719541

research-article2017
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260517719541Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceAhmadabadi et al.

Article
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2020, Vol. 35(23-24) 5500­–5525
Income, Gender, and © The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Forms of Intimate sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260517719541
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719541
Partner Violence journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Zohre Ahmadabadi,1 Jackob M. Najman,1,2

Gail M. Williams,1 and Alexandra M. Clavarino3

Abstract
Poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage place demands on intimate
relationships and provide fertile ground for disagreements and conflicts.
It is not known whether poverty also leads to intimate partner violence
(IPV). This study investigates the association between income and forms
of IPV victimization for both males and females. We also examine whether
income inequalities are related to IPV and whether the gender balance of
household income contributes to IPV victimization. Data are from a cohort
of 2,401 young offspring (60.3% females) who participated at the 30-year
follow-up of the Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy
in Brisbane, Australia. Participants completed questionnaires including
their income details and the Composite Abuse Scale. Within low-income
families, both partners experience higher levels of IPV. Females’ income is
not independently related to experiencing IPV either for females or males.
Females and males experience a higher rate of IPV when the husband earns
a low income. When considering partners’ relative income, families in which
both partners earned a low income experienced higher levels of almost all
forms of IPV. Income (im)balance in which females earn more or partners
both have higher income was less often associated with the experience OF

1School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Australia

2School of Social Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
3School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Zohre Ahmadabadi, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston Road,
Herston, Queensland 4006, Australia.
Email: [email protected]
Ahmadabadi et al. 5501

IPV IPV appears to be mutually experienced in the setting of the poverty.

Objective economic hardship and scarcity create a context which facilitates
IPV for both partners in a relationship.

Keywords
income, intimate partner violence victimization, gender, a birth cohort study

Introduction
While intimate partner violence (IPV) is a globally widespread public health
concern (Campbell et al., 2002; Devries et al., 2013; Garcia-Moreno, Jansen,
Ellsberg, Heise, & Watts, 2006; Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002), there
is relatively little research about its characteristics or causes. Understanding
the context in which IPV is experienced, should contribute to more informed
policy responses (Jewkes, 2002). IPV cannot be understood in isolation; it is
associated with a wide range of biological and psychological characteristics
as well as social, environmental, and economic factors (Abramsky et al.,
2011; Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt, & Kim, 2012; Djikanovic, Jansen, & Otasevic,
2010; Jewkes, 2002; Walton-Moss, Manganello, Frye, & Campbell, 2005).
Contrary to popular belief that IPV may occur in all socioeconomic settings,
a body of research has established a robust link between the poverty, low
socioeconomic status (SES), disadvantage circumstances, and IPV perpetra-
tion and victimization (Fox, Benson, DeMaris, & Van Wyk, 2002; Goodman,
Smyth, Borges, & Singer, 2009; Kishor & Johnson, 2006; Sutherland,
Sullivan, & Bybee, 2001).
Poverty, as argued by Family Stress Theory (Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, &
Simons, 1994), causes IPV because it involves socioeconomic strains and
financial insecurity which contributes to frustration and powerlessness and
encourages men to display violent behaviors against women (Cano & Vivian,
2001; Fox et al., 2002; Jewkes, 2002). It is also possible that poverty-related
IPV may affect both partners in a marital relationship. Within a dysfunctional
family system, affected by economic distress, poverty might be both a cause
and consequence of IPV (Goodman et al., 2009).
While there is some evidence that low-income families are more likely to
engage in IPV, relatively little has been written about the separate role of hus-
band’s and wife’s income as these might be related to IPV (Kaukinen, 2004).
Existing theoretical models and the findings related to these models, which
link gender, economic issues, and domestic violence, are not consistent (Vyas
& Watts, 2009). Feminist scholars (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Hester, Kelly, &
5502 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Radford, 1996; Yodanis, 2004) emphasize IPV as a “gendered problem”

emerging from the domination and control of women by men. They propose
women’s status empowerment and gender equality as solutions to IPV (Corvo
& Johnson, 2003). Dependency theory highlights females’ dependency reflect-
ing lower resources or the competition for resources as the root of violence
against women. Women who are economically independent and have higher
status in their relations may be able to negotiate more effectively and not stay
in abusive relationships (Golden, Perreira, & Durrance, 2013; Hornung,
McCullough, & Sugimoto, 1981; Kalmuss & Straus, 1982; Tauchen & Witte,
1995). Conversely, from the Social Exchange and Resource Theory perspec-
tive, partners use resources, like violence or income, to achieve more power in
their relationships. In a situation where there is a lack of socioeconomic
resources, violence can be used and exchanged. As a result, it might be that
higher economic resources place women at greater risk of IPV (Allen &
Straus, 1980; Goode, 1971). In the context of societies which are largely patri-
archal, Relative Resource Theory suggests that women with higher relative
status constitute a challenge to established male dominance and are more vul-
nerable to abuse (Macmillan & Gartner, 1999; McCloskey, 1996).
Gendered Resources Theory, in contrast, argues that Relative Resource
Theory ignores the cultural context under which masculinity is constructed
and assumes that all males desire to be the main provider, whereas females’
higher resource increases the risk of IPV only if the male partner holds less
egalitarian gender views (Atkinson, Greenstein, & Lang, 2005). Despite
Australia historically having been characterized as a predominantly male-
breadwinner culture (Baxter & Hewitt, 2013; van Egmond, Baxter, Buchler,
& Western, 2010), over the most recent decades, women’s labor force partici-
pation rates and the proportion of women with a bachelor’s degree have
increased to 58% and 25%, respectively. Egalitarian gender beliefs about
work and family roles have become more common, and couples with similar
SES or dual-earner families have emerged to be increasingly common (de
Vaus, 2004). Perhaps as a consequence of these social and economic changes,
IPV in Australia may have particular characteristics. For instance, recent evi-
dence suggests a growing rate of males’ IPV victimization (Australian Bureau
of Statistics, 2012; People, 2005).
While feminist theory focuses more on female victimization (Corvo &
Johnson, 2003; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Hester et al., 1996; Yodanis, 2004),
a family violence perspective suggests that both men and women engage in
domestic violence (Capaldi, Kim, & Shortt, 2007; Dutton, Nicholls, & Spidel,
2005; Fergusson, Horwood, & Ridder, 2005; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010;
Ross & Babcock, 2010; Straus, 2008; Straus & Ramirez, 2007). Based on the
typology of Johnson (1995), IPV encompasses both severe and unidirectional
Ahmadabadi et al. 5503

