Relationship Dynamics and Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence Among Female Chinese College Students

Abstract

In China, most intimate partner violence (IPV) research focuses on male perpetration and female victimization, whereas studies on dating violence and female IPV perpetration are less common. Although research on female IPV perpetration in China has surfaced recently, there have been limited studies examining factors related to female perpetration in dating relationships in China. In the current research, we sought to examine how relationship factors, including anger management, communication problems, relationship conflict, and relationship distress, are linked with female physical and psychological IPV perpetration. We included 857 female college students in three regions in China from the International Dating Violence database. We found that Chinese women’s anger management skills and communication problems were both significantly associated with physical and psychological IPV perpetration on both minor and severe levels. Furthermore, we found that relationship conflict was significantly associated with minor and severe physical abuse perpetration and severe psychological abuse perpetration. Anger management skills moderated the negative effects of relationship conflict on minor physical IPV perpetration as well as minor and severe psychological IPV perpetration. Anger management skills also moderated the negative effects of relationship distress on minor and severe physical IPV perpetration among Chinese women. Our findings suggest that it may be important to explore the role of college women’s anger management skills, communication problems, and conflict resolution skills in their dating relationships, as well as to develop female-based intervention programs to increase Chinese college women’s relationship skills to reduce their levels of IPV perpetration.

Keywords

Chinese college students female perpetration intimate partner violence relationship dynamics

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious and critical public health concern that significantly impacts people all over the world. Dating violence is a specific subtype of IPV that has been reported at high prevalence rates in universities (Straus, 2004). Previous research has shown that 30% to 34% of dating partners report experiencing physical aggression and 93% to 98% report experiencing psychological aggression (Riggs & O’Leary, 1996). Straus’s (2004) international dating violence study, which gathered data from 31 universities worldwide, reported that 17% to 45% of dating relationships included physical aggression. Dating violence has been linked to a number of serious negative health outcomes, such as increased risk of sexually transmitted disease, chronic or temporary health problems, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, fear, and anger (Amar & Gennaro, 2005).

Traditionally, many believed that men were the primary perpetrators of IPV. However, research has found that women initiate and commit IPV at similar rates as men (Archer, 2002; Melton & Belknap, 2003). Among college students, Straus’s (2004) international dating violence study found that female students reported perpetrating similar levels of psychological and physical IPV as male students. Even though men tend to inflict more injuries than women, female students report similar levels of IPV perpetration as male college students.

IPV in China is a complicated and serious social problem. It is a multifaceted issue that is intertwined with traditional Chinese beliefs favoring gender inequality, family unity, and societal conditions that devalue women (Zhao, 2000). However, with the increasing economic development in the past 30 years in China, women’s access to education and their economic resources have dramatically increased, and thus women’s power and status in their intimate relationships is increasing (Tang & Lai, 2008). Another significant change is that China’s parliament passed the country’s first antidomestic violence law in 2015, which protects unmarried cohabiters for the first time (Su, 2017). It is important to examine how these societal-level changes may impact the dynamics of IPV perpetration and victimization in China.

Although there is previous research on IPV in China, these studies mainly focus on male perpetration and female victimization (Hsieh et al., 2009; Shen, 2014; Xu et al., 2005). Recently, research on female IPV perpetration and mutual IPV in China has surfaced; however, there have been limited studies examining the factors related to female perpetration in dating relationships in China. To address this concern, this study aims to examine relationship factors that could lead to increased female IPV perpetration among Chinese college students. More specifically, the objective of the present study was to examine how relationship factors, including anger management, communication problems, relationship conflict, and relationship distress are linked with female physical and psychological IPV perpetration. This study extends previous research on IPV in China in two ways. First, it expands on previous research on IPV in China by solely focusing on female IPV perpetration. Second, the study uses a path analysis to explore relationship factors that may contribute to female IPV perpetration among college students in China, and if anger management can moderate the effects of relationship conflict, relationship distress, and communication problems on female IPV perpetration in this population.

Gender Symmetry and Female IPV Perpetration in China

The long-standing controversy over the role of gender in IPV research persists and has even intensified . The focus of the dispute is whether men, as well as women, contribute to the problem of IPV (Winstock, 2012). The traditional IPV model used to understand IPV within the “gender paradigm” model suggests that IPV is a gendered phenomenon. Men are believed to be the primary perpetrators of IPV, and there is often criticism of the idea that men can also be victims of IPV as they are often stronger than women (McNeely et al., 2001). However, there is a growing movement that shifts away from the traditional perspective of IPV and toward a “gender symmetry” model that addresses the potential for both men and women to be victims and perpetrators of IPV (McCarrick et al., 2016). To assist in this understanding, Straus (2011) proposed the gender symmetry model, which suggests that both men and women are equally likely to perpetrate IPV. Furthermore, Johnson (1995, 2006) developed a typology of different types of IPV and suggested that “situational couple violence” (SCV) was one of the most common types of couple violence. He hypothesized that SCV results from situational factors or conflicts that escalate to the use of violence by either one or both partners, which can be gender symmetric. The current study examines dating violence, which is generally considered a type of SCV.

