Exploring the Overlap Between Offending and Victimization Within Intimate Partner Violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

Over the past five decades two parallel bodies of literature have emerged; one examines intimate partner violence (IPV), the other examines the overlap between victimization and offending. Until recently, these two bodies of literature had yet to intersect. The current study provides an exploratory investigation into the overlap between victimization and offending within IPV with a Bosnian adult sample. Utilizing self-report data, 200 Bosnian adults were classified into one of four distinct groups: nonviolent (no history of IPV victimization and/or IPV perpetration), victims (history of IPV victimization only), offenders (history of IPV perpetration only), and victim–offenders (history of IPV victimization and IPV perpetration). Over half of the sample (54%) indicated no prior experiences with IPV within their intimate relationships (current or past). For individuals who characterized their intimate relationships as volatile, analyses indicated that more individuals were involved in mutually violent (having experienced both victimization and perpetration) relationships than solely exclusive behaviors (having experienced only victimization or engaged in perpetration but not both). Moreover, a series of bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed important demographic and behavioral differences between the groupings. Policy implications, as well as suggestions for future research, are presented.

Keywords

Victim–offender overlap intimate partner violence Bosnia

Introduction

In independent lines of inquiry, researchers have studied intimate partner violence (IPV; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005) and the overlap between victimization and offending largely within nondomestic interpersonal violence (Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012). These two bodies of literature, until recently, had not been integrated. Simultaneously, while it has been recognized that IPV, which entails willful violence (physical, sexual, and psychological assault and/or coercion) perpetrated against an intimate partner, impacts all segments of society across the globe, little research attention has been directed at examining IPV in non-Western areas. The same appears to be true for the victim–offender overlap literature, with relatively little research having been conducted on diverse, non-Western samples.

In recognition of these issues, the current study examines the overlap between victimization and offending within IPV utilizing a non-Western sample of 200 adults in Bosnia and Herzegovina (herein Bosnia). Specifically, this study expands on previous research by measuring the prevalence of IPV perpetration, IPV victimization, and the overlap between IPV offending and IPV victimization among a sample of Bosnian adults. The similarities and differences between different IPV groupings (i.e., victims, offenders, and victim–offenders) are also explored.

The Overlap between Victimization and Offending

Criminologists have historically treated victimization and offending as two separate and distinct phenomena. This has impacted how the field has studied and attempted to explain such behavior, with most scholars focusing on one or the other (i.e., victimization or offending). Of course, there have been exceptions. For instance, Wolfgang’s (1958) pioneering homicide work recognized that many homicide victims had criminal histories. Subsequent studies examining interpersonal violence (Broidy, Daday, Crandall, Sklar, & Jost, 2006; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 2001; Schreck, Stewart, & Osgood, 2008) and property crimes (Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991; Pape & Pederson, 1999) have found similar results. From this body of work arose the concept of the victim–offender overlap (Jennings et al., 2012).

Central to the study of the victim–offender overlap is the acknowledgment that “victims and offenders are often one in the same”; as opposed to the argument that victims and offenders come from two separate, distinct populations (Sampson & Lauristen, 1990, p. 110). Augmenting this assertion is the recognition that offenders and victims share many similar demographic and behavioral characteristics (including offending and victimization histories) and that involvement in crime (whether as a victim or as an offender) generally increases an individual’s risk for offending and victimization (Lauritsen et al., 1991; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2000; Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, & Cullen, 2005). As such, victims are likely to have been (or become) offenders and offenders are likely to have been (or become) victims.

The vast majority of research examining the overlap between victimization and offending has been conducted with samples from North America (see Jennings et al., 2012 for a review of this literature), Britain (Gottfredson, 1984; Mawby, 1979; Mayhew & Elliott, 1990; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990; Sparks, Glen, & Dodd, 1977), and Western Europe (Bjarnason, Sigurdardotlir, & Thorlindson, 1999; Kühlhorn, 1990; Van Dijk & Steinmetz, 1983; Wittebrood & Nieuwberta, 1999). As a whole, this research, according to Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, and Cullen (2005) has produced “three main findings: (1) victims and offenders share a similar demographic profile, (2) victims and offenders are often one in the same, [and] (3) similar processes seem to produce offending and victimization” (p. 56).

Less is known about the victim–offender overlap from a non-Western perspective. To date, there are few published studies that have examined this phenomenon with samples from outside of North America or Western Europe. Research that has investigated the victim–offender overlap with more diverse samples from Columbia (Klevens, Duque, & Ramirez, 2002), Puerto Rico (Maldonado-Molina, Piquero, Jennings, Bird, & Canino, 2009), and South Korea (Jennings, Park, Tomisich, Gover, & Akers, 2011), and samples of Puerto Ricans residing in the United States (Maldonado-Molina, Jennings, Tobler, Piquero, & Canino, 2010) largely confirms what we know from the aforementioned Western focused research. That is, that there exists a considerable amount of overlap between victimization and offending in juvenile delinquency (Maldonado-Molina et al., 2009, 2010), property crime (Klevens, Duque, & Ramirez, 2002), dating violence (Jennings et al., 2011), interpersonal violence (Klevens et al., 2002), and sexual assault (Klevens et al., 2002).

In addition to limited published data devoted to the victim–offender overlap outside the West, there is a shortage of research that has examined the overlap between victimization and offending within IPV. This is somewhat puzzling because IPV research emerging in the 1990s (at the same time as the bulk of victim–offender overlap studies) found that within some couples, individuals appeared to be engaged in mutual violence where both partners endure IPV offending and victimization (Johnson, 1995; Steinmetz, 1980). While a number of IPV scholars have pointed toward a linkage between IPV victimization and offending (especially for females¹), the victim–offender overlap literature was not referenced (Simmons, Lehmann, & Collier-Tenison, 2008; Wesley, 2006). Findings from non-IPV studies examining the overlap between victimization and offending may, however, shed additional light on the similarities and differences not only between different types of IPV but between IPV offenders and victims; a developing area of specialty among IPV researchers (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005).

Recently, two studies have considered the linkage between victims and offenders within IPV (Jennings et al., 2011; Reingle, Staras, Jennings, Branchini, & Maldonado-Molina, 2011). Utilizing a sample of South Korean college students, Jennings, Park, Tomisich, Gover, and Akers (2011) examined the influence social learning and control variables have on IPV victimization and IPV perpetration in dating relationships. Results from a series of bivariate probit models found significant correlations between victimization and offending for both physical and psychological violence. Additionally, several demographic (sex, age), behavioral (dating exclusivity, sexual risk taking), and theoretical (low self-control, childhood physical abuse) variables were significantly related to the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization.

In the United States, Reingle, Staras, Jennings, Branchini, and Maldonado-Molina (2011) looked at the overlap between IPV victimization and IPV offending in adolescents and young adults who participated in waves one through five of the National Adolescent Health Study. Defining IPV as physical violence (and resultant injury) only, Reingle et al. (2011) found that 1 (11.9%) out of 10 respondents had experienced both IPV offending and IPV victimization behaviors. Multivariate models indicated that among victim–offenders, marijuana use, peer substance use (marijuana and alcohol), parental alcohol use, and depression were significant predictors of IPV.