forms of violence (as feminist scholars indicate) and minor and/or reciprocal
violent behaviors (as family violence theory suggests). However, few studies
have included different types of IPV (Hegarty & Valpied, 2007; Krebs,
Breiding, Browne, & Warner, 2011; Salom, Williams, Najman, & Alati,
2015). Economic factors might have different effects on different types of
IPV. In one study, for instance, a clear association was found between hus-
band’s low SES and female’s higher risk of physical abuse, but not psycho-
logical abuse (Vung, Ostergren, & Krantz, 2008).
Furthermore, previous measurements of IPV have been criticized because
they have provided inconsistent, biased, and limited information. For exam-
ple, the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979) is the most widely used measure
of IPV; however, it has been suggested that it lacks cultural validity, concen-
trates mostly on physical abuse, and does not comprise a comprehensive
assessment of emotional, economic, and sexual abuse (DeKeseredy, 2000;
Kimmel, 2002). Hence, there is a need to use a validated and multidimen-
sional measure that reflects the full range of types of IPV.
Another concern is that the most influential studies in the field have
involved clinical and selective samples (Dutton, Hamel, & Aaronson, 2010;
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). Controversies about rates of IPV highlight
the importance of the type of sample from which the data are gathered. For
example, rates of male violence tend to be much higher when the findings
come from a nonrepresentative population like physically abused women
(Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2010). Using a large population-based sample
comprising men and women can bridge the existing gap in our comprehen-
sion of IPV.

Current Study
Different and inconsistent theoretical perspectives in the field make it hard to
anticipate how partners’ income matters in a relation to IPV. It is simply not
known whether wife’s income affects the risk of IPV, not only for females but
also for the male partner. In addition, income may range from low to high; it
is unclear whether equality or inequality at all income levels might be related
to risk of IPV. This study involves the analysis of survey data, which exam-
ines the association between income (personal income, family income, and
balance in contribution to family income) and IPV for both males and
females. It investigates the relationship between family income and different
types of IPV, namely, whether wife’s income influences IPV for both partners
and whether income (im)balance between wife and husband might be impor-
tant in relation to IPV.
5504 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Method
Participants
Data for the current study were taken from the Mater-University of Queensland
Study of Pregnancy (MUSP). Baseline data were collected at the first antena-
tal visit to the Mater Public Hospital in Brisbane between 1981 and 1983 from
7,223 consecutive women, and additional assessments were conducted when
the study children were 6 months, 5 years, 14 years, 21 years, and 30 years.
The Mater Hospital and the University of Queensland Ethics committees
approved this study, and written informed consent was obtained from the
young adults. The study design and sampling method have been previously
discussed (Keeping et al., 1989; Najman et al., 2005). The present analysis
used data from the 30-year follow-up surveys with 40% of the cohort partici-
pating in that phase of the study. While recruitment to the study included some
99% of those invited to participate, losses to follow up (i.e., the 30-year fol-
low-up), are disproportionately of young, single, separated/divorced, econom-
ically disadvantaged and more emotionally distressed participants (Najman
et al., 2015). In practice and based on several previously published papers,
results of weighted analyses and multiple imputation suggest that loss to fol-
low up rarely has an impact on findings (Najman et al., 2015; Ware, Williams,
& Aird, 2006). The participants at the 30-year follow-up were a subsample of
2,401 heterosexual persons (952 males and 1,449 females) who completed
self-report questionnaires about IPV and economic factors.

Measures
Dependent Variable: IPV
Based on criteria used by the World Health Organization (WHO), IPV is
defined as “behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physi-
cal, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual
coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours” (WHO, 2012,
p. 1. We measured IPV at 30 years using the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS;
Hegarty, Bush, & Sheehan, 2005; Hegarty & Valpied, 2007). The CAS is a
validated and widely used scale (Loxton, P1owers, Fitzgerald, Forder,
Anderson et al., 2013; Lokhmatkina, Kuznetsova, & Feder, 2010; Rietveld,
Lagro-Janssen, Vierhout, & Wong, 2010) to assess frequency of violence in
intimate relationships (current or previous relationships) in a 12-month
period. The scale comprises 30 items (α = .95) and four subscales: Severe
Combined Abuse (α = .79; comprises eight items which include rape, keep
Ahmadabadi et al. 5505

from obtaining medical care, locked in the bedroom), Emotional Abuse (α =

.90; comprises 11 items which include insults, verbal, psychological, domi-
nance, and separation from friends and family), Physical Abuse (α = .89;
comprises seven items which include slapping, throwing, hitting, shaking),
and Harassment (α = .72; comprises four items which include actual harass-
ment like following, harassing over the telephone and at work). Response
options ranged from never, only once, several times, once a month, once a
week, and daily, which were scored from 0 (never) to 5 (daily). Total scores
for each of the four subscales were calculated by summing the response to the
relevant items. Then the recommended cutoff scores for the individual sub-
scales—Severe Combined Abuse (≥1), Physical Abuse (≥1), Emotional
Abuse (≥3), and Harassment (≥2) and Total Scale (≥3)—were applied.
Participants with equal or higher scores than the cutoff score were considered
to have experienced abuse (Hegarty & Valpied, 2007).

Independent Variables
Absolute personal income. All the 30-year follow-up respondents were asked
to choose their own and their partners’ income from 11 categories (no income
to Aus$3,000 or more per week) separately. Income was defined as gross
income before tax and other deductions; including wages, pensions, govern-
ment payments and income from other sources such as investments. Own and
partner absolute income were separately categorized into three categories:
low (income under $600 per week), middle ($600-$1,300 per week), and
high (more than $1,300). Respondents who had no partner were excluded
from further analysis.

Family income. Using the midrange of own and partner’s income categories
and adding them, we created a weekly family income variable with five cat-
egories: $0 to $999; $1,000 to $1,499; $1,500 to $1,999; $2,000 to $2,499;
and $2,500 and more.

Gender (im)balance in income. We combined respondents’ income with their

partners’. Calculated variable comprised nine states (three own states × three
partner states). Then we categorized them into three main groups of “husband
(male) earns more,” “wife (female) earns more,” and “balanced.” Balance
earning itself was classified into three groups of “both [partners] earn low,”
“both earn middle,” and “both earn high.” This category is different from
Kaukinen’s (2004) income incompatibility measurement, which ignores dif-
ferent levels of income parity. Husband’s higher income is the reference
group for analysis.
5506 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Demographic Variables and Covariates

We adjusted for a number of demographic variables that may be related to
both income and IPV. Evidence shows that both income and IPV are related to
covariates like age, marital status, length of relationship, or education level.
For example, partners with a lesser education level, those who are cohabitat-
ing, and couples with children are more likely to report financial problems as
well as violence in their intimate relationships (Capaldi et al., 2012; McDonald,
Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006; Peisch et al., 2016).
All respondents are around 30 years of age, so there is no adjustment for
age variation in the sample. We control for respondents’ and their partners’
education level categorized into high school completion or less (primary,
started secondary, completed secondary), diploma and college, and univer-
sity (reference category). Having had children was dichotomized into no and
yes. Marital status was created from three questions of “What is your present
marital status?” “Have you ever been divorced?” and “Do you live with your
partner?” Removing single ever and single now, before in relation respon-
dents, this variable comprised two categories, living together and married.
The married group was considered as the references group. Length of rela-
tionship was asked with a question, “For how long has your current live-in
relationship lasted (in years)?”

