Intimate Partner Violence and Controlling Behavior Among Male Same-Sex Relationships in China: Relationship With Ambivalent Sexism

Abstract

In this study, we examined intimate partner violence (IPV), cold violence, and controlling behaviors in male same-sex relationships in China, with a focus on the characteristics of IPV and controlling behaviors, and their relationships with ambivalent sexism. IPV was categorized as psychological aggression, physical injury, physical assault, and sexual coercion and was measured using the revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2), an eight-item scale measuring cold violence that was designed specifically for this study. Controlling behaviors were measured using a 34-item scale that was designed for this study, and sexist attitudes toward women and men were assessed using the short forms of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI), respectively. Participants (N = 272) reported instances of perpetration of or victimization by IPV and controlling behaviors within the past 6 months and indicated ambivalent sexism (hostile attitude toward men and women and benevolent attitude toward men and women [HM, HS, BM, and BS, respectively]). Almost 47.1% of the participants reported an experience of IPV, and the prevalence of cold violence and controlling behaviors was found to be 65.1% and 80.5%, respectively. Psychological aggression was the most common, followed sequentially by sexual coercion, physical assault, and injury in present study. We found a strong association between perpetration and victimization and that different forms of violence tend to co-occur in both IPV and controlling behaviors. As predicted, ambivalent sexism was positively correlated with IPV and controlling behaviors, specifically HS and HM. The results indicated the high prevalence of IPV and controlling behaviors among male same-sex relationships, and sexism contributing to this high prevalence.

Keywords

intimate partner violence controlling behaviors ambivalent sexism male same-sex relationships homosexual and bisexual men

Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Male Same-Sex Relationships

IPV is defined as an act of violence committed against a partner, including verbal aggression, physical aggression, and/or sexual violence perpetrated by a current or former spouse, cohabitating partner, or dating partner (Straus, Gelles, & Smith, 1990). Researchers have described intimate violence as the third most severe health problem faced by men in same-sex relationships, following AIDS and substance abuse (Island & Letellier, 1991).

Similar to heterosexual domestic violence, IPV in male same-sex relationships can manifest in the form of emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse, and emotional abuse was the most common, followed sequentially by physical and sexual violence (Coker, Smith, Mckeown, & King, 2000; Greenwood et al., 2002; Hegarty & Bush, 2002; Kay & Jeffries, 2010; Toro-Alfonso & RodrÍGuez-Madera, 2004).

Along with the attention paid to health problems of sexual minorities, research aimed at IPV in male same-sex relationships is increasing in recent years. Some initial studies demonstrated that certain factors are associated with IPV in male same-sex relationships. Specifically, age is negatively associated with partner abuse (Greenwood et al., 2002; Toro-Alfonso & RodrÍGuez-Madera, 2004; Turell, 2000), while income, education, HIV status, and openness about sexual orientation in public spheres (public outness) are related to bidirectional partner abuse (Bartholomew, Regan, Oram, & White, 2008). Studies have found that witnessing and experiencing violence in the family of origin are associated with partner abuse (Craft & Serovich, 2005; Farley, 1996; Toro-Alfonso & RodrÍGuez-Madera, 2004). Moreover, attachment orientation is related to perpetration and experience of partner abuse (Bartholomew, Regan, Oram, & White, 2008; Landolt & Dutton, 1997), and conflict resolution skills are negatively associated with IPV (Toro-Alfonso & RodrÍGuez-Madera, 2004).

Researchers have found that there are some similarities in the rates and contextual triggers of IPV between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. For example, Island and Letellier (1991) estimates that between 11% and 20% of men experienced violence in their same-sex relationships, and Rohrbaugh (2006) finds that about 11% to 12% of men experienced physical abuse at the hands of their same-sex partners, which is similar to the level of abuse in heterosexual relationships. Moreover, the contextual triggers of violence in male same-sex relationships, such as substance abuse, power, mental illness, and intergenerational abuse are often similar to those in heterosexual relationships (Freedberg, 2006; Kay & Jeffries, 2010). However, differences also exist. Specifically, studies have estimated the prevalence among sexual minorities to be much higher than that in heterosexual relationships, ranging from approximately 30% (Houston & McKirnan, 2007; Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, & Magruder, 1997) to 50% (Loveland & Raghavan, 2014; Stanley, Bartholomew, Taylor, Oram, & Landolt, 2006). Heteronormativism, homophobia, and its close association with hegemonic masculinity are distinctive features of the male same-sex IPV (Bartholomew, Regan, Oram, & White, 2008; Kay & Jeffries, 2010; Oliffe et al., 2014; Oringher & Samuelson, 2011).

It is worth mentioning that cold violence was regarded by Chinese researchers as a subset of IPV. Chinese researchers generally defined domestic cold violence as the way of resolving conflicts using indifference, disdain, and alienation that individuals used when problems arose in their relationships rather than using assault and insult (Yang & Ma, 2007). Cold violence has become a common phenomenon in most Chinese families and has caught the attention of researchers and the public. On October 11, 2005, a program of China Central Television (CCTV), named “Progress” broadcasted the results of a research on family cold violence, which took 16 months to survey more than 2000 families from Beijing, Tianjin, Wuhan, and Changsha, and showed that more than 70% families had experienced or were experiencing varying degrees of cold violence. The common forms of cold violence in families included isolation, treating with indifference, verbal assault, neglecting sexual needs of the partner, and imposing financial control (Zhang & Lei, 2010). Because of the universality of cold violence in heterosexual relationships, the law against family violence, which came into effect on March 1, 2016 in China, has considered the existence of cold violence. However, there was still no effective and detailed legislation to protect sexual minorities’ rights once they experienced cold violence and IPV as same-sex marriages are illegal in China.

