Keywords

Introduction

Over the last 50 years, there has been a development of research and practice-based evidence that details the significance of the problem of domestic violence and abuse. The gendered model of intimate partner violence (IPV) originated from the women’s liberation movement and has been hugely influential in raising awareness of violence against women and violence within families. However, gendered models arguably have the unintended consequence of privileging one group’s experiences: they posit that IPV is a problem of men’s violence toward women driven by gender inequality and male privilege (Dobash & Dobash, 1979). This model has been influential within practice and remains so to this day, despite little evidence of its effectiveness (see Bates et al., 2017b, for a review). Gendered models ignore evidence that details the impact of trauma and adverse childhood experiences on IPV (Whitfield et al., 2003); ignore violence in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) community (see Laskey et al., 2019); neglect the similarities that exist in risk factors for men’s and women’s IPV (Bates et al., 2017a); and ignore the broader evidence of family violence (Papamichail & Bates, 2019). Importantly, for this volume, these models also ignore women’s perpetration of IPV in the face of an abundance of evidence of perpetration toward both male (Bates, 2020; Hines et al., 2007) and female victims (West, 2002). Despite this evidence, there is still a widespread lack of acknowledgment of women’s IPV perpetration in policy (in the Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy in the United Kingdom [UK]), practice (Hope et al., 2022), and in the public narrative and perceptions, including those within the criminal justice system (Donovan et al., 2020). The current chapter aims to discuss our understanding of how gender influences perceptions of family and sexual violence. This chapter will explore the influence of gender and how it impacts the way in which we perceive IPV specifically, but it will also include consideration of other forms of family violence (sibling aggression and child-to-parent violence) and how it can affect treatment and intervention with both perpetrators and victims.

Evidence of Women’s Violence

Empirical evidence of women’s perpetration of IPV can be found as early as the late 1970s and 1980s. Since then, there has been a wealth of evidence of women’s perpetration, including through police data, as evidenced in Melton and Belnap’s (2003) study analyzing US IPV cases. While they found most defendants were male, they found that a substantial minority of 14% of cases as female defendants supported the presence of women’s violence. Crime survey data in England and Wales indicate that for every three victims of domestic violence, one is male and two are female (Office for National Statistics, 2020). We further know from the (limited) available data about perpetrator gender that many perpetrators who are violent toward male victims are women. Indeed, in the Scottish Justice Survey (see Scottish Government, 2019, which does identify the gender of the perpetrator), the research points to perpetrators being female in 88% of IPV cases against men. Academic research has demonstrated gender parity in the ratio of male versus female rates of IPV perpetration as studies have found that women and men perpetrate IPV at nearly equal rates (see, for example, Baker & Stith, 2008; Capaldi & Crosby, 1997; Follingstad et al., 1991; Gray & Foshee, 1997; Katz et al., 2002). A vital source of evidence can be found in Archer’s (2000) meta-analysis demonstrating in a sample of 82 studies with over 64,000 participants that women reported perpetrating significantly more IPV than men. There are critics of each of these statistics, but regardless, there is clear and indisputable evidence of women’s violence.

Despite evidence from the extant literature, we know female perpetrators are not viewed the same way as male perpetrators, including severity, impact, and need for legal or health-related intervention. This often includes denial of women’s violence or dismissal of its consequences. For instance, Michael Johnson—one of the pioneers in academia on domestic abuse—asserts, “When a woman slaps her husband in the heat of an argument, it is unlikely to be interpreted by him as a serious attempt to do him physical harm. In fact, it is likely to be seen as a quaint form of feminine communication” (Johnson, 2008, p. 107).

