The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Study of Female-on-Female Intentional Injuries

in an Urban Community: A Proposal and Test of

Gendered Theory

Author(s): Nancy B. Hirschinger

Document No.: 199366

Date Received: March 2003

Award Number: 2001-WT-BX-0505

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
By Nancy Beth Hirschinger 

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School - Newark 

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

in partial fulfillment of the requirement3 

€or the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

School of Criminal Justice /j 

$ &.$a:- 

' Bonita VeyM Ph.D. - -.l 

c.1 

&ne Ann'erissd, M.D., Sc. 

Newark, New Jersey 

May, 2002 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2001-WT-BX-0505 awarded by the National Institute 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this 

document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
A Study of Female-on-Female Intentional Injuries in an Urban Community: 

A Proposal and Test of General Theory 

Nancy Beth Hirschinger 

NIJ Grant No. 2001-WT-BX-0505 

An investigation was conducted among predominantly Black women presenting for 

emergency department care to (1) identify differences in correlates of intentional injuries to 

women by women compared to intentional injuries to women by men residing in an urban, lowincome community, and (2) describe circumstances of the violent events. Most injured women 

(82 percent) were victimized by acquaintanceshiends or family members. The majority (60 

percent) of violent acts occurred outdoors and were witnessed by others (82 percent). Violence 

by women by non-partners takes place on view and is not a private affair. The most prevalent 

form of a violent act by the antagonist was one-on-one bodily physical contact (83 percent), and 

the most fkequently cited location of injury was the head or face (67 percent). A significant 

minority (23 percent) were stabbed or cut. Sixty-two percent of the study respondents fought 

back. Seven percent of the respondents were carrying something to keep themselves safe at the 

time of the violent event, most fiequently a knife or razor. In the majority of incidents (54 

percent), the antagonist reportedly used alcohol or illicit drugs prior to the violent event. 

The comparative analysis by gender of the antagonist using multivariable logistic 

regression revealed that women were more likely to engage in violence over relationship issues 

(Le., protecting a third party and gossip/nunors) and personal respect (Le., insults/slights), and 

were more likely to report physical abuse by a mother figure during childhood. In contrast, 

women injured by men were more likely to sustain an injury during predatory crime and to have 

a history of partner abuse. 

The findings point to eight implications that should be considered in the development of 

future policies to reduce violence to women: (1) recognize the adaptational function of violence 

in the lives of urban females from their perspective; (2) provide females with opportunities that 

nurture success and empowerment; (3) recognize the central role of relationships in the lives of 

women; (4) develop conflict preventiodintervention programs and policies based on a gendered 

approach; (5) recognize the drug/alcohol and violence nexus and weapon availability; (6) 

recognize the diverse roles assumed by females involved in violence; (7) increase public safety 

within communities; and (8) recognize the need to minimize cultural stereotypes against Black 

females and the risk of victim blaming. 

0 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
A Study of Female-on-Female Intentional Injuries in an Urban Community: 

A Proposal and Test of Gendered Theory 

By Nancy Beth Hirschinger 

Thesis Director: Professor Bonita Veysey 

This dissertation examines female-on-female non-partner assault that results in 

injury among a sample of predominantly Black women 16-45 years of age, living in a 

low-income, urban community. The respondents were interviewed in hospital emergency 

departments after seeking treatment for intentional injuries. The sample includes females 

injured by females (N=l67) and females injured by males (N=l55). 

The major aims of the study were: (1) to develop a theory labeled Gendered 

Social Structural Strain which incorporates gender-neutral and female-specific constructs 

to explain female-on-female assault; (2) to test components of Gendered Social 

Structural Strain by comparing females injured by females and female injured by males; 

and (3) to provide contextual information through the presentation of the respondents’ 

verbatim accounts. 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory incorporates feminist theory and the 

structural cultural perspective. Based on a multivariable logistic regression model, three 

risk factors for female-on-female assault were uncovered. Consistent with feminist 

theory, intragender assault was significantly associated with “relational protection,” 

defined by fighting to protect a third pariy and “intspersonal colicerns” defined by 

fighting over rumors or being disliked. These findings point to the need for a gendered 

theory that considers the role of interpersonal relationships in the lives of females. 

.. 

11 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Personal Respect,” a key component of Anderson’s Code of the Street 

perspective, emerged as the third risk factor. The code emphasizes the command of 

respect through aggressive posturing and the use of violence to resolve disputes. Past 

research has demonstrated that both males and females engage in violence over personal 

respect. In this study, however, when the gender of the antagonist is considered, 

differences between intragender and cross-gender violence surfaced. 

The comparative analysis by gender of the antagonist illuminated key differences. 

These differences illustrate the importance of integrating both gender-neutral and femalespecific theoretical concepts to explain female-on-female assault. 

... 

111 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Acknowledgemen& 

I could not have completed this project without the support and guidance of many 

people. 1 am so grateful! 

This dissertation would not have been possible without the Principal Investigator 

of the Women s Health and Emergency Care Study ( WHe-Care), my dissertation 

committee member and mentor Jeane Ann (“JA”) Grisso from the Center of Clinical 

Epidemiology and Biostatistics (CCEB) of the University of Pennsylvania. I feel so 

fortunate to have learned from her rigorous research skills, how to start up and manage a 

major investigation from beginning to end, and the value of persistence and dedication 

required to make things happen. After having submitted the initial WHe-Care grant 

proposal to the National Institutes of Health in 199 1, and then re-submitting it in 1992 

and re- and re- and re- and re-submitting the proposal, it was finally fimded in 1997. 

Jeane Ann Grisso’s commitment to improving the health of disadvantaged women has 

been a constant source of inspiration for me. 

I am grateful to Bonita Veysey, my dissertation Chair, for inspiring me to develop 

my own ideas and for always encouraging me to move forward. Her support gave me the 

confidence to complete this project. I would also like to thank my other committee 

members, Mercer Sullivan and Michael Maxfield, for their critical feedback and making 

me think until my head hurt. 

I would like to extend my thanks to numerous other people from the CCEB of the 

University of Pennsylvania. I am incredibly grateful to Susan Primavera for her 

indispensable technical assistance. Her dedication over the past five years to the WHeCare Study has extended way beyond what I could ever have imagined. I am indebted to 

Wendy Braund, Grace Delp, Angela DiGeorge, Kelly Farley, Kathleen Furin, Joanne 

Graham, Lisa Hilmi, Allison Kris, Christine Larson, Patty McKenna, Susan Meeker, 

Marge Mullin, Mary Joan (“MJ”) Murphy, and Alice Reynolds, the interviewers who 

recruited and counseled the study participants, for their extraordinary efforts. Additional 

thanks are extended to the valuable research assistance provided by Shobha Sharma-Hug, 

Alicia Peters, and Colleen Brensinger. 

I am truly grateful to Lucy Wolf Tuton also from the CCEB, a true role model and 

inspiration. She has encouraged me every inch of the way. I want to thank Deb Nelson 

for her generous help and guidance, Peter Kanetsky for answering my many questions on 

logistic regression and Nancy Golumbia for ongoing computer support. 

Also from the University of Pennsylvania, I want to thank Susie Eachus for 

training me to use a computerized qualitative data analysis program and Jason Lewis for 

his awesome work ethic and dedication to the qualitative data analysis process. I already 

miss OUT Starbuck’s meetings. I am appreciative of several people who provided me with 

guidance during my early years as a research assistant and then as a teacher of university 

students. Sara Corse, from the University of Pennsylvania who helped me to develop 

research skills and instilled in me the qualities to become an effective manager. Lori 

Pompa, from Temple University, taught me the value of experiential learning and the 

iv 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
insider’s perspective, principles that I have drawn upon in developing the theoretical 

framework presented in my dissertation. 

I am especially appreciative of the Dissertation Award I received from the 

National Institute of Justice, which allowed me to devote the time required to complete 

this work and to Anna Jordan for her ongoing advice and assistance. 

I want to thank Ross London, my study companion, from Rutgers University. I 

never could have imagined that studying for the qualifier exam could be a fun experience. 

I am grateful to Jarret Love11 for his advice throughout the years, Shirley Parker, Jean 

Webster, Sandra Wright, Teresa Fontanez and our librarian Phyllis Schultze who each at 

one time or another has helped me from afar to meet important deadlines. I also want to 

thank Kashia Proszowski for teaching me the ropes of preparing a grant submission. 

Of course this project would not have happened without the women of West 

Philadelphia who devoted their time and energies to participate in the interviews, despite 

their physical pain from the injuries sustained. I so value their candidness and honesty 

and have worked arduously to create a context for understanding their experiences. I 

only hope I have done them justice. 

I am beholden to my loving “Philadelphia family:” Rob Einhorn, Adrian Garro, 

Harris Eckstut, Ron Kern, A. Reisa Mallin, Greg Perry, Galya Benariah Ruffer, and 

especially to Jessica Jarmon for her genuine interest in my dissertation and commitment 

to seeing me complete it, and to Jodi Deitch for always being there. I want to extend my 

thanks to Sonny Martin, dear friend and Belmont community leader, whose passionate 

commitment to the youth of West Philadelphia has motivated me to finish this 

dissertation so I could join him in his work. 

e 

I could not have completed this project without the intellectual guidance and 

patience of Don Wallace, who has become more of father to me than he’ll ever know. I 

feel a tremendous sense of gratitude to Yerel N’Diaye whose love, compassion and 

support served as a source of strength for me throughout this process. I am especially 

grateful to Shelley Lindemeyer, not only for her love and understanding, but also for 

being a constant reminder of life’s priorities. 

I am gratehl to my parents for instilling in me a sense of determination and stickto-itiveness, to my Uncle Harold and Aunt Arlene, for their early years of mentorship and 

for rooting me on through the years. I am thankful to my cousin, David Meister, a role 

model of perseverance, to my brother Marc Hirschinger for his love and support even at 

times when he didn’t understand why I would ever take on this endeavor and to my 

second mom, Sheera Margolies, for her nurtwance and ongoing advice. I especially want 

to thank my cousin Debbie Meister, my psychological sister, who has always encouraged 

me to follow my own path and whose love and encouragement energized me throughout 

this process - especially during the final two chapters when I needed her the most. 

V 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
No words can do justice to my sense of gratitude to Ira Brenner for our many 

years of work together, which has given me nothing short of a second chance at life and 

an enormous faith in the human potential. Needless to say, without our work I would not 

have had the clarity of mind to complete (or even begin) this endeavor. 

I dedicate this dissertation to two generations of strength, 

to the memory of my grandmother, Thelma Cohn and to my 

mother, Diane Hirschinger, for her unconditional 

support (emotional and financial) and 

unquestionable faith in my capacity. 

vi 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

I. Problem Statement and Rationale.. ;. .......................................... 1- 9 

11. Scope of Female-on-Female Assault.. ......................................... 9-13 

111. Absence of Theory on Female-on-Female Assault.. ......................... 13 

IV. Limitation of Existing Studies ................................................... 13-17 

V. Study Goals ........................................................................ 17-19 

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE STWY OF 

FEMALES AND ASSAULT 

I. Introduction.. ....................................................................... 20-22 

A. Definition and Specifications of a Gender-Neutral Theory 

B. Definition and Specifications of a Female-Specific Theory 

C. Literature Review: An Introduction 

11. Gender-Neutral Theories.. ....................................................... 

A. Social Control Theory 

B. Differential Association Theory 

C. Social Disorganization Theory 

D. The Structural-Cultural Approach 

E. Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Theory of Victimization 

F. Psychiatric/Social-Psychological Perspective 

G. Situational Approach 

H. Evolutionary Theory 

111. Female-Specific Theories.. ......................................................... A. Feminization of Poverty Approach 

B. Feminist Victimization Approach 

25-71 

72-84 

IV. Contributing to a Contemporary Debate: The Impact of .................... 85-86 

“Agency” on Female Involvement in Assault 

V. Theories of Female-on-Female Assault among Urban Black.. .............. 86-92 

Females: More Questions than Answers 

A. Relevance and Limitatiorr of Gender-Neutral Theories 

B. Relevance and Limitations of Female-Specific Theories 

C. Additional Limitations 

vii 

-* . 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

I. Introduction.. ...................................................................... 93-102 

A. Commonly Cited Applications Used to Explain the Link between 

Structural Disadvantage, Blocked Opportunity and Violence 

B. Applications Used to Explain the Link between Structural 

Disadvantage, Blocked Opportunity and Female Violence 

11. A Proposal for a New Perspective to Study Female-on-Female.. .......... Assault: “A Theory of Gendered Structural Strain” with 3 Theoretical 

Components Related to Sources of Success among Urban Females 

A. Marriageor Establishment of Long-Temn Monogamous- R~a~ionships1. Sources of Structural Strain that Block Opportunities for Marriage: 

Economics, Public Policies, Adaptations to Poverty and Relational Motives 

2. Female-on-Female Violence: An Adaptation to Blocked Opportunity 

to Marriage or Long-Term Monogamous Relationships 

3. Gendered Patterns of Intragender Assault 

4. Summary: Adaptations to Blocked Opportunity 

to Marriage or Long-Term Monogamous Relationships 

102- 150 

B. Academic and Occupational Success 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Sources of Structural Strain that Block Opportunities For Academic 

And Occupational Success: The Educational System and Adaptations 

to Poverty 

Female-on-Female Violence As An Adaptation to Blocked Opportunity 

for Academic and Occupational Success 

Summary: Adaptations to Blocked Opportunities to Academic and 

Occupational Success 

C. Safety and Protection 

1. Sources of Structural Strain that Block Opportunities for Safety and 

Protection of Oneself and FamilyRriends: Public Institutions and 

Historical Discrimination 

2. Female-on-Female Violence As An Adaptation to Blocked Sources 

of Protection and Safety 

3. Gendered Patterns of Intragender Assault 

4. Summary: Adaptations to Blocked Sources of Protection and Safety 

111. A Summary: Female-Specific and Gender-Neutral Adaptations and ...... 150-152 

the Link to Female-on-Female Violence 

N. Revisiting Two Limitations of Theories of Female-on-Female Assault .... 153-1 63 

A. Limitation #1: The Importance of Gender, Race and Class 

R Limitation.#2 TheNd.Eoc An.Integmted.Theoq of 

Female-on-Female Assault 

CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 

I. Introduction ........................................................................ 164- 166 

11. Study Hypotheses.. ............................................................... 166- 1 79 

... 

VI11 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 5. METHODS 

I. Introduction.. ...................................................................... 

.. 11. Original Study.. ................................................................... 

A. Study Population and Community Characteristics 

B. Selection of Emergency Departments 

C. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study Participants 

D. Selection Methods for Study. Participants 

E. Procedures Used to Identify Intentionally Injured 

Women and to Collect Data 

F. Description of Original Study Sample 

G. Data Set 

80-181 

81-189 

111. Current Study.. ................................................................... 189-223 

A. Selection Criteria and Description of Sample 

B. Operationalization of Concepts 

C. Analysis Plan 

D. Potential Limitations of a Secondary Data Analysis and Remedies 

CHAPTER 6. A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY RESPONDENTS: UNIVARIATE 

AND BIVARIATE ANALYSES 

I. Introduction ........................................................................ 224-225 

II. Univariate .. Analyses.. ........................................................... 225-233 

A. Description of Study Respondents 

B. Description of Study Respondents’ Most Recent Male Intimate Partners 

and Intimate Relationships 

111. Bivariate Analyses.. ............................................................... 233-243 

A. Characteristics of the Study Respondents Disaggregated by Gender 

of the ‘Antagonist 

B. Description of Study Respondents’ Most Recent Male Intimate Partners 

and Intimate Relationships Disaggregated by Gender of the Antagonist 

N. Summary .......................................................................... 243-244 

ix 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
CHAPTER 7. A DESCRLPTION OF THE VIOLENT EVENT: UNIVARIATE 

e AND BIVARIATE ANALYSES 

I. Introduction ......................................................................... 245-246 

.. 11. Univariate Analyses.. ............................................................ 246-284 

A. Data Obtained From the Closed-Ended Questions 

B. Data Obtained from the Open-ended Questions 

111. Bivariate Analyses.. ............................................................. 284-303 

A. Data Obtained From Closed-Ended Questions 

B. Data Obtained from the Open-Ended Questions 

CHAPTER 8. A TEST OF GENDERED SOCIAL STRUCTURAL STRQIN THEORY: 

BIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES 

I. Introduction. ....................................................................... 3 04-3 05 

II. Bivariate Analyses.. ................................................................ 305-309 

A. Culturally-defined Female-Specific Adaptations to Blocked Goals 

B. Culturally-defined Gender-Neutral Adaptations to Blocked Goals 

C. Summary of Bivariate Results 

111. Multivariate Analyses.. .......................................................... 309-3 19 

A. Process of Variable Elimination: Candidate Control Variables 

B. Model's Goodness of Fit 

C. Identification of Significant Associations with the Dependent Variable 

CHAPTER 9. REVISITING THE EMPIRICAL FINDINGS WITHIN THE CONTEXT 

OF GENDERED SOCIAL STRUCTURAL STRAIN THEORY AND 

BEYOND 

I. Introduction ....................................................................... 320-321 

11. A Test of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory: Empirical.. ........ 321-341 

Results 

A. Female-Specific Adaptations 

B. Gender-Neutral Adaptations 

111. Empirical Findings Pertaining to'Contro1 Variables.. ....................... 342-346 

A. Female-on-Female Violence 

B. Male-on-Female Violence 

IV. Contributions that Emerged from a Test of Gendered.. ..................... 347-349 

Social Structural Strain Theory: The Relevance of Gender-Neutral 

and Female-Specific Theory 

A. Gender-Neutral Theory: The Code of the Street 

B. Female-Specific Theory: Feminist Theory and Gender Studies Research 

X 

...... 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
V. Interpreting the Empirical Results within the Context ............................. 349-360 

of Gender, Class and Race and Topics for Further Research 

A. Gender 

B. Gender and Class 

C. The Intersection of Gender, Class and Race 

e 

VI. Implications for Further Research.. ........................................... 3 60-3 70 

A. The Relevance of Gender, Class and Race 

B. Moving Beyond the Study of Violence among Economically 

Disadvantaged Urban Women 

CHAPTER 10. TOWARD FURTHER THEORY DEVELOPMENT AND EMERGING 

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF 

ACQUAINTANCE-RELATED VIOLENCE AS AN EXAMPLE 

1. Introduction. ....................................................................... 371 

11. A Proposed Typology of Situational Factors.. .................................. 371-395 

A. Dispute-Related Participants: Provocative Respondent and 

Provocative Antagonist 

B. Female Victim: Non-Provocative Respondent and 

Provocative Antagonist 

C. Third-party Intercessor 

III. Chapter Summary: Toward Further Theory Development ................... 395-396 

and Emerging Policy Implications for AcquaintanceRelated Violence 

CHAPTER 11. CONCLUSION 

I. Introduction.. ...................................................................... 397 

11. Policy and Programmatic Implications.. ...................................... 397-405 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Interview Protocol.. .............................................. 406-45 1 

Appendix B: Qualitative Coding Manuel.. .................................... 452-454 

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................... 455-471 

VITA ......................................................................................... 472 

xi 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
List of Tables 

Table 3-1 : 

Table 3-2: 

Table 4-1 : 

Table 5- 1 : 

Table 5-2: 

Table 5-3: 

Table 5-4: 

Table 5-5: 

Table 5-6: 

Table 6- 1 : 

Table 6-2: 

Table 6-3: 

Table 6-4: 

Table 6-5: 

Table 6-6: 

A Theory of Gendered Social Structural Strain: 

Summary of Key Components 

The Significance of the Interaction of Gender, Class 

and Race For Understanding Female-on- Female 

Assault 

Summary of Research Hypotheses and Theoretical 

Derivations 

A Comparative Analysis of Study (West Philadelphia) 

Community and Philadelphia Community (Greater) 

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study Participants 

Concepts and Measures Used For Hypothesis Testing 

Concepts and Measures Used for Descriptive Data 

Validation of Self Reports using Toxicology Results 

Percent Self-Reported Substance use for Women 

Who Provided Urine Toxicologies versus Women Who 

Did Not 

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics 

of Study Respondents 

Respondents’ Psychological Status 

Respondents’ History of Violence 

PersonaYSocial Contacts and Household Composition 

Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Illegal Activity 

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of 

Male Partners 

(Ch.3, p. 106) 

(Ch.3, p. 155) 

(Ch.4, p. 169) 

(Ch.5, p. 183) 

(Ch.5, p. 185) 

(Ch.5, p. 191) 

(Ch.5, p. 206) 

(Ch.5, p. 217) 

(Ch.5, p. 21 8) 

(Ch.6, p. 225) 

(Ch.6, p. 226) 

(Ch.6. p. 227) 

(Ch.6, p. 228) 

(Ch.6, p. 229) 

(Ch.6, p. 230) 

Table 6-7: Substance Use, Violence and Criminal Justice System 

Involvement of Male Partners 

(Ch.6, p. 23 1) 

Table 6-8: 0 Relationship 

Characteristics of Study Respondents’ Intimate Partner (Ch.6, p. 232) 

xii 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 6-9: 

Table 6-10: 

Table 6-1 1: 

Table 6-12: 

Table 6- 13 : 

Table 6- 14: 

Table 6-1 5: 

Table 6- 16: 

Table 7- 1 : 

Table 7-2: 

Table 7-3 : 

Table 7-4: 

Table 7-5: 

Table 7-6: 

Table 7-7: 

Table 7-8: 

Table 7-9: 

Table 7-10: 

Table 7-1 1: 

Respondent Demographic and Socioeconomic 

Characteristics by Gender of the Antagonist 

(Ch.6, p. 234) 

Psychosocial Status by Gender of the Antagonist (Ch.6, p. 235) 

History of Violence by Gender of the Antagonist (Ch.6, p. 236) 

Personal and Social Contacts and Household Composition (Ch.6, p. 238) 

by Gender of the Antagonist 

Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Illegal Activity (Ch.6, p. 239) 

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of 

Male Partners by Gender of the Antagonist 

(Ch.6, p. 240) 

Violence, Substance Use, and Criminal Justice System 

Involvement of Male Partners 

(Ch.6, p. 241) 

Characteristics of Study Respondents’ Male Intimate 

Partner Relationships 

(Ch.6, p. 242) 

Victim-Offender Relationship and Characteristics of 

the Antagonist 

(Ch.7, p. 247) 

Time, Location and Involvement of Others 

Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use by Respondents and 

Antagonists 

Violent Acts and Weapon Use 

Injury Location and Fatalities 

Reasons for the Violence 

The Role of the Respondent 

Respondents’ and Antagonists’ Emotions 

Background Characteristics of the Violent Event 

Characteristics of Verbal Provocation 

Alcohol and Illicit Drug Involvement 

(Ch.7, p. 248) 

(Ch.7, p. 249) 

(Ch.7, p. 250) 

(Ch.7, p. 251) 

(Ch.7, p. 254) 

(Ch.7, p. 266) 

(Ch.7, p. 271) 

(Ch.7, p. 275) 

(Ch.7, p. 277) 

(Ch.7, p. 278) 

xiii 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 7-12: 

Table 7-13: 

Table 7- 14: 

Table 7- 15: 

Table 7- 16: 

Table 7-17: 

Table 7-18: 

Table 7-19: 

Table 7-20: 

Table 7-21 : 

Table 7-22: 

Table 7-23: 

Table 7-24: 

Table 7-25: 

0 

Table 7-26: 

Table 8- 1 : 

Table 8-2: 

Table 8-3: 

Table 8-4: 

Circumstances Surrounding Alcohol and Illicit Drug 

Involvement 

Experiences with Police 

Victim-Offender Relationship and Characteristics of 

the Antagonist 

Time, Location, Involvement of Others 

Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use by Respondents and 

Antagonists 

Violent Acts and Weapon Use 

Location of Injury and Fatalities 

Reasons for the Violence by Gender of the Antagonist 

The Role of the Respondent 

Respondents’ and Antagonists’ Emotions 

Background Characteristics of the Violent Event 

Characteristics of Verbal Provocation 

(Ch.7, p. 280) 

(Ch.7, p. 281) 

(Ch.7, p. 285) 

(Ch.7, p. 287) 

(Ch.7, p. 289) 

(Ch.7, p. 291) 

(Ch.7, p. 294) 

(Ch.7, p. 295) 

(Ch.7, p. 297) 

(Ch.7, p. 298) 

(Ch.7, p. 299) 

(Ch.7, p. 300) 

Alcohol and Illicit Drug Involvement (Ch.7, p. 300) 

Circumstances Surrounding Alcohol and Illicit Drug 

Involvement 

(Ch.7, p. 301) 

Experiences with Police (Ch.7, p. 302) 

Female-Specific Hypotheses (Ch.8, p. 305) 

Gender-Neutral Hypotheses (Ch.8, p. 307) 

Bivariate Results for Control Variable Candidates (Ch.8, p. 31 1) 

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis of Factors 

Associated with Risk of Violent Injury by Females 

versus Males: Full Model with all Candidate Control and 

Theoretical Variables 

(Ch.8, p. 3 13) 

xiv 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 8-5: Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis 

of Factors Associated with Risk of Violent Injury 

by Females versus Males: Final Model 

Table: 8-6: Multivariable Analysis of Factors Associated with 

Risk of Violent Injury by Females versus Males: 

Trimmed Model 

Table 10- 1 : Roles Assumed by Study Respondents 

Table 1 0-2: Motivations for Dispute-Related Violence 

Table 1 0-3 : Non-Provocative Respondent and Provocative 

Antagonist 

Table 10-4: Third-party Intercessor 

(Ch.8, p. 3 15) 

(Ch.8, p. 317) 

(Ch. 10, p.373) 

(Ch.10, p.374) 

(Ch.lO, p.382) 

(Ch.10, p.391) 

xv 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Lisf of Figures 

Figure 3- 1 : Gender-Neutral and Gender- Specific Pathways 

To Intragender Assault 

(Ch.3, p.104) 

Figure 3-2: Female-Specific Dimensions of Conflict: Adaptations 

To Barriers to Marriage 

(Ch.3, p. 1 18) 

Figure 3-3: Gender-Specific Adaptations to Barriers to Marriage (Ch.3, p. 1 19) 

Figure 3-4: 

Figure 3-5: 

Figure 3-6: 

Figure 3-7: 

Figure 5-1: 

Figure 9- 1 : 

Figure 9-2: 

Figure 9-3: 

Figure 9-4: 

Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Becoming Involved in 

In Violence Over Respect 

Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Becoming Involved in 

Violence Over Resources 

Gender-Specific Dimensions of Becoming Involved in 

Violence Over Resources 

Gender-Specific Dimensions of Self-Help Strategies 

A Study of Violent Injuries in Women 

Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Dimensions of 

Self-Help Strategies: Different Pathways to Intragender 

and Cross-Gender Assault 

Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Dimensions of 

Becoming Involved in Violence Over Interpersonal 

Concerns: Different Pathways to Intragender 

and Cross-Gender Assault 

Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Adaptations to 

Barriers to Marriage: Different Pathways to Intragender 

and Cross-Gender Assault 

Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Dimensions of 

Becoming Involved in Violence Over Personal 

Respect: Different Pathways to Intragender and 

Cross-Gender Assault 

(Ch.3, p.137) 

(Ch.3, p.140) 

(Ch.3, p. 142) 

(Ch.3, p. 147) 

(Ch.5, p. 187) 

(Ch.9, p. 324) 

(Ch.9, p. 328) 

(Ch.9, p. 332) 

(Ch.9, p. 336) 

xvi 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

I. Problem Statement and Rationale 

Over the past decade, female participation in assault increasingly has become a 

topic of concern. Recent victimization data define the scope of the issue. According to 

the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for the years 1993 through 1997, 

women represented 14 percent of violent offenders -- an annual average of over 2.1 

million violent female offenders. Reports by victims indicate that the annual number of 

female offenders for the years 1993-1997 averaged 435,000 women for aggravated assault 

and 1,533,000 for simple assault. According to the NCVS results, over 75 percent of 

victims of violent female offenders were women. Of all female offenders identified by 

victims, the majority (79 percent) victimized a female rather than a male (Greenfeld and 

Snell, 1999). These data suggest that female-on-female assault is a topic worthy of study. 

Few details exist, however, regarding the nature, reasons and correlates of female-onfemale assault. 

The finding that when young women commit assault they are more likely to 

assault a female than a male (Campbell et al., 1998; Greenfeld and Snell, 1999) takes on 

particular significance at this point in time in light of the extent of female involvement in 

assault since the 1990’s. A brief summary of the extent and trends of female involvement 

in assault presented below substantiates the need for this study. 

Arrest Data 

Males account for the majority of violent offenses, however, in recent years there 

has been a dramatic increase in female arrests for violent crime. The marked percentage 

increases reflect in part small base rates of violent offending among females. The 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 

changes in absolute numbers as reported below, however, indicate that a substantial 

number of females are involved in violent offenses. From 1985 to 1994, the arrest rate 

for violent crime in the U.S. increased by over 80 percent for women, from 69 per 

100,000 women to 125 per 100,000 women. (Chesney-Lind, 1997). The arrest rate for 

aggravated assault increased by 100 percent (from 53 to 106 per 100,000 women) and the 

arrest rate for simple assault increased by 1 15 percent (from 1 12 to 240 per 100,000 

women) (Chesney-Lind, 1997). Federal Bureau of Investigation (1 995, 1996, 1997, 

1998) data indicate that for years 1994 through 1997 arrest rates of aggravated assault 

decreased annually for males, but increased annually for females; and rates of simple 

assault changed little for males but increased for females. Similar trends have been 

documented for female and male adolescents in Canada and England for the years 1994 

through 1998 (Leischied et al., 2000). Furthermore, over this time period the female 

proportion of arrests (FP/A) for aggravated assault increased slightly (1 6.6% to 18.8%), 

as did the FP/A for other assaults (18.7% to 21.3%). 

Increases in arrest rates of female juveniles mirror the rates of adult women. 

From 1985 to 1994 the number of girls arrested for aggravated assault increased by 137 

percent, arrests for simple assault increased by 143 percent and arrests for weapons 

offense increased by 145 percent (Chesney-Lind, 1997). From 1990 to 1999, the 

estimated number of female juvenile arrests for simple assault increased by 93 percent 

(from 36,886 to 71,190) (compared to 35% for males) and by 57 percent (from 9,753 to 

15,3 12) for aggravated assault (compared to a 5% decrease for males) (Snyder, 2000). 

Some researchers have argued that increases in arrest rates among girls do not represent 

real changes in female assault behavior, but instead reflect an increased tendency for 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 

family, teachers and other members of society to report violent incidents to criminal 

justice professionals. According to Chesney-Lind and Brown (1 999), the low base rates 

of girls’ arrests for violent offenses translate into dramatic percent increases that do not 

reflect large absolute increases. Notwithstanding the controversy over the extent to which 

increases in rates of assault reflect the behavior of females and/or reactions by the larger 

society, at the least the data demonstrate that girls and women do participate in assault in 

significant numbers. 

Victimization Data 

Data obtained with the National Crime Victimization Survey (iVCVs) suggest a 

possible increase in the rates of assault by females. In 1990, victims’ reports revealed 

that females were responsible for about 12 percent of aggravated assaults, and 15 percent 

of simple assaults -- rates consistent with the percentages reported from the mid- 1970’s to 

1990 (Steffensmeier et al, 1993; Steffensmeier et al, 1996). However, according to 

victims’ reports for the years 1993 through 1997, the annual proportion of female 

offenders was on average 1 1 percent for aggravated assaults and 18 percent for simple 

assaults (G-reenfeld and Snell, 1999). The slight increase may suggest an increase in the 

absolute number of female assaults and/or a decrease in the percentage of male assaults 

reported by victims. Trend analyses should be regarded with caution because results 

drawn from 1990 are based on the National Crime Survey (NCS) whereas results based on 

1993- 1997 are based on the revised NCVS. Thus, results based on comparisons over time 

may be confounded by changes in the survey design. Nevertheless, NCVS data reconfirm that assault is not a male specific behavior. For the years 1993 through 1997 

women represented 14 percent of violent offenders -- an annual average of over 2.1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
4 

million violent female offenders; 435,000 women who, according to victims’ reports, had 

committed aggravated assault and more than three times as many (1,533,000) who had 

committed simple assault (Greenfeld and Snell, 1999). 

In addition the NCVS demonstrates that females are victims of violent crime in 

substantial numbers. The average number of victimizations between 1992 and 1998 to 

females was over 1.5 million per year. Of this group a significant minority (29.5% or 

448,388 women) sustained an injury (Simon et al., 2001). 

Self Report 

Among the general population of adolescents as opposed to those involved with 

the criminal justice system, violence is a common behavior. The 1997 Youth Risk 

Behavior Surveillance System Survey (YRBSS) reported that over one quarter (26%) of 

girls and almost one half (46%) of boys between the ages of 12 and 21 participated in 

violence defined by a physical fight in the past year &ann et al., 1998). According to 

Artz’s (1998) summary of the literature, the ratio of male to female self-reported 

participation in violence has converged fiom 3: 1 or 4: 1 to less than 2: 1 reported in earlier 

studies (Berger, 1989; Hindelang et al., 198 1). 

Self-report surveys that focus on specific populations reveal a higher rate of 

female assault than indicated by official records or national surveys (Campbell, 1986; 

Ogilvie, 1996). The prevalence rates of physical fights among samples of inner-city 

adolescents, for example, are slightly higher than the percent estimated at the national 

level. Reported rates of inner-city females involved in street fights during the previous 

year ranged fiom 23 to 34 percent. Reported rates for boys ranged from 35 to 5 1 percent 

(Adams et al., 1995; Hausman et al., 1994; Kann et al., 1995). In a study of communityposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
5 

based adolescents from a poor urban New York City community, Freudenberg and 

colleagues (1 999) reported the unexpected finding that rates of males and female 

involvement in violence (e.g., hitting, punching) did not differ significantly. 

Emeraencv Department Surveillance Studies 

An alternative source of data on interpersonal violence is the hospital emergency 

department (ED). Although most ED studies on women and violence have focused on 

domestic violence and offer little information on female-on-female assault in particular, ' 

the results of several studies substantiate the high proportion of women involved in 

assault. 

The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (SIVV) is a nationwide emergency 

department-based study of violent injuries. In 1994, 1.4 million hospital emergency 

department patients were treated for non-lethal injuries resulting from intentional or 

possibly intentional violence. Of this group, 40 percent or 560,000 patients were females. 

According to hospital medical record information, a female antagonist was responsible 

for 17 percent of the injured patients. This finding should be regarded with caution, 

however, because about a third of the medical records contained no information about the 

person who caused the injury. Almost all (94%) injuries reported in the SIW were 

classified as crimes of assault (Rand and Strom, 1997). 

Grisso and colleagues (1 996) conducted an emergency department surveillance 

study of all fatal and nonfatal injuries in a low-income urban Black female population 

from 1987 through 1990. During this period the researchers identified 1 1,645 women 15 

years of age or older who sustained a total of 15,090 injuries. By 1990, the rate of violent 

injury events was 33.2 per 1000 women or 1,022 injury events. The authors reported that 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
6 

by 1990 interpersonal violence had surpassed falls as the leading cause of injury (Grisso 

et al., 1996). During the 4-year study period, the rate of reported injuries due to 

interpersonal violence increased by 55 percent, with no declines in the rate of 

unintentional injuries. The authors draw on this finding to argue that the dramatic 

increase represents a real increase rather than an increase in willingness to report the 

injury (Grisso et al., 1996). In a more recent paper of violence to women by Hirschinger 

and associates (2002) presenting to three urban emergency departments in West 

Philadelphia, the authors provide information by the gender of victim and antagonist. Of 

all women who presented to the ED during the study period with an intentional 

interpersonal injury, 24 percent reported an injury by a non-intimate partner female. 

Ethnomaphic Studies 

Numerous ethnographers also have observed an increase in the number of fights 

by urban women and adolescents in recent years (Anderson, 1999; Maher, 1997; 

Prothrow-Stith et al., 1991; Wolfe, 1994). Nurge (2000) studied fighting by adolescent 

female gang and clique members in Boston. Self- report data revealed that fighting 

compared with offenses such as theft/property offenses and drug saleshse was the more 

frequently cited type of delinquency. Over 80 percent of the young women reported 

involvement in a fight during the prior year. Seventy percent of the current gang 

members and forty percent of the clique members reported having attacked or hit 

someone with a weapon with the intention of seriously hurting or killing them. Nurge’s 

findings are consistent with past studies on female gangs. Deschenes and colleagues 

(1 999), for example, in a self-report study of delinquency found that over 90 percent of 

the females had engaged in violent behavior. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
7 

Younp Low-Income Urban Women: An At Risk Pouulation 

Research has demonstrated that the rate of female violence and the gender 

disparity in violence varies with age, race and neighborhood. Males have exhibited over 

time and across cultures higher arrest, conviction and self-reported rates for serious 

violence than women (Kruttschnitt, 1994). However, research conducted over the past 

decade suggests that Black women from poor urban communities are at risk for 

involvement in assault both as victims or offenders (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; 

Greenfeld and Snell, 1999; Simpson et al., 1995; Steffensmeier and Allan, 1988). When 

data are disaggregated by gender, and either race, age, or neighborhood the results 

indicate that involvement in assault among women living in poor neighborhoods or 

minority women surpass not only the rates of white females but also the rates of white 

males (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Greenfeld and Snell, 1999). According to New York 

City arrest rates, for example, 1003 Black females were arrested per 100,000 residents 

compared to 805 white males and 72 white females (Baskin and Sommers, 1998). The 

importance of disaggregating data by both gender and race simultaneously should not be 

underestimated; when simple male-female dichotomous comparisons are presented, the 

male to female arrest ratio of 7: 1 conceals the markedly high rates of arrest among Black 

females. 

Conclusion 

The trends and extent of female involvement in assault drawn from arrest data, 

victimization and self-report surveys, and ED studies, when taken together, confirm that 

women are involved in assault in significant numbers either as victims or offenders. The 

topic of assault by young, Black women from poor urban areas merits scholarly attention 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 

in order to develop effective intervention strategies necessary for meeting the needs of the 

women, their families and communities. Yet little is known about female assault and 

even less is known about female-on-female assault. The goal of this dissertation is to 

extend the literature of female violence to include female intragender assault. 

The existing body of knowledge on assaults between females remains insufficient 

for both scholarly and practical purposes. Historically, the topic of violence by women 

has been subordinated to the study of males largely because women as a group typically 

commit far fewer and less serious offenses than men. Over the past decade studies on 

females have provided estimates of general delinquency and domestic violence. Research 

focusing specifically on female non-partner intentional violence is rare. Most of what we 

how about women has been derived fiom studies of intimate partner abuse. 

To date few studies have been conducted on intragender female assault. 

Traditional measures do not provide the necessary information for analysis. The Uniform 

Crime Reports (UCR), for example, do not disaggregate the sex of the victim and 

offender simultaneously. The NCVS and National Incident-Based Reporting System 

(NIBH) contain these data, but published reports provide few details. The most recent 

publication, for example, includes the race of the offender as described by the victim, but 

does not report race of the victim (Greenfeld and Snell, 1999). Most of what we know 

about intragender female assault has emerged fiom national victimization studies, 

ethnographies and cross-cultural analyses. Most published studies conducted in the 

United States are limited to prevalence rates (Greenfeld and Snell, 1999) or cases studies 

(Adarns, 1999; Artz, 1998). Studies conducted in the United Kingdom and in crosscultural contexts are limited to descriptive analyses that document characteristics of 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
9 

antagonists involved and circumstances of the violent event (Campbell, 1986; George, 

1999). 

0 

11. Scope of Female-on-Female Assault 

In 1999 the U.S. government publications of the NCVS included data on 

intragender female assault for the first time. According to victims’ reports for 1993 

through 1997, 14 percent of all offenders were identified by victims as female compared 

to 86 percent who were identified as male. Of the female offenders identified, 79 percent 

victimized other females and 21 percent victimized males (Greenfeld and Snell, 1999). 

In other words, female offenders assault female victims more frequently than male 

victims at a rate of approximately 4: 1. Of the male offenders identified, 30 percent 

victimized females and 70 percent victimized other males. Thus, according to victims 

reports recorded in the NCVS, male and female offenders are more likely to participate in 

intragender than intergender assault. 

0 

In 1998 Campbell and colleagues (1 998) published the first theoretically-driven 

empirical study of female-on-female assault. The researchers relied on NIBRS files fiom 

Massachusetts for the year 1994. Unlike the UCR, NIBRS includes characteristics of the 

offender and victim (e.g., gender, race, and age) by incident and consequently allows for 

the study of female-on-female assault. The authors identified 2,865 cases of assault. 

Female-on-female assault comprised nine percent (N=268) of all episodes, female-onmale assault accounted for seven percent (N=2 1 4), male-on-female assault accounted for 

32 percent (N=917) and male-on-male accounted for 51 percent (N=l,466). Overall, 

females were victimized in 41 percent of all episodes (Campbell et al., 1998). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
10 

Campbell and colleagues (1998) reported that among women arrested for assault, 

73 percent of the women under the age of 24 committed assault against a female 

compared to only 42 percent of the women older than 23. The finding that intragender 

female assault occurs more often than cross-gender assault among younger female 

offenders is consistent with findings from previous studies conducted in England (Cairnes 

and Kroll 1994; Home Of$ce Statistical Bulletin, 1996; Maccoby 1988). Campbell and 

associates (1 990) also reported that rates of female-on-female assault were correlated in a 

positive direction with female poverty, which according to the authors is consistent with 

the feminization of poverty thesis. According to this thesis, female resort to crime in 

order to attain resources necessary for survival (Steffensmeier et al., 1988). 

Much of what we know about female-on-female assault comes from studies 

conducted in the U.K. The 1992 and 1996 British Crime Surveys published data on 

women involved in assault and circumstances around the incidents. According to a 

0 

review of the studies provided by Campbell and associates (1 998), British residents 

reported that female-on-female assault constituted about 20 percent of reported incidents 

of “contact crime” which consists of wounding, common assault, robbery and snatch theft 

(Home Ofice Research and Planning Unit, 1993; Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 1996). 

Female-on-female assault accounted for 22 percent of stranger assaults to women and 39 

percent of acquaintance assaults. The percentage of female victims assaulted by females 

varied according to location: 56 percent occurred in drinking locales; 33 percent occurred 

at home, but did not involve intimate partners; 35 percent took place in the street; 22 

percent happened at work; and 23 percent were coded as other (Home OfJice Statistical 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
11 

Bulletin, 1995). It is notable that the drinking location was the only place where females 

reportedly were more likely to be victimized by females than by males. 

In another British survey of female-on-female assault, George (1 999) reported that 

participants were likely to be young, single, poor and known to each other as fiends or 

acquaintances. The most frequent acts of violence included pushing, shoving, grabbing, 

tripping, slapping, kicking and punching. Weapons were rarely used. 

In an older but more detailed study, Campbell (1 986) used self-administered 

questionnaires to assess frequency and types of fights among three groups of British 

females: schoolgirls, incarcerated girls, and incarcerated women. While the study did not 

focus on female-on-female assault per se, Campbell noted that most fights reported by 

females across all three groups were against other females. Over 80 percent of females in 

each group had been in a fight during their lifetime. Almost all (90%) of the 

institutionalized girls reported involvement in a physical fight in the last year compared to 

43 percent of the schoolgirls and 64 percent of the institutionalized women. Schoolgirls 

and institutionalized girls fought most frequently for reasons related to personal integrity 

or loyalty to others; the prison group fought primarily over jealousy. Campbell reported 

that among the group of schoolgirls, fights commonly involved punching and kicking 

compared to incarcerated girls and women who reported more frequent use of weapons. 

Respondents in all groups reported that they and the opponents usually sustained some 

physical injury, most commonly bruises, cuts, and scratches. Seventeen percent of the 

incarcerated women claimed to have broken their opponents’ bones or knocked out their 

teeth compared to 9 percent of the schoolgirls and almost one-third of the incarcerated 

juveniles. Campbell’s (1986) speculates that the high rate of broken bones reported by 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
12 

the incarcerated juveniles is an exaggeration. Nevertheless, the results indicate that 

female-on-female assault involves some level of injury. 

Cross-cultural studies have demonstrated that aggression initiated by women 

largely is directed against other women (Burbank, 1987b; Schuster, 1985). Burbank 

(1 987b) conducted an anthropological comparison of aggression (physical and emotional) 

initiated by women in 137 societies using data from the Human Relations Area Files. 

She reported that women were mentioned as targets of female aggression in 91 percent of 

societies studied, compared to men who were mentioned as targets in only 54 percent. 

Women (compared to men) were the most frequent targets of female verbal or physical 

aggression. The most frequent female targets included sexual rivals or co-wives and the 

least frequent were sisters and mothers. In most cases women inflicted relatively minor 

physical injury, but they injured women more often than they injured men. Women were 

injured in 68 societies compared to men who were injured in 1 1. The most commonly 

cited reasons for female aggression involved fighting over males (e.g., jealousy), fighting 

for resources (e.g., subsistence concerns) and protecting one’s children. Burbank’s 

II) 

(1 987b) interpretation that female aggression in large part is a form of intragender 

competition between females is consistent with past findings (Schuster, 1983, 1985). 

In sum, U.S. and U.K. studies of female-on-female assault suggest that 

participants are young, acquaintance-related and of lower socioeconomic status. Fights 

often occur in bars or in public. Females sampled from the general population reportedly 

used weapons infrequently, compared to incarcerated and female gang members who 

were more likely to use weapons. At the aggregate level, female-on-female assault was 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
13 

associated with female poverty. Commonly cited reasons for fights included jealousy, 

competition over resources and defending one’s children or friends. 

111. Absence of Theory On Female-On-Female Assault 

To date few theories have been offered to explain female assault or differences in 

female non-partner victimization by gender of the antagonist. Major aims of this 

dissertation are to develop a theory of female-on-female assault, to ascertain whether the 

same theoretical concepts that correlate with female-on-female assault also correlate with 

male-on-female assault across a variety of non-partner relationships and to generate 

hypotheses for further theory development. 

There has been an ongoing debate in the field of criminology regarding how to 

approach the study of female participation in violence (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). 

Some theorists @.e. Artz, 1998; Campbell, 1993; Chesney-Lind, 1997) argue that males 

and females are fundamentally different and therefore gender-specific theories that 

consider unique explanations for female violence are necessary. Other theorists 

emphasize similarities in the participation in crime by both sexes and support the 

application of gender-neutral theories to the study of female violence (e.g., Baskin and 

Sommers, 1998; Sommers and Baskin, 1993; Steffensmeieir and Haynie, 2000). The 

literature that will be reviewed in Chapter 2 will point to the need for an integrated theory 

that includes both female-gender specific and gender-neutral constructs. 

IV. Limitations of Existing Studies 

There are numerous limitations of studies on female intragender assault. The 

methods employed to date have limited the range of our knowledge. First, the NCVS 

focuses on crime rates for an entire society. It is well known, however, that rates vary by 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
14 

subgroup and community. This dissertation focuses on Black women residing in lowincome neighborhoods precisely because this group of women has been shown to be 

disproportionately in violence both as victims and offenders (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; 

Greenfeld and Snell, 1999; Hill and Crawford, 1990; Simpson, 199 1 ; Simpson and Ellis, 

1995). Moreover, the NCVS results likely underestimate the rate of female assault among 

the group selected for this dissertation because the survey fails to capture accurately highrisk populations including the homeless, transient populations and households without 

telephones (O’Brien, 1985). 