Controlling Behaviors

Controlling behaviors are important elements for the study of IPV. Letellier (1994) indicates that the motivation to control one’s partner determines who the perpetrator is. Similarly, through interviews with women regarding their experience of victimization through IPV by their male partners, Amoakohene (2004) asserts that male-dominated society uses violence to control women. Johnson (2001) agrees that the motive to control one’s partner determines the nature of the violence and proposes a typology based on differences in reciprocity and motivation. On the basis of the strong association between controlling behaviors and IPV, controlling behaviors are often considered as a form of IPV. However, some researchers found that controlling behaviors are strong predictors of IPV in heterosexual relationships (Fawson, 2015; Graham-Kevan, & Archer, 2008; Johnson, 1995, 2006) as well as in same-sex relationships (Brown, 2011; Frankland & Brown, 2014; Stanley et al., 2006), indicating that controlling behaviors may be independent of IPV in some ways. Accordingly, to get a more comprehensive understanding of the actual condition of male same-sex partnerships, controlling behaviors are considered as separate variables parallel to IPV rather than a form of IPV in the present study.

The Prevalence of IPV in Male Same-Sex Relationships in China

Although IPV in sexual minorities has been the focus of researchers, fewer studies have been conducted in China’s social environment. Previous studies conducted with sexual minorities in China demonstrated that participants experienced more than one type of violence, ranging approximately from 34.7% (Yu, 2010) to 79.1% (Mak, Chong, & Kwong, 2010). Researchers also found that the experience of any form of abuse by homosexual men was 5 times higher than that by heterosexual men (Yu, Xiao, & Liu, 2013).

Previous studies aimed to reveal IPV among Chinese sexual minorities (Mak et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2013) and explored its impact on their mental health and quality of life (Wong et al., 2016), but few researchers have focused on the factors which may influence IPV. Though a study demonstrated the prevalence of perpetration and victimization each (Mak et al., 2010), no study has described the relationship between perpetration and victimization. A recent study with men who have sex with men (MSM) in China has examined the prevalence of several forms of violence perpetrated by partners (including no IPV exposure, one to two forms, and more than two forms; Ibragimov et al., 2017), but comprehensive research regarding the types of violence and its direction (perpetration or victimization) and dimensions (psychological aggression, physical assault, physical injury, and sexual coercion) are absent. And no study has examined the current situation of cold violence and controlling behaviors among Chinese homosexual and bisexual men.

Sexism and IPV

Glick and Fiske’s (1996) ambivalent sexism theory (AST) proposes that sexist attitudes have benevolent as well as hostile components that justify and maintain gender inequality. They suggest that benevolent sexist attitudes exist toward men (BM) and women (BS); similarly, hostile sexist attitudes exist toward men (HM) and women (HS). AST (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1997, 1999) posits that women often face overt and unfriendly prejudices (such as hostility toward women who occupy nontraditional roles) and that men face reflected hostility, which is the resentment directed toward those with greater power. Hostile attitudes represent blatant and antagonistic attempts at influencing who male and female partners are “supposed to be.” Benevolent attitudes, which idealize women as nurturing subordinates and men as assertive providers, represent the “soft power” people use to control their partner (Lee, Fiske, Glick, & Chen, 2010).

Studies have demonstrated that men’s traditional sex–role attitudes were related to IPV. Specifically, greater endorsement of hostile sexism predicted more positive attitudes toward violence against a female partner (Forbes, Jobe, White, & Bloesch, 2005; Sakall, 2001). Other studies of IPV among college student have found that men with more hostile attitudes were more likely to have committed verbal aggression (Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & White, 2004) and sexual coercion (Forbes & Adams-Curtis, 2001; Forbes et al., 2004). Studies also found that men with more benevolent attitudes perpetrated less violence against their partners, and women’s benevolent attitudes reduced their risk of victimization by their male partners (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009). Few studies have focused on the relationship between ambivalent (hostile and benevolent) attitudes toward men and IPV.

Previous studies revealed that sexism shapes the patterns of partner preference and sexual preference among Chinese homosexual and bisexual men (Zheng, Su, & Zheng, 2017; Zheng & Zheng, 2015). Specifically, homosexual and bisexual men with more sexist attitudes prefer more masculine male faces (Zheng & Zheng, 2015) and were more likely to identify as tops (one’s preferences for insertive intercourse during anal sex) and require a complementary partner (Zheng et al., 2017). This indicates that sexism influences male same-sex relationships as well as heterosexual relationships. Researchers claim that sexism creates the opportunity for homosexual individuals to abuse their partners (Elliot, 1996). Therefore, this study examined the potential influence of sexism on IPV among Chinese homosexual and bisexual men.

From the above, it can be said that numerous studies have explored the association between sexist attitudes regarding women and IPV in heterosexual relationships; however, few studies have explored this association in male same-sex relationships, as well as the influence of ambivalence toward men. Moreover, because some factors influencing violence in male same-sex relationships and heterosexual relationships are similar (Bartholomew, Regan, Oram, & White, 2008; Kay & Jeffries, 2010), we speculated that sexism would be associated with IPV in male same-sex relationships like heterosexual relationships. Finally, we explored the associations between ambivalent sexism toward men and women, IPV, and controlling behaviors among male same-sex relationships in our study.Present Study

We explored the status of IPV in Chinese male same-sex relationships and explored the relationship between sexism, IPV, cold violence, and controlling behaviors in the present study. In short, the present study aimed to (a) explore the prevalence of each type of IPV, cold violence, and controlling behaviors; (b) examine the relationship between perpetration and victimization; (c) verify the hypothesis that the respondents who scored higher in hostile attitudes toward men and women would report perpetrating (or being victimized by) IPV, cold violence, and controlling behaviors more than those who scored lower.