There have been numerous studies done on female perpetration and gender symmetry in the United States in the past 30 years (Archer, 2002; Graves et al., 2005; Melton & Belknap, 2003; Orcutt et al., 2005; Straus, 2004). For example, Graves et al. (2005) studied college women’s IPV perpetration within the context of their history of victimization (Graves et al., 2005), and Orcutt et al. (2005) examined the association between female-perpetrated IPV and their romantic attachment style. Internationally, there are similar results found in the United Kingdom and Canada as well. For example, McCarrick et al. (2016) explored men’s experiences in the U.K. Criminal Justice System following female-perpetrated IPV and revealed men’s experiences of being dismissed, ignored, and traumatized by the police due to the traditional gender bias and stigma around men as perpetrators rather than victims. Ansara and Hindin (2010) explored gender differences in the patterns of IPV in Canada and provided a more nuanced understanding of the role of gender in couple violence.

Although Chinese citizens have been increasingly exposed to Western values calling for freedom and gender equality, traditional Chinese beliefs and values emphasizing gender inequality and patriarchy are still deeply influencing people’s behaviors and lives today (Tang & Lai, 2008). Based on the emphasis of gender inequality in traditional Chinese beliefs, it is easily assumed that IPV is a more gendered phenomenon in China compared with the Western world. However, several recent studies on IPV in China have brought female perpetration and gender symmetry in IPV to our attention (Chen & Chan, 2019; Kamimura et al., 2016a; Wang & Petula, 2007). A qualitative study of Chinese women’s aggression found that female-perpetrated violence in dating relationships was more accepted by both women and men (Wang & Petula, 2007). This study also shed light on how contemporary Chinese women make use of social narratives related to gender, love, and sex to justify aggressive behaviors and interactions (Wang & Petula, 2007). A study that focused specifically on factors associated with IPV perpetration among Chinese college students found that 48% of women reported perpetrating physical IPV, whereas only 26% of men did (Kamimura et al., 2016a). Chen and Chan (2019) examined gender symmetry and mutuality in IPV in China and found gender symmetry in regard to physical assault and psychological aggression. The present study builds on this previous research and examines relational factors that may contribute to female IPV perpetration in China.

Relationship Dynamics: Relationship Factors Linked With Female IPV Perpetration

Johnson (1995) studied different relational dynamics surrounding violence and came up with four types of IPV: intimate terrorism, violence resistance, mutual violent control, and SCV, as mentioned above. When addressing SCV, Johnson suggested that “the core problem is one of communication skill deficiencies for which an individual compensates with verbal aggression that then escalates into violence” (Johnson, 2006, p. 18) and a significant portion of situational IPV originates from relationship conflict (Stith et al., 2011). Based on these findings, Stith and colleagues (2011) emphasized the importance of viewing situational IPV within a relationship context and helping couples manage their relationship dynamics may help reduce situational IPV. Therefore, this study examines how relationship factors are associated with female college student IPV perpetration in China.

Many studies have examined relationship factors such as anger management strategies, communication problems, conflict, dominance, jealousy, and relationship distress as significant factors contributing to relationship violence (e.g., Goussinsky et al., 2017; Kamimura et al., 2016a; Lasley & Durtschi, 2017). Research has also found that relationship satisfaction and couple commitment are related to decreased levels of dating violence (Slotter et al., 2012). A study looking at motivations for IPV perpetration among college women reported that anger, retaliation for emotional hurt, to get a partner’s attention, and jealousy were all common reasons for perpetrating IPV among college women, and suggested that anger management, emotion regulation, and stress regulation skills should be included in IPV prevention and intervention programs (Leisring, 2013). One study found that Chinese female college students who perpetrate IPV were more likely to have anger management issues than men and women who did not perpetrate IPV (Kamimura et al., 2016a). Based on these previous findings, it is important to examine how different relationship factors are linked with female IPV perpetration in China.

Present Study

The purpose of this study is to examine whether reported levels of anger management skills, communication problems, relationship conflict, and relationship distress in intimate relationships were associated with the likelihood of female psychological and physical IPV perpetration among Female Chinese college students. This study also sought to explore whether anger management skills moderated the negative effects of relationship distress, relationship conflict, and communication problems on female IPV perpetration. Therefore, this study made the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): The participants’ higher levels of positive anger management skills will be associated with lower self-reported levels of physical and psychological IPV perpetration.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The participants’ higher levels of communication problems, of relationship conflict, and of relationship distress will be associated with higher self-reported levels of physical and psychological IPV perpetration.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Participants’ higher levels of anger management skills will mitigate the expected positive association between relationship conflict, relationship distress, and communication problems with physical and psychological IPV perpetration.

Method

Sample

This study used data from the International Dating Violence Study, conducted by a consortium of scholars across 32 nations from 2001 to 2006. The main focus of the initial research was to examine cross-national differences in rates of various forms of abuse and the associated differences in personal or relationship characteristics. The data were obtained through questionnaires administered to university students who volunteered to participate.

