Abstract
Those of us in the social sciences have been quick to reject biological explanations of behavior, a reaction in large part to the historical misuse of biological determinism to justify numerous instances of discrimination and oppression on the basis of gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation. But the old “nature-nurture debate” has been supplanted in recent years by research showing interaction between biology, and culture and environment. To focus only on the biological or the social is to tell only half the story at best, given that we experience the world as embodied persons. Nevertheless, biological theories of behavior remain controversial, and the symposium that opens this issue of Violence Against Women certainly will do little to reduce the controversy, although hopefully it will generate rich and productive discussion and prompt further research.
The featured article in the symposium by Gregory Stuart and his colleagues presents the results of a study examining the potential contribution of specific genetic polymorphisms to the perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) among a relatively small sample of men participating in batterer intervention programs in Rhode Island. Stuart et al.’s analysis indicates that the genetic polymorphisms they examined using a cumulative genetic score (CGS) were significantly related to IPV perpetration even after controlling for other factors commonly associated with IPV perpetration, including substance use problems, age, and length of relationship.
The commentaries on the article by Antonia Abbey, Larry Bennett, and Nathan DeWall and Baldwin Way raise many provocative questions and concerns that should be addressed both philosophically and empirically. Abbey, for example, notes that given research pointing to the genetic causes of alcoholism, Stuart et al. should have considered their research participants’ propensity toward alcoholism as an important explanatory factor in their IPV perpetration rather than controlling for it statistically. Bennett not only raises many of the traditional objections to research on genetic causes of violence but also discusses these concerns in the context of critical evaluations of batterer intervention programs. And DeWall and Way urge Stuart et al. as well as journal readers to explore gene–environment interactions with more rigorous research designs and more diverse samples. In their reply to the commentaries, Stuart et al. specify some of the directions that future research on genetic contributions to IPV perpetration should take and, although acknowledging the limitations of their research, reiterate their belief that this type of research can significantly expand our understanding of the causes and prevention of IPV.
The remaining articles in this issue address various aspects of sexual and IPV against women. Researchers at the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have long been pioneers in developing measures and collecting data on various types of gender-based violence, including sexual violence against women. In their article in this issue, CDC researchers Michele Black, Kathleen Basile, Matthew Breiding, and George Ryan present their analysis of sexual violence victimization data from the 2005 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Adult women from 23 states and two U.S. territories answered uniform behaviorally specific questions about their experiences of completed or attempted nonconsensual sex in the 12 months prior to the survey. The data show that overall, in the preceding 12 months, 3.5% of the women reported experiencing at least one of the forms of unwanted sex asked about on the survey. The researchers also provide state-specific data and analysis of the data by specific demographic variables and relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. As the researchers point out, such analyses are valuable for a number of reasons, not the least of which is their ability to inform state policy makers about the magnitude of the problem of sexual violence in their specific state and the need for resources to prevent and respond to it.
Monica Ulibarri and her colleagues report the results of their study of client-perpetrated abuse among female sex workers in two Mexican cities on the U.S. border. About one third of the 924 female sex workers in their study reported having been abused by clients. Those women whose clients used drugs and who reported psychological distress and experiences of IPV were more likely than other women in the sample to experience abuse at the hands of their clients. The authors discuss the potential consequences of these abuse experiences for the women and urge screening and the development of prevention programs for female sex workers.
Female sex workers are a marginalized, devalued group, who are commonly seen as “deserving” of or provoking abuse by clients. Sabrina Köpke, Friederike Eyssel, and Gerd Bohner studied factors that affect men’s likelihood of justifying male violence against their female intimate partners. Köpke et al. examined how ambivalent sexism, sexist norms, the victim’s behavior prior to the abusive incident, and the type of violence inflicted by the male partner influenced young men’s judgments that the female victim “deserved it.” Among the findings, the researchers show that when the woman victim was depicted as having behaved in an overtly sexual way toward another man, study participants were more likely to blame her for the abuse inflicted by her male intimate partner and approve the male partner’s behavior, particularly if the abuse inflicted was not sexual.
Finally, Irene Jonker, Carinda Jansen, Milou Christians, and Judith Wolf discuss the results of their concept mapping exercise with clients and staff of battered women’s shelters in the Netherlands. The mapping exercise identified the practice-based elements of shelter-based interventions that advocate and, most importantly, battered women feel are most important to meet their needs, including help with finding safe housing, and safe and appropriate care for their children. Not surprisingly, however, the most important element identified by the mapping exercise was to “take women seriously and treat them with respect.” The researchers have used the results of their study to develop a new intervention for shelter-based abused women in the Netherlands, reminding us to always consider the translational potential of our research.