Differences Between Research and Practice
Historically, domestic violence and abuse researchers and domestic abuse practitioners (e.g., front-line workers, social workers, etc.) have sometimes been at odds. We believe that this is likely due to differences in the types of relationships (and the extent of abusive behaviour) researchers see in the lab vs. what practitioners see at work.
For example, researchers cannot ethically observe abusive behaviour in the lab without intervening. As a result, researchers only see either very low levels of aggressive behaviour, or we can get information about more severe aggression (which may or may not reflect true rates of abuse) through self-reports. This means that researchers mostly study couples conflict and low levels of aggression, not often abuse (though we do try to estimate what abuse outside of the lab might look like based on the conflict we see inside the lab).
In contrast, front-line support workers mostly see people experiencing unusually severe abuse (compared to the experience of the average person). This means that practitioners are mostly working with very high levels of aggression and abuse (including behaviours like coercive control and intimate terrorism).
As a result, researchers and practitioners often have different views of aggression, violence, and abuse. It often sounds like these views contradict each other (and therefore only one can be correct), but they are observing different phenomena.
Non-Abusive Conflict:
What Researchers Mostly See
In the general population, recent research suggests that both men and women engage in aggression within heterosexual partnerships. Some research even suggests that women engage in aggression more frequently than men within their intimate partnerships. However, it is important to recognize that these estimates come from “count data”. Count data reflects only the number of instances of aggression, not the type or the severity. Most instances of aggression would not be classified as abuse. So, it’s possible for aggression to be bidirectional while only one partner (or neither) would be classed as abusive. (For more on this topic, see this review).
The estimates to the left come from self-reports of participants’ own aggressive behaviour. Self-reports can be unreliable (people may misremember or interpret the question differently from the researchers). Previous research on domestic violence has shown that there is commonly a mis-match between partners in the levels of aggression reported. Therefore, the data in this graph should be interpreted with caution.
You might be wondering why researchers work with count data from general population samples, given the limitations we’ve just discussed.
One reason si that although count data tends to reflect behaviours resulting in low harm (e.g., non-abusive conflict), the rates are high (about 30% of undergraduate students will report some aggression towards an intimate partner).
Women self-report significantly more fear of their opposite-gender partner than do men. Women’s greater fear of their partner is believed to be due in part to differences in average physical strength between men and women, and a greater tendency toward physical (rather than non-physical) violence in men (see here). However, it is also possible that women are more willing to report feelings of fear than men.
The data tells a clear story: even in non-violent conflict (where men and women show roughly equal aggression), the gender of the aggressor affects the impact of one’s behaviour on their partner.
Two Different Phenomena: The 'bidirectionality debate'
Where Research and Practice Diverge
About two decades ago, researchers realized that when you study violent offenders, the data show that most perpetrators are men and most victims are women. In contrast, when you study a general community sample, the data shows that men and women engage in aggression at roughly equal rates (see above, here, and here).
Aggression in a general community sample is fundamentally different from the severe violence we see in offender samples. Many couples have occasional conflict, and this is often called “situational couples conflict”. Situational couples conflict can occur in otherwise healthy relationships, even if it involves some aggressive behaviour (such as shouting), it is usually bidirectional, and it typically results in a resolution. On the other hand, intimate partner violence is not healthy, is more often unidirectional, and rather than resolving it escalates over time.
Within the context of situational couples conflict, aggression is likely to take a form that has a low risk of actual harm, and men and women are equally likely to use aggression. In the context of intimate partner violence and abuse, men are more commonly (though not always) the aggressor. Men are also much more likely to engage in (and be the victim of) non-intimate violence (like fights with strangers, homicide, etc.).
Organizations like Women’s Aid work with survivors of intimate partner violence (including intimate terrorism and coercive control). They do not usually work with situational couples conflict.
The bidirectionality debate is just one example of a big debate in the field (and beyond). However, there is more overlap in the beliefs of researchers and practitioners than it may appear. For example, both groups generally agree that severe violence and abuse is much more likely to be perpetrated by men. We also both usually agree that when a man and a women perpetrate the same level of abuse, the man’s target of abuse is likely to experience greater harm than the women’s target. Ultimately, researchers and practitioners work with different populations and thus have different experiences, but there is a lot of overlap in our goals, values, and beliefs.
Do you want to get involved?