Data Analysis
The prevalence of each type of IPV was determined across the gender groups.
For describing demographic characteristics, descriptive statistics, chi-square,
and t test were used. IPV forms (Physical Abuse, Emotional abuse, Severe
Combined, and Harassment) were not mutually exclusive. For each form of
IPV, the bivariate relationship with own, partner, and family income and gen-
der income differences was modeled using logistic regression. Each of these
models was then adjusted for respondent’s education, marital status, duration
of relation, and having children. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs)
with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) are reported. We also assessed inter-
actions between family income and gender differences in income. Statistical
analyses were conducted using STATA-13 and SPSS-24 softwares.

Results
Although this cohort of males and females are that the same average age
(male = 30.39; female = 30.25), the sociodemographic characteristics of
respondents are different in a number of important respects (Table 1). At 30
Ahmadabadi et al. 5507

Table 1. Gender Differences in Study Variables at 30-Year Follow-Up.

Variables Male (%) Female (%) χ2

Marital status n = 975 n = 1,463 27.75**
Married 41.1 48.3
Living together 26.4 26.5
Single now, before in relation 12.5 12.7
Single ever 20.0 12.5
Having children n = 968 n = 1,454 53.55**
No 59.6 44.4
Yes 40.4 55.6
Own’s education n = 986 n = 1,472 20.91**
University 22.9 31.1
Diploma and college 41.3 38.7
High School and less 35.8 30.2
Partner’s education n = 743 n = 1,193 52.24**
University 39.0 24.9
Diploma and college 27.5 40.5
Under diploma 33.5 36.6
Own absolute income (per week) n = 985 n = 1,461 269.47**
Low (>$600) 12.3 39.4
Middle (between $600 and $1,300) 43.5 39.0
High (<$1,300) 44.3 21.6
Partner’s absolute income (per week) n = 708 n = 1,168 259.85**
Low (>$600) 41.0 11.0
Middle (between $600 and $1,300) 39.7 44.3
High (<$1,300) 19.4 44.6
Family income (per week) n = 955 n = 1,449 2.10
$0-$999 18.6 20.2
$1,000-$1,499 22.5 21.5
$1,500-$1,999 18.0 17.2
$2,000-$2,499 15.3 14.3
$2,500+ 25.5 26.8
Gender (im)balance in income n = 708 n = 1,161 22.61**
Both earn low 3.7 6.6
Both earn middle 19.5 20.4
Both earn high 15.5 14.8
Wife earns more 6.2 10.8
Husband earns more 55.1 47.4
IPV victimization n = 952 n = 1,449
Severe combined (≥1) 3.0 4.5 3.17
Physical abuse (≥1) 12.6 9.7 4.90*
(continued)
5508 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Table 1. (continued)

Variables Male (%) Female (%) χ2

Emotional abuse (≥3) 17.4 16.3 0.54
Harassment (≥2) 8.2 7.0 1.10
Total (≥3) 10.1 10.3 0.03

M (SD) t test
Length of relationship (range = 0-17years) 4.67 (4.2) 5.85 (4.5) 6.33**

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

years of age, women are more likely to be married (men are more often sin-
gle), and to report they have had a child and a university degree (even men
more often reported their partners had higher degrees). Female are more
likely to have low income, but males and females understandably report a
similar family income. Level of IPV appeared similar for male and female
respondents, with one exception. Males reported experiencing physical abuse
more often than females. Bivariate associations between covariates and dif-
ferent forms of IPV are presented in Appendices A and B.
Table 2 presents the association between total family income and gender dif-
ferences in experiences of IPV. Lower family income is associated with severe
combined IPV as well as physical and emotional abuse for females and severe
combined victimization and harassment for males. While the specific details may
vary, IPV tends to be experienced by both partners in low-income families.
Table 3 presents the association between husband’s and wife’s income and
IPV after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Females whose partners
(husbands) earn a low income are at greater risk of most forms of IPV with the
exception of harassment. Males whose income is low are more likely to report
IPV victimization except physical abuse. The income level of women (wives)
in contrast to their partners’ income appears unrelated to the level of IPV expe-
rienced by women or men in this study. These associations are presented graph-
ically in Appendices C and D. Table 3 also shows that couples who earn equally
low income (compared with higher husband’s income) are at greater risk of
IPV. Both male and female respondents in families in which both partners have
a low income are at substantially increased risk of almost all forms of IPV.

Discussion
Previous studies have suggested that females are disproportionally the victims
of IPV, that family poverty may predict and be a cause of IPV, and that income
 Table 2. Gender Differences in Association Between Family Income and IPV Victimization (OR With 95% CI; Ref. = $2,500+).
SC PA EA H

Family income Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

$0-$999 16.62 [2.06, 134.36]a 10.74 [1.11, 103.58]a 2.74 [1.16, 6.48] 1.02 [0.37, 2.82] 2.13 [1.09, 4.14] 1.30 [0.55, 3.02] 1.08 [0.32, 3.68] 5.38 [1.50, 19.19]
$1,000-$1,499 1.94 [0.90, 4.19] 0.74 [0.34, 1.62] 2.0 [1.15, 3.46] 1.18 [0.63, 2.20] 0.72 [0.23, 2.22] 3.47 [1.14, 10.53]
$1,500-$1,999 3.77 [0.33, 42.84] 3.76 [0.32, 44.38] 0.93 [0.38, 2.25] 0.89 [0.44, 1.82] 1.29 [0.72, 2.30] 0.61 [0.31, 1.19] 0.34 [0.09, 1.36] 0.78 [0.18, 3.36]
$2,000-$2,499 2.13 [0.13, 34.60] 1.87 [0.11, 31.16] 1.63 [0.72, 3.73] 0.60 [0.27, 1.33] 1.59 [0.89, 2.84] 0.53 [0.27, 1.05] 0.60 [0.15, 2.36] 1.82 [0.58, 5.75]
$2,500+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Note. Each form of IPV is modeled separately for males and females who currently are in relationship. ORs in bold are significantly different to those of the reference category (p <
.05). Model includes ORs (95% CI) adjusted for own and partner education, marital status, length of relationship, and having child. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio;
CI = confidence interval; SC = severe combined; PA = physical abuse; EA = emotional abuse; H = harassment.
aDue to insufficient sample size, only for SC, two first categories were merged.

