Many policies and programs have relevance to intimate partner violence (IPV), such as no-drop policies, firearm-related policies, mandatory reporting, mandatory arrest, and others. IPV affects persons from a multitude of demographics and statuses. Dating violence has its mark on college campuses. The present research studies both attitudes toward IPV and attitudes toward interventions that pertain to IPV. Attitudes toward IPV have been found to relate to a number of explanatory variables: attributions, socioeconomic status, age, class standing, race/ethnicity, religion/spirituality, attitudes toward gender, violence in the family of origin, and previous IPV histories. Perceptions of IPV interventions have been found to relate to a number of explanatory variables as well: attitudes toward IPV, attributions, race/ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic status, education victim status, sexual orientation, attitudes regarding gender, and political variables. The present research administered a survey to undergraduate students at the University of Central Florida as a means to explore such perceptions.

Background. Intimate partner violence is a recognized public health issue, in which violence in same-sex relationships is included. Despite intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships being a somewhat growing area of research, we are still lacking knowledge about this problem.Aim. The overall aim was to investigate how Swedish police students perceive intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships.Method. 248 police students (69% males and 31% females) who were currently enrolled in the police education in Växjö read a vignette and answered a questionnaire. The vignettes portrayed an intimate relationship between two people and were available in four versions with the sex of the offender and victim being alternated. The questionnaire consisted of the instrument Opinions of Domestic Violence Scale, and additional questions constructed for this study. Parametric and non-parametric tests were used to make comparisons between groups.Results. Same-sex IPV was perceived as less serious than victimization of a heterosexual female, but the case with a same-sex relationship with a female victim was perceived as more serious than victimization of a heterosexual male. Police intervention was not found to be needed to the same extent in the cases of same-sex IPV as in the case with a heterosexual female victim.Discussion. The perceptions of same-sex IPV as less serious and not in as much need of police intervention as a case involving a heterosexual female victim, may have implications for how these victims are handled by the police. The perceptions of who constitutes a true victim of intimate partner violence may be of importance when decisions are made by police officers.

No description available.

"Stay home, save lives" has been shown to reduce the impacts of COVID-19; however, it is crucial to recognize that efforts not to stress healthcare systems may have unintended social consequences for domestic violence. This commentary addresses domestic violence as an important social and public health implication of COVID-19. As a pandemic with a high contagion level, necessary social distancing measures have been put in place across the world to slow transmission and protect medical services. We first present literature that shows that among the effects of social distancing are social and functional isolation and economic stress, which are known to increase domestic violence. We then present preliminary observations from a content analysis conducted on over 300 news articles from the first six weeks of COVID-19 "lockdown" in the United States: articles predict an increase in domestic violence, report an increase in domestic violence, and inform victims on how to access services. Assessing the intersection of the early news media messaging on the effect of COVID-19 on DV and the literature on social isolation and crisis situations, we conclude the commentary with implications for current policy related to (1) increased media attention, (2) increased attention in healthcare systems, (3) promoting social and economic security, and (4) long-term efforts to fund prevention and response, as well as research implications to consider. The research is presented as ongoing, but the policy and procedure recommendations are presented with urgency.

Ample research explores individual factors associated with sexual violence, yet individual, dyadic, and environmental influences on intimate partner sexual violence (IPSV) occurring in the larger context of non-intimate partner violence (NIPSV) remain relatively unexplored. The current study aimed to determine the extent to which county-level indicators in combination with individual and dyadic factors are associated with sexual violence across relationship types. Reported IPSV and NIPSV cases were obtained from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation’s (TBI) online incident-based reporting system. County-level variables indicative of neighborhood physical disorder, violent crime, income inequality, firearm prevalence, and community alcohol use patterns were retrieved from the online resource County Health Rankings and Roadmaps. Using a nested case–control design, we determined significant sexual violence risk within younger cohorts and across relationship types, finding three significant county-level factors: 1) income inequality, 2) rate of firearm fatalities, and 3) percentage of female residents. Suggested prevention and intervention efforts include targeting younger age groups for IPSV and NIPSV education, developing resources for a range of relational partners, improving legal access and law enforcement training for reporting, and continued examination of the role of firearms.