The Chinese dataset is combined from four subsamples from Beijing (10 universities), Shanghai (four universities), Hong Kong (one university), and Taiwan (one university). Because this study aimed to test female perpetration, participants who were male were excluded from the analysis. Our sample also excluded participants who had never been in a dating relationship, or were in a relationship for less than 1 month. Finally, to focus on college students for this study, participants who were of ages that drastically deviated from a typical college age (i.e., ages greater than 33) were excluded. As the focus of this study was on female perpetration in dating relationships, participants who were engaged, married, and cohabited with partners were also excluded, thus resulting in a total operational sample of 857. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 33 years old (M = 21.76, SD = 2.81).

Measures

Physical and psychological IPV perpetration

Both physical and psychological abuse perpetration were measured using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996). The CTS2 has been used in the United States as in many other countries in the world, including Hong Kong of China (Tang, 1994). The CTS2 includes 12 items to measure physical IPV, and includes incidents such as kicked, pushed, or shoved or used a knife or gun (perpetration). The CTS2 also differentiates between minor and severe levels of physical IPV perpetration. Minor physical abuse included five items. Examples of minor physical abuse perpetration included “I threw something at my partner that could hurt” and “I pushed or shoved my partner.” Severe physical abuse included seven items, including “I punched or hit my partner with something that could hurt” and “I slammed my partner against a wall.” Minor assault perpetration was computed by averaging these five items, and severe assault perpetration was computed by averaging these seven items. The internal consistency scores of minor and severe physical abuse perpetration for this sample were α =.67 and α =.58, respectively. Similar to Lasley and Durtschi’s (2017) research, where the internal consistency of severe assault victimization was also low (α = .47), in this study, the internal consistency of severe physical abuse was also lower than we would have preferred. The CTS2 as a measurement tool of IPV may need additional refinement when used with Chinese samples.

The CTS2 has eight items to measure psychological IPV perpetration (psychological aggression). The CTS2 also differentiates between minor and severe levels of psychological IPV perpetration. Minor psychological abuse had four items, and examples of minor psychological abuse included “I insulted or swore at my partner” and “I shouted or yelled at my partner.” Severe psychological abuse had seven items on the scale, and examples included “I called my partner fat or ugly” and “I threatened to hit or throw something at my partner.” The internal consistency scores for minor and severe psychological abuse perpetration for this sample were α = .70 and α = .45, respectively. The internal consistency of severe psychological abuse was also low in this sample, further suggesting future studies should refine the CTS as a measurement tool of IPV to be culturally sensitive to China.

Although the entire CTS-2 includes measurements of perpetration and victimization, considering that our article focuses on perpetration, we only included the measurements of perpetration in the study, as reported by women in China. In this study, the year frequency (how often the behavior occurred within 1 year of the survey) of physical and psychological perpetration of IPV was used for analysis. However, due to extreme skewness in the data where most scores on IPV were zero or low, we adjusted the overall scale of these measures to allow for an acceptable rate of skewness and kurtosis to proceed with the study. The total scores on each of the four outcome variables were recoded as 0 = 0 acts of violence perpetration, 1 = 1 act of violence perpetration, 2 = 2 acts of violence perpetration, 3 = 3–10 acts of violence perpetration, 4 = 11–20 acts of violence perpetration, and 5 = 20–150 acts of violence perpetration.

Anger management

Anger management was measured using the Anger Management Scale (Stith & Hamby, 2002) from the Personal Relationship Profile (PRP) instrument (Straus et al., 1996). It consisted of three subscales, namely, behavioral self-soothing, recognizing signs of anger, and self-talk. Unlike many other relationship factors, the anger management scale measured a protective factor rather than a risk factor. Examples of the items included “I can calm myself down when I am upset with my partner” (behavioral self-soothing), “I recognize when I am beginning to get angry at my partner” (recognizing signs of anger), and “When I feel myself getting angry at my partner, I try to tell myself to calm down” (self-talk). The scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The items were averaged, with a higher score indicating a higher degree of anger management exhibited by the participant in a relationship. The internal consistency in this sample was adequate (α = .64).

Communication problems

Communication ability was measured by the Communication Problems Scale from the PRP instrument (Straus et al., 1996). It consisted of eight items and two subscales, including avoidant/withholding and disrespectful/mean-spirited communication. This scale measures the ability of a participant to express themselves verbally to their current partner. Examples of the items included “I don’t tell my partner when I disagree about important things” (avoidant/withholding) and “when my partner says something mean, I usually say something mean back” (disrespectful/mean-spirited). The scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Responses were averaged, with a higher mean score indicating a higher degree of communication problems exhibited by the participant in a relationship. Internal consistency in this sample was less adequate (α =.54). However, due to the theoretical relevance of communication problems for this study, the scale was retained. Although PRP instruments have demonstrated good internal validity and reliability in the United States, few studies have examined the effectiveness of the scale when used in a Chinese cultural context. The questionable internal consistency of the communication problems measure in this study suggests it is necessary for future research to improve the PRP measurements for use in the Chinese culture.