5509
5510
Table 3. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Wife and Husband’s Absolute and Gender (Im)Balance Income Predicting IPV
Victimization (OR With 95% CI).
SC PA EA– H

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

Model 1: Absolute incomea

Husband’s income
  Low 7.60 [1.37, 42.11] 4.68 [1.07, 20.44] 2.77 [1.32, 5.82] 1.67 [0.66, 4.26] 2.12 [1.22, 3.68] 2.60 [1.17, 5.81] 2.17 [0.72, 6.57] 8.25 [2.50, 27.25]
  Middle 5.23 [1.12, 24.41] 0.71 [0.19, 2.65] 1.42 [0.78, 2.60] 0.77 [0.43, 1.35] 1.13 [0.74, 1.71] 1.13 [0.71, 1.82] 1.04 [0.41, 2.61] 3.22 [1.29, 7.99]
  High 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Wife’s income
  Low 2.0 [0.38, 10.54] 1.36 [0.39, 2.65] 1.71 [0.72, 4.10] 0.79 [0.35, 1.78] 1.70 [0.94, 3.05] 0.77 [0.38, 1.56] 0.63 [0.18, 2.21] 0.65 [0.20, 2.15]
  Middle 1.06 [0.19, 5.83] 1b 1.47 [0.62, 3.48] 0.69 [0.32, 1.47] 1.39 [0.79, 2.46] 0.81 [0.43, 1.54] 0.95 [0.27, 3.29] 0.37 [0.12, 1.71]
  High 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Model 2: Gender (im)balance in income
Both earn low 3.46 [1.0, 12.51] 5.59 [1.08, 28.93] 3.20 [1.52, 6.80] 2.36 [0.80, 6.99] 2.32 [1.26, 4.29] 3.26 [1.24, 8.58] 2.52 [0.83, 7.60] 6.77 [1.98, 23.14]
Both earn middle 1.38 [0.39, 4.89] 0.46 [0.5, 3.93] 1.37 [0.69, 2.72] 0.89 [0.43, 1.87] 1.16 [0.71, 1.90] 1.24 [0.69, 2.25] 0.96 [0.30, 3.08] 1.90 [0.72, 4.98]
Both earn high 1.03 [0.19, 5.47] — 0.90 [0.35, 2.33] 1.24 [0.54, 2.86] 0.84 [0.45, 1.58] 1.12 [0.55, 2.28] 1.69 [0.55, 6.47] 1.79 [0.45, 6.60]
Wife earns more 0.69 [0.08, 5.98] 1.02 [0.11, 9.64) 0.95 [0.34, 2.61] 1.24 [0.44, 3.49] 0.80 [0.40, 1.61] 1.98 [0.87, 4.50] 1.20 [0.25, 5.72] 3.25 [0.92, 11.40]
Husband earns 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
more

Note. Each form of IPV is modeled separately for males and females. ORs in bold are significantly different to those of the reference category (p < .05). Models include ORs (95%
CI) adjusted for own and partner education, marital status, length of relationship, and having child. IPV = intimate partner violence; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval;
SC = severe combined; PA = physical abuse; EA = emotional abuse; H = harassment.
aIn Model 1, husband’s and wife’s income were adjusted for each other.
bDue to insufficient sample size, high income and middle income were merged and considered as the reference group.
Ahmadabadi et al. 5511

disparities between partners may contribute to IPV. First, we find that levels of
IPV as reported by male and female respondents are similar. This raises the
possibility that IPV is characteristic of a relationship and that IPV may be
bidirectional. Surprisingly, males report experiencing physical abuse more
often than females. Second, we find that low household income is associated
with an increased risk of IPV for both females and males. Females in low-
income families are at higher risk of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and
severe combined abuse. Within a low SES family, males are disproportionally
likely to experience severe combined abuse and harassment. Third, against
expectations, females’ absolute income is not related to the experience of IPV
either for females or males. Females and males experience a higher rate of IPV
when the husband (usually the primary income earner) earns a low income.
Last, when considering partners’ relative income, families in which both part-
ners earned a low income are at greater risk of almost all forms of IPV.
Surprisingly, income (im)balance in which females earn more, or partners
both have higher income, is less often associated with the experience of IPV.
In the current study, although the prevalence of physical abuse generally
was higher for males, it was not associated with family or personal income in
men. Further studies are needed to investigate predictors of males’ victimiza-
tion within the family. When total family income is low, females are substan-
tially more likely than men to experience physical abuse. These associations
are independent of a variety of potential confounding factors, including part-
ners’ education level, marital status, duration of relationship, and having chil-
dren. In line with our finding, we could only find one study in England which
reported an association between low social class and physical abuse victimiza-
tion among women but not among men (Khalifeh, Hargreaves, Howard, &
Birdthistle, 2013). It remains the case in contemporary Western societies that
gender role expectations of men to be the main income earner may make them
vulnerable to multiple economic stressors. Our finding supports a Relative
Resource Theory explanation which suggests that when there is a lack of eco-
nomic resources, men might exchange force and physical violence in their
intimate relationships. Another possibility is that there may be circumstance
where incomes are nominally pooled, but in practice, one partner controls the
household money (Vogler & Pahl, 1994). Due to the lower share of money in
the household pool, women may be more vulnerable to the consequences of
financial deprivation or engage in conflict to improve their access to resources.
When family income is disaggregated into the husband’s income, the
wife’s income, and the gender (im)balance in income, there are some impor-
tant differences in the gendered basis of IPV. When the husband’s income is
low, he is much more frequently likely to report experiencing most forms of
IPV with the exception of physical abuse. This finding again suggests that
despite men reporting physical abuse more often, there is no association
5512 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

