Gender-based violence: Concepts, methods, and findings. more

Gender-Based Violence Concepts, Methods, and Findings NANCY FELIPE RUSSO AND ANGELA PIRLOTT Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Arizona, USA ABSTRACT: The United Nations has identified gender-based violence against women as a global health and development issue, and a host of policies, public education, and action programs aimed at reducing gender-based violence have been undertaken around the world. This article highlights new conceptualizations, methodological issues, and selected research findings that can inform such activities. In addition to describing recent research findings that document relationships between gender, power, sexuality, and intimate violence cross-nationally, it identifies cultural factors, including linkages between sex and violence through media images that may increase women’s risk for violence, and profiles a host of negative physical, mental, and behavioral health outcomes associated with victimization including unwanted pregnancy and abortion. More research is needed to identify the causes, dynamics, and outcomes of gender-based violence, including media effects, and to articulate how different forms of such violence vary in outcomes depending on cultural context. KEYWORDS: gender-based violence; gender; intimate partner violence; domestic violence; reproduction; media effects INTRODUCTION Women in Asia and the Middle East are killed in the name of honor. Girls in West Africa undergo genital mutilation in the name of custom. Migrant and refugee women in Western Europe are attacked for not accepting the social mores of their host community. Young girls in southern Africa are raped and infected with HIV/AIDs because the perpetrators believe that sex with virgins will cure them of their disease. And in the richest, most developed countries of the world, women are battered to death by their partners (Amnesty International, 2004, p. iii-iv). The United Nations has identified gender-based violence against women as a global health and development issue, and a host of policies and public Address for correspondence: Nancy Felipe Russo, Department of Psychology, Box 871104, ASU, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. Voice: 480-965-0380; fax: 480-965-8544. e-mail: Nancy.russo@asu.edu Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1087: 178–205 (2006). doi: 10.1196/annals.1385.024 C 2006 New York Academy of Sciences. 178 RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 179 education programs have been undertaken around the world that aim at reducing such gender-based violence (United Nations, 1989). This article highlights new conceptualizations, methodological issues, and research findings that can inform such activities, particularly with regard to intimate partner violence. Our focus on gender-based violence against women is not to imply that women are never violent against men. The rates and forms of violence, including intimate partner violence, vary widely across cultures (Kishor & Johnson, 2004). In the United States, recent studies have reported that women and men commonly commit violent acts such as shoving, hitting, or throwing objects against each other, and have found little difference in prevalence rates for such acts by gender (Archer, 2000, 2002; Brush, 1990, 2005; Frieze, 2005; Frieze & Mettugh, 2005; Frieze & McHugh, 2005). Gender shapes the meaning of violent acts differently for women and men, however, and that meaning varies widely depending on the situational and cultural context. For example, severity of specific physical acts will be rated differently depending on whether or not the perpetrator of the act is male or female (Marshall, 1992a, 1992b). A full understanding of gender-based violence requires going beyond a focus on sex differences in rates and ratings of specific acts to examine how various aspects of gender shape the predictors, dynamics, and outcomes of violence for both women and men. Interdisciplinary research will make critical contributions to this examination for it must take place on multiple levels. Psychological meaning of acts and experiences for the perpetrator, victim, and outside observer will reflect the situational, structural, and cultural context. In particular, the cultural discourse that justifies gender differences in social and economic status, objectifies women, and sexualizes violence needs to be incorporated in the analysis of the dynamics of gender-based violence. We highlight some of the elements of gender-based violence that can differ for women and men, with our goal to encourage more complex, multilevel approaches in the study of how such violence is experienced in the lives of women and men. Our focus here on gender-based violence against women should be taken as a reflection of the need to limit our scope and not as a dismissal of the importance of understanding how gender affects violence by and toward both women and men. Indeed, violence is an interpersonal behavior and both a stimulus as well as a consequence of interaction. A full understanding of gender’s impact on violence against women requires considering women’s behaviors toward their partners as well, including their violent behaviors. THEORIZING GENDER AND ITS RELATION TO INTIMATE VIOLENCE Research that has examined gender differences in violence against women all too often equates gender with the categories of male and female. Gender thus is treated as a personal attribute of the individual (e.g., Archer, 2003). However, 180 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES theoretical conceptions of gender have evolved far beyond traditional “sex difference” models. Research findings based on such models have some usefulness but are not very informative with regard to understanding the dynamics of gender as currently conceptualized. Today gender is theorized as a complex, multilevel cultural construct that determines the meanings of being female or male in a particular situational context (Anderson, 2005; Deaux & Major, 1987; Frable, 1997; Hamilton & Russo, 2006; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999). In Western society, gender is typically organized around the social categories of male versus female and assigned at birth based on biological sex (which may be defined anatomically or genetically, depending on the situation). The cultural package that constitutes the meaning of one’s gender assignment to a category should not be confused with the category itself. Gender can be thought of as a package of many interconnected elements— including gendered traits, emotions, values, expectations, norms, roles, environments, and institutions—that change and evolve within and across cultures and over time. Gender is also a “master” (or a meta-) status that determines social position in society, one that typically accords women with less power, privilege, and resources than men (Bourne & Russo, 1998). Gender defines the appropriateness of behavioral, psychological, and social characteristics of males and females over the life cycle, and shapes the way we construe ourselves (Cross & Madsen, 1997). When doing so it interacts with other dimensions of social difference, and the dynamics of the various elements of gender may differ depending on one’s specific mix of social identities and roles. For example, in some contexts, being a good mother who devotes herself to her children is the role expectation for being a wife, and the roles are highly compatible. In contrast, in another context being a good wife may mean serving as a trophy for your husband’s success and sending children off to boarding school so that you can make your husband’s needs the priority in your life. The need to appreciate the complex dynamics of social identity and difference led Russo and Vaz (2001) to argue that researchers need to develop a “diversity mindfulness” that appreciates the complex interplay of the intersections of gender and other dimensions of difference (p. 280). Age, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, class, physical ability, and size are among the social dimensions associated with stigmatized identities that may elicit prejudice and discrimination, confer differential access to power and privilege, and converge with gender to magnify or diminish risk for experiencing violence. Gender’s “rules” (i.e., expected behaviors, rewards, and sanctions for violating those expectations) change over the life cycle. Sometimes there is abrupt change as a result of discrete life events such as losing one’s virginity, getting married, having one’s first child, or starting a new job. Gender organizes women’s roles at home and work in ways that place extraordinary burdens on women while at the same time limiting their access to coping resources. The dramatic changes in women’s workforce status and participation that have occurred over the last five decades have not been accompanied by a concomitant RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 181 sharing of responsibilities in the family (Coltrane, 2000; Steil, 1997; Tichenor, 2005). Gendered inequalities at home and at work create gender differences in perceived entitlements and give different meanings to the resources women and men bring to their relationships. Although such inequalities are associated with risk and outcomes for experiencing violence, the relationship is complex (Steil, 1997; Tichenor, 2005). Reducing gender-based violence will require new theories that articulate how various aspects of gender mediate and moderate the effects of social, psychological, and biological factors over the life cycle and influence the risk, experience, and outcomes of interpersonal violence between women and men. One thing that can be concluded at present, however, is that the predictors, meanings, and outcomes of gender-based violence are multifaceted and differ for women and men—as perpetrators and as victims. GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Gender-based violence against women has been defined as “any act that results in, or is likely to result in physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life” (United Nations, 1995, Platform for Action D.112). This definition, which emerged from the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing, represents an international consensus on how to conceptualize the dynamics of gender-based violence and encompasses child sexual abuse, coercive sex, rape, stalking, and intimate partner violence. The term “gender-based” is used because such violence is shaped by gender