Relationship conflict

Relationship conflict was measured by the Conflict Scale from the PRP instrument (Straus et al., 1996), which had nine items. The scale measured the areas of disagreement between the partners. Examples of items included “My partner and I disagree about what types of affection are okay in public,” “My partner and I disagree about when to have sex,” and “My partner and I disagree about how much time we should spend.” This scale also used a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). This scale was computed by taking the average of these items, with a higher mean score indicating a higher degree of relationship conflict. Internal consistency in this sample was adequate (α = .68).

Relationship distress

Relationship distress was measured by the Relationship Distress scale from the PRP instrument (Straus et al., 1996). The scale measured the degree of dissatisfaction with the current relationship, characterized by high conflict and few positive interactions. It included eight items that measured two subscales, which were negative interactions and negative affect. Examples of items included “I have thought seriously about ending my relationship with my partner” (negative affect) and “There are more bad things than good things in my relationship with my partner” (negative interactions). This scale also used a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The items were averaged, with a higher mean score indicating a higher degree of relationship distress. Internal consistency in this sample was adequate (α = .65).

Control variables

The majority of the sample lived in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, which comprised the ethnic Chinese Han people, who share a substantial overlap of language, cultural values, and heritage. However, there is also diversity in politics, society, and socioeconomic development among these three places through the course of history (Shi, 2001). Therefore, regional origins were held constant as a control variable. Two dummy variables were created, Hong Kong and Taiwan, with Mainland China as the reference group.

Analysis Plan

The study used MPlus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2011) to conduct a path analysis to test all of these hypotheses simultaneously. In addition to the examination of the direct associations between the four relational factors (i.e., anger management, communication problems, relationship distress, and conflict) and the four IPV perpetration outcomes (i.e., minor physical IPV perpetration, severe physical IPV perpetration, minor psychological IPV perpetration, and severe psychological IPV perpetration), the analysis also tested the potential moderating effects of anger management skills on these associations. Standardized predictor and moderator variables were entered into the path analysis to ease interpretation of the interaction results and to provide a meaningful zero. The interaction term was generated by multiplying the standardized scores of anger management with relationship conflict and relationship distress. These interaction terms (e.g., Anger Management z Score × Relationship Conflict z Score; Anger Management z Score × Relationship Distress z Score; Anger Management z Score × Communication Problems z Score) were entered as predictors of the four IPV perpetration variables. Significant interaction terms were plotted at one standard deviation high and low on the predictors and moderators.

Results

A total of 40.8% of the Chinese college women reported perpetrating minor physical IPV, 19.6% reported perpetrating severe physical IPV, 65.6% reported perpetrating minor psychological IPV, and 44.1% reported perpetrating severe psychological IPV against current or former partners. Table 1 shows the correlations among the predictors and outcome variables, which revealed important findings. Anger management was significantly and negatively correlated with the four outcome variables, including minor and severe physical perpetration as well as minor and severe psychological perpetration. Communication problems and relationship conflict were significantly and positively correlated with the four outcome variables. Relationship distress was also significantly and positively correlated with minor and severe psychological abuse perpetration.

Table 1.

Correlations Among Anger Management, Communication Problems, Conflict, Relationship Distress, Physical Abuse, and Psychological Perpetration (N = 857).

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	M (SD)
Anger management	—								2.64 (0.34)
Communication problems	−.30***								2.30 (0.32)
Conflict	−.30***	.45***							2.27 (0.36)
Relationship distress	−.22***	.30***	.50***	—					2.37 (0.38)
Minor physical	−.24***	.19***	.17***	.009	—				1.11 (1.47)
Severe physical	−.20***	.16***	.13***	−.05	.56***	—			0.59 (1.33)
Minor psychological	−.30***	.29***	.20***	.08*	.60***	.45***	—		2.06 (1.79)
Severe psychological	−.22*	.23***	.27***	.19***	.49***	.43***	.58***	—	1.23 (1.61)

Note. Anger management, communication problems, relationship conflict, and relationship distress were all on a scale of 1 to 4, where higher scores indicated higher levels of each variable examined. Minor physical IPV perpetration, severe physical IPV perpetration, minor psychological IPV perpetration, and severe psychological IPV perpetration were all on a scale of 0 to 5, where higher scores indicated more frequent reports of violent behaviors. IPV = intimate partner violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Path Analysis Results

All hypotheses were tested in a single path analysis that included all main effects and interaction effects to the four outcomes of interest (minor physical IPV perpetration, severe physical IPV perpetration, minor psychological IPV perpetration, and severe psychological IPV perpetration), and the results are shown in Table 2. This model included control variables entered as predictors to all four outcome variables, and given the overlap among the four IPV outcome variables, the error variances of each of the four outcome variables were correlated with each other. This resulted in a just-identified model with no misfit between the raw data and the specified model. The model fit indices were χ²(0) = 0.00, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.00, comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.00, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .00.