The second limitation of current research is that most studies on female-on-female 

assault have been conducted in countries outside of the U.S. Patterns of female assault 

and norms regarding violence represented in England and other cultures may not be 

generalizable to the United States. Insights gained from reviews of the research from 

ather societies may prove fruitful in pursuing a study of female-on-female assault, but our 

understanding of intragender female assault would be improved by focusing on at-risk 

women living in the U.S. 

Third, few studies have examined within-sex differences in rates and patterns of 

female violence and victimization. To date, most studies of female offenders have 

focused on the gender gap or between sex differences (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). 

This dissertation of intentional injuries begins to fill the gap by comparing females 

injured by females and females injured by males. 

The fourth factor involves relying on samples drawn from the criminal justice 

system. For example, NIBRS data offers several advantages (e.g., situational data and 

demographic data disaggregated by victim-offender relationship) in comparison to the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
15 

UCR, but as with the UCR, NIBRS data are limited to crimes that come to the attention of 

the police. Official data are influence by a variety of factors including the failure of 

victims to report assaults, discretion by criminal justice officials and public policy makers 

(Gove et al., 1985). Likewise, studies that focus on samples of incarcerated girls and 

women are not representative of the community at large. Therefore, it is important to 

collect data that reflect a community-based sample. This study of women presenting to 

West Philadelphia emergency departments for intentional injuries provides this 

opportunity. 

Fifth, little is known regarding circumstances around female-on-female assault. 

Studies of homicide have demonstrated the importance of situational circumstances 

surrounding the fatal event. Circumstances of assault and homicide often are similar 

except for the lethal outcome (Forde and Kennedy, 1997). Women incarcerated in New 

York for killing acquaintances or strangers, for example, reported that the murders often 

resulted from the escalation of disputes (Hall et al., 1996, p. 15): 

Someone said or did something to offend another. One or both parties 

were using alcohol or illicit drugs. The homicides were not planned, but 

occurred because the rules that generally govern social interactions were 

violated, a weapon of some type was available, and no one backed down. 

Kennedy and Forde (1 999) have conceptualized acts of violence on a continuum, 

where a murder represents an extremely harmful escalation of more mundane 

disagreements between acquaintances. This study assesses situational factors of the 

assault event including factors that led up to the violent event, the roles played by 

participants and bystanders, precipitating causes for the fight, substance abuse, and 

weapon use. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
16 

The sixth factor is related to the circumstances of the violent event and involves 

the injury consequences of the assault. Virtually all of the research pertaining to the types 

and seriousness of injuries to and by women has focused on domestic violence. These 

studies show consistently that violence by men causes more serious physical harm to their 

females victims than violence by women to their male partners (Campbell, 1993; 

Greenfeld and Snell, 1999). Some injury data on women exist, but most published 

information is not disaggregated simultaneously by gender of the victim and offender. 

National and cross-cultural surveys on violence by women have demonstrated that 

women rarely use weapons or cause serious injury. However, studies on female-onfemale assault suggest that such intragender fights may involve some damage (Campbell, 

1986; Nurge, 2000). This study assesses location and violent act that caused the injury 

(e.g., respondent was hit or stabbed or shot at with a gun). 

In sum, little is known about the nature, circumstances, causes and consequences 

of female-on-female assault. Only a handful of studies have been conducted and few 

have been theoretically driven. Local communities and at-risk populations have not been 

examined in particular. This dissertation research attempts to fill in the gaps of the 

research by applying an integrated theoretical approach that includes female genderspecific and gender-neutral factors to the study of female-on-female assault among a 

sample of females residing in a low-income urban community and presenting for 

emergency department care. - 

This study contributes to the existing body of literature by focusing on female 

intragender assault among predominantly Black women across a broad range of nonpartner relationships including assaults between strangers, acquaintances, friends and 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
17 

family members. The topic of violence among Black women residing in low-income 

neighborhoods merits attention. Studies have demonstrated that members of this group 

have been disproportionately involved in violence both as victims and offenders (Baskin 

and Sommers, 1998; Greenfeld and Snell, 1999; Hill and Crawford, 1990; Simpson, 

1991; Simpson and Ellis, 1995). It is well established that violence is a major health 

problem for Black women (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1990). Yet 

little is known about Black women’s involvement in assault with other women. 

V. Study Goals 

The goal of this dissertation is to examine female-on-female assault among a 

sample of predominantly Black women living in an urban, low-income community of 

West Philadelphia and presenting for hospital emergency department care for intentional 

injuries. This is one of the first studies to assess the broad range of female-to-female 

injuries among women across a broad range of non-intimate partner relationships. 

This dissertation research includes the development of an integrated theory of 

female-on-female assault that blends gender-neutral and female gender-specific 

constructs. The proposed theory is labeled Gendered Social Structural Strain and is 

guided by the assumption that alternative cultural norms emerge from social structural 

strain located in larger macro socio-economic factors. This dissertation provides an 

empirical test of the proposed theory and generates questions for further theory 

development. - 

This dissertation applies both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies 

to the study of female-on-female assault. In addition to providing a descriptive body of 

information on assaults to females by females and males respectively, an analysis of 322 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
18 

cases of intentional interpersonal injury is conducted in order to identify differences in 

correlates of female-on-female assault with those for male-on-female assault. In all 

events, the study respondent, the antagonist or both have engaged in an assault, and in all 

cases the respondent has experienced an intentional injury. 

In this research it would be misleading to consider the respondent an innocent 

victim and to limit empirical tests to theories of victimization. Although the study 

respondent has been injured and, thus, is considered an assault victim, female-on-female 

has been characterized as mutual where both participants contribute to the violent 

outcome (Artz, 1998; Baskin and Sommers, 1993). This research, therefore, breaks with 

tradition by integrating relevant theories of both offending and victimization with 

situational characteristics of the violent event. Thus, potential correlates for the analysis 

were chosen in accordance with theory and research conducted on the topic of female 

victimization and offending in general, female-on-female assault and situational analyses. 

Data for this dissertation were drawn from an investigation of violent injuries to females 

presenting for hospital emergency department care in West Philadelphia (Grisso et al, 

1999). The goals of this dissertation are to: 

1) Develop an integrated theory labeled Gendered Social Structural Strain, which 

incorporates gender-neutral and female-specific theoretical constructs to explain 

female-on-female assault among Black women residing in a low-income 

community. 

2) Provide descriptive information regarding violent injuries separately for females 

injured by non-partner females and females injured by non-partner males reported 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
19 

by inner-city women presenting for hospital emergency department in order to 

categorize differences by gender of the antagonist(s) in: 

a) the prevalence of women intentionally injured by females or males 

according to the 

victim-offender relationship to the female study respondent; 

b) the situational characteristics of the violent event (e.g., setting, presence 

and role of bystander(s); weapon use, police involvement, substance use 

by respondent and antagonist); 

c) characteristics of the antagonist(s) including the number present, race(s), 

and age(s); 

d) and physical location of injury as reported by the respondent. 

3) Test the merits of key components of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory 

by comparing potentially different factors associated with intentional injuries 

inflicted upon females by non-intimate partner females and males respectively. 

4) Provide contextual, qualitative information bough the presentation of verbatim 

accounts reported by study respondents injured by females and males respectively, 

to describe their perceptions concerning reasons, characteristics and events that 

contributed to the violent events. 

5) Conduct an analysis of situational factors characteristic of the violent event (e.g. 

reasons and triggers for the violence) for the subgroup of females injured by 

acquaintances or friends in order to uncover additional questions for theory 

development and emerging policy implications. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
20 

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL APPROACHES 

TO THE STUDY OF FEMALES AND ASSAULT 

I. Introduction 

There have been few systematic attempts to understand female involvement in 

assault and even fewer efforts to study female-on-female assault. Works by Campbell 

(1 986), Campbell and colleagues (1 998), Artz (1 998) and Nurge (2000) comprise the few 

studies that address female intragender assault. This is a topic with many more questions 

than scientific answers. 

There has been an ongoing debate in the field of criminology regarding how to 

approach the study of female participation in violence (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). 

Some criminologists argue that because of gender differences in psychological 

development, socialization or the distribution of economic and political power in U.S. 

society, gender-specific theories that consider unique explanations for female violence are 

necessary (Artz, 1998; Campbell, 1993; Chesney-Lind, 1997). 

Other criminologists propose that gender-neutral theories, originally developed to 

explain male criminality, are relevant to the study of female violence. These theorists 

include, for example, Baskin and Sommers (1993, 1998) and Steffensmeieir and Haynie 

(2000). Although the term gender-neutral has been used in the literature (see for . 

example, Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000), one could argue that it would be more 

appropriate to label many of these theories male gender-specific. Traditional 

criminological theories including Social Control, Differential Association, Social 

Disorganization and the Structural-Cultural Perspective were developed to study male 

deviance in particular. Only recently have they been applied to the study of women and 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
21 

assault. The term gender-neutral is used today to describe theories that have explanatory 

value for deviance or violence regardless of gender (see Alarid et al., 2000). Definitions 

of gender-neutral and gender-specific used in this dissertation are described below 

e 

A. Definition and Specifications of a Gender-Neutral Theory 

In this dissertation a theory is categorized as gender-neutral if the theory was 

developed based on male-gendered or non-gendered assumptions and the theory has been 

shown empirically to have explanatory value for understanding male and female assault. 

A gender-neutral theory will be extended to include a female-specific corollary if research 

has identified differences by gender in magnitude of effects or in pathways toward 

violence. When such differences exist there is reason to believe that a female-specific 

corollary is required to explain the gender differential and to understand the mechanisms 

underlying female assault. 

The studies of gender-neutral theories that are reviewed in this chapter 

demonstrate that they do indeed contribute to our understanding of female assault and 

also point to the need for female-specific corollaries. 

B. Definition and Specifications of a Female-Specific Theory 

In this dissertation a theory is categorized as female specific if the theory was 

developed based on female gendered assumptions and research has shown that based on 

these assumptions, there are characteristics or underlying motivations unique to female 

involvement in violence that in some way distinguishes female violence from male 

violence. Feminist criminologists, including Chesney-Lind (1 998) and Richie (1 996), for 

example, emphasize the importance of the unequal distribution of economic and social 

power across gender, class and race. They argue that disadvantaged, minority women are 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
22 

&e victims of triple jeopardy and have restricted access to power. According to the 

Feminist Victimization and Feminization of Poverty theorists, this subordinate position 

enhances a woman’s risk of violent victimization and violent offending. 

In the literature the term “gender-specific” has been used to refer to theories that 

address the female experience in particular (Acoca and Dedel, 1998, Maniglia, 1998; 

Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). In this dissertation the term “female- specific” or 

“female gendered” is used instead of gender-specific because the term “gender-specific” 

also could be applied to male-specific experiences. 

C. Literature Review: An Introduction 

A theory or perspective/approach was chosen for review in this dissertation if it 

has been applied to the study of female assault or violent victimization. In this literature 

review the merits of ten theories or perspectives are examined. By definition, a theory is 

a group of coherent propositions used as principles to explain or account for phenomena 

(Adler et al., 2001). A perspective or approach, in contrast, is not based on a set of 

formal principles. In this proposal a perspective functions to define the boundaries of the 

topic under discussion. For example, the Psychiatric/Social-Psychological literature 

includes studies which have applied mental health or social-psychological constructs to 

the study of female violence. The Situational Perspective includes research that has 

focused on situational factors (e.g., victim-offender relationship, substance use, weapon 

use) applied to female violence. 

Theories and perspective reviewed in this proposal include Social Control Theory, 

Differential Association Theory, Social Disorganization Theory, The Structural-Cultural 

a Perspective, the PsychiatdSocial-Psychological Perspective, Routine 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
23 

Activitieskifestyle Theory, the Situational Approach, Evolutionary Theory, The e Feminization of Poverty Approach and Feminist Victimization Approach. 

The first four theories including Social Control, Differential Association, Social 

Disorganization Theory, and the Structural-Cultural Perspective are considered 

mainstream or gender-neutral criminological theories because they are based on male 

gendered assumptions. The next four perspectives including the PsychiatdSocialPsychological Perspective, Routine Activitieskifestyle, the Situational Approach, and 

Evolutionary Theory also are considered gender-neutral because they are based on nongendered assumptions. According to the criteria outlined above, the first eight theories 

include a female-specific corollary because it has been shown that for each theory either 

the explanatory power differs in magnitude by gender or pathways to violence differ by 

gender. 

The remaining two approaches including the Feminization of Poverty and the 

Feminist Victimization Perspectives are categorized as female-specific. Both theories are 

based on female-gendered assumptions and empirical tests have identified a femaleunique explanation that distinguishes female and male violence. 

In addition to the gender-neutral versus female-specific distinction, this research 

raises the theoretical question as to whether a study of female intragender assault is a * 

study of victimization, offending or both. In this research the study respondent will have 

been injured and, thus, is considered an assault victim. Having been injured, however, 

does not correspond with perpetration or culpability. Unlike stranger-related assault, 

where the distinction between victim and offender tends to be clear, in dispute-related 

violence between people known to each other, the distinction often is blurred. The roles 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
24 

of victim and offender are relevant to this study because female-on-female assault 

commonly occurs between friends or acquaintances and has been characterized as mutual 

where both participants contribute to the violent outcome (Artz, 1998; Sommers and 

Baskin, 1993). In contrast, for various reasons it is not likely that non-partner male-onfemale violence will be characterized by the same degree of mutuality. The inherent 

strength differential between males and females, for example, may deter women from 

fighting back beyond acts of self-defense (Felson et al, 1996). In addition, a woman may 

not be subjected to the same cultural imperative to fight back against a male as might a 

female against another female. Consistent with the study goal of comparing female-onfemale versus male-on-female violence, theories of victimization and offending are 

included in the literature review. Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Theory and the Feminist 

Victimization Approach focus on victimization. Situational factors focus on 

characteristics of the event. The remaining theories focus on violent offending. 

. a 

Sections I1 and I11 below comprise a review of the literature of gender-neutral and 

female-specific theories as they have been applied to the study of women and assault. For 

each theoretical orientation the following information is included below: (1) a brief 

description of the theory; (2) a rationale for categorizing the theory as female-specific or 

gender-neutral; (3) a brief review of study results based on theoretical applications to 

male assault for gender-neutral theories; (4) a description of the scope of the literature 

chosen for review; (5) a description of study results specific to female involvement in 

assault; (6) and a summary and brief note on limitations of current research for 

understanding female-on-female assault. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
25 

11. Gender-Neutral Theories 

A. Social Control Theory 

Social control theorists argue that without the formation of effective social bonds, 

individuals are at risk for involvement in crime or deviance. Sources of bonds include 

attachment to family, friends or school; commitment or conformity; involvement in 

conventional activities; and belief in conventional moral values (Artz, 1998; Hirschi, 

1969; Laub and Sampson, 1993). 

Hirschi (1 969) originally tested Social Control Theory with male juveniles 

exclusively. Consequently, the assumptions implicitly can be considered male gendered 

or at best gender-neutral. Hirschi did not address the relevance of gender. However, 

more recent research has shown that Social Control Theory helps to explain male and 

female assault. Given these factors Social Control Theory is categorized as genderneutral. 

More recently Social Control Theory has been applied to the study of male 

juveniles and adults involved in serious offending. Researchers have demonstrated that 

with regards to adult males, parental attachment (Alarid et al., 2000), and quality of bonds 

to an intimate partner or an employer (Sampson and Laub, 1994) have significant 

negative relationships to involvement in violence. Among male juveniles, absence of 

bonds to parents and to school has been associated with risk of violence (Ellickson et al., 

1997). 

To date, few tests of Social Control Theory have been conducted with either adult 

females or females involved in assault. According to Alarid and colleagues (2000), 

empirical tests of Social Control Theory that include samples of serious female offenders 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
26 

are “virtually nonexistent” (p. 173). The literature reviewed in this section focuses on the 

application of Social Control Theory to female violence. Given the paucity of research 

on this topic, additional studies that focus on relevant social control variables without 

invoking the theory per se are reviewed; these studies address the relationship between 

female assault and key components of Social Control Theory including attachment to 

school and to the larger community. 

1. Application of Social Control Theory to Female Assault 

One test of Social Control Theory with women involved in violence was located. 

Alarid and colleagues (2000) tested Social Control Theory with a group of 1,153 

convicted adult felons sentenced to boot camp, of which almost 1 1 percent were women. 

The authors operationalized low social control to include lack of attachment to parents, 

peers, and a male intimate partner, lack of involvement in conventional activities, and 

lack of respect for the law. The violent crime measure combines questions that assess 

the use of threats or force against intimates and non-intimates. 

Alarid and associates (2000) reported that correlates of female violence include 

lack of parental attachment (e.g., has not “gotten along” well with parent(s), family is not 

the “most important” thing in their lives) and lack of involvement in conventional 

activities (e.g., much free time). The variables marital attachment (married or 

cohabitating with partner), peer attachment (friends are an important part of their lives) 

and belief (have respect for the police) were not significantly related to violent crime for 

males or females. It is noteworthy that lack of parental attachment was a significantly 

stronger correlate for female violence compared to male violence. The absence of 

involvement in conventional activities was significantly correlated with female violence, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
27 

but not for male violence. The findings by Alarid and associates (2000) provide some 

support for the association of social control variables (e.g., parental attachment and 

involvement in conventional activities) and assault among women felons. Findings 

regarding gender differences, however, point to the need for a female-specific corollary in 

order to explain gender differences in attachment and subsequent participation in 

violence. Feminists argue that females are more concerned with interpersonal 

relationships than males (e.g., Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1993; Miller, 1986). This focus 

may explain the finding by Alarid and colleagues (2000) that absence of emotional 

attachment to parents has a greater effect on female violence compared to male violence. 

This is a topic worthy of future study. 

2. Additional Applications of Components of Social Control Theory to 

Female Assault 

Numerous researchers have considered the link between attachments to school, 

and to the community with females’ participation in violence. Baskin and Sommers 

(1 998), for example, found that among women arrested for non-domestic violent crimes, 

most (75%) reported dropping out before completing high school. The authors explained 

(p.64): 

[I]n many ways, [the women’s] disengagement from school was part of a 

larger process in which social bonds to various conventional institutions 

were being eroded. As the women decreased school attendance, the 

opportunities for positive socialization were attenuated. 

Subsequently, the women were unlikely to participate in other conventional activities or 

non-deviant recreational activities. Two additional studies were located that support the 

link between absence of bonds to school and adolescent female violence. Ellickson and 

colleagues (1 997) conducted a longitudinal self-report study of more than 4,000 high 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
28 

school seniors and dropouts from California and Oregon and reported that violent females 

were more likely than violent males to exhibit low academic achievement and to have 

dropped out of school. This finding points to the need for a female-specific corollary to 

explain gender differences in attachment to school. 

0 

3. Female Assault and Social Control Theory: Summary and Limitations 

The literature suggests that similar to males, some traditional social control 

variables including lack of attachment to parents, to school, and to the community are 

associated with female involvement in assault. 

the research points to differences in the magnitude of effects for attachment to school, 

parents and level of involvement. Thus, while there is some support for Social Control 

Theory as a gender-neutral theory that helps explain male and female violence, the results 

suggest the need for a female-specific corollary that would account for gender 

differences. 

In comparison to male assault, however, 

The current body of research is limited, by the scant number of studies that focus 

on adult women and by the lack of attention paid to the victim-offender relationship and 

female-on-female assault in particular. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
29 

B. Differential Association Theory 

According to Differential Association Theory, crime is learned through social 

interaction with others. As individuals increase their associations with people who 

maintain antisocial values, they are more likely to internalize definitions that are 

favorable toward violating the law and to learn techniques used to commit crime. 

Proponents of this theory focus on learning crime from deviant families and delinquent 

peers. 

In developing this theory, Sutherland and Cressey (1 974) describe their theory as a 

general theory that is applicable to males and females. The authors, however, rarely 

discuss females and, when they do, they portray females as outside of mainstream culture 

(Belknap, 1 996). Although Differential Association Theory is based on non-gendered 

norms, recent research points to the explanatory value of this theory for male and female 

assault. Therefore, Differential Association is categorized as gender-neutral. 

Principals of Differential AssociatiodSocial Learning Theories have been offered 

as explanations for family violence and gang violence. Research has shown that the 

highest incidence of aggressive behavior occurs where aggressiveness is a desired 

characteristic, as it is in some gangs and subcultures (Adler et al., 2001). 

Three studies were located that applied Differential Association Theory to the 

study of female violence. In the first study, Giordano and Rockwell (2000) argue that 

Differential Association explains female chronic delinquency (including violence). In the 

second study, Alarid and colleagues (2000) applied Differential Association Theory to a 

sample of female and male adult felons. In the third study, Heimer and DeCoster (1999) 

developed a gendered version of Differential Association Theory and specified how 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
30 

learning experiences vary by sex and lead to violent offending. These studies are 

described below. 

1. Application of Differential Association Theory to Female Assault 

Giordano and Rockwell (2000) assess the utility of Differential Association as an 

explanatory framework to explain serious and violent offending among a small group 

(N=13) of delinquent girls contacted first as adolescents and followed up 13 years later. 

According to Giordano and Rockwell (2000), the deviant behavior of family members is 

a critical causal factor in understanding female deviance. The study respondents 

described families where repeated exposure to violence and direct instruction to use 

violence against others were present during childhood. These exposures were frequent 

and recurrent. The authors attribute the onset of antisocial behavior to a type of “total 

immersion” that is characterized by a network - mothers, fathers, grandmothers, siblings 

and associates of parents - that represent a “united front of deviance” (p. 11). The 

respondents virtually had no access to pro-social definitions. 

The second study that applied Differential Association Theory to female assault 

was conducted by Alarid and colleagues (2000) and was described in the section above. 

In addition to social control variables, the authors assessed measures of differential 

association. As noted above, study participants included 1,153 convicted adult felons 

sentenced to bootcamp. Almost 11 percent of the sample consisted of females. Measures 

of differential association included “individual definitions toward crime” (individual’s 

degree of tolerance for criminal behavior, the moral validity of violating the law), 

“other’s definitions toward crime” (extent to which people with whom the respondent 

associates think its OK to break the law), and criminal friends (the number of closest 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
31 

friends who have done something in the last year for which they could be arrested). The 

violent crime measure combines questions that assess the use of threats or force against 

intimates and non-intimates. 

Alarid and associates (2000) reported that none of the measures of differential 

association were significantly related to violent crime for females (when controlling for 

measures of social control). All measures, however, were significantly related to male 

violence. This is a finding worthy of further exploration. 

In the third study Heimer and DeCoster (1999) applied an integrated approach 

based on Differential Association Theory and arguments drawn from feminist and gender 

studies. The researchers conducted an empirical test based on self-report data from the 

National Youth Survey based including 773 females and 837 males as well as parent 

interviews. Heimer and DeCoster (1 999) offer specifications regarding gender differences 

in mechanisms by which females and males learn violent definitions. They also assess 

how the learning process for males and females is conditioned by structural factors. 

Heimer and DeCoster (1 999) measured the direct and mediating effects of 

“violent definitions” and “gender definitions” for males and females separately. “Violent 

definitions” refer to cultural norms that support the use of violence and were measured 

with a set of statements such as “it’s all right to beat up another person if he/she called 

you a dirty name.” “Gender definitions” refer to traditional descriptions of femininity and 

masculinity and were measured with a set of statements such as “In general, the father 

should have greater authority than the mother in the bringing up of children” (p. 3 15). 

Violent delinquency was measured with a 1 0-item scale. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
32 

The authors found support for Differential Association Theory. Learning violent 

definitions was a significant predictor of violent delinquency for girls as well as for boys. 

The magnitude of the effect did not vary by gender. However, mechanisms leading to 

delinquency varied by sex in numerous ways. Having aggressive peers and having a 

parent who reported use of coercive discipline each had a larger effect on boys’ than girls’ 

learning violent definitions, which in turn was associated with violent behavior. The 

.I 

emotional bond to family, however, was significant for girls, but not boys’ learning of 

violent definitions. Accepting traditional gender definitions significantly reduced 

violence among females but not among males. 

In addition, structural disadvantage (measured by the total effects of socioeconomic status, race, female headship and receipt of public assistance) increased the 

chance of violent offending among boys and girls through the learning of violent 

definitions. However, the specific pathway by which structural positions influenced 

violence differed. For example, for girls structural disadvantage was associated with 

increased adherence to traditional gender definitions, which, in turn, reduced the chance 

of violent delinquency. This relationship did not hold among males. 

Th results of this study demonstrate the importance of identifLing gendered 

pathways toward learning violent definitions. Heimer and DeCoster (1999) argue that 

gender differences in violence are rooted in the unequal distribution of power in society. 

According to the authors’ interpretation of the results, girls learn that violence is 

incompatible with being a female and are restrained by emotional bonds to parents. Boys, 

on the other hand, are taught definitions that favor the use of violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
33 

2. Female Assault and Differential Association Theory: Summary and 

Limitations 

According to the literature reviewed, the relationship between variables drawn 

from Differential Association Theory and female assault is mixed. The study by Alarid 

and colleagues (1 999) failed to show a relationship between differential association and 

female violence, but the findings do show a significant relationship for male violence. It 

is possible that the results for females are not significant because the empirical test was 

limited to the assessment of the main effects. Findings by Heimer and DeCoster (1 999) 

assess intervening mechanisms and provide support for a gender-neutral theory of 

Differential Association with female and male gendered corollaries. That is, Differential 

Association Theory helps to explain both male and female violence, but gender-specific 

characteristics of violence also were identified. 

Giordano and Rockwell’s (2000) qualitative study also provide some support for 

Differential Association Theory. Giordano and Rockwell (2000) argue that as with 

males, Differential Association Theory has explanatory value for understanding female 

involvement in serious crime including violence. The authors suggest that exposure to 

antisocial definitions from early family contacts may be more important to understanding 

the behavior of delinquent females than delinquent males. According to the authors, “the 

serious female delinquent is a statistical rarity in the population, [and therefore] it might 

be that a greater push is required to begin some type of deviant career” (pp. 2 1-22). This 

greater push may be required to overcome the iliipact of slrong emotional bonds to family 

members and internalized traditional gender-definitions identified by Heimer and De 

Coster (1 999) which curb female violence (but not male violence). Giordano and 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
34 

Rockwell (2000) suggest that deviant associations present in the family serve as a direct 

means for young women to learn violent definitions. The family exposed the daughter to 

a wider world of antisocial social contacts. Further studies of gendered corollaries of 

Differential Association Theory within the context of pathways to violence will advance 

our understanding of female violence. 

Similar to limitations described for Social Control Theory, the current body of 

research on Differential Association Theory is limited by the scant number of studies that 

focus on adult women and by the lack of attention paid to the victim-offender relationship 

in general and female-on-female assault in particular. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
35 

C. Social Disorganization Theory 

Unlike psychologists who tend to attribute violence to individual characteristics, 

many criminologists and sociologists focus on the social structural context of 

communities. This body of research was developed almost exclusively with samples of 

males (Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998) and is based on non-gendered assumptions. 

Empirical tests of Social Disorganization Theory provide explanatory value for female 

and male assault and thus the theory is categorized as gender-neutral. 

Empirical research has demonstrated that rates of male interpersonal violence 

measured at both community (Land et al., 1990; Sampson and Groves, 1989; Taylor, et 

al., 1984; Wilson, 1987) and individual levels (Grisso et al., 1999; Miles-Doan and Kelly, 

1997; O’Campo et al., 1995) are associated in a positive direction with factors reflecting 

neighborhood-level social disorganization. These include family disruption, poverty, 

housing density, and low rates of organizational participation within communities. 

Few studies have applied aggregate-levels measures of Social Disorganization 

Theory to the study of female involvement in violence. According to Steffensmeier and 

Haynie (2000), this omission of aggregate-level research on the link between social 

structure and female crime reflects the tendency to explain female crime with microindividual factors that measure psychological disorder or family dysfunction to the 

exclusion of social-structural considerations (Daly and Chesney-Lind, 1 98 8; Leonard, 

1982). Males and females share the same environment. It is critical, therefore, to assess 

whether structural factors considered strong predictors of male violence also predict 

Most of these studies do not disaggregate rates of interpersonal violence by gender. Given that the rates 

of male violence far outweigh the rates of female violence, the results of these studies reflect male violence. 

I 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
36 

female violence (Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). Researchers argue that as with men 

the negative social effects of structural conditions (e.g., reduced formal and informal 

control, poverty, unemployment) are expected to contribute to increases in female rates of 

violence (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). The literature 

reviewed in this section includes studies that have assessed the relationship between 

components of Social Disorganization Theory (e.g., poverty and unemployment) 

measured at the neighborhood or city level and female assault. 

1. Application of Social Disorganization Theory to Female Assault 

Three studies were located that test components of Social Disorganization Theory 

with female assault. The first two studies rely on arrest data of females involved in 

assault and the third study is based on self-report data of women presenting to emergency 

departments for intentional injuries. 

Steffensmeier and Haynie (2000) examined whether city-level variation in the 

female crime rate was linked to the city’s structural disadvantage. The authors 

hypothesized that structural disadvantage increases the rate of offending for females and 

males. According to their review of the literature, macro-level structural disadvantage 

should have less of an effect on male violent crime rates then female rates for three 

reasons. First, the endogenous stresses contributing to female offending are more evenly 

distributed across women than are the environmental stresses contributing to male 

offending. Second, males and females have different goals. Females focus on relational 

concerns and males on occupational achievement. The gap between the goals and means 

is greater for economically disadvantaged males than their female counterparts. This 

disparity in the gap contributes disproportionately to male violence. Third, the criminal 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
37 

subculture is a masculine adaptation. Thus, while female rates may increase as 

consequences of structural disadvantage, the effects are expected to be smaller when 

compared to the effects on male rates. In sum, structural factors are expected to have a 

greater impact on male violence compared to female violence. 

The authors focused on 178 cities in 1990 that contained more than 100,000 

residents. Data was obtained from the 1990 Bureau of the Census, the Uniform Crime 

Reports (UCR) and the Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR). Dependent variables 

included female arrest rates for five crimes: homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, 

burglary and larceny. Independent variables were selected to reflect structural 

disadvantage and were dissagregated by sex. 

Steffensmeier and Haynie (2000) selected female-specific measures of 

neighborhood for independent variables including percent Black of the female population, 

female poverty, female joblessness, female-headed households, and income inequality 

(Gini coefficient). These variables were used to create a Structural Disadvantage index 

for use in the multiple regression analyses. The authors controlled for housing density, 

residential instability, percent population aged 15-29 and police per capita. 

Steffensmeier and Haynie (2000) demonstrated that female and male rates of 

arrest for aggravated assault were associated significantly with sources of structural 

disadvantage and residential instability. The magnitude of the effect of structural 

disadvantage on female arrest rates for assault was not as large as the effect on the male 

rates, but, as with males, the effects for females were statistically significant. The effect 

size of disadvantage on measures of aggravated assault by sex was not statistically 

significant. The authors attribute this unanticipated finding to increases in the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
38 

criminalization of minor assault and to expanded monitoring of both minor and more 

serious assault including school, homes and workplaces. 

In the second test of structural disadvantage, Baskin and Sommers (1998) set out 

to examine the impact of deindustrialization on women residing in poor urban 

neighborhoods. The authors hypothesized that women living in neighborhoods 

characterized by structural disadvantage would be involved disproportionately in violent 

crime. The authors used New York City arrest data for 341 women arrested for nondomestic violent felonies. Each woman was assigned a 1990 census tract code based on 

her address at the time of the most recent offense. Census tracts were categorized as low, 

moderate or high poverty neighborhoods. Significant differences in arrests by 

neighborhood remained even after controlling for age, education, marital status and race. 

According to the results, the average number of official arrests for assault was 

significantly higher for women from high poverty neighborhoods than for women from 

the low poverty neighborhoods. This finding is consistent with past studies of social 

disorganization applied to the study of male violence. 

The third study conducted by Grisso and associates (1999) was a case-control 

investigation of correlates of intentional injuries to women presenting for emergency 

department (ED) care in a poor urban community. The case group included women 

injured by non-partner males and females including, family, friends, acquaintances or 

strangers. The control group included women who presented to the ED for a health 

concern unrelated to an intentional injury. Although the case group includes women 

injured by both female and male non-intimate partners, the results are worth reporting 

because so few studies have focused on women injured by non-intimate partners. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
39 

According to the results, neighborhood measures of structural disadvantage including 

residential instability and low mediab income were associated with an increased risk of 

injury. These findings are consistent with past studies of social disorganization applied to 

the study of male violence. 

2. Female Assault and Social Disorganization Theory: Summary and 

Limitations 

The studies conducted by Grisso and colleagues (1 999), Baskin and Sommers 

(1 998) and Steffensmeier and Haynie (2000) demonstrate that neighborhood-level 

measures of structural disadvantage are associated with female involvement in assault. 

Steffensmeier and Haynie (2000) also offered a comparative analysis by gender. The 

authors found that structural disadvantage has a smaller effect on the female assault arrest 

rates compared to male assault arrest rates. However, the magnitude of the gender 

difference was not statistically significant. 

The research conducted to date is limited by several factors. First, studies rely on 

arrest data that involve limitations discussed previously. Second, Steffensmeier and 

Haynie (2000) aggregated measures by city level and Baskin and Sommers (1 998) 

aggregated measures by city borough. Aggregating measures by a smaller unit 

(neighborhood) may be more appropriate because smaller communities likely provide a 

better measure of the social networks in which individuals are embedded (Steffensmeier 

and Haynie, 2000). Third, no studies published thus far have tested the effects of 

zggregate-level structural disadvantage on the individual-level risk of intragender female 

assault. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
40 

D. The Structural-Cultural Approach 

Since the 1970’s criminologists and sociologists have focused on cultural norms 

that have emerged subsequent to deindustrialization and the emergence of what in some 

circles is called the underclass (Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Oliver, 

1989b; Sampson and Wilson, 1995; Wilson, 1987). This body of research was developed 

primarily with samples of males. In recent years, however, researchers have applied this 

approach to females and have identified sources of structural disadvantage and 

motivations for female assault that are unique to female violence compared to male 

violence. This theory is categorized as gender-neutral because research has demonstrated 

that it has explanatory power for understanding male and female violence. Studies reveal, 

however, that a female-specific corollary is required to explain and describe structural 

factors and intervening mechanisms that shape female violence in particular. 

In the same theoretical tradition as Social Disorganization, this group of 

researchers (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Oliver, 1994; Sampson 

and Wilson, 1995; Wilson, 1987) argues that macro-structural forces, including decreased 

social control in structurally disadvantaged communities, in contrast to a subculture of 

violence (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1975), have given rise to alternative norms that 

support the use of physical violence and defensive behavior in urban neighborhoods. 

These alternative value systems exist in part because the wider cultural values are no 

longer viable and urban residents have little sustained interaction with individuals and 

institutions that represent mainstream society (Kornhauser, 1 978). 

The scope of the research presented in this section focuses on studies that apply 

the structural-cultural perspective to female involvement in assault. Major works include 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
41 

studies by Anderson (1 994, 1 999), Oliver (1 989b, 1994) and Nurge (2000). These 

researchers focus on cultural adaptations among individuals living in structurally 

disadvantaged neighborhoods and describe the relevance of macro-structural factors and 

their links to the emergence of alternative norms. 

1. Structural Disadvantage and the “Code of the Street” Perspective 

Over the past several decades, Anderson (1 990, 1994,1999) has explored 

alternative value systems held by male and female residents of diverse urban 

neighborhoods. Anderson observed that while most residents are law-abiding, a minority 

has internalized the “Code of the Street.” This code represents an oppositional culture 

that has been adopted in varying degrees by inner-city Black residents and involves 

aggressive posturing, abusive language and the use of violence to resolve disputes. 

According to Anderson, the key value shared by males and females is the importance of 

maintaining respect. With few traditional means to earn status (e.g., employment, family 

provider), respect among both males and females has become a commodity worth 

fighting over. 

Recent findings suggest that as with urban men, attitudes toward violence held by 

females contribute to female’s participation in interpersonal violence (Adams, 1999; 

Anderson, 1999; Artz, 1998; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Campbell, 1986; Nurge, 2000). 

According to Anderson’s (1 999) analysis, young women in Black inner-city communities 

have begun to adhere to the code. Similar to men, women frequently choose to instigate 

fights or fight back aggressively to maintain respect and are unlikely to perceive 

themselves as victims. Baskin and Sommers (1 998), in their qualitative interviews with 

urban women arrested for non-domestic violence, also reported that women use violence 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
42 

as a dispute settlement mechanism and often comply with the Code by fighting to earn 

respect and to prevent hture victimization. This finding is consistent with Nurge’s 

(2000) observation that the Code of Street exists among at-risk adolescent females and 

female gangklique members in a low-income urban community that was the subject of 

her research. Take together, these studies demonstrate that both males and females 

engage in violence in order to secure and maintain respect. Therefore, the structuralcultural perspective is considered gender-neutral. The review that follows highlights the 

presence of gender-specific mechanisms and the subsequent need for female (and male) 

specific corollaries. 

In a recent examination of the Code of the Street among young urban women 

residing in a low-income community, Nurge (2000) identified a female-specific corollary 

of respect. She found that young women, when accused of promiscuous activity, feel 

compelled to engage in assault against the accuser in order to restore their reputations in 

the eyes of both male and female peers. Males, in contrast, are not held to the same 

standard; instead they often are rewarded by their male peers for having more than one 

girlfriend at a time. In sum, the research uncovers gender-neutral and female-specific 

dimensions of the Code. Some males and females engage in violence to maintain 

personal respect. Females, unlike their male counterparts, however, also associate respect 

with maintaining an untainted sexual reputation. 

a 

2. Structural Disadvantage and Sexual Rivalry 

Oliver (1989b) is one of the few scholars to consider the impact of social 

structural strain on women’s participation in intragender violence. According to Oliver 

(1 989b), structural disadvantage rooted in discrimination and economic processes has led 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
43 

to cultural adaptations by Black males in poor urban communities. These include the 

“tough guy” and “player of women,” both of which contribute to female involvement in 

assault. Similar themes are echoed in the works of Anderson (1990,1999). Oliver argues 

that social structural strain contributes to behaviors held by males, which in turn, increase 

the risk of female-on-female violence. This pathway toward violence is unique to 

females (compared to males) and points to the need for a female-specific corollary.. 

The “tough guy” image is based on a set of norms that define manhood in terms of 

fearlessness, emotional control, and willingness to resolve conflicts through violence. A 

male with the “tough guy” image, for example, might assault his girlfiiend in public if she 

humiliates him. The “player-of-women” image is a masculine role alternative that 

defines manhood in terms of overt masculinity, dominance, and emotional and sexual 

exploitation of women. According to Oliver (1 989b), the “player” image is prevalent 

among structurally dislocated Black males. This image, along with the “tough guy” 

image, serves to compensate for the lack of success in enacting the traditional male roles 

of family provider. Adherence to the “player” image involves maintaining more than one 

girlfriend at a time, a practice that according to Oliver (1 989b) and Anderson (1990) 

intensifies female-on-female conflict and competition over male intimate partners. 

In addition to cultural adaptations, Oliver (1 989b) points to macro-structural 

factors, including the shortage of heterosexual males that contribute to female-on-female 

violence. Wilson (1 987) has argued that within Black underclass communities, high rates 

of unemployment, homicide, incarceration, mental illness and substance abuse have 

contributed to a shortage in the availability of “marriageable” Black men. As a 

consequence, Black females have adopted a pattern of short-tern serial monogamy or 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
44 

“polygamy” based on sharing of males (Oliver, 1989b). As a result, female-on-female 

violence is readily interpreted as romantic jealousy (Oliver, 1989b, pp. 267-68): 

When violence occurs between this [female] dyad, the offenders’ motives 

may vary from an intent to retaliate against her co-wife to an attempt to 

deter her co-wife from future involvement with her husband or boyfiiend 

to saving face among her peers. Anger induced by romantic jealousy may 

also contribute to victim-precipitated assaults and homicides among 

females - that is, violent confrontations in which the victim was the first to 

use force but was eventually assaulted or killed by the co-wife in selfdefense. 

To date, Oliver’s theory has not been tested empirically. Campbell and colleagues 

(1998)’ however, assessed one component of Oliver’s theory (albeit from a different 

theoretical perspective). With NIBRS data, Campbell and associates (1 998) 

operationalized the availability of suitable male partners by testing the effect of the sexratio and male unemployment on arrests for female-female violence. She and her 

colleagues hypothesized that the presence of fewer suitable men (measured by the sexratio) would enhance female-on-female competition and subsequent risk of assault. The 

zero-order correlation between the sex-ratio and rates of intragender female assault was 

insignificant. 

3. Female Assault and the Structural-Cultural Perspective: Summary and 

Limitations 

The studies reviewed demonstrate that some groups of females adhere to 

alternative norms that legitimize and at times require the use of violence. Research on 

the Code of the Street perspective identified gender-specific (e.g., gendered respect) and 

gender-neutral (e.g., personal respect) dimensions that contribute to female involvement 

in violence (Anderson, 1994, 1999; Nurge, 2000). Oliver’s theory uncovers sources of 

structural disadvantage (e.g., a shortage of Black men) and adaptations to strain by Black 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
45 

males (e.g., player image) that, in turn, may contribute to female-on-female violence. 

Female-specific sources of strain (e.g., shortage of marriageable males) and adaptations 

(e.g. intragender competition for male partners) point to the need for a female gendered 

corollary in order to explain the link between structure and culture as well as intervening 

mechanisms that shape female violence in ways that are different from male violence. 

Questions remain regarding the link between structural disadvantage, macro-level 

demographic factors (e.g., shortage of marriageable men), and female competition over 

men, and subsequent female-on-female assault. 111 sum, few studies have applied the 

Structural-Cultural Approach in any detail to the study of women. To this author’s 

knowledge, no studies have assessed quantitatively the impact of attitudes held toward 

violence on the risk of female-on-female assault. The aftermath of deindustrialization 

undoubtedly has had harmful effects on both male and female residents of poor urban 

neighborhoods. Further exploration of the impact of “player” and “tough-guy” images, 

and gender-neutral and gendered dimensions of the “Code of the Street,” and how these 

behaviors and norms influence women’s involvement in assault, will begin to fill a gap in 

the research. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
46 

E. Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Theory of Victimization 

In contrast to the theories described thus far, Routine Activities/Lifestyle Theory 

focuses on the role of the victim rather than the role of offender. Proponents of the 

routine activitiesAifestyle approach argue that the convergence in time and space of a 

likely offender, suitable target and absence of a capable guardian provides opportunities 

for victimization to occur. This convergence takes place independent of personality 

characteristics that may motivate individuals to participate in crime, or cultural or 

structural conditions (Sampson and Lauritsen, 1994). The theory presupposes the 

presence of motivated offenders who will engage in crime if provided the opportunity. 

Thus, it is ineffective to focus on underlying motivations for crime. Instead, routine 

activitieskfestyle theorists study situations and opportunities that increase the risk that 

crime will occur. . 

Lifestyle theorists center on the “suitable target” component focusing on factors 

that affect an individual’s vulnerability to victimization. Lifestyles are important to the 

degree that they influence exposure to motivated offenders and decrease the level of 

guardianship (Jensen and Brownfield, 1986), which in turn increases one’s risk of 

victimization. 

In studies carried out with samples of males, researchers have identified several 

lifestyle behaviors that are associated with increased risk of violent victimization. They 

include self-reports of violent behavior, involvement in minor deviance (Jensen and 

Brownfield, 1986; Sampson and Lauritsen, 1990), participation in night-time activities 

and drinking behaviors (Forde and Kennedy, 1997). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
47 

According to the criteria set forth in this dissertation, the Routine 

ActivitiesLifestyle approach is gender-neutral because the theory is based on 

nongendered assumptions and is applicable to females and males. Research suggests, 

however, that the theory requires a female-gender specific corollary because routine 

activities have been shown to vary by gender. Early applications of Routine 

ActivitiesLifestyle theories were offered to explain lower risks of violent victimization 

among females compared to males. According to Hindelang and associates (1 978), for 

example, females reportedly were less likely than young males to spend time out of the 

home socializing. Consequently, females were afforded increased guardianship 

(assuming the home was safe from victimization) and reduced risk of interaction with 

potential offenders outside of the home. 

Three recent studies were located that examined applied routine activities or 

lifestyle characteristics to female assault. The first two studies provide support for a 

gender-neutral dimension and third study uncovers a female-specific dimension. 

1. Gender-Neutral Dimension of Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Theory 

In the first study the authors set out to assess whether delinquent behaviors 

correlated with teenage male violent victimization and whether delinquent behaviors 

explain the gender differential in risks of victimization. Using self-report data fiom high 

school seniors, Jensen and Brownfield (1 986) found that the greater the involvement in 

violent offending, the greater the risk of victimization (including theft, vandalism, 

robbery, threat and assault). The authors also found that for four different types of 

interpersonal violent victimization experiences (weapon injury, weapon threat, injury 

with no weapon, threatened with no weapon) the effects of sex on risk of victimization 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
48 

were reduced when controlling for self-reported offense behavior. Jensen and Brownfield 

(1 986) conclude that the association between the victims’ offense activities and hisher 

victimization experiences partly explain sex differences. The results suggest that for 

females as well as males, a lifestyle involving violent activities is not only likely to 

increase contact with potential offenders, but also is likely to increase involvement with 

activities that are themselves likely to be associated with offensive behavior. 

In the second study Baskin and Sommers (1998) describe the routine activities 

and lifestyles characteristics of 3 7 fcmale offenders involved in non-domestic assault. 

According to the authors, the women’s lifestyles centered around risky behaviors 

including using drugs, buying drugs, obtaining money for drugs, and spending time with 

people who used drugs or were engaged in illegal activity. According to the authors, 

most of the women had experienced victimization routinely. For most of the women, 

drug addiction involved a lifestyle that increased opportunities for interacting with 

potential victimizers and for participation in violent crime through robbing, physical 

fights, engaging in prostitution or in systemic violence characteristic of the drug trade 

(Baskin and Sommers, 1998). 

2. Female-Specific Dimension of Routine ActivitiesLifestyle 

The third study that included an application of the routine activities/li€estyle 

approach to female assault uncovered a female-specific pattern. Schwartz and Pitts 

(1 995) applied a feminist routine activities approach to the study of sexual assault 

victimization of female college students. At the core of this approach is the unwritten law 

rooted in American cultural history that allows men to punish women violently. 