between family or personal income and males’ physical victimization. Female

partners of low-income males also more often experience most types of IPV,
with the exception of harassment. In broad terms, a low-income earning male
is substantially more likely to live in a household in which both partners
report higher rates of various forms of IPV; by contrast, where the wife’s
income is low, this appears to be unrelated to experiences of IPV.
The finding that wife’s income is unrelated to IPV experience for females
may challenge explanations associated with Dependency Theory, which sug-
gests wives’ economic dependency is a protective factor against IPV victim-
ization (Golden et al., 2013; Hornung et al., 1981; Kalmuss & Straus, 1982;
Tauchen & Witte, 1995). Although wife’s income can increase family well-
being (Rogers & DeBoer, 2001), in the current study female income made a
smaller contribution to the family income than male’s (34.1% vs. 65.9%, p <
.0001). It is not surprising that regardless of the male partner’s income, wife’s
income is unrelated to the level of IPV for both females and males. Feminist
theory and intersectionality perspective argue that women’s status is complex
and multidimensional, including political, legal, social, and economic dimen-
sions. Income is only one marker of a broader range of interdependent char-
acteristics associated with gender inequality (Crenshaw, 1991; Dobash &
Dobash, 1979; Hester et al., 1996; Yodanis, 2004).
When we consider the gender balance of income, relative experiences of
almost all forms of IPV (with the exception of physical abuse in males and
harassment in females) are highest when both partners report receiving low
income. Disagreements over the allocations of limited resources may contrib-
ute to the experience of IPV. Money has been reported to be the most critical
and pervasive source of interpersonal conflicts (Oggins, 2003; Papp,
Cummings, & Goeke-Morey, 2009). Families with inadequate funds have to
struggle with recurrent and unsolvable issues, including making decision
about who, when, why, and how limited funds are to be allocated. Money is
also related to power and to the sense of self-worth. Partners in a low-income
family may engage in more aggressive pattern of behaviors, which is consis-
tent with the view that partners in such relationships become simultaneously
both victims and perpetrators. It may also be the case that the division of
household labor in a low-income family may be a source of conflict and vio-
lence (Killewald & Gough, 2010). Our findings challenge the significance of
subjective dimensions of financial issues (e.g., symbolic meanings) in inter-
personal relationships. The data suggest that objective economic hardships
and resource scarcity create a context for competition, conflict, and abuse.
We also find that in such circumstances, females are at increased risk of phys-
ical abuse and males disproportionately experience harassment. The pattern
raises the possibility that males and females may use different strategies in
response to constraints of living in a poor family. This finding is consistent
Ahmadabadi et al. 5513

with some previous studies suggesting that females tend to display verbal and
indirect forms of aggression, whereas distressed males may show direct and
more physical forms of violence (see, for example, Björkqvist, 1994).
The current study has several strengths. We have used a relatively large,
population-based sample, including both men and women, which enabled us to
examine different types of IPV as well as to adjust for a range of demographic
factors associated with IPV. We also used a validated and comprehensive mea-
surement of IPV which was reliable for both genders. Testing the reliability of
the IPV subscales separately for females and males, we found that the
Cronbach’s alpha of all subscales was higher than .80 (except harassment in
men = .63). We asked about recent experience of IPV to reduce the probability
of memory bias (Ruiz-Pérez, Plazaola-Castaño, & Vives-Cases, 2007).
However, our results should be interpreted with regard to some limitations:
The cross-sectional nature of our study does not allow us to make a causal
inference about the relationship between income and IPV (Khalifeh et al.,
2013). Small sample size, especially in the severe combined victimization
group, widened the CIs and decreased the precision of the estimate. We mod-
eled each form of IPV separately but recognize that they may overlap and
co-occur (Krebs et al., 2011). In an abusive relationship, each partner may be
both victim and perpetrator. Our findings relied on only one partner’s report of
victimization, which might be subject to self-serving bias or less accurate
reports of IPV (Perry & Fromuth, 2005). For instance, there is a possibility
that men might have overreported their experiences of physical abuse in the
current study, because IPV is a more salient event for males. However, in an
abusive relationship, men may be less inclined to disclose their victimization,
due to social shame and denial (Brown, 2004; Dutton, Nicholls, & Spidel
(2005). There is also a need to differentiate between the frequency and degree
of physical violence. It is possible that although men report they experience
physical violence more frequently, due to the lesser females’ physical power,
men might less be seriously injured. Regardless of the frequency of violence
acts, men may do more physical harm when they are violent (Catalano, 2013).
Our findings suggest the need to consider the couple as the unit of interest.
Public health initiatives should be targeted not only at women’s victimization
but also at men’s vulnerability to IPV in the context of relationships. Lack of
knowledge about women’s violence hinders identification of potential interven-
tion targets. The vast majority of IPV victimization does not appear in crime
data or clinical settings. This study was based on cross-sectional reports of com-
mon couple violence, which is relatively dyadic, minor, and possibly consistent
over time. It is not clear when and how this form of family violence may become
severe and under what circumstances this may occur. Further studies need to
investigate whether IPV varies over life-course stages. Looking for possible pat-
terns of IPV over time may offer direction for policy and intervention.
 Appendix A

5514
Univariate Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting IPV Victimization in Females.
SC PA EA H

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Variables n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI)

Marital status
Single now, before 29 (16.1) 16.44 [7.37, 36.68] 49 (27.2) 7.25 [4.50, 11.67] 65 (36.1) 4.73 [3.21, 6.97] 47 (26.1) 17.14 [9.17, 32.02]
in relation
Living together 11 (2.9) 2.53 [1.01, 6.34] 29 (7.6) 1.59 [0.95, 2.64] 58 (15.1) 1.49 [1.03, 2.16] 13 (3.4) 1.70 [.79, 3.66]
Married 8 (1.2) 1 34 (4.9) 1 74 (10.7) 1 14 (2.0) 1
Having children
Yes 41 (5.1) 1.38 [0.83, 2.31] 95 (11.8) 1.73 [1.20, 2.50] 147 (18.3) 1.39 [1.04, 1.85] 70 (8.7) 1.81 [1.18, 2.79]
No 24 (3.7) 1 46 (7.2) 1 89 (13.9) 1 32 (5.0) 1
Own education
Under diploma 24 (5.6) 2.19 [1.08, 4.43] 53 (12.4) 2.0 [1.25, 3.19] 83 (19.4) 1.68 [1.16, 2.42] 46 (10.7) 2.76 [1.59, 4.79]
Diploma and 29 (5.2) 2.02 [1.02, 4.0] 57 (10.2) 1.61 [1.01, 2.54] 94 (16.8) 1.41 [0.99, 2.01] 37 (6.6) 1.62 [0.92, 2.86]
college
University 12 (2.6) 1 30 (6.6) 1 57 (12.6) 1 19 (4.2) 1
Partner’s education
Under diploma 13 (3.2) 1.60 [0.60, 4.26] 31 (7.7) 2.64 [1.24, 5.64] 59 (14.6) 1.77 [1.09, 2.88] 19 (4.7) 3.59 [1.21, 10.67]
Diploma and 5 (1.1) 0.51 [0.16, 1.69] 30 (6.3) 2.14 [1.0-4.57] 59 (12.4) 1.46 [0.90, 2.39] 10 (2.1) 1.56 [0.49, 5.02]
college
University 6 (2.0) 1 9 (3.1) 1 26 (8.8) 1 4 (1.4) 1
Own incomea
Low 12 (2.8) 6.79 [0.88, 52.56] 33 (7.6) 2.39 [1.08, 5.25] 66 (15.1) 1.87 [1.11, 3.14] 13 (3.0) 1.45 [0.51, 4.12]
Middle 5 (1.3) 3.13 [0.36, 26.91] 21 (5.4) 1.66 [0.72, 3.81] 45 (11.6) 1.37 [0.80, 2.36] 9 (2.3) 1.12 [0.37, 3.38]
High 1 (0.4) 1 8 (3.3) 1 21 (8.7) 1 5 (2.1) 1