Table 2.

Summary of Path Analysis for the Associations Between Relationship Factors and Physical IPV Perpetration (N = 857).

Variable	Minor Physical Abuse			Severe Physical Abuse			Minor Psychological Abuse			Severe Psychological Abuse
Variable	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Anger Management	−0.31***	0.05	−.21	−0.25***	0.05	−.19	−0.42***	0.06	−.23	−0.23***	0.06	−.15
Commu_Problems	0.18**	0.06	.12	0.15**	0.05	.11	0.39***	0.06	.22	0.19**	0.06	.12
Relation_Conflict	0.19**	0.06	.13	0.14**	0.05	.11	0.14	0.07	.08	0.25***	0.06	.15
Relation_Distress	−0.19**	0.06	−.13	−0.22***	0.05	−.17	−0.12	0.07	−.07	0.10	0.06	.06
Anger × Conflict	−0.09	0.06	−.07	−0.11*	0.05	−.09	−0.16*	0.07	−.10	−0.24***	0.06	−.17
Anger × Distress	0.10*	0.05	.08	0.09*	0.05	.08	0.02	0.06	.01	0.07	0.05	.05
Anger × Commu	−0.05	0.05	−.03	−0.06	0.05	−.05	0.05	0.06	.03	0.04	0.05	.02
Hong Kong	0.18	0.10	.06	0.16	0.10	.06	0.62***	0.12	.17	0.70***	0.11	.21
Taiwan	−0.12	0.15	−.03	0.21	0.14	.06	0.25	0.17	.05	0.32*	0.16	.07

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; Commu_Problems = communication problems; Relation_Conflict = relationship conflict; Relation_Distress = relationship distress; Anger × Conflict = Anger Management × Relationship Conflict; Anger × Distress = Anger Management × Relationship Distress; Anger × Commu = Anger Management × Communication Problems.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Our first research hypothesis examined whether Chinese college women’s higher level of anger management skills (protective relational factor) would be significantly associated with lower self-reported levels of physical and psychological IPV perpetration. We found that higher scores on reported anger management were significantly associated with lower scores on all four outcomes of interest, including minor and severe physical IPV perpetration, minor and severe psychological IPV perpetration.

Our second research hypothesis examined whether the other three relationship factors, including communication problems, relationship conflict, and relationship distress (risk factors), would be associated with higher self-reported levels of physical and psychological IPV perpetration. We found that more communication problems were significantly associated with higher IPV on these four outcome variables. Regarding more relationship conflict, we found that it was significantly associated with more minor and severe physical perpetration, and severe psychological perpetration, yet only marginally associated with minor psychological perpetration. With respect to relationship distress, we found it was significantly negatively associated with minor and severe physical IPV perpetration, but not significantly associated with minor or severe psychological IPV perpetration.

Our last research question was to test whether Chinese college women’s anger management skills would mitigate the expected positive association between relationship conflict, relationship distress, and communication problems with physical and psychological IPV perpetration. We found that anger management skills significantly moderated the association between relationship conflict and severe physical abuse perpetration, minor psychological abuse perpetration, and severe psychological abuse perpetration. We also found anger management significantly moderated the association between relationship distress and minor physical IPV perpetration and severe physical IPV perpetration. Regarding the associations between communication problems and the four outcomes, we found that anger management did not significantly moderate these associations.

The interaction between anger management and relationship conflict on severe physical abuse perpetration is plotted in Figure 1. Chinese college women with high levels of anger management skills reported low levels of severe physical abuse perpetration both at low and high levels of relationship conflict. In the figure, we observe this significant moderation effect in that at high levels of relationship conflict and a high level of anger management, Chinese college women reported low levels of severe physical abuse perpetration, but in the context of high levels of relationship conflict and low levels of anger management, they reported high levels of severe physical abuse perpetration.

Figure 1.

Interaction effects of anger management and relationship conflict on reported levels of severe physical abuse perpetration.

The two remaining significant interaction effects between anger management and relationship conflict on minor and severe psychological abuse perpetration followed the same pattern, wherein Chinese women with higher anger management were consistently lower in minor and severe psychological IPV than women with lower anger management. The interactions between anger management and relationship conflict on minor and severe psychological abuse perpetration are plotted in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2.

Interaction effects of anger management and relationship conflict on reported levels of minor psychological abuse perpetration.

Figure 3.

Interaction effects of anger management and relationship conflict on reported levels of severe psychological abuse perpetration.

The interaction between anger management and relationship distress on minor and severe physical abuse perpetration are plotted in Figures 4 and 5. Although relationship distress was significantly and negatively associated with physical IPV perpetration, we observe the significant moderation effect in that Chinese college women with high levels of anger management skills reported low levels of minor and severe physical abuse perpetration both at low and high levels of relationship distress.

Figure 4.

Interaction effects of anger management and relationship distress on reported levels of minor physical abuse perpetration.

Figure 5.

