Where is it okay to share scientific facts about domestic abuse?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
So, there’s this massive meta-analysis on domestic abuse—it basically pulls together 1,700 scientific studies—and the results are actually pretty eye-opening. I was wondering, though, if it’s actually allowed on this Reddit to bring up hard scientific facts? If it is, maybe someone could point me toward the right spot to share this data (and please, let it not be lonebadger6).
If you aren't really in the mood to slog through the whole thing, just look at the bold parts:
WHICH GENDER IS MORE PHYSICALLY VIOLENT?
http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/
ABOUT PASK, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KNOWLEDGE PROJECT
The world's largest domestic violence research database, spanning 2,657 pages and featuring summaries of 1,700 peer-reviewed studies.
Again:
The largest study on domestic abuse, condensing 1,700 scientific studies— scientific papers conducted using rigorous methodology and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Over the years, I feel like research on domestic abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and bogged down by politics. The purpose of The Domestic Violence Knowledge Project is to pull together everything we know about domestic abuse in a way that's rigorously evidence-based, transparent, and methodical, providing reliable, up-to-date research that's easy for both academics and the general public to access.
In March 2010, the senior editor of domestic abuse recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the USA to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, covering 17 broad topic areas. These researchers were tasked with performing a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies using standard, widely-used search tools, and then cataloging and summarizing all known research relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, while being very clear about their exclusion criteria. The included studies are organized into detailed tables, with each table containing summaries of studies specific to its sub-topic.
In this massive undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants across 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more diving into their topics and drafting the results. They looked at roughly 12,000 studies and ended up summarizing and organizing more than 1,700 of them into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which offer a full review of findings for each topic and total 2,657 pages, were released in 5 consecutive special issues of domestic abuse published between April 2012 and April 2013. Every conclusion, including how much the evidence actually backs up or contradicts current theories, is based strictly on the data they collected.
1.
Basically, the results showed that physical IPV victimization is significant for both men and women in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, leading to an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%
2.
About one in five (22.9%) people reported perpetrating physical IPV in their current or most recent relationship. Staying consistent with previous reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women were generally more similar than they were different, though rates for women were slightly higher than for men (the pooled prevalence was 28.3% for female perpetration and 21.6% for male perpetration).
REPEATING THIS: female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%.
3.
When it comes to emotional abuse, prevalence rates might average around 80%, with 40% of women and 32% of men reporting expressive aggression.(i.e., things like verbal lashings or emotional strikes triggered by some kind of upsetting situation), and 41% of women and 43% of men actually reported experiencing some type of coercive control.
4.
Then there's the second point, where studies looking at why people actually lash out—the big motivations behind the violence—often ended up showing pretty similar patterns for both men and women. Like, Kernsmith (2005) pointed out that the main reason that men and women alike turned to domestic abuse was basically just wanting to get even with a partner who had hurt them emotionally. Kernsmith also noted that stuff like self-defense, pure anger, or just trying to stop a partner from doing something certain were all pretty standard motives for both genders. Leisring (2011) found something similar, noting that for college-aged women, the most frequent drivers for minor physical violence were retaliation for emotional pain, anger, or maybe just stress and jealousy. It’s much the same with Shorey et al. (2010), who concluded that for both men and women, the primary triggers involved retaliating for emotional wounds, venting anger, struggling to express feelings they couldn't quite put into words, or simply trying to grab their partner's attention.
5.
When you look at the studies that tried to directly compare the two, it gets a bit messy; out of the 12 papers that looked at whether gender plays a role in the power/control motive, four didn't even run statistical analyses on their data. Among those that did, three reported absolutely no meaningful gender differences when it came to using power or control as a motivation for violence. One specific paper suggested women might actually be more driven by power/control than men are. Meanwhile, the other three papers followed what you'd expect based on traditional gender theories, finding that men leaned more heavily on power/control motives than women did (Barnett et al., 1997; Ehrensaft et al., 1999; Shorey et al, 2010). Then there was that one final study that just gave totally mixed results (Makepeace, 1986).
6.
There is also some empirical backing for the idea that women tend to cite self-defense as a motive more often than men do. Out of the ten papers that used actual gender-specific statistics, five showed that women were significantly more likely than men to claim self-defense as their reason. On the flip side, four papers didn't see any statistically significant difference between the genders at all, and only a single paper suggested men might be more likely to use that excuse (Shorey et al., 2010). I guess we really need to dig deeper into whether this trend holds true across all types of people, regardless of age or ethnicity, to see if it's actually universal. Even though half of these 29 studies did show gender gaps, it’s worth remembering that only a small minority of people in most samples—regardless of whether they are men or women—actually cite self-defense as their motivation for violence. If you look at people who aren't perpetrators, the self-defense claims from men hovered between 0% and 21%, while for women, it was between 5% and 35%. The highest numbers (50% for men and 65.4% for women) came from groups of actual perpetrators, who, let's face it, might have a bit of an incentive to exaggerate how much they were just defending themselves.
7.
As for the massive amount of research looking into gendered arrest rates, the consensus seems to be that men are generally much more likely to be taken into custody than women are.
