Author
Chris Friendly

Faculty Mentor
Christine Palmer, MPH, EdD, CHES

 

 

Abstract

Domestic violence, defined as both emotional and physical abuse in intimate relationships, is a pressing issue in today’s society. Because of its serious nature, domestic violence has become a topic of great interest and concern for many public health researchers. However, an overwhelming degree of the studies conducted by these investigators only examine the effects of domestic violence on the female population. In this literature review, 27 sources, both peer-reviewed articles and literature reviews, were previewed. Of the 27 sources, only four were specific to male victimization. This literature review highlights the research disparity between female and male domestic violence studies. The ultimate lack of research conducted on male victims of domestic, or intimate partner, abuse may have serious implications on how health professionals respond to and treat male victims of emotional and physical abuse.

 

The Victimization of Heterosexual Males: A Literature Review on Domestic Violence

 

Domestic violence has become a topic of increasing interest to many public health professionals. However, the primary focus of these researchers to examine how domestic violence affects women with little attention given to the male population.¹ When examining prevalence rates of physical abuse, the CDC reports that 6.6% of women have experienced physical abuse, including sexual violence, physical assault, and stalking, in the last 12 months, and that 1 in 3 women (37.3%) have faced physical abuse during their lifetime.² Similarly, 6.4% of males have experienced some type of physical abuse in the last 12 months and 1 in 3, or 30.9%, of males have experienced physical abuse at some point during their life.² The CDC also provides 12-month and lifetime prevalence rates for female victims of psychological abuse, stating that 14.1% of females have experienced some type of psychological abuse in the past 12 months and 47.1% of females have endured psychological aggression at some point during their lifetime.² Male victims have also experienced psychological abuse, both in the past 12 months and throughout their lifetime, at an alarming rate. The CDC reports that 18.2% of males have experienced psychological abuse in the past 12 months and 47.3% of males have experienced psychological aggression at one point during their lifetime.² Ultimately, the rate at which males and females experience physical and psychological abuse are analogous.²

 

Defining Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is defined as:

Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, the following types of abuse: psychological, physical, sexual, financial, and emotional.³         

However, other investigators group these five types of abuse into two categories: physical and psychological abuse.^4,5,6,7 Throughout this literature review, we will therefore examine domestic violence in the scope of physical and psychological abuse.

Academics have also identified several synonyms for the term ‘domestic violence.’ These include: dating violence, relationship abuse, domestic abuse, conjugal violence, spousal violence, coercive control, intimate partner violence (IPV), and courtship violence.^{8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21}

Physical Abuse

        Just as academics have worked to provide a definition for domestic violence, they have also worked to define physical abuse. Physical abuse involves repeated actions that cause physical injury and pain to the victim, and is defined as “the intentional use of physical force with the potential for causing death, disability, injury, or harm.”²² Although the definition for physical abuse is widely accepted, many researchers do not provide a specific definition in their methodologies. Instead, academics provide examples of what constitutes physical abuse.¹² For example, physical abuse is often defined using the following parameters: throwing something, pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, kicking, biting, hitting with fists, trying to hit with something, beatings, threatening with a knife or gun, and/or use of a knife or gun.⁴ In 1996, the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2) was published. The CTS2 improves upon the original Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS2 includes additional examples of physical abuse: pulling hair, twisting arm, dragging, choking, and physically forcing sexual acts.⁷ A 2010 CDC summary report on intimate partner violence includes factors such as burning or slamming a partner against something, and excluded other factors such as throwing objects.²³ Ultimately, the actions that investigators consider physical abuse have remained consistent over time.²³

Psychological Abuse

        Psychological abuse is often defined as the use of verbal or non-verbal forms of communication to purposely harm or control another person.²² However, legal and diagnostic factors prevent the formulation of an agreed upon definition because the perception of emotional abuse and its severity is subjective and unique to the victim.⁶ Similar to physical abuse, researchers chose to define psychological abuse by describing specific examples, including recurring criticism, verbal aggression, isolation, and/or domination shown towards a partner.⁶ The CTS2 provides more in-depth examples of psychological abuse: “insulting or swearing,” “shouting at partner,” “stomping out of the room,” “threatening to hit or throw something at partner,” “destroying something of partner’s,” “doing something to spite partner,” “calling partner fat or ugly,” and “accusing partner of being a lousy lover.”⁷ In 1999, the “4-Factor Model” was published. This model outlines four levels of emotional abuse: (a) “domination and intimidation,” which includes threats, property violence and intense public displays of control; (b) “restrictive engulfment,” which includes behaviors such as isolation, intense displays of jealousy, coercive behaviors, and possessiveness; (c) “denigration,” which involves humiliating and degrading behaviors; and (d) “hostile withdrawal,” where the perpetrator withholds emotional contact and withdraws in a hostile manner.⁵