Together, these studies suggest a linkage between victimization and offending within IPV among young adults in South Korea (Jennings et al., 2011) and the United States (Reingle et al., 2011). The current study will expand on the work of Jennings et al., (2011) and Reingle et al., (2011), by examining the relationship between IPV offending and IPV victimization through an exploratory analysis of the similarities and differences among IPV victims (with no history of IPV perpetration), IPV offenders (with no history of IPV victimization), and IPV victim–offenders (individuals with a history of both IPV victimization and IPV perpetration), with an adult Bosnian sample, the majority of whom are in marital relationships.

This is important because research examining IPV and the victim–offender overlap separately has been limited to North America, leaving a broad gap in the existing literature and a stark need not only to integrate these two areas of study but for research on the victim–offender overlap within IPV among diverse national, cultural, religious, and ethnic groups. Furthermore, individuals residing in postconflict areas have not received the same level of research attention in terms of their experiences with IPV perpetration and victimization as have individuals living in countries not impacted by conflict. It stands to reason that in postconflict areas, like Bosnia, structural factors coupled with specific cultural and religious beliefs interact to create stressful living situations that place individuals at even greater risk of IPV.

Bosnia and Herzegovnia

Situated in the heart of the Western Balkans, Bosnia and Herzegovina is a relatively small country² with a rich, yet complicated history. From 1945 until 1991, Bosnia was one of six autonomous republics (along with Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia) within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY). Bosnia’s fight for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence started in April 1992 and lasted until December 1995, when the Dayton Accords³ ended the conflict between Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia⁴ and constructed the newly independent country’s constitutional framework.

Post-Dayton Bosnia consists of one country divided into two entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska) and a special administrative unit (the District of Brčko). While the Dayton Accords were touted as a means to unify the war-torn country, in reality, Bosnia remains a nation divided into two distinct territories with two separate political and legal systems, and three separate ethnic identities⁵ (i.e., Bosniak, Croat, and Serb). The war left an estimated 102,000 dead and another 2 million refugees and displaced individuals (Nilsen, 2004). The transition to political pluralism and a market economy led to rapid social and economic changes in the immediate post-Dayton era, followed by the high levels of political instability, unemployment, and social stress. While Bosnia is no longer marred by high levels of political violence and crime (Donais, 2003), the country continues to struggle as a newly independent nation state evidenced by a weakened political infrastructure, faltering social institutions, and the continued presence of nationalism and corruption operating at all societal levels (Chivvis & Dogo, 2010).

IPV in Bosnia

Similar to other patriarchal societies, in Bosnia violence between intimates has traditionally been considered a private family matter in which the state should not interfere (Adžajlić-Dedović, Sofradžija, Deljkić, Šadić, & Trbonj, 2005). Patriarchy, however, is not the sole influence on the behavior of Bosnian men and women in intimate relationships (Deljkić, 2006). The present postconflict environment and resultant moral, economic, and political crisis are said to have further influenced the perpetration of IPV in the area.⁶ While governmental and nongovernmental officials recognize that IPV is a problem, it is very difficult to determine the extent of IPV in Bosnia due to the overall hidden nature of this type of crime, failure to report cases of IPV to authorities, and the lack of a unified system of collecting and analyzing data at the entity and state levels (Petrić et al., 2010).

Official statistics pertaining to IPV indicate that about 600 cases of IPV are processed annually (this equates roughly to a rate of 0.3 per 1,000 adults aged 15+), while victim hotlines register 10 times as many cases (about 6,000 per year, or 3 per 1,000 adults aged ≥15; Gender Equality Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2011). It is estimated that the number of unreported cases of IPV is even higher. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working with female victims report that most women stay silent about this type of violence. Victimization surveys confirm these claims, revealing that violence that occurs between intimates and family members is a widespread phenomenon in Bosnia, with women and children comprising the majority of victims and men the majority of perpetrators (Adžajlić-Dedović et. al., 2005; Avdibegović & Sinanović, 2006; Ćopić, &; Muftić & Bouffard, 2010; Smaikadić, 2008; Žene Ženama, 2008). For example, NGOs that work with IPV victims report that 4 out of 10 Bosnian women have experienced psychological abuse, 1 out of 3 have experienced physical abuse, and 2 out of 10 have experienced sexual abuse at the hands of an intimate partner (Global Rights, 2004).

While research focused on IPV in the states that once comprised the SFRY is limited, it appears that compared to their female counterparts residing in neighboring countries (most of which were not directly impacted by the conflict in the 1990s), Bosnian woman are more likely to experience IPV (Ćopić, 2004; World Health Organization [WHO], 2005). Perhaps this is because individuals living in environments affected by war are more vulnerable to IPV due to the convergence of structural (e.g., unemployment, poverty, political violence, crime) and individual risk factors (e.g., depression, trauma, substance abuse, isolation) resulting from war (Muftić & Cruze, in press). To date, there has not been any published research that has examined the potential overlap between IPV victimization and IPV perpetration within Bosnia or elsewhere in the region.

Current Study

A sizeable body of research has demonstrated that a connection between victimization and offending exists for a variety of crimes (Jennings et al., 2012). Less attention has been directed at whether such a linkage occurs within IPV (Jennings et al., 2011; Reingle et al., 2011). Furthermore, a very small percentage of the rather sizeable victim–offender overlap literature involves non-Western samples. The current study sought to extend work completed by Jennings et al. (2011) and Reingle et al. (2011) and contribute to the overall victim–offender and IPV literatures by providing an exploratory examination of the overlap between victimization and offending within IPV with a Southern-European sample of adults, the majority of which are in marital relationships. Utilizing self-report IPV data collected from 200 residents of Bosnia, the current study will explore five exploratory research questions: (1) What is the prevalence of IPV perpetration? (2) What is the prevalence of IPV victimization? (3) What percentage of Bosnian adults in this sample have experienced both IPV perpetration and IPV victimization? (4) What percentage of Bosnian adults in this sample have experienced exclusive IPV behaviors (i.e., IPV perpetration only or IPV victimization only)? and (5) Are there demographic and behavioral differences between exclusive IPV offenders, exclusive IPV victims, and IPV victim–offenders?

Method

Sample

A total of 207 Bosnian citizens from two of the largest cities in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina completed surveys in 2006 and 2008. The methods used for participant recruitment varied dependent upon the date of survey administration. For instance, a snowball methodology was utilized because the primary target of analysis in 2006 was adult Bosnian women. A female relative and an acquaintance of one of the researchers were used as the initial points of contact. Initial contacts were asked to provide the names of two women, preferably unknown to the researcher, who would qualify for the study. In turn, these women were asked by the researcher to recommend further potential subjects for the study. This process resulted in the identification of 70 Bosnian females. In 2008, law enforcement officers employed by the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA) were recruited for participation in a study designed to examine officers’ experiences (professional and personal) and attitudes related to IPV (Muftić & Cruze, in press). The questionnaires were distributed by SIPA administrators to all SIPA officers working over the course of 2 days. Over the course of 2 days, 150 surveys were distributed of which 137 surveys were returned (91.1% response rate).