roles and status in society. Gender-based violence against women does not encompass every violent act a woman may happen to experience (being threatened by a weapon during a robbery, for example). A complex mix of gender-related cultural values, beliefs, norms, and social institutions implicitly and even explicitly have supported intimate partner violence and provided little recourse for its victims (Koss, Bailet, & Yuan, Herrera, & Lichter, 2003; Koss, Goodman, Browne, Fitzgerald, Keita, & Russo, 1994; Russo, 2006). In particular, gender roles and expectations, male entitlement, sexual objectification, and discrepancies in power and status have legitimized, rendered invisible, sexualized, and helped to perpetuate violence against women. RECOGNIZING GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AS A PROBLEM One of the ways that gender has differentially shaped the meaning of violent acts by women and men is by differentially conferring legitimacy on male violence against women. With legitimacy has come invisibility for the victims (Keller, 1996; Stark, Flitcraft & Frazier, 1979). Marriage as social institution 182 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES has come under particular scrutiny for providing men an entitlement to batter and rape their wives and providing legitimacy for their actions (Finklehor & Yll¨ , 1985; Russell, 1990; Stets & Strauss, 1992; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, o 1980). Ironically, it was not until the late 1980s that intimate violence became identified as the leading public health risk to adult women by the surgeon general of the United States (Koop, 1985). The invisibility of male violence against women is truly remarkable given its pervasiveness and profound health, social, and economic consequences. With the rise of what has become a global women’s movement, the legitimacy and invisibility of such violence became challenged. Today, male gender-based violence against women is globally recognized as a health, economic development, and human rights concern (Amnesty International, 2004; Herrera, Koss, Bailey, Yuan, & Lichter, 2006; Koss, Heise, & Russo, 1994; Krah´ , Bieneck, e & M¨ ller, 2005; Russo, Koss, & Goodman, 1995; National Center for Injury o Prevention and Control [NCIPC], 2003; United Nations General Assembly, 1993; World Health Organization, 2001). Yet, in many parts of the world, such violence continues to be viewed as a private matter and is implicitly—indeed, sometimes, explicitly—condoned. Around the world, girls and women continue to experience gender-based violence over the life cycle in homes, schools, churches, workplaces, the streets and even therapeutic settings (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999; Koss, Goodman, & Browne, 1994; Russo et al. 1995; Krah´ et al. 2005; Shane & e Ellsberg, 2002). A recent transnational review of population-based survey data found the lifetime proportion of women experiencing physical assault by an intimate partner to range from 10% to 69% (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). In the United States, the National Violence Against Women Survey estimated one out of five (22.1%) women to be physically assaulted in their lifetime, and one in 13 (7.7%) to be raped by an intimate partner. An estimated 1.3 million women experienced physical assault and more than 201,394 women had experienced rape at the hands of an intimate partner in the previous year (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Intimate partner violence has been the most common source of injury to women in the ages of 15 to 44 years, more frequent than muggings, auto accidents, and cancer deaths combined (Dwyer, Smokowski, Bricout, & Wodarski, 1995). Physical assault against both married and unmarried women has been a widespread problem, crossing racial, sexual orientation, age, and socioeconomic lines (Koss, 1988; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988, 1996). NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS Today researchers are discovering new ways to conceptualize, study, intervene, and prevent gender-based violence against women. The search for new conceptualizations has identified an array of methodological issues that have led to new challenges for researchers who seek to increase our understanding RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 183 of this complex phenomenon (Brush, Dutton, Green, Kaltman, Roesch et al., 2006). Feminist perspectives have qualitatively changed the way that researchers conceptualize, operationally define, and study multifaceted forms of gendered violence over the life cycle (Edwards, 1991; Marin & Russo, 1999). In particular, such perspectives have broadened the focus for research beyond the psychological characteristics of the individual perpetrator and/or victim, or on an investigation of family relationships (Yll¨ , 1988) and begun to reconcepo tualize rape and other forms of male violence as forms of power and control (Brownmiller, 1975; Dobash & Dobash, 1977; Medea & Thompson, 1974; Russell, 1975). Although recognizing physical differences may contribute to the dynamics of gender-based violence, in general this theorizing has emphasized the social construction of male violence, not the biology or pathology of the individual (Kelly, 1988; Koss et al., 1994; McHugh, Frieze, & Browne, 1993). There has been a shift from viewing different forms of male violence against women as separate entities toward viewing violence as a unitary phenomenon with diverse manifestations that vary depending on context (Koss et al., 1994). Gender-based entitlements, power, objectification, and status are now recognized as playing critical roles in the dynamics of gender-based violence. Major institutions (including criminal justice, health, academic, scientific, military, athletic, and religious institutions) are seen as reinforcing patriarchal values that encourage and maintain those entitlements, foster gender-based violence, and encourage stigmatization of voices that challenge the status quo (Koss et al., 1994; Marin & Russo, 1999). While gender, power, and structural dimensions of violence are recognized as potent forces in the dynamics of gender-based violence, the emerging picture is recognized as increasingly complex (Frieze, 2005; Marin & Russo, 1999; McHugh & Frieze, 2005; McHugh, 2005). Theorizing about the relations of gender, power, and violence has gone far beyond a simplistic focus on direct effects of patriarchal values or sex role beliefs on rates of specific acts perpetrated by women and men. As theory has progressed, research, treatment, intervention, and public policy responses to theoretical advances have lagged behind (Dutton and Corvo [2006] critique approaches based on this simplistic focus; although their vision of feminist perspectives is limited of a particular radical perspective, their call for complex approaches is timely). New knowledge based on new, integrative methods that encompass interdisciplinary, biobehavioral perspectives is needed (e.g., Dutton, Green, Kaltman, Roesch et al., 2006). METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Androcentric (i.e., male-centered) bias affects what becomes figure and what becomes ground in our perception, influences how we interpret what 184 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES we perceive and remember, and shapes our conceptions of what is normal versus unusual. As Edwards (1991) has observed, “There is no area where androcentric bias is more visible and systematic than male violence against women” (p. 14). We focus here on gender-based intimate partner violence (IPV), which encompasses acts performed by an intimate partner that include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, including physical assault, verbal abuse, forced intercourse, and other forms of sexual coercion as well as a variety of controlling behaviors aimed at restricting freedom of action (e.g., isolation from family and friends). A variety of methodologies have been applied in the study of violence, both qualitative and quantitative, and there are a number of data sources that include national surveys that are used for research on gender-based violence (Hamby, 2005). The Conflict Tactics Scales (Straus, Hamby, & Warren, 2003) or variations thereof are arguably the most widely used of the behavioral checklists in surveys to assess incidence, prevalence, and nature of interpersonal violence. Hamby (2005) articulates the strengths and limitations of various data sources including those of behavioral checklists, which include underreporting, false-negative and false-positive problems, difficulties with referent periods, reporting load and respondent fatigue, overly brief or poorly worded questions, effects of social norms on reporting, and the distortions that can occur in the retrospective recall of events. The extent to which disclosure issues that differ for men and women affect reporting of various violent acts is unknown, but the possibility raises validity issues with regard to self-report checklists. Hamby suggests that with regard to sensitive material, audio computer-assisted selfinterviews (audio-CASI) are “likely to be one avenue to progressing toward a gold standard of assessment” (Hamby, 2005, p. 739). She also identifies a number of methodologies that have been underutilized in research on genderbased violence but have documented effectiveness in research on other forms of relationship distress and stigmatized behavior including weekly calendar methods and electronic diary data collected through the internet or palm-sized computers. In keeping with advances in cognitive science and the now recognized moderating role of appraisals in determining the relationship between stressors and mental health outcomes (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004), it is important to go beyond simply focusing on the occurrence of acts and consider their meaning and context (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998; Dutton, Burghardt, Perrin, Chrestman, & Halle, 1994). Violent acts may play a role in creating the meaning for other, apparently more benign behaviors that become threatening in a context of coercive control. New conceptualizations of the dynamic of violence and the role of coercive control in gender-based violence are other new frontiers for research (Dutton & Goodman, 2005). Postmodern perspectives, which emphasize socially constructed meanings, are a source of new concepts and methods as well. McHugh, Livingston, RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 