Method

Participants and Procedures

We collected data for this study using the Chinese professional survey websites Wenjuanxing (www.sojump.com). Advertisements were distributed via QQ groups and Sina Weibo, the two most popular social networking systems in China, Baidu Post Bar, and Zhihu, which provide broad and free communication platforms for Chinese sexual minorities. Participants who identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual men were asked to report how often each act of violence and controlling behaviors had occurred in the last 6 months during their current intimate relationships or in their latest intimate relationship.

In total, 277 male participants who were currently or had been in a same-sex intimate relationship volunteered to participate in the study from 30 provinces/regions in China. Five of these participants were excluded from the analysis because they were under the age of 16. The final sample thus consisted of 272 male participants (homosexual: n = 233, 85.7%; bisexual: n = 39, 14.3%). Of the respondents, 48.5% (n = 132) reported being in a same-sex relationship at the time of completing the survey, while the others (n = 140, 51.4%) completed the survey based on their most recent same-sex relationship. Participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 62 years (M = 24.87, SD = 6.53). Duration of current (M = 15.16, SD = 16.87) and most recent same-sex relationship (M = 11.63, SD = 14.87) ranged from 1 month to 60 months (5 years) or more. Additional demographic information is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Sample.

	n	%
Sexual orientation
Homosexuality	233	85.7
Bisexuality	39	14.3
Sexual self-labels
1 (top)	56	20.6
0.5 (versatile)	125	50
0 (bottom)	91	33.5
Relationship status
In intimate relationships	132	48.5
Had been in relationships	140	51.5
Educational level
Junior high school or lower	10	3.7
Senior high school	34	12.5
College	180	66.2
Postgraduate or higher	48	17.6
Occupation
Students	131	48.2
Employed	130	47.8
Job-waiting	11	4
Income (monthly, ¥)
0	79	29
2,000 or less	35	12.9
2,000-4,000	44	16.2
4,000-6,000	33	12.1
6,000-10,000	41	15.1
10,000 or more	40	14.7

Measures

The short form of the revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2S)

The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) is the most widely used instrument for measuring IPV, and the short form (CTS2S) is comparable in validity to the full CTS2 (Straus & Douglas, 2004). CTS2S is a 20-item scale with five subscales, which measures the prevalence and frequency of specific conflict tactics within relationships. As the average duration of Chinese male same-sex intimate relationships was not longer than 7 months (Yu, 2010), we changed duration for reporting data from the last 12 months to the last 6 months. The frequency of perpetration or victimization of each item in the past 6 months, ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times) (Option 7 allows participants to indicate that the behavior happened before but not in the past 6 months) was assessed. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subscales were as follows: Negotiation (.74), Psychological Aggression (.68), Physical Assault (.63), Sexual Coercion (.71) and Physical Injury (.65).

Cold Violence Scale

Cold violence behaviors were measured with an eight-item scale specifically designed for the current study, referring to the CTS2S’s structure and administration. Consistent with a previous study in China (Cui, Hong, Su, & Liu, 2012), the Cold Violence Scale consists of four subscales including Economic Control (i.e., I reduce or stop providing economic support for my partner), Personal Control (i.e., I do not allow my partner to go out without my consent), Emotional Negligence (i.e., I am unwilling to communicate with my partner), and Sexual Negligence (i.e., I neglect or refuse my partner’s sexual invitation). Two items were used to measure the self-report and partner report (perpetration and victimization) for each dimension, respectively. The frequency of perpetration and victimization in the past 6 months ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times) (Option 7 allows participants to indicate that the behavior happened before but not in the past 6 months) was assessed in each item.

Controlling Behavior Scale

Controlling behaviors in same-sex intimate relationships were measured using a 34-item scale that researchers designed (Frankland & Brown, 2014). Participants had to report the frequency of their and their partner’s behaviors over the 6 months prior to the survey, with responses ranging in frequency from 0 (never) to 6 (more than 20 times) (Option 7 allows participants to indicate that the behavior happened before but not in the past 6 months). There were six subscales: Dominance, Emotional Control, Financial Control, Intimidation, Social/Isolation, and Threats. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subscales were .77, .89, .72, .82, .69, and .79, respectively.

The short form of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI)

The ASI (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1997) assesses HS and BS, and the AMI (Glick & Fiske, 1999) assesses HM and BM. The original scales of ASI and AMI were shortened to 12 items each, rated on 6-point Likert-type scales, with responses ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses were averaged so that higher scores indicate higher levels of sexism. The Chinese version of the ASI and AMI was developed by Zhixia Chen and its validity has been documented (Glick & Fiske, 1999). The Cronbach’s alphas for the HS (α = .84), BS (α = .67), BM (α = .78), and HM (α = .77) subscales in our study were acceptable.

Results

Descriptive Statistics for IPV and Controlling Behaviors

Overall, almost 47.1% of participants reported at least one type of IPV (perpetration or victimization). The most common type of behavior, which was experienced by 35.6% of participants, was psychological aggression. A smaller percentage of participants (22.8%) experienced sexual coercion, followed by physical assault (11.8%) and physical injury (11.7%), which were the lowest. Moreover, almost 65.1% of participants reported being perpetrators or victims of cold violence. The incidences of its four subtypes from highest to lowest were sexual negligence (53.0%), emotional negligence (47.5%), economic control (15.1%), and personal control (11.0%). The details are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

The Prevalence of IPV, CV, and Controlling Behaviors.