For both samples, participants were asked to participate in the study and were given an informed consent form and a pencil-and-paper survey to complete. All study instruments were translated from English into Bosnian. Because of extensive missing values, 7 respondents were removed, leaving a total sample size of 200 Bosnian adults. Respondents, regardless of survey administration date, were quite similar in terms of age, marital status, length of marriage, parental status, and number of children. Differences were found related to sex, education, and ethnicity. Participants surveyed in 2006 were significantly more likely to be female (100%, n = 70) compared to participants surveyed in 2008 (7.7%, n = 10; χ² = 161.538; p < .001). Respondents surveyed in 2006 had, on average, 1 year less of education (12.4 years, SD = 1.7) compared to respondents surveyed in 2008 (13.7 years, SD = 2.0); a statistically significant difference (t = −4.154; p < .001). Finally, respondents surveyed in 2006 were significantly more likely to report their ethnicity as Bosniak (87.1%) than respondents surveyed in 2008 (69.8%; χ² = 7.485, p < .01). These differences are more than likely the result of the purposeful recruitment of female respondents in 2006.

Because the sample of law enforcement officials included females, we examined the possibility that the women from the two samples (i.e., non-policewomen and policewomen) were dissimilar from each other. Bivariate analyses, however, did not find any statistically significant differences between the two groupings related to age, ethnicity, marital status, length of marriage, children, or number of children. The only marginally significant difference found had to do with education, with policewomen having an additional year of education (13.4 years, SD = 1.9) compared to non-policewomen (12.4 years, SD = 1.7; t(73) = −1.475, p = .07). More importantly, we did not find any statistically significant differences in IPV behaviors (victimization and/or perpetration) between the women. As such, we believe that including the policewomen in the sample is justifiable.⁷

Measures

Demographic characteristics

Respondents were asked a variety of questions about their demographic backgrounds including sex (male/female), age, education (number of years completed), married (yes/no), children (yes/no), and ethnic affiliation (Bosniak, Croat, Serb, or Other).

Overall, a slightly higher percentage of respondents surveyed were male (60.0%). Respondents ranged in age from 19 years to 60 years, and the mean age of the sample was 35.8 years (SD = 8.3; see Table 1). As the survey was administered in a Bosniak majority area of the Federation, it was not surprising to find that the vast majority of individuals self-identified as being Bosniak (75.5%). A large proportion of the respondents were married (78.0%), and the average length of marriage was 11.7 years (ranging from 0.5 to 37.0 years; SD = 8.0). A little more than three quarters of the respondents (78.5%) had at least one child (ranging from 1 to 4 with a mean of 1.67 children; SD = 0.67). In terms of education, respondents completed an average of 13.1 years of schooling (ranging from 8 to 20 years; SD = 2.0). Because there has not been an official census taken in Bosnia since 1991, it is unclear whether or not the sample is representative of the population from which it was drawn.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics for Adult Sample (N = 200)

Variable	Statistic
Male	60.0%
Age in years (SD)	35.80 (8.30)
Bosniak	75.5%
Highest grade completed in years (SD)	13.12 (2.00)
Marital status
Single	14.6%
Married	78.0%
Divorced/separated	6.5%
Unknown	1.0%
Length of marriage in years (SD)^a	11.74 (7.97)
Has children	78.5%
Number of children (SD)^b	1.67 (0.67)

^aCalculated among those married (n = 156).

^b Calculated among those with children (n = 157).

Victimization and offending measures

To measure personal experiences with IPV victimization and offending, 25 questions from the Revised Conflict Tactics scale (R-CTS; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996) were used. This scale measures behaviors which the respondent has engaged in (perpetration) and those to which the respondent has been subjected (victimization), resulting in a total of 50 separate items (see Table 2). For each item, respondents indicate whether the behavior has never happened (coded as 0), has happened but not in the past year (coded as 1), has happened once in the past year (coded as 2), twice in the past year (coded as 3), 3 to 5 times in the past year (coded at 4), 6 to 10 times in the past year (coded as 5), 11 to 20 times in the past year (coded as 6), or more than 20 times in the past year (coded as 7). These items are then separated into three subscales: physical assault, sexual coercion, and injury. The first subscale captures physically assaultive behaviors, including slapping, kicking, choking, and using weapons. The second subscale captures sexually coercive behaviors. Finally, the injury subscale assesses the infliction of injuries ranging from bruises and cuts to broken bones or other injuries requiring medical treatment. For purposes of this study, all subscales (physical assault, sexual coercion, and injury) were dichotomized for ease of interpretation (1 represents having experienced or perpetrated IPV and 0 represents not having experienced or perpetrated IPV). Prevalence was measured as the percentage of respondents perpetrating or enduring at least one of the behaviors in each group.

Table 2.

Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration and Victimization

Item	Perpetration prevalence	Victimization prevalence
Physical assault	15.0	13.5
Kicked	7.0	7.5
Slapped	6.0	7.5
Beat up	2.0	4.5
Punched or hit with something that could	4.0	4.5
hurt
Choked	0.0	2.0
Slammed against wall	4.0	4.5
Grabbed	9.0	9.0
Threw something that could hurt	6.5	8.0
Used knife or gun	0.0	2.0
Pushed or shoved	7.5	8.5
Twisted arm or hair	3.5	4.0
Burned or scalded on purpose	2.0	1.5
Sexual coercion	34.5	35.5
Used force to have sex	2.5	2.5
Used threats to have oral/anal sex	1.0	0.5
Used force to have oral/anal sex	1.5	0.0
Insisted on oral/anal sex (no force)	9.0	13.5
Used threats to have sex	3.0	0.0
Insisted on sex (no force)	7.0	11.0
Insisted on sex without a condom (no force)	36.0	30.0
Injury	9.3	14.0
Sprain, bruise, or cut	2.5	5.5
Went to doctor for injury	1.0	2.0
Needed to see doctor but did not	0.5	3.0
Felt pain the next day	5.0	8.5
Passed out	0.0	2.5
Broken bone	0.0	0.5

Note. N = 200.

Victim-overlap categorizations

To examine the overlap between IPV victimization and IPV offending, three groupings of individuals were created: exclusive victims, exclusive offenders, and victim–offenders. Individuals were categorized as an exclusive victim if they indicated they had only been physically and/or sexually victimized by an intimate partner and did not report having ever committed physical and/or sexual abuse against their intimate partner. Individuals were considered to be an exclusive offender if they reported having solely perpetrated IPV (i.e., physical and/or sexual coercion or violence) and did not report having been an IPV victim at any point prior to the study. Finally, individuals were considered to be a victim–offender if they had reported both victimization and offending IPV behaviors.