Physical Violence: Vignette-Based Research

Much of the research on perceptions of female perpetrators and all genders and sexual orientations have originated from scenario or vignette-based research. Utilizing these hypothetical scenarios allows for controlled exploration of the perceptions of gender and sexual orientation by simply manipulating the gender and sexual orientation of the perpetrator and victims. One of the earliest studies to explore this was Harris and Cook (1994), who used vignettes to explore the perception of a husband battering his wife, a wife battering her husband, and a gay male battering his partner. The scenario where the woman was the victim was seen as more violent than when the victim was male; however, when the male (husband) was the victim, he was more likely to be blamed for his own victimization. This literature base has consistently found that men’s violence toward women is considered the most serious and dangerous. Women’s violence toward men is less likely to cause injury or require intervention. For example, we see perpetrator blame is higher for males compared to female perpetrators (D’Costa & Saklofske, 2022), IPV perpetrated by men against women is considered more severe than women perpetrating against men (Seelau & Seelau, 2005), and female perpetrators are seen as less likely to cause injury and induce significantly higher rates of victim blame against male partners (Parker et al., 2022).

Moreover, men’s perpetration of psychological abuse is consistently perceived to be more harmful (Capezza et al., 2021). However, we know psychological abuse is perceived as less severe than other types of abuse (Frazier, 2021). These perceptions also impact the ways in which we perceive the need for intervention. For instance, female perpetrators are consistently recommended more lenient sentences in vignette-based research (Socia et al., 2021).

It is important to note that these perceptions affect the terminology used to label abuse scenarios which, in turn, affects how victims and those around them identify such behavior. In Nordin’s (2021) study, college students felt female perpetrated IPV did not “count” as IPV to the same extent as male-perpetrated violence, where bystanders were even encouraged not to intervene in such cases. In another study, Kuijpers et al. (2021) had young adults rate the “normality” of IPV vignettes. Participants deemed those with a male perpetrator and female victim to be lower in normality ratings. In contrast, scenarios with male victims and female perpetrators were seen as the most normal. These results were noted to be most significant for male participants.

Indeed, the literature has further demonstrated that the gender of the participants in the studies often impacts these perceptions. For example, Roberts and Price (2019) found that women considered a broader range of IPV behaviors than men, particularly psychological and financial abuse. Furthermore, participants identified that men and women could perpetrate IPV but felt that men did so more often, leading the authors to suggest they had constructed IPV as a problem of men’s violence toward women. Women have also been found to deliver harsher sentences than men; for example, in Kern et al.’s (2007) study, women delivered more severe sentences than men during the pre-deliberation stages, but there was no change in the post-deliberation stage, indicating men had changed their sentencing to a greater extent.

Criticism of Current Vignette-Based Research

IPV and violence generally are at their peak during the 16–25 age bracket, which explains the utilization of younger samples in this body of research described above. That said, the dominance of college and university samples within the attitudes and perceptions literature is a limitation for identifying the understanding of how all social groups perceive IPV. This group represents a particular and often privileged social group lacking cultural and other diversity types. For example, many of these college/university samples are from what has been named WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic nations; Henrich et al., 2010), and indeed college/university samples will be likely to form one particular social and economic strata of these nations. Critics of the lack of diversity within psychological research have highlighted that an over-reliance on these so-called “WEIRD” samples skews our understanding of the psychological theory that is based on such a relatively small section of the social world. Furthermore, college and university samples are also typically heavily skewed in the female direction; for example, Wilson and Smirles (2022) had 593 undergraduate students most of which (n = 457) were women. This points to our understanding of this issue coming from primarily Western, young, female student samples and lacks research working directly with front-line service providers or professionals.

Despite this, limited available research has explored these perceptions with some professionals, specifically police officers. In Gover et al.’s (2011) study, the authors utilized experiences (rather than a vignette-based study) and found that police officers generally felt IPV was a serious crime, but they felt frustrated with the number of repeat calls. Most officers also agreed that men were less likely than women to report incidents of IPV and felt women were as likely to perpetrate IPV. A study with policing students found, regardless of gender, IPV is considered serious, but when in same-sex relationships, it is considered less serious than violence toward a heterosexual female yet more serious than toward a heterosexual male (Frӧberg & Strand, 2018).