        Physical and emotional acts of abuse are both degrading and painful for women. However, whether men are affected by abuse in the same way is a question that remains largely unexplored. This review serves to showcase the gender disparities of both the quantity and content of domestic violence abuse literature. Because the copious amount of literature examining domestic violence precludes the ability to examine all the available literature, representative examples were selected.

 

Methods

 

      Peer-reviewed research papers address domestic violence as a more common situation for females than for their male counterparts.¹ As such, there are few peer-reviewed studies that directly address male victims.^1,20,21,24 Because of this disparity in the literature, many of the articles in this literature review focus on male perpetrators or a mix of both males and females. In total, 27 peer-reviewed articles and literature reviews are presented.

      The lack of articles of relevance to male victimization in an intimate relationship when searching the terms “male domestic violence,” “violence against males in loving relationships,” “male victimization” and “abuse on males,” resulted in other terms being used to find information relevant to the topic. The information found from searching “abusive relationships,” “relationship violence,” “relationship abuse,” “partner abuse,” “dating violence,” “physical abuse,” “psychological abuse,” “mental abuse,” and “emotional abuse” yielded greater success. Even still, many of the articles and reviews maintained primary focus on female or mixed gender populations.

      Online databases searched for this review included EBSCO Publishing, Google Scholar, IngentaConnect, JSTOR, SAGE Journal, Springer Link, and Taylor & Francis Online. These databases included many different types of peer-reviewed manuscripts, all focusing on domestic violence, that were accessed to preview the available literature.

      Search parameters included key words such as: “male domestic violence,” “domestic violence against males in loving relationships,” “male victimization,” “abuse on males,” and others – as noted in Table 1 and Table 2 of the results section. Another parameter included year of publication. The minimum year of publication was set to 1983 with a maximum year of 2016. To ensure that articles were relevant to the scope of this literature review, all subject areas apart from “health and social care,” and “medicine, dentistry, nursing, and allied health,” and “behavioral sciences” were excluded.

 

Results

 

      Table 1 and Table 2 provide a sample, from two online journal databases, of the disparity in the quantity of literature between male and female victimization. Table 1 represents the results from SAGE Journals database, while Table 2 shows the results gathered from Taylor and Francis Online database. In the tables, the “search term” was typed into the advanced search bar on the online journal database. Each “search term” had set parameters including year, not limiting search results, and the exclusion of repeat articles. The minimum year specified for the advanced search was 1983, with a maximum year of 2016. Both the general number of hits and the number of hits that pertained only to heterosexual male victimization were recorded in the table. Both Table 1 and Table 2 show the disparity in the available literature for the heterosexual male victims of emotional and physical abuse.

Women and Mixed Gender Victimization

      The female and mixed gender groups were combined into one group in this literature review because the authors’ conclusions presented recurring themes for these two populations. The two primary themes observed were that men were the main aggressors in violent and abusive relationships and the male population was utilized as a means of comparison when a study contained a mixed gendered population.

      Primary literature. The sources, as found during the database searches, have three common categories: (a) emotional abuse,^{5,8,11,25,26,27,28,29} (b) physical abuse,^{9,10,13,15,18,19} or (c) both types of abusive behavior.^17,30

      The number of papers concerning physical abuse outnumbered those involving emotional abuse. One manuscript explored various types of physical abuse such as slapping, hitting, pushing, and punching.^{9,10,15,18,19} Some studies, for example, focused on physical abuse within the undergraduate population at universities.^10,17 Other sources concentrated on the adolescent population.^4,9,13,18 Still, other researchers rendered attention to specific populations such as women in the United States¹² women in New Zealand,¹⁵ or men in Bangladesh.³⁰