Findings

IPV Perpetration and Victimization

Analyses were conducted to examine the prevalence of IPV perpetration and victimization among the Bosnian adults surveyed (see Table 2). In terms of perpetration, relatively small percentages of individuals reported having used physically assaultive or sexually coercive tactics against their intimate partners. For instance, 15.0% of Bosnians surveyed indicated that they had physically assaulted their intimate partner at least once at some point in their relationship. Regarding sexual coercion, one in three respondents (34.5%) reported they had engaged in sexually coercive tactics against their intimate partner one or more times during the duration of their relationship. When asked whether they had ever inflicted an injury on their intimate partner, 9.3% of individuals responded in the affirmative.

Similar findings were discovered when IPV victimization was examined. When asked about physical victimization, 13.5% of respondents reported having been physically assaulted at least once by their intimate partner. A slightly higher proportion of respondents (35.5%) reported that their partner had used sexually coercive tactics against them. Finally, individuals surveyed were asked whether they had ever received a physical injury as the result of their partner’s abusive behavior, 14.0% indicated they had.

Overlap Between IPV Perpetration and IPV Victimization

Within this sample, 54.0% (n = 108) of the respondents surveyed were neither IPV victims nor IPV offenders, having no self-reported histories of IPV victimization and/or perpetration. Small and rather identical percentages of respondents reported exclusive IPV behaviors. For instance, 5.5% (n = 11) of the sample (referred to as exclusive victims) had only experienced IPV victimization with no history of IPV perpetration while 6.5% (n = 13) of the sample (referred to as exclusive offenders) had perpetrated IPV but had not been the victim of IPV. Roughly one out of three individuals surveyed (34.0%, n = 68) were victim–offenders reporting both IPV victimization and IPV perpetration behaviors. Utilizing post hoc subgroup tests, comparisons were then made between nonviolent individuals, exclusive victims, exclusive offenders, and victim–offenders (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Post Hoc Subgroup Comparisons of Nonviolent, Victims, Offenders, and Victim–Offenders

	Nonviolent^a	Victims^b	Offenders^c	Victim–Offenders^d	Significantly Different Groups^e
Male	74.1%	18.2%	84.6%	39.7%	A*, B^†, C, D**
Age (years/SD)	34.8 (6.84)	42.7 (10.35)	35.9 (7.51)	36.3 (9.71)	B*, D
Education (years/SD)	13.3 (2.07)	11.5 (2.95)	14.6 (1.94)	13.0 (1.57)	B, C, D***
Married	78.3%	63.6%	84.6%	80.9%
Physical victimization	--	27.3%	--	35.4%
Physical perpetration	--	--	23.1%	40.9%	C*
Sexual victimization	--	90.9%	--	92.4%
Sexual perpetration	--	--	100.0%	85.1%	C*
Received injury	--	36.4%	--	17.9%	B*
Inflicted injury	--	--	0.0%	13.2%	C*

^a n = 108

^b n = 11

^c n = 13

^d n = 68

^e Subgroups comparisons are coded as (A) victim-offenders compared to non-violent, (B) victim-offenders compared to victims, (C) victim-offenders compared to offenders, and (D) victims compared to offenders.

^*** p < .001. ^** p < .01. ^* p < .05. ^† p < .10, one-sided.

Few demographic similarities were found between the groupings. Males were overrepresented in the exclusive offenders (84.6%) and nonviolent (74.1%) categories, while women were overrepresented in the exclusive victims (81.8%) and victim–offenders (60.3%) categories. Regarding age, exclusive victims (M = 42.7 years, SD = 10.35) were significantly older than nonviolent (M = 34.8 years, SD = 2.07, p < .001), exclusive offenders (M = 35.9 years, SD = 7.51, p < .06), and victim–offenders (M = 36.3 years, SD = 9.71, p < .04). Exclusive victims also had significantly less years of education (M = 11.5 years, SD = 2.95) compared to nonviolent (M = 13.3 years, SD = 2.07, p < .01), exclusive offenders (M = 14.6 years, SD = 1.94, p < .001), and victim–offenders (M = 13.0 years, SD = 1.57, p < .01). No statistically significant differences emerged for marital status, with similarly high percentages of non–violent (78.3%), exclusive victims (63.6%), exclusive offenders (84.6%), and victim–offenders (80.9%) having indicated that there were married.

We next looked at differences between exclusive victims, exclusive offenders, and victim–offenders related to IPV perpetration, victimization, and injury. Individuals who had histories of IPV victimization and offending (i.e., victim–offenders) displayed higher rates of physical victimization (35.4% compared to 27.3% of individuals who only had histories of IPV victimization; p < .05) and physical violence perpetration (40.9% compared to 23.1% of exclusive offenders; p < .05). Differences were not found related to sexual victimization with the majority of victim–offenders and exclusive victims having endured sexual abuse in an intimate relationship (92.4% of victim–offenders and 90.9% of exclusive victims). Similarly high rates of sexual violence perpetration were found when victim–offenders and offenders were compared. As anticipated, exclusive offenders reported the greatest rates of sexual violence perpetration; 100.0% compared to 85.1% of victim–offenders (p < .001). Lastly, exclusive victims were significantly more likely to have sustained an injury (36.4%) compared to victim–offenders (17.9%; p < .05), while victim–offenders were significantly more likely to have inflicted an injury on their intimate partner (13.2%) than had exclusive offenders (0.0%; p < .06).

Finally, a series of conditional logistic regression models were run to examine demographic differences (Model 1) and the likelihood of having sustained an injury (i.e., victimization; Model 2), inflicted an injury (i.e., perpetration; Model 3), or both (i.e., having sustained and inflicted an injury; Model 4) between IPV victim–offenders and individuals who only experienced one (IPV victimization or IPV perpetration) but not both IPV behaviors. Because of issues of multicollinearity, only outcomes associated with IPV victimization and perpetration (injury infliction and/or receipt) were included in the logistic regression models. For similar reasons, comparisons could not be made, except for differences pertaining to demographics (Model 1) between victim–offenders and nonviolent individuals. As such, nonviolent individuals were excluded from the reference categories for Models 2–4. In all four models, the covariates were significantly related to the predictor variable at the .01 level according to the Model chi-square statistics (see Table 4). The R ² for each model is small (ranging from .106 to .174), indicating that roughly less than 20% of the variance in the predictor variable is being explained by the covariates in each model.