According to Mustaine and colleagues (1 999, p.58), “It is likely that the predatory, violent 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
49 

victimization risks of women are related to the cultural, legal, and thus societal ‘supports’ 

for the abuse of women (that men do not experience).” In their study, Schwartz and Pitts 

(1 995) assume the presence of motivated (male) offenders “who are searching for women 

who might do something unsafe [e.g., become intoxicated] something that gives the 

offender an edge or the ability to take the upper hand in victimization” (p. 15). Schwartz 

and Pitts (1 995) administered self-report surveys to a sample of over 200 female college 

students. The authors focused on the availability of suitable targets for sexual 

victimization. Although the authors do not provide the sex of the offenders, in sexual 

violence the offender usually is a male. The authors conceptualized lifestyle factors to 

reflect a feminist routine activitiedlife style for studying sexual violence. According to 

the authors’ conceptualization, two routine activityllifestyle factors increase target 

suitability among females. First, intoxication reduces a female’s ability to ward off 

sexual advances. Second, having male fiiends who are motivated male offenders 

(sexually predatory men) increases the risk of victimization to females themselves. The 

authors summarize previous research, which shows that male college students who report 

having as friends motivated sexual victimizers are more likely to themselves engage in 

this behavior. Friends may reinforce rape-supportive beliefs. The authors imply that 

women with male fiiends who are sexual victimizers are more likely then other women to 

interact with friends of the sexual victimizers. This increased proximity to motivated 

offenders is likely to increase target suitability for risk of sexual victimization. 

The authors conducted a multivariate analysis using sexual victimization as a 

dichotomous variable. The two groups included women who had reported serious sexual 

victimization (rape or attempted rape) and women who reported sexually coercive 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
50 

aggression or no sexual victimization. Independent variables included: (1) fiequency of 

going out drinking; (2) having friends who are motivated offenders (men who get women 

drunk in order to have sex with them); (3) quantity of alcohol consumed; (4) having 

experienced a stranger make uncomfortable advances toward the respondent; (5) and year 

in school. The authors found some support for lifestyle factors predicted by feminist 

routine activities. Women who engage in frequent drinking activities or have friends who 

are motivated offenders were more likely than other women to be sexually victimized. 

Intoxication likely reduces a female’s ability to counteract sexual advances. Women with 

fiends who are motivated offenders are more likely to interact with other motivated 

sexual offenders. 

3. Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Theory: Summary and Limitations 

Of the studies reviewed one applied a female-specific corollary of routine 

activitiesAifestyle that focused on intergender sexual victimization and identified a 

gendered dimension of lifestyleh-outine activities. Two studies of routine 

activitiesAifestyle factors focused on female assault more generally. Both studies 

demonstrated that similar to males, risky activities by females including substance use 

and illegal behavior are associated with involvement in assault. Thus, evidence 

demonstrates that Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Theory is applicable to male and female 

assault; and a female-specific corollary is necessary for understanding lifestyle theory 

applied to sexual victimization. Although only a handful of studies have applied the 

Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Approach to female assault, the results point to this approach 

is a fruitful area for further exploration. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
51 

F. Psychiatric/Social-Psychological Perspective 

Early scholars focused their explanations of female deviance on individual 

pathology, while ignoring or at best minimizing the impact of mental problems on male 

criminality @affine, 1987). In recent years, however, there have been increased efforts to 

understand the impact of pathology on male violence (Gilligan, 1996; Pollack, 1996). 

Research suggests that mental health problems affect males and females differently. In a 

review of mental health disorders over the life course Keenan and Shaw (1 997) described 

gender-specific pathways to antisocial behavior. By school age, boys demonstrate a rate 

of externalizing disorders (e.g., attention deficit disorder and conduct disorder) that is 10 

times higher than the rate for girls. However, both sexes are characterized by similar 

rates of internalizing disorders (e.g., anxiety or depression). By adolescence, however, 

the rate of internalizing disorders among young women outstrips the rate among young 

men while the differential rate of externalizing disorders between the sexes remains 

unchanged. 

Historically, individual pathology thought to originate in women’s biology or 

psychology was used to explain female offending (Pollock, 1999). Early studies of 

female criminality ignored the effects of socialization or social-structural barriers (Freud, 

1933; Lombroso and Ferrero, 1895; Pollak, 1950; Thomas, 1928), but instead argued that 

female deviance emerged from insanity or mental problems (Smart, 1976). According to 

Belknap, “female lawbreakers historically (and even today) have been viewed as 

‘abnormal’ and as ‘worse’ than male lawbreakers - not only for breaking the law, but also 

for stepping outside of prescribed gender roles of femininity and passivity” (1 996, p. 22). 

Of all female criminals, violent women were perceived as the most pathological. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
52 

Researchers today continue to draw the link between mental illness and 

participation in violence by women albeit for different reasons than those offered by the 

classical theorists. Today’s scholars have suggested that females who continue to engage 

in crime beyond adolescence may be more disturbed than their male counterparts (Jordan 

et al., 1996; Pajer, 1998). Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1998) describe a gender 

paradox whereby the sex with the lower prevalence rate of the disorder is affected more 

seriously by the disturbance. For example, studies have documented that females who 

meet criteria for conduct or antisocial personality disorders are at higher risk of 

developing other serious problems than males with similar disorders (Loeber and 

Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998). Given that fewer women than men resort to violence, it is 

possible that violent women exhibit more severe pathology than violent men. These 

findings suggest the need for a female-specific corollary in order to explain the 

differential impact of mental health problems on female violence compared to male 

violence. 

Recent consideration of the relationship between psychiatric or mental health 

symptoms and female violence largely has been limited to descriptive analyses. Studies 

chosen for review in the sections that follow assess the impact of mental health or 

psychosocial functioning on female violent offending or violent victimization. 

1. Community Samples: Mental Health Status and Physical Aggression 

Two studies based on samples drawn from the community have demonstrated 

support for the association between mental health status and physical aggression. In a 5- 

year longitudinal self-report study of more than 4,000 high-school seniors and dropouts, 

Ellickson and colleagues (1 997) reported a higher percentage of violent adolescent girls 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
53 

rated themselves as “poor” in mental health (according to the Mental Health Index-5) 

compared to violent boys. Using the same database, Ellickson and colleagues (2000) 

found that girls who exhibited low self-esteem as early as seventh grade were more likely 

to engage in persistent hitting five years later. Low self-esteem was not a significant 

predictor for boys. 

2. Incarcerated Samples: Mental Health Status and Physical Aggression 

Studies that have assessed mental health status among incarcerated females rarely 

publish rates of mental health problems by type of offense (violent versus non-violent) or 

information on past violence. Researchers have demonstrated, for example, that 

incarcerated girls are affected disproportionately by mental health problems (TimmonsMitchell et al., 1997; Ulzen et al., 1998) and adult female inmates have exhibited higher 

rates of mental health problems than their male counterparts (Government Accounting 

Office, 1999). However, studies of this type do not permit analysis of the prevalence of 

mental health problems among females specifically involved in assault. In addition, 

studies typically are cross-sectional making it difficult to establish a temporal relationship 

between mental health problems and involvement in crime, and the results have limited 

generalizability to non-incarcerated females. Notwithstanding these limitations, research 

suggests a link between mental health problems and assaultive behavior. 

There is some indication that a sizable number of incarcerated girls and women 

have engaged in past violence (Campbell, 1986; Porter, 2000). Campbell found, for 

example, that almost all (90%) of the institutionalized girls and the majority (64%) of 

incarcerated women reported involvement in a physical fight in the last year. In addition, 

a study of incarcerated women in three states (Connecticut, Florida and California) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
54 

reported that one-third of the women had been serving time for a violent offense and all 

women for whom data were available had a history of violent behavior (Acoca et al., 

1996). Data on past history of violence were obtained for Connecticut only. Of the 

women incarcerated in Connecticut (N=975), 80 percent had engaged in minor violent 

crimes, 12 percent had engaged in moderate violent crimes and 8 percent had engaged in 

major or severe violent offenses (Acoca et al., 1996). Mental health professionals 

determined that 80 percent of the sample had some level of mental health impairment. If 

the prevalence of assault in Connecticut is any indication of the rates of assault among 

women incarcerated in the other two states, then mental health characteristics based on 

the total sample takes on significance. Of the total sample, comprised of over 12,000 

women, one quarter had received psychiatric medication regularly, one third had been 

diagnosed with a mental health problem over the life course, and almost half (44%) were 

diagnosed as needing treatment for a mental health problem (Acoca et al., 1996). 

3. Victims of Violence and Mental Health Status 

Outside of the research on domestic violence and child abuse, little is known 

about the psychiatric status of victims of female aggression. Battered women consistently 

are reported to be more socially isolated than control subjects (Bullock et al., 1989; 

Garbarino et al., 1980; Starke, 1984) and to have high rates of depression and low selfesteem (Campbell et al., 1992; Grisso et al., 1999; Hilberman et al., 1978; Trimpey et al., 

1989). Whether or not non-intimate female victims of female physical aggression 

manifest similar symptoms has yet to be explored fully. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
55 

4. Female Assault and Mental Health Status: Summary and Limitations 

In sum, recent studies suggest that females involved in violence as victims or 

offenders in many cases are more likely than males to be characterized by internalizing 

mental health problems including depression, anxiety and low self-esteem. Further 

development of a female-specific corollary is necessary to understand how mental health 

problems affect the risk of female involvement in violence. To date, most studies are 

limited to non-representative groups based on small sample sizes (typically less than 100 

cases) and do not include empirical tests of theory. Except for studies of domestic 

violence and child abuse, most do not report the victim-offender relationship or the sex of 

the target. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
56 

G. Situational Approach 

The Situational Approach is based on temporally proximate factors that influence 

the use of violence. These include interactional factors, sex of the participants, the 

victim-offender relationship, precipitating reasons for the assault, injury consequences, 

weapon use, the role of third parties, the strategy used to carry out the assault, and 

substance use by the participants. Recent studies have identified situational factors that 

are common to female and male assault (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Hall et al., 1996) as 

well as situational factors that shape female assault in ways that are different from male 

assault (Adams, 1999; Artz, 1998). Thus, the situational approach is considered genderneutral. However, a female-specific corollary is required in order to understand fully the 

impact of situational factors on female assault. In the sections below situational 

characteristics and their impact on female involvement in assault are reviewed. 

1. Interaction, Sex of the Participants and Victim-Offender Relationship 

Research suggests that characteristics of the violent event and of events leading up 

to violent events vary according to the sex of the victim and antagonist. Baskin and 

Sommers (1998) reported that among women arrested for non-domestic assault, 

characteristics of the interaction followed Luckenbill’s (1 977) three-stage process 

developed with samples of males: 1) verbal conflict in which identities are challenged, 2) 

threats, and 3) physical attack in which retaliation plays a critical role. Baskin and 

Sommer’s (1 998) do not specify the sexes of the victims and offenders. It is plausible, 

however, that Luckenbill’s process characterizes female-on-female assault more so than 

male-on-female assault. Female intragender assault presumably involves a relatively 

equal playing field and a cultural imperative to fight back in order to save face (Felson, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
57 

‘1982). Two articles were located that address sex differences with respect to assaults 

between non-intimates (Felson et al., 1996; O’Brien, 1988). They are described below. 

Felson and colleagues (1 996) used self-report data based on a sample of male and 

female respondents injured by strangers and non-strangers. The authors reported that 

males were more likely to assault and injure antagonists of both genders, but females 

were more likely than males to be assaulted and injured by antagonists of both genders. 

Felson and associates (1 996) attribute these findings to the greater physical strength of 

males compared to females. It is noteworthy, however, that when weapons were used, 

females were more likely than males to injure antagonists of both genders. 

O’Brien (1 988) relied on UCR and NCS data on crimes of homicide, and 

aggravated and simple assault, disaggregated by gender and relationship. Relationship 

categories included strangers and spouses/relatives. Several findings emerged. First, 

male-on-female violence was associated with less serious violence (simple assault) and 

female-on-male violence was associated with more serious violence (aggravated assault). 

The author suggests that in intimate situations a male does not need to use serious 

violence to win compliance from the female. A female, however, may be more likely to 

resort to serious violence in self-defense. It is plausible that this pattern of violence also 

extends to non-intimate situations. Second, O’Brien (1988) reported that female-onfemale violence was dominated by simple assault, followed by aggravated assault. Third, 

for both males and females, intragender assault was more common between strangers 

compared to the comparison category that included spouses/relatives. However, crossgender assault (male-on-female and female-on-male) occurred more often than expected 

between spouses/relatives; males committed simple and aggravated assault against 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
58 

females over 50 percent more often than expected and females committed simple assault 

against males 16 percent more often than expected. 

d 

Further research is necessary to assess sex differences with regards to male and 

female assault between non-intimate partners. The results of both studies inevitably are 

affected by inclusion of intimate partner violence and neither study assesses assaults 

between acquaintances/fiiends or family members (apart from intimates). 

Two additional studies were located that report data on the victim-offender 

relationship. The first focuses on injury victimizations and the second focuses on nonlethal violence by females. The first study is based on NCVS data collected for the years 

1992 through 1998. Over a third of all females injured were victimized by an intimate 

(37% compared to 4% of male victims), over a third were injured by other family 

members or fiiends/acquaintances (38.6% compared to 40% of male victims) and about a 

quarter were injured by strangers (24% of females compared to 56% of male victims) 

(Simon et al., 2001). 

The second study provides data disaggregated by sex of the victim and 

relationship simultaneously. According to the victims’ reports based on the NCVS for 

the years 1993 through 1997, about 55 percent of female violent offenders victimized a 

female acquaintance and about 25 percent victimized a male acquaintance. The 

proportion of female offenders attacking female and male strangers was the same (about 

38%), as was the proportion of female offenders attacking male and female relatives 

(about 7%). Less than 1 percent of female violent offenders victimized a female intimate 

compared to about 30 percent who victimized a male intimate (Greenfeld and Snell, 

1999). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
59 

2. Reasons for the Assault 

Research has demonstrated that females become involved in assault for femalemotivated reasons as well as gender-neutral reasons, Some females, for example, 

reportedly fight for reasons centered on preserving interpersonal relationships or 

“relational concerns” such as fighting to defend or protect the respect of fiiends or family 

(Adams, 1999). According to this view, women compared to men place a greater 

emphasis on establishing and preserving a sense of connection with others (Gilligan, 

1993). This relational orientation shapes their deviant activities (Acoca and Dedel, 

1998), which indicates that certain non-normative activities are gendered. 

Alternatively, some females, like males, engage in assault within the routine , 

activities of drug use and drug selling or to establish or maintain one’s personal respect 

and reputation as someone not to be “dissed” (Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 

1998). Until further research illuminates otherwise, these factors are considered genderneutral. 

Analysis of the reasons for violence alone, however, does not provide an adequate 

explanation of gender differences. It also is necessary to assess the contexts in which the 

violence occurs. For example, similar to intragender female assault, violence between 

men sometimes involves issues about female intimate partners (Oliver, 1994). Studies 

suggest, however, that underlying motivations for violence between young women over 

issues related to male intimate partners are shaped by issues related to the female gender 

(Artz, 1998; Nurge, 2000). As discussed earlier with respect to the gendered version of 

the Code of the Street, there is evidence of a double standard that excuses some male 

behaviors but condemns similar behaviors by females. Consequently, some women who 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
60 

adhere to patriarchal norms are intolerant of female player behavior (actual or accused) 

and direct hostility engendered by conflict with or about male intimates toward thirdparty rival females (Artz, 1998; Nurge, 2000). This context, therefore, should be 

considered female-specific (and male specific when discussing male violence). 

3. Strategy 

Another situational factor that shapes female assault involves the strategy used to 

carry out the assault. Studies indicate that indirect aggression, for example, compared to 

direct aggression, is more typical of females than males (Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Indirect 

aggression refers to a form of social manipulation in which the target is attacked 

circuitously without the primary antagonist being personally involved in the attack 

(Lagerspetz et al., 1988). As a result, the aggressor avoids retaliation because presumably 

she will not be associated with the attack (Lagerspetz et al., 1988). Indirect aggression 

stands in contrast to direct aggression that is commonly motivated by the need for status 

and, therefore, must be demonstrated publicly. The use of indirect aggression versus 

direct aggression by inner-city females has received little attention. 

Indirect aggression also involves spreading false rumors, gossiping and ignoring 

the antagonist (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992). Some studies have reported that women use 

indirect means in lieu of physical aggression (Talbott, 1997). However, little is known 

about the extent to which women involved in physical assault also employ indirect 

aggression. This is a topic that merits further study. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
61 

4. Third Parties 

Few studies have assessed the impact of the presence of third parties on 

intragender female assault. Research by Baskin and Sommers (1998) suggests that as 

with males, the presence of third parties contributes to the escalation of female violence 

by increasing the probability of retaliation used as a face-saving measure. This finding is 

consistent with research by Felson (1 982) who demonstrated that the presence of third 

parties increases the severity of conflict among participants of the same sex (i.e. femaleon-female or male-on-male). It is noteworthy, however, that the presence of a third-party 

reportedly does not enhance the severity of male-on-female conflict (Farrell et al., 1978; 

Felson, 1982). Felson (1982) suggests that in cases of cross-gender assault, bystanders 

disapprove of male assault against females and consequently attempt to break up the 

violence. 

Overall the research results demonstrate that in some situations the presence of 

third parties significantly affects the intensity of the violent interaction. Studies that 

assess the influence of third parties on female-on-female and male-on-female assault is a 

topic worthy of fwrther study. 

5. Substance Use 

Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship between intoxication and 

violence. Only recently has the Bureau of Justice Statistics published these data 

contained in the NCVS. According to victims’ reports, 40 percent of female and male 

offenders had been using drugs and/or alcohol at the time of the offense (Greenfeld and 

Snell, 1999). Aside from this publication virtually all of the research on female 

involvement in violence and substance use at the time of the incident has focused on 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
62 

homicide. Literature on situational factors of female homicide offending is relevant to 

the study of non-intimate assault involving women. Similar to violence by males, the 

circumstances surrounding acquaintance- and stranger-related murder have been 

characterized as follows: an argument escalates, no one backs down, one or both parties 

were using drugs or alcohol, and a weapon was available (Hall et al., 1996). In such 

cases, the victim and/or offender may have been so high that under non-drug induced 

circumstances the argument may not have resulted in murder. It is possible that substance 

use by one of the participants served as the factor, which tipped the violence from an 

assault to a homicide. 

Studies of female homicide victims and offenders have demonstrated a markedly 

high prevalence of substance use. One study assessed autopsy reports and revealed that 

over one-third of female homicide victims in New York City between 1990-1 994 tested 

positive for alcohol or an illicit drug (Wilt et al., 1997). Interviews conducted with 

incarcerated female homicide offenders in New York State found that women convicted 

of killing strangers or acquaintances reported significantly more substance use on the day 

of the murder than women who killed children or intimates. Over two-thirds of women 

who murdered acquaintances or strangers reported using drugs or alcohol on that day 

(Hall et al., 1996). In a study based on arrest data, Mann (1990) compared females who 

killed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol and female nonusers. Mann (1990) 

reported that users were significantly more likely to kill persons other than intimates 

(40% versus 26%). In second study of female intrasexual homicide based on arrest data, 

Mann (1996) reported that over one third of the female offenders (36%) and victims 

(40%) had been using alcohol prior to the homicide event. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
63 

6. Female Assault and Situational Factors: Summary and Limitations 

The research conducted to date suggests that situational factors have femalespecific dimensions that require female-specific corollaries. The sex of the victim and 

offender, the victim-offender relationship and the roles assumed by third parties influence 

the likelihood that violence will occur as well as the intensity of the violence. 

Bystanders, for example, have been shown to be less tolerant of intergender assault 

compared to female intragender assault. Males and females engage in violence for 

similar reasons, but the contexts and strategies used differ. Males and females both 

engage in violence over personal respect, but females compared to males may be more 

likely to assault another female in response to an accusation regarding promiscuous 

sexual activity. Moreover, females are more likely than males to engage in indirect 

aggression. 

Research on situational factors as they relate to assault is still developing. Few 

studies have examined situational factors that are disaggregated simultaneously by 

victim-offender relationship and sex of the participants. Some studies have placed 

situational factors within a theoretical framework such as The Code of the Street or 

Routine Activities. Further study of gender-neutral and gendered situational factors is 

necessary in order to identifl factors that turn a non-violent event into a violent event. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
64 

H. Evolutionary Theory 

Daly and Wilson (1988) apply Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory to the study of 

interpersonal violence. Evolutionary Theory is guided by the principle of reproductive 

fitness. According to Wilson and Daly (1988, p. 5): 

[Plersonal survival is not the bottom line on the natural selective ledger 

Over generations, it is successful traits that ‘survive,’ not individuals, and 

this sort of long-term survival depends not only or even primarily upon the 

longevity of those carrying the trait, but upon the abundance of their 

progeny.. .It is reproductive success, not bodily condition, that the 

evolutionist refers to as ‘fitness.’ 

Although behaviors, including violence, may have diverse proximate causes, all 

behaviors (by males and females) ultimately are driven by the need to maximize 

reproductive fitness. Daly and Wilson (1988) argue that the ultimate aim of violence by 

males and females is to enhance reproductive fitness. This theory has utility for 

explaining male and female violence and therefore is considered a gender-neutral theory. 

However, according to the theory’s principles the mechanisms used to maximize fitness 

are employed differently by males and females as a consequence of sex differences rooted 

in biology. Consequently, Evolutionary Theory is considered gender-neutral with 

female- and male-specific corollaries. 

Daly and Wilson (1 988) attribute male-on-male violence to the legacy of ancestral 

human mating strategies based in a system of polygamy. This legacy continues to 

influence behaviors today according to theorists (Campbell et al., 1998). In a polygamous 

system, the more dominant ma!es have access ts a disproportionate share of females. In 

contrast, less dominant males have access to fewer females and are at risk for failing to 

achieve reproductive fitness. The large fitness (or reproductive) variance among males 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
65 

creates intense intragender competition for access to females. Campbell and associates 

(1 998, p. 4 17) summarize findings based on research by Daly and Wilson: 

[Ulsing homicide as an indicator of aggression, male-male killing is the 

most common pattern of homicide, that younger men kill one another at 

the highest rate and that homicide is higher among the unemployed (who 

have few resources with which to secure reproductive advantage) and the 

unmarried. 

These findings suggest that males at-risk for homicides by other males also are at 

risk for reproductive failure. 

Daly and Wilson (1988) demonstrate that rates of homicide between males far 

outstrip homicide rates between females. According to the authors, females are less 

likely to fight over male partners than males are over female partners because 

reproductive success is defined differently by sex. For a male, reproductive success is a 

function of the number of females to which he has sexual access. For a woman, 

reproductive success is a function of her ability to invest as principle caretaker of 

offspring and is limited by her physiology. Lethal violence used by females as a sexual 

strategy (fighting over a male) fails to provide an evolutionary payoff. Campbell and 

colleagues (1 998) suggest that reproductive success among females is based on avoiding 

death because the survival of offspring usually is dependent on the maternal rather than 

the paternal caregiver. According to Daly and Wilson (1 988), one consequence of the 

legacy of polygamy is that the fitness variance characterized by females is smaller than 

among males. There is a greater probability that a female compared to a male will 

produce offspring over the life course. Thus, rivalry between females typically is less 

intense. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
66 

1. Recent Application of Evolutionary Theory to Female-on-Female Assault 

Two publications (Campbell, 1995; Campbell et al., 1998) extend Daly and 

Wilson’s (1 988) evolutionary explanation to female-on-female assault. According to 

Campbell (1 995) and Campbell and associates (1 998), females compete over material 

resources required to ensure the survival of offspring and ultimately to maximize their 

own fitness. Campbell (1 995) identifies six factors associated with female intrasexual 

strategies that may involve intragender assault, and three female-specific forms of 

competition that have been implicated in female-on-female violence. These nine factors 

are described below. 

a. Characteristics/Circumstances Associated with Female Intrasexual , 

Strategy 

According to Campbell (1 995), characteristics and circumstances associated with 

female intrasexual strategies that may increase the risk of female intragender violence 

include: (1) the age of the female; (2) the sex ratio of males and females in the 

community; (3) the proportion of resource-rich male mates; (4) commitment to long-term 

relationships by males; (5) absent fathers; and (6) individual differences between females. 

The first characteristic is the age of the female. According to Campbell (1995), 

during early adolescence females begin to experiment with males in preparation for 

establishing long- term commitments. Campbell (1 995) hypothesizes that during this 

period in the life cycle, “similarly aged girls will compete with one another for access to 

the most desirable males” (p. 109). Consistent with Evolutionary Theory, intragender 

female competition over a male intimate is viewed as a strategy that maximizes her 

reproductive fitness over the long term. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
67 

The second factor involves the sex ratio of females to males in the local 

community as well as the proportion of resource rich mates. Consistent with Daly and 

Wilson (1 990), Campbell (1 995) argues that in communities characterized by a greater 

number of females than males, competition between women over male partners increases. 

Moreover, competition intensifies in communities with a shortage of potential male mates 

who lack the means to contribute to child rearing. Campbell argues (1 995) that urban 

neighborhoods characterized by high rates of male unemployment and incarceration have 

contributed to a reduction of marriageable males. Subsequently, competition between 

females over male intimate partners is expected to intensify in order for females to 

maximize their reproductive fitness and obtain necessary resources for survival. 

The third factor involves the presence of males who do not commit to long-term 

relationships. Research demonstrates that some men prefer short-term liaisons instead of 

long-term committed relationships. According to Campbell (1 999, females may 

accommodate to this behavior by engaging in short-term relationships. In spite of this 

adaptation, Campbell asserts (1 995) that females continue to compete over male partners 

for resources including nurturance and fatherhood as means to enhance their reproductive 

fitness. 

The fourth factor points to the finding that some women involved in intimate 

relationships do not expect a long-term investment by the male as either partner or father. 

Nonetheless, Campbell (1 995) claims that some females require economic resources 

necessary for the survival of offspring. Campbell (1 995) argues that absent fathers 

contribute to the female-on-female competition for necessary resources and this 

competition is most intense in the poorest communities. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
68 

The fifth factor involves individual differences between females. According to 

Campbell, individual differences among young women contribute to competition and 

intragender violence. A young woman who perceives herself as less attractive may be 

more willing than a women who perceives her self as attractive to engage in risky tactics 

(e.g., assault) to secure a male. Moreover, a young woman who matures early may be the 

target of another female’s aggression. Campbell argues that young women who perceive 

themselves as attractive and/or are characterized by early menarche have an evolutionary 

advantage in terms of mate selection, ability to gamer resources and a fertile life 

expectancy. Consequently, members of this group are less likely than other females to 

compete over males, but may be more likely to be targets of aggression by less attractive 

or less mature young women. 

b. Three Female-Specific Forms of Competition 

According to past research intragender female violence revolves around three 

main forms of competition: sexual reputation, competition over access to a desirable 

partner and jealousy regarding ownership of an established partner and his resources 

(Campbell, 1995). 

First, a woman who maintains an untainted sexual reputation increases her chance 

of securing a desirable long-term male mate and eventual reproductive success. A female 

who is accused of promiscuity by another female, on the other hand, may engage in 

violence in order to restore her reputation, which ultimately is required to increase her 

chance of securing a male mate. 

The second source of competition involves rivalry for desirable partners. 

According to Campbell (1995) competition leading to violence intensifies among women 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
69 

who are economically and socially dependent on males. It is this group of women who 

are most in need of the economic resources provided by male partners. 

Third, among some young women, perceived ownership of males carries a right to 

fight off female intruders. According to Campbell (1995), some females who associate 

with males assume a sense of ownership, even when the relationship has terminated. This 

sense of ownership contributes to intragender competition. 

2. Empirical Test of Intragender Female Aggression and Evolutionary 

Theory 

To date one study applied Evolutionary Theory to female-on-female (Campbell et 

al., 1998). Campbell and colleagues (1998) relied upon 1994 NIBRS data for 

Massachusetts districts. The dependent variable was an index that combined arrests for 

aggravated and simple assaults. Independent variables were obtained from the 1990 

Bureau of Census data and consisted of male and female unemployment, female welfare 

status, and the sex ratio in the community. A major goal of the study was to assess 

whether rates of female-on-female assault, similar to rates of male-on-male assault, were 

more common among younger individuals. The researchers found that among males and 

females involved in assault, same sex assault was more common among individuals under 

the age of twenty-four (52% of young men’s assault was intragender compared to 73% of 

young women’s assault). Campbell and associates (1998) draw on this finding to 

substantiate the utility of Evolutionary Theory. 

According to Campbell and colleagues (1998). intragender female assaait, simt!3r 

to male-on-male assault, is related to mating strategies (Campbell et al., 1998, p. 420). 

The authors used multiple regression analysis of the female-on-female arrest rate for 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
70 

assault on measures of female and male unemployment rates, rates of receipt, and the sex 

ratio in the population. The authors selected these measures to assess the relationships 

between female-on-female assault and indicators of a female’s capacity to achieve 

reproductive fitness. Welfare receipt served as a measure of economic need. A sex ratio 

in favor of females served as a measure of a male shortage. According to the results, 

rates of female-on-female assault correlated significantly with welfare receipt. The 

authors attributed this finding to female-on-female competition over males for economic 

resources needed for survival. 

3. Evolutionary Theory: Summary and Limitations 

Empirical results suggest that Evolutionary Theory is relevant to female-onfemale assault and includes gender-neutral and female-specific dimensions. Similar to 

male-on-male assault, female-on-female assault is over-represented among younger 

individuals. This finding suggests a relationship between intragender violence and a 

period during the life course when mating strategies likely are most prevalent. 

Female-specific dimensions emerge based on gender-specific mechanisms for 

achieving reproductive success. According to the theory, for males, reproductive success 

is a function of the number of female partners. In contrast, for females, reproductive 

success is a function of access to male mates andor material resources required for the 

survival of offspring and the female herself. Female-on-female assault that occurs over 

issues of sexual reputation, competition over access to a desirable partner and jealousy 

about ownership of an established partner reflects competition over male mates and their 

resources. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
71 

The major limitation of Evolutionary Theory for explaining female-on-female 

assault (and any behavioral phenomenon) is the lack of means to test the theory 

empirically. We cannot know, for example, that female-on-female violence over required 

resources is linked to issues of reproductive success. According to Daly and Wilson 

(1 990), Evolutionary Psychology is not a theory of motivation, but instead explains why 

certain goals have come to control behavior. Distal explanations for intragender female 

assault (and all behavior) may originate in human evolution guided by the principle of 

reproductive fitness. To date, however, there is no way to test this hypothesis directly. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
72 

111. Female-Specific Theories 

A. Feminization of Poverty Approach (Economic Marginalization) 

According to the Feminization of Poverty thesis women resort to crime in order to 

provide economically for themselves and their children. This theory is based on female 

gendered assumptions and was developed to explain female behavior in particular. Thus, 

the theory is considered female-specific. Central to this theory is the argument that when 

women are economically subordinate to men they are at risk for resorting to crime and 

violence for the purpose of attaining resources necessary for survival. While research 

consistently has shown an association between economic need and male assault, females 

compared to males, face additional economic strain. In describing the uniqueness of 

female poverty, Pearce explains (1 990, p. 267): 

While many women are poor for some of the same reasons that men are 

poor-they live in a job-poor area, they lack the necessary skills or 

education- much of women’s poverty is due to two causes that are 

basically unique to females. Women often must provide all or most of the 

support for their children, and they are disadvantaged in the labor market. 

Research has demonstrated that limited financial resources and concern over 

economic survival are related to female involvement in assault (Campbell et al., 1998; 

Maher, 1997). Such assault often is carried out under circumstances and for reasons 

distinct from male assault. 

Steffensmeier (1 980) originally used this approach to account for increases in 

traditional nonviolent female crimes including larceny and prostitution. Similar to 

Steffensmeier’s research (1 980), most studies of economic marginalization among 

females have focused on nonviolent crime committed in the service of survival (Carlen, 

1988; Chesney-Lind, 1989; Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998; Gilfus, 1992; Miller, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
73 

1986). However, additional research suggests a link between female participation in 

assault and concern over economic survival (Campbell et al., 1998). 

The scope of the literature covered in this section focuses on studies that have 

considered the impact of economic marginalization on female involvement in assault. 

Studies in this area have been conducted at the cross-cultural level, with samples of 

women involved in the underground economy in urban communities, and with women 

arrested for female-on-female assault. 

1. Cross-Cultural Research 

Several cross-cultural studies have demonstrated the relevance of economic 

marginalization for women involved in assault. Anthropologists have reported that in 

societies where women lack economic resources and are dependent on men financially, 

intragender competition between females intensifies and contributes to female-on-female 

aggression (Schuster, 1985). Burbank (1987b) in a survey of 137 societies in the Human 

Relations Area Files reported that the second most fiequent reason for female-on-female 

aggression involved concerns over subsistence. 

2. Studies of Females Involved in the Underground Economy 

Several studies have examined the male-dominated economic structure of the 

underworld and its influence on female involvement in assault as victims and offenders. 

In an ethnographic study of female crack sellers in New York City, Dunlap and 

colleagues (1997) examined roles played by women within drug distribution networks. 

As a consequence of the gendered opportunity structure, most women involved in the 

drug trade were involved in low-level drug distribution activities and sex work. In these 

positions the risk for violent victimization far outweighed the tendency for violent 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
74 

offending. “Employee sellers,” for example, reportedly worked for male distributors 

from whom they faced victimization risks. The authors describe one study respondent’s 

perspective: “[Tlhe younger bosses characteristic of crack distribution today, are ‘wild.’ 

They are quick to resort to violence if their money is not correct and will beat the worker 

or break an arm if things are not in order” (p. 35). 

Several researchers also have discussed violent victimization and offending by 

females within the context of neighborhood economic disadvantage, drug addiction and 

sex work (Maher, 1997; Maher and Curtis, 1993; Maher and Daly, 1995). With limited 

alternative means to earn a living, the women relied on using their bodies for economic 

survival. According to Maher (1 997), historically women addicted to drugs were able to 

earn a living shoplifting. However, as a consequence of deindustrialization shopping 

malls disappeared which left the women with no stores to steal from. 

Maher and Curtis’ (1 993) ethnographic study of female sex workers illustrates 

how crack addiction, victimization by “johns” and the need to counter male oppression, 

contribute to female involvement in assault: According to the authors, female violence 

increased with the advent of crack cocaine and with the subsequent increase in violence 

within the larger urban community. During the late 198O’s, as a consequence of 

increased drug-market activity, profits declined dramatically, and competition for tricks 

increased. The nature of sex work changed from indoor to outdoor locations and fiom 

vaginal intercourse to oral sex. Out of a desperate need to support their crack addition, 

women settled for “cheaper and rougher” tricks and tolerated their physically abusive 

behavior. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
75 

Although the women interviewed by Maher and Curtis (1 993) were more likely to 

be victims than perpetrators of assault, there were instances when women played the 

perpetrator role against male “tricks” who had tried to take advantage of the women by 

refusing to pay for services rendered. Women also reported engaging in violence against 

each other in competition over “tricks.” Consistent with the Feminization of Poverty 

Perspective, female sex and drug workers are economically dependent upon and 

subordinate to their male tricks and drug bosses. The research suggests that these 

positions of dependency and subordination increase a woman’s vulnerability to 

involvement in violence. It is likely that when economic support is withdrawn, a 

female’s risk of engaging in violence against the dominant male or rival female increases. 

3. A Study of Women Arrested for Female-on-Female Assault and the Link 

to Poverty 

Campbell and colleagues (1998) assessed the impact of female poverty on women 

arrested for female-on-female assault. This was the only study located that assessed 

empirically the relationship between poverty and female-on-female assault. The results 

of this study as they pertain to Evolutionary Theory were described above. Several 

additional points regarding the relevance of these study results to the Feminization of 

Poverty thesis are highlighted in the section that follows. 

The authors argue that violence between women is motivated by competition.over 

material resources provided by men which are necessary to ensure the survival of 

offspring. When this source of support is threatened, competition betwecn women and 

the threat of assault intensifies. Campbell and colleagues (1 998) claim that women’s 

economic reliance on men is explained by Feminist Evolutionary Theory. Although 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
16 

Marginalization Theory focuses on immediate circumstances instead of long-term e 

evolution, implications of Campbell’s study are relevant to Marginalization Theory. 

When women are economically subordinate to men, women are placed a position of 

dependency such that when economic support is withdrawn, female-on-female 

competition may intensity over male resources. 

Campbell and associates (1 998) hypothesized that female-on-female assault is a 

function of female poverty resulting from economic dependence on males. The authors 

relied upon 1994 NIBRS data for Massachusetts’ districts. The dependent variable was an 

index that combined arrests for aggravated and simple assaults. Independent variables 

were obtained fi-om the 1990 Bureau of Census data and consisted of rates of female 

unemployment and welfare receipt. Multiple regression analysis of the female-on-female 

arrest rate for assault on measures of female unemployment and welfare receipt supported 

the hypothesis that arrest rates for female-on-female aggression are a function of rates of 

female poverty. Women involved in assault are likely to be economically vulnerable and 

likely to engage in violence with other women over men for economic resources. 

4. Female Assault and Feminization of Poverty Thesis: Summary and 

Limitations 

In sum, research suggests that the feminization of poverty fostered by the 

subordination of women to men contributes to the risk of female involvement in assault. 

Few applications of this perspective, however, have focused on violent crime involving 

women. Increases in nonviolent crimes by women during the 1960’s and l970’s were 

linked to poverty. Most studies have focused on specific populations such as sex workers 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
77 

or arrested women. Notwithstanding these limitations, the results suggest a link between e 

female involvement in assault and the feminization of poverty. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
78 

B. Feminist Victimization Approach 

According to the Feminist Victimization Approach, women are pushed into crime 

as a result of past victimization including abuse as children, domestic violence andor 

substance abuse (Carlen, 1988; Chesney-Lind, 1997; Gilfus, 1992; Miller et al., 1986; 

Richie, 1996). Central to the feminist approach is a sensitivity to the subordinate status 

of females and the patriarchal context of society. According to Chesney-Lind (1 989, p. 

24): 

[Llike young men, girls are frequently the recipients of violence and 

sexual abuse. But unlike boys, girls’ victimization and their response to 

that victimization is shaped by their status as young women. Perhaps 

because of the gender and sexual scripts found in patriarchal families, girls 

are much more likely than boys to be victims of family related sexual 

abuse ...In addition, the fact that young girls (but not necessarily young 

boys) are defined as sexually desirable ... means that their lives on the 

streets (and their survival strategies) take on unique shape - one again 

shaped by patriarchal values. It is no accident that girls on the run from 

abusive homes, or on the streets because of profound poverty, get involved 

in criminal activities that exploit their sexual object status. American 

society has defined as desirable youthfbl, physically perfect women. This 

means that girls on the streets, who have little else of value to trade, are 

encouraged to utilize “this resource.” 

Consistent with feminist theory, researchers have identified differences in risks of 

and responses to victimization that impact the risk of future involvement in assault. 

Girls, for example, are more likely than boys to be victimized both physically and 

sexually by a family member (Dejong et al., 1983; Finkelhor and Baron, 1986; Rivera and 

Widom, 1990; Russell, 1986). Females and males typically respond differently to past 

victimization. Males, for exarliple, are more likely to exhibit externalizing symptonk, 

such as aggressive behavior, while females are more likely to develop internalizing 

disorders, such as depression or anxiety (Keenan and Shaw, 1997). Internalizing 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
79 

disorders may lead to addiction and a drug-oriented lifestyle, which in turn can contribute 

to the risk of female involvement in assault. 

The scope of the literature reviewed in this section includes studies that assess the 

impact of past victimization and its aftermath (e.g., running away, substance abuse, 

prostitution) on violent offending or violent victimization. Several studies on 

victimization that are outside the scope of the feminist perspective are included because 

the results point to a link between childhood victimization and female perpetration of 

assault. 

1. Common Pathways To Violent Victimization 

Victimization theories traditionally focus on the effects of past violent 

victimization on subsequent nonviolent offending and violent victimization. Some 

feminist criminologists describe a common female gender-specific pathway to nonviolent crime and violent victimization: girls run away from abusive homes and engage in 

illegal activity, including theft, prostitution and/or substance use as a means of survival 

(Arnold, 1989; Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998; Miller, 1986). Research has shown that 

some abused girls experience victimization by the criminal justice system (Chesney-Lind, 

1997). This re-victimization may increase their risk of future victimization. Over time 

some females become “structurally dislocated” or detached from the primary socializing 

institutions of family, school and employment (Arnold, 1989) and subsequently develop a 

network of drug- or crime-involved peers including males who foster economic 

dependence and subjugation through physical and sexual violence (Romenesko and 

Miller, 1989). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
80 

Feminists also emphasize the finding that women with histories of trauma often 

turn to drugs as a form of self-medication (Davis, 1997; Inciardi, 1993), a practice that 

further increases the risk of violent victimization.2 Consistent with the Victimization 

Approach is the finding that women using large amounts of cocaine or cocaine on a 

regular basis are more likely to be victims of violence rather than perpetrators, compared 

to their male counterparts who are more likely to be perpetrators (Goldstein et al., 1991). 

2. A Link Between Violent Victimization and Violent Offending By Females 

Studies conducted by Maher (1 997), Maher and Curtis (1 993) and Maher and 

Daly (1 995) are unique because the authors discuss not only the effects of victimization 

on adult women’s involvement in subsequent victimization within the context of 

neighborhood disadvantage, but they also discuss women’s perpetration of violence. 

Maher and Curtis’ (1 995) ethnographic study of female sex workers illustrates how crack 

addiction, victimization by “johns” and the need to counter male oppression contributes 

to female involvement in assault as victims and perpetrators.. These results were 

discussed in the previous section on Feminization of Poverty. It is worth including in this 

section the finding that of the 62 women interviewed by Maher and Curtis (1 999, all had 

been raped or sexually assaulted in the recent past. 

a 

In sum, the results cited above portray females involved in crime and violence as 

Inciardi (1 993), in a review of the literature on women and drugs, reported that females are more likely to 

continue engaging in substance use in order to self medicate compared to males who are more likely to 

continue using drugs for pleasure or because of peer pressure. Moreover, women are more likely than men 

to have experienced depression prior to the addiction while men typically develop the depression in 

response to the drug dependency. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
81 

suffering fiom physical or sexual abuse, depression, poverty, drug addiction, and 

subsequent violent re-victimization (Arnold, 1989; Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998; 

Gilfus, 1992; Richie, 1996). Some of these women go on to perpetrate violence (Maher, 

1997; Maher and Curtis, 1995). Gilfus offers the term “immersion” to describe the 

consequences of survival strategies that result in a woman’s slide into criminality and 

victimization. 

3. Childhood Abuse and Involvement in Assault 

Studies have identified a link between childhood victimization and female 

perpetration of assault. The researchers do not label themselves as advocates of the 

Victimization Approach per se, but the studies are included in this review because they 

assess the impact of past victimization on subsequent involvement in assault. The 

consequences of abuse for females are complex and have been associated with 

externalizing reactions more typical of males (Kendall-Tackett et al., 1993). In an update 

on the cycle of violence research, Widom and Maxfield (2001) found that abused and 

neglected females, compared to control females, were at increased risk for subsequent 

a 

violent crime arrests. Several researchers have identified physical and sexual abuse 

within the home as a major factor that weakens primary bonds of attachment and 

contributes subsequently to violent behavior by females (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; 

Leischied et al., 2000). These findings are significant because girls are more likely than 

boys to be victimized both physically and sexually by a family member (Dejong et al., 

1983; Finkelhor and Baron, 1986; Rivera and Widom, 1990; Russell, 1986). 

Numerous researchers discuss particular effects of childhood abuse by the mother 

and fathedfather-figure. For example, a rupture in the mother-daughter bond 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
82 

characterized by physical abuse has been associated with the adolescent daughter’s use of 

physical aggression. In accordance with Daly (1 994)’ this female may be identified as the 

“harmed-and-harming woman” who was abused as a child, and subsequently responds 

with anger and violence, sometimes through the use of alcohol or drugs. 

0 

The importance of the mother-daughter relationship and its effect on violent 

behavior is echoed in the works of Campbell (1 993, 1999). Campbell (1 993) argues that 

because of complex psychological processes characteristic of gender identity formation 

(Chodorow, 1978) the daughter comes to define herself in relation to and in connection 

with the mother. The relational bond between mother and daughter contributes to the 

daughter’s strong basis for empathy during adulthood and is influenced by the mother’s 

use of expressive (in contrast to instrumental) aggression. According to Campbell’s 

(1 993) study of middle class women and men, women are likely to suppress rather than 

express aggression because they associate aggressive behavior with the fear of losing an 

interpersonal relationship. Withholding aggression, however, only is effective when 

interpersonal bonds are highly valued. Campbell (1999) observed that some low-income 

female gang members, many of whom had experienced broken social bonds as a result of 

childhood abuse, were less likely to associate the potential loss of the relationship with 

physical aggression. Thus, they were more likely to act out physically rather than to 

withhold the aggre~sion.~ 

Campbell (1999) also observed that aggressive behavior was more fi-equent among female gang members 

compared the middle class females because the gang members’ aggressive behavior was considered 

culturally normative. For the middle class women, however, the expression of aggression was associated 

with shame and humiliation that would result in a punitive reaction by others. This reaction by bystanders 

communicated that such outbursts are not socially acceptable by females. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
83 

Research also has demonstrated a link between sexual abuse by a trusted person 

and subsequent violent behavior by the female victim (Artz, 1998; Kendall-Tacket et al., 

1993). Loneliness, fear of abandonment and mistrust give may give way violence (Artz, 

1998). 

Artz (1 998) applied Feminist Victimization Theory to account for female-onfemale adolescent violence. According to self-report surveys of middle- and working 

class adolescent females (1 3- 16 years old), Artz demonstrated that violent girls were 

more likely than non-violent girls to have experienced physical and sexual abuse at home, 

physical victimization by peers and to have used drugs. According to a follow-up 

ethnography based on a small number of girls, Artz (1998) observed that these young 

women grew up in patriarchal families characterized gender inequality. Artz explains (p. 

171): 

The [young women] have seen that men [their fathers] are far more 

important and more powerful than women [their mothers], and that men’s 

importance is not connected to the contributions they make to the greater 

good. Rather it is found in their being stronger and more forceful than 

women. Thus, they have seen that power resides for the most part in 

physical force, that rules have their source in those who have the power to 

impose them. 

Artz observed that young women who witnessed violence by a father-figure to a 

mother-figure or experienced physical abuse by the father-figure had a tendency to 

internalize a male-dominant view of the world. This view, in turn, contributed to the use 

of “oppressed group behavior.” According to Artz (1 998, pp. 178- 179): 

Such behavior is premised upon an attitude of adhesion to the oppressor, 

which demands that those who suffer at the hands of the dominant group 

turn upon members of their own kind whenever they behave in ways that 

are deemed unacceptable to the dominant group. In the girls’ lives the 

males are dominant. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
84 

A girl who is beaten by a father-figure or witnesses his violence toward her 

mother may learn at a young age that females must defer to the needs and views of males. 

As a result, females target other females who act in ways considered inappropriate by the 

dominant male culture. Thus, when girls engage in violence they choose victims who 

mirror their own behavior, girls who are willing to fight for status and control (Artz, 

1998) 

4. Female Involvement in Assault and the Victimization Approach: 

Summary and Limitations 

Studies have documented a link between violent victimization and female assault. 

Most studies have been conducted with select samples. Artz (1998) and Nurge (2000), for 

example, focused on adolescent females. Other researchers selected women in contact 

with the justice system (Acoca, 1996, 1998; Arnold, 1989; Gilfus, 1992; Miller, 1986; 

Richie, 1996; Romenesko and Miller, 1989; Widom and Maxfield, 2001), sex-workers 

(Maher, 1997; Maher and Curtis, 1999, and addicts in treatment (Goldstein et al, 1991). 