Interaction effects of anger management and relationship distress on reported levels of severe physical abuse perpetration.

Control Variables

We controlled for the regional origin and found that Chinese college women from Hong Kong reported significantly higher scores of minor and severe psychological abuse perpetration than those from Mainland China. We also found that Chinese college women from Taiwan reported significantly higher levels of severe psychological abuse perpetration than those from Mainland China.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the association between female Chinese students’ levels of physical and psychological IPV perpetration and four relational factors including anger management, communication problems, relationship conflict, and relationship distress. We also tested a potential moderating effect between anger management skills and relationship conflict, relationship distress, and communication problems on female IPV perpetration in China. We found that high scores on reported anger management were associated with lower scores on all four types of IPV. The study also found that higher scores on reported communication problems were associated with higher scores on all four outcomes, too. In addition, we found that relationship conflict was positively related to minor physical, minor psychological, and severe psychological abuse perpetration.

These findings suggest that Chinese college women who have a higher level of anger management skills and a lower level of communication problems report committing significantly less physical and psychological abuse, both on minor and severe levels. Women with lower levels of relationship conflict reported perpetrating significantly less minor physical, minor psychological, and minor severe psychological abuse. More importantly, when relationship conflict is present in the dating relationship, Chinese college women who have better anger management abilities are significantly less likely to perpetrate IPV, including severe physical abuse, as well as minor and psychological abuse. When relationship distress is present in the dating relationship, Chinese college women who have better anger management abilities are significantly less likely to perpetrate minor and severe physical abuse. Our findings support Johnson’s argument that relationship conflict contributes to the escalation of couple violence (Johnson, 2006) and Stith’s proposal of viewing situational IPV in the context of relationship dynamics and developing appropriate treatment for couples addressing relationship problems when violence occurred (Stith et al., 2011).

Our findings also match Kamimura et al.’s (2016a) conclusions that among Chinese college women, anger management issues, communication problems, and other risk factors increase the risk of physical IPV . However, our findings also add evidence that anger management skills would help decrease the risk of psychological IPV perpetration, and that communication problems and relationship conflict increase the risk of psychological perpetration among Chinese college women.

Participants’ levels of relationship distress were negatively associated with their self-reported levels of physical and minor psychological IPV perpetration. This suggests our research findings do not support the hypotheses that Chinese college women’s high levels of reported relationship distress will be associated with higher self-reported levels of physical and psychological IPV perpetration. This may be because Chinese college women’s self-reported levels of relationship distress may be more strongly linked with IPV victimization than perpetration. For example, it is possible that these women are less likely to perceive distress in their relationships when they are the ones perpetrating the violence. Future research should examine the association between relationship distress and IPV victimization with this population. Our findings also did not support the other hypothesis that participants’ high level in anger management skills would mitigate the expected positive association between communication problems and physical and psychological IPV perpetration. This might be due to the low reliability of the communication problems scale.

We also found that when female Chinese college students were from Hong Kong, they reported significantly higher levels of minor and severe psychological violence than those from Mainland China. We also found that when female Chinese college students were from Taiwan, as compared with Mainland China, they reported higher levels of perpetration of severe psychological abuse. No previous research has examined the differences in female IPV perpetration among these three regions, but some previous research findings may help to provide some background context. Kamimura et al.’s (2016b) research on IPV-related experiences and mental health among college students in Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan found that Taiwanese women reported the highest levels of PTSD and gender hostility compared with other places, and these women also reported a higher level of perpetration than males (Kamimura et al., 2016b). Although this research does not provide direct support as to why being from Taiwan was related to higher levels of self-reported severe psychological abuse perpetration, compared with Chinese college women from Mainland China, it does highlight the importance of addressing any serious mental health problem such as PTSD and gender hostility among Taiwanese Chinese women. Previous research about IPV in Hong Kong found that 53% of the respondents were identified as victims of SCV, indicating a high prevalence of mutual IPV (Tiwari et al., 2015), which suggests that there is likely a high prevalence of female IPV perpetration in Hong Kong.

It is also important for us to remember differences in the cultural definition of women’s aggression between the Chinese context and Western culture. As the traditional Chinese saying, Da shi qin, ma shi ai (hitting is affection, scolding is love) goes, Chinese couples might still tend to see or interpret their aggression toward each other as a way to express their affection. Wang and Petula’s (2007) qualitative study of women’s aggression in dating relationships in Beijing further sheds light on the unique cultural understanding of women’s aggression in China They suggested that under the context of dating relationships, Chinese men and women usually do not think women’s aggression should be counted as violence, instead, they define it as normal, playful, and “Ren Xing” (translated as “being willful”). This study also suggested that they also tend to see this type of aggression as a means of expressing affection and communication between couples. On one hand, this double standard creates a distorted justification, allowing women’s aggression to be more acceptable in society and giving women more social power to perpetrate more violence toward their partners. On the other hand, we cannot overlook the unique cultural function women’s violence serves for Chinese couples. It may help couples to express their affection for each other; therefore, we cannot totally negate women’s aggression in the Chinese cultural context. Future research and practice should take this cultural perspective into account and design culturally sensitive interventions.