	n	%		n	%		n	%
Any violence	128	47.1	Any CV	177	65.1	Any controlling	219	80.5
Psychological aggression			Economic control			Dominance
Perpetrate	78	28.7	Perpetrate	35	12.9	Perpetrate	165	60.7
Receipt	71	26.1	Receipt	22	8.1	Receipt	149	54.8
Physical assault			Personal control			Emotional
Perpetrate	25	9.2	Perpetrate	14	5.1	Perpetrate	154	56.6
Receipt	19	7.0	Receipt	24	8.8	Receipt	147	54.0
Physical injury			Emotional negligence			Financial
Perpetrate	25	9.2	Perpetrate	100	36.8	Perpetrate	89	32.7
Receipt	18	6.6	Receipt	107	39.3	Receipt	87	32.0
Sexual coercion			Sexual negligence			Intimidation
Perpetrate	30	11.0	Perpetrate	96	35.3	Perpetrate	63	23.2
Receipt	49	18.0	Receipt	107	39.3	Receipt	61	22.4
Perpetration (IPV)	113	41.5	Perpetration (CV)	154	56.6	Social/isolation
Victimization (IPV)	106	39.0	Victimization (CV)	161	59.2	Perpetrate	86	31.6
						Receipt	77	28.3
						Threats
						Perpetrate	13	4.8
						Receipt	14	5.1
						Controlling	220	80.9
						Being controlled	209	76.8

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; CV = cold violence.

Almost 80.5% of participants reported controlling or being controlled in terms of any controlling behavior. The rates of controlling behaviors in the six subscales were 67.3% (Dominance), 63.6% (Emotional Control), 45.2% (Social/Isolation), 37.8% (Financial Control), 31.2% (Intimidation), and 8.1% (Threats). The rates of respondents’ and partners’ behaviors are shown in Table 2.

Results showed that age, income, education level, and duration of current relationships had no significant correlations with IPV but were correlated with some subtypes of cold violence and controlling behaviors (negatively: rs = .120-.144, ps < .05; positively: rs = .129-.229, ps < .05). However, the number of same-sex partners was significantly and positively correlated with some subtypes of IPV (victimization by psychological aggression and sexual coercion, r = .183 and .210, respectively, p < .01), cold violence (victimization by personal control, perpetration of, and victimization by emotional negligence, r = .222, p < .05; r = .145, p < .05; r = .168, p < .01, respectively), and controlling behaviors (perpetration of and victimization by emotional control and threats, r = .121, p < .05; r = .224, .183, and .199, p < .01, respectively).

Prevalence of Bidirectional Violence (Perpetration and Victimization) and Violence Co-Occurring Across Dimensions

To examine the prevalence of violence co-occurring across dimensions (psychological aggression, physical assault, physical injury, and sexual coercion), we calculated the number of violence dimensions by direction (perpetration or victimization). The possible range of the number of violence dimensions is 0-4. The score indicated the number of violence across psychological aggression, physical assault, physical injury, and sexual coercion. For example, 0 indicated no violence in any dimension; 1 indicated violence existing in one of the four dimensions; 2 indicated violence existing in two of four dimensions; and so on. Finally, two variables were created to indicate the number of violence types in dimensions for perpetration and victimization.

To examine the prevalence of bidirectional violence, we calculated the number of violence direction by dimension. The possible range of the number of violence direction is 0-2. The score indicated the number of violence direction. Specifically, 0 indicated no violence in any direction; 1 either indicated perpetration or victimization; and 2 indicated both perpetration and victimization. Finally, four variables were created to indicate the number of violence types in direction for each dimension. The same analyses were also conducted for cold violence and controlling behavior. The distribution of the number of violence types is shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

The Prevalence of Violence Types in IPV, CV, and Controlling Behaviors.

IPV	n	%	CV	n	%	Controlling Behaviors	n	%
The Prevalence of Violence Types in Violence Direction (Perpetration or Victimization) by Dimensions
Psychological aggression			Economic control			Dominance
0	175	64.3	0	231	84.9	0	89	32.7
1	45	16.5	1	25	9.2	1	52	19.1
2	52	19.1	2	16	5.9	2	131	48.2
Physical assault			Personal control			Emotional
0	240	88.2	0	242	89.0	0	99	36.4
1	20	7.4	1	22	8.1	1	45	16.5
2	12	4.4	2	8	2.9	2	128	47.1
Physical injury			Emotional negligence			Financial
0	240	88.2	0	143	52.6	0	169	62.1
1	21	7.7	1	51	18.8	1	30	11.0
2	11	4.0	2	78	28.7	2	73	26.8
Sexual coercion			Sexual negligence			Intimidation
0	210	77.2	0	128	47.1	0	187	68.8
1	45	16.5	1	85	31.3	1	46	16.9
2	17	6.3	2	59	21.7	2	39	14.3
						Social
						0	149	54.8
						1	83	30.5
						2	40	14.7
						Threats
						0	250	91.9
						1	17	6.3
						2	5	1.8
The Prevalence of Violence Types in Dimensions by Direction (Perpetration or Victimization)
Perpetration (IPV)			Perpetration (CV)			Controlling
0	159	58.5	0	118	43.4	0	52	19.1
1	87	32.0	1	85	31.3	1	43	15.8
2	11	4.0	2	49	18.0	2	70	25.7
3	11	4.0	3	18	6.6	3	59	21.7
4	4	1.5	4	2	0.7	4	32	11.8
Victimization (IPV)			Victimization (CV)			5	14	5.1
0	166	61.0	0	111	40.8	6	2	0.7
1	67	24.6	1	81	29.8	Being controlled
2	30	11.0	2	62	22.8	0	63	23.2
3	6	2.2	3	17	6.3	1	57	21.0
4	3	1.1	4	1	0.4	2	64	23.5
						3	32	11.8
						4	31	11.4
						5	20	7.4
						6	5	1.8

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; CV = cold violence.