These samples are not representative of the larger community. Additional studies that 

assess the link between childhood exposure to violence and women’s involvement in 

assault as antagonists andor victims, as well as studies of intervening mechanisms (e.g., 

drug addiction, poverty), are essential in order to uncover the etiological factors 

underlying female assault and violent victimization. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
85 

IV. Contributing to a Contemporary Debate: The Impact of “Agency” on 

Female Involvement in Assault 

There has been a debate among criminologists regarding the impact of “agency” 

on female involvement in violence (Maher, 1997; Nurge, 2000). “Agency” refers to the 

role of choice; women with “agency” engage in assault as a consequence of choice 

(Maher, 1997). According to Campbell (1 993), female aggression traditionally has been 

described as “expressive.” This type of aggression is non-goal oriented and occurs 

because of failed self-control, often as a consequence of victimization. 

aggression has been described as instrumental. This type of aggression is goal-oriented 

In contrast, male 

and often an act of dominance or control over others (Felson et al., 1996; Luckenbill, 

1977). According to Campbell (1 993, p. 1 1): 

The idea that women may choose to use goal-oriented aggression traditionally has 

received little attention by criminologists. There has been resistance to studying female 

perpetration for fear that the study of violence by women will detract from the much 

needed attention to female victimization and male offending (Nurge, 1998). Only 

recently have criminologists begun to explore this topic (Artz, 1998; Baskin and 

Sommers, 1998; Campbell, 1999; Hagedorn et al., 1999). 

There is evidence that under some circumstances women engage in assault for 

instrumental rather than expressive reasons. For example, several studies suggest that 

women plan the assault event prior to its occurrence (Artz, 1998; Sommers’and Baskin, 

1993). Additional research has demonstrated that violence by some disadvantaged 

women is motivated by the goal of obtaining compliance, maintaining self-respect or 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
86 

reducing the likelihood of subsequent victimization (Anderson, 1999; Artz, 1998; 

Sommers and Baskin, 1998). 

Research suggests that the nature of female instrumental aggression is gendered. 

In a study of robbery, Miller (1998) compared male and female accounts and reported that 

the primary motivation for most males and females was to obtain money. However, there 

were gender differences in the context of robbery. Males used physical violence and 

conducted the assault in a confrontational manner. According to Miller (1998) the routine 

use of guns and physical violence characteristic of male-on-male robberies reflects the 

masculine ideologies of competition for money and goods. In contrast, females carried 

out robbery differently. In most cases they chose female victims and used just enough 

physical force as necessary to accomplish the task. While women perpetrators often 

engaged in assault, they rarely used weapons. Based on Miller’s descriptions, female 

perpetrators were less focuses on power and more focused on obtaining the goods. 

In sum, little is know about instrumental aggression used by females against other 

females. Topics that merit further exploration include the extent to which female-onfemale violence is characterized by planning versus impulsive explosions of anger, 

circumstances ad individual characteristics that favor instrumental versus expressive 

aggression and female-specific dimensions of instrumental aggression. 

V. Theories of Female-on-Female Assault among Urban Black Females: More 

Questions than Answers 

Only a handful of researchers have offered observations or hypotheses for femaleon-female assault (Adams, 1999; Anderson, 1990; &, 1998; Baskin and Sommers; 

Campbell, 1995; Campbell et al., 1998; Oliver, 1989b) as shown throughout this chapter. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
87 

The literature reviewed demonstrates that few theories have been formulated in general 

and none address female-on-female assault among Black women living in urban 

communities in particular. Of all the theories reviewed in this chapter, only four 

researchers provide explanations for intragender female assault (Artz, 1998; Campbell et 

al., 1998; Campbell, 1995; Nurge, 2000; Oliver, 1989b) and only two studies (Nurge, 

2000; Campbell et al., 1998) include components of both gender-neutral and femalespecific theories. 

A. Relevance and Limitations of Gender-Neutral Theories 

Researchers who have applied gender-neutral theories or perspectives to the study 

of women involved in assault include Social Control, Differential Association, Social 

Disorganization, the Structural-Cultural Approach, Routine Activities/ Lifestyle, 

Evolutionary Theory and the Situational Approach. The results suggest that weak family 

bonds, neighborhood structural disadvantage, alternative norms (e.g., the Code of the 

Street), risky lifestyles and psychological problems each contribute to female involvement 

in assault as either offenders or victims (Alarid et al., 2000; Anderson, 1999; Baskin and 

Sommer, 1998; Ellickson and colleagues, 1997,2000; Nurge, 2000; Steffensmeier and 

Haynie, 2000). With the exception of Campbell (1998) and Nurge (2000) none of the 

theorists focus on female-on-female assault Baskin and Sommers (1 998), for instance, 

include examples of female-on-female assault, but only within the context of a discussion 

on female assault more generally. Most studies do not disaggregate the sex of the victim 

and offender simultaneously (e.g., Alarid et al., 2000; Steffensmeier and Haynie, 2000). 

Notwithstanding the limited research on female-on-female violence, tests of genderposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
88 

neutral theories demonstrate that females and males engage in assault for many of the 

same reasons. 

The Structural-Cultural Perspective has particular relevance for a study of Black 

urban females. Studies have demonstrated the relevance of structural factors and 

community norms for understanding assault among urban females more generally 

(Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Nurge, 2000). Hill and Crawford (1990), 

for example, conducted a comparative analysis of assault by Black and white female 

adults. They found that for Black women structural indicators were important predictors 

of female assault while for white women social-psychological factors were more relevant. 

Thus, a study of female-on-female assault conducted with Black residents of a lowincome urban community should include analysis of structural factors and should not be 

restricted to individual-level social-psychological explanations. 

The female-specific corollary to the Structural-Cultural Perspective is relevant to 

a study of intragender assault among Black urban females. The sexual rivalry component 

of the Structural-Cultural perspective was conceptualized for Black urban residents in 

particular. According to Oliver (1 989b), structural disadvantage rooted in economic 

processes and discrimination has led to cultural adaptations by poor Black males 

including the “player of women’’ and “tough guy” images. As outlined earlier in this 

chapter, Oliver hypothesized that such images coupled with a shortage of marriageable 

Black males has contributed to female-on-female conflict over men. To date this 

hypothesis has not been empirically tested. However, Oliver’s rivalry perspective moves 

beyond mainstream criminological theories by addressing the impact of structural barriers 

as they affect opportunities (e.g., for marriage or long-term intimate partner relationships) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
89 

for women (and black women in particular) and subsequent adaptive behaviors that 8 

develop among women. 

The research on gender-neutral theories and perspective reviewed points to the 

need for further development of female-specific corollaries. Additional exploration is 

necessary for explaining sex differentials in effect sizes and for better understanding 

intervening mechanisms that shape female violence. 

B. Relevance and Limitations of Female-Specific Theories 

Researchers who have applied female-specific theories to the study of female 

assault represent two theoretical traditions: the Feminization of Poverty Approach and the 

Victimization Approach. Study results suggest that women at risk for involvement in 

assault are likely to have few economic and social resources and histories of victimization 

(Anderson, 1999; Artz, 1998; Campbell et al, 1998; Hilberman et a1 1978; Laidler et al., 

1997; Maher and Curtis, 1993; Trimpey et al., 1989). 

The Feminist Victimization Approach (Artz, 1998) offers an explanation for 

female-on-female assault. Findings, however, has limited utility or generalizability for 

understanding female-on-female assault among Black women residing in urban 

communities. Artz (1998), for example, studied female-on-female assault among a small 

group of working class adolescent Caucasian females living in Vancouver, Canada. She 

observed that participants involved in female-on-female assault were driven to assault as 

a result of rage and abuse, as well as having internalized patriarchal values. Artz 

attributed female-on-female assault in part to horizontal group oppression resulting from 

internalized patriarchal views. Nurge (2000) identified similar factors among a group of 

urban adolescents involved in intragender female assault. Reasons for involvement in 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
90 

assault among Black adult women, however, are likely to involve additional factors not 

reflected by Artz (1998) or Nurge (2000). 

C. Additional Limitations 

Two additional limitations regarding theories of female-on-female assault among 

Black women residing in low-income urban communities merit attention. The first and 

most basic limitation is the lack of inclusion of important conwpts from both genderneutral and female-specific perspectives. To date, two studies (Heimer and De Coster, 

1999; Nurge, 2000) have addressed concepts from both perspectives. Nurge (2000) 

included components of the Feminist Victimization Approach (Artz, 1998) and the 

Structural-Cultural Perspective (Anderson, 1994, 1999). Heimer and De Coster (1 999) 

integrate Differential Association Theory with Feminist Theory. 

The research reviewed in this chapter suggests that a comprehensive examination 

of female-on-female assault requires an integrated framework that includes components 

drawn from both gender-neutral and female-specific perspectives. The need for a femalespecific theory is rooted in physical and psychological factors as well as the unequal 

distribution of economic and social power across the sexes that uniquely shape female 

intragender assault. Simultaneously, more general gender-neutral components are 

relevant because females, as with males, are influenced by external factors stemming 

from social and economic structure, and situational circumstances. To the extent that 

female-specific corollaries are uncovered, a richer understanding of gender differences 

and pathways toward assault will be discovered. 

A second limitation involves the absence of theory on intragender female assault 

that considers the relevance of gender, class and race/ethnicity. Research on delinquency 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
91 

more generally has demonstrated the relevance of all three constructs (Chesney-Lind et 

al., 1999). Previous studies also have demonstrated an interaction effect between race 

and class. In summarizing the literature on homicide victimization, Short (1997) reported 

no racial differences at higher levels of socioeconomic status, but wide racial differences 

at lower levels with Blacks having much higher risks of victimization. Moreover, Baskin 

and Sommers (1 998) reported that among a sample of 341 women arrested in New York 

City, women living in the poorest neighborhoods compared to those fiom other 

neighborhoods were disproportionately represented among the arrestees; 69 percent of the 

Black female offenders lived in areas characterized by high concentrations of poverty, 

compared to only 20 and 11 percent of Hispanic and white women, respectively. 

According to the authors (p. 28): 

Regardless of race, women fiom high concentration of poverty 

neighborhoods are involved disproportionately in violent crime. Black 

women, however, are significantly more likely to reside in these 

neighborhoods compared to Hispanic or white women. Consequently, it is 

not surprising to find higher levels of Black female involvement in nondomestic violent crimes. 

e 

Baskin and Sommers (1998) acknowledge structural circumstances of women 

(e.g., declining marriage rates and the decline in value of welfare benefits), but focus their 

analysis on class and race factors rather than gendered factors that may contribute Mer 

to female involvement in violence. 

In addition, research has demonstrated that women of different ethnicities 

experience poverty differently (Chesncy-Lind et al., 1999). Differences in cultural 

traditions contribute to differences in adaptations to poverty that likely influence the use 

violence. In contrast to low-income Black residents of the inner city, for example, male 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
92 

and female Latinos tend to maintain a more traditional patriarchal view of the family 

which has contributed to greater normative support for marriage over single status 

(Oropesa, 1999; Wilson, 1996). Consequently, low-income Latina women are more 

likely to marry than their Black counterparts. Whether one marries may have 

implications for female involvement in violence. Campbell and colleagues (1 998) cite 

findings that single women are more likely than married women engage in female-onfemale violence. These examples illustrate the significance of the social context of Black 

economically disadvantaged women residing in urban areas. For it is this context that 

likely influences the nature and causes of female-on-female assault. Thus, any theory of 

Black women’s involvement in violence needs to be studied within the social context of 

class, race/ethnicity, and gender norms (Rice, 1990). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
93 

CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

I. Introduction 

The theoretical fiamework developed in this dissertation to explain female-onfemale assault among Black women residing in a low-income community is based on a 

social structural strain theory that locates explanations of high rates of violence in the 

economic and social structure of urban America. The goal of the proposed theory is to 

move beyond the application of social structural strain theory as an explanation of male 

violence and extend those theoretical constructs that offer explanatory power for femaleon-female violence. This theory draws from three theoretical traditions: (1) strain, (2) the 

structural-cultural perspective and (3) feminist theories and gender studies. 

Strain Theory and Structural-Cultural Perspective 

Strain theorists (Cohen, 1966; Cloward and Olin, 1960) traditionally have argued 

that norm-violating behavior including high rates of violence originate from socialstructural conditions faced by poor urban residents. Structural barriers prevent the 

attainment of conventional goals and lead to adaptations that under certain conditions 

result in violence. According to Cohen (1 966, p. 107): 

The structure of the larger system, its culture and social organization, 

create for people at each position in the system characteristic problems of 

adjustment and equip them, well or poorly, with the means for coping with 

them. Where the means for coping within the framework of the 

institutionalized norms are insufficient, or the occupants of these positions 

poorly equipped to take advantage of them, they will tend to reject those 

aspects of the culture and contribute to the creation of the problems or 

barriers to their solution, and to substitute aspirations and norms that they 

can live with more comfortably. When the problem is one ... of achieving 

status and self-respect by 'the conventional criteria for measuring a 

person's worth, the response tends to take the form of substituting new 

criteria that they can meet. These criteria may permit or require behavior 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
94 

that violates the norms of conventional society; they may justify or 

demands deviant behavior. 

As with strain-based theorists, social disorganization theorists emphasize structural 

characteristics in the genesis of urban violence. According to Shaw and McKay (1 942), 

socially disorganized neighborhoods, which developed as a result of rapid 

industrialization, urbanization and immigration, are characterized by high rates of 

violence. Arguing from the same theoretical tradition originally proposed by Shaw and 

McKay (1 942), Sampson and Wilson (1 995) advance a more recent structural-cultural 

theory of violence in which both structural and cultural factors are seen to influence 

interpersonal violence rates in inner-city communities. In contrast to the subculture of 

violence theory (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1975), Sampson and Wilson (1995) make an 

explicit distinction between structure and culture. They argue that the broader structural 

barriers precede and give rise to cultural norms that under certain circumstances include 

the use of violence. 

Feminist Theory and Gender Studies 

The third perspective included in the theoretical framework is based on feminist 

theory and gender studies research. In one of the few studies to assess the joint influence 

of structure and culture, Heimer and DeCoster (1 999) found that attitudes toward gender 

serve as mediating factors which contribute to variations in violence by females compared 

to males. Similar to Heimer and DeCoster (1 999), the proposed theory applies insights 

from feminist theory and gender studies to desciibc pathways that link cultural 

adaptations to violence differently for females and males. Three major insights from 

feminist theory and gender studies are proposed as factors that are expected to 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
95 

differentiate pathways to female-on-female assault versus male-on-male assault. They 

include (1) adherence to patriarchal norms; (2) the unequal distribution of opportunities 

for economic success for females compared to males and the subsequent 

overrepresentation of females among the disadvantaged; and (3) the role of interpersonal 

relationships in the lives of males and females. These factors are reviewed below. 

e 

Feminists argue that the female experience merits explanation within the context 

of a patriarchal society (Chesney-Lind, 1989). According to Heimer and De Coster 

(1999, p. 282): 

A key contribution of feminist and gender studies has been their focus on 

the powerful system of social control, patriarchy, that influences the social 

arrangements, cognitions, and behavior of female and males. This system 

of social control is effective in part because people accept and participate 

in reproducing definitions of the “essential natures” of the sexes as 

inherently different. 

Heimer and De Coster (1 999) apply the term “cultural gender definitions,” to 

describe behaviors or traits characteristic of females and males who adhere to 

patriarchal norms. Studies have demonstrated that females involved in 

intragender assault often adhere to patriarchal norms and behave in ways that 

support female subordination to male domination (Artz, 1998; Nurge, 2000). In 

this study, the presence of gender definitions signifies adherence to patriarchal 

norms. It will be argued that adherence to these norms shapes cultural adaptations 

that, in turn, increases the risk of intragender violence by both sexes. It will be 

argued, however, that the mechanisms by which patriarchal norms operate for 

female-on-female versus male-on-male violence will vary by gender. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
96 

The second component is drawn from the feminization of poverty thesis. 

According to this perspective, females compared to their male counterparts face more 

severe economic barriers and fewer opportunities to achieve economic success. 

Consequently, females are overrepresented among the disadvantaged. This explanation 

typically has been used to account for non-violent female crime (i.e. retail theft). 

However, research has shown that under some circumstances conflict over the need for 

material goods increases the risk of female-on-female violence (e.g., see Campbell et al., 

1998; Maher, 1997). 

The third component focuses on the centrality of interpersonal relationships for 

females (Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1993; Miller, 1986). Relational needs, while not less 

important for males, are likely to function differently for females. Several explanations 

have been offered to explain this gender difference. Campbell (1 993), for example, 

argues that because of psychological processes characteristic of gender identity formation 

(Chodorow, 1978) the daughter typically comes to define herself in relation to and in 

connection with the mother. In contrast, the son generally experiences separation from 

the female caretaker, which contributes to a male-specific orientation toward 

interpersonal relationships. 

Miller argues that in the dominant-subordinate structure of society, women are 

assigned the roles of caretaker and carrier of emotions by the dominant male gender 

(1986, p. 39): 

- 

Men are encouraged from early life to be active and rational; women are 

trained to be involved with emotions and with the feelings occurring in the 

course of all activity. Out of this, women have gained the insight that 

events are important and satisfying only if they occur within the context of 

emotional relatedness. They are more likely than men to believe that, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
97 

ideally, all activity should lead to an increased emotional connection with 

others. 

These gender differences are likely to influence cultural norms toward violence 

differently for females compared to males. In short, the theoretical framework integrates 

elements of strain, structural-cultural and feminist theories and is comprised of three main 

components: 

(1) sources of structural strain that are likely to block conventionally-defined goal 

attainment by Black women residing in disadvantaged communities; 

(2) adaptations or alternative goals defined by the limits of blocked opportunity and by 

gender; and 

(3) subsequent gendered (female- and male-specific) adaptations that are likely to contain 

points of conflict that under certain circumstances increase the risk of intragender 

violence. 

A. Commonly Cited Applications Used to Explain the Link between 

Structural Disadvantage, Blocked Opportunity and Violence 

Recent proponents of the structural or social disorganization perspective(s) argue 

that historic, economic and political macro-structural factors have combined to 

concentrate Black poverty in inner-city areas. Discrimination and economic processes 

resulting from deindustrialization have had the consequences of increasing rates of Black 

male unemployment and female-headed households, and decreasing rates of marriage. 

These factors have contributed to the emergence of neighborhoods characterized by social 

isolation from mainstream institutions and reduced formal and informal social control 

(Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Oliver, 1989b; Wilson, 1987, 1996). 

Within impoverished neighborhoods characterized by poor schools, an absence of 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
98 

conventional role models, few job opportunities, and distrust of and alienation from 

mainstream authorities, some female (and male) residents adapt by adhering to alternative 

norms. In some communities, for example, researchers have observed that, similar to 

male violence, female violence has emerged as an adaptation to structural disadvantage 

(Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Nurge, 2000). Macro-structural barriers 

prevent access to conventionally-defined goal attainment and, in turn, give rise to 

alternative non-normative goals and adaptations that at times involve the use of violence. 

To date most applications of theories that draw on social structure, barriers to 

opportunity and the link to violence have been based on assumptions specific to males 

and have been applied to the study of male violence. Recent interpretations of violence 

by disadvantaged urban males with few traditional means to earn success have focused on 

the emergence of heightened masculinity that includes the use of violence as an 

alternative means to validate manhood (Anderson, 1999; Canada, 1 995; Fagan and 

Wilkinson, 1998; Messerschmidt, 1997; Oliver, 1994; Sullivan, 200 1). Few scholars, 

however, have assessed the impact of social structural strain on women, the differential 

effect of gender norms on the risk of intragender assault or how pathways toward femaleon-female violence are similar to and different from pathways toward male-on-male 

violence. 

B. Applications Used to Explain the Link between Structural Disadvantage, 

Blocked Opportunity and Female Violence 

The authors of four studies of female assault summarized in the previous chapter 

attribute female violence to cultural noms or behaviors that emerge from structural strain 

that block achievement of conventional goals (Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
99 

1998; Campbell et al., 1998; Nurge, 2000). Only two studies, one by Nurge (2000) and 

one by Campbell and colleagues (1998) assess female-on-female assault in particular. A 

few points are reiterated below in order to highlight the application of social structural 

strain theory to female assault. 

In the first study, Baskin and Sommers (1998) sampled 341 women arrested for 

non-domestic violent offenses and discovered that the average number of assault arrests 

was significantly higher for women from high poverty neighborhoods than for women 

from low- or moderate-income neighborhoods. The finding that study participants were 

disproportionately represented in high poverty neighborhoods is an indication that a 

structural disadvantage or social disorganization explanation is a fi-uitful approach to the 

study of female-on-female assault. 

In the same theoretical tradition as Sampson and Wilson (1995), Baskin and 

Sommers (1998) propose a link between structure and culture. Baskin and Sommers 

a 

(1 998) demonstrated that among structurally dislocated women with few means to 

achieve conventionally-defined success, residents adapt by placing increased emphasis on 

respect to the extent that it becomes a commodity worth competing &d fighting over. In 

the second study, Nurge (2000) sampled 58 adolescent urban females and, similar to 

Baskin and Sommers (2000), documented the importance of maintaining respect given 

the lack of alternative means to attain success. 

Anderson (1 999) offered a detailed analysis of sources of strain rooted in 

historical discrimination that contribute to adaptive behaviors including fighting in the 

.- 

service of self protection. He observed that male and female residents of structurally 

disadvantaged neighborhoods reported disrespect and neglect by police and service 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
100 

personnel. These observations are consistent with other studies of urban women 

(Dodson, 1998). Thus, when a member of the community is confronted with a problem 

he/she is less likely than a member of a middle class community to reach out to 

mainstream institutions for assistance. Yet the goal of ensuring self protection and 

protection of loved ones does not diminish in importance. Instead, some residents take 

matters into their own hands by resorting to the use of violence when necessary 

(Anderson, 1999; Black, 1983). 

In the fourth study, Campbell and colleagues (1 998) sampled a group of women 

arrested for intragender female assault and found an association between arrest and 

poverty. Although the authors set out to test Evolutionary Theory and do not mention 

structural strain per se, they nevertheless attribute female-on-female assault to 

competition over resources. This finding, therefore, likely reflects strain that 

subsequently leads to an adaptation involving fighting over material resources. 

All four groups of researchers suggest that female assault is an adaptation to 

structural disadvantage and blocked opportunity. Studies by Anderson (1 999), Baskin 

and Sommers (1 998) and Nurge (2000) suggest that for women with limited access to 

status by means of academic, occupational or monetary success, personal respect becomes 

worth fighting over. According to Anderson (1 999) residents (females and males) with 

limited access to protection by mainstream institutions become involved in violence to 

ensure their own safety. Moreover, Campbell and associates (1 998) argue that lowincome women adapt to their circumstances by becoming involved in assault with other 

females to obtain resources necessary for survival. Of these researchers, only Campbell 

and Nurge assess intragender female assault. Anderson (1 999) and Baskin and Sommers 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
101 

(1 998) discuss assault by women more generally without specifying the sex of the 

antagonist. 

The research highlighted above suggests that structural strain blocks opportunities 

for achievement of conventional goals including academic and occupational achievement 

that provide intrinsic (e.g. self-esteem) and extrinsic (e.g. material resources) rewards, 

and protection of one’s self and loved ones. Study results suggest the presence of a third 

conventional goal that many impoverished Black women have been unable to attain: 

securing and maintaining long-term male intimate partner relationships (Browning et al, 

1999; Jarrett, 1998; Wilson, 1987). Male intimate partnerships by virtue of their extreme 

scarcity in these communities take on an emotional and practical importance that may set 

the stage for intragender female conflict. Studies conducted in the U.S. (Hirschinger et 

al., 2001; Nurge, 2000), England (Campbell, 1986; Campbell et al., 1998), Canada (Artz, 

1998), and at the cross-cultural level (Burbank, 1987b) all cite conflicts over male 

intimate partners as a top reason for female-on-female assault. This finding holds for 

working class Canadian Caucasian adolescents (Artz, 1998) as well as low-income urban 

minority women (Hirschinger et al., 2001) and adolescents (Nurge, 2000). Thus, given 

the findings that women who become involved in assault often become violent over 

issues related to male intimate partners, and the structural barriers that reduce the chance 

of securing a male partner, it is likely that disadvantaged Black women residing in urban 

areas are particularly vulnerable to involvement in female-on-female assault over male 

intimate partners. 

In sum, the research summarized here suggests that some inner-city women who 

0 have not achieved conventionally-defined goals resort to violence as a means to achieve 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
102 

newly-defined goals or as an adaptation to blocked opportunity. The studies suggest that 

structural strain blocks opportunities for the achievement of three goals: (1) marriage or a 

long-term male intimate partner relationship among heterosexual women; (2) academic 

and occupational success; (3) and protection of oneself and loved ones. 

In the proposed theory outlined in the following section, adaptations to barriers 

that block goal attainment that are likely to contain points of contention and potential for 

intragender female violence are described. Mechanisms hypothesized to shape cultural 

adaptations that increase the risk of intragender violence also are compared across gender. 

11. A Proposal for a New Perspective To Study Female-on-Female Assault: A 

Theory of Gendered Social Structural Strain with 3 Theoretical Components 

Related to Sources of Success among Urban Females 

The theory of female-on-female assault described in this section is labeled 

Gendered Social Structural Strain in order to highlight two key points. First, components 

of strain and structural barriers faced by females are identified and considered central to 

the theory. Second, the theory draws on findings fiom feminist and gender studies with 

the aim of identifying female-specific adaptations to strain that differentially shape 

pathways to intragender assault by gender of the participants. 

In accordance with the definition outlined in Chapter two, Gendered Social 

Structural Strain is considered a gender-neutral theory with a female-specific corollary. 

Strain and structural-cultural theories have explanatory value for female and male 

involvement in assault and therefore are considered gender-neutral. The integration of 

female-specific strain, feminist theory and insights fiom gender studies necessitates 

inclusion of gender-specific (female and male) corollaries. The proposed theory, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
103 

therefore, also focuses on female-specific dimensions of intragender assault as well as 

gender-neutral dimensions that are expected to be invariant across gender. 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory offers several advantages. First, 

application of strain theory and the structuralkultural perspective to intragender assault 

provides the opportunity to extend traditional criminological theory to female intragender 

assault. Second, identification of similarities and differences in mechanisms underlying 

female-on-female versus male-on-male assault will provide an increased understanding of 

the topic and illuminate areas for prevention and intervention. 

In presenting the proposed theory, normative goals are outlined, sources of 

structural strain that block goal attainment identified, and subsequent adaptations 

reviewed. Mechanisms that are expected to contribute to gender-specific and genderneutral cultural adaptations are described. It is expected that both gender-neutral and 

female-specific adaptations emerge from structural blockages, and contain points of 

conflict that potentially contribute to the risk of female intragender assault. 

Consistent with the definitions set forth in Chapter 2, female-specific adaptations 

refer to mechanisms or pathways to intragender assault that in some way distinguish 

female-on-female assault from male-on-male assault. In contrast, gender-neutral 

adaptations refer to adaptations by males and females that increase the risk of assault by 

both genders and whose effects are not likely to vary in magnitude. Gender-specific and 

gender-neutral pathways are described in Figure 3- 1. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
104 

GenderNeutral 

Figure 3-1: Gender-Neutral and Gender-Specific Path ways to Intragender Assault 

Structural strain -+ blocked goal -+ gender-neutral -+ intragender assault 

adaptat ion regardless of gender 

GenderSpecific 

Structural strain -+ blocked goal -+ female-specific -F female intragender 

adaptation assault 

k male-specific -+ male intragender 

adaptat ion assault 

Sociological studies outside the scope of female violence are reviewed because 

few explanations for female-on-female violence among low-income women have been 

published. The goal of the expanded review is to generate hypotheses regarding the 

effects and pressures of daily life experienced by disadvantaged Black females and their 

impact on gender-neutral and female-specific adaptations and subsequent involvement in 

intragender violence. Female-specific adaptations to blocked opportunity focus on 

adaptations that emerge in response to blocked opportunities to the attainment of three 

goals: 

(1) marriage or long-term male intimate partner relationships; 

(2) academic and occupational success; 

(3) safety and protection of oneself and one’s fmily/fiiends. 

Gender-neutral adaptations, or adaptations defined more generally, independent of 

gender and in accordance with traditional criminological theories, also emerge in 

response to blocked opportunities to two goals listed above: 

(1) academic and occupational success; 

(2) safety and protection of oneself and one’s family/fiiends; 

In the following sections, three goals are described: (1) marriage, (2) academic 

and occupational success, and (3) safety and protection. For each goal, three components 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
105 

are reviewed. The first focuses on structural barriers that prevent goal attainment. The 

second centers on adaptations to structural strain that are likely to increase the risk of 

female-on-female violence. The third focuses on distinguishing female-specific and malespecific mechanisms that are expected to influence female and male intragender assault 

differently. Table 3- 1 summarizes the goals, sources of structural strain, consequences of 

strain and female-specific adaptations, which are detailed in the sections that follow. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
106 

Table 3-1: A Theory of Gendered Social Structural Strain: Summary of Key Components 

GOAL 

Marriage provides: 

9 Interpersonal relationships 

9 economic resources 

Academic/OccuDa tional Success 

provides: 

9 Interpersonal relationships 

with teachers/employers 

9 Economic resources including 

intrinsic and extrinsic rewards 

SafetWrotection provides: 

9 Freedom fiom fqar of 

crime & victimization 

9 Trust in mainstream 

institutions 

SOURCE OF STRAIN 

9 Economic 

9 Public Policy 

9 Adaptations to poverty 

9 Relational motives 

b Educational System 

9 Feminization of Poverty 

b High crime and victimization 

9 Historical discrimination 

> Lack of institutional support 

rates 

CONSEQUENCES 

9 Shortage of marriageable 

males 

9 Reduced marriage rates 

> Distrust between males 

and females 

9 Low levels of 

9 Un /underemployment 

9 Absence of material 

resources 

9 Conventional measures 

of worth lose their value 

academic attainment 

9 Children socialized to 

take matters into their 

own hands 

9 Generalized fear and 

lack of safety 

ADAPTATIONS 

relationships and 

resources that may 

result in violence 

9 Competition for 

> Emphasis on culturallydefined goals: 

boyfiiends 

reproduction 

respect 

resources 

9 Competition & violence 

over goals 

9 Violence used as an 

informal means to 

solve grievances 

> Violence occurs more 

readily due to fear 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
107 

A. Marriage or Establishment of Long-Term Monogamous Relationships: A 

Goal Shared by Black Disadvantaged Females 

Studies have shown that in spite of the low rate of marriage among impoverished 

Black women residing in the inner-city, many continue to view marriage as a goal 

(Jarrett, 1998; Ladner, 1971; Wilson, 1996). For women, marriage satisfies at least two 

female-gendered functions: relational needs, and economic functions that center on 

family support. Females, more so than males, have been found to have emotional needs 

that are grounded in the importance of creating and maintaining interpersonal 

relationships (Gilligan, 1993, Miller, 1986). Disadvantaged females also face greater 

economic strain than males as a consequence of restricted opportunity and the need for 

many single mothers to serve as the major source of financial support for the family 

(Pearce, 1990). 

In the section that follows trends on marriage rates in the U.S. among Black 

residents are presented. The results demonstrate that in spite of the high rate of nonmarriage among impoverished Black women inner-city women, many women continue to 

support the idea of marriage (Jarrett, 1998; Ladner, 1971; Wilson, 1996). 

In the United States, there has been a general decline in the rate of marriage. This 

decline, however, has been most dramatic among Black men and women compared to 

other racial groups (Bachrach et al., 2000). According to the 1995 NationaZ Survey of 

Family Growth, for example, 57 percent of Black women born between 1950-1 954 were 

married by age 25 compared to 32 percat bani betiwen 1965-1969. For white women 

born between 1950-1954,73 percent were married by age 25 compared to 57 percent in 

the1965-1969 cohort. It is estimated that the race differential will narrow only slightly by 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
108 

the time the women reach 50 years of age (Raley, 2000). Cohabitation has to some extent 

replaced marriage among all socioeconomic groups in the U.S. In a comparative study of 

white and Black couples, however, cohabitation by white women was almost twice as 

likely to lead to marriage than for Black women by the age of 25 (Raley, 2000). This is 

significant given that cohabiting relationships are generally less permanent, less stable 

and less sexually exclusive thanmarriage (Bachrach et al, 2000). 

i 

Demographic data on marriage among inner city residents reveal a high rate of 

non-marriage among Black residents. According to ;he Urban Poverty and Family Life 

Study (UPFLS), a random survey of 2,500 residents conducted during 1987 and 1988 of 

Chicago’s inner-city residents, 60 percent of Black adults 18-44 years of age had never 

been married. Twenty-eight percent of Black parents between 18-44 were currently 

married compared to 75 percent of the Mexican parents, 61 percent of white parents and 

45 percent of Puerto Rican parents fiom the same age group. Only 6 percent of Black 

expectant inner-city fathers were estimated to marry prior to the child’s birth. In contrast, 

16 percent of Mexican and 18 percent of white fathers were expected to marry before the 

child was born (Wilson, 1996). 

In spite of the high rate of non-marriage among impoverished Black inner-city 

women, many continue to support the idea of marriage (Jarrett, 1998; Ladner, 1971; 

Wilson, 1996). Although economically marginal Black women generally are aware of the 

difficulties of finding a “good man” capable of providing and protecting a family, many 

hold on to the hope of finding one (Browning et al., 1999). Impoverished urban Black 

women, however, express ambivalent feelings about marriage, an expected reaction given 

the shortage of available men for marriage. Many low-income Black young women 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
109 

aspire to marriage, but as they grow older and observe that few men are able to support a 

family, many lose the incentive to marry (Ladner, 197 1 ; Wilson, 1996). While many 

low-income Black women hold onto the dream of marriage or at least a long-term 

relationship, research indicates that among disadvantaged Black males marriage is less 

likely to be a goal, in large part because of low-waged labor jobs that make it difficult to 

support a family. 

In the next section it will be shown that structural barriers have shaped women’s 

attitudes toward marriage and long-term monogamous relationships. Economic forces 

located in the historical and social structure of Black urban communities have worked 

against long-term heterosexual monogamous relationships characteristic of mainstream 

society. The major structural barrier to long-term stable monogamous relationships has 

. 

been male unemployment and underemployment (Ladner, 197 1 ; Wilson, 1987). It will be 

demonstrated that cultural adaptations to structural barriers thwart the development of 

long term, stable intimate partnerships and, in turn, serve as factors proximate to the 

violent event. 

1. Sources of Structural Strain that Block Opportunities For Marriage: 

Economics, Public Policies, Adaptations to Poverty and Relational Motives 

Structural strain that blocks opportunities to marriage or long-term monogamous 

relationships involve economic factors, U. S. public policies, adaptations to poverty and 

relational motives. These four sources of structural strain are reviewed below. 

I During slavery, for example, husbands and wives were sold individually. Marriage among Blacks 

historically has not been defined as a permanent union. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
110 

Economic Barriers 

The most significant economic barrier to long-term monogamous relationships 

among impoverished Black women is the high rate of male unemployment and 

underemployment. These rates increased dramatically with deindustrialization (see 

Wilson, 1987, and Raley, 2000, for a detailed discussion). Even prior to the economic 

transformation and the exodus of the Black middle class from urban communities, 

impoverished Black couples resisted marriage because of economic hardships. 

According to Stack’s seminal work on Black kinship networks conducted during the mid 

19603, marriage was perceived as a risky endeavor (1 974, p. 1 13): 

Couples rarely chance marriage unless a man has a job; often the job is 

temporary, low-paying, insecure, and the worker gets laid off whenever he 

is not needed. Women come to realize that welfare benefits and ties 

within kin networks provide greater security for them and their children. 

Wilson (1987) demonstrated empirically the repercussions of Black male 

unemployment for impoverished Black women. Wilson’s research shows that declines in 

marriage resulted from declines in stable, well-paying employment opportunities in 

manufacturing industries. This, in turn, reduced the number of males able to provide for a 

family. Wilson demonstrated further that for Black women the major cause of low rates 

of marriage and high rates of divorce, separation and single motherhood, was male 

unemployment. For white women, however, the major cause of divorce, separation and 

female-headed households was their own improved economic status. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
111 

US. Public Policies 

In addition to economic factors, public policies of the last 25 years have 

contributed to a decrease in rates of marriage among Black urban residents. The War on 

Drugs and, more 

generally, increased punitive prosecutorial sentencing policies have led to dramatic 

increases in the incarceration rate of urban Black males. These factors combined with the 

high rates of AIDS and homicide among Black inner-city men during the past two 

decades have reduced the number of men available for marriage. In addition, state 

welfare programs with eligibility requirements of unmarried status (the man in the house 

rule) undermined the institution of marriage among recipients of benefits (Pivan and 

Cloward, 1971). These factors all have contributed to a further decline in the rates of 

marriage among economically marginal Black men and women in inner-city 

communities. 

Adaptations to Poverty: Resource Sharing and Attitudes Toward Marriage 

A third source of structural strain that has blocked opportunities for long-term 

monogamous relationships has emerged from adaptations to poverty itself. These 

adaptations include “resource sharing” (Stack, 1974) and attitudes toward marriage. 

Resource Sharing 

Studies conducted during the 19603, as well as recent studies, have demonstrated 

that coping strategies used to survive poverty often impede the establishment of longterm intimate relationships. Stack (1 974) conducted an ethnographic study of kinship 

patterns among poor Black families in a U.S. Midwest City and examined adaptive 

strategies used by Black women. She observed that women formed strong kinship ties 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
112 

with other women largely because men could not be relied upon to provide economic 

support due to the absence of steady employment. Women came to rely upon a system of 

“resource sharing;” in other words, women depended upon their female kin as steady 

sources of income for meeting daily expenses and surviving the frequent crises that result 

from not having an excess of accumulated resources. Many female kin discouraged 

marriage because it would remove a woman from the network, weakening the level of 

support available to the other women. According to Browning and colleagues (1 999), the 

socialization process of discouraging marriage emerged from the economic constraints 

that prevented steady and lucrative employment among males, rather than from the 

rejection of marriage itself. The female’s kin feared that the unemployed male would 

drain the group of economic resources. Similarly, the male’s extended female kin often 

feared that they would lose the male’s limited resources to his girlfriend and her family. 

Thus, in order to preserve limited resources, kin members discouraged both males and 

females from investing in monogamous relationships. Instead, members of the extended 

family were encouraged to remain tied to their kinship network of origin. 

In the thirty-five years since Stack’s research, impoverished inner-city Black 

families face even worse economic conditions. Since 1970, the number of Black femaleheaded households has increased dramatically. In 1 970 female-headed households 

represented 28 percent of all Black households, in 1980 they represented 40 percent and 

in 1990,44 percent. Second, the Black female heads of households of the 1990’s are 

younger, have never been married, and have children outside of marriage (Jarrett, 1998). 

With these changes, it is likely that control of resource sharing has become an even more 

important means to survival. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
113 

Attitudes Toward Marriage 

An additional adaptation to poverty that serves as a barrier to long-term 

monogamous relationships involves attitudes toward marriage held by inner-city women 

and men. In an ethnographic study of inner-city Chicago residents, Wilson (1 996) 

identified different attitudes toward marriage held by women and men. Women 

maintained an interest in marriage, but held low expectations that marriage would occur. 

They expressed an awareness that few males are able to provide economically for a 

family. Men, on the contrary, expressed little interest in marriage and greater interest in 

maintaining freedom as an unattached man. According to Wilson (1 996) and Anderson 

(1 990) these attitudes have been fostered by the shortage of steady well paying 

employment that is necessary for supporting a family economically. The Chicago data 

reveal that both males and females believe that because relationships eventually end, it 

makes the most sense to avoid marriage altogether. The interviews uncovered a deep 

sense of distrust that characterizes male-female relationships, a finding consistent with 

studies by Anderson (1 990, 1999) and Oliver (1 989b, 1994). According to Wilson (1 996, 

p. 98-99): 

Inner-city Black women ... feel strongly than Black men lack dedication to 

their families. They argue that Black males are hopeless as either 

husbands and fathers and that more of their time is spent on the streets 

than at home ... [Women] tend to believe that Black men get involved with 

women mainly to obtain sex or money, and that once these goals are 

achieved women are usually discarded ... There is a widespread feeling 

among women ... that Black males have relationships with more than one 

female at a time ... Whereas tvornen blime men f~r the poor gcnder 

relations, men maintain that it is the women who are troublesome. The 

men complain that it is not easy to deal with the women’s suspicions about 

their behavior and intentions. They also feel that women are especially 

attracted by material resources and that it is therefore difficult to find 

women who are supportive of partners with a low living standard. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
114 

Relationally Based Deterrents to Marriage 

In addition to not marrying for reasons rooted in economic survival, recent 

research has uncovered a relationally-based deterrent to marriage. Jarrett (1 998) 

demonstrated that some mothers of both young women and men play a role in 

discouraging marriage by their children. Jarrett (1 998) conducted focus groups with 82 

inner-city low-income Black mothers (20-29 years old) and grandmothers (39 to 65 years 

old) and observed that grandmothers were critical of their daughters’ boyfhends. 

According to Jarrett (1 998)’ the grandmothers often discouraged their daughters from 

having relationships with the boyfriends in order to protect the resource base and the 

daughters from potentially harmful relationships. 

Research also has demonstrated that mothers of some young adult males interfere 

with their sons’ relationships with girlfriends. Many Black urban mothers lack their own 

male intimate partners and as a result some grow to rely on their sons for companionship 

(Anderson, 1990). Some mothers may become possessive of their sons and as a 

consequence jealousies may develop between the sons’ mothers and the sons’ girlfriends 

This mother-son dynamic may serve as a further barrier to the formation of male-female 

steady intimate partner relationships. 

In sum, economic factors involving male dunder-employment, public policies, 

adaptations to poverty and relational motives have functioned to block opportunities to 

marriage or long-term monogmous relationships 

opportunities for marriage arguably leads to adaptations that increase one’s vulnerability 

Sttuctural strain that blocks 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
115 

to situations that contain the sources of conflict that can result in female-on-female 

violence. This is the topic of the section that follows. 

2. Female-on-Female Violence: An Adaptation to Blocked Opportunity to 

Marriage or Long-Term Monogamous Relationships 

Research suggests that both male and female residents of Black economically 

marginal urban neighborhoods have developed cultural adaptations to the unavailability 

or impracticality of marriage (Jarrett, 1998; Stack, 1974; Wilson, 1996). Such cultural 

adaptations have emerged largely as a consequence of blocked opportunities to marriage 

or long-term relationships. The shortage of marriageable males and the expectation held 

by many disadvantaged urban residents that marriage probably will not occur have given 

way to adaptive behaviors, which in turn are likely sources of conflict with the potential 

to result in violence. Females are likely to assume these adaptive behaviors in order to 

fulfill relational and economic needs. These adaptive behaviors are described below. 

First, long-term monogamous relationships to a large degree have been replaced 

by serial monogamy characterized by a series of short-term, successive relationships 

(Wilson, 1996) and “polygamy” based on a system where females share male intimate 

partners (Oliver, 1989b). Female-on-female violence that occurs within the context of 

these adaptive behaviors is readily interpreted as sexual rivalry. Conflict that arises from 

this pattern of interpersonal interaction may contain sufficient interpersonal ferment to 

turn a dispute between women into a violent conflict. 

The second circumstance involves mothers who have become possessive over 

their sons. Anderson (1 990) observed that some mothers who lack their own male 

intimate partners have come to rely on their sons for companionship and subsequently 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
116 

become jealous of their sons’ girlfriends. Although the link to intragender violence has 

not been documented within this context, it may be that, under some circumstances, 

conflict between mothers and their sons’ girlfriends contain sufficient emotional fervor to 

turn a conflict into a violent event. 

The third pattern of behavior involves conflict between mothers and daughters. In 

Jarret’s (1 998) study of inner-city grandmothers, the author found that grandmothers 

discouraged their daughters from having relationships with boyfnends to protect the 

granddaughter from harm and to preserve the kinship network’s economic resources. 

This, in turn, is seen as a point of tension between mothers and daughters. Although this 

link to intragender violence has not been documented within this mother to daughter 

context, it may be that, under some circumstances, tension turn into violence. 

The fourth circumstance involves the role of the inner-city grandmother. .Today’s 

inner-city grandmothers face intense stress. With massive poverty, unemployment and 

the prevalence of addiction to crack cocaine, the grandmother has been compared to a 

“lifeboat,” who, when called upon for help, is summoned “because the ship is sinking” 

(Anderson, 1999, p.23 5). Again, in this context, the link to intragender violence has not 

been documented. The demands placed on the grandmother to care for family members, 

however, may in some situations increase her risk of involvement in intragender female 

assault. 

In accordance with the proposed theoretical fi-amework, the mechanisms by which 

- 

cultural adaptations result in an intragender violent outcome are expected to be 

conditioned by two insights drawn from feminist theory and gender studies: 1) females 

face barriers to economic success and, subsequently, high rates of poverty and 2) females 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
117 

consider interpersonal connections central to their identities. When the first factor is 

present it may be more likely that conflict within the context of resource sharing will 

contain enough emotional fervor to turn a conflict into a violent event. When the second 

factor is present it may be more likely that conflict over jealousies will assume such 

significance that for some women violence becomes necessary as a means to maintain 

relationships. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
118 

3. Gendered Patterns of Intragender Assault 

Female-Specific Adaptations Proximate to the Violent Event 

Female-specific dimensions of conflict that are likely to emerge in response to 

strain that blocks marriage are discussed in this section and outlined in Figure 3-2. These 

adaptations are not characteristic of male-on-male assault. 

Figure 3-2. Female-Specific Dimensions of Conflict: Adaptations to Barriers to 

Marriage 

Structural Sources Intervening Adaptations To 

of Strain to Marriage Blocked Goal Mechanisms Blocked Goal 

-Male udunder employment + Marriage Blocked + -Economic need + Female Soecific Adnotations within the context 

-US Public Policies -Emphasis placed 

-Adaptations to poverty on interpersonal serial monogamy and sexual-rivalry (female-to- 

-Relational Motives relationships female) jealousies (e.g., mother-to-son’s girlfriend) 

of resource sharing (e.g., mother-to daughter), 

and stress (e.g., inner-city grandmother) increase 

the risk of intragender violence 

As summarized in the above literature the relational and economic motives for 

intragender conflict that may emerge within the context of resource sharing and jealousies 

are considered female-gendered. 

To date patterns of resource sharing characteristic of some female kinship 

networks have not been identified among males. Fathers may rely on their daughters for 

companionship, but not for reasons related to the shortage of Black marriageable females 

because such a shortage does not exist. In addition, the likelihood of intragender violence 

involving inner-city grandmothers is considered female-gendered; grandmothers, not 

grandfathers, have been called upon as caretakers of last resort. Consequently, there 

source of stress is not expected to contribute to male-on-male assault. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
119 

Gender-Neutral Dimensions with a Female-Specific Corollary 

Dynamics that underlie intragender violence that occur in response to blocked 

opportunities to marriage also may be gender-neutral. As noted earlier in this section, to 

some extent long-term monogamous relationships have been replaced by polygamy. 