185 and Ford (2005), suggest that such perspectives encourage “multiple, varied, and even inconsistent views” of intimate violence (p. 332). Their analysis challenges researchers to recognize that there is a sociohistorical context for all research with potential to influence the research process in all its stages from selection of topic to interpretation and dissemination of results. Challenges to researchers who seek to study IPV arise from methodological and ethical as well as conceptual issues (Desai & Saltzman, 2001; Ellsberg, Heise, Pena, Agurto, & Winkvist, 2001; Schwartz, 2000; White, Smith, Koss, & Figueredo, 2000). Confidentiality and safety of research participants must be preserved and referral information that identifies places to go for help made available to them. Interviewers require special training and sensitivity if they are to conduct interviews in the nonjudgmental and empathic way needed to obtain disclosure of violent events (Garcia-Moreno, Watts, Jansen, Ellsberg, & Heise, 2003; Kishor & Johnson, 2004; WHO, 2001, 2004). Community-based survey research is being used to document the worldwide prevalence of violence against women (Kishor & Johnson, 2004). Not all dimensions of gender-based violence are typically measured in cross-national surveys, which share the problems of self-report surveys identified above (Hamby, 2005), and further must consider variations in cultural relevance and meaning of the specific behaviors studied. Qualitative research will be needed to illuminate the meanings of violence and coercive acts in the cultural contexts in which women experience them (WHO, 2001). Researchers have begun to focus on ethnic populations to redress the lack of research on violence in the lives of ethnic minority women, which must overcome silencing around intimate violence issues found in ethnic communities (Sanchez-Hucles & Dutton, 1999; Sorenson, 1996; West, 1998). Researchers have investigated male-perpetrated violence in African American (Brice-Baker, 1994; Marsh, 1993; Russo, Denious, Keita, & Koss, 1997), Native American (Chester, Robin, Koss, & Goodman, 1994; Gutierres, Russo, & Urbanski, 1994; Norton & Manson, 1995), Hispanic American (Perilla, Bakerman, & Norris, 1994; Sorensen & Telles, 1991; Ramos, Koss, & Russo, 1991), and Asian American populations (Song, 1996; see also Sanchez-Hucles & Dutton, 1999). GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE, ENTITLEMENTS, AND SOCIAL CONTROL Researchers are beginning to study how IPV reflects assumptions of male entitlement and privilege and functions as a form of social control that maintains a subordinate social and political status for women (Koss, Goodman, et al., 1994; Marin & Russo, 1999). Men who connect masculinity with being able to control and dominate their partners are more likely to be abusive 186 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (Goodrum, Umberson, & Anderson, 2001). Gender-based violence may reflect the discrepancy between men’s belief that they should be more powerful than their partners and the reality of their power. Men who perceive they are not as powerful as they “should be” may seek to redress the situation through use of physical dominance (Dutton, 1988). Research suggests that dissatisfaction with the level of power in dating relationships is correlated with violence for both women and men, but the predictors of using violence differ depending on the perpetrator’s gender (Kaura & Allen, 2004). The link between male intimate partner violence and a variety of socially controlling behaviors has been found cross-culturally. Kishor and Johnson (2004) found a strong link between intimate partner violence and husbands’ controlling behaviors, specifically (1) becoming jealous or angry if the wife talks with another man, (2) frequently accusing her of being unfaithful, (3) not permitting her to meet girlfriends, (4) limiting her contact with her family, (5) insisting on knowing where she is all the time, and (6) not trusting her with money. The risk for violence directly increased with the number of controlling behaviors on the part of the husband across the diverse cultures studied (Kishor & Johnson, 2004). More needs to be known about the meanings of violence or threat of violence as it is used to control women in specific contexts. Stigma and the associated emotion of shame combine to become a powerful form of social control. Gender-based violence is experienced as both stigmatizing and shameful (Buchbinder & Eisikovits, 2003; Eisikovits & Enosh, 1997). Shame has also been identified as a factor in inhibiting women from disclosing their experiences of violence to others and from seeking help (Giles-Sims, 1998). Shame may also moderate outcomes of violence. One study found that shame was a key predictor for the relation between psychological violence and PTSD (Street & Arias, 2001). Although the relationship of stigma to psychological and interpersonal relationships has burgeoned in recent years, the dynamics of stigmatization, shame, power, and gender-based violence continues to be a neglected area of research. As Link and Phelan (2001) have emphasized, stigma depends on power—social, political, and economic—but even power dynamics per se is all too often overlooked in analyses of stigma. As they point out, “there is a tendency to focus on the attributes associated with those [stigmatizing] conditions rather than on power differences between people who have them and people who do not” (p. 375). In particular, the relationship of gender role transgressions to various forms of stigma and its associated sanctions, which include rejection and social exclusion, need to be more fully understood. That knowledge can provide a foundation for building women’s resistance to stigmatizing cultural messages. Research on the relationship of stigma to self-esteem suggests that the causal dynamics are complex. For example, there is a relationship between greater exposure to sexism, threat appraisals, and reductions in self-esteem among RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 187 pessimistic women that is not found among optimistic women (Kaiser, Major, & McCoy, 2004). At the same time, research on how to foster social change that could reduce stigmatization as a force for the enforcement of gender role norms that support gender-based violence is needed. As Link and Phelan (2001) point out, intervening in the stigma process either requires (1) producing fundamental changes in beliefs and attitudes or (2) changing the power relations that enable dominate groups to act on those stigmatizing beliefs and attitudes. The potential for success of either approach will depend on knowledge of the interrelationships among entitlements, power, stigma, and gender-based violence. LINKS AMONG GENDER, POWER, AND SEXUALITY Social structures themselves often reflect inequitable gender relationships that serve to maintain the legitimacy of male violence. Relationships between female workers and male employers, wives and husbands, female patients and male doctors, female athletes and male coaches, for example, share common structural and ideological features that place women in positions of subordination to men. These inequities reinforce a patriarchal worldview in which women’s subordination is normal, natural, and expected, and where powerful and competent women are stigmatized and disliked (Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 1999, 2001). Further, some studies in the United States have found that for some men (in particular men who are likely to sexually harass women), power and sexuality are linked such that women’s subordination is associated with sexual attractiveness (Bargh, Raymond, Strack, & Pryor 1995; Pryor 1987; Pryor & Stoller, 1994). Although the dynamics of the linkages have yet to be fully understood, experimental research by Bargh et al. (1995) in which either power or sex was primed in male participants high in likelihood to sexually harass, suggests that priming power encourages thoughts of sexuality and not vice versa. There has been a great deal of theoretical, methodological, and substantive work that has found sexual objectification to be a powerful influence on women’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in Western culture (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997; McKinley, 1996; McKinley & Hyde, 1996; Tiggemann & Kuring, 2004). Although more knowledge is needed, some research suggests that sexualization of violence and objectification of women contribute to exposure to abusive experiences. Research examining the link between women’s objectification experiences (OE), daily hassles, coercive sexual experiences, and depressive symptoms in college women found that the most important contributors to the effect of OE frequency were being called degrading, genderstereotyped names, and being the target of offensive (sexualized) gestures 188 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (Burnett, 1995). However, the tendency to rely on the opinions and evaluations of others moderated this relationship. In developed societies in particular, the media are powerful cultural forces that model interactions between men and women. Insofar as the media provide models that perpetuate gendered inequalities, reinforce and perpetuate ideologies of male dominance (physical and sexual), sexualize violence, and objectify women, they provide mechanisms for gender to influence violence against women. Understanding the dynamics of gender-based violence can be informed by examining through a cultural lens how the media socializes, normalizes, and advocates such ideologies, leading to links between sex and power that operate beyond conscious awareness. MEDIA INFLUENCES Mass media influence our perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors related to gender as well as violence through many channels including radio, television, movies, magazines, and the Internet. The impact of media exposure to sexual and violent content including pornographic content (Caputi, 2003; Jensen, 1995; Russell, 1980, 1988; Silbert & Pines, 1984; Sommers & Check, 1987) thus becomes of central concern for researchers who seek to understand the determinants of gender-based violence against women in technologically developed societies. Teenagers spend about half of their waking hours engaged in some form of media: an estimated 3 hours of watching television, 1.5 hours listening to music, less than 1 hour watching movies, three-fourths of an hour reading, and one-half hour on the computer