For the number of types in direction, results showed that bidirectional (perpetration and victimization) abuse existed in all dimensions of IPV, cold violence, and controlling behaviors. Specifically, psychological aggression was the most common bidirectional abuse (19.1%), followed by sexual coercion (6.3%), and then by physical assault (4.4%) and injury (4.0%) in IPV. More participants reported bidirectional cold violence of the subtype of negligence (sexual: 21.7%; emotional: 28.7%) than control (financial: 5.9%; personal: 2.9%). Bidirectional controlling behaviors tend to exist in the subtypes of dominance (48.2%), emotional control (47.1%), and financial control (26.8%).

In addition to this, results showed different forms of IPV, cold violence, and controlling behaviors tend to co-occur (two or more forms) in perpetration (IPV: 9.5%; cold violence: 25.3%; and controlling behaviors: 65.1%) or victimization (IPV: 13.4%; cold violence: 29.4%; and being controlled behaviors: 55.8%).

Sexism, IPV, and Cold Violence

The types of IPV were treated as continuous variables, and the correlations between sexism and the types of IPV are shown in Table 4. Benevolent attitudes toward women were found to be positively correlated with the types of perpetration of and victimization by cold violence; hostile attitudes toward women were positively associated with the types of victimization in IPV, perpetration of, and victimization by cold violence, sexual coercion, financial control, and personal control. Benevolent attitudes toward men were significantly and positively correlated with victimization by cold violence, sexual coercion, and sexual negligence; hostile attitudes toward men positively influenced victimization by IPV, cold violence, and personal control.

Table 4.

The Correlations Between the Types of IPV, CV, Controlling Behaviors, and Sexism.

	BS	HS	BM	HM
Perpetration (IPV)	.005	.092	.020	.019
Victimization (IPV)	.098	.163**	.108	.128*
Psychological aggression	−.001	.072	.033	.058
Physical assault	−.014	.022	−.035	.049
Physical injury	.103	.085	.055	.089
Sexual coercion	.082	.195**	.129*	.064
Perpetration (CV)	.126*	.141*	.094	.067
Victimization (CV)	.124*	.150*	.120*	.166**
Economic control	.113	.119**	.101	.042
Personal control	.099	.158**	.108	.163**
Emotional negligence	.053	.067	.008	.048
Sexual negligence	.117	.116	.127*	.116
Controlling	.072	.109	.034	.138*
Being controlled	.047	.171**	.085	.170**
Dominance	−.003	.124*	.036	.120*
Emotional	.055	.071	.035	.100
Financial	−.021	.057	−.024	.046
Intimidation	.028	.099	.022	.104
Social/isolation	.147*	.175**	.142*	.189**
Threats	.075	.045	.079	.082

Note. The type of perpetration (IPV/CV) and victimization (IPV/CV) ranged from 0 to 4. The type of controlling and being controlled ranged from 0 to 6. The type of other variables ranged from 0 to 2 (none, perpetration/victimization, and both perpetration and victimization). IPV = intimate partner violence; CV = cold violence; BS = benevolent attitude toward women; HS = hostile attitude toward women; BM = benevolent attitude toward men; HM = hostile attitude toward men.

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

The correlations between the frequency of IPV and sexism are shown in Table 5. None of the relationships between benevolent sexist attitudes toward women and the frequency of IPV was significant, except for victimization by physical injury. Hostile attitudes toward women were positively associated with victimization by sexual coercion and personal control. Benevolent attitudes toward men were positively correlated with victimization by physical injury and sexual coercion and perpetration of sexual negligence. Hostile attitudes toward men had positive correlations with victimization by physical injury, personal control, and sexual negligence.

Table 5.

The Correlations Between the Frequency of IPV, CV, Controlling Behaviors, and Sexism (P/V).

	BS (P/V)	HS (P/V)	BM (P/V)	HM (P/V)
Psychological aggression	.022/.043	.068/.062	−.004/−.006	.055/.045
Physical assault	−.058/.010	−.022/−.019	−.042/−.036	−.028/.002
Physical injury	.107/.212**	.084/.113	.064/.131*	.086/.155**
Sexual coercion	.023/.058	.096/.149*	.102/.128*	.029/.086
Economic control	.018/.087	.106/.019	.083/.080	.007/−.015
Personal control	.047/.023	.042/.179**	.002/.085	.030/.143*
Emotional negligence	.042/.010	.068/.075	.037/−.003	.060/.069
Sexual negligence	.096/.055	.107/.062	.141*/.073	.091/.120*
Dominance	.039/−.014	.071/.109	.016/.050	.098/.129*
Emotional	.098/.063	.140*/.115	.084/.071	.134*/.105
Financial	.057/−0.005	.053/.069	−.005/.047	.073/.107
Intimidation	.012/−.087	.006/.030	−.066/−.087	.024/.033
Social/isolation	.092/.072	.098/.149*	.094/.057	.115/.123*
Threats	−.007/.034	.022/.107	.042/.053	.030/.111

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; CV = cold violence; BS = benevolent attitude toward women; P = perpetration; V = victimization; HS = hostile attitude toward women; BM = benevolent attitude toward men; HM = hostile attitude toward men.

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

Sexism and Controlling Behaviors

Similar to the types of IPV, the types of controlling behaviors were treated as continuous variables, and then the correlations are shown in Table 5. Benevolent attitudes were positively correlated with the types of social/isolation. Hostile attitudes were positively associated with the types of dominance, social/isolation, and being controlled. Moreover, hostile attitudes toward men were positively correlated with the types of controlling behaviors.