For years, researchers, clinicians, and those working with victims/survivors of domestic abuse have overlooked the issue of same-sex partner aggression among lesbians and bisexual women. Through in-depth interviews with 19 women who identify themselves as either lesbian or bisexual, information was documented in this study demonstrating the severity of issues of power and control among some same-sex partners, as well as some if the dynamics that are unique to same-sex abusive relationships. Patterns of abuse within same-sex relationships often mirror those that are so commonly associated with partner aggression among heterosexual couples, and therefore demonstrate not only the need for further research on the topic of same-sex partner abuse, but also the urgency to provide more assistance to the victims/survivors of domestic violence.

The term sexual harassment was brought to light by legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon during the second wave feminist movement in the 1970s, and has since changed in its meaning over the past four decades, influencing policy, legal action, and the way we, as a society, treat this social problem. Millennials, or those born between 1980 and 2000, will be the next generation of working adults that will influence the way sexual harassment is understood and defined both legally and socially. The Millennial generation is typically considered liberal and socially conscious, prompting the research question of “How do Millennials socially construct sexual harassment in terms of gender and power?” Eighteen semi-structured interviews with adult Millennials up to age 33 were conducted. Analysis was informed by feminist theory, social constructionism, and critical race theory. Results showed while Millennials are quick to speak about inclusion of men as targets of sexual harassment, they did so at the cost of frankly discussing that women are targeted more often than men. Combined with the ability to discuss individual causes of sexual harassment compared to the structural, this led to my findings of“gender-blind” sexual harassment attitudes describing postfeminist beliefs among Millennials.