      Emotional abuse perpetration is not addressed as commonly in online journals, which is also reflected in this literature review. Many of the researchers devote a significant amount of time to defining emotional abuse and examining the psychological repercussions and coping strategies of emotional abuse.^{5,8,11,24,26,27,28} In 2003 a study was conducted, using an introductory college psychology class, to explore the effects of psychological abuse on female victims.²⁸ The study noted three key findings in college-aged, female victims of psychological abuse, finding that women who are psychologically abused are more likely to: (a) engage in health risk behaviors (illicit drug use, binge drinking, smoking), (b) maintain negative health perceptions of themselves, and (c) exhibit functional impairments.²⁸

      A similar study explored a possible link between post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and emotional abuse and found that emotional abuse is a significant predictor of PTSD severity in the female population.²⁴ They also found a strong correlation between trauma and PTSD.²⁴ Other studies support the relationship between psychological abuse and negative outcomes. Lammers et al. interviewed seven females who experienced emotional abuse in a previous relationship.²⁷ They found a link between routine subjection to subordination and long-term negative effects on a female’s emotional health and self-esteem.

      Other research papers discussed both emotional and physical abuse in intimate relationships. These papers encompassed many different areas of focus and conclusions. For example, one study found that women who are involved in emotionally and physically abusive relationships are likely to justify and dismiss the actions of their abuser when the abuser expressed romantic behaviors.¹⁶ The behavior of the abuser in this scenario is known as a “push-pull” mechanism. Yamawaki, Ocha-Shipp, Pulsipher, Harlos, and Swindler focused on victim blaming in domestic violence cases and found a significant amount of victim blaming based on the victim’s demographics.²⁹ Furthermore, they found conclusive evidence to suggest that victims who return to an abusive relationship are blamed more by their peers and perceived to be ‘asking for it.’²⁹ They also found that people who adhere to the myths of abusive relationships are more likely to have negative attitudes and victim blame.²⁹ Yamawaki et al. noticed that men were more likely to victim blame if they held negative attitudes.²⁹ Reitzel-Jaffe and Wolfe, the antecedent of Yamawaki et al., found evidence to suggest that the presence of abuse in a family during an individual’s childhood was a predictor of both violence and flawed beliefs regarding gender roles and domestic violence.¹⁷ Reitzel-Jaffe and Wolfe discovered that those negative beliefs predicted their own use of violence, and the association of a man with negative peers predicted the rise in the amount of abuse toward a partner in a relationship.¹⁷

      Models and theories. The “Four-Factor Model” is one of the models that are directly used in a study focusing on the female population.⁵ Likewise the Conflict Tactics Scales 2 maintains a primary focus on the female population.⁷ One major advantage of both the “Four-Factor Model” and the CTS2 is their versatility in gender-specific research. For example, researchers can apply the parameters outlined in the two models when studying male victimization, just as the models are applied for research focusing on battered women.

      Literature reviews. Our examination of the literature yielded several literature reviews that focus on either women or mixed genders.^6,14,31 One study explored the power one individual in a relationship has over another and how this power dynamic leads to a greater probability of domestic violence⁴. Hearn’s research provided a paradoxical comparison between the study of sociology and abusive relationships.¹⁴ The topic of interest in O’Leary’s research revolved around psychological abuse and the implications that stemmed from those abusive behaviors.⁶ O’Leary found the same association in his results as Murphy and Hoover⁵, but also concluded that psychological abuse has a greater impact on the victim’s mentality than physical abuse.⁶ From O’Leary’s study, four key findings were obtained: (a) “psychological aggression can be measured reliably,” (b) “physical aggression is nearly always preceded by psychological aggression,” (c) “psychological aggression has the same detrimental effects as physical aggression,” and (d) “psychological aggression can be defined for reliable assessment.”⁶ Another review homed in on multi-perpetrator domestic violence of women.³¹ This review concluded that domestic violence is most prevalent in areas with low socioeconomic status and high levels of gang activity and that many areas of low socioeconomic status are rooted in patriarchal and conservative values, leading to the misconceived belief that violence is a chief way for males to advance in prestige.³¹

Male Victim Literature

      Primary studies. A few of the sources identified in this literature review contained data, both qualitative and quantitative, on relationship abuse toward the male population.^1,19,20,23 Of these sources, a general theme appears in each of the conclusions: the victimization of males has a direct association with the following characteristics observed in the victimized male: anger, childhood trauma, fear, jealousy, recent abuse toward the perpetrator by the male victim, self-defense, and stress.