The correlations between sexism and the frequency of controlling behaviors are shown in Table 5. There were no significant correlations between benevolent attitudes and the frequency of controlling behaviors. Hostile attitudes toward women were positively correlated with the perpetration of emotional controlling behaviors and with victimization by controlling behaviors of social/isolation. Hostile attitudes toward men were found to be positively associated with victimization by controlling behaviors of dominance and social/isolation and with perpetration of emotional control.

Relationship Between Perpetration and Victimization

Perpetration was positively associated with victimization in both frequency and number of types for all dependent variables. The frequencies of perpetration were significantly and positively correlated with the frequencies of victimization (r = .74, .49, and .73 for IPV, cold violence, and controlling behavior, respectively, ps < .01). The number of perpetration types was also significantly and positively correlated with the numbers of victimization types (r = .69, .56, and .72 for IPV, cold violence, and controlling behavior, respectively, ps < .01).

Discussion

This study examined the prevalence of IPV among Chinese male same-sex relationships and the relationship between sexism, IPV, cold violence, and controlling behaviors. The results revealed high prevalence of IPV and controlling behaviors in male same-sex relationships in China. In addition, we found that ambivalent sexism was associated with some subtypes of violence and controlling behaviors, especially hostile attitudes.

Prevalence of Violence in Male Same-Sex Relationships

We found that approximately 47% of participants reported experience of any type of IPV (either as a victim or as a perpetrator), which is consistent with findings from previous studies in China (Ibragimov et al., 2017; Mak et al., 2010). Psychological aggression was the most common form of violence in present study. Surprisingly, the prevalence of sexual coercion was higher than physical assault and physical injury, which is not consistent with other findings (Mak et al., 2010). However, a study focusing on the prevalence of dating violence among 418 Chinese homosexual men posited that more respondents (9.6%) reported sexual abuse than physical violence (7.9%; Yu et al., 2013), and this finding is similar to ours. In addition, a previous study showed vulnerability to sexual coercion among homosexual and bisexual men due to some features of sexual culture among homosexual individuals (Braun, Schmidt, Gavey, & Fenaughty, 2009). Therefore, sexual coercion among male same-sex relationships requires more attention.

Almost 65.1% of participants reported a form of cold violence (perpetration or victimization). The finding that the prevalence of negligence (emotional and sexual) was higher than control (financial and personal) is similar to that of a previous study about family cold violence in Chinese heterosexual relationships (Cui et al., 2012). As for controlling behaviors, 80.5% of participants reported engaging in a form of controlling behavior. The finding that there was a relatively higher prevalence of emotional control behaviors showed the similarities between IPV and controlling behaviors in male same-sex relationships.

Demographic Variables and Violence

Consistent with the findings of previous studies, we have not found any associations between age and any type of IPV (Bartholomew, Regan, Oram, & White, 2008; Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987). Our findings that income and education levels have no significant association with IPV were consistent with those of a previous study (Stall et al., 2003). However, the findings showed that these demographic variables were associated with some types of cold violence and controlling behaviors. Especially, the negative correlation between education, both directions of financial control, and victimization of emotional controlling behaviors suggested that educated individuals may control their improper behaviors and comply with ethics. The duration of current relationships was positively correlated with perpetration of some subtypes of cold violence and controlling behaviors, possibly suggesting that perpetrators were dominating in the relationships.

Co-Occurrence of Forms of Violence

The results of types of violence showed that different forms of IPV tend to co-occur in male same-sex relationships and are associated with the different types (physical assault, sexual coercion, etc.) of violence, as has been observed in previous studies (Bartholomew, Regan, White, & Oram, 2008; Burke, Jordan, & Owen, 2002). Similar to IPV, the findings suggested that cold violence and controlling behaviors also have the characteristics mentioned above.

Bidirectionality of Violence in Male Same-Sex Relationships

The strong correlation between men’s reports of frequency of violence perpetrated and received in this study was similar to that in previous findings on bidirectional abuse in male same-sex relationships (Bartholomew, Regan, White, & Oram, 2008; Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987; Landolt & Dutton, 1997). In our study, the tool measuring violence, CTS, does not provide insight into the contexts in which violence is occurring, and hence our findings do not indicate the context in which bidirectional abuse occurs. Moreover, some findings suggest that even when both members of a same-sex relationship report using violence, there is a key perpetrator and a victim (who may occasionally retaliate in self-defense), and then the violence is not mutual (Island & Letellier, 1991; Letellier, 1994; Merrill & Wolfe, 2000). However, other findings asserted that it is not possible to differentiate perpetrator and victim roles completely and showed little evidence of self-defensive violence (Bartholomew, Regan, White, & Oram, 2008; Cruz & Firestone, 1998). Therefore, the knowledge of bidirectional partner violence should be more clearly identified in further studies.

The bidirectionality of IPV was also found in cold violence and controlling behaviors; however, there were few effective and related studies that aimed to explain the phenomenon. Because of inadequate research, we speculated that the mechanism of bidirectional cold violence and controlling behaviors was similar to that of IPV, and further studies regarding this are important and necessary.

The Correlations Between Sexism and Violence

Similar to the findings that benevolent and hostile attitudes toward women were related to IPV among heterosexual relationships (Allen et al., 2009; Forbes & Adams-Curtis, 2001; Forbes et al., 2004; Forbes et al., 2005; Sakall, 2001), correlations were found in Chinese male same-sex relationships as well. We also found that hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men were associated with IPV. However, surprisingly, sexism was a predictor of victimization rather than perpetration. In addition, hostile attitudes toward women and men were strongly associated with IPV in the present study, which is similar to the findings of the association between hostile attitudes toward women and IPV in heterosexual relationships (Forbes & Adams-Curtis, 2001; Forbes et al., 2004). Through these findings, we demonstrated that some factors associated with IPV in heterosexual relationships are probably similar to factors relevant to male same-sex relationships. For the cold violence and controlling behaviors, the results and explanations were consistent with findings regarding IPV. It is worth mentioning the positive association between the four subtypes of sexism and types of social/isolation controlling behaviors in terms of directions. Finally, hostile attitudes toward women and men were associated with perpetration of emotional subtype of controlling behaviors.