In the aftermath of school shootings, safety in educational institutions became a national concern. The Zero Tolerance policy was designed to remove students who posed serious and or imminent threat to the school environment. It was hoped that the institution of this policy would allow schools to better police student behaviors through the use of tough disciplinary actions, and to ensure a safer learning environment for all. However, one of the latent consequences of establishing a broad set of directives was to result in the differential treatment of some minority groups such as special education students. To date, there exists little research that tests the efficacy of the zero tolerance approach in reducing school violence or its effect upon special education students who exhibit unique and separate characteristics from the general student body. Some of the behaviors that are beyond their control can impede their learning, but are even more often seen as falling under the guidelines of the zero tolerance policy, which in turn subjects this group to a number of disciplinary actions previously not utilized to address their specific needs. To address the potential impact this policy has on students with learning and emotional behavioral disorders this study analyzes data from a sample comprising of 2,736 total schools, reported over 4 different time periods, 1999-2008 originally collected by the School Survey on Crime and Safety. This study examines the relationship between various school characteristics, the proportion of special education students in a school, and the use of the disciplinary actions as a means of controlling behaviors that could be undesired but may not pose a serious threat to the educational institution. iv The results indicate that presence of students identified as “special education students” was strongly related to the number of disruptive behaviors reported. The increased frequency of those reported behaviors was also found to be significantly related to the use of suspension and expulsions as disciplinary actions in a school. Further multiple regression analysis yielded data demonstrating the nature of the relationships between the presence of special education students in a school, the frequency of disruptive behaviors reported, and the increased use of disciplinary actions.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2012) reported that intimate partner violence (IPV) affects approximately 4.8 million females and 2.8 million males in their intimate relationships each year. Past research (e.g., Fanslow, Robinson, Crengle, & Perese, 2010; Foshee et al., 1996; Foshee et al., 2009) on IPV solely evaluated prevalence rates and factors within opposite-sex relationships; however, IPV within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals' relationships exists at equal, if not higher, rates compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Alexander, 2008; McKenry, Serovich, Mason, & Mosak, 2006). Subsequently, a gap in research existed on violence in LGBTQ individuals' samesex relationships and the need existed for further exploration of IPV within same-sex couples (McKenry et al., 2006; Turell, 2000). The purpose of this study was an examination of the relationships among victimization rates (Victimization in Dating Relationships [VDR] and Safe Dates-Psychological Abuse Victimization [SD-PAV]), perpetration rates (Perpetration in Dating Relationships [PDR] and Safe Dates-Psychological Abuse Perpetration [SD-PAP]), and attitudinal acceptance of IPV (Acceptance of Couple Violence [ACV]) among LGBTQ college students. The specific goals of the study were to (a) identify the IPV victimization rates and perpetration rates among LGBTQ college students, and (b) examine the attitudinal acceptance of IPV in LGBTQ college students. The statistical analyses used to examine the four research questions and seven subsequent hypotheses included (a) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and (b) Multiple Linear Regression (MLR). The results identified that significant mean differences (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .16) existed between females and males in their reported levels of victimization and perpetration, suggesting a large effect size with biological sex accounting for 16% of the variance across the four victimization and perpetration variables. Specifically, females self-reported higher levels of psychological and emotional victimization compared to males (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .05), suggesting that females in same-sex relationships reported greater psychological abuse from their female partners. In addition, results identified significant mean differences between males and females in their levels of attitudinal acceptance of IPV (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .13), suggesting a medium effect size that biological sex accounted for 13% of the variance in attitudinal acceptance of IPV scores. In considering gender expression, results from the study identified that in females and males, those self-identifying with greater amounts of masculinity reported an increased amount of victimization and perpetration (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .15). The results identified a large effect size in that 15% of the variance in victimization and perpetration rates were accounted for by the interaction of biological sex and gender expression. Furthermore, in females and males, those self-identifying with greater amounts of masculinity reported higher levels of attitudinal acceptance of IPV (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .12). The results identified a medium effect size in that 12% of the variance in attitudinal acceptance of IPV was accounted for by the interaction of biological sex and gender expression. In regards to a history of childhood abuse and witnessing parental IPV, participants with a history of child abuse and a history of witnessing parental IPV did not differ in their levels of victimization, perpetration, or attitudinal acceptance of IPV from those without a history of childhood abuse and witnessing parental IPV. Finally, variables such as (a) biological sex, (b) gender expression, (c) past childhood abuse, (d) witnessing parental IPV, (e) v VDR, (f) SD-PAV, (g) PDR, and (h) SD-PAP predicted attitudinal acceptance of IPV in this LGBTQ college student sample. The results identified that linear composite of these eight predictor variables predicted 93% (R 2 = .93) of the overall variance in participants' attitudinal acceptance of IPV total score (p < .01). Overall, the results identified that females reported higher levels of psychological victimization meaning that a female LGBTQ college student potentially experiences more risk of becoming a victim in a relationship. In addition, results identified that LGBTQ college students identifying as masculine present a potentially greater risk for both victimization and perpetration in their same-sex relationships. Self-identifying masculine LGBTQ college students reported greater amounts of acceptance of same-sex IPV, which possibly explains the lack of IPV reports from these college students. Finally, the results identified that individual and family-of-origin factors do, in fact, predict LGBTQ college students' levels of attitudinal acceptance of IPV. In other words, an LGBTQ college students' biological sex, gender expression, past childhood experiences, victimization rates, and perpetration rates all relate to the prediction of their attitudes about IPV. Implications for future research included the need to further examine college students engaging either in an opposite-sex or same-sex relationship, exploring the relationships between masculinity and femininity in their reported levels of victimization, perpetration, and attitudinal acceptance of IPV. The need to replicate this study exists in order to ensure inclusiveness of individuals across all sexual orientations and gender identities in college students. In addition, several significant findings from this study further substantiate the need for continued research in the area of same-sex IPV, especially utilizing a sample of LGBTQ college students, to inform (a) clinical assessment in college counseling clinics and community agencies, (b) IPV protocol development, and (c) culturally sensitive, modified intervention based on the current findings.

Using three separate and unique sources of data, this study was designed to address: a) the associations between pregnancy-related violence and femicide with sociodemographic characteristics of victims and offenders and with family dynamics, b) how pregnancy affects the risk for threats of violence, power and control tactics, physical violence, stalking, sexual violence, and femicide, and c) how pregnancy contributes to increased severity of abuse. The overall results reveal a significant statistical correlation between pregnancy and the increased risk of intimate partner abuse on many dimensions, including physical abuse, stalking and harassment, sexual abuse, threats of serious harm and death, lethality risk, and power and control. The correlation between pregnancy and femicide is less clear and in need of further examination. While the nature of pregnancy as a risk factor across multiple dimensions of abuse is certainly pervasive, the findings indicate that power and coercive control warrants close attention as a potentially prominent and dangerous dynamic. Women of younger age, those single or divorced, residing with an IP, and having children in the home were shown to have a significantly increased risk of non-lethal and lethal IPV in all three samples. The findings contribute evidence to existing literature concerning potentially catastrophic outcomes for pregnancies occurring in an abusive context, including extremely high rates of miscarriage in abusive relationships. Implications for practice and for research are discussed.