has a relationship with IPA, as the relationship between substance use and IPA experiences has been noted in abused men and women (Campbell, 2002; Coker et al., 2002). The results for women are interesting because substance use, including marijuana use, is often noted as a result of victimization by intimate partners (Campbell, 2002), and not much research is available documenting use of substances as a result of perpetration of IPA. The results for men, that violent IPA victimization predicted increased marijuana use, could be potentially explained by the same factors that have been used to explain female victims’ substance use after victimization—use of substances as a coping mechanism for abuse (Humphreys et al., 2005; Kaysen et al., 2008; Khantzian, 1997; Kilpatrick et al., 1997).

For male respondents, violent IPA perpetration was predictive of increased offending behavior. As stated previously, offending behaviors are often found to predict IPA perpetration and are not often seen as outcomes of IPA perpetration and victimization (Capaldi & Clark, 1998; Capaldi et al., 2001; Ehrensaft et al., 2004; Lussier et al., 2009; Magdol et al., 1998). However, it is possible that male perpetrators of violent IPA may be more aggressive and, as such, more likely to offend in other ways, as well. Given the limited research that examines offending as an outcome of IPA perpetration and victimization, more research should be conducted on offending behaviors. For both female and male respondents, minor IPA perpetration was associated with deviant sexual behavior. This is an interesting finding considering women are usually thought to experience coercive sexual behavior at the hands of male intimate partners (Watts & Zimmerman, 2002). Research by Malamuth (1981) indicates that male participants who indicated a higher likelihood of raping were similar to convicted rapists with regard to rape myths and sexual arousal to rape depictions. In addition, increased likelihood of raping was associated with increased aggression toward women (Malamuth, 1981). However, the findings for deviant sexual behavior were contemporaneous; thus, future research in this area is warranted.

Last, across all models, results indicate that there is continuity in physical health, emotional well-being, and problem behavior across a 9-year period, as indicated by the lagged dependent variable being significant in every model examined (but note that these results are not shown in the tables) for female respondents. For male respondents, across all models except the depression models, the lagged dependent variable is always significant, indicating continuity in physical health, emotional well-being, and problem behavior across a 9-year period. Overall, the consistency of these findings suggests that it is important to control for prior involvement in outcomes to accurately estimate the effects of IPA.

The limitations of the current study bear mentioning. First, the NYSFS used the CTS to measure the extent to which intimate partners self-report abuse toward one another. Although this is beneficial in that all eligible respondents provided IPA data, as opposed to just those who reported IPA to law enforcement personnel, for example, the information gathered from the CTS does not reveal the context of violence, which is important for uncovering whether the violence is mutual (Morse, 1995). Generally, the CTS captures common couple’s violence, but important consequences of IPA are still seen. There are a number of strengths to the CTS that make it a valid tool to use in this type of research, especially when examining a national probability sample. The CTS allows researchers to quantitatively study IPA events from both the abuser and the victim. Also, the CTS makes a distinction between minor and severe forms of violence, which is important in distinguishing the outcomes of different levels of violence.

Second, given the 9-year follow-up period, immediate changes in physical and sexual health, emotional well-being, and problem behavior could not be measured. However, because the purpose of this study was to examine the long-term outcomes of IPA victimization and perpetration, the 9-year follow-up period is also a strength to the study. Third, what mediates IPA and subsequent problematic outcomes is not tested; future research in this area is warranted. Fourth, out of 12 items, 1 item used in the deviant sex measure was pornography. Although pornography is presently considered an increasingly normative behavior, during the time this measure was collected in the 1993 wave of the NYSFS, the Internet was not yet the popular entity it is today. Fourth, IPA experiences and severity of IPA victimization and perpetration were coded based on respondents’ experiences in the 12 months prior to Time 1. As such, it is likely that any historical abuse prior to the 12 month recall period was not accounted for. Fifth, follow-up surveys are not able to capture all relevant life events that may influence the dependent variables at the time of the survey. Overall, the strengths of the CTS, the construction of the IPA scales (e.g., distinguishing between minor and violent victimization and perpetration), and the extended follow-up period of 9 years may outweigh the study’s limitations, especially because we were able to establish temporal order and document the effects of IPA while controlling for important demographic factors and prior involvement in outcomes. In conclusion, this study contributes to the body of literature on IPA victimization and perpetration by examining its long-term negative outcomes on men and women. Results find support for a number of negative outcomes that may have implications for both theory and practice, given that a number of these outcomes may not be addressed in intervention and counseling services. Differences in men and women’s IPA experiences need to be taken into account to effectively tailor intervention programs to both perpetrators and victims of minor and violent partner violence (Carney, Buttell, & Dutton, 2007).