There is some evidence that females, similar to males, engage in serial monogamy or 

player behavior (Freudenberg et al., 1999; Wilson, 1996). Thus, under some 

circumstances player behavior intensifies intragender competition, conflict and eventual 

violence regardless of gender. However, research findings point to the need for a femalespecific corollary because there appears to be sex differences in magnitude of effects and 

pathways to intragender assault that result from player behavior. These factors are 

discussed in the section that follows and are summarized in Figure 3-3. 

Figure 3-3: Gender-Specific Adaptations to Barriers to Marriage 

Structural Sources 

Gendered 

Intervening Adaptations to 

of Strain to Marriage Blocked Goal Mechanisms Blocked Goal 

I MALE PATTERNS 

-Male udunder employment + MarriagelLong- + 

-US Public Policies term relationships norms (engages in player in order to win status 

-Adaptations to Poverty blocked behavior) in peergroup 

-Relational Motives 

- Adherence to patriarchal + Male -on- Male Violence 

-Does not attach the same 

degree of importance to 

long-term partner relationship 

FEMALE PATTERNS 

patriarchal norms) in order to win approval of 

(tolerates male player behavior) male peers or intimates, 

- Importance attached punish rival female 

to long-term partner for violating patriarchal 

relationship norms; attempt to hlfill 

long-term relationship. 

k -Adherenceto + Fcmaloon- Female Violence 

Research suggests that males are more likely than females to engage in player 

behavior. The degree to which females engage in this behavior likely is conditioned by 

the presence of gender definitions defined by adherence to patriarchal norms. In 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
120 

5 

accordance with research findings on gender definitions held by inner-city disadvantaged 

residents, some females and males have been found to adhere to patriarchal norms 

including the double standard. This norm excuses (even expects) player behavior by 

some males (e.g having more than one girl friend at a time or flirting with a female when 

he already has a girlfriends), but condemns similar behaviors by females (Artz, 1998; 

Dodson, 1998; Nurge, 2000). It is expected, therefore, that females who adhere to such 

patriarchal norms will be less likely to engage in actual player behavior than females who 

do not. Consequently, under these circumstances actual female player behavior is less 

likely to be a source of intragender conflict than male player behavior. 

In contrast to females who adhere to the double standard, males who internalize 

this norm are more likely than males who do not, to engage in actual player behavior. To 

the extent that females and males adhere to the double standard, actual female player 

behaviors will less likely be a source of conflict for intragender male violence then male 

player behaviors will be for intragender female violence. 

In addition to the likelihood of gender differences in magnitude of effects of 

player behavior, research suggests differences by gender in pathways toward intragender 

violence among individuals who adhere to patriarchal values. Research suggests that 

female and male residents of disadvantaged urban communities who adhere to patriarchal 

norms place increased value on obtaining the approval of males compared to females. 

However, the mechanisms used by females and males to obtain approval are likely to 

differ. A description of these mechanisms follows. 

In accordance with findings by Nurge (2000) and Artz (1998), it is expected that a 

female who is being played by a male will respond by targeting her anger and eventual 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
121 

violence toward the competing female rather than the male. This behavior is consistent 

with the double standard in two ways. First, the female is likely to excuse player 

behavior by the male, but considers it unacceptable by the female. Consequently, the 

slighted female places blame on the rival female instead of the male (Artz, 1998; Nurge, 

2000). Second, the female is likely to become involved in violence against her female 

peer rather than male peer or intimate in order to augment her value within the dominant 

male group (Nurge, 2000). The shortage of marriageable males likely intensifies the 

value that females attach to actual or potential male partners. Thus, the slighted female 

seeks to win male approval by acting non-violent toward the male, but acting violent 

toward the rival female. 

The situation is likely to have a different outcome for a female who does not 

adhere to the double standard. In response to being played, this female would likely 

target her anger toward the male rather than the female rival because she holds the male 

accountable for his behavior. 

In accordance with research by Oliver (1 989b) and Anderson (1 990), it is 

expected that a male who is being played by a female will frequently but not always target 

his anger and eventual violence toward the male rival. This behavior is consistent with 

patriarchal norms. In accordance with such values, males, similar to females, are 

expected to attach greater value to obtaining approval by males than females. According 

to Anderson (1 990), for some disadvantaged males, the most important goal is to win 

status in the male peer group. A male may come to blows because the potential loss of 

the female serves as a threat to his private andor public identity and threatens his 

reputation in the peer group. Thus, the slighted male will seek out male approval and 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
122 

reestablish his sense of manhood within the peer group by using violence against the rival 

male. 

In addition to adherence to patriarchal norms, the differential emphasis placed on 

interpersonal relationships by females and males is likely to influence the risk of 

intragender violence. For a female, the importance of creating and maintaining relational 

bonds is central to her identity (Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1993; Miller. 1986). Females 

often compete over males because males are seen as sources of relational fulfillment over 

the long- term (Anderson, 1990) ils well as sources of peer-defined status. In contrast to 

females, disadvantaged males are less likely to develop jealousies for reasons related to a 

dream of obtaining a long-term relationship. In contrast to females, males emphasize 

winning the approval of their male peers (Anderson, 1990). 

4. Summary: Adaptations to Blocked Opportunity to Marriage or Long-Term 

Monogamous Relationships 

In sum, structural factors have contributed to a shortage of suitable male partners, 

which in turn have increased female rivalry over relational and economic needs. The 

shortage of marriageable males likely has led to gendered adaptations and pathways to 

intragender violence. Rivalries between .females over potential male intimates or 

approval by male peers, and rivalries between female kin over male attention or resources 

have set in motion potential for conflict and eventual violence. Adherence to patriarchal 

norms is likely to increase the risk of intragender assault among members of both sexes, 

but the magnitude and pathways toward eventual violence are likely to vary by gender. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
123 

B. Academic and Occupational Success 

The second goal focuses on academic and occupational success. In formulating 

traditional strain theory, theorists have proposed, in accordance with longstanding 

research findings, that middle class males earn status in large part through academic 

success andor gainful employment (Merton, 1968). The majority of disadvantaged innercity residents, both males and females, share these conventional goals (Anderson, 1999). 

Successes in school and formal employment typically provide intrinsic rewards including 

self-esteem, and extrinsic rewards including the accumulation of material resources. 

Research has shown, however, that some disadvantaged young women face blockages to 

academic and occupational success (Dodson, 1 998). Absent these opportunities, 

disadvantaged youth are less likely than middle class youth to benefit from the intrinsic 

and extrinsic rewards. A brief review of educational and occupational attainment by 

disadvantaged females as well as their attitudes toward public schools and formal 

employment follows. According to the research, this group has not reaped the rewards 

available from academic and occupational success largely because of blocked 

opportunity. 

Disadvantaged inner-city female youth are less likely than middle class females to 

experience academic success. The high school drop out rate is higher among male and 

female urban youth than other youth. Females, however, drop out for reasons different 

than males. For example, Fine and Zane (1 989) surveyed urban youth and found that 

seven times as many girls as boys dropped out of school because of “family concerns.” 

In addition to poor academic achievement, disadvantaged females who are still in 

0 high school are less likely than their middle class counterparts to have the types of part 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
124 

time jobs that provide monetary earnings and the opportunity to develop employment 

experience and positive work habits (Sum and Fogg, 1991). Disadvantaged females who 

have jobs typically are segregated in the adolescent segment of the labor force (e.g., in the 

fast food industry) where they are isolated from meaningful interpersonal relationships 

with adults who could provide mentoring or positive role models (Steinberg, 1991). Post 

high school disadvantaged females are less likely than disadvantaged males or non-poor 

females to be either employed full time, to be in college or to be in a training program 

0 

(Sum and Fogg, 199 1). 

In one disadvantaged urban city, the unemployment rate for black females was 

more than twice the rate of white females (1 1 .O versus 4.7) (Wial, 1998). When 

disadvantaged young female adults are working, they are disproportionately employed in 

low-skilled, low-wage jobs such as retail, trade, service industries and as laborers and 

cleaners (Sum and Fogg, 1991). Typically, jobs of this type do not offer programs that 

provide skill building (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997), potential for advancement, 

employee benefits or family leave policies for parents who have sick children (Heymann 

et al., 1999; Houseman, 1995). In short, the research demonstrates that some low-income 

females fail to reap the intrinsic or extrinsic rewards that come with academic 

achievement and occupational success. 

e 

Structural barriers have shaped attitudes toward education and formal employment 

held by disadvantaged females. Studies have identified a bifurcation between lowincome young women in urban communities who aspire to achieve conventionally 

defined sources of success and those who do not (Anderson, 1999; Ladner, 1971). Young 

women in the first group strive for academic achievement with an eye toward a future 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
125 

conventional career. Members of the latter group reportedly are not oriented toward 

future achievement. In fact, among some members of this group, academic success has 

lost its measure of worth and has been replaced by alternative measures of success that 

can be achieved in the here-and-now. These rewards include securing a boyfriend, 

reproductive success (i.e. having babies), maintaining respect and obtaining/displaying 

material resources. These measures of success also are likely to be important for the 

young women who adhere to conventional means of success (academic and occupational 

success). Members of this latter group, however, maintain the hope of achieving success 

over the long term and consequently do not share the urgent need to achieve alternative 

measures of status. 

In short, the majority of inner-city female and male residents hold on to 

conventional means of status defined by academic and occupational goals (Anderson, 

1999); however, a minority have come to reject them and redefine measures of worth 

within the confines of structural strain and blocked opportunity. In the sections that 

follow, sources of structural strain that block opportunities for academic and occupational 

success among disadvantaged women will be reviewed. Several sources of strain are 

common to females and males, and others are female-and male-specific. 

1. Sources of Structural Strain that Block Opportunities For Academic and 

Occupational Success: The Educational System and Adaptations to Poverty 

Blocked opportunities to academic and occupational success have increased for 

some groups of urban Black residents since deindustrialization. The aftermath of 

deindustrialization has included the exodus of the Black middle class from urban areas, 

massive unemployment, subsequent social isolation, social isolation from mainstream 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
126 

ihstitutions among Black inner-city residents as well as intensified feelings of alienation 

and anger toward white society (Anderson, 1999; Wilson, 1987, 1996). These factors 

have contributed to growing disinterest and oppositional attitudes held by some inner city 

adolescents toward public schools and formal employment (Anderson, 1999), and 

increases in high school dropout rates among low-income urban youth. For some urban 

residents, public school and formal employment have lost their value as measures of 

success largely because these institutions have failed to meet the needs of Black 

disadvantaged urban youth. Thus, the educational system itself is a source of strain that 

blocks opportunities for academic success. Failure to achieve academic success 

subsequently blocks opportunities for occupational success ultimately leading to lowwage jobs, with limited economic benefits, and little chance for advancement. 

Low levels of academic success among Black youth are a function of the quality 

of public schools (Taylor, 199 1). Impoverished youth are more likely to attend resourcepoor schools which often compound their sense of social isolation (Musick, 199 1). 

Public schools provide few opportunities for students to connect with the outside world or 

with successful Black professionals who have benefited from academic success 

(Anderson, 1999). It is well established that public services in low-income 

neighborhoods, including schools, after-school programs, extracurricular activities, and 

local employment opportunities are resource-poor and of lesser quality than services 

available to middle class residents (Danziger et al., 1995). 

In addition, the educational experience of Black youth is affected negatively by 

the communities in which they live. Research has demonstrated a positive relationship 

between schools characterized by low levels of academic success and disadvantaged 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
127 

neighborhoods. Yancy and colleagues (1 995) examined the relationship between 

Philadelphia public schools and the communities in which they are located. They found 

that schools whose students reside in disadvantaged communities have lower rates of 

attendance, higher rates of student turnover and lower achievement scores compared to 

schools that draw students from more affluent and less troubled communities. It is 

noteworthy, yet not surprising, that schools whose students were drawn from poorer 

neighborhoods were disproportionately comprised of Black students. In 1990, for 

example, an average white person who was poor lived in a census tract in which 20 

percent of the households also were poor. By contrast, a Black person who was 

disadvantaged lived in a census tract in which 35 percent of the households were 

disadvantaged (Yancy et al., 1995). Thus, Black residents were over-represented among 

youth attending troubled schools. 

Several ethnographic studies of young women have uncovered several ways in 

which public schools have failed to address the female-specific needs of disadvantaged 

young women. In a study of 100 youth (males and females) at a Boston high school, 

Dodson (1 998) reported that teachers lack an understanding of the young women’s daily 

lives and cultural norms. Based on interviews conducted by (1 998) with young women 

the teachers failed to understand the link between poor academic achievement and low 

attendance with the day-to-day pressures and responsibilities assigned to the young 

women by their families. Disadvantaged young females served critical economic 

functions for their families engaging in housework and childcare between 16 and 20 

hours per week (Dodson, 1998). According to Dodson (1 998), the respondents 

internalized traditional gender norms supporting the belief that males work outside the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
128 

home and females work inside the home. Consequently, female youth assumed greater 

responsibility for household responsibilities than their male counterparts. 

The most consuming family responsibility for many girls, however, involved 

caring for adult family members with health problems. Some young women were 

charged with handling crises of domestic violence, mental illness and parental substance 

use. A common theme expressed by these young girls and women was the sense of 

abandonment by adults. According to Dodson (1998, p.30): 

As girls explain it, when parents are addicted to drugs or drink or mothers 

are battered, relatives and neighbors lose patience and disappear, angry at 

the adults in the family who seem unable to overcome problems. And yet 

when all the adults abdicate, first the overwhelmed or sick parents and the 

rest of the adult community, they leave children trying to hold a family 

together. 

For these girls, meeting the family responsibilities becomes a matter of survival. These 

challenges are time consuming and emotionally overwhelming leaving little energy 

available for academic endeavors (Dodson, 1 998). 

Another theme reported by urban female students is the sense of interpersonal 

connection from school personnel (Dodson, 1998; Taylor et al., 1995). Twenty-six 

‘disadvantaged young women attending an urban high school participated in a three-year 

panel study called the Women Teaching Girls, Girls Teaching Women (WTG-GTW) 

Project. A theme expressed by the participants was the desire for, but absence of, 

meaningful relationships with teachers (Taylor et al., 1995). The young women 

expressed the feeling of not being listened to, cared for or respected. The young women 

viewed teachers and counselors as overburdened with students and lacking the time to 

give individualized attention. It was not uncommon for respondents to feel blamed, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
129 

humiliated and unjustly punished by teachers (Taylor et al., 1995). The respondents 

reported that speaking up in school often led to trouble. 

The role of anger displayed by Black females may contribute to their sense of 

alienation from teachers. It has been observed that because of socialization processes 

influenced by historical discrimination that emphasize autonomy, some disadvantaged 

Black females, compared to middle class white females, are better able to access and 

express anger without fearing the loss of the relationship (Taylor et al., 1995). Teachers 

who adhere to the white feminine ideal of the quiet, obedient, good girl are likely to 

interpret the girls’ attitudes as acts of defiance that require punishment. Ultimately, the 

research suggests that speaking out or remaining silent increases some young women’s 

feelings of interpersonal disconnection from the teachers (Taylor et al., 1995). One Black 

student interviewed by Adams (1 999, p. 133) illustrates the point: 

You know when I was in sixth grade. I never said a word. And, I never 

got in trouble: nobody hew I was here. I kept all my feelings inside till I 

was about to bust. You know I can’t do that no more. I’ve got to express 

myself, and seems like when I do I get into trouble. I can’t even be myself 

here. 

The importance of interpersonal relations remains at the center of female development. 

Relational connections to teachers are critical to academic success among females. These 

connections are absent in the lives of some Black disadvantaged female high school 

students. 

In another study based on a case analysis of young middle and working class 

women from diverse racedethnicities, Adams (1 999) suggests a link between school 

administrators’ failures to address sexism in the school and violence by females against 

females (and males). She argues that female violence is a form of resistance against 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
130 

exploitation of their bodies demonstrated by boys’ references to breasts as “hooters,” 

“snapping girls’ bras” and “grabbing” of girls’ behinds. Adams’ findings are consistent 

with a survey on school violence which reported that about half the teachers who 

participated reported that sexism contributes to school fights (Malcolmson, 1994). As 

long as teachers remain silent to sexist behaviors toward females and view fighting as a 

pathological problem reflective of young women’s failures to meet the stereotype of a 

quiet, passive young lady, some young women will resist by fighting back. 

In addition, researchers have observed that some teachers misinterpret survival 

strategies used by young women and Black girls (Dodson, 1998; Taylor, 1995). For 

example, in response to past losses of interpersonal relationships and the constant threat 

of further loss evidenced by a school environment replete with rumors and gossip, some 

young women develop and display attitudes of strength, self-confidence and a “stand - 

alone” attitude that hide (and defend against) feelings of isolation and loneliness. Black 

young women have been socialized to associate asking for help with weakness of 

character. Thus, they sometimes fail to receive the requisite guidance necessary for 

academic success. According to Taylor and colleagues (1995, p.49) “[Bleing tough, 

strong, or outspoken are common survival strategies in a cultire where racism is a 

historical reality.” Taylor and associates (1 995, p.49) cite the Black feminist scholar, bell 

hooks (1993b, p. 133): 

[In resisting the debilitating effects of racism], over time, the ability to 

mask, hide and contain feelings cane to be viewed by nay Black people 

as a sign of strong character. To show one’s emotions was seen as foolish. 

Some school administrators interpret the tough attitude and aggressive disposition 

of disadvantaged females and Black females as acts of defiance that require punishment. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
131 

The failure to understand the sources of distress experienced by disadvantaged girls and 

cultural norms characteristic of Black young women may fuel a vicious cycle of 

misunderstanding. Oppositional attitudes, heightened assertiveness and failure to 

0 

complete school assignments may serve to confirm the negative images that some 

members of the middle class harbor toward disadvantaged Black females. They are lazy, 

loud, aggressive, and bad. Some teachers internalize these stereotypes and misinterpret 

underlying reasons for the display of behaviors. Ultimately such misapprehension is 

certain to reduce the opportunity for some Black young women to experience academic 

success. 

The failure of the public school system to meet the needs of the Black community 

has serious consequences for impoverished young women. One result is that some young 

women have come to reject the public school system and formal employment. Taylor and 

colleagues (1 995) in their three-year panel study identified a key transition regarding 

attitudes toward school held by urban females. During the initial interviews with 8' grade 

girls, the respondents identified one of two future paths available to women. The first 

focused on marriage and motherhood. The alternative centered on having a career as a 

single female. According to the respondents, having children precludes having a career. 

Taylor and colleagues (1 995) observed that the girls associated parenthood (and their own 

mothers) with the absence of money and time for additional opportunities. During 8* 

grade most respondents expressed a positive attitude toward school and a desire for a 

career. By 10* grade, however, most girls lost that vision to one burdened by family life 

and poverty. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
132 

For some disadvantaged young women, the multiple effects of resource-poor 

schools, overburdened teachers, feelings of not being heard, respected or understood by 

teachers, and social isolation from professional female role models have contributed to 

alienation from public school. Ultimately, these factors Contribute to the high school 

dropout rate among disadvantaged Black urban females. As noted by Anderson (1999, p. 

96): 

When children become convinced that they cannot receive their props 

from teachers and staff, they turn elsewhere, typically to the 

street ...p articularly when the unobtainable appears to granted only on the 

basis of acting white. 

Among girls, a critical “prop” includes the need for interpersonal connection with adults. 

The research reviewed in this section has demonstrated that upon entry to high school 

some disadvantaged young women feel alienated from school authorities. As a result, for 

some groups of impoverished females, school has lost its value as a culturally-defined 

measure of success. Subsequently, young women establish alternative measures of worth 

that can operate effectively within in the confines limited by structural disadvantage and 

blocked opportunity. 

Summary 

In sum, the research points to the educational system as a source of femalespecific and race-specific strain for young women. It has been observed that teachers fail 

to understand the day to day pressures (e.g., family responsibilities) experienced by young 

women and the toll such pressures take on a their capacity tc; perform well in school. It 

also has been observed that expressed anger and stand-alone attitudes displayed by some 

females contradict the white feminine ideal and contribute to strained teacher-student 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
133 

relations. In addition, the presence of sexism in schools fiuther fuels violence by females 

as a form of opposition. Consequently, for some groups of impoverished females, school 

has lost its value as a measure of success. Ultimately, females adopt alternative measures 

of success. 

In order to highlight gendered sources of strain, it is worth noting that the 

educational and occupational systems also serve as sources of strain among 

disadvantaged Black male residents of low-income urban neighborhoods. Similar to 

girls, boys are affected by resource-poor schools and overburdened teachers. The 

processes by which strain blocks educational attainment, however, vary by sex. Black 

males, for example, often are assumed by teachers to be violent and as a consequence 

some teachers’ overreact and over punish misbehavior (Taylor, 1991). This assumption 

is less likely to apply to Black females. Similar to females, school has lost its value as a 

measure of success among some disadvantaged males. Consequently they, too, have 

established alternative measures of success. 

2. Female-on-Female Violence As An Adaptation to Blocked Opportunity For 

Academic and Occupational Success 

Some women who perceive academic and occupational aspirations as inaccessible 

and/or impractical adapt by developing alternative measures of status. They include 

boyfi-iends, reproductive success (i.e. having children), respect and material resources. 

All four statuses are characterized by female-specific adaptations, although respect and 

material resources, and reproductive success, also include gender-neutrd dimensions. 

Female-specific and gender-neutral components are addressed in the sections that follow. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
134 

Boyfriends and Reproductive Success as Sources of Status: Adaptations to 

Blocked Academic and Occupation Success that Contribute to Female-onFemale Assault 

Sources of culturally-defined goals important to adolescent women involve 

boyfriends and reproductive success (i.e. having children), adult statuses over which 

adolescent low-income urban females compete (Anderson, 1990). These goals are likely 

to take on increased value among young women who have rejected academic and 

occupational success as measures of worth. Nurge (2000) observed that in communities 

where females perceive few conventionally-defined means of success, culturally-defined 

measures that focus on securing and maintaining boyfriends can assume such significance 

that they become worth fighting over. 

In addition to securing a boyfriend, reproductive success is considered a source of 

status among some inner-city women. For young women who are not able to secure a 

commitment from a boyfriend and perceive few alternative means to success, having a 

baby becomes a rational means to achieve at least some success. (Anderson, 1990; 

Dodson, 1998). In addition, young mothers "use their babies to compete, on the premise 

that the baby is an extension of the mother and reflects directly on her" (Anderson, 1990, 

p. 124). Competition over the appearance and dress of babies can result in feelings of 

jealousy between young women that may increase the risk of female-on-female violence. 

Anderson (1 990) argues that female competition over boyfriends is likely to be 

emphasized during the adolescent years when processes related to identity formation, 

self-esteem and status in the peer group are most salient. This observation is consistent 

with arrest and self-report studies on female intragender assault, which have documented 

that younger females compared to older females are more fiequently involved in assault 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
135 

with other females and female antagonists are likely to be age-peers or acquaintances 

(Campbell et al., 1998). 

Boyfriends and Reproductive Success: Gendered Patterns of Intragender 

Assault 

As discussed in the previous section on barriers to marriage, the risk of female-onfemale violence over potential male intimate partners is likely to be conditioned by two 

processes: 1) adherence to patriarchal norms and 2) the gendered relevance assigned to 

interpersonal relationships. First, among males and females, who internalize patriarchal 

norms, player behavior is more likely to be a source of intragender violence between 

females than males. Both male and female victims (individuals who are being played) of 

player behavior are likely to try to earn approval of the dominant male group. The 

slighted female is likely to try to achieve approval by targeting violence against the rival 

female. The slighted male is likely try to regain his sense of manhood by targeting his 

violence against his rival male. Second, given the differential emphasis placed on 

interpersonal connection by females and males, it is more likely that females compared to 

males will compete over potential intimates in an effort to achieve long-term 

relationships. In contrast to the female’s emphasis on relational motivations, the priority 

for the male is to earn approval by their male peers. 

Respect: An Adaptation to Blocked Academic and Occupational Success that 

Contribute to Female-on-Female Violence 

A third goal that has emerged as a consequence of blocked opportunities to 

conventional means of success involves securing and maintaining respect. Respect takes 

on gender-neutral and female-specific dimensions, both of which are reviewed in this 

section. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
136 

Anderson’s (1 994,1999) ethnographic research conducted in Philadelphia 

neighborhoods is an integral component of the proposed theory. Consistent with the 

tradition of Sampson and Wilson (1 999, Anderson posited that the post-industrial social 

structural transformation has led to the weakening of mainstream societal values and the 

emergence of alternative norms that support the use of physically aggressive behavior in 

Black urban neighborhoods. As discussed in the previous chapter, with limited means to 

validate personal status through academic and occupational success, urban residents seek 

out respect by adhering to the “Code of the Street”, which sometimes involves or requires 

the use of violence (Anderson, 1994, 1999; Nurge, 2000). According to the “code” and 

its application to women, female-on-female assault commonly occurs over personal 

(nongendered) respect defined by fighting in response to a verbal assault, slight or 

provocation (e.g., name calling, looks of disrespect) (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Nurge, 

2000). According to Baskin and Sommers (1998, p. 35): 

[Tlhe issue of respect is thus closely tied to whether a person has an 

inclination to be violent. In severely distressed communities, particularly 

among young males and increasingly among females, it is sensed that 

something essential is at stake in every interaction. People are encouraged 

to rise to every occasion ... To run away from such disputes would leave 

one’s self-esteem in tatters. 

Similar to urban males, among urban females respect has become a commodity 

worth competing over and fighting to maintain (Adams, 1999; Anderson, 1999; Baskin 

and Sommers, 1998; Nurge, 2000). Nurge (2000) set out to determine if the Code of the 

Street existed among at-risk and gang’clicpe affi!kteJ adolesco~+ females in Boston. She 

observed that the study participants understood the norms of the code including the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
137 

importance of mental and physical strength, toughness, respect and a reputation that 

reflects these characteristics. According to Nurge (2000, Chapter 7, p. 7): 

The young women interviewed consistently asserted the importance of 

responding to acts of disrespect. Although their initial response was likely 

to be verbal, if the offender continued to behave insultingly and/or did not 

back down, the verbal conflict typically escalated to a physical 

confkontation quickly. The extent to which young women reacted 

violently to disrespect varied, but most of them noted it to be the most 

common cause of fights. 

Moreover, the Code of the Street is particularly operative for conflicts that occur 

in public with witnesses present (Anderson, 1994,1999). Research on assault by women 

suggests that, as with men, the presence of third parties contributes to the escalation of 

violence by increasing the probability of retaliation in order to save face (Baskin and 

Sommers, 1998). Anderson’s conceptualization of respect and all the supporting research 

demonstrates that respect is a gender-neutral concept because both males and female 

become involved in violence over personal respect. Dynamics are described below in 

Figure 3-4. 

Figure 3-4: Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Becoming Involved in Violence over 

Respect 

Structural Sources 

of Strain to Academic/ Gender-Neutral Adaptations 

Occupational Support Blocked Goal To Blocked Goals 

I -Educational system + Academic/ + Securing and maintaining personal respect 

- Udunder employment Occupational is emphasized by males and females. 

success If challenged individuals are 

required to tight back to re-establish selfworth; this process increases the risk of 

intragender violence for males and 

females 

..- -- 

Respect: Gendered Patterns of Intragender Assault 

Several ethnographic studies also have uncovered a female-specific corollary with 

regards to what it means to maintain respect for adolescent females in particular (Dodson, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
138 

1998; Nurge, 2000). A show of female gendered disrespect by one female toward another 

female is one possible point of conflict that could turn violent. The dynamics involved in 

this type of conflict are described in the following section and parallel the dynamics 

outlined in the previous section on marriage (see Figure 3-2). Studies on gendered 

respect characteristic of female adolescents in particular are reviewed below. 

Among males who adhere to the double standard, player behavior (Le. 

maintaining more than one girlfriend at a time) enhances his reputation. A woman 

however, who engages in similar behavior is criticized, labeled a “ho,” and disrespected 

by both sexes. One inner-city female adolescent interviewed by Dodson described the 

double standard regarding sexual activity for males and females, “She’s a whore and he’s 

man for doing just the same thing ... Society is two-faced, but we’ve got to live with it” 

(1998, p. 55). The young women expect that men will act like “dogs,” but consider 

similar behavior by females as unacceptable and worthy of punishment (Adams, 1999). 

A show of disrespect resulting fiom an accusation of promiscuity by one female 

toward another is one possible point of intragender conflict. Nurge (2000) reported that 

among adolescent urban females, if one young woman develops a reputation (deserved or 

not) for promiscuous sexual activity, she may be at risk for losing the respect of male and 

female peers. Consequently, she may be required by the Code of the Street to become 

involved in violence to restore her reputation. This is one example of a female-specific 

source of respect that contributes to female-on-female assault. 

A second example of female-specific respect focuses on what Nurge (2000) labels 

the “cycle of disrespect.” This term describes male behavior that precipitates intragender 

female violence. In response to sexual harassment or male player behavior, young 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
139 

women often respond by targeting their anger toward the competing female rather than 

the male. Nurge (2000) and Artz (1 998) observed this dynamic among adolescent women 

and interpreted female-on-female assault as an act of “horizontal violence:” women 

become involved in violence against their female peers rather than male peers in order to 

boost their value within the dominant male group. According to Nurge, the purpose of 

horizontal oppression follows (2000, chapter 7, p.6): 

By dissing another girl (who perhaps is popular with this guy), she 

embarrasses/devalues that girl, while increasing her own 

respectability/value. By calling another girl a ‘ho’ or ‘bitch’ andor 

gossiping about her (alleged or actual) promiscuity she might successfully 

sabotage her competition’s relationship or relationship prospects. 

In, sum respect has gender-neutral and gendered dimensions. Some residents of 

disadvantaged urban neighborhoods become involved in violence to maintain personal 

respect, irrespective of gender. The gendered dimension is related to the female- and 

male-specific corollaries that involve definitions of peer-defined success. Young women 

a 

who adhere to patriarchal norms, earn peer-defined success by securing a committed 

relationship with one intimate male partner and maintaining an untainted sexual 

reputation. Males, on the other hand, earn peer-defined success by maintaining multiple 

sex partners simultaneously and flaunting these behaviors in the presence of male peers. 

Intragender violence between males and females may result over intimate partners when 

the potential loss jeopardizes the slighted person’s reputation. The definitions of a 

positive reputation and peer-defined success vary by gender. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
140 

Obtaining and/or Displaying Material Resources: Adaptations to Blocked 

Academic and Occupational Success that Contribute to Female-on-Female 

Violence 

Studies suggest that female intragender competition over material resources have both 

gender-neutral and female-specific dimensions. Research suggests that economically 

marginal urban males and females emphasize the importance of obtaining, and for some, 

displaying material resources for several reasons. These dynamics and their links to 

strain and the more proximate sources of violence are outlined in Figure 3-5 and are 

described below. 

Figure 3-5: Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Becoming Involved in Violence over 

Resources 

Structural Sources 

of Strain to Academicl 

Occupational Support Blocked Goal To Blocked Goals 

Gender-Neutral Adaptations 

Educational system + Academic/ + The importance of material goods 

Under/unemplo pent Occupational and conspicuous consumption are 

Success emphasized by males and females for 

purposes of survival and to distance 

oneself from poverty; this process 

increases the risk of intragender 

violence for males and females 

According to a class-based interpretation, economically disadvantaged women 

and men emphasize the importance of material goods and conspicuous consumption (e.g., 

money spent immediately on drugs or alcohol, expensive food, clothing) in order to deny 

(albeit temporarily) and distance themselves from poverty (Campbell, 1999; 

Messerschmidt, 1997). In addition, the importance of securing material resources is 

heightened among women and men who require goods for survival. Among residents 

with limited academic and occupational successes, the focus on material resources may 

be emphasized for its symbolic and practical value. Gender-neutral sources of 

competition between young women (and men) involve physical appearance such as the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
141 

purchase of the appropriate brands of clothing (Anderson, 1990, 1999, Campbell, 1999). 

Anderson explains: (1 999, p.95): 

Violence is always a possibility for the typical troubled school is 

surrounded by persistent poverty, where scarcity of valued things is the 

rule.. .Trophies to be won are not of an academic kind, rather they are . those of the street, particularly respect. In this campaign young people 

must be prepared not only to fight but also to take great care with 

appearance. The right look means not wearing old or ‘bummy’ clothes or 

sneakers.. .Social life become a zero-sum scenario: ‘If you have something 

and exhibit it, it means that I’m less.’ 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
142 

Material Resources: Gendered Patterns of Intragender Assault 

Female-specific competition over material resources is likely to have femalespecific dimensions that are related to the feminization of poverty thesis and competition 

over male resource providers. These dynamics and their links to strain and the more 

proximate sources of violence are outlined in Figure 3-6 and are described below. 

Figure 3-6: Gender-Specific Dimensions of Becoming Involved in Violence over 

Resources 

Structural Sources 

of Strain to Academicl Intervening Gendered Adaptations 

Occupational Support Blocked Goal Mechanisms to Blocked Goal 

-Educational system -+ Academic/ -+ -Economic need -+ -+ Increasesfemale-on- 

-Under/unemployment Occupational - female competition over 

success - Females believe males will material goods 

provide resources necessary 

u for survival so compete over 

k characteristics that males value k 

+ -+ -+ + + -+ Increases male-on male 

competition over 

material goods 

As described earlier, the feminization of poverty thesis asserts that females 

compared to their male counterparts face more severe barriers to economic success. 

Recent studies reveal that under some circumstances conflict over the need for material 

goods increases the risk of female-on-female violence (e.g., see Maher, 1997). Moreover, 

tensions resulting from resource sharing among poor female kin members whose 

relationships are characterized by ongoing obligations may increase the risk of female-onfemale violence. It is expected, therefore, that economic need will be a stronger factor for 

explaining intragender violence between females compared to males. 

In addition to the likelihood of gender differences in magnitude of effects of 

economic need, research suggests the presence of differences by gender in pathways 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
143 

toward intragender violence for reasons involving economic need. Campbell and 

colleagues (1 998), for example, attribute female-on-female violence to behavior that is 

motivated by the need to survive: females may become involved in intragender assault 

over male partners because they adhere to the belief that males will provide necessary 

resources. Consequently, females may compete over males by valuing those material 

goods or assets that are most valued by males such as physical attractiveness (Campbell, 

1995). Thus, issues related to physical attractiveness may become points of contention 

that lead to eventual violence. While males also may become involved in violence to 

attain resources necessary for survival, it likely that the circumstances will differ from 

those faced by females. 

In sum, competition over material resources may emerge irrespective of gender in 

response to survival needs, or to counteract a life of poverty. Competition also may 

emerge for gendered reasons. Intragender female assault may occur in the service of 

survival. The female gendered dimensions takes into account two factors: (1) the unequal 

distribution of economic opportunities between the genders and consequent 

overrepresentation of women in disadvantaged statuses and (2) the assumption that some 

females compete with each other over males in order to obtain resources necessary for 

survival. In each of these cases, points of contention over material resources may 

contribute to an increase in female-on-female competition and subsequent intragender 

violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
144 

3. Summary: Adaptations to Blocked Opportunities to Academic and 

Occupational Success 

G According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, female-on-female 

conflict is a byproduct of cultural adaptations to blocked opportunies and may occur 

within numerous contexts: to meet interpersonal relationship needs, to attain status 

defined by securing a boyfriend, to achieve reproductive success, to maintain respect, to 

protect one’s sexual reputation, to obtain material resources for survival or as a means to 

attract male intimates. In a culture characterized by limited means to earn traditional 

measures of status, boyfiiends, babies, respect andor resources can assume sufficient 

significance that they become worth for. 

C. Safety and Protection: A Goal Shared by Black Disadvantaged Females 

Individuals of all socioeconomic classes employ strategies to ensure their personal 

safety and the safety of friends and family. Typically when confronted with a 

victimization experience, a member of the middle class calls upon law enforcement for 

assistance. Alternatively, he or she may report the problem to a community group who 

has the political power to garner support from the local police. Some members of 

structurally disadvantaged neighborhoods, however, have grown to distrust police and 

other service professionals. Moreover, disorganized communities typically lack 

neighborhood organizations, a potential source of support for residents who have 

experienced victimization or other neighborhood problems. Consequently, residents who 

lack institutional support and live in high-criixe rate communities may adopt self-help 

strategies to solve grievances that center on taking matters into their own hands, which 

may include the use violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
145 

1. Sources of Structural Strain that Block Opportunities For Safety and 

Protection of Oneself and FamilyLFriends: Public Institutions and 

Historical Discrimination 

One effect of historical discrimination for Black urban residents has been the 

necessity to create alternative strategies for self-protection. The emergence of alternative 

strategies is best understood within the larger context of inner-city residents’ detachment 

from institutions, particularly since deindustrialization. Consequences include the flight 

of economic resources and investment in public institutions, and the subsequent failure of 

public services to meet the needs of disadvantaged residents. Research has shown that 

some disadvantaged Black residents rely on violence as a self-help strategy because they 

have lost trust in mainstream service institutions (Anderson, 1999). The public school 

system has failed impoverished residents (Sum and Fogg, 1991), employers have been 

found to discriminate against disadvantaged Black residents (Anderson, 1 999; 

Kirschenman et al., 1991) and police have been described as uncaring and discriminatory. 

According to Anderson (1999, p. 321): 

In the community, the police are often on the street, but they are not 

always considered to have the community’s best interest at heart., .When a 

Black man shoots another Black man, the incident will not be thoroughly 

investigated.. A double standard is thought to exist: one for Blacks and 

one for whites. A great many Blacks residents have little trust in the 

police.. .with this attitude many people are afraid to report.. .crimes to the 

police.. .Residents sometimes fail to cdl the police because they believe 

the police are unlikely to come or, if they come, may even harass the very 

people who called.. . 

Consequently, some males and females feel no choice but to take matters into 

their own hands in order to solve problems (Anderson, 1999). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
146 

2. Female-on-Female Violence As An Adaptation to Blocked Sources of 

Protection and Safety 

In response to historical discrimination and lack of institutional support, 

socialization patterns have developed that emphasize self-protection. These patterns have 

gender-neutral and female specific dimensions and likely contribute to female 

involvement in violence. 

A gender-neutral adaptation involves socialization patterns that have evolved 

among Black families. This adaptation focuses on teaching children to be autonomous 

and independent at a very young age. Children (males and females) of working class 

families of different ethnicities often are socialized in this way. This context, however, 

may be intensified among impoverished Black youth (Browning et ai., 1999) because of 

the combined forces of historical discrimination, social isolation and distrust of 

mainstream institutions. Research suggests that in some families this socialization 

pattern includes teaching girls to fight back (Ladner, 1971). Thus, structural strain and 

discrimination that block opportunities for attaining traditional means of protection is 

likely to contribute to the development of self-help behaviors by females and males that at 

times includes the use of violence. 

3. Gendered Patterns of Intragender Assault 

Research on self-help strategies suggests the presence of two female-specific 

dimensions. The first focuses on the gendered relevance of interpersonal relationships for 

females compared to males. The second focuses on the role assigned to females in the 

family. Both dimensions, their links to strain and the more proximate sources of 

violence, are outlined in Figure 3-7 and are described below. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
147 

Figure 3- 7: Gendertslpecifx Dimensions of Self-He@ Strategies 

Sources of Strain 

that Inhibit Intervening 

Gender-Specific 

Adaptations to the 

Protection Blocked Goals Mechanisms Violent Event . 

I -Lack of institutional 

support 

-High rates of FEMALE PATTERN 

offending and + Freedom from fear + -Socialized to be autonomous + Increases risk of female-on-female 

victimization and victimization; -Emphasis on interpersonal violence in the service of defending, 

trust in mainstream 

institutions 

relationships (e.g. relational respect) protecting others 

- Female gendered role in the family 

- Oppositional Instrumental control 

k 

L MALE PATTERN 

- Socialized to be autonomous + Increases risk of male-on-male 

- Emphasis on loyalty 

- Emphasis on validating 

- Normative Instrumental Control 

violence in the service of 

defending, protecting others 

Adams (1 999) contrasts Anderson's (1 994, 1999) masculine understanding of 

individualized or personal self-respect, which focuses on protecting oneself, with 

women's tendency to fight in order to preserve the respect of others. Adams labels this 

process "relational respect'' and attributes it to female socialization patterns that center on 

relationships and connectedness to others (Gilligan, 1993). It is expected that given the 

gendered relevance of interpersonal relationships, there will be differences by gender in 

the magnitude of effects of using violence for the purpose of protecting others. 

According to this perspective the statistical magnitude of the effect will be larger for 

females compared to males. 

The second female-specific factor is drawn from gender studies and focuses on 

the use of instrumental aggression versus expressive aggression. Instrumental aggression 

is goal-oriented and involves attempts to dominate others. In contrast, expressive 

aggression is non-goal oriented and occurs because of failed self-control (Campbell, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
148 

’ 1993). Campbell (1993, 1999) observed a female-specific motivation for instrumental 

aggression among economically disadvantaged female gang members (1 999, p. 254): 

Fear and loneliness in their families, their communities, their schools, and 

their homes are the forces that drive young women from an expressive to 

an instrumental view of their aggression. 

AS a consequence of past victimization, women resort to instrumental aggression 

as a form of self-protection. While Campbell acknowledges that males also use 

instrumental aggression to prevent victimization she highlights a fundamental difference 

between the sexes (1999, p. 254): 

Boys are part of a masculine subculture that prescribes instrumental 

aggression as a gender-affirming response to a threat or challenge ... so the 

nurturing of a tough reputation is normative in young men, while in young 

women it is less common because most girls are protected from the 

masculine maelstrom of attack and counter-attack 

The third female-specific dimension is drawn from gender studies specific to 

Black families and focuses on the gendered role that females take on in the family. 

Historically Black girls have been socialized to take responsibility for themselves and 

their families largely because Black men have not been able to support their families 

(Browning et al., 1999; Dodson, 1998). Black daughters have assumed this obligation in 

part because Black families tend to define female success by the extent to which a female 

can care for oneself, and family (Dodson, 1998; Ladner, 1971). Black daughters even 

more often than Black sons are assigned adult responsibilities such as child care, 

household chores, and caring for ill family members (Dodson, 1998). As a consequence 

of taking on adult responsibilities at a young age, Black girls often develop a sense of 

assertiveness, autonomy and sense of responsibility, characteristics which have been 

misinterpreted by mainstream society as unfeminine and dysfunctional (Rice, 1990). On 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
149 

,the contrary, these characteristics are rational forms of self-help and protection that may 

extend to the use of violence. 

The combined goals of striving to protect oneself and one’s loved ones may 

increase the risk of violence by young women. It is expected, therefore, that the female 

gendered role in the family will contribute disproportionately to female-on-female 

violence compared to male-on-male violence for reasons related to protection. 

Research also points to differences by gender in pathways toward intragender 

male violence for reasons involving the protection of others. Oliver identified two 

reasons that contribute to violence by males for the purposes of protecting others (1994). 

First, some males become involved in violence because they felt a deep sense of loyalty 

and responsibility to their loved ones. Second, some males use violence to maintain 

their sense of manhood. According to one man interviewed by Oliver (1 994, p. 1 16): “I 

am one hundred percent man, and if anybody ever disrespects anybody that I love, I got 

to go see about it. I am a champ, and I love my family.” The research suggests that for 

males, a sense of manhood may serve as an intervening mechanism that influences the 

use of violence to defend/protect others. For females, however, the importance of 

preserving interpersonal ties may serye as the intervening mechanism. 

4. Summary: Adaptations to Blocked Opportunity to Protection and Safety 

Research has documented that similar to males (Oliver, 1994), impoverished 

women fight to defend or protect not only oneself, but also family and friends (Adams, 

1999; Hirschinger et al., 2001; Nurge, 2000). Female assault also may hsve an 

underlying female-specific motivation. When considering female-specific socialization 

patterns combined with the need for protection against threats to personal safety, it is 

likely that poor urban Black women are at increased risk for becoming 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
150 

involved in assault in order to ensure their own safety and the safety of others close to 

them. 

111. A Summary: Female-Specific and Gender-Neutral Adaptations and the Link 

to Female-on-Female Violence 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, female-on-female assault 

is a byproduct of cultural adaptations to strain that blocks opportunities for Black 

impoverished females, and may occur within numerous contexts. Some contexts are 

female-specific and others are gender-neutral. 

Three Female-Specific Contexts that May Increase Female-on-Female Assault 

One context of female-on-female assault focuses on blockages to marriage and 

subsequent adaptations by males that affect female intragender relations. In response to 

historical discrimination and deindustrialization, Oliver (1 989b) argues that male intimate 

partners who adhere to the “player” or “tough guy” images are at increased risk for 

perpetuating conflict, competition and ultimately violence between females. Men who 

adhere to such images define their manhood through promiscuity and dominance, and 

emotional and sexual exploitation of women (Anderson, 1990; Oliver, 1989b). Oliver 

(1 989b) theorized that commitment to promiscuity by males intensifies female-on-female 

jealousy and the risk of female intragender assault. It is likely that females compete for 

male partners in an attempt to find ways to meet their needs for intimacy and economic 

support. Moreover, the aftermath of reduced marriage rates and structural disadvantage 

also has increased tensions within the ir,tergenerah,nal family. These tensions exist 

between mothers and daughters over the daughters’ boyfriends and between the son’s 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
151 

mothers and the son’s girlfriends as they compete for the males’ attention. These tensions 

under some circumstances are likely to contribute to the risk of female-on-female assault. 

The second context for female-on-female assault has developed largely because 

the educational system and sources of formal employment have failed some young 

disadvantaged women. Members of this group emphasize the importance of earning 

status in the here-and-now. For this group securing a boyfriend, having babies, 

maintaining an untainted sexual reputation, and obtaining material resources are 

adaptations that provide young women with status. Research suggests that in some 

situations, conflicts over these issues contain sufficient emotional fervor to turn a conflict 

into a violent event. 

The third context for female-on-female assault has come about in response to 

discrimination and the failure of mainstream institutions to meet the needs of urban 

disadvantaged Black residents. In many families Black females have been socialized to 

care for and serve as family protector. Some females may become involved in violence 

with females (or males) in the service of self-protection and the protection of friends and 

family as well as to hlfill their own interpersonal needs for connection, 

Gender-Neutral Contexts that May Increase Female-on-Female Assault 

Research also suggests a link between gender-neutral adaptations and female-onfemale violence. The studies reviewed here demonstrate that with restricted means to earn 

status, impoverished Black women living in urban communities, as with their male 

counterparts, become involved in violence to earn and maintain personal respect, material 

._ 

goods and to secure protection. Females and males view material resources as points of 

contention that may lead to violence. Material resources are valued by males and females 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
152 

to meet survival needs, to earn status and respect andor to dissociate from a life of 

poverty. In addition, Black residents of both genders may resort to violence as a selfhelp strategy as a consequence of the combined forces of discrimination and social 

isolation. 