Explanations of Differences in Attitudes

Some research has linked gendered perceptions of IPV to the physicality of men and women. Hamby and Jackson (2010) found that male violence toward women was perceived as more severe, primarily due to the stereotypes about the differences in size and strength. In studying our understanding of female perpetrators, the evidence suggests we go to a greater length to explain women’s violence because it is seen as “abnormal”—it goes against the female gender role. So, it leaves women (and society) with a need to try to explain the aggression in a way men do not have to (see Bates, 2018). In vignette-based studies, men’s violence is attributed internally (e.g., they are angry), whereas women’s is attributed externally, often characterized as a response to provocation (Scarduzio et al., 2017). Linking this to underlying gender roles, Bates et al. (2019) found that IPV was less likely to be identified in scenarios with a female perpetrator and a male victim than in the opposite gendered scenario. This was further seen within implicit attitudes (using the Implicit Association Test) where incongruent stereotype priming via stereotype congruent, incongruent, or no information about IPV victimization was not enough to challenge these perceptions. Bates et al. (2019) suggested this may indicate that presenting information about IPV is not enough to challenge deeply ingrained gender norms and societal perceptions.

Gendered perceptions are mainly present in media portrayals where female perpetrators are often cast in movies and television in a humorous or sensational way (Scarduzio et al., 2017); yet, when we look at how female offenders are characterized in the news, we see women who kill are often labeled as “mad, bad or a victim” (Weare, 2013, p. 33). These perceptions point to an “explanation” for violence (a removed sense of agency from women) and can be seen as an attitude rooted in sexism. This again falls back to the discussion about socially conditioned gender roles yet has more impact on men than women. In Scarduzio et al.’s (2017) study, men are described as being outside the acceptable bounds of masculinity when they are violent to a woman, but also when they are victims themselves—for women, neither hitting nor being hit undermined perceptions of their femininity. These contradictory findings point to a double standard in how we consider perceptions of perpetrators of IPV. Female perpetrators were perceived as almost excessively feminine, having lost control and being overly emotional (Scarduzio et al., 2017).

Perceptions of Sexual Violence

When considering perceptions of women’s sexual violence, legislation in England and Wales provides a clear example of how rape is gendered. It currently only recognizes men as offenders, which excludes the possibility of female perpetrators where men are forced to penetrate by women (Weare, 2018b) due to the misconception that “clearly a woman cannot bring about sexual intercourse with a male against his will” (Rumney & Morgan-Taylor, 1997, p. 333). Despite this common belief, research involving female perpetrators of sexual violence toward men has revealed several strategies to enable this abuse. Weare (2018a) detailed aggressive strategies women use, including taking advantage of men’s vulnerability through intoxication, using physical force, and threats of physical harm. The author further asserts that women used gendered strategies, “that is, strategies where women are aware of, and take advantage of, their gendered roles and experiences, qua women” (p. 2201).

The public, and sometimes professionals, see women’s sexual violence toward men as unlikely and implausible (Davies & Rogers, 2006). Research suggests that cases involving a female offender are seen as less serious and require a lesser punishment than a male offender (Gould & Gertz, 1994), and further shows more sympathy toward female perpetrators of sexual assault (Moore & Miller-Perrin, 2022). Clements et al. (2014) found in their systematic review that legal and health or social care professionals recognized female-perpetrated sexual assault as a serious issue. However, this was minimized compared to male-perpetrated abuse, and professionals had more favorable attitudes toward female perpetrators. Furthermore, professionals perceived that service involvement (e.g., police, social services) was less appropriate when the perpetrator was female. Davies and Rogers (2006) reviewed the literature on perceptions of female perpetrators of sexual assault as part of their more comprehensive review of male rape; the general findings were consistent in that if there was a male victim and a female perpetrator, the perpetrator was blamed less, the male victim was blamed more, and the perception was that men should always be sexually available to women (thus minimizing the impact of the female perpetrator).