Footnotes

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Sara B. Simmons is a PhD student at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include animal cruelty, victimology, and the long-term consequences of intimate partner abuse, including substance use, mental health, and incarceration.

Kelly E. Knight is an assistant professor at Montana State University and serves on the executive board for the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Victimology. Her research interests include examining developmental, life course, and intergenerational patterns of offending, substance use, and victimization.

Scott Menard is a professor of criminal justice at Sam Houston State University. He received his PhD in sociology at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His publications include books, monographs, and articles on quantitative methods and statistics, criminological theory testing, illicit substance use, and criminal behavior over the life course.

References

Aldarondo

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). Risk marker analysis of the cessation and persistence of wife assault. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1010-1019.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Astin

M. C.

Ogland-Hand

S. M.

Coleman

E. M.

Foy

D. W.

(1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder and childhood abuse in battered women: Comparisons with maritally distressed women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 308-312.

Bachman

(1994). Violence and theft in the workplace. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . . Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bonomi

A. E.

Thompson

R. S.

Anderson

Reid

R. J.

Carrell

Dimer

J. A.

Rivara

F. P.

(2006). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical, mental, and social functioning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 458-466.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63, 1-18.

Browne

Miller

Maguin

(1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 301-322.

10.

Brush

L. D.

(2003). Effects of work on hitting and hurting. Violence Against Women, 9, 1213-1230.

11.

Campbell

J. C.

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

12.

Campbell

J. C.

Kub

Belknap

R. A.

Templin

T. N.

(1997). Predictors of depression in battered women. Violence Against Women, 3, 271-293.

13.

Cano

Vivian

(2003). Are life stressors associated with marital violence? Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 302-314.

14.

Capaldi

D. M.

Clark

(1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1175-1188.

15.

Capaldi

D. M.

Crosby

(1997). Observed and reported psychological and physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Social Development, 6, 184-206.

16.

Capaldi

D. M.

Dishion

T. J.

Stoolmiller

Yoerger

(2001). Aggression toward female partners by at-risk young men: The contribution of male adolescent friendships. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 61-73.

17.

Capaldi

D. M.

Knoble

N. B.

Shortt

J. W.

Kim

H. K.

(2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.

18.

Carney

Buttell

Dutton

(2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 108-115.

19.

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 Preventive Medicine, 24, 260-268.

20.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

Bethea

King

M. R.

McKeown

R. E.

(2000). Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 451-457.

21.

Corrigan

J. D. P.

Wolfe

M. L.

Mysiw

W. J. M. D.

Jackson

R. D. M. D.

Bogner

J. A. P.

(2003). Early identification of mild traumatic brain injury in female victims of domestic violence. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 188(5 Suppl.), S71-S76.

22.

Cramer

(2003). Facilitativeness, conflict, demand for approval, self-esteem, and satisfaction with romantic relationships. Journal of Psychology, 137, 83-98.

23.

Drijber

B. C.

Reijnders

U. J. L.

Ceelen

(2012). Male victims of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 173-178.

24.

Du-Plat Jones

(2006). Domestic violence: The role of health professionals. Nursing Standard, 21(14-16), 44-48.

25.

Dutton

M. A.

Green

B. L.

Kaltman

S. I.

Roesch

D. M.

Zeffiro

T. A.

Krause

E. D.

(2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955-968.

26.

Dye

M. L.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2000). Anger, irrational beliefs, and dysfunctional attitudes in violent dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 15, 337-350.

27.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 258-270.

28.