Importance of Further Research on Cold Violence in China

The results that the prevalence of any form of cold violence was higher than IPV suggested that cold violence has been a more common phenomenon in Chinese male same-sex relationships, which is similar to heterosexual relationships (Cui et al., 2012). Both high prevalence of cold violence and the strong association between sexism and cold violence suggested the importance and necessity of studies about cold violence. Despite the pervasiveness of cold violence in heterosexual relationships in China, laws and regulations to protect victims’ interests due to the challenges in identifying cold violence are too inadequate, as are provisions for safeguarding against cold violence in homosexual relationships. Aspects of traditional Chinese culture, such as rigid gender roles, Confucianism and “face,” may result in Chinese sexual minorities concealing their sexual orientation to avoid being rejected, isolated, and disconnected from society due to stigma and discrimination (H. Liu et al., 2011; J. X. Liu & Choi, 2006; Shek, 2006). The desire to conceal sexual orientation makes sexual minorities unwilling to seek help even if they are experiencing violence perpetrated by their same-sex partner.

Limitations

Our results must be considered in the light of several limitations. First, all the participants decided spontaneously to answer the questionnaire; thus, the nonrandom sampling limits the generalizability of our findings. In addition, the fact that the study was conducted online might have led to potential bias of self-selection of users of the specific networking media. Second, participants were individuals rather than dyads as the unit of analysis; however, partner violence by homosexual men was associated with characteristics and background variables of both the partners (Landolt & Dutton, 1997). Furthermore, although we measured cold violence in the present study, attention paid to cold violence among sexual minorities was still insufficient because of the low reception of nonheterosexuality in traditional Chinese culture background. Finally, the factors such as HIV status, public outness, and internalized homophobia were not included in the present study, and these variables were found to be related to violence among homosexual and bisexual men in other studies (Bartholomew, Regan, Oram, & White, 2008).

Implication

The study demonstrated the universality of violence and controlling behaviors in Chinese male same-sex relationships and probably provided support for the improvement of living environment of sexual minorities. The findings may create awareness among the public about sexual minorities and encourage the government to establish some effective legislation, policing guidelines, and services for IPV in same-sex relationships. In addition, cold violence should be taken seriously and be considered in relevant legal policies to protect victims’ safety and interests, regardless of whether it occurs in relationships of heterosexual individuals or of sexual minorities.

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.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SWU1709244).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Biographies

Diandian Li is a master student in psychology of sex & gender. Her main research interests are on intimate relationships and online sexual activites.

Lijun Zheng, PhD, is an associated professor in psychology of sex & gender. His main research interests are on sexual behaviors and health of gay and lesbians.

References

Allen

C. T.

Swan

S. C.

Raghavan

(2009). Gender symmetry, sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1816-1834.

Amoakohene

M. I.

(2004). Violence against women in Ghana: A look at women’s perceptions and review of policy and social responses. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 2373-2385.

Bartholomew

Regan

K. V.

Oram

White

M. A.

(2008). Correlates of partner abuse in male same-sex relationships. Violence and Victims, 23, 344-360.

Bartholomew

Regan

K. V.

White

M. A.

Oram

(2008). Patterns of abuse in male same-sex relationships. Violence & Victims, 23, 617-636.

Braun

Schmidt

Gavey

Fenaughty

(2009). Sexual coercion among gay and bisexual men in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 336-360.

Brown

M. J.

(2011). The role of homophobia and gender role beliefs in judgments of same-sex intimate partner violence. New York, NY: The City University of New York.

Burke

T. W.

Jordan

M. L.

Owen

S. S.

(2002). A cross-national comparison of gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18, 231-257.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

Mckeown

R. E.

King

M. J.

(2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 553-559.

Craft

S. M.

Serovich

J. M.

(2005). Family-of-origin factors and partner violence in the intimate relationships of gay men who are HIV positive. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 777-791.

10.

Cruz

J. M.

Firestone

J. M.

(1998). Exploring violence and abuse in gay male relationships. Violence and Victims, 13, 159-173.

11.

Cui

Hong

Liu

X. L.

(2012). A current situation survey and influential factors of domestic violence in seven provinces and cities of China. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 360-363. (In Chinese)

12.

Elliot

(1996). Shattering illusions: Same-sex domestic violence. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4(1), 1-8.

13.

Farley

(1996). A survey of factors contributing to gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 4(1), 35-42.

14.

Fawson

P. R.

(2015). Controlling behaviors as a predictor of partner violence among heterosexual female and male adolescents. Partner Abuse, 6, 217-229.

15.

Forbes

G. B.

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

(2001). Experiences with sexual coercion in college males and females role of family conflict, sexist attitudes, acceptance of rape myths, self-esteem, and the Big-Five personality factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 865-889.

16.

Forbes

G. B.

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

White

K. B.

(2004). First- and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Journal of Endocrinology, 10, 236-261.

17.

Forbes

G. B.

Jobe

R. L.

White

K. B.

Bloesch

(2005). Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52, 165-173.

18.

Frankland

Brown

(2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 15-22.

19.

Freedberg

(2006). Health care barriers and same-sex intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 2, 15-25.

20.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

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

21.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.

22.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536.

23.

Graham-Kevan

Archer

(2008). Does controlling behavior predict physical aggression and violence to partners? Journal of Family Violence, 23, 539-548.