Traditional gender role stereotypes dictate that men are dominant and assertive, and women are weaker and passive (Fisher & Pina, 2013). These stereotypes feed into rape myths that women cannot rape men. Weare (2021) details several myths around forced-to-penetrate cases that impact our perceptions, including misperceptions about the nature of men’s arousal (specifically that if a man has an erection, he must be giving consent), the size and strength differences between men and women, and that even if this can happen, it is not likely to be particularly harmful to men. If believed by victims, this is likely to create a barrier to reporting. Indeed, Sable et al. (2006) explored men’s and women’s barriers to reporting sexual violence and found that one of the most significant barriers for men was the fear of not being believed—this was scored significantly higher for men than for women. This literature helps us understand the perceptions of women’s sexual violence within the context of IPV, but much less research directly explores these perceptions in this context. This is an important area for future research; the combination of general IPV attitudes and attitudes about women’s sexual violence likely means men will face disbelief and an underestimation of the impact and consequences of their experiences.

Female Perpetrators and the LGBTQ+ Community

There is a lack of consensus on the prevalence of IPV in same-sex relationships, with disparities likely due to barriers to reporting (Whitehead et al., 2021). As mentioned earlier, the Scottish Justice Survey (see Scottish Government, 2019) identifies the gender of the perpetrator and points to the prevalence of female perpetrators accounting for around 1% of female victims. Academic research supports that lesbian violence figures may be higher; Badenes-Ribera and Bonilla-Campos (2021) suggest from their prevalence data that lesbian violence is higher than for heterosexual women. This lack of consensus is in keeping with broader conclusions about LGBTQ+ IPV being underrepresented within the research literature (Laskey et al., 2019).

Research has explored the perceptions of same-sex IPV using vignette studies. This methodology often manipulates the gender of the victim and perpetrator to understand the impact of gender and sexual orientation. Typically, we see perceptions of IPV within same-sex relationships as not considered serious, particularly when compared to men’s violence toward women. For example, Poorman et al. (2003) found that participants reported male-against-female abuse as the most serious and were more likely to suggest pressing charges compared to IPV within same-sex relationships. Similarly, in Ahmed et al.’s (2013) study, IPV was perceived as more serious with a female victim, a male perpetrator, and when the violence was severe. Moreover, Sorenson and Thomas (2009) found that IPV against gay male, lesbian, and heterosexual women is more likely to be considered illegal, linked to issue of stay-away orders, and recommendations to call the police compared to heterosexual men. When reading media reports, Savage et al. (2022) found participants rated stronger punishments for a heterosexual male perpetrator; there was no difference between male and female same-sex relationship perpetrators, but these were both stronger compared to a female heterosexual perpetrator.

Less research has focused on perceptions of IPV that occur within lesbian relationships. Rather it is more often included within wider studies exploring the LGBTQ+ community. For example, Russell et al. (2015) found that scenarios were less likely to be recognized as abuse when there was a gay or lesbian couple compared to those in opposite-sex relationships. Evidence suggests IPV within lesbian relationships is often perceived as mutual or bidirectional. In Little and Terrance’s (2010) study, the authors explored perceptions of lesbian IPV and manipulated the physical appearance of the perpetrator and victims. They found that female participants perceived the IPV as more dangerous than male participants and that both men and women rated the more feminine victim as less blameworthy and having a more legitimate claim. Literature also suggests that bisexual women are perceived as promiscuous, which can lead to victim blaming in sexual violence cases (Dyar et al., 2021).

We know from exploring service provider’s perceptions that they often view same-sex IPV differently than that in opposite-sex relationships. In Brown and Groscup’s (2009) study, crisis center staff were equally as likely to recognize IPV within opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. However, they felt the scenarios involving same-sex couples were less serious and less likely to escalate and that these relationships were easier to escape. Interviews with those working within sexual assault services showed that myths and stereotypes lead to minimizing sexual violence while also victim-blaming LGBTQ+ survivors (Mortimer et al., 2019). Similarly, Russell (2018) found that police officers were more likely to victim blame or see victim responsibility when the IPV was perpetrated by a female.

The literature exploring perceptions of IPV as a type of family violence is significant. We can see from the above brief review that these perceptions have not demonstrated significant changes over the last few decades. While there is less research on other forms of family violence, we see similar patterns and similar impacts of gender on our perceptions.