Table 4

Conditional Logistic Regression Model Predicting Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Victim–Offenders

	Model 1^a: Demographic Characteristics			Model 2^b: Received Injury Only			Model 3^b: Inflicted Injury Only			Model 4^b: Received & Inflicted Injury
	B	SE	Exp(B)	B	SE	Exp(B)	B	SE	Exp(B)	B	SE	Exp(B)
Female	1.184***	.373	3.266	1.132**	.386	3.102	1.078**	.384	2.938	1.097**	.389	2.996
Age (years)	−.007	.021	.993	−.016	.022	.984	−.010	.021	.990	−.015	.022	.985
Married	.265	.444	1.303	.512	.467	1.202	.263	.455	1.301	.361	.471	1.434
Education (years)	.058	.093	1.060	.027	.096	1.027	.031	.097	1.031	.021	.098	1.021
Received injury	--	--	--	1.165*	.577	3.205	--	--	--	.719	.740	2.053
Inflicted injury	--	--	--	--	--	--	2.335*	1.093	10.332	1.754†	1.235	5.778
	R2 = .106; χ2(4) = 11.939, p < .01			R2 = .141; χ2(5) = 16.223, p < .01			R2 = .166; χ2(5) = 19.080, p < .001			R2 = .174; χ2(6) = 20.026, p < .001

^a Reference group: victims, offenders, and nonviolent.

^b Reference group: victims and offenders.

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .10, one-sided.

Demographically, the only difference that remained significant in the first multivariate model was sex. Victim–offenders were three times more likely to be female than IPV victims, IPV offenders, and nonviolent individuals (Exp (B) = 3.266; p < .01); and this effect remained constant regardless of the model computed.

Additional multivariate confirmed the bivariate findings related to IPV behavior. In the second model (received injury only), victim–offenders were three times more likely to sustain an injury resulting from IPV than IPV victims or IPV offenders (Exp (B) = 3.205; p < .01). In the third model (inflicted injury only), victim–offenders were 10 times more likely to inflict an injury on their intimate partner than IPV victims or IPV offenders (Exp (B) = 10.332; p < .01). When victimization (received injury) and perpetration (inflicted injury) were included in the final model (Model 4), the independent effect of victimization was no longer statistically significant and effect of perpetration was only marginally significant (Exp (B) = 5.778; p < .10). Finally, the variance explained by variables in fourth model (R ² = .174) is slightly higher than the second (R ² = .141) or third (R ² = .141) models, highlighting the importance of looking at both victimization and perpetration IPV behaviors.

Discussion

The primary goal of this study was to provide one of the first known investigations into the overlap between IPV victimization and IPV offending in Bosnia. Few researchers have tested the presence of the victim–offender overlap within non-Western samples, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge none of this research has been conducted in postconflict societies. Postconflict societies, however, provide an interesting theater in which to investigate the victim–offender overlap, especially as it pertains to IPV. Individuals residing in postconflict environments are theoretically at an increased risk for IPV because of the confluence of political, economic, and social turmoil, the presence of an overall “culture of violence” (Steenkamp, 2005), and a return to traditional, patriarchal cultural views and practices. As such, Bosnians (and particularly Bosnian women) may find that their risk of being victimized actually has increased (rather than decreased) in the post-war years. A paucity of research, however, has explored the impact postconflict environments have on IPV victimization (Maguire, 1998) and IPV perpetration (Muftić & Bouffard, 2010). The overlap between IPV victimization and IPV offending within postconflict settings has yet to be examined.

For this study, Bosnian adults were used to explore the prevalence of IPV perpetration and IPV victimization, as well as the overlap between these two phenomena within our sample. Similar to research findings from self-report surveys conducted in non-Western countries⁸ (WHO, 2005), half of the sample reported no physical or sexual violence perpetration and/or victimization in their current or past relationships. The remainder of the sample was categorized according to IPV experiences (i.e., exclusive victims, exclusive offenders, and victim–offenders). Differences between groupings were then examined.

In general, the findings from this study coincide with the larger body of work that has explored the linkages between offending and victimization; that victims are likely to have engaged in offending and offenders are likely to have been victims. Within our sample, almost three quarters of individuals with a history of IPV had participated in both IPV perpetration and victimization behaviors. This high prevalence of victim–offenders also corresponds with what is known about the co-occurrence of victimization and offending from the IPV literature. For instance, IPV studies from the general population commonly find a higher occurrence of what is often referred to as situational couple violence (also known as common couple violence; Johnson, 1995). Situational couple violence is not used by one partner to control the other, but “arises in the context of a specific argument in which one or both of the partners lash out physically at the other” (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000, p. 949). Thus, individuals that engage in situational couple violence are likely to have perpetrated IPV against their intimate partner and also likely to have their intimate partner perpetrate IPV against (i.e., victim–offenders).

While situational couple violence appears to be the most frequent form of IPV (Johnson, 2011), scholars generally agree that some individuals (primarily men) engage in violence in an attempt to control and intimidate their intimate partner which is referred to as intimate terrorism (also referred to as patriarchal terrorism; Johnson, 1995). Intimate terrorism, compared to situational couple violence, is rare and not likely to turn up in general sample surveys but more likely to come to the attention of law enforcement and nongovernmental agencies (e.g., shelters; Johnson, 2011). This may explain why we found less exclusivity in IPV behaviors and hence a smaller percentage of exclusive victims and exclusive offenders within our sample.

Somewhat unexpectedly, we found considerably lower rates of IPV victimization among our sample compared to previous IPV victimization studies in Bosnia. Earlier studies suggest that anywhere from one quarter to two thirds of Bosnian women had experienced psychological, physical, or sexual violence inflicted on them by an intimate partner (Avdibegović & Sinanović, 2006; Ćopić, 2004; Muftić & Bouffard, 2010; Smailkadić, 2008; Žene Ženama, 2008). Our study found that 13.5% of respondents had been subjected to physical victimization and 35.5% had experienced sexual victimization. It is important to point out that this study surveyed both men and women, while the aforesaid IPV research has been conducted solely with Bosnian women and has focused primarily on their victimization experiences. Within our sample, females reported higher rates of perpetration and victimization than did males. As such, the overall low prevalence of IPV within our sample may be because men were less forthcoming about violence within their relationships than the women we surveyed. For example, female respondents were four times more likely to report having perpetrated physical violence against an intimate partner (28.9%) than male respondents were (7.0%). Studies conducted in the United States have found that men are less truthful than women when asked to self-report their experiences related to IPV because they view it as embarrassing (Steinmetz, 1980).

The same may hold true in Bosnia. While there is a lack of published Bosnian research that can confirm (or refute) our findings, recently the Deputy Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Ljubo Lepir, reported that they have seen an increase in IPV against men (Informer.ba, 2011). Service providers, however, indicate that men in Bosnia “feel ashamed to report [IPV]” and thus are unlikely to report (or they underreport) victimization experiences (Bećirović, 2012). Thus, the low rates of IPV perpetration may be a reflection of cultural and patriarchal beliefs regarding IPV. Maybe Bosnian men are not as willing as women to admit their relationships are characterized by mutual violence? This may stem from embarrassment and shame, but it also may be because they view such behaviors as normative and do not perceive their experiences as victimization or anyone’s business. It is also plausible that the men in our sample are quite aware of what is and is not socially acceptable behavior from a Western perspective. For instance, the police in Bosnia are said to have received domestic violence training and education courses as part of the reform of criminal justice legislation and the overall police reformation movement following the cessation of the war in the late 1990s (Gender Equality Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2011). These reformation efforts have largely been supported (and influenced) by the international community. Preliminary evidence suggests that training has been relatively successful, at least when it comes to reducing sexist views toward women and domestic violence (Muftić & Cruze, in press). Thus, in the presence of a Western female researcher it is possible that male respondents censored their answers based on what they thought they should report (i.e., low frequencies of IPV perpetration) rather than on their actual behavior (Deljkić & Lučić-Ćatić, 2011).