      Models and theories. We found only one model when reviewing the literature that focuses on male victimization.²⁰ This model seeks to explain why females engage in abusive behavior while in a relationship. The model includes fear, self-defense, control, retribution, childhood trauma, and defense of children as explanatory factors of female’s use of violence in an intimate relationship.²⁰

      Literature reviews. One literature review, in an indirect manner, discusses male victimization.¹ This review highlights the legal implications of abuse and a jury’s tendency to deny and defend a female abuser, but prosecute a male who has abused a female.¹

 

Conclusion

 

      Based on examination of the current literature, most research that investigates domestic violence centers on the victimization of women. The disparity in the quantity of literature available on the abused male population when compared to the abused female population is problematic when gender stereotypes become involved. In 2015, a survey of 475 college-aged students was conducted to explore the perceived barriers to acquiring, and the availability of, help for those who were in an abusive relationship.²⁵ The results of a survey indicated that males face more barriers than females when reporting sexual assault because the resources available for help favor female victims over male victims.²⁵ A similar study suggests that males are more likely to tolerate abuse and not report it than females due to fear of ridicule.⁴ Yet another study examines sex, ethnicity, and economic status as variables associated with domestic violence.¹⁸ The study found a positive correlation between couples struggling financially and an increase in domestic violence.¹⁸ There were also distinctions made between social classes, chiefly related to male ethnicity; however, even though perpetration varied among males, victimization did not vary among females of different races.¹⁸

      The stereotypes that men face cause embarrassment and make it difficult for them to approach someone for help following victimization. Often, men are afraid they will be told to “suck it up” or to “be a man.”⁴ One study highlights the stigmatization that males face when coming forward about experiencing abuse in a relationship.³² The most common stigmatizing behaviors include: (a) men being judged by how well they assert their dominance and achieve relational control, (b) facing societal embarrassment for revealing abuse, and (c) receiving negative responses from law enforcement officials for filing abuse complaints.³²

      In this review, literature focusing on female victimization was used to establish a detailed understanding of physical and psychological abuse and show the disparity in the amount of literature exploring male victimization. However, researchers who focus on the victimized, female population have made key contributions to victimized, male population. Models, such as the Four Factor Model and the Conflict Tactics Scales 2 are applicable to both genders. The versatility of these models has provided a base for investigators to explore abuse in the male population. Moreover, the researchers who have studied female victims of relationship violence have procured definitions for both physical and psychological abuse that are applicable to both genders. The literature of the female population is expansive when compared to the literature on males. Although it is understood that abuse on the male population happens, societal stigmatization and a lack of research has led to an absence of knowledge regarding how males cope with abuse. This creates a sense of mystery as to whether men respond to abuse in the same ways as women. Because there is a scarcity of literature concerning the male population, a great deal of speculation and generalization is often used.

      The stigmatization of abused males not only creates problems with effective treatment, but it also creates a degree of complexity for health education specialists, psychologists, sociologists, and healthcare professionals when conducting appropriate research. Although these societal barriers remain in place, there are ways to conduct research on abused men and provide them with treatment. One of the best ways to ensure the comfort and participation of abused males is to maintain a degree of support when an abused male comes forward about their experience. It is vital to not indulge in the societal stereotypes that an abused male should “man up.” An accepting, non-judgmental response by healthcare professionals and researchers can help affected males feel more comfortable coming forward and begin to heal. It is therefore imperative that research be conducted to not only aid in alleviating the unwillingness of men to speak up about their experience as victims, but to also help healthcare providers be cognizant of these stereotypes and their effects on the abused men with whom they are working.

Gaps in the Research and Future Applications

      As stated, little research has been conducted on male victimization, as represented in the results of this paper. Twenty-five female-specific sources were gathered from online databases while only four sources were specific to males. This lack of research can be viewed as a detriment to the male population because without research, there will be a lack of quality resources available to males who have been abused either physically or emotionally. Furthermore, a lack of research and resources encourages society to turn a blind eye to the reality and gravity of the abused male experience. If the disparity observed in the literature is not addressed, the many stereotypes that males face regarding abuse, the perception that males are not abused, and the belief that the male victim is insignificant when compared to the female victim, will continue.

---

 

 

About the Author

Chris Friendly

My name is Christopher Friendly. I composed “The Victimization of Heterosexual Males: A Literature Review on Domestic Violence” during my sophomore year of undergraduate at the University of South Carolina with the help of Dr. Christine Palmer. Since that time, I have graduated from the University of South Carolina Summa Cum Laude and with Leadership Distinction in Research. I am now a medical student in Charleston at the Medical University of South Carolina.