8.
In the limited number of studies that actually dive into conviction and sentencing differences, most have found that male defendants are statistically more likely to be convicted and end up with harsher sentences compared to female defendants.
If you aren't really in the mood to slog through the whole thing, just look at the bold parts:
WHICH GENDER IS MORE PHYSICALLY VIOLENT?
http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/
ABOUT PASK, THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KNOWLEDGE PROJECT
The world's largest domestic violence research database, spanning 2,657 pages and featuring summaries of 1,700 peer-reviewed studies.
Again:
The largest study on domestic abuse, condensing 1,700 scientific studies— scientific papers conducted using rigorous methodology and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Over the years, I feel like research on domestic abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and bogged down by politics. The purpose of The Domestic Violence Knowledge Project is to pull together everything we know about domestic abuse in a way that's rigorously evidence-based, transparent, and methodical, providing reliable, up-to-date research that's easy for both academics and the general public to access.
In March 2010, the senior editor of domestic abuse recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the USA to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, covering 17 broad topic areas. These researchers were tasked with performing a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies using standard, widely-used search tools, and then cataloging and summarizing all known research relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, while being very clear about their exclusion criteria. The included studies are organized into detailed tables, with each table containing summaries of studies specific to its sub-topic.
In this massive undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants across 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more diving into their topics and drafting the results. They looked at roughly 12,000 studies and ended up summarizing and organizing more than 1,700 of them into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which offer a full review of findings for each topic and total 2,657 pages, were released in 5 consecutive special issues of domestic abuse published between April 2012 and April 2013. Every conclusion, including how much the evidence actually backs up or contradicts current theories, is based strictly on the data they collected.
1.
Basically, the results showed that physical IPV victimization is significant for both men and women in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, leading to an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%
2.
About one in five (22.9%) people reported perpetrating physical IPV in their current or most recent relationship. Staying consistent with previous reviews, rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women were generally more similar than they were different, though rates for women were slightly higher than for men (the pooled prevalence was 28.3% for female perpetration and 21.6% for male perpetration).
REPEATING THIS: female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%.
3.
When it comes to emotional abuse, prevalence rates might average around 80%, with 40% of women and 32% of men reporting expressive aggression.(i.e., things like verbal lashings or emotional strikes triggered by some kind of upsetting situation), and 41% of women and 43% of men actually reported experiencing some type of coercive control.
4.
Then there's the second point, where studies looking at why people actually lash out—the big motivations behind the violence—often ended up showing pretty similar patterns for both men and women. Like, Kernsmith (2005) pointed out that the main reason that men and women alike turned to domestic abuse was basically just wanting to get even with a partner who had hurt them emotionally. Kernsmith also noted that stuff like self-defense, pure anger, or just trying to stop a partner from doing something certain were all pretty standard motives for both genders. Leisring (2011) found something similar, noting that for college-aged women, the most frequent drivers for minor physical violence were retaliation for emotional pain, anger, or maybe just stress and jealousy. It’s much the same with Shorey et al. (2010), who concluded that for both men and women, the primary triggers involved retaliating for emotional wounds, venting anger, struggling to express feelings they couldn't quite put into words, or simply trying to grab their partner's attention.
5.
When you look at the studies that tried to directly compare the two, it gets a bit messy; out of the 12 papers that looked at whether gender plays a role in the power/control motive, four didn't even run statistical analyses on their data. Among those that did, three reported absolutely no meaningful gender differences when it came to using power or control as a motivation for violence. One specific paper suggested women might actually be more driven by power/control than men are. Meanwhile, the other three papers followed what you'd expect based on traditional gender theories, finding that men leaned more heavily on power/control motives than women did (Barnett et al., 1997; Ehrensaft et al., 1999; Shorey et al, 2010). Then there was that one final study that just gave totally mixed results (Makepeace, 1986).
6.
There is also some empirical backing for the idea that women tend to cite self-defense as a motive more often than men do. Out of the ten papers that used actual gender-specific statistics, five showed that women were significantly more likely than men to claim self-defense as their reason. On the flip side, four papers didn't see any statistically significant difference between the genders at all, and only a single paper suggested men might be more likely to use that excuse (Shorey et al., 2010). I guess we really need to dig deeper into whether this trend holds true across all types of people, regardless of age or ethnicity, to see if it's actually universal. Even though half of these 29 studies did show gender gaps, it’s worth remembering that only a small minority of people in most samples—regardless of whether they are men or women—actually cite self-defense as their motivation for violence. If you look at people who aren't perpetrators, the self-defense claims from men hovered between 0% and 21%, while for women, it was between 5% and 35%. The highest numbers (50% for men and 65.4% for women) came from groups of actual perpetrators, who, let's face it, might have a bit of an incentive to exaggerate how much they were just defending themselves.
7.
As for the massive amount of research looking into gendered arrest rates, the consensus seems to be that men are generally much more likely to be taken into custody than women are.
8.
In the limited number of studies that actually dive into conviction and sentencing differences, most have found that male defendants are statistically more likely to be convicted and end up with harsher sentences compared to female defendants.