Intimate partner violence among men:
Polyvictimization, polyperpetration and victim- perpetrator overlap
Janneke M. Schokkenbroek, MSc
Prof. Dr. Koen Ponnet
Prof. Dr. Wim Hardyns
Intimate partner violence (IPV) research has predominantly
focused on female victims.
Introduction
More recently, more research
attention for men’s experiences
of IPV
IPV prevalence rates vary per type and severity, but male victimization appears to be comparable to
female victimization rates
Introduction
Among a representative sample in Belgium, it was found that 43.7% of
men had experienced physical and/or
psychological IPV
The same representative study found that male victims of IPV were particularly vulnerable to mental health problems.
More so than male non-victims, female non-victims and female victims
Introduction
Two important research gaps
concerning men’s IPV experiences:
1) Co-occurrence of different types
of IPV and relation to mental health issues
2) Victim-perpetrator overlap and relation to mental health issues
Present study
Most studies on the relationship between men’s IPV experiences and mental health have neglected to
account for polyvictimization and polyperpetration
IPV Co-occurrence
Present study examines polyvictimization and –perpetration for physical, sexual, psychological, and cyber IPV, and its relation to mental health issues (i.e., anxiety & depression)
→ Cyber IPV = using online means to control, monitor and hurt one’s
partner
IPV is in many cases bidirectional. People who have experienced bidirectional IPV report more depressive
symptoms than people who were victim or perpetrator only
IPV Victim-perpetrator overlap
Present study examines mental health issues among victim-
only, perpetrator-only, and victim-perpetrator men
Data were collected through large-scale survey study among citizens of Ghent, Belgium in Autumn 2019
Methods
Sample was representative in terms of sex (men/women), age (18-94) and nationality (Belgian/non-Belgian)
In total, 1587 people participated. 557
were men in a romantic relationship
Methods
Concept Measure Cronbach’s alpha
Physical IPV 1-item from Conflict Tactics Scale -
Sexual IPV Single item -
Psychological IPV Multidimensional Measure of
Emotional Abuse α = .80
(victimization) and .75 (perpetration) Cyber IPV 3-items from Cyber Dating Abuse
Questionnaire α = .65
(victimization) and .65 (perpetration) Anxiety & Depression DASS-21 Anxiety & Depression
subscales α = .83 (anxiety)
and .86
(depression)
IPV items measured
twice: once to assess victimization, once to assess perpetrationOperationalization of victimization and perpetration:
Anyone who indicated that the partner violence occurred more than ‘never’ was considered a victim (to them) or perpetrator (by them)
Victim / Perpetrator
IPV prevalence among men ranged from 4.3% (perpetration physical IPV) to 68.4% (victimization psychological IPV)
Results - Prevalence
Prevalence (n/%) Physical IPV Victimization 29 (5.2%)
Perpetration 24 (4.3%) Sexual IPV Victimization 41 (7.4%)
Perpetration 65 (11.7%) Psychological IPV Victimization 381 (68.4%)
Perpetration 269 (48.3%) Cyber IPV Victimization 290 (52.1%) Perpetration 220 (39.5%)
Spearman correlations were conducted to determine co-occurrence of IPV types and the association with anxiety and depression
Results – Associations
→ All IPV experiences were significantly correlated, ranging from
ρ
= .175 toρ
= .471→ Victimization and perpetration co-occurred, warranting victim-perpetrator overlap examinations
→ For all IPV experiences, significant associations with anxiety and depression were found
Polyvictimization
→ Most men experienced two types of IPV (37.9%)
→ Almost half of the men experienced two to four types of IPV
→ Victimization of more IPV types was related to more anxiety and depression
Results – Polyvictimization & -perpetration
Polyperpetration
→ Most men perpetrated no IPV (38.4%)
→ Almost one third of the men perpetrated two to four types of IPV
→ Perpetration of more IPV types was related to more anxiety and depression
→ More men reported polyvictimization than polyperpetration, highlighting the need to include male victims in IPV research and practice
→ Polyvictimization and polyperpetration related to more mental health issues than mono-victimization and –perpetration: IPV researchers and practitioners should consider co-occurring types of IPV
Discussion – Polyvictimization & -perpetration
Physical IPV
→ Half of the men experiencing physical IPV were victim-perpetrators
→ No differences in anxiety and depression between roles
Results – Victim-perpetrator overlap
Sexual IPV
→ Most men experiencing sexual IPV were perpetrators
→ No differences in anxiety and depression between roles
Psychological IPV
→ Most men experiencing psychological IPV were victim-perpetrators
→ Victims experienced less anxiety and less depressive symptoms than perpetrators and victim-perpetrators
Results – Victim-perpetrator overlap
Cyber IPV
→ Most men experiencing cyber IPV were victim-perpetrators
→ Victim-perpetrators of cyber IPV experienced more anxiety and depressive symptoms than victims
→ Many types of IPV occur in a bidirectional way, researchers and
practitioners should go beyond victim versus perpetrator role distinctions
→ More mental health issues among victim-perpetrators further underline this
→ No differences in physical and sexual IPV: possibly due to group sizes and/or single item operationalization
Discussion – Victim-perpetrator overlap
1) Individual biases (recall; social desirability)
2) Correlational, not causal: mental health issues could serve as predictors or outcomes of IPV
3) Single item operationalization of physical and sexual IPV
4) Measure of mental health issues: expression may be different in men, externalizing (e.g., anger) vs. internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression)
5) Rather liberal operationalization of victimization and perpetration 6) No comparisons between men and women