(continued)
 Appendix A (continued)
SC PA EA H

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Variables n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI)

Partner’s incomea
Low 5 (4.2) 21.06 [2.44, 182.05] 14 (11.9) 3.25 [1.58, 6.68] 25 (21.2) 2.35 [1.38, 3.99] 6 (5.1) 2.50 [0.89, 7.03]
Middle 11 (2.4) 11.48 [1.48, 89.30] 29 (6.2) 1.60 [0.88, 2.89] 57 (12.2) 0.35 [0.81, 1.82] 10 (2.1) 1.02 [0.42, 2.48]
High 1 (0.2) 1 19 (4.0) 1 49 (10.3) 1 10 (2.1) 1
Length of relationship 2.29 (3.62) 0.78 [0.72, 0.85] 4.17 (4.92) 0.90 [0.87, 0.95] 5.19 (4.76) 0.96 [0.93, 0.99] 2.81 (4.40) 0.82 [0.77, 0.87]
M (SD)

Note. ORs in bold are significantly different to those of the reference category (p < .05). IPV = intimate partner violence; SC = severe combined;
PA = physical abuse; EA = emotional abuse; H = harassment; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
aSingles were omitted from the analysis, because we ask them about current income which might be different from when they were in the relation.

5515
 Appendix B

5516
Univariate Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting IPV Victimization in Males.
SC PA EA H

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Variables n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI)

Marital status
Single now, before in 13 (11.3) 6.15 [2.48, 15.24] 26 (22.6) 2.32 [1.35, 3.97] 33 (28.7) 2.43 [1.48, 3.98] 23 (20.0) 7.95 [3.82, 16.58]
relation
Living together 4 (1.6) 0.79 [0.24, 2.65] 33 (13.3) 1.22 [0.75, 1.98] 49 (19.8) 1.49 [0.98, 2.26] 22 (8.9) 3.10 [1.50, 6.38]
Married 8 (2.0) 1 44 (11.2) 1 56 (14.2) 1 12 (3.0) 1
Having children
Yes 20 (5.2) 3.39 [1.53, 7.52] 65 (16.9) 1.88 [1.28, 2.76] 84 (21.8) 1.64 [1.17, 2.30] 31 (8.1) 0.97 [0.60, 1.55]
No 9 (1.6) 1 55 (9.7) 1 82 (14.5) 1 47 (8.3) 1
Own education
Under diploma 15 (4.5) 5.07 [1.15, 22.36] 58 (17.2) 2.64 [1.48, 4.73] 67 (19.9) 1.59 [1.0, 2.55] 40 (11.9) 3.15 [1.50, 6.63]
Diploma and college 12 (3.1) 3.49 [0.77, 15.73] 45 (11.6) 1.68 [0.92, 3.05] 68 (17.6) 1.35 [0.85, 2.15] 28 (7.2) 1.83 [0.85, 3.95]
University 2 (0.9) 1 16 (7.3) 1 30 (13.6) 1 9 (4.1) 1
Partner’s education
Under diploma 8 (3.3) 1.92 [0.62, 5.94] 35 (14.5) 1.49 [0.88, 2.53] 4 (18.7) 1.32 [0.83, 2.10] 21 (8.7) 2.16 [1.04, 4.50]
Diploma and college 4 (2.0) 1.16 [0.31, 4.39] 26 (13.3) 1.35 [0.77, 2.37] 38 (19.4) 1.39 [0.86, 2.45] 12 (6.1) 1.48 [0.65, 3.36]
University 5 (1.8) 1 29 (10.2) 1 42 (14.8) 1 12 (4.2) 1
Own incomea
Low 3 (8.8) 6.27 [1.43, 27.49] 7 (20.6) 1.93 [0.78, 4.72] 9 (26.5) 2.11 [0.93, 4.79] 6 (17.6) 8.60 [2.79, 26.53]
Middle 4 (1.4) 0.95 [0.25, 3.57] 31 (11.2) 0.94 [0.57, 1.55] 48 (17.3) 1.23 [0.79, 1.90] 20 (7.2) 3.12 [1.35, 7.21]
High 5 (1.5) 1 39 (11.9) 1 48 (14.6) 1 8 (2.4) 1

(continued)
 Appendix B (continued)
SC PA EA H

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Variables n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI) n (%) OR (95% CI)

Partner’s incomea
Low 7 (2.7) — 33 (12.5) 0.93 [0.49, 1.76] 44 (16.7) 1.13 [0.62, 2.05] 18 (6.8) 1.39 [0.53, 3.60]
Middle 4 (1.6) 25 (10.3) 0.75 [0.38, 1.46] 40 (16.5) 1.12 [0.61, 2.05] 10 (4.1) 0.82 [0.30, 2.30]
High 0 16 (13.3) 1 18 (15.0) 1 6 (5.0) 1
Length of relationship 4.14 (0.92) 0.96 [0.88, 1.06] 4.71 (4.16) 1.0 [0.95, 1.05] 4.97 (4.11) 1.02 [0.98, 1.06] 3.60 (4.16) 0.93 [0.87, 0.99]
M (SD)

Note. ORs in bold are significantly different to those of the reference category (p < .05). IPV = intimate partner violence; SC = severe combined; PA = physical abuse;
EA = emotional abuse; H = harassment; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.
aSingles were omitted from the analysis, because we ask them about current income which might be different from when they were in the relation.

5517
5518 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Appendix C

Gender difference in association between own absolute income and different forms
of IPV victimization.
Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.
Ahmadabadi et al. 5519

Appendix D

Gender difference in association of partner’s absolute income and different forms

of IPV victimization.
Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Mater-University of Queensland Study of
Pregnancy (MUSP) research team, the Schools of Public Health and Social sciences
(The University of Queensland), and also the Research Training Program of the
Australian Government and the University of Queensland for sponsoring the principal
author of the research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
5520 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the National
Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council (NHMRC
Grant 1009460). The principal author is in receipt of “the Australian Government
Research Training Program Scholarship” and “the University of Queensland Centennial
Scholarship.”