Traditional Chinese Confucianism teaches women to be tender, moderate, and humble. However, modern Communist discourse suggests that “women sustain half the sky” and emphasizes “men and women are equal,” in a way, promoting women’s power to express their emotions and rights (Tang & Lai, 2008). Influenced by Western ideas of gender equality and life quality, modern Chinese women are becoming more assertive to fight for what they need from their relationships. Another important point to consider is that the population from Mainland China in this study was of the first generation to be affected by the one-child policy in China. There, young adults grew up in an unusual environment where they were seen as “a pearl in the palm” by their parents, which may lead to a lack of toleration of violence from their boyfriend (Wang & Petula, 2007). Young Chinese women are embracing the idea of an assertive and aggressive image to redefine their traditional Chinese gender roles. However, it is possible that while they are embracing their power and rights in intimate relationships, they might not know how to express them properly, leading to anger management problems, communication problems, and relationship conflict with their partners. This study mainly examined how relationship factors are associated with the likelihood of Chinese female perpetration; however, further research should include a more comprehensive examination of a variety offactors associated with female perpetration.

Implication for Practice

The present study has important implications for practice. Based on the study findings, it is important for clinicians working with Chinese clients to develop female-based interventions addressing problems with anger management, communication problems, and relationship conflict for Chinese young women. The population of this study is Chinese college students, so it is important for Chinese colleges to develop relationship education classes to teach young couples how to develop and maintain healthy and safe relationships.

In addition, professionals should also pay attention to the cultural meaning of violence in young Chinese couples’ romantic relationships as they might interpret their violent behaviors as normal, playful, or a way to show affection and love to each other (Wang & Petula, 2007). By adopting a culturally sensitive perspective, we recommend helping professionals first acknowledge and validate the meaning underlying the violent behaviors and honor the unique cultural symbols and languages Chinese people use to express their affections. We are not trying to convey an idea that we should acknowledge and validate the behaviors of violence, because the behaviors can be problematic and escalate into severe and ongoing violence; however, it is the cultural meaning of the behavior we are trying to understand and respect.

It was only in 2015 that China acknowledged dating violence in its first antidomestic violence law. Although dating violence is officially prohibited by law, there is still a strong stigma that violence that happens outside of marriage is not recognized and protected, let alone when the victims are men, and the perpetrators are women. We suggest that policy makers, educators, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), nonprofit organizations (NPO), and other organizations work together to bring awareness of dating violence and female IPV perpetration to the public.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, we included the severe psychological abuse and communication problem measures despite their questionable internal consistency. The study sought to examine the dynamics between relationship factors and female IPV perpetration. Communication problems are an important relationship factor based on previous research and literature, so it makes sense to include this factor. However, the use of a measure with lower reliability increases measurement error, and reduces measurement precision. Therefore, the findings related to communication problems and severe psychological abuse should be interpreted cautiously. The questionable internal consistency of severe psychological abuse and communication problems measures in this study suggests it is necessary for future research to improve the CTS2 and PRP measurements for use in Chinese culture, while adaptations of measures need to be developed and tested to enhance our understanding of IPV in China.

Second, we did not report the context in which the physical and psychological violence occurred, which could include IPV victimization. It is possible that these young women perpetrated violence as a means of self-defense, instead of trying to harm and control the other partner. Future research should collect dyadic data including both partners to further understand relationship violence.

Conclusion

Chinese young women are becoming more assertive and expressive with their power and emotions in their dating relationships, but it can be very problematic if they do not know how to appropriately manage their anger, communicate relationship problems, and handle their relationship conflict as they embrace their power. Our research found that there were significant associations between anger management, communication problems, and conflict on self-reports of Chinese college women’s physical and psychological IPV perpetration. We suggest future research take a more comprehensive examination of different factors that contribute to high female IPV perpetration in China. We also encourage clinicians to validate, and also challenge, the cultural narratives that support Chinese women’s perpetration of violence in their intimate relationships. Finally, we also encourage the development of gender-based intervention programs to address these problems related to female IPV perpetration.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge that the article used data from the International Dating Violence Study, conducted by a consortium of scholars across 32 nations from 2001 to 2006.

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.

ORCID iDs

Jingshuai Du

Chelsea Spencer

Author Biographies

Jingshuai Du, MS, MSW, is a doctoral student in the Family Science program at the University of Maryland. Her research focused on intimate partner violence, sexual assault on college campuses, and family therapy in China.

Sandra Stith is a university distinguished professor in the Couple and Family Therapy program at Kansas State University. She has edited four books and authored more than 120 articles and book chapters on partner violence. In 2011, the American Psychological Association (APA) published her book, Couples Treatment for Domestic Violence: Finding Safe Solutions, describing a treatment program developed with National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) funding.