Other Forms of Family Violence: Sibling Violence

Sibling aggression is known to be marginalized as a form of family violence because it is perceived as harmless and of little consequence (Khan & Rogers, 2015), thus making it an understudied form of violence (Linares, 2006). Prevalence figures estimate between 37.6% (Tucker et al., 2013) and 82% of siblings have experienced this aggression (Mackey et al., 2010). Researchers often identify aggression by its forms (e.g., physical and psychological aggression; Chen et al., 2019), but it is also essential to highlight its functions and motivations to investigate the damaging effects of such aggression for adjustment in childhood (Tucker et al., 2015). At the time of this writing, no prevalence studies explore sibling aggression in adults.

Much of the research in this area has been quantitative in nature, has detailed some levels of prevalence, and has provided mixed evidence around gender differences in perpetration and victimization. This is partly due to the lack of consensus on the definition and the different measures used in the studies (Harrison, 2017). Research has, contradictorily, demonstrated that boys are more aggressive (Tucker et al., 2013), that girls are more aggressive (Tanrikulu & Campbell, 2015), and even that the aggression can often be mutual or bidirectional (Duncan, 1999). This research also demonstrates that this violence is often not conceptualized as such by respondents. Kettrey and Emery (2006), for example, found in their sample of 200 college students that the majority of their sample had experienced sibling violence—83% reported mild or severe sibling violence, and 70.5% reported experiencing or perpetrating severe violence. Despite this, many participants discussed experiencing “conflict” rather than violence.

In some qualitative accounts, we see evidence of women’s perpetration of this type of violence. For example, in Elliot et al.’s (2020) study, one sister wrote about the range of abuse experienced:

My sister became increasingly violent following the separation of my parents when she was ten and I was six. She was verbally and emotionally abusive (towards the whole family), and this escalated to physical and sexual violence (against me only) by the time she was 14 to 15 … The abuse is characterized by secrecy (usually only occurring in the home) and threats of harm if I told anybody or got help. (p. 172)

Similarly, Harrison (2017) described experiences of both men’s and women’s sibling aggression; results indicated that girls used this violence and then justified it by reporting it as self-defense, and many female participants reported using emotions to illicit parental support.

Compared to the IPV literature base, relatively little has explored perceptions of sibling violence concerning the gender of perpetrators and victims. Specifically, there has been relatively little research to explore the perceptions of specifically female perpetrators of sibling violence. The current research points to similar trends in the IPV literature in that men’s violence and women’s victimization are viewed as the most serious forms of this aggression. For example, Harris (1991) found that aggression against a woman was rated more negatively and that female victims were seen as more justified in retaliating. They further found that male participants rated sibling aggression as the least acceptable form of violence (compared to other targets), and female participants rated it as the most acceptable. The authors link this to possible early discipline boys may experience when parents are trying to control their use of aggression.

Child-to-Parent Violence

As with sibling violence, child-to-parent violence (CPV) is one of the most under-researched aspects of family violence (Ibabe et al., 2020). Various authors have added concrete elements to the definition of CPV since 1979 when it was introduced as “Battered parent syndrome” (Harbin & Madden, 1979)—a discreet form of family violence, which exclusively comprised of physical aggression and verbal/non-verbal threats of physical harm. Although there is no universal definition of this type of violence, the concept has been expanded over time. As defined by Cottrell (2001), CPV is “any act of a child that is intended to cause physical, psychological or financial damage to gain power and control over a parent” (p. 3).

Regarding gender differences, findings seem to vary depending on the sample and type of aggressive behavior studied. Pereira et al. (2017) argued that CPV contains more gender similarities in perpetration, with percentages being more equal in more normalized samples such as students. When accounting for clinical or judicial samples, most aggressors reported are males aged 10–18, and the victims are usually female (Condry & Miles, 2014; Contreras & Cano, 2014). As exemplified in a recent meta-analysis of a total sample of 3660 young people reported by parents and researchers, 72% of CPV perpetrators were male (Gallagher, 2008).