El-Bassel

Fontdevila

Gilbert

Voisin

Richman

B. L.

Pitchell

(2001). HIV risks of men in methadone maintenance treatment programs who abuse their intimate partners: A forgotten issue. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 13, 29-43.

29.

Elliott

D. S.

Huizinga

Menard

(1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, drugs and mental health problems. New York, NY: Springer.

30.

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.

31.

Follingstad

Wright

Lloyd

Sebastian

(1991). Sex differences in motivations and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51-57.

32.

George

M. J.

Yarwood

D. J.

(2004). Male Domestic Violence Victims Survey 2001: Main findings. Retrieved from www.dewar4research.org/DOCS/mdv.pdf

33.

Gleason

W. J.

(1993). Mental disorders in battered women: An empirical study. Violence and Victims, 8(1), 53-68.

34.

Golding

J. M.

(1999). Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 99-132.

35.

Gray

H. M.

Foshee

(1997). Adolescent dating violence: Differences between one-sided and mutually-violent profiles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 126-141.

36.

Hotaling

G. T.

Sugarman

D. B.

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

37.

Humphreys

Regan

River

Thiara

R. K.

(2005). Domestic violence and substance use: Tackling complexity. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 1303-1320.

38.

Jackson

Philp

Nuttall

R. L.

Diller

(2002). Traumatic brain injury: A hidden consequence for battered women. Professional Psychology—Research and Practice, 33(1), 39-45.

39.

Katz

Kuffel

S. W.

Coblentz

(2002). Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 17, 247-271.

40.

Kaura

S. A.

Lohman

B. J.

(2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 367-381.

41.

Kaysen

Dillworth

T. M.

Simpson

Waldrop

Larimer

M. E.

Resick

P. A.

(2008). Domestic violence and alcohol use: Trauma-related symptoms and motives for drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 1272-1283.

42.

Khantzian

E. J.

(1997). The self-medication hypothesis of substance use disorders: A reconsideration and recent applications. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 4, 231-244.

43.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Acierno

Resnick

H. S.

Saunders

B. E.

Best

C. L.

(1997). A 2-year longitudinal analysis of the relationships between violent assault and substance use in women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834-847.

44.

Kyriacou

D. N.

Anglin

Taliferro

Stone

Tubb

Linden

J. A.

. . . Kraus

J. F.

(1999). Risk factors for injury to women from domestic violence. The New England Journal of Medicine, 341, 1892-1898.

45.

Leonard

(2003). The hidden victims of domestic violence. Victimology, 7, 1-22.

46.

Leone

Johnson

Cohan

Lloyd

(2004). Consequences of male partner violence on low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 472-490.

47.

Logan

T. K.

Walker

Cole

Leukefeld

(2002). Victimization and substance abuse among women: Contributing factors, interventions, and implications. Review of General Psychology, 6, 325-397.

48.

Lussier

Farrington

D. P.

Moffitt

T. E.

(2009). Is the antisocial child father of the abusive man? A 40-year prospective longitudinal study on the developmental antecedents of intimate partner violence. Criminology, 47, 741-780.

49.

Magdol

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Silva

P. A.

(1998). Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A prospective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 375-389.

50.

Malamuth

N. M.

(1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 138-157.

51.

Manhal-Baugus

(1998). The self-in-relation theory and women for sobriety: Female-specific theory and mutual help group for chemically dependent women. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 18, 78-85.

52.

McCauley

Kern

D. E.

Kolodner

Dill

Schroeder

A. F.

DeChant

H. K.

. . . Derogatis

L. R.

(1995). The “battering syndrome”: Prevalence and clinical characteristics of domestic violence in primary care internal medicine practices. Annals of Internal Medicine, 123, 737-746.

53.

McNutt

L. A.

Carlson

B. E.

Persaud

Postmus

(2002). Cumulative abuse experiences, physical health, and health behaviors. Annuals of Epidemiology, 12, 123-130.

54.

Menard

(2008). Panel analysis with logistic regression. In Menard

(Ed.), Handbook of longitudinal research: Design, measurement, and analysis (pp. 505-522). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

55.

Menard

(2012). Age, criminal victimization, and offending: Changing relationships from adolescence to middle adulthood. Victims & Offenders, 7, 227-254.