In light of the low (and differential) rates of physical violence perpetration within our sample, we were surprised to find that men and women reported similar and relatively high rates of sexual violence perpetration (32.4% and 44.9% respectively). Why the higher prevalence of sexually coercive behaviors? Again, we turn to culture and the role of patriarchy. A survey conducted in Banja Luka, Bosnia, found that the vast majority of participants (72.0%) agreed with the statement that it is the “man who decides when and how to have sex” (Care & International Center for Research on Women [ICRW], 2010). In addition, almost one in four respondents felt it was “OK for a man to hit his wife if she does not want to have sex with him” (CARE & ICRW, 2010). These attitudes are compounded by a failure to recognize and respond to sexual violence by governmental institutions (Federal Ministry of Health, 2010). Therefore, while respondents may recognize that the social acceptability of physical violence is declining and censor their response accordingly, it is also possible that the antiviolence campaigns that have been activated in Bosnia in the last decade (Zvizdić et al., 2005) have started to impact behavior and thus what we are measuring is an actual decrease in physical assault among intimate partners. While the primary focus of these campaigns has been on all forms of violence (i.e., physical, sexual, and psychological), knowledge regarding sexual and reproductive health is generally lacking among the general public (Federal Ministry of Health, 2010; Petrić et al., 2010), helping to elucidate why rates of sexual violence perpetration and victimization remain higher than physical violence in Bosnia.

Limitations and Future Studies

To date, this is the first known study to examine the overlap between offending and victimization in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is also a lack of research attention directed toward exploring IPV offending (among men and women) in the region. As such, the findings we have presented provide important contributions to the literature. As an exploratory study, we would be remiss not to address several limitations. A rather obvious limitation of the current study is the small sample size and resultant small cell sizes for exclusive victims and exclusive offenders. This limitation is partly a reflection of the research methodology employed (convenience sampling) and funding constraints which did not allow for the recruitment of more research subjects. While the sample size restricted the precision of the statistical analyses employed, a particular strength of this study is the inclusion of almost equal numbers of men and women. Previous investigations into IPV in Bosnia have largely relied on samples consisting solely of females.

The composition of the sample is another limitation of the current study. Somewhat problematic is the piecing together of two samples (one female and non-law enforcement and the other law enforcement and primarily male) as is the use of nonprobability sampling (snowball and convenience sampling) to recruit respondents. While it should be noted that a relative of one of the researchers was used as the point of first contact to recruit female respondents, it is not unusual for researchers in the field to rely upon their personal contacts when trying to gain access to a hard to reach population (Babbie, 2001). However, the use of a personal contact does introduce the likelihood of sample selection bias.

That being said, it should be noted that the current study relies on a fairly homogenous sample. Respondents were overwhelmingly Bosniaks who self-identified as being Muslim, as is the population from which the sample was drawn. Furthermore, all respondents lived in urban areas. Consequently, results may not be generalizable to the country (or region) as a whole. Bosnia is home to a medley of different ethnicities (Bosniak, Serb, Croat, Roma) and religions (Islam, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Judaism). In addition, because of the high collinearity between ethnicity and religion, as well as the lack of variability in the sample, we were unable to include measures of ethnicity and religion in our analyses. Future studies should utilize larger, more diverse samples (including individuals living in rural areas) not only from Bosnia but the region as a whole.

As previously mentioned, the present study is subject to the limitations of self-report questionnaires. Of specific concern are acquiescence response style, social desirability, memory loss, and deception, especially considering that the variable of interest (i.e., IPV) is sensitive in nature. This may explain why rates of IPV prevalence were considerably lower than in previous IPV studies conducted with Bosnian samples.

Another possible weakness of our study is the reliance on the R-CTS to measure IPV perpetration and victimization. This is problematic on several accounts. First, the R-CTS has been critiqued for failing to account for the gendered nature of IPV. Second, the R-CTS was developed for use in Western societies and while the scales were translated into Bosnian by a native Bosnian speaker and considerable effort was undertaken to ensure that the questions corresponded to Bosnian culture, the use of these scales may be a limitation. For example, respondents interpretation (and reporting) of the R-CTS sexual coercion subscale may be problematic in a society where culture supports the view that within an intimate relationship the man has the right to dictate when and how to have sex (CARE & ICRW, 2010). However, as a largely exploratory study, we believe that the use the R-CTS as a starting point is justifiable. Further research that examines the context of IPV in Bosnia is needed and should go beyond the use of the R-CTS and pencil-and-paper surveys.

Despite these limitations, the results from this study raise several important questions for future research. By and large, the victim–offender overlap literature has been guided by a routine activities and lifestyle theoretical framework (Klevens et al., 2002; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2000; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990). We were unable, however, to include any risky lifestyle variables in our analyses. Future studies should include controls for factors shown to increase the likelihood of an individual experiencing both IPV victimization and IPV offending including sexual risk taking, childhood physical and sexual abuse, low self-control, marijuana use, and depression (Jennings et al., 2011; Reingle et al., 2011).

To a large degree, our results confirm what was expected; women are significantly overrepresented in the exclusive victim category and significantly underrepresented in the exclusive offender category. It is interesting to note, however, that 6 out of 10 victim–offenders were women, suggesting that further examination of differences conditioned by sex is warranted. Unfortunately, because of small sample size, we were unable to examine the impact sex may have on the overlap between victimization and offending within IPV.Future studies should consider exploring this potential effect with larger, more representative samples.

Conclusions

The relevance of this study is that the results indicate there are at least three types⁹ of individuals involved in IPV; exclusive victims, exclusive offenders, and victim–offenders, and these victim and offender categories correspond with Johnson’s (1995, 2011) IPV typologies. These findings, while exploratory and severely limited in their generalizability, may have implications for IPV policy in Bosnia and the region at large. This is especially salient because countries that once comprised the SFRY (Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia) now have their eyes set on European Union membership (European Commission Enlargement, 2010). One condition for EU accession is demonstration of a firm commitment to the protection of human rights, including gender-based violence. Subsequently, Bosnia (and her neighbors) continue to generate (and reform) formal responses to domestic violence (Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2010). While the language used in such policies is gender neutral (e.g., “spousal abuse” and “violence against members of a joint household”), government officials operate under the assumption that IPV most often takes the form of physical violence and is perpetrated by men against women, failing to recognize different forms of IPV and types of IPV victims and offenders (Adžajlić-Dedović et al., 2005; Council of Europe and European Commission, 2005, p. 1617).