Female-Specific and Gender-Neutral Contexts that May Increase Female-onFemale Assault: A Summary 

Disadvantaged members of both genders are exposed to sources of structural 

strain that block opportunity for conventional means of success. In sum, the research 

suggests that females become involved in violence for reasons both similar to and distinct 

from males. Females and males both become involved in violence over resources and 

personal respect. Within all contexts discussed, however, female-specific factors shape 

the nature and circumstances of female strain and subsequent risk for involvement in 

assault. For example, structural factors, including the shortage of marriageable men, 

intensify female-on-female violence. The impact of onerous family responsibilities 

assumed by young women often hamper their opportunity to excel in school and 

contributes to high school drop out rates. Subsequently, females adhere to alternative 

female-specific adaptations including an emphasized focus on boyfriends and 

reproductive success. Young men also fight over young women, but the nature of their 

violence is shaped by male-specific sources of success including increased respect earned 

by player behavior and a focus on approval by their male peers. The studies reviewed 

vdidzte the need for a comprehensive theory of female-on-female assault among 

economically marginal Black women that integrates both gender-neutral and femalespecific dimensions. 

0 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
153 

IV. Revisiting Two Limitations of Theories on Female-on-Female Assault 

Chapter 2 closed with a summary of limitations regarding theoretical explanations of 

female-on-female assault. These limitations include (1) the paucity of studies that 

consider the relevance of gender, class and race/ethnicity to the study of female-onfemale assault (2) and the lack of theories that include pertinent concepts drawn from 

both gender-neutral and gender-specific perspectives. The theoretical framework 

proposed in this research attempts to address these limitations. This is the topic of the 

following sections. 

A. Addressing Limitation #l:The Importance of Gender, Race and Class 

Among groups that vary by socioeconomic level, ethnic/racial composition, and 

gender, socialization patterns develop in favor of securing culturally-defined goals (e.g., 

boyfiiends, respect). A group’s cultural heritage, race/ethnicity, gender and economic 

status, however, shape the meanings that its members attach to the goals and the 

subsequent adaptations to blocked goal attainment. As with other groups, among 

economically marginal urban Black women, issues related to gender, class, and 

race/ethnicity influence adaptations that are expected to increase their risk of violent 

behavior. The effects of gender, race and class on the risk of female intragender assault 

are summarized below. The section on gender focuses on female-specific adaptations 

that have been identified among working class and disadvantaged females of diverse 

ethnicitiedraces. The section labeled the interaction of gender and class highlights 

female-specific adaptations among disadvantaged females in particular. The section 

1 

labeled the interaction of gender, class and race emphasizes adaptations particularly faced 

by disadvantaged, Blacks females. The purpose of the organizational framework is to 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
154 

demonstrate the cumulative (or perhaps multiplicative) effects of gender, class and 

race/ethnicity on the risk of intragender female assault. 

Adaptations to blocked opportunities are summarized in Table 3-2. A check mark 

(“X”) indicates that empirical evidence demonstrates, or theory suggests, that some 

members of the subgroup (female vs. disadvantaged female vs. Black disadvantaged 

female) under discussion have been found to adhere to the adaptation. 

that follows that link between each adaptation and potential female-on-female violence is 

In the section 

reviewed. Descriptions for each adaptation in the table are noted in the text with the 

same number noted in the table. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
155 

#1 Horizontal group 

Table 3-2: The Significance of the Interaction of Gender, Class and Race For 

Understanding Female-on-Female Assault 

X 

#2 Gendered X 

resnect I 

#3 Socialization patterns 

centered on Relationships 

#4 Resistance to 

objectification 

#5 Player behaviodserial 

Monogamy 

#6 Personal respect 

emphasized in 

disadvantaged 

neighborhoods 

#7 Self-help strategies 

emphasized in 

disadvantaged 

neighborhoods 

#8 Parentification, rejection of 

schoollemployment, 

adoption of alternative 

measures of self worth: 

boyfiiends, babies, respect, 

X 

X 

material resources I 

#9 Oppositional Instrumental I 

Aggression 

# 10 Reduced rates of marriage 

and norms that are less 

likely to stigmatize having 

children outside of 

marriage 

#11 Historical discrimination 

combined with social 

isolation intensifies selfhelp strategies 

#12 Protect male intimate 

partner fiom 

discrimination by 

express anger combined 

with a normative view of 

lisadvantaged Femalc 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X' 

Black Female 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X' 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
156 

Gender 

The research reviewed in this chapter demonstrates the presence of four femalespecific adaptations to blocked goals. Each increases the risk for female-on-female 

assault. These patterns are not unique to impoverished or Black women. 

First, women who adhere to patriarchal norms may engage in “horizontal group 

oppression” against other females (Artz, 1998; Nurge, 2000). This oppression occurs 

when women become involved in violence against their female peers rather than 

boyfriends or male peers in order to boost their value within the dominant male group. 

Artz (1 998) applied this interpretation to the behavior of white working class adolescent 

females in Canada, while Nurge (2000) applied this explanation to Black and Hispanic 

female adolescents living in inner-city neighborhoods of Boston (Nurge, 2000) (see Table 

3-2, #1). 

The second factor involves Nurge’s (2000) version of gendered respect. 

According to Nurge, a show of disrespect resulting from an accusation of promiscuity by 

one female toward another is one possible point of conflict. Nurge reported that among 

adolescent urban females, if one young woman develops a reputation (deserved or 

undeserved) for promiscuous sexual activity, she may be at risk for losing the respect of 

male and female peers, and may be required by the larger community to become involved 

in violence to restore her reputation. Without invoking the concept of the Code of the 

Street, Artz (1 998) provides examples of gendered respect among white working class 

adolescent females in Canada (see Table 3-2, #2). 

Third, female-unique socialization patterns that emphasize the value of 

interpersonal relationships (Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1993) may increase the risk that 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
157 

females will become involved in violence with other females in the service of protecting 

the reputation of friends and family. While no studies have assessed the link between the 

value placed on interpersonal relationships and intragender violence, research conducted 

at the cross-cultural level has identified defending family members as a top reason for 

female aggression (Burbank 1987b). Thus, it is likely that socialization patterns unique to 

women of diverse cultures and socioeconomic classes contribute to the use of violence 

(see Table 3-2, #3). 

The fourth factor focuses on sexual harassment or “resistance to objectification” 

(Adams, 1999). According to Adams’ (1999) case study, working class young women of 

diverse races and ethnicities responded to acts of sexual harassment with violence. For 

this group of females fighting has been equated with gaining access to power and control 

of their bodies and femininity (see Table 3-2, #4). 

The Interaction of Gender and Class 

Disadvantaged females across diverse ethnicitiedraces face additional sources of 

strain and subsequent adaptations. In addition to facing the four female-specific 

adaptations described above, disadvantaged females are likely to face five additional 

adaptations: three are female-specific (serial monogamy/player behavior, parentification, 

oppositional instrumental aggression) and two are gender-neutral (personal respect and 

self-help strategies). 

First, the increase in rates of male under and unemployment and the decline in 

rates of long-term intimate relationships have contributed to the subsequent pattern of 

serial monogamy by Black and Latina females and player behavior by their male 

counterparts (Freudenberg et al., 1999; Oliver, 1989b). It is likely that these processes 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
158 

intensify female competition over males and eventual intragender violence (See Table 3- 

2, #5). 

Second, with the aftermath of deindustrialization and absence of conventional 

means to earn success, securing and maintaining personal respect (for males and females) 

has become a central concern and worth fighting for (Table 3-2, #6). 

Third, social isolation and lack of faith in mainstream institutions and the police, 

in particular, have contributed to the emergence of self-help strategies shared by 

disadvantaged members of diverse ethnic/racia€ groups (Dodson, 1998). Consequently, 

some females (and males) are likely to take matters into their own hands, resorting to 

violence when necessary and socializing their children to do the same (See Table 3-2, #7). 

Fourth, some disadvantaged females (more so than males) are assigned adult 

responsibilities at a young age (Dodson, 1998; Taylor et al., 1995). In disadvantaged 

communities with resource-poor schools teachers often fail to understand the daily 

realities of the girls’ lives (i.e. hours of chores and care- giving and taking 

responsibilities), and consequently punish them for poor school performance. Eventually 

some young women reject public school as a measure of self worth and adapt by 

emphasizing alternative measures of status that include boyfriends, reproductive success, 

respect (gendered and gender-neutral) and material resources (gendered and genderneutral). These revised measures of self worth become sources of competition between 

females and likely increase the risk of intragender female violence (see Table 3-2, #8). 

The fifth factor involves the use of instrumental aggression. This type of 

aggression is characterized by the use of provocative threats and posturing used in an 

effort to prevent victimization. Circumstances of poverty, social disorganization, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
159 

disconnection from school and high rates of victimization have contributed to the use of 

instrumental aggression by some women (Campbell, 1999) (Table 3-2, #9). 

The Interaction of Gender, Class and Race 

Black women experience the cumulative (or multiplicative) effects of being 

female, disadvantaged and Black. In addition to the sources of strain and subsequent 

adaptations described above, Black females are faced with four additional barriers that 

likely increase the intensity of intragender female competition and eventual violence. 

The first factor involves the impact of reduced rates of marriage on members of 

disadvantaged Black communities. As discussed earlier, the rates of marriage among 

members of disadvantaged Black communities decreased dramatically over the past two 

decades, which in turn, contributed to adaptations (e.g., serial monogamy) that likely 

increase the risk of female-on-female violence. While reduced rates of marriage also 

have impacted disadvantaged members of other ethnic groups (Bachrach et al., 2000), the 

decline in marriage rates among poor Black families has been by far the most dramatic 

(Wilson, 1996). According to Wilson (1 996), the decline in marriage rates among poor 

Blacks is a consequence of the interaction of economic forces (e.g., reduced opportunities 

for employment) and attitudes toward marriage held by members of poor Black 

communities. Historically, poor Black families have been less invested in marriage than 

members of the middle class or other minorities of the lower class; given the 

unavailability of steady employment for low-income Black males, many Black lowincome females have chosen not to marry. In addition, members of the Black community 

traditionally have placed a high value on motherhood and children and historically have 

0 rejected the idea of abortion (Browning et al., 1999; Ladner, 1971 ; Stack, 1974). These 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
160 

factors, combined with the slim possibility of marriage, have contributed to the 

emergence of norms that have not stigmatized having a child outside of marriage to 

nearly the same degree as in middle class society. Instead, reduced rates of marriage and 

having children outside of marriage have been viewed by poor Black women as 

reasonable adaptations to poverty (Browning et al., 1999, Stack, 1974). As demonstrated 

in this chapter, however, these adaptations subsequently have contributed to poverty and 

patterns of behavior (e.g., serial monogamy, tensions between mothers and daughters, and 

between mothers and sons’ girlfriends) that likely increase the risk of female-on-female 

violence 

It is likely that for other economically disadvantaged groups, the presence of 

marriage removes some potential sources of conflict (e.g., serial monogamy) that may 

increase the risk of female-on-female violence. Wilson (1 996), for example, reports that 

Mexican immigrant inner-city residents are more likely than Black residents to maintain a 

patriarchal view of the family, to succumb to community pressure to marry and to 

consider having a child outside of marriage unacceptable (although extramarital affairs 

have been tolerated). According to Wilson (1 996), these cultural norms toward marriage 

are linked to and reflect structural realities. In comparison to their Black counterparts, 

Mexican residents maintain a stronger attachment to the work force and maintain a higher 

standard of living than poor inner-city Blacks. It is possible that different structural and 

cultural patterns characteristic of Mexican and Black inner-city residents have differential 

risks for female-on-female violence (see Table 3-2, #lo). 

The second factor that may increase the risk of female-on-female violence among 

Black women in particular involves the use of self-help strategies. Historical 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
161 

discrimination has contributed to the emergence of socialization patterns that focus on 

these strategies. As a consequence, some young Black women display an assertive and 

confident attitude and consider asking for help a sign of weakness. Given the forces of 

pervasive historic discrimination, it is plausible that male and female members of Black 

communities have a greater propensity than other disadvantaged minority groups to adopt 

self-help behaviors (see Table 3-2, #11). 

A third factor that impacts disadvantaged Black women, in particular, involves 

their desire to protect Black men from the dangers posed by the wider society. Young 

Black women interviewed by Dodson (1998), for example, referred to Black males as 

“endangered” by the larger society and under great pressure to “be a man” in a world 

replete with racism. Thus, to prevent re-victimizing Black men, some Black women 

tolerate behaviors that disadvantaged females of other ethnicities likely would consider 

unacceptable (Richie, 1996). Several women interviewed by Dodson (1998, p. 80) 

admitted to accepting the Black man’s need for “sexual conquest” or “dog” behavior as 

part of his effort to demonstrate manhood. It is likely that given the larger context of 

racism and poverty, some Black women hold ambivalent attitudes toward “sexual 

conquest” behaviors that contribute to tensions, horizontal oppression, and eventual 

violence between females (see Table 3-2, #12). 

The fourth factor specific to Black females involves their ability to access and 

express anger. According to Taylor and colleagues (1995), this ability has emerged as a 

consequence of a socialization process shaped by the forces of discrimination that 

emphasize autonomy, independence and taking care of oneself. For Black females 

residing in disadvantaged communities where the use of violence among some residents 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
162 

is normative and at times required for survival, the threshold required to turn anger into 

physical aggression may be reduced thereby increasing the risk of female-on-female 

violence (see Table 3-2, #13). 

To the extent that Black females and their families lack institutional support, have 

ancestors or themselves have been victims of discrimination, and struggle to protect their 

male counterparts from further victimization, processes involving self-help behaviors and 

horizontal oppression may be intensified, ultimately contributing to the risk of female-onfemale violence. 

In sum, it is likely that disadvantaged Black women are at risk for involvement in 

female-on-female violence because they experience the cumulative effects related to 

being a female, economically disadvantaged and Black simultaneously. Clearly, femaleon-female violence must be understood within the context of gender, class and race. 

B. Limitation #2: The Need For An Integrated Theory of Female-on-Female 

Assault 

The second limitation outlined earlier in this chapter focuses on the shortage of 

theories of intragender female assault that include relevant constructs drawn from genderneutral and gender-specific theories. Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory described 

in this chapter addresses the limitations of past theories by incorporating female-specific 

and gender-neutral constructs into a single theory. Gender-specific dimensions focus on 

female gendered culturally-defined adaptations to blocked goals as well as intervening 

mechanisms that shape pathways and magnitude of the effects of relevant factors. The 

gender-neutral component focuses on sources of culturally-defined adaptations to blocked 

goals for both males and females. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
163 

Gender-specific constructs are based on feminist theory and insights gleaned form 

gender studies. It is expected that these factors will shape adaptations proximate to 

intragender female violence across numerous contexts: sexual rivalry over male intimates, 

competition over valued resources and gendered respect, and patterns of relational selfhelp. Gender-neutral constructs are based on the concept of personal respect, self-help, 

and resources. In accordance with the social structural strain perspective all constructs 

are based on cultural adaptations that emerge in response to blocked opportunities. In the 

following chapter research hypotheses for female-on-female injury drawn from the 

proposed “Theory of Gendered Structural Strain Theory” will be reviewed 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
164 

CHAPTER 4. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 

I. Introduction 

A theme woven throughout the last chapter is whether intragender female assault 

is most effectively explained by female-specific andor gender-neutral constructs. It is 

worth repeating the distinction between female-specific and gender-neutral theories used 

in this dissertation. 

A theory is categorized as “female specific” if the theory meets two criteria. First, 

the theory originally was developed based on female gendered assumptions. Second, 

research results have uncovered characteristics or underlying motivations unique to 

female involvement in violence that in some way distinguishes female violence from 

male violence. Distinguishing factors may involve causal or intervening factors. For 

example, lack of institutional support and historical racism may contribute to the use of 

violence by both Black males and females. Females, however, may be more likely to use 

under some circumstances because of socialization patterns that focus on care-taking and 

maintaining interpersonal connections. In contrast, males may be more likely to use 

violence under these circumstances to meet “male-specific” needs such as validation of 

one’s manhood. In this dissertation the defining attribute of female-specific is the 

identification of a theory OT corollary that provides an explanation for violence that is 

distinct for females compared to males. 

In contrast to female-specific theories, “gender-neutral” theories do not include 

assumptions specific to gender and applications to date have not identified femalespecific components. Scholars who have tested gender-neutral theories emphasize 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
165 

similarities in participation in crime by both genders and support the application of 

theories originally developed with males to the study of female violence. 

According to the proposed Theory of Gendered Social Structural Strain, a study 

of intragender female assault requires a blended theory that includes both female genderspecific and gender-neutral constructs. For example, research results demonstrate that the 

structural-cultural approach is applicable to violence by males and females, but 

adaptations to strain have both gender-neutral and female-specific dimensions. For 

instance, given adherence to the gendered double standard, sexual rivalry that results 

from the shortage of marriageable males (Oliver, 1989b) is classified as female-specific. 

Personal respect is considered gender-neutral (Anderson, 1999) while respect lost as a 

consequence of a female’s tainted sexual reputation (Nurge, 1999) is considered femalespecific. 

Throughout this dissertation female-specific and gender-neutral theories have 

been discussed within the context of comparisons between male and female use of 

violence. For example, a factor defined as female specific takes into account gender . 

differences and explains a female-unique phenomenon. In contrast, gender-neutral 

factors affect males and females similarly. 

The research design applied in this dissertation provides the unique opportunity to 

test hypotheses derived from Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory by comparing 

females intentionally injured by non-partner females with females intentionally injured by 

non-partner males. Individuals injured by sexual partners (past and current) are excluded 

from this analysis. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
166 

If the proposed Theory of Gendered Social Structural Strain explains intragender 

female assault, but not cross-gender assault, then the need for a separate gendered theory 

will be demonstrated. It is expected that variables, which measure female-specific 

concepts, will distinguish between violent injuries to females by female antagonists and 

by male antagonists, respectively. When the gender of the antagonist varies, it is 

expected that gender-neutral concepts will require gendered corollaries that will 

distinguish between female-on-female violence and male-on-female violence. The 

defining characteristic of a gender-neutral factor is the absence of research that points to 

gender differences in the use of violence. Past studies, however, typically do not take into 

account the gender of the opposing party. The assumption underlying a comparative 

analysis of cross-gender and intragender violence is that all concepts are gendered. 

11. Study Hypotheses 

The research hypotheses for female-on-female injury will be drawn from 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. This theory is based on strain theory and the 

structural-cultural perspective and integrates cultural adaptations drawn from feminist 

theory and gender studies (Chesney-Lind, 1988; Heimer and DeCoster, 1999) and the 

Code of the Street perspective (Anderson, 1994,1999; Nurge, 2000). Adherence to these 

adaptations is expected to increase the risk of female-on-female violence compared to 

male-on-female violence. 

As described in the previous chapter, feminist theory and insights from gender 

studies are considered female-specific; and the Code ofthe Street perspective is 

categorized as gender-neutral with a female-specific corollary. Study hypotheses are 

drawn from these theoretical perspectives. Brief reviews of feminist theory, findings 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
167 

from gender studies, and insights from the Code of the Street perspective are discussed 

below. 

Strain and Feminist Theory/Gender-Studies: Female-Specific Adaptations 

In response to structural strain, female-specific adaptations emerge in response to 

three blocked goals. These goals include: (1) marriage or a long-term male intimate 

partner relationship, (2) academic and occupational success, and (3) safety and protection 

of oneself and one’s family/friends. Three issues drawn from feminist theory and gender 

studies are expected to shape female-gendered adaptations to these goals and, in turn, 

increase the risk of female-on-female violence compared to male-on-female violence. 

These issues include: (1) the impact of adherence to patriarchal norms; (2) the impact of 

the unequal distribution of opportunities for economic success among females compared 

to males and the subsequent overrepresentation of females among the disadvantaged; and 

(3) the role of interpersonal relationships in the lives of males and females. 

Strain and the Code of the Street Perspective: Gender-Neutral and Female-Specific 

Adaptations 

In response to barriers to academic and occupational success, gender-neutral 

adaptations have emerged. The Code of the Street perspective offers a framework for 

understanding gender-neutral adaptations as well as an additional female-specific 

adaptation. 

The key value shared by males and females is the importance of maintaining 

personal respect. With few tradtinna! means to earn status (e.g., employment, family 

provider), personal respect among both males and females has become a commodity 

worth fighting over. Once one’s self worth is challenged, it is necessary for the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
168 

disrespected woman to meet the challenge with physical aggression or aggressive words 

that likely increase the risk of escalation to violence. According to Anderson (1 990), 

conflict and competition over respect, is likely to be emphasized during the adolescent 

years when issues related to identity formation and self- esteem are highly operative. In 

accordance with women’s adherence to the Code of the Street, it is expected that femaleon-female assault will be characterized by mutual participation. That is, both participants 

(victim and offender) actively contribute to the violent outcome. Moreover, its is 

expected that presence of witnesses will intensify the need fight back to save face and 

subsequently will increase the risk of violence. 

In addition to gender-neutral adaptations, Nurge (2000) identified a femalespecific corollary of respect. She found that some young women, when accused of 

promiscuous activity feel compelled to become involved in assault against the accuser in 

order to restore their reputations in the eyes of both male and female peers. 

A Partial Test of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory 

The hypotheses that follow serve as a partial test of Gendered SociaZ StructuraZ 

Strain 77zemy. Data measuring goals, sources of strain and intervening mechanisms were 

not collected as part of the emergency department data set. The hypotheses, therefore, are 

based on adaptations that are likely to increase the risk of intragender violence. For the 

purposes of this empirical test carried out in this dissertation, it is assumed that structural 

strain leads to blocked goals which, in turn, result in adaptations that intensify the risk for 

female-on-female violence. The rationale for this assumption is that the target 

community chosen for this study is characterized by structural disadvantage. A complete 

description of the community is given in Chapter 5. 

, - 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
169 

HYPOTHESES 

TITLES 

Research Hypotheses 

The research hypotheses are summarized in Table 4- 1. They are based on 

adaptations to strain and are drawn from the Code of the Street perspective, Feminist 

Theory and insights from gender studies. Each hypothesis is labeled and presented 

according to two major constructs: culturally-defined female-specific adaptations that 

emerge in response to blocked goals; and culturally-defined gender-neutral adaptations 

that emerge (independent of gender) in response to blocked opportunities. In the section 

THEORETICAL DERIVATION 

that follows an explanation for each hypothesis is provided. 

Table 4-I: Summary of Research Hypotheses and Theoretical Derivations 

Player Hypothesis 

Gender-Centric Concerns Hypothesis 

Interpersonal-Concerns Hypothesis 

Relational-Protection Hypothesis 

Deference-Aggression Hypothesis 

Female-Valued Resource Hypotheses 

Feminist Theory 

Feminist Theory 

Gender Studies 

Gender Studies/ Gendered Code of the Street 

Feminist Theory/Gender Studies 

Feminist Theory 

FEMALE SPECIFIC 

Personal Respect Hypothesis 

Mutual Contribution Hypothesis 

Public-View Hypothesis 

Life Cycle Hypothesis 

Code of the Street 

Code of the Street 

Code of the Street 

GENDER-NEUTRAL 

a) age of respondent 

b) age of antagonist 

Code of the Street 

Code of the Street 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
170 

1. Culturally-defined Female-Specific Adaptations to Blocked Goals 

a. Piayer Hypothesis 

Females presenting for emergency department (ED) care for violent injuries by 

females are more likely to become involved in violence for reasons related to maLe 

player behavior than females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males. 

Hypothesis Rationale 

In accordance with the feminist component of Gendeved Social Structural Strain 

Theory, the potential for female-on-female assault is exaggerated by the demographic 

scarcity of eligible male intimate partners and findings that some males pursue multiple 

sexual partners. One adaptation involves intensified sexual rivalry for male intimate 

partners and increased risk for intragender female violence. Intragender violence that 

results as a consequence of player behavior is an indication that the female antagonist (the 

woman being played) adheres to patriarchal norms. Instead of targeting her anger toward 

the male she displaces her feelings onto the rival female. 

On the contrary, females fighting for reasons related to male player behavior are 

less likely to be involved in a cross-gender violent event because points of conflict likely 

involve the women’s attempt to secure a male intimate. This is not a likely concern for 

non-partner males who assault women. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
171 

b. Gender-Centric Concerns Hypothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by females are more likely 

to be injured because of conflict over intimates, reproductive issues or accusations 

about promiscuous sexual activity than females presenting to ED care for violent 

injuries by males. 

Hypothesis Rationale 

In accordance with the female-specific corollary of the Code of the Street 

component of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, this hypothesis is based on 

adaptations to blocked opportunities to academic and occupational achievement. 

Adaptations include emphasizing and competing over culturally-defined goals including 

intimate partners, reproductive success and an untainted sexual reputation. Given the 

importance and emotional intensity related to this set of adaptations, arguments can turn 

violent. 

It is not expected that male-on-female violence will occur over competition for 

culturally-defined measures of female success (e.g., intimate partners, reproductive 

success, sexual reputation) because these concerns are unlikely to be sources of 

competition between participants involved in non-intimate cross-gender assault. 

However, it is possible that some males may injure females as a consequence of rejection. 

c. Relational-Protection Hypothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by females are more likely 

to be injured by female antagonists who are protecting/defending friends or family 

than are females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by male antagonists. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
172 

Hvpothesis Rationale 

In accordance with the Code of the Street approach and the gender studies 

research, this hypothesis is based on blocked opportunities to safety that result from 

limited institutional support. According to findings from gender studies, female-specific 

socialization patterns that center on preserving interpersonal relationships combined with 

adherence to “self-help” strategies shape females’ adaptations to blockages to safety. One 

adaptation includes a tendency to take matters into one’s own hands and a readiness to 

use violence to protect friends and family members. 

In accordance with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory male antagonists are 

less likely than female antagonists’ to engage in violence against a female over relational 

protection because of the gendered difference in socialization patterns that center on 

taking care of others. 

d. Interpersonal-Concerns Hypothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by females are more likely 

to be injured for reasons relating to Interpersonal-Concerns (issues over being liked or 

rumors, gossip) than females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by male 

an tagon hts. 

In accordance with the female-specific component of Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory, this hypothesis is based on the centrality of interpersonal relationships in 

the lives of females. It is likely that adaptations to blocked opportunities involve sources 

of competition that extend beyond intimate partners to interpersonal concerns more 

generally. These include incidents involving issues of not being liked as well as rumors 

and gossip. Research indicates that females are more likely than males to be oriented 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
173 

interpersonally (Crick and Dodge, 1 994). Consequently female-on-female violence is 

expected to involve issues of interpersonal concerns. 

It is not expected that male-on-female violence will occur over interpersonal 

concerns to the same extent as female-on-female violence. Interpersonal issues are likely 

to be a major concern of male antagonists. 

e. Deference-Aggression Hypothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by females are more likely 

to be involved in short-term, uncommitted male intimate partner relationships (less 

than 9 months, and female is single and does not cohabitate with a male intimate 

partner) than females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by male antagonists. 

Hypothesis Rationale 

In accordance with the feminist component of Gendered Social Structural Strain 

Theory, this hypothesis is based on females’ adaptations to blocked opportunities for 

relationships with male intimate partners, as well as blockages to academic and 

occupational success. With limited means to earn success, securing a boyfriend assumes 

increased importance. Consequently, competition between females intensifies over male 

intimate partners. 

Consistent with this perspective, Campbell (1 995) and Campbell and colleagues 

(1 998) maintains that some women who are involved in short-term, uncommitted 

intimate relationships are likely to target their jealousy toward the female rival instead of 

the intimate for fear of driving away the male intimate. Adherence to the gendered 

double standard is likely to increase the female’s risk of involvement in intragender 

violence. Consistent with the double standard, the slighted female’s use of violence 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
174 

allows her to punish the rival female for unacceptable behavior and to boost her position 

within the dominant male group (Nurge, 2000). In accordance with the importance 

assigned to interpersonal relationships among females, by targeting the female instead of 

the male she also preserves her current relationship with the male or the opportunity for a 

future relationship. 

In contrast, females involved in short-term, uncommitted male intimate partner 

relationships are less likely to be involved in cross-gender violent events with nonintimate males because points of conflict involve the women’s attempt to establish a 

relationship with a male intimate. This is not a likely concern for non-partner males who 

assault women. 

f. Female-Valued Resource HyDothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by other females are more 

likely to sustain an injury to the face than females presenting for ED care for violent 

injuries by males. 

Hypothesis Rationale 

In accordance with the feminist orientation of Gendered Social Structural Strain 

Theory, this hypothesis is based on adaptations to blocked opportunities to academic and 

occupational success, which in turn shift the focus to competition over males. Rivalry is 

expected to intensify among women who adhere to patriarchal norms andor face severe 

barriers to economic success. 

In accordance with Campbell’s (1995) discussion of valued goods, it is possible 

that women who display resources that are of interest to other women will provoke 

feelings of envy and at times conflict and violence. Campbell (1 995) suggests that 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
175 

female-on-female violent events involve “epigamic” selection that contributes to 

intragender competition. This process refers to the display of particular attributes that are 

valued by males and focus on physical attractiveness (e.g., hair, nails). Thus, it is 

expected that female-on-female assault will involve injuries to the face. Injury to the face 

may be a strategy used to reduce a rival female’s physical attractiveness by damaging 

those qualities valued by potential males. 

On the contrary, injuries to females by males are less likely to occur to the face. 

This is not is not a likely concern for non-partner males who assault women. 

2. Culturally-Defined Gender-Neutral Adaptations to Blocked Goals 

a. Personal Respect Hvpothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries are more likely to be 

injured because of violence over personal respect (defied by flghting in response to a 

verbal insult, threat or slight, or to prove one’s ability to stand up for onese@ than 

females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males. 

Hvpothesis Rationale 

In accordance with the Code of the Street component of Gendered SociaZ 

Structural Strain Theory this hypothesis is based on adaptations to blocked opportunities 

to academic and occupational success. This adaptation elevates the value of personal 

respect in the absence of opportunities to achieve obtain material goods, academic or 

occupational success. 

According to the Code of the Street perspective and its application to both women 

and men, it is expected that intragender assault commonly occurs over personal respect 

defined by fighting in response to a verbal assault, slight or provocation (e.g., name 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
176 

calling, looks of disrespect) (Baskin and Sommers,l998; Nurge, 2000). Within the 

context of a poor urban community, female intragender assault presumably involves a 

relatively equal playing field and a cultural imperative to fight back in order to save face. 

Although this hypothesis is categorized as gender-neutral, it is expected that when 

the gender of the antagonist varies, a female-specific corollary will be present. The 

likelihood of a cross-gender conflict turning into a violent event is expected to be less 

likely because identity concerns for participants may not be as salient. 

b. Mutual-Contribution Hvpothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by females are more likely 

to actively contribute to the violent outcome by using physical or verbal provocation 

and are more likely to fight back than females presenting for ED care for injuries by 

males. 

Hypothesis Rationale 

Consistent with the Code of the Street component of Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory, this hypothesis is based on blocked opportunities to academic and 

occupational success. Subsequently, females adapt by adhering to culturally-defined goals 

set forth by the Code of the Street. According to the Code, once one’s self worth is 

challenged, it is necessary for the disrespected women to meet the challenge with physical 

aggression or aggressive words that likely increase the risk of escalation to violence 

Thus, both participants (victim and offender) are expected to actively contribute to the 

violent outcome. 

Although this hypothesis is categorized as gender-neutral, it is expected that when 

the gender of the antagonist varies, a female-specific corollary will be present. It is not 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
177 

likely that females injured by males will be characterized by the same degree of active, 

mutual involvement by female participants. Given the size and strength differential 

between most men and women, and the absence of a cultural imperative or group 

expectation that a woman fight back against a male antagonist, it is unlikely that a woman 

will become involved in violence for reasons beyond self-defense. 

c. Public-View Hypothesis 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by females are more iikeiy 

be injured in conflicts characterized by the presence of bystanders than femaies 

presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males. 

Hypothesis Rationale 

In accordance with the Code of the Street component of Gendered Social 

StructuraZ Strain Theory, this hypothesis is based on adaptations to blocked opportunities 

for academic and occupational success. Subsequently, young females place increased 

emphasis on obtaining culturally-defined measures of success in order to maintain a sense 

of self worth. 

Consistent with the Code of the Street, the presence of third parties is expected to 

contribute to the escalation of intragender violence irrespective of gender by increasing 

the probability of face-saving retaliation. In public there is an obligation to fight back in 

order to save face. This hypothesis is consistent with research by Felson (1 982) who 

demonstrated that the presence of third parties increases the severity of conflict when 

participants are of the same gender. 

Although this hypothesis is categorized as gender-neutral, it is expected that when 

the gender of the antagonist varies, a female-specific corollary will be present. The 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
178 

presence of third parties is not expected to enhance the severity of conflict involving 

cross-gender violent events because the audience is likely to disapprove of male assault 

against females (Felson, 1982). 

d. Life Cycle Hypotheses 

Females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by females are more likely 

to be under the age of 24 than females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by 

males. 

In addition, females presenting for violent injuries by females are more likely to 

be injured by an antagonist(s) who is (are) within 5 years of the respondents’ age than 

females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males. 

Hypothesis Rationale 

In accordance with Code of the Street component of Gendered Social Structural 

Struin Theory, this hypothesis is based on adaptations to blocked opportunities to 

academic and occupational success. Subsequently, females place increased emphasis on 

obtaining culturally-defined measures of success. 

According to research findings, younger women and men are more likely to be 

involved in intragender assault than older women and men. Female and male intragender 

competition may be present over the life course. However, conflict and competition are 

likely to be emphasized during the adolescent years when issues related to identity 

formation and self- esteem are highly operative. Arrest and self-report studies on female 

intragender assault document that younger females (under 24 years of age) more 

frequently assault females than males (Campbell et al, 1998). Moreover, females injured 

. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
179 

by other females are most commonly injured by age peers or acquaintances (Campbell et 

al, 1998; Home Ofice Statistical Bulletin, 1996; Maccoby, 1988). 

Although this hypothesis is categorized as gender-neutral, it is expected that when 

the gender of the antagonist varies, a female-specific corollary will be present.’ It is 

expected that females injured by females will be younger because during the earlier years 

females are expected to compete over sources of status including males, babies and 

respect. 

In contrast, females who are younger will be less likely to be involved in crossgender violence. Older females compared to younger females by virtue of their status in 

the life cycle are likely to be exposed to a different set of risk factors (e.g., risky lifestyle) 

that may increase their risk of injury by a male non-intimate. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
180 

CHAPTER 5. METHODS 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In the previous two chapters, theoretical constructs of Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory were outlined and hypotheses generated. This chapter details methods that 

will be employed to answer the main empirical question posed in Chapter 4: Are the same 

andor different factors correlated with intentional injuries inflicted upon females by nonpartner females and by non-partner males respectively. The chapter also will include 

methods used for the descriptive analyses and for generating further theory development. 

This study is a secondary analysis. Data were drawn from a study of females 

presenting to one of three emergency departments in West Philadelphia for intentional 

injuries. In the original study “intentional injury” was defined as any physical pain or 

damage (including rape) that was intentionally inflicted by another person. Any 

altercation that resulted in injury was considered a violent injury regardless of whether the 

injured person instigated the altercation. A violent incident that caused physical pain but 

no apparent physical damage was considered an injury. Verbal aggression did not 

constitute a violent injury (Grisso, 1995). 

The remainder of this chapter is comprised of three main sections. The first 

section describes methods employed in original study. Topics include: A) the study 

population and neighborhood characteristics; B) selection of emergency departments; C) 

inclusion and exclusion criteria for study participants; D) selection methods for study 

participants; E) procedures used to identifjr intentionally injured women and to collect 

data; F) description of the original study sample; G) and a brief description of the data set. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
181 

The second section describes methods used in the secondary analysis. Topics 

include the following: A) selection criteria and description of the sample; B) 

operationalization of concepts; C) a description of concepts and measures used for 

hypothesis testing; D) a description of concepts and measures used for descriptive 

purposes; E) a description of the analysis plan and F) potential limitations of a secondary 

data analysis and proposed remedies. 

11. ORIGINAL STUDY 

A. Study Population and Community Characteristics 

The target community for the original study included the entire West Philadelphia 

community. In 1990, this population was estimated to include 301,598 individuals. 

Seventy percent of the West Philadelphia population was comprised of Black residents, 

28 percent were white and two percent were Asian. Less than 1 percent were Hispanic 

(Grisso, 1995). 

A previous study of violent injuries to women in West Philadelphia known as The 

PhiZadeZphia Injury Prevention Program (PIPP) demonstrated the extent of violent 

injuries to West Philadelphia residents during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. PIPP 

established a population-based emergency department surveillance system that focused on 

17 (of the 22) census tracts within West Philadelphia (Schwarz et al., 1993). The study 

documented the incidence of fatal and nonfatal injuries in this community based on a 

review of all medical records. In 1987, the first year of surveillance, 3,083 injuries 

occurred to 2,8 1 1 women living in the census tracts under investigation, representing a 

rate of 21.4 per 1,000 women. By 1990, the rate increased by 55 percent to 33.2 per 

1,000 women. During 1990, violence was the leading cause of death in this population. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
182 

The risk of violent injury to women between 25 and 34 years of age was 26 times higher 

than among women 65 years of age or older. Between 1987 and 1990, rates of violent 

injury among women 25 to 29 years old increased annually per 1,000 women from 

approximately 50 (in 1987), 60 (in 1988), 70 (in 1989), and 90 (in 1990) (Schwarz et al., 

1993). 

According to the PIPP study, violent injury rates in women were three to four 

times greater in West Philadelphia compared to a population-based study in the Midwest 

(Fife et al., 1984). During the first two years of the study falls were the leading cause of 

injury morbidity. By 1989, however, violent injuries surpassed all others as the leading 

cause of injury (Schwarz et al., 1993). Over the four-year study period, the rate of 

reported injuries due to interpersonal violence increased by 55 percent, with no declines 

’ 

in the rate of unintentional injuries. Based on this finding the authors argue that the 

dramatic increase represents a real increase rather than an increase in willingness to report 

the injury (Grisso et al., 1996). 

Information drawn from several data sources characterizes the West Philadelphia 

Community as structurally disadvantaged. The data presented include: demographic, 

social and economic data collected by the 1990 U.S. Census; disease data collected by the 

Philadelphia Health Department in 1990; and violent crime and drug crime data collected 

by the Philadelphia Police Department in 1992. For each variable rates of occurrence 

were calculated based on the population living in each census tract (Yancy et al., 1995). 

Table 5- 1 includes a comparison of West Philadelphia Community (“West”) 

indicators (N=67 census tracts) to Philadelphia tracts exclusive of West Philadelphia 

tracts or the “Greater” Philadelphia community (N=3 07). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
183 

% Black 

% Below Poverty Level 

Table 5-1: A Comparative Analysis of Study (we5 Philadelphia) 

Community and Philadelphia Community (Greater) 

71 32 2.2 

28 19 1.5 

Indicator 

% Teenage Mothers (under 19 yrs. old) 

% Single Parent Households 

Ratio of 

West Greater West: Greater 

10 6 1.7 

56 37 1.5 

% Babies Born with Low-Weight 

Tuberculosis Rate per 10,000 

Drug Arrest Rate Der 1 .OOO 

'YO Mothers with Inadequate Prenatal Care 

Syphilis Rate per 10,000 

13 9 1.4 

17 8 2.1 

25 19 1.3 

43 13 3.3 

8 5 1.6 

By every measure presented the census tracts that comprise the West Philadelphia 

community reveal higher rates (by at least 1.3 times) of poverty, disease, and crime 

compared to the greater Philadelphia community. Almost 30 percent of West 

Philadelphia residents live below the poverty level, 1.5 times the rate of the rest of 

Philadelphia. Over one half of the West Philadelphia families are headed by single 

parents, 1.5 times the rate representative of the greater Philadelphia area. The rate of 

syphilis is more than triple the rate of the remaining Philadelphia neighborhoods. A 

significant minority (1 7%) of West Philadelphia pre-partum residents failed to receive 

adequate prenatal care. The results indicate that West Philadelphia, compared to the 

greater Philadelphia area, is characterized by structural disadvantage. Research has 

shown significant correlations between rates of poverty and rates of disease, violence and 

inadequate access to health services (Yancy et al., 1995). This suggests that communities 

characterized by high rates of poverty are accompanied by hardships and tensions brought 

about by disease, crime and limited access to health services. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
184 

B. Selection of Emergency Departments 

The original study was carried out at three hospital emergency departments: the 

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Presbyterian-University of Pennsylvania 

Medical Center, and the Misericordia Division of the Mercy Catholic Medical Center. 

The selection of EDs was based on PIPP surveillance data, which documented that 90 

percent of all interpersonal intentional injuries that occurred to women seeking services 

were treated at these three hospital emergency departments. Given that these are the only 

adult hospitals located in West Philadelphia, it was expected that the majority of women 

from West Philadelphia who sought emergency care for violent injuries would be 

identified. However, some women with violence-related injuries may present to primary 

care settings rather than EDs. A survey of primary care practitioners and clinics in West 

Philadelphia revealed that fewer than 5 percent of clinicians reported providing care for 

acute injuries in those settings (Grisso, 1995). 

Emergency departments (EDs) were chosen as the site for identifying subjects for 

several reasons. First, the hospital ED is important to the health care of poor inner-city 

women because of the relative scarcity of accessible primary health care services in the 

community. Given the %-hour availability and access to services regardless of insurance 

status, the ED may be the most common site of health care for women fi-om West 

Philadelphia. Second, given the recency of the injury, data collection in the ED was 

expected to minimize possible inaccurate recall attributable to conducting a prevalence 

survey in the community or in other health care settings. Third, the results of this study 

can be used to develop'programs to improve recognition and treatment and secondary 

prevention of violence in EDs that extends to women injured by non-intimates. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
185 

person 

Resident of West Philadelphia 

Aged 16 to 45 years old 

A study of violence based on emergency department visits does not permit 

accurate assessment of rates of violence to women. Some violent incidents, for example, 

do not result in physical injury and would not be identified in an ED-based study. The 

purpose of this investigation is to identify important correlates for violence that results in 

iniw. It is this group who is at great risk for subsequent severe violent injuries and thus, 

constitutes an important group to identify (Grisso et al., 1995). 

C. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study Participants 

Table 5-2 : Inclusioflxclusion Criteria 

Major acute psychosis 

Repeat visit to the ED 

I I Eligible Participants I Ineligible Participants 

I Intentionally injured by another I Non-English speaking I 

Participants for the original study included women between 16 and 45 years of age 

because PIPP surveillance data demonstrated that violent injury rates were highest for 

women in this age range (Schwarz et al., 1993). In the original study eligibility was 

restricted to residence in West Philadelphia for two reasons that are equally applicable to 

this dissertation. First, ED use generally is determined by the need for emergency care or 

geographic ease of access, and women who have come long distances for treatment are 

probably referred from community hospitals or physiciaw and may be an 

unrepresentative group. Second, the purpose of the study was to characterize violence in 

a defined inner-city community (Grisso, 1995). 

Non-English speaking females were excluded because of logistical difficulties 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
186 

involving translation of the interview instrument. Actively psychotic women also were 

excluded on the basis that it may be difficult to obtain accurate information and the 

interview process would likely be a very stressful experience. The last exclusion criterion 

involved women who had previously participated in the study and returned to the ED as a 

result of a repeat injury. Women with a repeat visit were not eligible for participation 

because of the lack of independence between repeated interviews of the same individual. 

D. Selection Methods for Study Participants 

In the original study, “cases” refer to women who presented to one of the three 

emergency departments (EDs) for intentional injuries. Cases were compared with 

members of the “control group.” Control group members included women seeking care 

at the same EDs because of other non-violent health concerns. Cases and controls were 

16 to 45 years of age and resided in West Philadelphia (i.e. the urban community in which 

the three participating hospitals are located). Controls were randomly selected for 

participation in the study. Cases and controls were interviewed in the EDs to ensure 

safety and confidentiality and to minimize loss to follow-up. Interviews were conducted 

from October 1996 through August of 1998. Selection methods for the original study are 

described in Figure 5-1 (Grisso, 1995). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
187 

Women 16 to45ye.n prcaenting 

to ED with interpersonal intentional iajrv 

Figure 5.1: A Study of Violent Injuries in Women 

Womem 16 to 45 years 

presentimg to ED for other complaints 

Obtaim cemstnt 

E. Procedures Used to Identify Intentionally Injured Women and to Collect 

Data 

Die or Permanemtly Incapmcitakd Obtain censtnt 

Intentionally injured women were identified from two sources. The first included 

eligible women whose presenting complaint was an intentional injury. The second source 

included women initially recruited as controls who subsequently reported to the nurse 

interviewer that their ED visit was a result of intentional injuries. 

In the original study each ED was staffed seven days a week by a nurse 

interviewer. The shift began at 5:OO p.m. and ended at 12:OO a.m. Potential participants 

were approached after a physician had completed an initial assessment. If the patient 

agreed, the nurse interviewer conducted a brief pre-enrollment interview to verify 

-L EXCLUDE 

No ,/’ Y. 

Y. I1 Exclude Y. Obtaim consent 

No 

EXCLUDE Yea 

1. Conduct Interview 

3. Review ED and Hospital 

Medical Record 

1. Conduct Interview 

2. Obtain Urine Specimen 

3. Review ED Medics1 

I. Conduct Imterview 

2. Obtain Urime Specimen 

3. Review ED Medical 

Record Record 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
188 

'eligibility criteria and to obtain informed consent. Any family members and friends (if 

present) were asked to leave and the interview was conducted in private. After the 

interview, a urine specimen was collected in order to test for the presence of alcohol or 

illicit drugs. 

F. Description of Original Study Sample 

A total of 91 1 women were identified who reported violent injuries to ED or study 

staff and 93 percent of the women identified were eligible to participate. Sixty-eight 

women (7%) were ineligible due to acute psychosis or cognitive impairment, departure 

from the emergency department before being seen, inability to communicate in English, 

or presence of custodial police officers in the emergency department that precluded a 

confdential interview. Of the 847 eligible cases, 700 women (88%) participated, 50 

women (6%) declined to participate and 54 women (6%) were unable to be recruited 

because the interviewers were interviewing other subjects at the time. An additional 

forty-two women (5%) could not complete the entire interview and were excluded from 

the analysis. 

Of the 700 women who presented to the ED for an intentional interpersonal injury and 

completed the interview, 167 (24%) reported having been injured by one or more 

females, including family member(s), acquaintance(s), friend(s) or stranger(s). And 155 

(22%) injured women reported having been injured by one or more non-partner males, 

including family member(s), acquaintance(s), friend(s) or stranger(s). Seven females (1 

percent) were injured by female intimate partners and 329 (47%) were injured by male 

intimate partners. Forty-two (6%) females were injured by mixed-gender groups. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
189 

0 G. DataSet 

The data set from the original study includes characteristics of the respondent, 

intimate partner and relationship characteristics, and circumstances of the violent event. 

These data were collected with an interview instrument (see Appendix A). In addition, 

urine specimens were collected and screened for alcohol or illicit drugs. The variables 

selected for this study are detailed in Section IW below. 

111. CURRENT STUDY 

A. Selection Criteria and Description of Sample 

Data for this dissertation was drawn from the case-control analysis of violent 

injuries to females presenting for emergency department care in West Philadelphia. 