Nock and Kadzin (2002) identified mothers as victims of CPV in 93.4% of cases; these figures further displayed only 2.7% of CPV perpetration from their large 606 clinical sample directed toward fathers. However, Walsh and Krienert (2008) suggested their finding that CPV victims are more likely to be mothers could be explained by the mothers being more frequent disciplinarians, and so are exposed to a greater risk of harm. Furthermore, findings such as this are comprised of population samples that are significantly higher in one-parent families, and where many of those single parents are mothers (Ibabe & Jaureguizar 2010).

Some authors propose that the perpetrators’ gender may influence how law enforcement interprets CPV incidents (e.g., the event severity; Strom et al., 2014). Through an examination of 1113 CPV incidents, Armstrong et al. (2021) discussed a gendered perception in law response to CPV; when controlling for injuries present, boys were more likely criminalized through arrests when the victim was female, yet both male and female aggressors were less likely to be arrested when the victim was male. Additionally, CPV (like other forms of domestic violence) is underreported and only reported to the police depending on the severity of the abuse (Miles & Condry, 2015). As a result, other forms of CPV, such as financial and psychological, may not be captured in the data set.

In terms of perceptions, this is again a type of family violence that has been largely underexplored. McElhone’s (2017) study of perceptions of CPV manipulated perpetrator and victim gender and highlighted that sons were perceived to be more aggressive toward a maternal figure than daughters. The author further suggested that these perceptions result from societal views of violence and the biased portrayal of violence in the media. A potential danger in conceptualizing CPV as almost exclusively a son-to-mother phenomenon, or as Hunter et al. (2010) label it as “mother abuse,” neglects the potential of those who suffer from CPV to be met with applicable services. It is also important to acknowledge that many parents reporting violence from their children to the police are male (Condry & Miles, 2014).

Conclusion

The evidence reviewed in this chapter presents an account of the perceptions of female perpetrators of domestic and family violence that have not been impacted by the decades of research around this violence. The body of literature demonstrating women’s violence is both developed and developing, yet this has not impacted our perceptions and attitudes toward women’s propensity to be violent and cause harm to others. It is clear from the above review that these attitudes often portray women’s (and girls’) violence as less impactful, less serious, and less in need of intervention. The public reactions to domestic violence and abuse often rely on stereotypes to understand the issue rather than understanding the complexity of IPV (Scarduzio et al., 2017).

The impact of this can be seen in a lack of research that has explored female IPV perpetrators’ pathways into offending (see Mackay et al., 2018, for a review) and a lack of interventions for working with female perpetrators (see Bates, Graham-Kevan, et al., 2017b). These perceptions further feed into the treatment of victims within the criminal justice system and health care systems, which can lead to barriers to help-seeking for male victims (Taylor et al., 2022), as well as missed opportunities for intervention when victims come to the attention of social services (Hope et al., 2022).

Our pre-existing understanding of gender roles impedes us from identifying men as victims and likely influences how they are treated within services (Thomas & Hart, 2022). For example, these perceptions can influence treatment decisions by being less likely to recommend victims leave (Brown & Groscup, 2009). The literary evidence even shows that the willingness of female IPV victims to re-engage with police after having called once was impacted by seeing the police being interested and their satisfaction with police response (I. M. Johnson, 2007).

This review has further highlighted that these gendered perceptions can impact how we respond and react to sibling and child-to-parent violence. Particularly in comparison to IPV, there is relatively little exploration of the perceptions and impact of said perceptions on these types of violence. So, a further recommendation from this review is a call for more research on this violence (and the perceptions more widely). This will require overcoming barriers to engaging with families, such as parents’ reluctance to consent. Previous sibling aggression studies have led to a backlash of stigma and judgment on the parent, stating they should be accountable for their child’s behavior (Desir & Karatekin, 2018). However, this is a barrier that researchers must overcome to not only improve this practice but to develop a safe space where parents can be involved in research without facing backlash. This will aid societal recognition of sibling aggression and CPV.