per day (Brown, Steele, & Walsh-Childers, 2002). Researchers predict that by the time a 7-year old reaches 70 years, they will have spent 7–10 years of his or her life in front of a television (Roberts, 2000). By the age of 14 years, it is estimated that the average American child has viewed more then 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television alone (Huston, Donnerstein, Fairchild, Feshbach, Katz, Murray, Rubinstein, Wilcox, & Zuckerman, 1992). Although findings from correlational designs are problematic with regard to causality, effects of exposure to violence against and sexual degradation of women have been documented in experimental studies as well (Linz, Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1984; 1988; Mulac, Jansma, & Linz, 2002). Media have been found to perpetuate rape myths by portraying sexual violence against women in television and movies congruent with such beliefs (Brinson, 1992). Rape myths include belief that: (a) the victim is promiscuous; (b) it is the victim’s fault; (c) the victim wanted to be raped; (d) the victim lies about the rape (Burt, 1980); or (e) the rapist is psychologically or biologically unable to resist his sexual impulses (Groth, 1979). Television and movies tell the tale of rape such that “it is acceptable to rape and be raped in certain circumstances, especially when the victims and offenders fail to fit mythical profiles” RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 189 (Bufkin & Eschholz, 2000, p. 1338). Some evidence suggests that exposure to violent pornography in particular cannot only affect men (Demar´ , Briere, & e Lips, 1988; Donnerstein, 1980)-–it can affect women’s attitudes and fantasies about rape as well (Corne, Briere & Esses, 1992). Media provide social learning tools for children and teens in developing their ideas about appropriate norms in different behaviors (Bryant & Zillman, 1994) including those related to sex and aggression. For example, 61% of teens aged 13–15 years have been found to depend on television and movies for sources of information about sex, STDs, drugs, alcohol, and violence (Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999); more than half report learning about pregnancy and birth control from television; and more than half of girls report learning about sex from magazines (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1996). Communications researchers critique the media for failing to provide an accurate portrait of reality on these important matters (e.g., Huston, Wartella, & Donnerstein, 1998; Lowry & Shidler, 1993). Although it is recognized that media can play a powerful role in communicating values, setting norms, and establishing expectations for behavior, the full impact of media influences on gender-based violence has yet to be documented. MUSIC—A NEW FRONTIER FOR RESEARCH IN UNDERSTANDING LINKS BETWEEN GENDER AND SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN The impact of new technology that substantially increases both audio and visual exposure to popular music in particular has yet to be fully felt, but even the current levels of such exposure have raised concerns due to the violent and sexual nature of its content. In a recent content analysis of six types of media, Pardun, L’Engle, and Brown (2005) found that music contained substantially more sexual content (40%) than movies (12%), television (11%), magazines (8%), Internet web sites (6%), or newspapers (1%). Furthermore, music was more likely to focus on sexual innuendos, sexual intercourse, divorce, and deteriorating relationships as compared to other forms of media. Music reflects its larger social and political context, and mysogynism in popular music is not new—derogatory views of women have been expressed in many genres including rock, country, and the blues. In particular, rap music emerged in the 1970s as a vehicle for expressing ideas and emotions related to the experience of blacks in the United States. The dominance of misogynistic themes in rap did not emerge until the late 1980s but is now a constant theme with many popular artists including Ice T., N.W.A., and 2 Live Crew (Adams & Fuller, 2006). Hip hop, rap, and heavy metal have been the target of most discussion due to their extremely violent and sexual nature (Greeson & Williams, 1986; Perry, 2003; St. Lawrence & Joyner, 1991). Violent themes are common with research 190 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES reporting from 15% to 50% of rap music videos as containing violent imagery (Gow, 1990; Greeson & Williams, 1986; Sherman & Dominick, 1986). In addition to normalizing antisocial behavior in general, rap lyrics promulgate themes of rape, torture, abuse, and other forms of degradation of women. Zimmerman (1992) found that in particular gangster rap music, which is becoming more “mainstream” in popular culture, portrays women as sex objects and victims of sexual violence. Similar concerns have been voiced about the content of heavy metal rock music (St. Lawrence & Joyner, 1991). Research has documented the negative impact of sexual and violent music on attitudes toward women. Wester, Crown, Quatman, and Heesacker (1997) found that even brief exposure to sexually violent rap music in participants unfamiliar with the genre increased belief in adversarial sexual relationships. Heavy metal music has also been known to increase men’s sex-role stereotyping and perceived entitlements including the view that “a woman should never contradict her husband in public,” and negative attitudes regarding vocational, education, and intellectual roles of women (St. Lawrence & Joyner, 1991). Research by Barongan and Hall (1996) found that participants exposed to misogynous music were significantly more likely to act aggressively toward female confederates and to misperceive their reactions, concluding that “misogynous music facilitates sexually aggressive behavior and supports the relationship between cognitive distortions and sexual aggression” (p.195). Other research suggests that exposure to such music increases hostile and aggressive thoughts (Anderson, Carnagey, & Eubanks, 2003), and that long-term exposure to violent music can lead to more permanent hostility toward women (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). The combination of visual imagery with lyrical messages makes music videos an especially potent source of information about social roles, consumerism, and culture (Sun & Lull, 1986). Music videos predominantly rely on themes of implicit sexuality, objectification, dominance, and implicit aggression (Vincent, Davis, & Boruszkowski, 1987). Males display dominant and aggressive behaviors while women behave in subservient and implicitly sexual ways. Women are also the recipients of implicit, explicit, and aggressive advances, and are portrayed as enjoying aggressive sex (Sommers-Flanagan, Sommers-Flanagan, & Davis, 1993). Evidence suggests that the storylines shown in music videos shape consumer attitudes and schemas, particularly gender-role schemas. Frequent music video exposure is associated with holding more stereotypical sexual and gender role attitudes as well as stronger acceptance of women as sex objects and support of dating as a game (Ward, 2002; Ward, Hansbrough, & Walker, 2005). In addition, exposure to traditional imagery in music videos is associated with adversarial sexual beliefs (Kalof, 1999). Furthermore, research suggests that greater exposure to violent rap music videos is associated with greater acceptance of violence: participants viewing violent music videos were found more likely to accept the use of violence, report a higher likelihood to RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 191 use violence, and accept violence against women (Johnson, Jackson, & Gatto 1995). As Adams and Fuller (2006) point out, the roots and impact of mysogynism in rap music must be understood in the history and context of racism in the United States, which includes racialized misogyny. Fully understanding the meanings and impact of exposure to such themes on women and men of diverse class and ethnicity will require consideration of this historical and situational context and multilevel approaches. Media influences have been found to shape perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that link power, sexuality, and violence against women. Given the rapid spread of new technology, opportunity for exposure to music containing messages of explicit sexualized violence against women will continue to increase dramatically. The concomitant need for more sophisticated understandings of how gender, race, and class intersect to mediate and moderate the meanings and outcomes of such exposure makes prevention activities in this area an urgent priority. Mass media can be used to promote sexualized views of women, foster links between sexuality and subordination, and reinforce behaviors and practices that undermine gender-based violence. But it can also be used as a means to educate the public about the pervasiveness, multiple manifestations, causes, and consequences of such violence. There is now a growing body of interdisciplinary research on gender-based violence that is being applied in public education programs, reflected in criminal justice and health care systems, and influencing new laws and policies cross-nationally that provide models for designed evidence-based culturally-sensitive prevention and intervention programs (Heise et al. 1999; Jasinski & Williams, 1998; Koss et al., 2003; Koss, et al., 1994; Renzetti, Edleson, & Bergen, 2001; Russo, Koss, & Ramos, 2000; World Health Organization [WHO], 2002, 2004). OUTCOMES OF VIOLENCE The destructive effects of male violence extend beyond the woman to her family and society. The negative physical and mental health effects have concomitant social and economic costs. In the United States alone, the costs of intimate violence are estimated to exceed $5.8 billion each year. More than two-thirds of that cost ($ 4.1 billion) goes for direct medical and mental health care service delivery (NCIPC, 2003). Women who have been victimized suffer both immediate and long-range consequences to their physical and mental well-being, and these consequences are similar for multiple forms of victimization (Browne, 1997; Coker, Smith, King, & McKeown, 2000; Goodman, Koss & Russo., 1993; Heise et al., 1999; Herrera, et al., 2006; Koss & Heslet, 1992; Koss, et al., 2003; Krug et al., 2002; Resnick, Acierno, & Kilpatrick, 1997). Although many effects are immediately apparent following the violent