Eligibility criteria for this study are similar to the original study. Participants include 

female residents of West Philadelphia who are between 16 and 45 years of age. 

However, participants for this study are restricted further to females injured by male or 

female non-intimates including family members (exduding spouses or common law 

partners), acquaintances, friends and strangers. 

This study includes 322 study respondents, including 167 females injured by 

females and 155 females injured by males. This group of 322 comprises all females 

injured by non-partner male or female antagonists identified from the original study. 

Females injured by male or female intimate partners are excluded from the analysis based 

on the goal of this dissertation, which is to focus on the subgroup of females injured by 

non-intimate antagonists. Relatively few studies have focused on female intragender 

assault among predominantly Black women across a broad range of non-intimate 

relationships. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
190 

Women intentionally injured by mixed-gender groups are excluded from this 

study for several reasons. First, the nature and circumstances of mixed-gender violent 

interactions are likely to differ fiom female intragender assaults. When females 

collaborate with males, for example, they often take on auxiliary or secondary roles 

(Miller, 1998). This dynamic is likely to differ for females involved in intragender 

assault. The second factor involves the major aim of this study, which is to compare 

intragender and cross-gender assaults; including members of the mixed-gender group in 

either of the comparison groups would cloud the distinction between the two groups 

under investigation. 

B. Operationalization of Concepts 

Concepts and measures selected from the original data set for inclusion in the 

curent study are summarized in Tables 5-3 and 5-4. Table 5-3 includes variables used for 

hypotheses testing. Table 5-4 includes additional variables used for descriptive 

purposes. 

Part 1 below provides a rationale for operations outlined in Table 5-3. These 

include measures used to operationalize theoretical concepts of Gendered Social 

Structural Strain Theory and control variables. Part I1 includes brief variable descriptions 

for additional variables that are included in the descriptive analyses. Following each 

variable is a parenthesis that includes locator information drawn from the interview 

protocol (see Appendix A). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
191 

CONCEPTS OPERATIONAL MEASURES THEORETICAL 

DERIVATION 

Table 5-3: Concepts and Measures Used For Hypotheses Testing 

CODING 

SCHEME 

Player Hypothesis 

DeferenceAggression 

Female-Specific Components 

Incident involves a male who is Feminist Theory l=yes, O=no 

flirting/ sexually involved with a 

rival female 

Intimate relationship of less than 9 Feminist Theory l=yes, 0-0 

months, single and not living and Gender Studies 

Concerns 

Hypothesis 

InterpersonalConcerns 

Hypothesis 

RelationalProtection 

Hypothesis I together I I 

Gender-Centric I Incident over intimate, reproduction I Feminist Theory I l=yes, 0-0 

(having babies), sexual reputation 

Incident over rumors, gossip and Gender Studies l=yes, 0-0 

issues around being likeddisliked 

Incident over issues related to Gendered Code of l=yes, 0-0 

defending fiiends or family the Street and 

Hypothesis 

Female-Valued 

Gender Studies 

Injury to the face Feminist Theory l=yes, O=no 

Resource 

Hypothesis 

Code of the street 

Gender-Neutral Components 

1 =a4 years 

old 

0=24 years 

old or 

Life Cycle 

Hypothesis 

One of the antagonists is within 5 

years of the study respondent’s age 

Violence in response to verbal 

insultklight or to prove self 

Respondent actively contributes to 

the violent event by using physical 

or verbal provocation and by 

fighting back 

Bystanders present 

Life Cycle 

Hypothesis 

Personal Respect 

greater 

l=yes, O=no 

l=yes, 0-0 

I=yes, 0-0 

Code of the street 

Code of the street 

Code of the street 

Code of the street l=yes, 0-0 

Hypothesis 

Mutual Contribution 

Hypothesis 

Pu blic-View 

Hypothesis 

Respondent’s age 

less than 24 years old 

I I 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
192 

CONCEPTS 

Socio-Economic 

status 

Psychological Status 

Table 5-3: Concepts and Measures Used For Hypotheses Testing (Continued) 

MEASURES APPROACH/ 

THEORETICAL 

DERIVATION 

Receipt of public Economic 

assistance Marginalization 

Low self-esteem PsychiatMSocialControl Variable Candidates 

Violence by a male 

- 

Lifestyle 

Recent partner Victimization 

I I Psychological 

Psychological Status I Depression I Psychiatric/Socialrespondent 

Child Abuse 

I ActivitiesLifestyle 

Past Violence 

Victim-Offender 

Relationship 

a) Physical abuse 

b) Physical abuse by 

mother 

c) Witness physical 

violence to motherfigure by father figure 

d) Sexual abuse 

History of domestic 

violence 

RespondentAntagonist 

Relationship 

Psychological 

Victimization 

Approach 

Victimization 

Approach 

Routine Activities 

Lifestyle 

Situational 

Co-Residence I Lives with antagonist I Routine Activities 

partner against violence toward others Approach 

someone exclusive of Routine 

Attainment completed Marginalization 

CODING SCHEME I -+ l-yes, 0-0 

l-yes, 0-0 

l=yes, 0-0 

l=yes, 0-0 

1 =family members 

2=fiiends 

3=acquaintances 

4=strangers 

l-yes, 0-0 

l=yes, 0-0 

1 =less than high 

school 

2=completed high 

school 

3=more than high 

school 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
193 

.hours of violent event 

Antagonist and 

Table 5-3: Concepts and Measures Used For Hypotheses Testing (Continued) 

Vict&i&tion 

Routine Activities 

CONCEPTS 

Predatory Violence 

Substance use 

Control Variable Candidates 

MEASURES 

Rape, robbery or theft 

led to injury 

Respondent used drugs 

within 4 hours of 

violent event 

Respondent used 

alcohol within 4 hours 

of violent event 

Respondent used drugs 

or alcohol within 4 

hours of violent event 

Antagonist used drugs 

within 4 hours of 

APPROACH/ 

THEORETICAL 

DERIVATION 

Routine Activities 

Lifestyle 

Routine Activities 

Lifestyle; 

Victimization 

Routine Activities 

Lifestyle: 

Victimization 

Routine Activities 

Lifestyle; 

Victimization 

Routine Activities 

Lifestyle; 

of violent event 

or alcohol within 4 Lifestyle; 

respondent used drugs 

or alcohol within 4 

hours of violent event 

Lifestyle; 

Victimization 

CODING SCHEME 

l-yes, O=no 

l-yes, O=no 

l-yes ,030 

l-yes, 0-0 

l-yes, 0-0, 

9=don’t know 

l-yes, O=no,9=don’t 

know 

l-yes, 0-0, 

9=don’t know 

l-yes, 0-0 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
194 

1. Part 1: Descriptions of Concepts and Measures Used for Hypotheses Testing 

Female-specific Constructs 

a. Player Concept 

The concept “Player” is measured with data drawn from the open-ended 

questions (B 1, B 18, B 19, B20). The questions include the following: “What happened to 

you is very important, so can you tell me what happened? ” (B1) What led to this 

happening? (B 18) “Why do you think he/she/they did this? ” (B19) What one thing in 

particular triggered herhidthem getting physical with you? ” (B20). The response were 

examined for themes that reflect player behavior that including cheating and flirting. A 

detailed definition is provided in the Qualitative Coding Manuel (see Appendix B). 

Commitment to promiscuity by males can intensifjr female-on-female jealousy, 

competition for suitable male partners and the risk of female intragender assault. If player 

behavior was identified the variable was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable 

was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

b. Deference-Aggression Concept 

The concept “Deference-Aggression” refers to a short-term uncommitted 

intimate relationship. This concept is coded as a categorical variable. The category 

short-term uncommitted, was created based on four questions including marital status 

(l=Single, 2=Married, including common law), duration of relationship (in years and 

months), cohabitation (1 =Yes; O=No) and currently involved in a relationship (1 =Yes; 

O=No). If the respondent reported a current relationship (N=l) of less than 9 months (Nl, 

N4), unmarried status including separated or divorced (A4) not living with the 

partner (G4A), then the relationship is considered as short-term and uncommitted. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
195 

’Campbell (1995, 1998) maintains that women who are involved in short-term, noncommitted intimate relationships are at risk for targeting jealousy toward the female rival 

instead of the intimate for fear of driving away the male intimate. If the relationship is 

characterized as short-term and uncommitted the variables was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” 

otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

c. Mu tual-Con tribu tion Concept 

The “Mutual-Contribution” concept refers to whether the respondent 

contributed to the violent outcome beyond self-defense. This concept is measured with 

two variables. The first variable is measured with data dram from the open-ended 

questions (Bl, B18, B19, B20). If the respondent used physical or verbal aggression prior 

to sustaining the injury then the response is coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the 

variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” This variable is labeled “mutuality.” 

“Mutual -Contribution” also is measured with the interview question that states: 

“Did youfight buck? ” (l=Yes, O=No) (B21). In accordance with women’s adherence to 

the Code of the Street, it is expected that female-on-female assault is characterized by 

mutual participation. In some low-income communities characterized by limited means 

to achieve conventionally-defined success, fighting back becomes a requirement to 

maintain respect andor to prevent future victimization (Anderson, 1994, 1999; Nurge, 

2000). If the respondent answered “Yes” to this question & if the incident is 

characterized by mutuality (as described above) then the variable was coded with a 1 for 

“Yes;” otherwise the variable is coded with a 0 for “NO.” Both criteria must be met in 

order to ensure that women who fight back for reasons limited to self-defense are not 

categorized as active mutual participants. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
196 

d. Interpersonal-Concerns Concept 

The “Interpersonal-Concerns Concept” includes two categories that emphasize 

relational issues. The first involves negative feelings shared between individuals and is 

expressed by respondents as “she/he doesn’t like me.” The second is referred to by 

researchers as “indirect aggression” and by respondents as “he sayhhe say” and includes 

spreading false rumors and gossiping (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992). 

Data obtained from the open-ended questions described above (B1 , B 18, B 19, 

B20) were examined for themes including he sayhhe say and issues of being liked or 

disliked (see Appendix B). If the incident is characterized by one of these concerns then 

the variable was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for 

“No.” 

e. Gender-Centric Concerns Concept 

Gender-Centric Concerns include male- and female-centric concerns. The 

construct “Female-Centric Concerns” is drawn from feminist theory. In accordance 

with this perspective, women who .adhere to patriarchal norms compete with each other 

over female-centric concerns including boyfriends, babies and maintaining an untainted 

sexual reputation. Given the importance and emotional intensity related to this set of 

concerns, arguments involving these issues can turn violent. 

The construct “Male-Centric Concerns” is drawn from the Code of the Street 

perspective. Males who are focused on maintaining their reputation are likely to be at 

increased risk for engaging in violence with females who refuse their advances. This 

includes females who are perceived by males as potential (not current) girlfriends. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
197 

Data obtained fiom the open-ended questions described above (B 1, B 18, B 19, 

B20) were examined for themes that reflect female- or male- centric concerns including 

issues related to intimates (e.g., player behavior, cheating, jealousy), reproductive success 

(e.g., jealousy over rival’s pregnancy or competition over babies) and maintaining an 

untarnished reputation (e.g., fight results fiom accusation regarding sexual promiscuity) 

(see Appendix B). If the incident was characterized by a female or male-centric concern 

then the variable was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 

for “No.” 

f. Relational-Protection Concept 

The concept “Relational-Protection” refers to involvement in violence in the 

service of protecting or defending friends or family. This concept is drawn from the 

gendered dimension of the Code of the Street and female-specific socialization patterns 

that center on interpersonal relationships (Campbell, 1993) and may contribute to a 

female’s readiness to use violence to protect loved ones from physical harm or disrespect. 

Data obtained from the open-ended questions described above (B 1 , B 18, B 19, 

B20) were examined for themes that reflect relational protection including fighting to 

protect or defend friends or family members. When the antagonist was described as 

fighting to protect a third party fiom physical harm or disrespect the variable was coded 

with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

g. Female-Valued Resource Concept 

The concept “Female-Valued Resource’’ refers to assets that females are likely 

to value and compete over. Injury to the face may be a strategy used to reduce a rival 

female’s physical attractiveness by damaging those qualities valued by potential males. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
198 

This construct is measured with the following interview question: “Can you circle 

the areas where you were hurt or hit? ” (B 13). If the response is “face” then the variable 

was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

Gender-Neutral Constructs 

a. Life Cycle Concept 

The “Life Cycle” concept is operationalized by two variables including age of the 

respondent and whether or not antagonist is within five years of the respondent’s age. 

The age of the respondent (Al) was assessed as a continuous and dichotomous variable 

(l=less than 24 years of age; 0=24 years old or greater). The age-peer variable was 

assessed as a dichotomous variable and coded with a 1 for “antagonist is an age-peer,” 

otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

In this study an age-peer is defined one who is within five years of the 

respondent’s age. This variable was calculated based on questions that inquire about the 

age of the respondent and the age of the antagonist(s) (A1 , B33). 

b 

b. Personal Respect Concept 

The concept “Personal Respect’’ refers to violence in response to a verbal insult, 

slight or provocation (e.g., name calling, look or actions of disrespect). Data obtained 

from the open-ended questions (B 1, B 18, B 19, B20) were examined for themes that 

reflect personal respect. This concept is drawn fiom the Code of the Street perspective 

and its application to women (Anderson, 1999; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Nurge, 

2000). If themes related to personal respect were present the variable was coded with a 1 

for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” Incidents that include 

protecting the reputation of a third party were excluded in order to differentiate between 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
199 

Anderson’s (1 999) gender-neutral individualized version of personal respect and Adams’ 

(1 999) female gendered version of relational protection. 

c. Public-View Concept 

The “Public View” concept refers to violence that occurs with bystanders present. 

According to the Code of the Street, the presence of third parties is expected to contribute 

* to the escalation of violence by increasing the probability of face-saving retaliation. This 

concept is consistent with research by Felson (1982) who demonstrated that the presence 

of third parties increases the severity of conflict among participants of the same gender. 

This concept was measured with the following interview questions: “Were people other 

than [the antagonist] there when he/she/they started getting physical with you? What is 

your relation to hidher them? (B15). Bystanders that include children only were 

excluded because children are not likely to elicit the need to save face which is 

characteristic of adult bystanders. If a bystander (including at least one adult) was present 

the variable was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for 

‘WO.” 

Candidate Control Variables 

Several variables were considered for inclusion as control variable candidates 

because they have been shown to be associated with female involvement in assault. They 

include measures of economic disadvantage (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Campbell et al., 

1998), psychological status (Ellickson et al., 2000; Ellickson et al., 1997) a history of 

childhood abuse (Artz, 1998; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Leischied et al., 2000, Widom 

and Maxfield, 200 1) substance abuse (Goldstein et al., 199 1 ; Mann, 1990, 1996; Widom 

and Maxfield, 2001), a past history of domestic violence or rape (Richie, 1996) and injury 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
200 

by someone known to the respondent (Campbell et al, 1998). The following variables 

also were considered for inclusion as control variables: co-residence, predatory violence 

and violence by a male partner against someone exclusive of the respondent and 

education. 

a. The construct economic disadvantage is included to control for economic 

marginalization. This construct is considered an indication of having few economic 

resources and is based on receipt of government assistance from DPA (department of public 

assistance) (J5 or J6 or 57) at the time of the interview. If the respondent answered Yes to 

J5 (receipt of food stamps) or 56 (receipt of SSI) or 57 (receipt of cash assistance) then the 

variable was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for 

“No.” Level of educational attainment also is considered a measure of economic 

disadvantage (A3) and is measured using the following categories: O=None; 1 =Some 

grade school; 2= Some junior high; 3= Some high school; 4=High school graduate; 

5=Some post high school training other than college; 6=Some college; 7College 

graduate; 8=Graduate work. These categories are collapsed into the following categories: 

1= less than high school; 2= completed high school; 3=more than high school. 

b. The concept psychological status is measured using two variables: selfesteem and depression. A respondent is considered as having psychological problems if 

she meets criteria for low self-esteem or symptoms of depression. These measures were 

assessed separately. Self-esteem was measured with a 1 0-item Likert scale developed by 

Rosenberg (1 965) (L1 -L9). Sample questions include: “Ifeel that I am a person ofworth, 

at least on an equal basis with others” (1 =Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree, 

4=Strongly Disagree); “I feel I do not have much to be proud of’ (l=Strongly Agree, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
20 1 

‘2=Agree, 3=Disagree, 4=Strongly Disagree). Reverse scoring procedures were 

implemented for questions phrased in the affirmative. The correlation between the results 

on testing and re-testing is high with this scale (r=0.85), as are convergent and predictive 

validity (Rosenberg, 1965). A score of less than 27 indicates low self-esteem (Grisso et 

al., 1999). Self-esteem was assessed as a dichotomous variable and coded with a 1 for 

“low-self-esteem;’’ otherwise the variable was coded with a 0. 

Depressive symptoms are evaluated with the Depression Scale of the Center for 

Epidemiologic Studies (CES-0) (Radloff, 1977) (Ia-It). Respondents rated 20 items 

related to depressed mood on a scale from 0 (symptoms not present) to 4 (present most of 

the time). Sample questions include: “I was bothered by things that usually do not bother 

me; ” “I felt sad; ” “I felt lonely.” Scores higher than 16 indicate seriously depressed 

mood. Depressive symptoms were assessed as a dichotomous variable and coded with a 

1 for “The presence of depressive symptoms;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0. 

c. The concept child abuse is drawn from the Victimization Approach and 

includes physical abuse, sexual abuse and witnessing physical abuse of one’s mother. 

The questions follow: “When you were growing up, did any adult ever beat up on you? ” 

Ifres, “What was hisher relationship to you?” “When you were growing up, did any 

adult force you to have sex? “What was hidher relationship to you?” “When you were 

growing up, did anyone beat on your mom?” lfyes, “What was your relationship to that 

person? (Q 16, Q 17, Q 15 respectively). Five variables were assessed. Questions Q 16, 

Q 17 and Q 15 were assessed separately. For each variable the presence of child abuse was 

coded with a 1 for “Yes,” otherwise the variable is coded with a 0 for “No.” 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
202 

In addition, physical abuse by the mother was coded with a 1 for “Yes,” otherwise 

the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” (Q 16). This question was included because 

research has shown a link between physical abuse by the mother and the daughter’s use of 

physical aggression (Artz, 1998). 

If the respondent witnessed violence to a mother-figure by a father-figure or was 

physically beaten by a father-figure then the variable was coded with a 1 “Yes,” otherwise 

the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” This variable is included because research 

suggests that a female who is beaten by a father-figure or has witnessed a father-figure 

beat her mother internalizes a male dominant view of the world and subsequently engages 

in horizontal oppression (Artz, 1998). 

Of all the child abuse measures, the variable that showed the highest correlation 

with the outcome was included as a candidate control variable. Child abuse measures 

were tested because a vast literature documents an association between early physical and 

sexual childhood abuse and subsequent violent behavior by the victim. In contrast to the 

existing literature, the measures of child abuse included in this study are limited. For lack 

of alternative measures, however, the selected measures are included as control variables. 

d. Past violence and its relationship to current violence has been explained from 

varims theoretical-perspectives. In this dissertation the relationship been pastvictimization and current involvement in violence is best explained from the 

Victimization Perspective and Routine Activitieskifestyle Approach. Past violence was 

assessed with questions about domestic violence (Pl) and non-partner rape (47). 

Responses to the following two questions are included as control variables: “How many 

of your partners kicked, hit, punched or pushed you?” and “Did any male [non-partner] 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
203 

ever force you to have sex when you didn ’t want to?” (1 =Yes; O=No). The first question 

was recoded as a categorical variable (O=None; l=One partner; 2=Two or more partners) 

because fewer than 7 percent of the respondents were injured by more than two partners. 

e. Victim-offender relationship also is included to control for the finding that 

0 

that females are more likely than males to commit assault against someone they know 

than against a stranger (Campbell et al., 1998). This information was obtained with the 

following question (B 14): “mat is his/her/their [antagonist s] relationship to you? ” 

The data were recoded into four indicator variables: family members, friends, 

acquaintances and strangers. 

f. Co-residence is considered for inclusion to control for the likelihood 

that respondents and antagonists who live together have a greater opportunity for contact 

and violent interaction. This concept reflects Routine Activities Theory and was postcoded based on information from the following questions: ‘‘mo did this [the violent 

injury] to you? (B14) and “Think of the main place where you live. Do you live with any 

of the following people?” (G4a-1). 

g. Violence by a male partner against someone exclusive of respondent based 

on the following question (N10): “Over the past six months, how often wouldyou say he 

has been in a physical fight with someone not including yourselj?” This concept reflects 

Routine Activities Theory. Categories include the following: O=None; 1 =Once; 2=more 

than once. 

h. Educational attainment is based the highest level of education achieved (N7) 

using the following categories: O=None; 1-Some grade school; 2= Some junior high; 3= 

Some high school; 4=High school graduate; 5=Some post high school training other than 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
204 

college; 6=Some college; 7=College graduate; 8=Graduate work. These categories are 

collapsed into the following categories: 1= less than high school; 2= completed high 

school; 3=more than high school. 

i. Predatory violence refers to violent injuries that occur during the course of 

theft, robbery, or attempted sexual assault. This variable was chosen to reflect the 

Routine ActivitiesLife Style Perspective. Data obtained from the open-ended questions 

(B 1, B 18, B 19, B20) described above were examined for injuries sustained during an 

attempted sexual assault, robbery or theft (see Appendix B). If any of these themes were 

present the variable was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with 

a 0 for “No.” 

j. Substance use has various theoretical underpinning. In this dissertation the 

relationship between substance use and involvement in violence is best explained fi-om 

the Victimization Perspective and Routine ActivitiesLifestyle Approach. Substance use 

prior to the violent event is based on the following questions. Do you think [the 

antagonist] was drinking beer, wine or liquor within 4 hours before this happened?“ ; 

“Do you think [the antagonist] was using marijuana or drugs within 4 hours before this 

happened?”; First these questions (B34,B35) were assessed separately. For each 

question if the respondent answered “Yes,” then the variable was coded with a 1; if the 

respondent answered “Don’t Know” then the variable was coded with a 9; if she 

answered with a “NO” then the variable was coded with a 0. A variable also was created 

based on both questions (B34-B35). If the respondent answered “Yes,” to either question 

then variable was coded with a 1 for “Yes;” if she answered “Don’t Know” then the 

variables was coded with a 9; otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
205 

The respondent’s substance use was assessed with the following two questions 

(B36, B37): “Were you drinking beer, wine or liquor within 4 hours before this 

happened?” and “Were you using marijuana or drugs 4 hours before this happened?’ 

First these questions (B36, B37) were assessed separately. For each questions if the 

respondent answered “Yes,” then the variable was coded with a 1; otherwise the variable 

was coded with a 0 for “No.” Another variable was created based on both questions 

(B36-B37). If the respondent answered “Yes,” to either question then variable was coded 

with a 1 for “Yes;” otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

The variables listed above were used to create a composite measure of drug or 

alcohol use by the respondent and the antagonist. If both the respondent and antagonist 

reportedly used drugs or alcohol within four hours of the violent event then the variable 

was coded with a 1; otherwise the variable was coded with a 0 for “No.” 

Of all the substance use measures, the variable that showed the highest correlation 

with the outcome was included as a candidate control variable. 

2. Part 2: Concepts and Measures Used for Descriptive Purposes 

Table 5-4 includes concepts and measures used for descriptive and hypotheses 

analyses. Brief descriptions are provided below for variables not discussed in the prior 

section. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
* 

t) Presence and role of bystanders 

g) Location of injuries sustained 

i) Injury 

j) Player image 

206 

number of antagonists 

present, did bystanders try to stop fight 

police showed up 

location on body 

fight involves a male who flirts with or has an affair 

Table 5-4: Concepts and Measures Used For Descriptive Data 

k) Deference aggression concept 

1) Mutual contribution concept 

m) Gender centric concerns 

n) Relational-Protection Concept 

wi,th a womaq other than his current female partner 

short-term uncommitted relationship 

respondent contributes to the violent outcome 

fighting over intimates, sexual reputation 

fight involves respondent or antagonist fighting to 

I Respondent Characteristics (Self-Reported Data) 

a) Demographic Factors I age, race, marital status 

b) Socio-Economic Status I government assistance, borrowed money, 

1 to cohabitants (e.g brother, mothers, partner, fiiend) 

k) Living Arrangements I lives in public housing I Intimate Partner and Relationship Characteristics (Self-Reported Data) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
207 

Respondent Characteristics 

a. Demographic Variables reported by the respondent include age (Al), race 

(A2) and martial status (A4). Age is measured in years. Race is coded as a categorical 

variable (l=Black, 2=White, 3=Other). Martial status is coded as a categorical variable 

and includes the following categories: 1 =Single; 2=married (including common law). 

b. Socioeconomic Status is assessed with three questions. The standard 

measure included as a control variable (and discussed previously) is receipt of 

government assistance. Two additional measures include having borrowed money in the 

past six months to make ends meet (J4b) and employment (Fl). Both measures are coded 

as dichotomous variables (1 =Yes; O=No). 

c.-e. Educational Attainment, Psychological Status, and Past Violence 

variables are reviewed in the prior section. 

f. Frequency of Social Interactions is assessed with the following question 

(G9): “How often do you get together with afiiend or relative that you don 7 live with?” 

The response is coded as a categorical variable (O-one; l=one or two visits; 2=three to 

six visits; 3= more than six visits). 

g. Recent Illicit Drug Use is measured with two questions that ascertain 

whether the respondent used cocaine (K7) or marijuana 63) during the 6 months prior to 

the violent index event. The responses are coded as dichotomous variables (No=O, 

l=Yes). 

h. Alcohol Abuse is measured with the TWEAK questionnaire (K17-K21), 

which is a brief set of 5 questions addressing tolerance to alcohol’s effects, psychological 

consequences of drinking and others’ concern. Sample questions include the following: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
208 

“Have close ji-iends or relatives worried or complained about your drinking in the past 

year?> (No=O, l=Yes, 9=Don’t Know); “Do you sometimes take a drink in the morning 

when you$rst get up?” (No=O, l=Yes, 9=Don’t Know). A score of greater than 2 

indicates the presence of problem drinking (Russell et al., 1994). The TWEAK has a 

higher sensitivity and specificity than alternative screeners including the ACE, B-MAST 

and CAGE (Russell et al., 1994). 

i. Involvement in Illegal Activities is measured with two dichotomous 

variables. The first question inquired about participation in prostitution (J4e) and the 

second inquired about involvement in drug distribution (J4f) (No=O, l=Yes). 

j. Household Composition is measured with four variables that are drawn fiom 

the following question (G4a-1): “Think of the main place where you live. Do you live with 

any of the followingpeople?” The variables include whether the respondent lives with 

other adult family members, other non-family adults, and whether she lives with children. 

The fourth variable includes a sum of the number of people with the whom respondent 

lives. 

k. Living Arrangements is measured with a question that assesses whether the 

respondent lived in public housing (G2) and is coded as a dichotomous variable (l=Yes; 

O=No). 

Intimate Partner and Relationship Characteristics 

a. Demographic Characteristics of the respondent’s most recent intimate 

partner include age (N9) and race (N8). Age is measured in years. Race is coded as a 

categorical variable (l=Black, 2=White, 3=0ther). 

b. Socioeconomic Status is based on employment (N10). This measure is coded 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
209 

as a dichotomous variable (l=Yes; O=No). 

c. Educational Attainment is based the highest level of education achieved 

(N7) using the following categories: O=None; l=Some grade school; 2= Some junior 

high; 3= Some high school; 4=High school graduate; S=Some post high school training 

other than college; 6=Some college; 7=College graduate; 8=Graduate work. These 

categories are collapsed into the following categories: 1= less than high school; 2= 

completed high school; 3=more than high school. 

d. Substance use is examined with three questions. The first two questions 

ascertain whether the male intimate used cocaine (N21b) or marijuana (N21a) during the 

month prior to the violent event. The third question follows: “Do/didyou everfeel that 

he should cut down on drinking?” (N18). 

e. Criminal Justice System Involvement is based on the following question 

(N25), “Has he [your most recent male intimate] ever been arrested and charged for 

anything?” This measure is coded as a dichotomous variable (l=Yes; O=No). 

f.-g. Past injury history and Relationship characteristics were described in the 

prior section. 

Circumstances of the Violent Events 

Questions regarding the circumstances of the event include open- and closedended questions. 

a. Time and place measures are based on the following questions: “About what 

time of day? Was it in the place where you live? Was it on the street where you live? Was 

it inside or outside? (B5, B6, B7, B8, B9). These measures are coded as dichotomous 

variables (l=Yes; O=No). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
210 

b.-c. Substance Use (by respondent and/or antagonist) and relationship to 

the antagonist. These variables are described in the prior section. 

d. The antagonist’s demographic characteristics include age (B33) and race 

(B32) Age is measured in years. When there is more than one antagonist identified, the 

age of the first antagonist is used. Race is coded as a categorical variable (l=Black, 

2=White, 3=0ther). 

e. Interactions Leading up to the Violent Event and the Sequence of Events 

include reasons for the violence, the roles assumes by the respondents, violent acts by the 

participants as well as the number of antagonists. These data will be post-coded 

according to themes that emerge. The open-ended questions (B 1, B 12, B 18, B 19, B20) 

were described in the prior section. The number of antagonists (B 14) was coded as a 

a continuous variable and recoded at a dummy variable (1= one; O= more than one). 

f. Presence and role of bystanders focuses on three questions including the 

following: “Were people other than [the antagonist] there when he/she/they started 

gettingphysical with you “What is your relationship to hidher? Did anyone say anything 

or do anything to try to stop it while it was happening?” “what is your relationship to 

himher? ” (B 15, B 16) Bystanders including children only are excluded. These measures 

are coded as dichotomous variables (l=Yes; O=No). 

g. Location of injuries sustained refers to the place on the body where the 

respondent was injured (B 13). The participant was shown a body map and asked the 

following, “Can you circle the areas where you were hurt or hit?” The interviewer used 

this data to code one or more body parts where the respondent was injured. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
21 1 

h. Police Involvement information is based on the following questions (B27, 

B28): Did anyone call the police? About how long did it take for the police to come? 

This information was used to create a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not the 

police showed up (l=Yes; O=No). 

Laboratow Data includes urine toxicology results for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. 

These measures are each dichotomous (1 =Positive and O=Negative). 

C. Analysis Plan 

1. Quantitative Analysis: Ail data are statistically analyzed using quantitative 

statistical software (SPSS Version 10). 

a. Analysis Addressing Major Research Aim: A Theoretical Test 

This aim is to compare females intentionally injured by females and females 

intentionally injured by males in order to test the merits of Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory. 

Bivariate analyses are conducted for all theoretically relevant variables to 

determine if the independent variable is related significantly to the predicted outcome 

(same-gender incident) without controlling for any potentially confounding variables. 

The Chi-square test is used with categorical variables. T-tests are used with continuous 

variables. 

Multivariate logistic regression is used to assess correlates simultaneously. This 

statistical technique permits identification of variables that will be usem in predicting 

whether a woman presenting to the ED for a violent injury by a non-intimate will have 

been involved in a same sex or cross sex violent event. Multivariate analysis allows 

assessment of the independent effects of individual variables in the model. In other 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
212 

words, the effect of each independent variable can be examined net of the effects of the 

other variables in the model. 

Logistic regression is an appropriate procedure for this analysis because the 

dependent variable is dichotomous and representative of women classified as members of 

two distinct populations differentiated by the gender of the antagonist (Afifi et al., 1996): 

intragender assault and cross-gender assault. Moreover, logistic regression is more 

appropriate than ordinary least squares (OLS) or discriminant analysis. Use of OLS 

would violate several assumptions, including heteroscedasticity and a nonnormal 

distribution of residuals. Similarly, using discriminant analysis would violate other 

assumptions, including the presence of equal covariance matrices in each of the groups 

and multivariate normality (Afifi et al., 1996). 

The statistical measure computed with logistic regression is the odds ratio, which 

is defined as the ratio of the odds of the exposure in the first group to the odds of 

exposure in the second group. When a dichotomous independent variable is used, the 

odds ratio is interpreted as the odds that group one exhibits the risk factor relative to the 

odds that group two exhibits it. The Pearson Chi-square statistic is analyzed and reported 

as a summary measure of goodness of fit for the regression model, as well as odds ratios. 

P-values, magnitude and direction of each coefficient will be assessed and reported. 

b. Analysis Addressing Major Aim: Descriptive Analysis 

The goal of this analysis is to provide basic descriptive information regarding 

non-intimate related violent injuries among urban women. The analyses are descriptive 

and consist of characterizing females injured by females and females injured by males by 

all variables described above including characteristics of the respondent, of the male 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
213 

partner, of the male partner relationship and of the violent situation. Categorical 

variables are summarized by frequencies. Continuous variables are summarized by 

means and standard deviations. 

2. Qualitative Analysis Addressing Three Major Research Aims 

Qualitative data analysis is used to analyze the information obtained from the 

open-ended questions regarding the circumstances of the index violent event. The use of 

open-ended questions permits the study participants to supply their own meanings and 

rationales for the behavior under investigation, in this case violence (Patton, 1990). This 

method also permits a wide range of data to surface. This is a necessary element for 

further theory development. Data analysis is conducted according to the constant 

comparative method (Glaser and Straus, 1967). Topics are categorized according to 

common themes, and new categories are created for negative cases. 

Qualitative analysis was used for three purposes. First, the open-ended questions 

were assessed and coded for themes that defined numerous concepts used for hypothesis 

testing. Hypothesis tests include Mutual-Contribution, Female-Valued Resource, 

Personal Respect Relational-Protection and Interpersonal Concerns. Second, verbatim 

accounts reported by the respondents were categorized by reasons for the violence as well 

as variables that characterize events that led up to the violence. Vignettes are provided in 

order to describe respondents’ perceptions regarding reasons and events that led up to the 

violent events. Third, the constant comparative method was used for purposes of further 

theory development of situational factors characteristic of females injured by 

acquaintances or friends. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
214 

Definitions for codes created based on the qualitative data are provided in 

Appendix B. All data were entered into NUD*IST verision N5, a qualitative data 

analysis program. The data were analyzed further for common themes. Finally the data 

were merged with the SPSS database and recoded for quantitative analysis. 

D. Potential Limitations of a Secondary Data Analysis and Remedies 

Relying on secondary data involves several potential sources of error that can 

reduce the study’s validity and reliability. Possible problems of validity include 

conceptualization, measurement and sampling errors. Problems of reliability exist if the 

data collected in the original study does not accurately report what the data claim to 

report. In the sections below threats to validity and reliability are described as well as 

remedies implemented to minimize error. 

1. Threats to Internal Validity 

a. Conceptualization and Measurement Errors 

In this study a major potential threat to validity involves mistakes in 

conceptualization. Given that the analysis is limited to the use of preexisting data 

collected for another purpose, the existing data may not include valid representations of 

the concepts under investigation. Had interviews been carried out with the study 

participants to test “Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory,” questions would have 

been tailored to operationalize the constructs directly. For example, questions regarding 

“player behavior” by the respondents’ male intimates would have been asked directly. As 

with several other constructs, “player behavior” variables do not exist in the original data 

set. Measures of “Gender-Centric Concerns” and “Female-Valued Resources” are not 

assessed directly. Instead they are based on themes that emerge from the open-ended 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
215 

questions. Consequently, observed measures are used as indicators of constructs for 

which they were not designed. Because this is a secondary analysis, some variables have 

more questionable validity than other variables. Most of the variables under 

investigation, however, are operationalized with variables that would have been chosen 

had this been the primary investigation. For example, socioeconomic status is 

operationalized with receipt of government assistance; self-esteem is assessed with the 

Rosenberg Scale (1 965) and problem drinking is assessed with the TWEAK 

questionnaire (Russell et al., 1994). In addition, to ensure that selected indicator 

variables were chosen to represent concepts underlying Gendered Social Structural Strain 

Theory, all indicator variables were selected in accordance with preexisting theory (Jacob, 

1984). 

Measurement error represents another threat to validity and may result fiom the 

use of self-report data. Limitations of self-reports include misrepresenting and 

misremembering information (Maxfield, 1998). In the original study nurse interviewers 

were trained in techniques regarding the building of trusting relationships with the 

participants to enhance the participants’ willingness to disclose intimate details of their 

lives. Moreover, a unique aspect of the original study that would appear to increase the 

accuracy of self-report data was that information was obtained on acute violent events 

near the time of injury occurrence. 

To establish concurrent validity in this study, self- reported drug use was 

correlated with urine toxicology test results of the drugs of interest. The presence of 

objective measures for additional self-reported information would establish a broader 

measure of validity. The only objective measures available of self-reported data, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
216 

however, are for the drug questions. Nevertheless, the analysis of multiple measures and 

multiple methods of substance use is expected to enhance confidence in the study results. 

Despite the limitations of urinalysis for the purpose of establishing validity of self-report 

studies (see a review by Harrison et al., 1997), self-report validation studies based on 

urinalysis technology, uncovered validity rates between 70 and 90 percent (Mieczkowski, 

1 990). Additional validity studies using urine screens concluded that self-reports reliably 

measured drug use (Cook et al., 1997; Wetherby et al., 1994; Zanis, 1994). In this study, 

urine toxicology reports indicate a positive or negative result for each study participant 

for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Of the 322 participants, 210 (65%) provided a urine 

sample. 

A kappa test was used to assess the degree of agreement between urine toxicology 

results and self-reported use of alcohol, cocaine and marijuana. The relationships 

between the measures of alcohol (kappa=.61, t=8.9, del, p=.OOO), marijuana (kappa=.61, 

F9.1, del, p=.OOO), and cocaine (kappa=.56, t=8.7, del, p.000) were statistically 

significant indicating that it is unlikely that the observed relationships occurred by chance 

(see Table 5.5). One limitation of this finding, however, is the large (35%) percentage of 

missing urine toxicology data due to women for whom urine samples were not collected. 

The reasons for the high rate of missing urine specimens are unclear. Anecdotal 

information provided by the interviewers suggests that the study respondents were 

distraught and in physical pain, and consequently were unwilling to be subjected to 

further invasive procedures. In order to test for response bias, relevant characteristics 

were compared for women who provided samples and for women who did not (see Table 

5.6). There were no statistically significant differences with respect to the proportion of 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
217 

Alcohol Toxicology Results (N=209) 

Positive 

Negative 

women who reported use of alcohol, marijuana or cocaine. There also were no 

statistically significant differences in race, age or receipt of government assistance. 

Notwithstanding the large proportion of missing data, the use of urine toxicology data 

appears to increase confidence in the validity of the study results. 

Yes No 

12.9% 4.3% 

7.7% 75.1% 

Table 5.5: Validation of Self Reports using Toxicology Results 

Marijuana Toxicolom Results (N=210) 

Positive 

Negative 

Yes NO 

34.8% 7.6% 

11.0% 46.7% 

Cocaine Toxicology Results m=209) Yes 

Positive I 16.7% 

Negative 1 1.4% 

I 

Kappa=.56, F8.7, p=.Ooo 

No 

15.8% 

66.0% 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
218 

Cocaine Use 

Mariiuana Use 

18.2% 20.5% <1 .o .72 

45.7% 52.7% <1 .o .28 

Alcohol Use 

Race - Black 

Receipt of Government 

Assistance 

Age < 24 yrs old 

b. Selection and Sampling Error 

20.6% 25.9% <1 .o .34 

93.3% 95.5% 4 .o .66 

44.0% . 39.5% 4 .o .54 

60.0% 59.8% 4.5, .98 

For the original study, the selection process included women who met the study 

criteria (e.g., age, residence), and presented to one of the three EDs for intentional 

interpersonal injuries between 5:00 p.m. and midnight. 

Case ascertainment procedures were followed throughout the study period to 

ensure that all eligible women were identified and that attempts were made to enroll them 

in the study. Documentation of all eligible women was recorded in a study log. This 

includes women who were not approached, but according to study criteria should have 

been asked to participate. These women were categorized as “missed” because they were 

not asked to participate because the nurse interviewer was interviewing another subject at 

the time. In order to check for selection bias a vailable characteristics including age and 

hospital of the “missed” subjects were compared to the respective characteristics of the 

study respondents. The same comparison was conducted for women who refiised to 

participate and study respondents. A third comparison was made between women who 

. 

consented and began the interview, but did not finish the interview, and study 

respondents. For one comparison only there was a statistically significant difference by 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 19 

hospital. Missed cases were overrepresented among women who presented to 

Presbyterian hospital. A total of 25 potential respondents were missed at Presbyterian, 

compared to 18 at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital and 10 at Miscericordia 

Hospital. Information regarding the gender of the antagonist and relation to the 

respondent is unknown. Of all injured respondents, however, less than half (42 percent) 

were injured by non-intimate male or females. Using this proportion to estimate the 

number of women injured by non-intimates, it is likely that only I I (42 percent of 25) 

women were missed. While there appears to be selection difference among missed 

respondents presenting to Presbyterian, the small numbers make it unlikely that they will 

confound the study results. For all comparisons, older women were over-represented 

among respondents classified as “missed,” “refused” and “incompletes.” To remedy this 

selection difference, the multivariate model is assessed using age of the study respondents 

as a control variable. 

Sampling error also would occur if intentionally injured women failed to inform 

hospital personnel that their visit to the ED was the result of intentional injuries 

subsequently resulting in exclusion from the study. A procedure used in the original 

study guarded against underreporting of violent injuries. All control subjects (by 

definition, non-violently injured women) randomly selected for participation in the 

original study were screened by nurse interviewers to determine if the reasons for the ED 

visit were related to intentional violence. Several studies have demonstrated that nurseadministered questionnaires increase the proportion of women who report experiencing 

violence (McFarlane et al., 199 1 ; Tilden et al., 1987). Of all 895 controls recruited into 

the study only 12 (lpercent) were identified as intentionally injured women who had not 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
220 

reported their injuries to hospital sM. Of the 12 respondents, only four were injured by 

non-intimate partners. The small percentage of controls turned cases suggests that 

underreporting is not a major source of sampling error. 

Another potential source of sampling error involves the hours during which the 

emergency departments were staffed. In the original study each ED was staffed seven 

days a week by a nurse interviewer. The shift began at 5:OO p.m. and ended at 12:OO a.m. 

Sampling bias would occur to the extent that intentionally injured women presenting for 

ED care outside of the staffed hours were theoretically different from the study 

participants. The initial design for the original study proposed the use of a systematic 

sampling technique. The plan was to have interviewers rotate days of the week, shifts 

and times such that a patient had an equal probability of being enrolled regardless of the 

day, time of the week or study site to which she presents (Grisso, 1995). The proposed 

rotating schedule proved impractical because too few women presented to the EDs prior 

to 5:OO p.m. and after midnight to operate a cost-effective project. To establish that the 

group of women presenting for ED care between 5:OO p.m. and midnight is representative 

of all women presenting for care outside of these hours, the characteristics of recruited 

women should be compared to those participants who presented for care outside of these 

hours. Data for women presenting to the ED outside of study hours are not available. 

Thus, the extent to which the recruited women represent all women remains a question 

for Mer study, perhaps in a fuhue replication. According to victims’ reports revealed 

in the NCVS, victimizations of women most likely occur between noon and midnight 

(72%) (Craven, 1996). It is noteworthy that of all study respondents in the current study, 

84 percent reported victimization between noon and midnight. The intervals between 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
22 1 

time of the incident and ED arrival, and between arrival and treatment are variables that 

might be considered in fbture research. 

2. Threats to Reliability 

Reliability is another concern for researchers using secondary data and refers to 

the “ability to obtain consistent results in successive measurements of the same 

phenomenon” (Jacob, 1984, p. 33). Protection against problems with reliability requires 

knowledge of the data collection process implemented in the original study. Issues of 

reliability that can affect the current research are minimized because the author of this 

dissertation was responsible for quality assurance procedures of the original study, 

including instrumentation, case ascertainment, recruitment, data entry and editing. In the 

original study, for example, the data entry team keyed all data twice to ensure accuracy. 

In addition, a research assistant was hired to edit all completed questionnaires for 

correctness. Nevertheless, additional measures to minimize error were carried out for this 

secondary analysis. 

0 

First, to reduce reliability errors in the current study scatter plots were examined 

for all variables to inspect for outliers that may reflect data entry mistakes (Jacob, 1984). 

All suspicious results were examined by re-reviewing the raw data (hard copy 

interviews). 

A second precaution against reliability error involves changes in collection 

procedures that may affect the quality of the data (Jacob, 1984). During the original 

study, for example, several questions were revised. All data collection 

revisions/decisions were documented in the “Question by Question Interviewer Manual” 

(Hirschinger, 1998). To minimize problems with reliability, the manual was reviewed for 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
222 

all variables assessed. 

A third issue involves the manipulation of data. To ensure that the computerized 

data were not contaminated by ideological or organizational values, a subset of hard copy 

questionnaires was checked against the data entered to confirm that no data manipulation 

had taken place. 

A fourth issue involves the use of qualitative data. Several of the study 

hypotheses are operationalized with data post coded from open-ended questions. These 

constructs include, for example, “respondent actively contributed to the violent event by 

using physical or verbal provocation,” “respondent engaged in violence over personal 

respect,” “respondent engaged in violence to defend family/fiiends.” The qualitative data 

were collected as part of the original study, but were re-coded in accordance with the 

study hypotheses. To minimize coding bias, a coding manual with guidelines for coding 

decisions was developed and can be found in Appendix B. In addition, a research 

assistant was trained on the coding process. The coder was blinded to the research 

hypotheses to ensure that coding decisions were not be influenced by prior conceptions of 

what the outcome should be. Inter-rater reliability regarding consistency of coding was 

established based on subgroup of 25 study respondents. The research assistants scored the 

same for 95 percent of the 200 codes scored. 

3. External Validity 

The purpose of this investigation is to describe and identify correlates of violent 

injuries requiring emergency care and occurring to inner-city women. Thus, the results of 

this study have some external validity, but they cannot be generalized to all women 

experiencing violence or to women who do not sustain physical injuries resulting in 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
223 

emergency care. Some women with violence-related injuries do not seek care at all. This 

dissertation does not permit estimation of the number of intentionally injured women who 

do not seek care. 

Given the study design, the results only have generalizability to the West 

Philadelphia community. The findings, however, should have some generalizability to 

women residing in other urban areas who present to inner-city EDs for injuries resulting 

from interpersonal violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
224 

CHAPTER 6. A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY RESPONDENTS: 

UNIVARIATE AND BIVARIATE ANALYSES 

I. Introduction 

Three hundred and twenty-two women (322) injured by non-partners completed 

interviews, including 167 females injured by females and 155 females injured by males. 

To provide a portrait of the study respondents, descriptive characteristics are presented in 

this chapter, including: (1) characteristics of the respondent; (2) characteristics of the 

respondent’s most recent male intimate partners and; (3) characteristics of the partner 

relationship. All data presented are drawn from self-reported information provided by the 

study respondents. 