56.

Menard

Elliott

D. S.

(1990). Longitudinal and cross-sectional data collection and analysis in the study of crime and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 7, 11-55.

57.

Menard

Morris

R. G.

Gerber

Covey

H. C.

(2011). Distribution and correlates of self-reported crimes of trust. Deviant Behavior, 32, 877-917.

58.

Mihalic

S. W.

Elliott

(1997). A social learning theory model of marital violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21-47.

59.

Monahan

O’Leary

K. D.

(1999). Head injury and battered women: An initial inquiry. Health and Social Work, 24(4), 269-278.

60.

Morse

B. J.

(1995). Beyond the conflict tactics scale: Assessing gender differences in partner violence. Violence and Victims, 10, 251-272.

61.

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2014). About BMI for adults. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

62.

Plichta

S. B.

(2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: Policy and practice implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1296-1323.

63.

Quigley

B. M.

Leonard

K. E.

(2000). Alcohol and the continuation of early marital aggression. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 1003-1010.

64.

Raj

Reed

Welles

S. L.

Santana

M. C.

Silverman

J. G.

(2008). Intimate partner violence perpetration, risky sexual behavior, and STI/HIV diagnosis among heterosexual African American men. American Journal of Men’s Health, 2, 291-295.

65.

Riger

Raja

Camacho

(2002). The radiating impact of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 184-205.

66.

Robins

L. N.

Helzer

J. E.

Croughan

Williams

J. B. W.

Spitzer

R. L.

(1981). NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Version III. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

67.

Santana

M. C.

Raj

Decker

M. R.

La Marche

Silverman

J. G.

(2006). Masculine gender roles associated with increased sexual risk and intimate partner violence perpetration among young adult men. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 575-585.

68.

Shepard

Pence

(1988). The effect of battering on the employment status of women. Affilia, 3(2), 55-61.

69.

Silverman

J. G.

Raj

Mucci

L. A.

Hathaway

J. E.

(2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572-579.

70.

Simmons

S. B.

Knight

K. E.

Menard

(2015). The long-term consequences of intimate partner violence on substance use and depression for women and men involved in the National Youth Survey Family Study. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 351-361.

71.

Stith

S. M.

Green

N. M.

Smith

D. B.

Ward

D. B.

(2008). Marital satisfaction and marital discord as risk markers for intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 149-160.

72.

Stith

S. M.

McCollum

E. E.

Rosen

K. H.

Thomsen

C. J.

(2004). Treating marital violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 305-318.

73.

Stith

S. M.

Smith

D. B.

Penn

Ward

Tritt

(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65-98.

74.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75-88.

75.

Swanberg

J. E.

Logan

T. K.

Macke

(2005). Intimate partner violence, employment, and the workplace: Consequences and future directions. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4, 1-26.

76.

Testa

Leonard

K. E.

(2001). The impact of marital aggression on women’s psychological and marital functioning in a newlywed sample. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 115-130.

77.

Testa

Livingston

J. A.

Leonard

K. E.

(2003). Women’s substance use and experiences of intimate partner violence: A longitudinal investigation among a community sample. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 1649-1664.

78.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142-161.

79.

Tolman

R. M.

Raphael

(2000). A review of research on welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 655-682.

80.

Tolman

R. M.

Rosen

(2001). Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving welfare: Mental health, substance dependence, and economic well-being. Violence Against Women, 7, 141-158.

81.

Warchol

(1998).Workplace violence, 1992-1996.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

82.

Watts

Zimmerman

(2002). Violence against women: Global scope and magnitude. The Lancet, 359, 1232-1237.

83.

Weigel

D. J.

Ballard-Reisch

D. S.

(2002). Investigating the behavioral indicators of relational commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 403-423.

84.

Wingood

G. M.

DiClemente

R. J.

Raj

(2000). Adverse consequences of intimate partner abuse among women in non-urban domestic violence shelters. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 270-275.

85.

Zlotnick

Johnson

D. M.

Kohn

(2006). Intimate partner violence and long-term psychosocial functioning in a national sample of American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(2), 262-275.