episode(s), other effects may surface 192 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES as intermittent problems or may last for years (Goodman et al., 1993; Koss & Heslet, 1992; Koss et al. 1991). Depression and anxiety increase with ongoing violence (Sutherland, Bybee, & Sullivan, 1998) and decrease as violence diminishes or stops (Campbell & Sullivan, 1994). Revictimization complicates the understanding of outcomes (Beitchman et al., 1992). Women who experience child sexual abuse have higher risk for experiencing rape and other forms of victimization in adulthood (Resnick, Acierno, & Kilpatrick, 1997; Russo & Denious, 2001; Wyatt, Guthrie, & Notgrass, 1992; Koss, et al., 2003). Indirect effects of partner violence can be far reaching. One of the major indirect consequences of gender-based violence is the effect on children who may witness or be involved in the abuse (for reviews, see Geffner, Jaffe, & Suderman, 2000; Holden, Geffner, & Jouriles, 1998; Koss et al., 2003). Violence against women and against children is highly correlated—if one is being abused, it is likely that the other is as well. Even when children are not abused themselves, witnessing partner violence may have far-reaching consequences. Male children who have witnessed a father batter a mother are more likely to use violence in their own adult lives than those from nonabusive homes (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). In addition, partner violence in the home is predictive of children’s general psychopathology (McCloskey et al., 1995). Even sibling and parental warmth fail to buffer the negative effects of partner violence on children’s mental health. That violence has multiple biological, neurological, physiological, biological, behaviorial, social, and economic consequences for women and their families is no longer in doubt. The focus now is on identifying the pathways between the various forms of IPV and its multiple outcomes that so complicate the development of effective prevention and treatment (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004). New integrative and interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives as well as multilevel methods that encompass biobehavioral and sociocultural perspectives are needed (e.g., Dutton et al., 2006). VIOLENCE AND REPRODUCTIVE ISSUES Reproductive consequences of intimate violence including childhood sexual abuse, rape, and partner violence, include high-risk sexual behavior and sexually transmitted diseases (Koss et al., 1991; Sturm, Carr, Luxenberg, Swoyer, & Cicero, 1990). In particular, IPV and unwanted pregnancy would be expected to be linked for a variety of reasons (see Russo & Denious, 1998). Violent partners are more likely to demand unprotected sex and refuse to use a condom (Russo & Denious, 2001). Having a child also increases a women’s dependency on her partner and, for him, it becomes an additional point of leverage to exercise control via threats to harm the child (Ptacek, 1997). RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 193 Indeed, unwanted pregnancy is highly correlated with exposure to intimate violence including childhood physical and sexual abuse, rape, and partner violence (Dietz, Spitz, Anda, Williamson, McMahon et al., 2000; Russo & Denious, 2001; Wyatt, Guthrie, & Notgrass, 1992). In the United States, among new mothers who reported that their husband or partner had “physically hurt” them during the 12 months before delivery, 70% also reported their pregnancy was unintended (Gazmararian et al. 1995). The positive association is strongest among unmarried women, reminding us that national surveys that focus solely on married women underestimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence in women’s lives (Gazmararian et al., 1995). Cross-culturally, Kishor and Johnson (2004) found that in eight of nine countries studied, experiencing partner violence was linked with a higher likelihood of having an unwanted birth. The extent to which forced pregnancy might be used as a tactic to keep women from leaving a violent relationship is unknown. Also unknown is the level of contribution forced pregnancy may make to the persistence of high rates of unintended pregnancy around the globe (Russo, 2006). A focus on pregnancy intendedness or wantedness among children born does not encompass what are arguably the most unwanted pregnancies, that is, those terminated by abortion. Differential access to abortion may contribute to differences in rates of unwanted pregnancies ending in births across countries, making cross-cultural comparisons problematic. Research on violence in the lives of women who have abortions confirms a strong link between violence and unintended and unwanted pregnancy. Women who report having an abortion are more likely to report experiencing childhood physical and/or sexual abuse, being a victim of rape (by someone other than the intimate partner), having a violent partner, and having a partner who refused to wear a condom (Russo & Denious, 2001). Analyses of data from the National Comorbidity Survey comparing women who had an abortion versus delivery on their first pregnancy found a similar pattern of results with regard to experience of rape, molestation, child physical abuse, being held captive/kidnapped/threatened with a weapon, or being physically attacked: 39% of women in the abortion group experienced some type of violence compared to 26.8% of women in the birth group. In particular, women in the abortion group had significantly higher rates of rape (15.1% vs. 7.5%) and molestation (18.3% vs. 11.6%), respectively. Women who reported multiple abortions (an indicator of repeat unwanted pregnancy) were significantly more likely to be physically attacked (21.5%) than women who reported none (6.7%) or one (7.9%) abortion; 41% of women who had two or more abortions experienced some form of violence (Steinberg & Russo, 2007). These findings have important implications for policy and practice in the context of the current sociopolitical context in which some researchers are seeking to prove that abortion has damaging health consequences to justify public policies restricting abortion access (Russo & Denious, 2005). Insofar as 194 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES such efforts encourage women who have histories of victimization or currently live in violent contexts to attribute their mental health problems to their abortion experience, such efforts may set back the progress that has been made in helping women focus on and deal with the consequences of experiencing such violence. It has even been suggested that a history of abortion may serve as a marker for identifying patients at risk for mental health problems (e.g., Cougle, Reardon, & Coleman, 2004). But when experience of violence and other covariates are properly controlled, having an abortion is not found to have a significant effect on mental health outcomes, whether generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety, or PTSD are measured. However, being raped, physically attacked, and held captive/threatened with a weapon continue to be independent predictors of mental health outcomes when pregnancy outcome and relevant covariates are controlled. These findings are congruent with the results of numerous studies, including longitudinal research, that support a causative role for victimization in the development of negative mental health outcomes as well as risk for unwanted pregnancy (e.g., Dietz, Spitz, & Anda, 2000). Thus, emphasizing abortion as a marker or screening factor is inappropriate insofar as focusing on abortion distracts attention from factors that actually do increase risk for mental health problems. It is the violence in women’s lives that is associated with unwanted pregnancy—violence that occurs and puts women at higher risk for mental health problems regardless of pregnancy outcome. It is important that clinicians explore the effects of violence in women’s lives to avoid misattribution of the negative mental health outcomes of victimization to having an abortion (Rubin & Russo, 2004). To do otherwise may be to impede full understanding of the origins of women’s mental health problems and prolong their psychological distress. CONCLUSION Gender-based violence is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that is experienced differently by women and men. As such, sophisticated approaches in theory and method are needed to conceptualize and study the factors that mediate and moderate the relation of gender to the experience of intimate violence. Such violence takes multiple forms, is rooted in patriarchal social structures and cultural roles of women and men, and is reinforced by media images. The psychological, social, and behavioral effects of such violence on women, men, families, and society are widespread and long lasting, Understanding, predicting, and preventing gender-based violence will require a complex and comprehensive approach that intervenes at individual, interpersonal, and structural levels and that is responsive to cultural difference. RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 195 REFERENCES Amnesty International (2004). It’s in our hands: Stop violence against women. Osney Mead, Oxford, United Kingdom: Alden Press. ADAMS,T. M. & FULLER, D B. (2006). The words have changed but the ideology remains the same: Misogynistic lyrics in rap music. Journal of Black Studies, 36, 938–957. ANDERSON, C.A. & BUSHMAN, B.J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 2377–2378. ANDERSON, C.A., CARNAGEY, N.L. & EUBANKS, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960–971. ANDERSON, K.L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles, 52, 853–865. ANDERSON, K.L. & UMBERSON, D. (2001) Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender & Society, 15, 358–380. ARCHER, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. ARCHER, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta- analytic review. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351. BABCOCK, J.C., GREEN, C.E. & ROBIE C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053. BAIR-MERRITT, M.H., BLACKSTONE, M. & FEUDTNER, C. (2006) Physical health outcomes of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 117, 278–290. BARGH, J.A., RAYMOND, P., PRYOR, J.B. & STRACK, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781. BARONGAN, C. & HALL, G. (1996). The influence of misogynous rap music on sexual aggression against women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 195–207. BEITCHMAN, J.H., ZUCKER, K.J., HOOD, J.E., DACOSTA, G.A., AKMAN, D. & CASSAVIA, E. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 101–118. BERNS, N. (2001). Degendering the problem and gendering the blame: Political discourse on violence against women. Gender & Society, 15, 262–281. BOURNE, L.E. JR. & RUSSO, N.F. (1998). Psychology: Behavior in Context. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. BRICE-BAKER, J.R. (1994). Domestic Violence in African-American and AfricanCaribbean families. Special Issue: Multicultural views on domestic violence. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 3, 23–38. BRINSON, S. (1992). The use and opposition of rape myths in prime-time television dramas. Sex Roles, 27, 359–375. BROWN, J.D., STEELE, J.R. & WALSH-CHILDERS, K. (Ed.) (2002). Sexual teens, sexual media: Investigating media’s influence on adolescent sexuality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. BROWNE, A. (1997). Violence in marriage: Until death do us part? In A.P. Cardarelli (Ed). Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects (pp. 48– 69). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 196 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BROWNMILLER, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. BRUSH, L. (1990). Violent acts and injurious outcomes in married couples: Methodological issues in the National Survey of Families and Households. Gender & Society, 4, 56–67. BRUSH, L. (2005). Philosophical and political issues in research on women’s violence and aggression. Sex Roles, 52, 867–874. BRYANT, J. & ZILLMAN, D. (Eds.) Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. BUCHBINDER, E. & EISIKOVITS, Z. (2003). Battered women’s entrapment in shame: A phenomenological study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 355– 366. BURNETT, R. (1995). Gendered objectification experiences: Construct validity, implications for depression and phenomenology. Dissertation. Duke University. (Summary available at www.JeanHamiltonMD.com). BUFKIN, J. & ESCHHOLZ, S. (2000). Images of sex and rape: A content analysis of popular film. Violence Against Women, 6, 1317–1344. BURT, M. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230. CAMPBELL, J.C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359, 1331–1336. CAMPBELL, J.C. & LEWANDOWSKI, L.A. (1997). Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and children. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20(2), 353–374. CAPUTI, J. (2003). Everyday pornography. In G. Dines & J. Humez (Eds.) Race, Gender, and Class in Media (pp. 434–450). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. CHESTER, B., ROBIN, R., KOSS, M. & GOODMAN, D. (1994). Grandmother dishonored: Violence against women by male partners in American Indian communities. Special Issue: Violence against women of color. Violence and Victims, 9, 249– 258. COKER, A.L., DAVIS, K.E., ARIAS, I., DESAI, S., SANDERSON, M., BRANDT, H.M. & SMITH, P.H. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260–268. COKER, A.L., SMITH, P.H., BETHEA, L., KING, M. & MCKEOWN, R.E. (2000). Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9, 451–457. COLTRANE, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1208–1233. CORNE, S., BRIERE, J. & ESSES, L.M. (1992). Women’s attitudes and fantasies about rape as a function of early exposure to pornography. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 454–461. COUGLE J.R., REARDON D.C. & COLEMAN, P. K. (2004). Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: a cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137–146. DEAUX, K. & MAJOR, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389. ´ DEMARE, D., BRIERE, J. & LIPS, H.M. (1988). Violent pornography and self-reported likelihood of sexual aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 140–153. RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 197 DEKESEREDY, W.S. & SCHWARTZ, M.D. (1998). Measuring the extent of woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships: A critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. U.S. Department of Justice, Violence Against Women Online Resources. Available at http://www.vaw.uma.edu/documents/vawnet/ctscritique/ctscritique.html. DESAI, S. & SALTZMAN, L.E. (2001). Measurement issues for violence against women. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson & R. K. Bergen (Eds.) Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 35–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DIETZ, P., SPITZ, A.M., ANDA, R.F., WILLIAMSON, D.G., MCMAHON, P.M., SANTELLI, .J. J.S., NORDENBERG, D.F., FILETTI, V & KENDRICK, J. S. (2000). Unintended pregnancy among adult women exposed to abuse or household dysfunction during their childhood, Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1259– 1364. DOBASH, R.P. & DOBASH, R.E. (1977). Violence against wives: A case against patriarchy. New York, NY: The Free Press. DONNERSTEIN, E. (1980). Aggressive erotica and violence against women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 269–277. DUTTON, D.G. (1988). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press. DUTTON, M.A., BURGHARDT, K.J., PERRIN, S.G., CHRESTMAN, K.R. & HAILE, P.M. (1994). Battered women’s cognitive schemata. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 237–255. DUTTON, M.A. & GOODMAN, L. (2005). Coercive control and intimate partner violence: toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743–756. DUTTON, M.A., GOODMAN, L.A. & BENNET, L. (1999). Court-involved battered women’s responses to violence: The role of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. Violence and Victims, 14, 89–104. DUTTON, M.A., GREEN, B., KALTMAN, S. I., ROESCH, D.M., ZEFFIRO, T.A., KRAUSE, E.D. (2006). Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 955–968. DWYER, D.C., SMOKOWSKI, P.R., BRICOUT, J.C. & WODARSKI, J.S. (1995). Domestic violence research: Theoretical and practical implications for social work. Clinical Social Work Journal, 23, 185–198. EDWARDS, A. (1991). Male violence in feminist theory: An analysis of the changing conceptions of sex/gender violence and male dominance. In J. Hamner & M. Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence, and social control (pp. 13–29). Atlantic Highands, NJ: Humanities Press International. EISIKOVITS, Z.C. & ENOSH, G. (1997). Awareness of guilt and shame in intimate violence. Violence and Victims, 12, 307–322. ELLSBERG, M.C.L., HEISE, L., PENA, R., AGURTO, S. & WINKVIST, A. (2001). Researching domestic violence against women: Methodological and ethical considerations. Studies in Family Planning, 32, 1–16. ¨ FINKELHOR, D. & YLLO, K. (1985). License to rape: Sexual abuse of wives. New York: Holt, Reinhardt, and Winston. FISCHER, A.R. & GOOD, G.E. (1998). New directions for the study of gender role attitudes: A cluster analytic investigation of masculinity ideologies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 371–384. FOLKMAN, S. & MOSKOWITZ, J.T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774. FOLLINGSTAD, D.R., BRADLEY, R.G., LAUGHLIN, J.E. & BURKE, L. (1999). Risks factor and correlates of dating violence: The relevance of examining frequency 198 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES and severity levels in a college sample. Violence and Victims, 14, 365– 380. FRABLE, D.E.S. (1997). Gender, Racial, Ethnic, Sexual, and Class Identities. Annual Review of Psychology 48, 139–62. FREDRICKSON, B. & ROBERTS, T-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Towards an understanding of women’s lived experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. FRIEZE, I.H. (2000). Violence in close relationships—development of a research area: Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 681–684. FRIEZE, I.H. (2005). Female violence against intimate partners: An introduction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 229–237. FRIEZE, I.H. & DAVIS, K. (2002). Perspectives on stalking research. In K.E. Davis, I.H. Frieze & R.D. Mariuro (Eds.), Stalking: Perspectives on victims and their perpetrators (pp. 1–5). New York, NY: Springer. FRIEZE, I.H. & MCHUGH, M.(Eds.) (2005). Female violence against intimate partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, Whole No. 3. GARCIA-MORENO, C., WATTS, C., JANSEN, H., ELLSBERG, M. & HEISE, L. (2003). Responding to violence against women: WHO’s multicountry study on women’s health and domestic violence. Health and Human Rights, 6(2), 113–127. Available from http://www.who.int/gender/documents/en/vawhealthandhumanrights. pdf. GAZMARARIAN, J.A., , M.M., SALTZMAN, L.E., JOHNSON, C.H., BRUCE, F.C., MARKS, J.S. & ZAHNISER, S.C. (1995). The relationship between pregnancy intendedness and physical violence in mothers of newborns. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 85, 1031–1038. GEFFNER, R., JAFFE, P.G. & SUDERMANN, M. (2000). Children exposed to domestic violence: Current research, interventions, prevention, & policy development. New York, NY: Haworth Press. GILES-SIMS, J. (1998). The aftermath of partner violence. In J.L. Jasinski & L.M. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research (pp. 44–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. GOODMAN, L.A., KOSS, M.P. & RUSSO, N.F. (1993). Violence against women: Physical and mental health effects. Part I: Research findings. Applied & Preventive Psychology: Current Scientific Perspectives, 2, 79–89. GOODRUM, S., UMBERSON, D. & ANDERSON, K.L. (2001). The batterer’s view of the self and others in domestic violence. Sociological Inquiry, 71, 221–241. GOW, J. (1990). The relationship between violent and sexual images and the popularity of music videos. Popular Music and Society, 14(4), 1–10. GREESON, L.E. & WILLIAMS, R.A. (1986). Social implications of music videos for youth. Youth and Society, 18, 177–189. GROTH, A. (1979). Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York, NY: Plenum. GUTIERRES, S.E., RUSSO, N.F., URBANSKI, L. (1994). Sociocultural and psychological factors in American Indian drug use: Implications for treatment. International Journal of the Addictions, 29, 1761–1786. HAMBY, S. (2005). Measuring gender differences in partner violence: Implications from research on other forms of violent and socially undesirable behavior. Sex Roles, 52(11), 725–742. HAMILTON, J.A. & RUSSO, N.F. (2006). Women and depression: Research theory and social policy. In C.L.M. keyes & S.H. Goodman (Eds.), Women and Depression: RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 199 A handbook for the social, behavorial, and biomedical sciences (pp. 479–522). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. HARNED, M.S. (2001). Abused women or abused men? An examination of the context and outcomes of dating violence. Violence and Victims, 16, 269–285. HARRISON, L.A. & ABRISHAMI, G. (2004). Dating violence attributes: Do they differ for in-group and out-group members who have a history of dating violence? Sex Roles, 51, 543–550. HEISE, L.L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290. HEISE, L.L., ELLSBERG, M. & GOTTEMOELLER, M. (1999, December). Ending violence against women. Population reports, Series L, No.11. (pp. 1–45). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Program. HEISE, L.L., PITANGUY, J. & GERMAIN A. (1994). Violence against women: The hidden health burden. World Bank Discussion Paper #225. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. HERRERA, V.M., KOSS, M.P., BAILEY, J., YUAN, N.P. & LICHTER, E.I. (2006). Survivors of male violence: Research and training initiatives to facilitate recovery from depression and posttraumatic stress disorder. In J. Worell & C.D. Goodheart (Eds.). Handbook of Girls’ and Women’s Psychological Health (pp. 455–466). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. HOLDEN, G., GEFFNER, R. & JOURILES, E. (Eds.). (1998). Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. HUSTON, A.C., WARTELLA, E. & DONNERSTEIN, E. (1998). Measuring the effects of sexual content in the media. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. HUSTON, A.C, DONNERSTEIN, E., FAIRCHILD, H.H, FESHBACH, N.D, KATZ, P.A, MURRAY, J.P, RUBINSTEIN, E.A, WILCOX, B.L & ZUCKERMAN, D. (1992). Big world, small screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. JASINSKI, J.L. (2001). Physical violence among Anglo, African American, and Hispanic couples: Ethnic differences in persistence and cessation. Violence and Victims, 16, 479–490. JASINSKI, J.L. & WILLIAMS, L.M. (Eds.) (1998). Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. ´ JENKINS, S.S. & AUBE, J. (2002). Gender differences and gender-related constructs in dating aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1106–1118. JENSEN, R. (1995). Pornographic lives. Violence Against Women, 1, 32–54. JOHNSON, J., JACKSON, L. & GATTO, L. (1995). Violent attitudes and deferred academic aspirations: Deleterious effects of exposure to rap music. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 27–41. JOHNSON, M.P., (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75, 283–294. JOHNSON, M.P. & FERRARO K.J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 948–963. KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION. (1999, March 1). Kids ready to talk about today’s tough issues before their parents are: Sex, AIDS, violence, and drugs/alcohol. Press release. KALOF, L. (1999). The effects of gender and music video imagery on sexual attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 378–385. 200 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES KAURA, S.A. & ALLEN, C.M. (2004). Dissatisfaction with relationship power and dating violence perpetration by men and women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 576–588. KELLER, E.L. (1996). Invisible victims: Battered women in psychiatric and medical emergency rooms. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 60, 1–21. KELLY, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. KENNEDY, A.C., (2006). Urban adolescent mothers exposed to community, family, and partner violence: Prevalence, outcomes, and welfare policy implications. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 44–54. KILPATRICK, D.G. (1990). Violence as a precursor of women’s substance abuse: The rest of the drugs-violence story. Presented in the symposium Critical Issue— Substance Abuse and Violence: Drugs and Violent Crime. American Psychological Association Convention, Boston MA. KIMMEL, M.S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363. KISHOR, S. & JOHNSON, K. (2004). Profiling domestic violence: A multi–country study. Calverton, MD: ORC Macro. KOOP, C.E. (1985). The surgeon general’s workshop on violence and the public health. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. KOSS, M.P. (1988). Women’s mental health research agenda: Violence against women. Women’s Mental Health Occasional Paper Series. Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health. KOSS, M.P. & HESLET, L. (1992). Somatic consequences of violence against women. Archives of Family Medicine, 1, 53–59. KOSS, M.P., BAILEY, J.A., YUAN, N.P., HERRERA, V. M. & LICHTER, E.L. (2003). Depression and PTSD in survivors of male violence: Research and training initiatives to facilitate recovery. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 130–142. KOSS, M.P., GOODMAN, L.A., BROWNE, A., FITZGERALD, L., KEITA, G.P. & RUSSO, N.F. (1994) No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. KOSS, M.P., HEISE, L. & RUSSO, N.F. (1994). The global health burden of rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 509–530. KOSS, M.P., KOSS, P.G. & WOODRUFF, W.J. (1991). Deleterious effects of criminal victimization on women’s health and medical utilization. Archives of Internal Medicine, 151, 342–357. ¨ ´ KRAHE, B., BIENECK, S. & MOLLER, I. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence from an international perspective. Sex Roles, 52, 807– 827. KRUG, E.G., DAHLBERG, L.L., MERCY, J.A., ZWI, A.B. & LOZANO, R. (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. LINZ, D.G., DONNERSTEIN, E. & PENROD, S. (1984). The effects of multiple exposures to filmed violence against women. Journal of Communication, 34, 130–147. LINZ, D.G., DONNERSTEIN, E. & PENROD, S. (1988). Effects of long-term exposure to violent and sexual degrading depictions of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 758–768. LOWRY, D.T. & SHIDLER, J.A. (1993). Primetime TV portrayals of sex, “safe sex,” and AIDS: A longitudinal analysis. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 628–637. MADRIZ, E. (1997). Images of criminals and victims: A study on women’s fear and social control. Gender & Society, 11, 342–356. RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 201 MALAMUTH, N.M. & CENITI, J. (1986). Repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography: Likelihood of raping ratings and laboratory aggression against women. Aggressive Behavior, 12, 129–137. MALAMUTH, N.M., CHECK, J.V.P. & BRIERE, J. (1986). Sexual arousal in response to aggression: Ideological, aggressive, and sexual correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 330–340. MARIN, A.J. & RUSSO, N.F., (1999). Feminist perspectives on male violence against women: Critiquing O’Neil and Harway’s model. In J.M. O’Neil & M. Harway (Eds.). New Perspectives on Violence Against Women (pp. 18–35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. MARSH, C. (1993). Sexual assault and domestic violence in the African American community. Western Journal of Black Studies, 17, 149–155. MARSHALL, L.L. (1992a). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 103–121. MARSHALL, L.L. (1992b). The severity of violence against men scales. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 189–203. MCCLOSKEY, L.A., FIGUEREDO, A.J., KOSS, M.P. (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239–1261. MCHUGH, M.C. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner abuse. Sex Roles, 52, 717–724. MCHUGH, M.C. & FRIEZE, I.H. (Eds.) (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner violence: Theoretical and empirical approaches. Sex Roles, 52, Whole No. 11/12. MCHUGH, M., FRIEZE, I.H. & BROWN, A. (1993). Research on battered women and their assailants. In F.L. Denmark & M.A. Paludi (Eds.). Psychology of women: Handbook of issues and theories (pp. 513–552). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. MCHUGH, M., LIVINGSTON, N.A. & FORD, A. (2005). A postmodern approach to women’s use of violence: Developing multiple and complex conceptualizations, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 323–336. MCKINLEY, N.M. (1995). Objectified body consciousness scale. In J.K. Thompson (Ed.). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, and treatment of body image disturbance (pp. 233–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. MCKINLEY, N.M. & HYDE, J.S. (1996). The objectified body consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 181– 215. MEDEA, A. & THOMPSON, K. (1974). Against rape. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. MEYERS, M. (1997). News coverage of violence against women: Engendering blame. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. MULAC, A., JANSMA, L.L. & LINZ, D.G. (2002). Men’s behavior toward women after viewing sexually-explicit films: Degradation makes a difference. Communication Monographs, 69, 311–328. NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NORTON, I. & MANSON, S. (1995). A silent minority: Battered American Indian women. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 307–318. PARDUN, C.J., L’ENGLE, K.L. & BROWN, J.D. (2005). Linking exposure to outcomes: Early adolescents’ consumption of sexual content in six media. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 75–91. 202 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PERILLA, J., BAKERMAN, R., NORRIS, F. (1994). Culture and domestic violence: The ecology of abused Latinas. Violence and Victims, 9, 325–339. PERRY, I. (2003). Who(se) am I? The identity and image of women in hip hop. In G. Dines & J. Humez (Eds.), Gender, Race, and Class in Media (pp. 136–148). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. PRINCETON SURVEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES. (1996). The Kaiser Family Foundation survey on teens and sex: What they say teens need to know and who they listen to. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. PRYOR, J.B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269–290. PRYOR, J.B., LAVITE, C.M. & STOLLER, L.M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 68–83. PRYOR, J.B. & STOLLER, L.M. (1994). Sexual cognition processes in men high in the likelihood to sexually harass. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 163–169. PTACEK, J. (1997). The tactics and strategies of men who batter: Testimony from women seeking extreme orders. In A.P. Cardarelli (Ed), Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects (pp. 104–123). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. RAMOS, L., KOSS, M.P. & RUSSO, N.F. (1999). Mexican-American women ‘s definitions of rape and sexual abuse. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21(3), 236– 265. RANDO, R.A., ROGERS, J.R. & BRITTAN-POWELL, C.S. (1998). Gender role conflict and college men’s sexually aggressive attitudes and behavior. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20, 359–369. RENZETTI, C.M., EDLESON, J.L. & BERGEN, R.K. (Eds.) (2001). Sourcebook on violence against women. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc. RESNICK, H.S., ACIERNO, R. & KILPATRICK, D.G. (1997). Health impact of interpersonal violence. 2: Medical and mental health outcomes. Behavioural Medicine, 23, 65– 78. RICHARDSON, D.S. (2005), The myth of the female passivity: thirty years of revelations about female aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 313–322. RIDGEWAY, C.L. & SMITH-LOVIN, L. (1999). The Gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216. ROBERTS, D.F. (2000). Media and youth: Access, exposure, and privatization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 8–14. RUBIN, L. & RUSSO, N.F. (2004). Abortion and mental health: What therapists need to know. Women & Therapy, 27 (3/4), 69–90. RUDMAN, L.A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 629–645. RUDMAN, L.A. & GLICK, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004– 1010. RUDMAN, L.A. & GLICK, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 743–762. RUSSELL, D. (1975). Rape: The victim’s perspective. New York, NY: Stein and Day. RUSSELL, D.E.H. (1990). Rape in marriage. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 203 RUSSELL, D.E.H. (1980). Pornography and violence: What does the new research say? In L. Lederer (Ed.), Take back the night: Women on pornography (pp. 218–238). New York, NY: William Morrow. RUSSELL, D.E.H. (1988). Pornography and rape: A causal model. Political Psychology, 9, 41–73. RUSSO, N.F. & DENIOUS, J. (1998). Understanding the relationship of violence against women to unwanted pregnancy and its resolution. In L.J. Beckman & S.M. Harvey (Eds.), The new civil war: The psychology, culture, and politics of abortion (pp. 211–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. RUSSO, N.F. & DENIOUS, J.E. (2001). Violence in the lives of women having abortions: Implications for public policy and practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 142–150. RUSSO, N.F. (2006). Violence against women: A global health issue. Proceedings of the 28th International Congress of Psychology, Bejing, 2004. New York, NY: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Group). RUSSO, N.F., DENIOUS, J., KEITA, G.P. & KOSS, M.P. (1997). Intimate violence and black women’s health. Women’s Health: Research on Gender, Behavior, and Public Policy, 3(3&4), 315–348. RUSSO, N.F., KOSS, M.P. & GOODMAN, L. (1995). Male violence against women: A global health and development issue. In Adler, L.L. & Denmark, F.L. Violence and the prevention of violence (121–127). Westport, CT: Praeger. RUSSO, N.F., KOSS, M.P. & RAMOS, L. (2000). Rape: A global health issue. In J. Ussher (Ed.), Women’s health: Contemporary international perspectives (pp. 129–142). London, UK: British Psychological Society. SANCHEZ-HUCLES, J. & DUTTON, M.. (1999). The interaction between societal violence and domestic violence: Racial and cultural factors. In M. Harway & J.M. O’Neil (Eds.), What causes men’s violence against women? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. SCHWARTZ, M.S. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and characterizing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 6, 815– 838. SCOTT-GILIBA, E., MINNE, C., MEZEY, G.C. (1995). The psychological, behavioural and emotional impact of surviving an abusive relationship. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 6, 343–358. SHANE, B. & ELLSBERG, M. (2002). Violence against women: effects on reproductive health. Outlook, 20(1), 1–8. SHERMAN, B.L. & DOMINICK, J.R. (1986). Violence and sex in music: TV and rock ‘n’ roll. Journal of Communication, 36, 79–93. SILBERT, M.H. & PINES, A.M. (1984). Pornography and sexual abuse of women. Sex Roles, 10, 857–869. SILVERMAN, J.G., RAJ, A., MUCCI, L.A. & HATHAWAY, J.E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of American Medical Association, 286, 572–579. . SOMMERS, E.K. & CHECK, J.V (1987). An empirical investigation of the role of pornography in the verbal and physical abuse of women. Violence and Victims, 2, 189– 209. SOMMERS-FLANAGAN, R., SOMMERS-FLANAGAN, J. & DAVIS, B. (1993). What’s happening on music television? A gender-role content analysis. Sex Roles, 28, 745–753. 204 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SONG, Y.I. (1996). Battered women in Korean immigrant families: The silent scream. New York, NY: Garland. SORENSON, S.B. (1996). Violence against women: examining ethnic differences and commonalities. Evaluation Review, 20, 123–145. SORENSON, S.B. & TAYLOR, C.A. (2005). Females’ aggression toward intimate male partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), 78–96. SORENSON, S.B. & TELLES, C.A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in a Mexican- American and non-Hispanic White population. Violence and Victims, 6, 3–15. ST. LAWRENCE, J.S. & JOYNER, D.J. (1991). The effects of sexually violent rock music on males’ acceptance of violence against women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 49–63. STARK, E. & FLITCRAFT, A. (1988). Violence among intimates: An epidemiological review. In V.B. Van Haselt, R.L. Morrison, A.S. Bellack & M. Herson (Eds.), Handbook of Family Violence, (pp. 213–293). New York, NY: Plenum Press. STARK, E. & FLITCRAFT, A. (1996). Women at risk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. STARK, E., FLITCRAFT, A. & FRAZIER, W. (1979). Medicine and patriarchal violence: The social construction of a “private” event. International Journal of Health Services, 9, 461–493. STEINBERG, J.R. & RUSSO, N.F. (2006). Abortion and anxiety disorder: What’s the relationship? Unpublished manuscript. STETS, J. & STRAUS, M.A. (1992). The marriage license as a hitting license. Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. STRAUS, M.A., HAMBY, S.L. & WARREN, W.L. (2003). The conflict tactic scales handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. STRAUS, M.A. & GELLES, R.J. & STEINMETZ, S. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. STURM, J.T., CARR, M.E., LUXENBERG, M.G., SWOYER, J.K., CICERO, J.J. (1990). The prevalence of Neisseria Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia trichomatous in victims of sexual assault. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 19, 142–144. SULLIVAN, T.P., MEESE, K.J., SWAN, S.C., MAZURE, C.M. & SNOW, D.L. (2005). Precursors and correlates of women’s violence: Child abuse traumatization, victimization of women, avoidance coping, and psychological symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 290–301. SUN, S.W. & LULL, J. (1986). The adolescent audience for music videos and why they watch. Journal of Communication, 36, 115–125. TICHENOR, V. (2005) Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more, Sex Roles, 53, 191–206. TIGGEMANN, M. & KURING, J.K. (2004). The role of body objectification in disordered eating and depressed mood. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 299– 311. TJADEN, P. & THOENNES, P. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. TOLMAN, R.M., EDLESON, J.L. & FRENDRICH, M. (1996). The applicability of the theory of planned behavior to abusive men’s cessation of violent behavior. Violence and Victims, 11, 341–345. RUSSO & PIRLOTT: GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 205 UNITED NATIONS (1989). Violence against women in the family. New York, NY: United Nations. UNITED NATIONS (1995). Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing 4-15 September 1995. New York, NY: United Nations. UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1993, December 20). Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. Proceedings of the 85th Plenary Meeting, Geneva, Switzerland. VAN ANDERS, S.M. (2004). Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 51, 511–522. VINCENT, R.C., DAVIS, D.K. & BORUSZKOWSKI, L.A. (1987). Sexism on MTV: The portrayal of women in rock videos. Journalism Quarterly, 64, 750–755, 941. WARD, L.M. (2002). Does television exposure affect emerging adults’ attitudes and assumptions about sexual relationships? Correlational and experimentational confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 1–15. WARD, L.M., HANSBROUGH, E. & WALKER, E. (2005). Contributions of music video exposure to Black adolescents’ gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 143–166. WEST, C.M. (1998). Lifting the “political gag order”: Breaking the silence around partner violence in ethnic minority families. In J.L. Jasinski, L.M. Williams et al. (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research (pp. 184–209). Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications. WESTER, S., CROWN, C., QUATMAN, G. & HEESACKER, M. (1997). The influence of sexually violent rap music on attitudes of men with little prior exposure. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 497–508. WESTER, S., CROWN, C., QUATMAN, G. & HEESACKER, M. (1997). The influence of sexually violent rap music on attitudes of men with little prior exposure. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(4), 497–508. WHITE, J.W., SMITH, P.H., KOSS, M.P. & FIGUEREDO, A.J. (2000). Intimate partner aggression—what have we learned? Comment on Archer (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 126, 690–696. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2001). Putting women first: Ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: Department of Gender and Women’s Health. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2002). World report on violence and health. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (2004). Gender-based violence. Web-site: http://www.who.int/gender/violence. WYATT, G. (1994). Sociocultural and epidemiological issues in the assessment of domestic violence. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 3, 7–21. WYATT, G.E., GUTHRIE, D. & NOTGRASS, C.M. (1992). Differential effects of women’s child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual revictimization. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 60, 167–173. ¨ o YLLO, K. (1988). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In K. Yll¨ and M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA. ZIMMERMAN, K. (1992, March 16). Censure for censor bills. Variety, 72–74.