References
Abramsky, T., Watts, C. H., Garcia-Moreno, C., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Ellsberg, M.,
. . . Heise, L. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner
violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and
domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11, Article 109. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-
11-109
Allen, C. M., & Straus, M. A. (1980). Resources, power, and husband–wife violence.
In M. A. Straus & G. T. Hotaling (Eds.), The social causes of husband-wife vio-
lence (pp. 188-208). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women, breadwinning
can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 1137-1148. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00206.x
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Personal Safety Survey. Retrieved from http://
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4906.0
Baxter, J., & Hewitt, B. (2013). Negotiating domestic labor: Women’s earnings and
housework time in Australia. Feminist Economics, 19(1), 29-53. doi:10.1080/13
545701.2012.744138
Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A
review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-188.
Brown, G. A. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement sys-
tem to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8, (3-4), 3-139.
Campbell, J., Jones, A. S., Dienemann, J., Kub, J., Schollenberger, J., O’Campo,
P., . . . Wynne, C. (2002). Intimate partner violence and physical health con-
sequences. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 1157-1163. doi:10.1001/
archinte.162.10.1157
Cano, A., & Vivian, D. (2001). Life stressors and husband-to-wife violence. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 6, 459-480. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00017-3
Capaldi, D. M., Kim, H. K., & Shortt, J. W. (2007). Observed initiation and reciproc-
ity of physical aggression in young, at-risk couples. Journal of Family Violence,
22, 101-111. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9067-1
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic
review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3, 231-280.
doi:10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231
Catalano, S. (2013). Intimate partner violence: Attributes of victimization, 1993-
2011. Available from www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Ahmadabadi et al. 5521

Conger, R. D., Ge, X., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., & Simons, R. L. (1994). Economic
stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents.
Child Development, 65, 541-561.
Corvo, K., & Johnson, P. J. (2003). Vilification of the “batterer”: How blame shapes
domestic violence policy and interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8,
259-281. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00060-X
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,
and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.
doi:10.2307/1229039
DeKeseredy, W. S. (2000). Current controversies on defining nonlethal violence
against women in intimate heterosexual relationships: Empirical implications.
Violence Against Women, 6, 728-746. doi:10.1177/10778010022182128
de Vaus, D. (2004). Diversity and change in Australian families: Statistical profiles.
Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y., Garcia-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder, G.,
. . . Watts, C. H. (2013). Global health: The global prevalence of intimate partner
violence against women. Science, 340, 1527-1528. doi:10.1126/science.1240937
Djikanovic, B., Jansen, H. A. F. M., & Otasevic, S. (2010). Factors associated with
intimate partner violence against women in Serbia: A cross-sectional study.
Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 64, 728-735. doi:10.1136/
jech.2009.090415
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patri-
archy. New York, NY: Free Press.
Dutton, D. G., Hamel, J., & Aaronson, J. (2010). The gender paradigm in family court
processes: Re-balancing the scales of justice from biased social science. Journal
of Child Custody, 7(1), 1-31. doi:10.1080/15379410903554816
Dutton, D. G., Nicholls, T. L., & Spidel, A. (2005). Female perpetrators of inti-
mate abuse. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41(4), 1-31. doi:10.1300/
J076v41n04_01
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Partner violence and
mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 67, 1103-1119. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00202.x
Fox, G. L., Benson, M. L., DeMaris, A. A., & Van Wyk, J. (2002). Economic distress
and intimate violence: Testing family stress and resources theories. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64, 793-807. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00793.x
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. H.
(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-
country study on women’s health and domestic violence. The Lancet, 368, 1260-
1269. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8
Golden, S. D., Perreira, K. M., & Durrance, C. P. (2013). Troubled times, troubled
relationships: How economic resources, gender beliefs, and neighborhood disad-
vantage influence intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
28, 2134-2155. doi:10.1177/0886260512471083
Goode, W. J. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 33, 624-636. doi:10.2307/349435
5522 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Goodman, L. A., Smyth, K. F., Borges, A. M., & Singer, R. (2009). When crises
collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to shape wom-
en’s mental health and coping? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 306-329.
doi:10.1177/1524838009339754
Hegarty, K., Bush, R., & Sheehan, M. (2005). The Composite Abuse Scale: Further
development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional
partner abuse measure in clinical settings. Violence and Victims, 20, 529-547.
Hegarty, K., & Valpied, J. (2007). Composite Abuse Scale manual. Melbourne,
Australia: University of Melbourne.
Hester, M., Kelly, L., & Radford, J. (1996). Women, violence, and male power: Feminist
activism, research, and practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Hornung, C. A., McCullough, B. C., & Sugimoto, T. (1981). Status relationships in
marriage: Risk factors in spouse abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 43, 675-
692. doi:10.2307/351768
Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet,
359, 1423-1429. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two
forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283-294.
Kalmuss, D. S., & Straus, M. A. (1982). Wife’s marital dependency and wife abuse.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 44, 277-286. doi:10.2307/351538
Kaukinen, C. (2004). Status compatibility, physical violence, and emotional abuse
in intimate relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 452-471.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00031.x
Keeping, J. D., Najman, J. M., Morrison, J., Western, J. S., Andersen, M. J., &
Williams, G. M. (1989). A prospective longitudinal study of social, psychologi-
cal and obstetric factors in pregnancy: Response rates and demographic charac-
teristics of the 8556 respondents. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics
& Gynaecology, 96, 289-297. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb02388.x
Khalifeh, H., Hargreaves, J., Howard, L. M., & Birdthistle, I. (2013). Intimate partner
violence and socioeconomic deprivation in England: Findings from a national
cross-sectional survey. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 462-472.
Killewald, A., & Gough, M. (2010). Money isn’t everything: Wives’ earnings and
housework time. Social Science Research, 39, 987-1003.
Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive
and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332-1363.
doi:10.1177/107780102237407
Kishor, S., & Johnson, K. (2006). Reproductive health and domestic violence: Are the
poorest women uniquely disadvantaged? Demography, 43, 293-307. doi:10.1353/
dem.2006.0014
Krebs, C., Breiding, M. J., Browne, A., & Warner, T. (2011). The association between
different types of intimate partner violence experienced by women. Journal of
Family Violence, 26, 487-500. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9383-3
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report
on violence and health. The Lancet, 360, 1083-1088. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(02)11133-0
Ahmadabadi et al. 5523