The primary purpose of this literature review is to highlight the disparities that exist between the experiences men and women encounter concerning abusive relationships, as well as the overwhelming variation in the quantities of studies conducted on abused males and abused females.

As a sophomore, learning how to effectively navigate through the research process was challenging. Nonetheless, with the help of Dr. Palmer, I learned to synthesize journal articles into a literature review. Following the completion of this literature review, Dr. Palmer and I applied for the Magellan Scholar Grant and were fortunate enough to be awarded it. From that grant, we created our own study aimed at exploring the most prevalent types of abuse heterosexual males experience and how this population of males copes with their experiences. This project was later presented at two conferences through oral and poster presentations. Throughout my tenure as an undergraduate researcher at the University of South Carolina, I learned the importance of persistence and patience, two skills I know will carry me well into my professional career as a physician.

Finally, Dr. Palmer and I would like to extend gratitude towards our many friends, family members, and colleagues who provided ceaseless encouragement and support throughout this adventure.

 

References

1. Kelly, L. (2003). Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state. Florida State University Law Review, 30. 791-855. Retrieved from http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
2. Smith, S., Chen, J., Basile, K., Gilbert, L., Merrick, M., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS). Centers for Disease Control: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved from https:// www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
3. Adams, R., & Bewley, S. (2017). Domestic violence and abuse. In L. C. Edozien & P. M. O’Brein (Eds). Biopsychosocial factors in Obstetrics and Gynecology (pp. 54-65). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4. Henton, J., Cate, R., Koval, J., Lloyd, S. & Christopher, S. (1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4(3), 467-482. doi:10.1177/019251383004003004
5. Murphy, C. & Hoover, S. (1999). Measuring emotional abuse in relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence and Victims, 14(15), 39-53. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect. com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/content/springer/vav/1999/00000014/00000001/art00003#expand/collapse.html
6. O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 3-23. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com. pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/content/springer/vav/1999/00000014/00000001/art00001#expand/collapse
7. Straus, M., Hamby, S., Boney-McCoy, S. & Sugarman, D. (1996).The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues, 17(3). 283-316. Retrieved from http://pubpages.unh. edu/~mas2/CTS15.pdf
8. Baholo, M., Christofides, N., Wright, A., Sikweyiya, Y. & Shai, N. (2014). Women’s experiences leaving abusive relationships: A shelter-based qualitative study. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(5), 638-649. doi:10.1080/13691058.2014.979881
9. Baker, C., Helm, S., Bifulco, K. & Chung-Do, J. (2015). The relationship between self-harm and teen dating violence among youth in Hawaii. Qualitative Health Research, 25(5), 652-667. doi:10.1177/1049732314553441
10. Baker, C. & Stith, S. (2008). Factors predicting dating violence perpetration among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 17(2), 227-244. doi:10.1080/010926770802344836
11. Clark, M. L., Beckett, J., Wells, M. & Dengee-Anderson, D. (1994). Courtship violence among African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 20(3), 264-281. doi: 10.1177/100957984940203002
12. Coolidge, F. & Anderson, L. (2002). Personality profiles of women in multiple abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 17(2), 117-131. doi:10.1023/A:1015005400141
13. Grych, J. & Kinsfogel, K. (2010). Exploring the role of attachment style in the relation between family aggression and abuse in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19(6), 624-640. doi:10.1080/10926771.2010.502068
14. Hearn, J. (2012). The sociological significance of domestic violence: Tensions, paradoxes, and implications. Current Sociology, 61(2), 152-170. doi:10.1177/0011392112456503
15. Higgins, D., Manhire, K. & Marshall, B. (2015). Prevalence of intimate partner violence disclosed during routine screening in a large general practice. Journal of Primary Health Care, 7(2), 102-108. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=b0b76c06-1917-4995-82372c86f00cf647%40sessionmgr198&vid=1&hid=122
16. Jackson, S. (2001). Happily never after: Young women’s stories of abuse in heterosexual love relationships. Feminism & Psychology, 11(3), 305-321. doi:10.1177/0959353501011003004
17. Reitzel-Jaffe, D. & Wolfe, D. (2001). Predictions of relationship abuse among men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(2), 99-115. doi:10.1177/1088626001016002001
18. Spencer, R., Renner, L. & Clark, C. (2015). Patterns of dating violence perpetration and victimization in U.S. young adult males and females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1-22. doi:10.1177/0886260515579506
19. Swan, S. & Snow, D. (2003). Behavioral and psychological differences among abused women who use violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 9(1), 75-109. doi: 10.1177/1077801202238431
20. Swan, S. & Snow, D. (2006). The development of a theory of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women, 12(11). 1026-1045. doi:10.1177/1077801206293330
21. Breiding, M., Basile, K., Smith, S., Black, M., & Mahendra, R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv/intimatepartner violence.pdf
22. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J. & Stephens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2010 Summary Report. 5-106. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
23. Leisring, P. (2013). Physical and emotional abuse in romantic relationships: Motivation for perpetration among college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1437-1454. doi:10.1177/10886260512468236
24. Avant, E., Swopes, R., Davis, J. & Elhai, J. (2011). Psychological abuse and posttraumatic stress symptoms in college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(15), 3080-3097. doi: 10.1177/0886260510390954
25. Allen, C., Ridgeway, R. & Swan, S. (2015). College students’ beliefs regarding help seeking for male and female sexual assault survivors: Even less support for male survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(1), 102-115. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.982237
26. Katz, J., Arias, I. & Beach, S. (2000). Psychological abuse, self-esteem, and women’s dating relationship outcomes: A comparison of the self-verification and self-enhancement perspectives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(4), 349-357. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb00217.x
27. Lammers, M., Ritchie, J. & Robertson, N. (2008). Women’s experience of emotional abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 5(1), 29-64. doi:10.1300/J135v05n01_02
28. Straight, E., Harper, F. & Arias, I. (2003). The impact of partner psychological abuse on health behaviors and health status in college women. Journal Interpersonal Violence, 18(9), 1035-1054. doi:10.1177/10886260503254512
29. Yamawaki, N., Ocha-Shipp, M., Pulsipher, C., Harlos, A. & Swindler, S. (2012). Perceptions of domestic violence: The effects of domestic violence myths, victim’s relationship with her abuser, and the decision to return to her abuser. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(16), 3195-3212. doi:10.1177/0886260512441253
30. Murshid, N. S. (2015). Men’s report of domestic violence perpetration in Bangladesh. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1-18. doi:10.1177/0886260515585544
31. Salter, M. (2014). Multi-perpetrator domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(2), 102-112. doi:10.1177/1524838013511542
32. Eckstein, J. (2011). Reasons for staying in intimately violent relationships: Comparisons of men and women and messages communicated to self and others. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 21-30. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9338-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1: Tables