Results from this study point toward the need to distinguish between different types of IPV victims and offenders. There are several reasons for this. First, outcomes associated with IPV are different by group. Exclusive victims were significantly more likely to have received an injury than victim–offenders were. This coincides with findings from the national Violence Against Women study in the United States, which found that women who are the victims of intimate terrorism suffer more serious injury and for a longer duration than do women involved in situational couple violence (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000). Unfortunately, we know very little about the outcomes associated with IPV from a comparative standpoint generally, and within Bosnia more specifically. Like their American counterparts, are Bosnian IPV victims experiencing high rates of PTSD, drug use, and missed days from work? Research conducted in the United States indicates that men and women experience lower rates of injury (39% of women and 24.8% of men report receiving an injury resulting from physical assault) compared to respondents in our sample (16.5% of Bosnian women and 5.1% of Bosnian men). While findings reported here suggest that fewer Bosnians engaged in IPV are physically injured than their American counterparts, the reason for such differences is unknown. Future studies should assess not only the physical effects (i.e., injury) but the psychological and economic outcomes associated with IPV in Bosnia and possible reasons for discrepant findings across countries.

Second, it is important to distinguish between victims and victim–offenders in order to “provide adequate services” to victims in need (Steinmetz, 1980). Women in mutually violent relationships (i.e., victim-offenders) have less risk of sustaining a severe or fatal injury compared to women whose partner engages in intimate terrorism (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Our results, while exploratory, suggest the same may be true in Bosnia. Traditional criminal justice responses (e.g., arrest, mandatory protection orders, and court-ordered batterer intervention programs) may do more harm than good with victim–offenders. Instead, for general victim–offenders engaging in situational couple violence, couples counseling may be beneficial. Moreover, research in the United States finds that women arrested for IPV are often engaged in defensive violence (Henning & Feder, 2004; Melton & Belknap, 2003; Muftić, Bouffard, & Bouffard, 2007; Simmons et al., 2008) and are in need of services traditionally reserved for victims (i.e., shelter, economic support, counseling, advocacy, orders of protection) rather than justice-based interventions.

Third, borrowing from the correctional rehabilitation literature, we may have the most impact on reducing IPV if we reserve formal responses for our high-risk (i.e., most serious) cases (Andrews et al., 1990). For instance, exclusive offenders need treatment programs that challenge violent attitudes, teach nonviolent means of addressing confrontation and conflict, and “reduce minimization, denial, and externalization of blame for their offenses” (Henning, Renauer, & Holdford, 2006, p. 366). These types of programs are rare in Bosnia, but there is a growing recognition of their need. In Modriča, Bosnia the Association of Citizens “Future” has launched the opening of the first center for male IPV offenders. The center provides psychosocial training and support to male IPV perpetrators in the areas of education, vocation, and counseling with the aim of reducing hostility, depression, and “destructive emotions” (Vidović, 2012).

Finally, NGOs, law enforcement officials, treatment providers, and others in contact with IPV offenders and victims need to be educated on the overlap that exists between victimization and offending, as contact with one (e.g., victims) more than likely involves contact with the other (e.g., offenders; Maldonado-Molina et al., 2010). In other words, services and programs designed exclusively for victims may actually find a lot of victim–offenders whose treatment needs are different than individuals who have only experienced IPV victimization.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Wesley Jennings, William Pridemore, and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article. The lead author would also like to thank Sead Lisak and Mensur Muftic for their invaluable assistance with survey translation, distribution, and logistical support while she was in the field.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Portions of this research were made possible by a research award granted to the lead author from The University of North Texas Office of Academic Affairs Hispanic and Global Studies Initiatives Fund.

Notes

References

Andrews

D. A.

Zinger

Hoge

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta- analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.

Adžajlić-Dedović

Sofradžija

Deljkić

Šadić

Trbonja

(2005). Domestic violence: Developing study in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo: Fakultet kriminalističkih nauka.

Avdibegović

Sinanović

(2006). Consequences of domestic violence on women’s health in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croatian Medical Journal, 47, 730–741.

Babbie

(2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadswoth Thomson.

Bećirović

(2012). Personal communication. Coordinator. Vive Žene, Tuzla, Bosnia. January 27, 2012.

Bjarnason

Sigurdardotlir

T. J.

Thorlindson

(1999). Human agency, capable guardians, and structural constraints: A lifestyle approach to the study of violent victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 105–119.

Bose

(2005). The Bosnian state a decade after Dayton. International Peacekeeping, 12, 322–335.

Broidy

L. M.

Daday

J. K.

Crandall

C. S.

Sklar

D. P.

Jost

P. F.

(2006). Exploring demographic, structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide Studies, 10, 155–180.

CARE & International Center for Research of Women [ICRW]. (2010). Young men initiative on prevention of gender based violence in the Western Balkans: Summary of basic research—A report from the state Bosnia and Herzegovina. CARE and ICRW. Retrieved January 22, 2012, from http://www.xy.com.ba/bih/index.php?uid=1297168122

10.

Chivvis

C. S.

Dogo

(2010). Getting back on track in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Washington Quarterly, 33, 103–118.

11.

Ćopić

(2004). Wife abuse in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. Feminist Review, 76, 46–64.

12.

Council of Europe and European Commission. (2005). Comment on Criminal Laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Book II). Sarajevo: Author.

13.

Deljkić

(2006). The facts on domestic violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Revija Varstvoslovje/Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 8, 268–273.

14.

Deljkić

Lučić-Ćatić

(2011). Implementing community policing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 12, 172–184.

15.

Donais

(2003). The political economy of stalemate: Organised crime, corruption and economic deformation in post-Dayton Bosnia. Conflict, Security & Development, 3, 359–382.

16.

European Commission Enlargement. (2010). European Commission enlargement countries. Retrieved January 17, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/index_en.htm

17.

Federal Ministry of Health. (2010). Strategy for improving sexual and reproductive health and rights in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2010-2019. Sarajevo, Bosnia: Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Federal Ministry of Health. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://www.fmoh.gov.ba/feed.php?id=253&rootid=99

18.

Friedman

V. A.

(1985). The sociolinguistics of literary Macedonian. Internal Journal of the Sociology of Language, 52, 31–57.

19.

Gender Equality Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2011). Bosnia and Herzegovina is determined to continue to work in the field of preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from http://www.arsbih.gov.ba/bhs/component/content/article/95-bosna-i-hercegovina-odluna-da-nastavi-da-djeluje-u-oblasti-prevencije-i-borbe-protiv-nasilja-nad-enama-i-protiv-nasilja-u-porodici?format=pdf

20.

Global Rights. (2004). Shadow Report: On the implementation of CEDAW and women's human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from http://www.iwraw-ap.org/resources/pdf/Bosnia&Herzegovina_SR.pdf.

21.