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2010). Controversies involving gender and intimate part-

ner violence in the United States. Sex Roles, 62, 179-193. doi:10.1007/s11199-
009-9628-2
Lokhmatkina, N. V., Kuznetsova, O. Y., & Feder, G. S. (2010). Prevalence and asso-
ciations of partner abuse in women attending Russian general practice. Family
Practice, 27, 625-631.
Loxton, D., Powers, J., Fitzgerald, D., Forder, P., Anderson, A., Taft, A., . . . Hegarty,
K. (2013). The Community Composite Abuse Scale: Reliability and validity of a
measure of intimate partner violence in a community survey from the ALSWH.
Journal of Womens Health, Issues and Care, 2(4), 1-7.
Macmillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-
force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 61, 947-958. doi:10.2307/354015
McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and coercive power within the family.
Gender & Society, 10, 449-463. doi:10.1177/089124396010004006
McDonald, R., Jouriles, E. N., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Caetano, R., & Green, C. E.
(2006). Estimating the number of American children living in partner-violent
families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 137-142.
Najman, J., Alati, R., Bor, W., Clavarino, A., Mamun, A., McGrath, J. J., . . . Wray,
N. (2015). Cohort profile update: The Mater-University of Queensland Study
of Pregnancy (MUSP). International Journal of Epidemiology, 44(1), 78-78f.
doi:10.1093/ije/dyu234
Najman, J., Bor, W., O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G., Aird, R., & Shuttlewood, G.
(2005). Cohort profile: The Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy
(MUSP). International Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 992-997. doi:10.1093/ije/
dyi119
Oggins, J. (2003). Topics of marital disagreement among African-American and
Euro-American newlyweds. Psychological Reports, 92, 419-425. doi:10.2466/
pr0.2003.92.2.419
Papp, L. M., Cummings, E. M., & Goeke-Morey, M. C. (2009). For richer, for poorer:
Money as a topic of marital conflict in the home. Family Relations, 58, 91-103.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00537.x
Peisch, V., Parent, J., Forehand, R., Golub, A., Reid, M., & Price, M. (2016). Intimate
partner violence in cohabiting families: Reports by multiple informants and asso-
ciations with adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Violence, 31, 747-757.
doi:10.1007/s10896-016-9808-0
People, J. (2005). Trends and patterns in domestic violence assaults. Retrieved from
https://search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=030948772473035;res=IELHSS
Perry, A. R., & Fromuth, M. E. (2005). Courtship violence using couple data:
Characteristics and perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1078-
1095. doi:10.1177/0886260505278106
Rietveld, L., Lagro-Janssen, T., Vierhout, M., & Wong, S. L. F. (2010). Prevalence
of intimate partner violence at an out-patient clinic obstetrics-gynecology in the
Netherlands. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 31(1), 3-9.
5524 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 35(23-24)

Rogers, S. J., & DeBoer, D. D. (2001). Changes in wives’ income: Effects on marital
happiness, psychological well-being, and the risk of divorce. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 63, 458-472. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00458.x
Ross, J. M., & Babcock, J. C. (2010). Gender and intimate partner violence in
the United States: Confronting the controversies. Sex Roles, 62, 194-200.
doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9677-6
Ruiz-Pérez, I., Plazaola-Castaño, J., & Vives-Cases, C. (2007). Methodological issues
in the study of violence against women. Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health, 61(Suppl. 2), ii26-ii31. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.059907
Salom, C. L., Williams, G. M., Najman, J. M., & Alati, R. (2015). Substance use and
mental health disorders are linked to different forms of intimate partner violence
victimisation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 151, 121-127. doi:10.1016/j.dru-
galcdep.2015.03.011
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict
Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and
female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review,
30, 252-275. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004
Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and
chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students
in Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281-290. doi:10.1002/ab.20199
Sutherland, C. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2001). Effects of intimate partner
violence versus poverty on women’s health. Violence Against Women, 7, 1122-
1143. doi:10.1177/10778010122183775
Tauchen, H., & Witte, A. D. (1995). The dynamics of domestic violence. The
American Economic Review, 85, 414-418.
van Egmond, M., Baxter, J., Buchler, S., & Western, M. (2010). A stalled revolution?
Gender role attitudes in Australia, 1986–2005. Journal of Population Research,
27, 147-168. doi:10.1007/s12546-010-9039-9
Vogler, C., & Pahl, J. (1994). Money, power and inequality within marriage. The
Sociological Review, 42, 263-288. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1994.tb00090.x
Vung, N. D., Ostergren, P.-O., & Krantz, G. (2008). Intimate partner violence against
women in rural Vietnam—Different socio-demographic factors are associated
with different forms of violence: Need for new intervention guidelines? BMC
Public Health, 8, Article 55.
Vyas, S., & Watts, C. (2009). How does economic empowerment affect women’s risk
of intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries? A systematic
review of published evidence. Journal of International Development, 21, 577-
602. doi:10.1002/jid.1500
Walton-Moss, B. J., Manganello, J., Frye, V., & Campbell, J. C. (2005). Risk factors
for intimate partner violence and associated injury among urban women. Journal
of Community Health, 30, 377-389. doi:10.1007/s10900-005-5518-x
Ware, R. S., Williams, G. M., & Aird, R. L. (2006). Participants who left a mul-
tiple-wave cohort study had similar baseline characteristics to participants
Ahmadabadi et al. 5525

who returned. Annals of Epidemiology, 16, 820-823. doi:10.1016/j.annepi-

dem.2006.01.008
World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence
against women: Intimate partner violence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77432/1/
WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf
Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A
cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655-675. doi:10.1177/0886260504263868

Author Biographies
Zohre Ahmadabadi is a PhD candidate at the School of Public Health of the
University of Queensland. She received her master’s degree in sociology in 2005
from Shahid Beheshti University (National University of Iran), Tehran, Iran. Her
research interests are predictors and consequences of intimate partner violence.
Jackob M. Najman is a professor of medical sociology and director of Queensland
Alcohol & Drug Research and Education Centre (QUADREC) at the University of
Queensland. He received his doctorate in 1978 from the University of New South
Wales. He has authored and/or coauthored over 500 publications. His major research
commitment has been a large-scale prebirth cohort study which recruited over 8,000
pregnant women over the period 1981-1983.
Gail M. Williams is a professor at the University of Queensland. She received her
doctorate from the University of Queensland. She is head of the Epidemiology and
Biostatistics Division.
Alexandra M. Clavarino is an associate professor at the University of Queensland.
She received her doctorate in medical sociology from the University of Queensland.
Her main interests are in life-course studies of women’s mental and physical health
outcomes.