Table 1: Total Journal Articles Compared to Number of Male-Specific Journal Articles by Keyword Search in the Database SAGE Journals

Search Term	Total Number of Journal Articles	Total Number of Journal Articles Directly Pertaining to Heterosexual Male Victimization
Male domestic violence	124	7
Domestic violence against males in loving relationships	736	4
Male victimization	130	9
Abuse on males	5	0
Abusive relationships AND male victims	99	8
Relationship violence AND male victims	53	7
Relationship abuse AND male victims	11	0
Partner abuse AND male victims	156	6
Dating violence AND male victims	117	8
Physical abuse AND male victims NOT child OR childhood	16	2
Psychological abuse AND male victims	104	2
Mental abuse AND male victims	7	1
Emotional abuse AND male victims	135	6

An overview of the number of journal articles available for each search and the number pertaining to heterosexual male victimization from SAGE Journals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Total Journal Articles Compared to Number of Male-Specific Journal Articles by Keyword Search in the Database Taylor and Francis Online

Search Term	Total Number of Journal Articles	Total Number of Journal Articles Directly Pertaining to Heterosexual Male Victimization
Male domestic violence	387	18
Domestic violence against males in loving relationships	149	3
Male victimization	349	16
Abuse on males	1844	5
Abusive relationships AND male victims	523	29
Relationship violence AND male victims	512	22
Relationship abuse AND male victims	526	7
Partner abuse AND male victims	331	3
Dating violence AND male victims	260	3
Physical abuse AND male victims NOT child OR childhood	461	5
Psychological abuse AND male victims	0	0
Mental abuse AND male victims	546	35
Emotional abuse AND male victims	387	11

Table 2: An overview of the number of journal articles available for each search and the number pertaining to heterosexual male victimization from Taylor and Francis Online.