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1984). Victims of crime: The dimensions of risk. United Kingdom: Home Office Research and Planning Unit.

22.

Henning

Feder

(2004). A comparison of men and women arrested for domestic violence: Who presents the greater threat? Journal of Family Violence, 19, 69–80.

23.

Henning

Renauer

Holdford

(2006). Victim or offender? Heterogeneity among women arrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 351–368.

24.

Heyman

R. E.

Slep

A. M. S.

(2002). Do child abuse and interparental violence lead to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 864–870.

25.

Hiday

V. A.

Swanson

J. W.

Borum

Wagner

H. R.

(2001). Victimization: A link between mental illness and violence? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24, 559–572.

26.

Informer.ba (2011). U RS-u sve više muškarci žrtve nasilja u porodici (In RS more male victims of domestic violence). Retrieved January 24, 2012, from http://informer.ba/tekstovi/vijesti/u-rs-u-sve-vise-muskarci-zrtve-nasilja-u-porodici/

27.

Jennings

W. G.

Park

Tomscih

Gover

Akers

R. L.

(2011). Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: The influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 188–206.

28.

Jennings

W. G.

Piquero

A. R.

Reingle

J. M.

(2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 16–26.

29.

Johnson

M. P.

(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti- feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 289–296.

30.

Johnson

M. P.

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

31.

Johnson

M. P.

Ferraro

K. J.

(2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948–963.

32.

Johnson

M. P.

Leone

J. M.

(2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322–349.

33.

Klevens

Duque

L. F.

Ramirez

(2002). The victim–offender overlap and routine activities: Results from a cross-sectional study in Bogota, Columbia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 206–216.

34.

Kühlhorn

(1990). Victims and offenders of criminal violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6, 51–59.

35.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2005). Top 10 greatest “hits”: Important findings and future directions for intimate partner violence research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 108–118.

36.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

37.

Maguire

(1998). Researching ‘a family affair’: Domestic violence in former Yugoslavia and Albania. Gender & Development, 6, 60–66.

38.

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

Jennings

W. G.

Tobler

A. L.

Piquero

A. R.

Canino

(2010). Assessing victim-offender overlap among Hispanic youth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1191–1201.

39.

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Bird

H. R.

Canino

G. J.

(2009). Trajectories of delinquent behaviors among Puerto Rican children and adolescents at two sites. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 46, 144–181.

40.

Mawby

R. I.

(1979). The victimization of juveniles: A comparative study of three areas of publicly owned housing in Sheffield. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16, 98–113.

41.

Mayhew

Elliott

(1990). Self-reported offending, victimization, and the British Crime Survey. Violence and Victims, 5, 83–96.

42.

Melton

H. C.

Belknap

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

43.

Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (2010). The Second periodic report of Bosnia and Herzegovina on International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 2010. Retrieved January 19, 2012, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/AdvanceVersions/E-C12-BIH-2.pdf

44.

Muftić

L. R.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2010). Intimate partner violence in post-conflict Bosnia: Incidence and attitudes among Muslim women. International Public Health Journal, 2, 219–229.

45.

Muftić

L. R.

Bouffard

J. A.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2007). An exploratory study of women arrested for intimate partner violence: Violent women or violent resistance? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 753–774.

46.

Muftić

L. R.

Cruze

J. R.

(in press). The laws have changed but what about the police?: Policing domestic violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Violence Against Women.

47.

Mufti

L. R.

Finn

M. A.

Marsh

(In press). The victim-offender overlap, intimate partner violence, and sex: Assessing differences among exclusive victims, exclusive offenders, and victim-offenders. Crime & Delinquency.

48.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33, 339–362.

49.

Nilsen

A. K.

(2004). Death toll in Bosnian war was 102,000. Free Rublic. Retrieved September 11, 2006, from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291965/posts

50.

Pape

Pedersen

(1999). Dangerous victims of violence? Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 88–105.

51.

Petrić

Idžaković

Vidović

Petrić

Radovanović

Šehić

(2010). Alternative report on the implementation of CEDAW and women’s human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo, Bosnia: Rights for All and Banja Luka, Bosnia: Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly.

52.

Piquero

A. R.

MacDonald

J. M., D

obrin

Daigle

Cullen

F. T.

(2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantiative Criminology, 21, 55–71.

53.

Reingle

J. M.

Staras

S. A.

Jennings

W. G.

Branchini

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

(2011). The relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence in a nationally representative, longitudinal sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, first published on November, 11, 2011 doi:10.1177/0886260511425787

54.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender–victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime Delinquency, 27, 110–139.

55.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Osgood

D. W.

, (2008). A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology, 46, 871–906.

56.

Simmons

C. A.

Lehmann

Collier-Tenison

(2008). From victim to offender: The effects of male initiated violence on women arrested for using intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 463–472.

57.

Smailkadić

(2008). Domestic violence and safe houses in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Institutional deficiencies and non-government sector experience. Retrieved from http://www.pulsdemokratije.ba/index.php?l=bs&id=1034

58.

Sparks

R. F.

Glen

A. G.

Dodd

D. J.

(1977). Surveying victims. New York: Wiley.

59.

Steenkamp

(2005). The legacy of war: Conceptualizing a ‘culture of violence’ to explain violence after peace accords. The Round Table, 94, 253–267.

60.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(1980). Women and violence: Victims and perpetrators. American Journal of Psychotheraphy, 34, 334–350.

61.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised conflicts tactics scale (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–315.

62.

Swan

S. C.

Gambone

L. J.

Fields

A. M.

Sullivan

T. P.

Snow

D. L.

(2005). Women who use violence in intimate relationships: The role of anger, victimization, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression. Violence and Victims, 20, 267–287

63.

Van Dijk

J. J.

Steinmetz

C. H.

(1983). Victimization surveys: Beyond measuring the volume of crime. Victimology, 8, 291–309.

64.

Vidović

(2012). Personal communication. Director. Association of Citizens “Future”, Modriča, Bosnia.

65.

Wesley

J. K.

(2006). Considering the context of women’s violence: Gender, lived experiences, and cumulative victimization. Feminist Criminology, 1, 303–328.

66.

Wittebrood

Nieuwbeerta

(1999). Wages of sin? The link between offending, lifestyle and violent victimization. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 63–80.

67.

Wolfgang

M. E.

(1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. Oxford, England: University of Pennsylvania Press.

68.

World Health Organization. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence against women: Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women's responses. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.who.int/gender/documents/women_and_girls/924159358x/en/index.html

69.

Ženama

Žene

. (2008). Women and Violence. Žene Ženama from 1997 to 2007. Retrieved from http://www.zenezenama.org

70.

Zvizdić

Dardić

Nikolić-Ristanović

Dokmanović

Spahić-Šiljak

Jovanović

(2005). Studija o nasiliju u porodici u Bosniai Hercegovini [The study on domestic violence in Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Banja Luka, Bosnia: Helsinški parlament građana, Lara, & Žene Ženama.