Jared Durtschi is an associate professor in the Couple and Family Therapy program at Kansas State University. His research focuses on studying couples using quantitative dyadic data to advance knowledge on relationship processes that are linked with higher relationship quality and stability across time.

Chelsea Spencer is a research assistant and professor in the Couple and Family Therapy program at Kansas State University. Her research focuses on intimate partner violence, intimate partner homicide, and sexual violence. She specializes in quantitative methods, specifically meta-analyses, examining risk for violence as a means to prevent future violence.

References

Amar

Gennaro

(2005). Dating violence in college women: Associated physical injury, healthcare usage, and mental health symptoms. Nursing Research, 54(4), 235–242.

Ansara

D. L.

Hindin

M. J.

(2010). Exploring gender differences in the patterns of intimate partner violence in Canada: A latent class approach. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 64(10), 849–854.

Archer

(2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313–351.

Chen

Chan

(2019). Characteristics of intimate partner violence in China: Gender symmetry, mutuality, and associated factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518822340

Goussinsky

Michael

Yassour-Borochowitz

(2017). Relationship dynamics and intimate partner violence among Israeli college students: The moderating effect of communication problems. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517724833

Graves

K. N.

Sechrist

S. M.

White

J. W.

Paradise

M. J.

(2005). Intimate partner violence perpetrated by college women within the context of a history of victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 278–289.

Hsieh

Feng

Shu

(2009). The experiences of Taiwanese women who have experienced domestic violence. The Journal of Nursing Research, 17(3), 153–160.

Johnson

M. P.

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

Johnson

M. P.

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

10.

Kamimura

Nourian

Assasnik

Franchek-Roa

(2016a). Factors associated with perpetration of intimate partner violence among college students in China. Injury Prevention, 22(5), 352–357.

11.

Kamimura

Nourian

Assasnik

Franchek-Roa

(2016b). Intimate partner violence–related experiences and mental health among college students in Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 62(3), 262–270.

12.

Lasley

Durtschi

(2017). The roles of dominance, jealousy, and violent socialization in Chinese dating abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(8), 1209–1234.

13.

Leisring

(2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships: Motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1437–1454.

14.

McCarrick

Davis-McCabe

Hirst-Winthrop

(2016). Men’s experiences of the criminal justice system following female perpetrated intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31(2), 203–213.

15.

McNeely

R. L.

Cook

P. W.

Torres

J. B.

(2001). Is domestic violence a gender issue, or a human issue? Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4(4), 227–251.

16.

Melton

Belknap

(2003). He hits, she hits—Assessing gender differences and similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 328–348.

17.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2011). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.).

18.

Orcutt

H. K.

Garcia

Pickett

S. M.

(2005). Female-perpetrated intimate partner violence and romantic attachment style in a college student sample. Violence and Victims, 20(3), 287–302.

19.

Riggs

O’Leary

(1996). Aggression between heterosexual dating partners: An examination of a causal model of courtship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4), 519–540.

20.

Shen

(2014). Dating violence and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in Taiwanese college students: The roles of cultural beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(4), 635–658.

21.

Shi

(2001). Cultural values and political trust: A comparison of the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan. Comparative Politics, 33(4), 401–419.

22.

Slotter

E. B.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Pond

R. S.

Jr. Lambert

N. M.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Fincham

F. D.

(2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 291–305.

23.

Stith

Hamby

(2002). The anger management scale: Development and preliminary psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 17(4), 383–402.

24.

Stith

McCollum

Rosen

(2011). Couples therapy for domestic violence: Finding safe solutions (1st ed.). American Psychological Association.

25.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10(7), 790–811.

26.

Straus

M. A.

(2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 279–288.

27.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

S. B.

Sugarman

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

28.

L. H.

(2017). China’s new domestic violence law: Keeping victims out of harm’s way? (working paper). Paul Tsai China Center, Yale Law School.

29.

Tang

C. S. K.

(1994). Marital power and aggression in a community sample of Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6), 586–602.

30.

Tang

C. S. K.

Lai

B. P. Y.

(2008). A review of empirical literature on the prevalence and risk markers of male-on-female intimate partner violence in contemporary China, 1987–2006. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(1), 10–28.

31.

Tiwari

Chan

K. L.

Cheung

D. S.

Fong

D. Y.

Yan

E. C.

Tang

D. H.

(2015). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence on mental health outcomes among abused Chinese women: A mixed-method study. BMC Public Health, 15, Article 314.

32.

Wang

Petula

S. Y. H.

(2007). “My sassy girl”: A qualitative study of women’s aggression in dating relationships in Beijing. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(5), 623–638.

33.

Winstock

(2012). The effect of sex and severity of aggression on formal and informal social agents’ involvement in partner violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 6, 136-145.

34.

Zhu

O’Campo

Koenig

M. A.

Mock

Campbell

(2005). Prevalence of and risk factors for intimate partner violence in China. American Journal of Public Health, 95(1), 78–85.

35.

Zhao

(2000). Domestic violence in China: In search of legal and social responses. Pacific Basin Law Journal, 18(2), 211–251.