24.

Greenwood

G. L.

Relf

M. V.

Huang

Pollack

L. M.

Canchola

J. A.

. . . Catania

J. A.

(2002). Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1964-1969.

25.

Hegarty

K. L.

Bush

(2002). Prevalence and associations of partner abuse in women attending general practice: A cross-sectional survey. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26, 437-442.

26.

Houston

McKirnan

D. J.

(2007). Intimate partner abuse among gay and bisexual men: Risk correlates and health outcomes. Journal of Urban Health, 84, 681-690.

27.

Ibragimov

Harnisch

J. A.

Nehl

E. J.

Zheng

Ding

. . . Wong

F. Y.

(2017). Estimating self-reported sex practices, drug use, depression, and intimate partner violence among MSM in China: A comparison of three recruitment methods. AIDS Care, 29, 125-131.

28.

Island

Letellier

(1991). Men who beat the men who love them: Battered gay men and domestic violence. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

29.

Johnson

M. P.

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

30.

Johnson

M. P.

(2001). Conflict and control: Symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. In Booth

Crouter

A. C.

Clements

(Eds.), Couples in conflict (pp. 95-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

31.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12, 1003-1018.

32.

Kay

Jeffries

(2010). Homophobia, heteronormativism and hegemonic masculinity: Male same-sex intimate violence from the perspective of Brisbane service providers. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17, 412-423.

33.

Kelly

E. E.

Warshafsky

(1987, July). Partner abuse in gay male and lesbian couples. Paper presented at the Third National Conference for Family Violence Researchers, Durham, NH.

34.

Landolt

M. A.

Dutton

D. G.

(1997). Power and personality: An analysis of gay male intimate abuse. Sex Roles, 37, 335-359.

35.

Lee

T. L.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

Chen

(2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583-601.

36.

Letellier

(1994). Gay and bisexual male domestic violence victimization: Challenges to feminist theory and responses to violence. Violence and Victims, 9, 95-106.

37.

Liu

Feng

Liu

Cai

Liu

. . . Li

(2011). Chinese culture, homosexuality stigma, social support and condom use: A path analytic model. Stigma Research & Action, 1(1), 27-35.

38.

Liu

J. X.

Choi

(2006). Experiences of social discrimination among men who have sex with men in Shanghai, China. AIDS and Behavior, 10(1), 25-33.

39.

Loveland

J. E.

Raghavan

(2014). Near-lethal violence in a sample of high-risk men in same-sex relationships. Psychology of Sexual Orientation & Gender Diversity, 1(1), 51-62.

40.

Mak

W. W.

Chong

Kwong

(2010). Prevalence of same-sex intimate partner violence in Hong Kong. Public Health, 124, 149-152.

41.

Merrill

G. S.

Wolfe

V. A.

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

42.

Oliffe

J. L.

Han

Maria

E. S.

Lohan

Howard

Stewart

D. E.

. . . Macmillan

(2014). Gay men and intimate partner violence: A gender analysis. Sociology of Health & Illness, 36, 564-579.

43.

Oringher

Samuelson

K. W.

(2011). Intimate partner violence and the role of masculinity in male same-sex relationships. Traumatology, 17(17), 68-74.

44.

Rohrbaugh

J. B.

(2006). Domestic violence in same-gender relationships. Family Court Review, 44, 287-299.

45.

Sakall

(2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599-610.

46.

Shek

D. T. L.

(2006). Chinese family research puzzles, progress, paradigms, and policy implications. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 275-284.

47.

Stall

Mills

T. C.

Williamson

Hart

Greenwood

Paul

. . . Catania

J. A.

(2003). Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 939-942.

48.

Stanley

J. L.

Bartholomew

Taylor

Oram

Landolt

(2006). Intimate violence in male same-sex relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 31-41.

49.

Straus

M. A.

Douglas

E. M.

(2004). A short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507-520.

50.

Straus

M. A.

Gelles

R. J.

Smith

(1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

51.

Toro-Alfonso

RodrÍGuez-Madera

(2004). Domestic violence in Puerto Rican gay male couples perceived prevalence, intergenerational violence, addictive behaviors, and conflict resolution skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 639-654.

52.

Turell

S. C.

(2000). A descriptive analysis of same-sex relationship violence for a diverse sample. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 281-293.

53.

Waldner-Haugrud

L. K.

Gratch

L. V.

Magruder

(1997). Victimization and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationships: Gender issues explored. Violence and Victims, 12, 173-184.

54.

Wong

Y. H.

Choi

P. H.

H. M.

Wong

Chio

H. M.

Choi

W. M.

. . . Fong

Y. T.

(2016). Dating violence, quality of life and mental health in sexual minority populations: A path analysis. Quality of Life Research, 26, 959-968.

55.

Yang

J. Q.

(2007). The characteristics of domestic cold violence and its causal analysis. Social Sciences Journal of Colleges of Shanxi, 19(2), 72-75. (In Chinese)

56.

(2010). Study on gay men’s living conditions in Changsha. Changsha, China: Department of Social Medicine and Health Management, School of Public Health, Central South University.

57.

Xiao

Liu

K. Q.

(2013). Dating violence among gay men in China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2491-2504.

58.

Zhang

Y. Y.

Lei

M. G.

(2010). The reasons, precaution and rescue measures of family cold violence. Beijing: Faulty of Law, Minzu University of China. (In Chinese)

59.

Zheng

(2017). The intersection of gender and sexuality: Sexism shapes men’s same-sex sexuality in terms of self-label identification and partner choice in China. Sex Roles, 77, 125-134

60.

Zheng

(2015). Young gay men’s sexism predict their male facial masculinity preference in China. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 183-186.