In the following two sections, univariate and bivariate statistics (by gender of the 

antagonist) are presented. Descriptive characteristics of the study respondents include 

demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, psychological status, history of exposure 

to violence, personal and social contacts and household composition, and participation in 

substance use and illegal activity. Characteristics of the respondents’ most recent 

intimate partners include demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, substance use, 

violence against others (exclusive of the study respondent), and involvement in the 

criminal justice system. Characteristics of the intimate partner relationship include the 

status (current or ex-partner), cohabitation, stability of the relationship (i.e., length of 

relationship) whether the relationship terminated recently and recent partner violence. 

Information on the respondents’ male intimate partners is included because a 

central tenant of the theoretical framework and hypotheses outlined in Chapter 4 focus on 

male partners and intimate partner relationship characteristics. These factors are expected 

0 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
225 

Race (N=322) 

% Black 

% White 

% Other 

Average Age (yrs.) (N=322) 

Marital status (N=321) 

YO Married 

% Separated/Divorced 

YO Single 

to play a major role in differentiating intragender and cross-gender violent events. For 

94.1 Yo 

1.9% 

4.0% 

27.5 (s.d.4.0) 

12.8% 

12.1% 

75.1% 

example, the Player Hypothesis, Gender-Centric Concerns Hypothesis, Female-Valued 

Resource Hypothesis and Deference-Aggression Hypothesis all involve issues related to 

male partners or male intimate partner relationships. 

11. Univariate Analyses 

A. Description of Study Respondents 

1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics 

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of study respondents are 

presented in Table 6-1. These responses are based on single-reply questions. 

Table 6-1: Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Study Respondents 

Education (N=322) 

% Less than high school 

% High School 

% More that high school 

% Receipt of government assistance (N=321) 

% Borrowed,money in past 6 months (N=322) 

% Lives in public housing (N=3 19) 

% UnemDloved (N=322) 

45.7% 

37.6% 

16.8% 

59.9% 

46.3% 

26.3% 

58.1% 

According to Table 6- 1, the rnaior finding is that respondents are almost 

universally Black (94%). The average respondent is 27.5 (sd4.0) years old and the 

proportion of single females is markedly high (75.1%). Forty-six percent have less than a 

high school education. Sixty percent receive government assistance, 46 percent report 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
226 

* 

having borrowed money recently and 58 percent are unemployed. Twenty-six of the 

respondents live in public housing. Financial indicators and educational attainment point 

to a high level of economic stress. The unemployment rate, for example, is more than 

% Presence of depression (N=32 1) 

% Low self-esteem IN=3 18) 

63.9% 

10.9% 

five times the unemployment rate for the city of Philadelphia (Wial, 1998). 

2. Psychological Status 

Respondents’ psychological status is described in Table 6-2. The presence of low 

self-esteem was measured with the 1 0-item Rosenberg Scale (1 965). Sample questions 

from the self-esteem scale include: “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an 

equal basis with others” (1 =Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree, 4=Strongly Disagree); 

“I feel I do not have much to be proud oj” (l=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree, 

4=Strongly Disagree). Depressive symptoms are evaluated with the Depression Scale of 

the Center for Epidemiologic Studies (CES-0) (Radloff, 1 977) (Ia-It). Sample questions 

include: “I was bothered by things that usually do not bother me; ” “I felt sad; ” “Ifilt 

lonely.” The response to the psychiatric medication query is based on a single-response 

question. 

Table 6-2: Respondents ’ Psychological Status 

I % Take psychiatric mediation (N=322) I 7.5% 

The data reveal a high prevalence of psychological stress among the respondents. 

Almost two-thirds (63.9?6> of women meet criterk fir depression. The finding that 7.5 

percent of the sample takes psychiatric medication is markedly high compared to the 

general population (Veysey, 2002). These indicators reveal a high prevalence of 

psychological stress among the study respondents. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
227 

# Past abusive partners (N=3 14) 

% None 

YO One 

'YO More than one 

'YO Childhood physical abuse (N=3 13) 

YO Childhood physical abuse by mother-figure 

onlv N=3 13) 

3. History of Exposure to Violence 

43.6% 

36.0% 

20.4% 

20.8% 

12.5% 

The study respondents' exposure to violence is described in Table 6-3 and 

% Witnessed violence to mother-figure by father- 

% Raped or forced to have sex by a male (N=314) 

figure childhood (N=308) 

% Childhood sexual abuse (N=3 14) 

includes information on childhood abuse, domestic violence and rape. All questions are 

41.6% 

10.5% 

18.2% 

based on single-response answers. The time period for the number of past abusive 

partners is over the life course. The question on rape/forced sex includes incidents that 

occurred after the age of 16. The child abuse questions include incidents that happened 

prior to the age of 16. 

Table 6-3: Respondent's History of Violence 

male partner, more than twice the proportion of violent crime against women in the 

general population as reported in the NCVS (22% versus 56%) (Reenison and Welchans, 

2000). Twenty one percent reported a history of childhood physical abuse. A markedly 

high (46%) proportion of women witnessed violence during childhood. These indicators 

point to high rates of exposure to violence during childhood and adulthood. 

Eleven percent reported a history of rape or forced sex and 18 percent reported a 

history of childhood sexual abuse. Although only a minority of women reported rape or 

sexual abuse, these proportions take on significance given the potential negative 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
228 

# Of social visits per week (N=320) 

% None 

'YO Three to six 

'YO More than six 

'YO Participation in social groups or 

organized activities in last 6 months (N=322) 

## of people with whom respondent lives (N=3 18) 

% Lives with adult family members (N=3 16) 

% One or two 

% Respondent lives with children (N=3 18) 

% Respondent lives with other adults (N=3 18) 

aftermath, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance use 

associated with sexual victimization. 

4. Personal and Social Contacts and Household Composition 

Table 6-4 describes the study respondents' contacts with friends, family and 

institutions as well as measures of household composition. Number of social visits is 

based on a single question, which queried the number of times per week the respondent 

gets together with fiiends or family they don't live with. Participation in organized 

activities also is based on single-response answers. Household composition questions 

were recoded from the original question which inquired about the people with whom the 

respondent lives. 

Table 6-4: PersonaVSocial Contacts and Household Composition 

24.4% 

21.3% 

28.4% 

14.3% 

3.5 (sd=2.3) 

67.0% 

32.4% 

34.5% 

25.9% 

Twenty four percent of the respondents do not socialize with friends or relatives 

weekly. Almost one half (49.3%) visit with friends or relatives three or more times per 

week. In spite of the high proportion of respondents who engage in social Pctivities, only 

14.3 percent of the respondents reported participating in organized social activities. 

These data describe social participation that takes place within friendship and family 

networks to the exclusion of institutional participation. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
229 

% Used marijuana in last 6 months (N=322) 

YO Used cocaine in last 6 months W=321) 

The average number of people with whom the respondent lives is 3.5 (s.d.=2.3). 

Two thirds (67.0%) live with children. The findings that 32.4 percent live with adult 

family members (excluding partners) and 34.5 percent live with other adults (extended 

family and acquaintances) reflect the importance that extended kin play in the lives of the 

study participants. 

5. Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Illegal Activity 

Data on the respondents’ substance use and involvement in illegal activity are 

described in Table 6-5. All of the questions are based on single-response answers except 

48.1% 

19.0% 

for the measure of problem drinker. Problem drinker is measured with the TWEAK 

questionnaire, which is a brief set of 5 questions addressing tolerance to alcohol’s effects, 

psychological consequences of drinking and others’ concern about the respondent’s 

alcohol use (Russell et al., 1994). 

% Sold drugs in last 6 months (N=322) 

% Exchanged sex for money in last 6 months (N=322) 

% Arrested in Dast 6 months RJ=322) 

Table 6-5: Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Illegal Activity 

3.4% 

3.4% 

6.5% 

I 17.0% ~ 

% Problem drinker (N=3 18) 

~~ 

Almost half of the women report recent marijuana use (48.1%), which suggests 

the presence of a marijuana subculture. Participation in drug involvement is not limited 

to marijuana use. Almost one in five (1 9%) respondents reported recent use of cocaine 

or crack. This is a significant proportion given the addictive quality associated with 

cocaine/crack and associated problems (i.e. drug seeking behaviors, violence). Moreover, 

17 percent of the respondents meet the screening criteria for a alcohol addiction. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
230 

It is notable that in spite of high rates of substance use, only three percent of the 

sample report involvement in selling drugs or exchanging sex for money and only 6.5 

percent report having been arrested in the past six months. 

B. Description of Study Respondents’ Most Recent Male Intimate Partners and 

Intimate Relationships 

1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics 

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of male intimate partners are 

presented in Table 6-6. This information is based on the respondents’ self reports. All 

but two respondents reported having had a male intimate partner sometime in the past. 

The questions are based on single-response answers. 

Table 6-6: Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Male Partners 

Average Age (yrs.) (N=3 15) 

Race (N=3 16) 

% Black 

%White 

% Other 

% Don’t Know 

Education (N=3 15) 

% Less than high school 

% High School 

% More that high school 

% Don’t Know 

% Unemployed (N=3 15) 

- 30.7 (s.d.=10.35) 

87.7% 

1.6% 

5.6% 

5.1% 

21.0% 

55.9% 

18.4% 

4.8% 

24.8% I 

The average male intimate is 30.7 (s.d.=10.35) years old, an average of 3.4 years 

older than the study respondents. Similar to the study respondents, most (87.7%) male 

intimate partners are Black with a high school education or less (76.9%). Twenty-five 

percent were reportedly unemployed at the time of the interview, approximately twice the 

unemployment rate of Black males in the city of Philadelphia (Wial, 1998). Measures of 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
23 1 

educational attainment and unemployment characterize the male partners as economically 

disadvantaged. 

2. Substance Use, Violence and Criminal Justice System Involvement 

Substance use, violence and criminal justice system involvement among male 

partners are presented in Table 6-7. All answers are based on single-response answers. 

% Used marijuana in the last month (N=3 16) 

% Used cocaine in the last month (N=3 16) 

40.5% 

11.1% 

YO Respondent feels partner should cut 

down on drinking (N=3 15) 

Violence against others, exclusive of partner 

in past 6 months (N=3 16) 

% None 

% One time 

% More than one time 

% Don’t Know 

‘YO Ever arrested (N=3 16) 

24.6% 

76.1% 

10.6% 

1 1.7% 

1.6% 

3 1.3% 

Similar to the study respondents, substance use is common among the male 

partners. Forty one percent reportedly used marijuana during the month prior to the 

respondent’s ED visit and 11 percent used cocaine during this time period. Twenty five 

percent of the respondents reported that their partners should cut down on drinking 

alcohol. It is notable that almost one third (3 1.3%) of the male partners have a history of 

arrest. Twenty four percent of the partners engaged in violence against someone other 

than the respondent during the 6 months prior to the interview. On the whole these data 

reflect a high prevalence of non-nonnative behaviors by the partners of study 

respondents. 

\ 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
232 

% Current relationship (N=3 18) 

‘YO Lives with intimate partner (N=3 18) 

% Short-term uncommitted relationship (N=3 17) 

% Violence by intimate in last 6 months (N=3 1 1) 

% Relationship ended in last 6 months (N=3 15) 

3. Intimate Partner Relationship Characteristics 

64.5% 

25.2% 

23 .O% 

16.7% 

21.0% 

Intimate partner relationship characteristics are described in Table 6-8. All of the 

questions are based on a single response except for the variable “short-term uncommitted 

relationship.’’ Respondents who meet the following criteria are considered to be involved \ 

in this type of relationship: duration of current relationship is less than 9 months, 

respondent does not live with partner, respondent is single (not married). 

Table 6-8: Characteristics of Study Respondents ’ Intimate Partner Relationship 

intimate. The finding that only 25 percent live with their male partners points to the nonpermanency of intimate partner relationships. 

Seventeen percent of the respondents reported physical abuse by the male partner 

within the past six months. Twenty-one percent reported a recent breakup within the past 

six months. These findings reflect the presence of relationship instability. 

Summary 

“This section has focused on describing the study respondents, their most recent 

male partners and partner relationships. The portrayal of the respondents that emerges is 

one of having limited resources and substantial dkider in their lives. The majority of 

women reported receipt of government assistance, the presence of depression, and a 

history of past partner abuse. Almost half of the respondents reported substance use by 

their most recent male partners and almost a third reported that their partner had a history 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
23 3 

bf arrest. Although most women reported involvement in a current intimate relationship, 

one-quarter reportedly had been involved in a relationship that ended within the past six 

months. In sum, many of the women face numerous vulnerabilities including resource 

scarcity, violence within multiple contexts, illicit substance use and disruption in intimate 

relationships. 

111. Bivariate Analyses 

Throughout this section categorical variables are summarized by frequencies. 

Chi-square test statistics are reported. Means and standard deviations summarize 

continuous variables and two-tailed t-test statistics are reported. 

A. Characteristics of the Study Respondents Disaggregated by Gender of the 

Antagonist 

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics 

According to Table 6-9 there are notable similarities and differences between 

females injured by females and females injured by males. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
234 

Table 6-9: Respondent Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics by Gender 

Of the Antagonist 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

Education (N=322) 

% Less than high 

% High School 

% More that high 

school 

school 

Assault 

% Married 10.8% 

53.3% 

34.7% 

12.0% 

(N=322) 

YO Receipt of 58.7% 

% Lives in public 

housing (N=3 19) 

'YO Borrowed money in 

past 6 months 

(N=322) 

government 

assistance (N=32 1) 

3 1.7% 20.6% 

38.9% 54.2% 

I 

Assault 

14.9% 

1 1 .O% 

61.3% 

91 .O% 

5.2% 

3.9% 

(s.d.=8.0) 

37.4% 

40.6% 

21.9% 

Statistic 

9=1.4 

(de2) 

- - 9 =.oo 

(del) - - 9 =0.1 

(del) 

x2=7.7 

(de2) 

e4.5 

(df-320) 

9=9.9 

(del) 

- 

2-4.5 

(del) 

9-6.9 

(del) 

- 

P- Value 

.490 

.997 

.716 

.02 I 

.ooo 

.007 

.034 

.008 

There are no differences in the proportions of females from both groups who are 

single, unemployed or receive government assistance. In spite of the finding that the vast 

majority of study respondents are black, there are significant differences between 

intragender and cross-gender respondents with respect to race (2=7.7, df-2, p=.021). 

Ninety-seven percent of the same gender assault victims were Black versus 91 percent of c the cross-gender victims. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
23 5 

% Presence of 

depression (N=32 1) 

% Low self-esteem 

(N=3 18) 

% Takes psychiatric 

mediation (N=322) 

Females involved in intragender assault compared to females involved in crossgender assault are significantly more likely to be younger (H.5, df-320, p=.OOO), to have 

fewer years of education (9=9.9, del, p=.007) and to live in public housing (94.5, 

del, p=.034). Women involved in cross-gender assault, however, were significantly 

more likely to have borrowed money in the past six months in order to make ends meet 

(9=6.9, del, p=.OO8). 

The data reveal that females involved in intragender and cross-gender assault are 

financially strained. However, the finding that females injured by males were more likely 

to borrow money to make ends meet than females injured by females suggests that this 

group of females is more economically desperate. 

Psychological Status 

Psychological status of respondents by gender of the antagonist is presented in 

58.7% 69.5% 2=3.6 (del) .OS8 

7.2% 14.6% 2=3.8 (dgl) .OS2 

9.0% 6.0% J?=0.7 (del) .408 

Table 6-1 0. 

Table 6-10: Psychosocial Status by Gender of the Antagonist 

The tests of significance yielded no significant differences across measures of 

psychological status. It is noteworthy, however, that the majority of members from both 

groups reported the presence of depressive symptoms. It also is notable that twice as * many females injured by males compared to females injured by females reported low selfposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
236 

24.2% 

16.3% 

43.9% 

7.2% 

esteem (14.6% of victims of cross-gender assault compared to 7.2 percent of intragender 

victims). 

History of Violence 

The study respondents’ experiences with violence are described by the gender of 

16.9% 

20.3% 

45.5% 

14.2% 

the antagonist in Table 6-1 1. 

Table 4-11: History of Violence by Gender of the Antagonist 

16.4% 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

8.1% 

~~ 

% Childhood physical 

abuse (N=3 13) 

% Childhood sexual 

abuse (N=3 14) 

YO Witnessed violence 

by father-figure 

toward motherfigure (N=3 13) 

YO Raped or forced sex 

50.6% 

32.9% 

- 

(N=3 14) 

% Childhood physical 

36.0% 

39.3% 

abuse by motherfigure (N=3 13) 

History of abusive 

partner relationship 

(N=3 14) 

% none 

% one abusive 

% > one abusive 

partner 

tjartner 

16.5% 24.7% 

Statistic 

2=2.1 (del) 

2=0.6 (del) 

A?= 0.0 (df-l) 

Y=3.3 (del) 

24.1 (df-l) 

2=7.3 (del) 

P-Value 

.144 

.440 

365 

.068 

.042 

.026 

Similar proportions of females injured by females and females injured by males 

reported childhood physical abuse, childhmd sexual abuse, witnessing parental violence 

during childhood and rape during adulthood. 

In contrast, females injured by females were significantly more likely than females 

injured by males to experience childhood physical abuse by a mother-figure (24.1 , del 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
237 

p=.042). However, a history of a partner abuse was associated with cross-gender assault 

(2=7.3, del p=.026). 

High proportions of members from both groups have been exposed to violence. 

The majority of members from both groups reported at least one abusive partner 

sometime in the past. Over forty percent of females injured by females and females 

injured by males witnessed violence during childhood. Nevertheless, there are 

differences with respect to violent experiences by gender of the antagonist. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
23 8 

a 

Personal and Social Contacts and Household Composition 

Table 6- 12 describes the respondent's household composition and contacts with 

friends, family and institutions. 

Table 6-12: Personal and Social Contacts and Household Composition by Gender of 

the Antagonist 

YO Respondent lives 

with children 

(N=3 18) 

# of people with whom 

respondent lives 

mJ=3 18) 

% Lives with adult 

family member@) 

(N=3 16) 

% Respondent lives 

with other adults 

(extended family, 

acquaintance)(N=3 18) 

% Participation in 

organized activities 

(N=322) 

# Of social visits per 

week (N=320) 

% None 

YO One or two 

% Three to six 

% More than six 

Intragender 

lssault 

68.9% 

3.7 (s.d.=2.3) 

37.1 % 

33.3% 

13.8% 

2 1 .O% 

22.8% 

20.4% 

35.9% 

Cross-gender Test 

Assault Statistic 

64.9% 

3.2 (s.d.=2.4) 

27.2% 

35.6% 

14.8% 

28.1% 

29.4% 

22.2% 

20.3% 

p=0.4 (del) 

X2=.8 (de3 16) 

p=3.2 (del) 

X2=0. 1 (d.f-1) 

x"=O.O (del) 

y=lO.l (de3) 

'-Value 

.528 

.os1 

.075 

.769 

.909 

.018 

There are no significant differences in household composition for females injured 

by females and females injured by males. Sixty-nine percent of females injured by 

females and 65 percent of females injured by males rqort living with children (not 

necessarily their own). The average number of people with whom the respondent lives is 

3.7 (sd=2.3) for females injured by females and 3.2 (sd=2.4) for females injured by males. 

a 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
239 

% Used marijuana in 

last 6 months 

(N=322) 

% Arrested in past 6 

months (N=322) 

money in last 6 

months (N=322) 

% Sold drugs in last 6 

months (N=322) 

% Problem drinker 

(N=3 18) 

% Used cocaine in last 

6 months (N=321) 

YO Exchanged sex for 

Similar proportions of members from both groups, however, report participation in 

organized activities. 

e 

47.3% 49.0% y=O.O (d6l) .843 

5.8% 7.3% y=O.l (del) .783 

2.4% 4.5% 2?=0.5 (del) .459 

1.8% 5.2% 2=1.8 (del) .176 

12.6% 21.9% 24.2 (del) .040 

10.8% 27.7% 9=13.8 (del) .OOO 

With regards to social interactions, there is a positive and significant relationship 

between frequency of social activity and intragender assault (X2=1 0.1, de3, p'.O 18). 

Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Illegal Activity 

Data on the respondents' substance use and involvement in illegal activity by 

gender of the antagonists are described in Table 6- 13. 

Table 6-13: Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Illegal Activity 

Similar proportions of females injured by females and females injured by males 

reported recent marijuana use (47.3% and 49.0%). Only 5.8 percent of females injured by 

females and 7.3 percent of females injured by males reported a history of arrests. Less 

than six percent of members from both groups reported involvement in illegal behaviors. 

Nevertheless, there are significant differences in substance use. Females injured 

0 by males are significantly more likely than female injured by females to meet criteria for a 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
240 

problem drinker (24.2, df=l, p=.040) and to report using cocaine in the past six months 

(x"=13.8, del, p=.OOO). 

The results indicate that females injured by males have more serious substance 

abuse problems than females injured by females. 

B. Description of Study Respondents' Most Recent Male Intimate Partners and 

Intimate Relationships Disaggregated by Gender of the Antagonist 

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics 

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents' male partners 

are presented in Table 6- 14. They are presented by gender of the antagonist and reveal 

differences and similarities. 

Table 6-I4: Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Male Partners by 

Gender of the Antagonist 

Intragender Cross-gender 

Assault Assault 

Race (N=3 16) 

% Black 

%White 

%I Other 

'70 Don't Know 

87.9% 

2.4% 

4.8% 

4.8% 

87.4% 

0.7% 

6.6% 

5.3% 

% Unemployed 

(N=3 15) 

Education (N=3 15) 

% Less than high 

'YO High School 

% More that high 

% Don't Know 

school 

school 

Average Age (yrs.) 

(N=3 15) 

24.8% 

57.6% 

14.5% 

3 .O% 

28.3 (s.d.=9.6) 

J 

23.4% 

16.7% 

54.0% 

22.7% 

6.7% 

33.4 (s.d.=10.5) 

Test 

I 

Similar proportions of male partners of females involved in intragender assault 

and male partners of females involved in cross-gender assault reportedly are Black 0 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
24 1 

e (87.9% and 87.4% respectively), and unemployed (25.6% and 23.4% respectively). 

There are no significant differences with regards to educational attainment. 

Females involved in intragender assault compared to females involved in crossgender assault are significantly more likely to have male partners who are younger in age 

Statistic 

y=O.O (df-l) 

2=2.9 (del) 

X2=0.6 (del) 

2=2.7 (df-l) 

X2=10.4 (df-l) 

(2=4.5, df=3 13, p=.OOO). This is consistent with the earlier finding that females injured 

P- Value 

1 .OOO 

.OS7 

.455 

.098 

.001 

by females are significantly younger than females injured by males. 

Substance Use, Violence and Criminal Justice System Involvement 

Substance use, violence and criminal justice system involvement among male 

intimate partners are presented by gender of the antagonist in Table 6-15. 

Table 6-1 5: Violence, Substance Use, and Criminal Justice System Involvement 

of Male Partners 

Intragender Cross-gen der Test 

YO Used marijuana in 

the last month 

(N=3 16) 

'YO Used cocaine in 

the last month 

% Respondent feels 

(N=3 16) 

partner should cut 

down on drinking 

(N=3 15) 

% Ever arrested 

N=3 16) 

% Violence against 

of 

someone exclusive 

partner in past 6 

months 

(N=3 16) 

Assault 

40.4% 

7.9% 

22.6% 

35.8% 

27.9% 

Assault 

40.6% 

14.6% 

26.8% 

26.5% 

12.6% 

The proportion of male partners who reportedly engage in substance use is similar 

for females injured by females and females injured by males. About 41 percent of 

a 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
242 

YO Currently has a 

male 

intimate partner 

(N=3 18) 

0 partners from both groups reported recent marijuana use, which is similar to the 

62.7% 66.4% 

proportions of females who reportedly used marijuana. Twenty-two percent of partners 

% Lives with intimate 

partner (N=3 18) 

% Uncommitted 

of females involved in intragender assault and 27 percent of partners of females involved 

24.0% 26.5% 

24.7% 2 1.2% 

in cross-gender assault reportedly need to cut down on their alcohol use. In this sample 

relationship (N=3 17) 

% Relationship ended 

almost twice as many partners of females involved in cross-gender assault compared to 

--. -___ 

23.6% ---bo% 

partners of females involved in intragender assault reportedly used cocaine use recently 

YO Violence by intimate 

in last 6 months 

(N=3 1 1) 

(14.6% versus 7.9%). However these differences are not significant. 

_____ 

18.2% 15.1% 

The partners of females injured by females were significantly more likely than 

partners of females injured by males to have engaged in violence in the past 6 months 

against someone, exclusive of the respondent (2=10.4, del, p=.OOl). 

Male Intimate Partner Relationship Characteristics 

Intimate partner relationship characteristics for females injured by females and 

females injured by males are described in Table 6-16. 

Table 6-1 6: Characteristics of Study Respondents’ Male Intimate Partner 

Relationships 

I in last 6 months 

(N=3 15) 

p=2.54 (del) .23 1 

-- -7- 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
243 

Partner characteristics are proportionately similar for females injured by females 

and females injured by males. Sixty-three percent of females injured by females and 66 

percent of females injured by males have a current partner. However, less than one 

quarter of respondents from each group live with their male partners. This finding 

suggests that most females injured by females and females injured by males are involved 

in non-permanent relationships. 

IV. Summary 

This chapter has highlighted similarities and differences between female-onfemale violence and male-on-female violence across several domains including 

characteristics of the respondents, and characteristics of their most recent male partners 

and partner relationships. 

Females injured by females and females injured by males are almost universally 

Black. Most are unmarried and have symptoms of depression. Few are involved in 

organized activities and the majority of respondents receive government assistance. 

Marijuana use is common among females and their partners. 

Notwithstanding the similarities between females injured by females and females 

injured by males, an intriguing set of bivariate differences emerges. 

females injured by males, females injured by females are more likely to be younger, to 

have fewer years of education and to engage in more frequent social activity. They also 

In comparison to 

are more likely to have male partners who &e younger and partners who engage in 

violence with others. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
244 

Females injured by males compared to females injured by females were more 

likely to report having borrowed money to make ends meet. This finding points to severe 

financial strain. Higher proportions of substance use and involvement with abusive 

partners also characterize females injured by males. These results suggest that females 

involved in cross-gender assault compared to females involved in intragender assault 

have very limited financial resources and extensive turmoil in their lives. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
245 

CHAPTER 7. A DESCRIPTION OF THE WOLENT EVENT: 

UNIVARIATE AND BIVAHATE ANALYSES 

I. Introduction 

This chapter describes characteristics of the violent event. According to 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory situational factors are expected to differ for 

intragender violence compared to cross-gender violence. Part I1 presents univariate 

analyses and includes two sections. The first includes analyses based on closed-ended 

questions and consists of the following: the victim-offender relationship and 

characteristics of the antagonist; time and location of the event and the involvement of 

others; alcohol and illicit drug use; violent acts by the participants; and injury 

information. 

The second section presents frequency distributions based on open-ended 

questions. This section covers the following topics: reasons for the violent event; the role 

of the respondent; emotions on the part of the participants; background characteristics to 

the violence, characteristics of the verbal provocation, alcohol and illicit drug 

involvement and experiences with the police. As described in Chapter 5, the data from 

this section are based on the following interview questions: “What happened to you is 

very important, so can you tell me what happened? ” “What led to this happening? “Why 

do you think he/she/they did this? ” “What one thing in particular triggered her/him/them 

gettingphysical with you? ” Contextual, qualitative iniiinnation is provided through the 

presentation of verbatim accounts reported by study respondents in order to describe their 

perceptions concerning reasons, characteristics and events that led up to violent events. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
246 

Part I11 presents bivariate comparisons of females involved in intragender violence 

with females involved in cross-gender violence, including differences in characteristics of 

the violent event. The first section includes analyses based on the closed-ended 

questions. The second focuses on the open-ended questions. Throughout the section on 

bivariate analysis categorical variables are summarized by frequencies. Statistical tests 

drawn from categorical variables are based on the Chi-square statistic. Means and 

standard deviations summarize continuous variables and statistical tests are based on twotailed t-tests. 

11. Univariate Analyses 

A. Data Obtained From the Closed-Ended Questions 

1. Characteristics of the Antagonist and Victim-Offender Relationship 

Characteristics of the antagonist and the victim-offender relationship and are 

described in Table 7- 1. An age-peer is considered to be within five years of the 

respondents’ age. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
247 

I 28.8 (s.d.=ll.4) 

Table 7-1: Victim-Offender Relationship and Characteristics of the Antagonist 

3.2% 

32.8% 

24.4% 

90.9% 

3 3% 

~ 39.5% 

~ 5.3% 

Average estimated age (N=3 1 1) 

Age Group (yrs.) 

%< 16 

% 16-24 

% 25-35 

% >=36 

Race (N=3 19) 

% Black 

% White 

o/n Other ~ 

’ Victim-Offender relationship (N=322) 

YO Family member 

YO Friend 

% Acquaintanceheighbor 

% Stranger 

Respondent lives with antagonist (N=320) 

% Age-peers (N=320) 

Number of Antagonist(s) (N=322) 

% One 

% Two or three 

% More than three 

20.8% 

14.0% 

43.5% 

21.7% 

9.7% 

48.8% 

73.3% 

14.9% 

11.8% 

According to the respondents’ reports, the typical antagonist is estimated to be 29 

(sd=l 1.4) years old and Black. In most incidents the antagonist is someone the 

respondent knows (78.3%), though only 9.7 pcrcent of the respondents live with the 

antagonist. Only 21.7 percent of the antagonists were strangers. 

In almost half of the incidents the respondent was injured by a person within 5 

years of the respondent’s own age. In 73.3 percent of the incidents the antagonist 

inflicted the violent injury alone. 

2. Time, Location, Involvement of Others 

The time, location and involvement of others including police and bystanders are 

e described in Table 7-2. These questions are based on single-response answers. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
248 

Table 7-2: Time, Location and Involvement of Others 

Time of Incident (N=320) 

% 6:Ol a.m.- 9:OO a.m. 

%9:01 a.m.- noon 

% 12:Ol pm - 3:OO p.m. 

% 3:Ol p.m.- 6:OO p.m. 

YO 6:Ol p.m.- 9:OO p.m. 

YO 9:Ol p.m.- 12:OOa.m. 

%12:01 a.m. - 3:OOa.m. 

% 3:Ol a.m.- 6:OOam 

YO Violence occurred inside respondent’s 

residence (Ne32 1) 

YO Violence occurred on respondent’s street 

(N=199) ’ 

1.9% 

3.8% 

14.4% 

26.9% 

29.1% 

16.9% 

I 

5.0% 

17.6% 

Location of Violence: Indoor, Outdoor or Both 

(N=320) 

‘YO Indoor location 

% Outdoor location 

% Both indoor and outdoor 

YO Presence of bystanders (N=320) 

% Bystander tried to stop violence (N=278) 

% Police arrived (N=3 12) 

38.1% 

55.3% 

6.6% 

8 1.6% 

63.3% 

66.7%’ 

The question, “Was it on the street where you live?” was only asked if the violence did not occur in 

the respondent’s residence. 

I 

’ Question on bystander involvement was asked only if bystanders were present. 

Fifty-six percent of the violent incidents occurred between 3:OO p.m. and 9:OO 

p.m. Fifty-five percent of the incidents occurred in the respondent’s home or on her 

street. The majority of incidents occurred in outdoor locations (62.8%) within the public 

context; in most incidents (86%) bystanders were present. Of this group, sixty-three 

percent tried to stop the violence. In two-thirds of the incidents the police arrived at the 

scene. 

The results reveal that violence frequently occurs at or near the respondent’s home 

during the time when social density is at its highest. Violence to women by non-intimates 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
249 

% Used either alcohol or drugs within 

takes place on view and is not a private affair. These results suggest that violence is part 

of everyday life. 

3. Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use by Respondents and Antagonists 

Alcohol and illicit drug use by respondents and antagonists within four hours of 

the violent event are described in Table 7-3. 

Table 7-3: Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use by Respondents and Antagonists 

Respondent Antagonist 

25.9% 56.1% 

four hours of violent event (N=32 1) 

% Used alcohol within four hours of 22.4% 38.0% 

violent event (N=321) 

% Used drugs within four hours of 9.0% 45.2% 

Twenty six percent of the respondents and fifty six percent of the antagonists 

reportedly had used illicit drugs or alcohol within four hours of the violent event. 

Almost three times as many respondents reportedly used alcohol compared to illicit drugs 

(22.4% versus 9.0%). In contrast, a greater proportion of antagonists reportedly used 

drugs than alcohol (45.2% versus 38.0%). In almost one out of five (19%) incidents both 

the respondent and antagonist had used either illicit drugs or alcohol. 

Earlier findings (see Chapter 5) indicate that self-reported substance LEX by the 

respondent is correlated significantly with urine toxicology reports. This finding likely 

minimizes the possibility of a response bias and points io substance use as an important 

situational factor that fuels violence. 

4. Violent Acts by Respondents and Antagonists 

violent even (N=321) 

drugs or alcohol within 4 hours 

of violent event (N=321) 

% Respondent and antagonist used 19.0 % 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
250 

% Respondent fought back (N=321) 

YO Respondent was carrying something to keep 

herself safe (N=32 1) 

A description of violent acts including weapon use is provided in Table 7-4. All 

questions required single-response answers. The last two questions only were asked with 

61.7% - 

6.9% - 

respect to the respondent. 

Table 7-4: Violent Acts and Weapon Use 

'30 Slapped, punched, pushed kicked or bit (N=322) 

% Threatened with something hurtful (N=321) 

YO Hit antagonist with something (N=321) 

% Stabbed or cut antagonist with something @=321) 

% Shot at with a gun (N=321) 

Violent Act by 

Respondent to 

Antagonist 

55.8% 

8.1% 

6.9% 

1.6% 

0.3% 

Respondent 

1 Violent Act by 

' Antagonist to 

Respondent 

83.2% 

42.4% 

33.6% 

2.8% 

23.1% 

According to Table 7-4 most (83.2%) respondents were slapped, punched, pushed, 

kicked or bitten by antagonists. Forty-two percent were threatened with something 

harmful. Of this percentage, 19 (or 14%) were threatened with a gun (not shown). 

According to Table 7-4, thirty-four percent had been hit with something and 23.1 percent 

had been stabbed or cut. The most frequently cited weapons used to stab or cut included 

a razor blade, followed by a knife and glass (not shown). Based on Table 7-4,2.8 percent 

of the respondents had been shot at with a gun and one sustained a gun injury. 

Sixty-two percent of the study respondents fought back. Of this group, the 

majority (55.8%) slapped, punched, pushed kick or bit the antagonist. Seven percent of 

the respondents (N=22) were carrying something to keep themselves safe at the time of 

the violent event. Of the 22 respondents (not shown) the most frequently cited carried 

items include a knife or razor (N=l 0) and mace (N=6); three respondents reported 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
25 1 

% Face or Head (N=322) 

% Face (N=322) 

carrying a sharp object; one respondent reported carrying a stick; one reported carrying a 

bat; and one reported carrying a gun. According to Table 7-4, seven percent of the 

respondents hit the antagonist with an object and 2 percent stabbed or cut the antagonist. 

One respondent shot a gun at the antagonist. 

67.1% 

52.5% 

The results demonstrate that weapon use is more often the exception than the rule. 

% AdShoulder (N=322) 

% BackLButtocks (N=322) 

The most prevalent form of violent act by the respondent and antagonist is one-on-one 

30.4% 

26.4% 

bodily physical contact; however, injuries inflicted are severe enough to warrant 

% HandNrist (N=322) 

% Leg (N=322) 

emergency department care. 

25.5% 

24.4% 

5. Injury Information 

Injury data are presented in Table 7-5. To determine the injury location the 

participant was shown a body map and asked the following, “Can you circle the areas 

where you were hurt or hit?” The interviewer used these data to code one or more 

injured locations. 

Table 7-5: Injury Location and Fatalities 

\ ~~ . I % Head (not face) (N=322) I 35.4% I 

n, 1 

% Neck cN=322) I 16.1% 1 

13.7% 

13.0% 

5.6% 

Multiple locations coded per respondent 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
252 

The most frequently cited areas of injury include the face (52.5%), followed by 

the head (35.4%) and andshoulder (30.4%). During one percent (N=2) of the incidents, a 

person had been killed. 

The high proportion of women who sustained injuries to the face or head likely 

reflects the most frequent types of violent acts that include hitting or punching. Targeting 

the face also may reflect a strategy used to reduce a female’s physical attractiveness by 

damaging qualities that she values such as physical attractiveness. Moreover, injury to 

the respondent’s face may serve as public emblem of victory for the antagonist. 

B. Data Obtained from the Open-ended Questions 

Respondents’ accounts are provided in the following section in order to describe 

respondents’ perceptions regarding reasons and events that led up to the violent events. 

They also are presented to illustrate the definitions of numerous concepts that were 

operationalized (e.g. Mutual-Contribution, Female-Valued Resource, Personal Respect 

Relational-Protection and Interpersonal Concern$. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
253 

1. Reasons for the Violence 

Reasons for the violence are described in Table 7-6. The reasons were post-coded 

from the open-ended questions that inquire how the violence began, the events that led up 

the violence, why the violence occurred and factors that triggered the violence. The 

definitions of each reason are described in the sections below. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
254 

YO Issues related to personal respect (N=3 19) 

% Monedresources RJ=3 19) 

Table 7-6: Reasons for the Violence 

25.1% 

17.9% 

% Gender-centric concerns (N=3 19) 

% Interpersonal-concerns (N=3 19) 

Y Predatorv violence cN=3 19) 

16.3% 

14.1% 

13.5% 

I % Related to children or parenting (N=3 19) I 9.1% I 

% Mental illness (N=3 19) 

% For a thrilYtype of person hehhe is(N=3 19) 

-5.6% 

3.4% 

I % Plaver behavior cN=3 19) I 3.1Yr 1 

I % Physical attractiveness (N=3 19) I 1.9% 

More than one reason can be coded per incident. 

a. Issues Related to Personal Respect 

The most frequently cited reason (25.1 %) for the violence involves issues related 

to “personal respect.” As noted earlier, at the heart of respect is the issue of maintaining 

one’s self-esteem. In communities characterized by limited means to earn status, respect 

becomes worth fighting over (Anderson, 1999; Nurge, 2000). While some respondents 

used the term “respect,” most respondents did not. Instead they described insults, slights 

(e.g. name calling, cursing) or accusations made prior to the violent event without using 

the actual term respect. One respondent (#1406) injured by a female explained: 

Someone was ringin ’ my bell at 3:OO in the morning and I really didn ’t 

feel like getting up. At that time it continued to ring and then I answered 

my intercom to find out who it was. It was the lady on the secondfloor. I 

don ’t know her. She asked me to let her in. and I told her I didn ’t 

appreciate her ringing my bell at 3.40 in the morning with my children 

sleepin’ and I didn’t let her in then. [At] 6:OO in the evening. .. I saw some 

lights outside my window. So I went to the door to see what was going on 

and she was standing in the front door and I turned to walk away.. cause 

she just called the cops on me twice ... As I went into the apartment I hear 

her say, ‘There goes that bitch there. ’And when I heard her say that I 

came out of my apartment and said, ‘You’re not gonna keep calling the 

cops on me and not gonna keep disrespecting me. ’ And we was arguing, 

she tried to push past me, that s when I hit her and then we started 

fighting. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
255 

The following examples illustrate an exchange of insults between acquaintances. 

One respondent (#3 03 8) explained: 

I was standing in the doorway and a girl walked by and bumped me. So I 

came in classroom andsaid, ‘O.K.. It’s Friday. Isee how girls want to 

play. ’ Then she pushed me. We startedfighting. .. [it was] about her 

bumping me in the hall ...[a nd] Iguess me commenting about her after she 

bumped me. 

Another respondent (#3082) provided the following account: 

I saw this guy I know buying drugs and I said, ‘Ifyou can buy drugs you 

can pay me the $5 you owe me. ’ He said ‘Fuck you bitch’ and I said, ‘The 

one that had you. ’ The next thing I know is he went to his car and got his 

club and came back over to me and started beating me in my head and my 

arm and hand. My hand is broken and they had to sew an artery in my 

head to stop the bleeding. I have stitches on both sides of my head. 

b . Money/Res o u rces 

Eighteen percent of the incidents involved arguments over money or resources. 

Arguments usually centered on owing money, stealing money or competing over 

resources. The finding that a top reason for violence involved fights over money or 

resources is consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory; with limited 

means to achieve conventionally-defined success, resources take on increased 

importance. A typical scenario follows (#13 17): 

My husband’s nephew walked straight in the house, straight up the stairs 

and startedpunching me in my face and choking me. And he picked me up 

and threw me down aJIight of steps and then startedpunching me and 

choking me again. And that s when I called 91 I... He did this because I 

was stopping himkom taking my mo~?wr-in-law’s money. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
256 

Another respondent (#1554) explained: 

It was over $50 ... things got out of hand, words were exchanged and Igot 

jumped. I was with my cousin who paid this girl to braid her hair and she 

went to have her hair done and the girl didn ’t want to ...[t he] argument 

was about the money. 

The following is an example of fighting over resources. The respondent (#3782) 

sustained an injury by a friend and explained: 

I was in the laundromat with one of my friends and it started offthat he 

wasplaying, gripping me around my chest andpushing me. And that when 

I fell and hurt my knee and then he climbed on top of me and was still 

grabbing me ...[H e did this] because afriend of both of ours gave me some 

basketball tickets to give to me. James decided that. .. he wanted them 

tickets. 

c. Gender-Centric Concerns 

Fourteen percent of the incidents focused on gender-centric concerns among 

females and males. Female concerns include attempts to impress a boyfriend (actual or 

potential), competition over boyfiiends, jealousy related to pregnancy, and player 

behavior. As explained earlier (see Chapter 3) jealousy over a rival’s pregnancy may 

reflect competition over a male intimate (Anderson, 1990). Player behavior by males 

involves maintaining more than one girlfriend at a time or flirtinghaving an affair with a 

second woman. According to previous research, male player behavior perpetuates 

rivalries between women (Artz, 1998; Oliver, 1989; Nurge, 2000). 

In contrast to female-centric concerns, male-centric concerns that emerged from 

the data center on rejection by a female friend or potential girl friend. This finding is 

consistent with past research that has associated male violence with threats to one’s 

manhood (Anderson, 1999; Oliver, 1989b). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
257 

i. Female-Centric Concerns 

Female-centric concerns reveal the central role of boyfriends in the lives of the 

study respondents and the importance assigned to maintaining a positive appearance in 

the eyes of males. One respondent (#3654) explained: 

Me and my roommate got in aphysicalfight. She threw a glass in my face 

and I hit her back My brother and my boyfiiend separated us. Somehow 

my arm got hurt. [It was about] something very childish. You know how 

you play and say things about each other. She was teasing me about my 

butt and I was trying to be cute in pont of my boypiend so I disagreed and 

she got mad and called me a bitch. [What triggered the violence was that] 

I called her one back and she threw a glass in my face. 

Another respondent explained (#3432): 

Me and some girl got into an argument. She was trying to be big and 

tough because guys were around. She got in my face and I hit her. men 

people were trying to break the fight up I hit her. I went home to change 

my shirt because it was ripped and we startedfighting again because she 

followed me home. 

Competition over male intimates was a common theme. One respondent (#112 1) 

described the following scenario: 

A girl kzptplaying with the phone. She was calling all the numbers on a 

beeper to see who they were and she called me. Then she called my mom's 

number. I went to her house. She had a knve in her hand and we started 

fighting. She stabbed me. [It was aboutl her playing on my phone. Cuz she 

want my boypiend. 

Another respondent (#1183) reported: 

I was fighting. It was some girl. She bit myjnger and in my chest. 

[It was about] rumors. I was supposedly messing with her boyfiiend. I 

posed to be lying, saying I was pregnant by him. 

One respondent (# 1362) explained: 

She came to my house. I don 't even know her by name. It was over a guy. 

She said she wanted to fight and when I got out on the street she maced 

me. Then she just started stabbing me all over. [It was] cause she wanted 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
258 

my son’s father as a man - so she came afrr me. It was about a guy.... 

[what triggered the violence was that] she was mad cause she couldn’t 

have him. 

Female-centric concerns also emerged between respondents and their boyfriends’ 

mothers. One respondent (#3450) who was injured by her boyfiiend’s mother 

provided the following description: 

[Last night] we got back together. His mother doesn ’t like me and don’t 

want me around We was sitting there watching T. V. I said, ‘#your mom 

finds me here she won’t like it. ’ He said, ‘Don ’t worry. ’ Well, his mom 

came and told me to get out of the house. She had a knife and my 

boyfriend took it away. Then she got a pair of scissors and he took them 

away. Then she came upstairs had me pinned up against the dresser. 

That’s when she cut me. [This happened because of the] previous 

argument between my boyfriend and I. She is very protective of him. 

Numerous scenarios reveal that male player behavior contributes to violence 

between females. A typical account (#3327) follows: 

I was in a club and it as crowded and when men approaches, you don’t 

know that they have a girlfriend. His girlfriend came in with her 

girlfriend and he sat down with me. I was telling him that I was married 

She saw us and said we ‘I1 see you when you get outside. men I was 

coming out the door, I was intoxicated, she started cussing at me. I told 

her I didn ’t need her man. There was a whole lot ofpeople crowding 

around she broke the window of my car with the ‘club ’from the car, and I 

got the bat outfiom the back seat and I started swinging it. One of the 

girls grabbed me and the other girl grabbed the bat and she hit me in the 

arm when I tried to block it then I hit her in the head with the bat. And 

then I went wild and started swinging and they started to break it up. 

One respondent (#1148) described a scenario that involved being jumped by four 

women, one of whom was having an affair with her husband: 

I was on my way home and four women hadydmped me. They just kcpa 

kicking me and beat me ... They constantly harassing me ... [It’s] just really 

about my boyfriend having an affair with ‘em. 

Another respondent (#1565) expressed a similar sentiment: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
259 

My girlfiiend and I were driving. We was going to the swimming pool. 

These guys blocked the car and then one of the girls sprayed me with 

mace. Everybody was just fighting. ..[It was because] I was messing with 

this guy. He let me hold his car. He must have had another girl and she 

had her things in the car. I guess she was mad that I was driving the car. 

Resentment over a rival female’s pregnancy also contributes to violence. One 

respondent (# 1588) expressed the following: 

I got jumped.. . it was two girls. I’m pregnant. As soon as I got pregnant I 

have enemies for no reason. [It’s about] jealousy. They don’t like me. I’m 

pregnant. They don’t like me. 

Other females reportedly engaged in violence against respondents as a means to release 

emotional distress over boyfriends. One respondent (1454) explained: 

I called the two girls from my house asking for my aunt because I was 

home alone and afiaid. One of them answered the phone and hung up on 

me. They called me back and said not to hang up on them. We started 

having an argument on the phone.. .I don ’t know [why she got violent]. 

mat triggered the violence was that] I heard that one of them and their 

boyfiiend broke up so now she’s looking for problems with other people. 

ii. Male-Centric Concerns 

Male-centric concerns center on rejection by a female friend or potential 

girlfriend. For example, one female respondent (#3843) who reportedly was injured by a 

male neighbor reported the following: 

Me and my cousin and this boy came over and they started arguing and I 

told him to leave me alone. So he punched me. Then he kicked me in my 

stomach, and in my lips and we startedfighting. ..He and my cousin was 

arguing because he calls us Afiican, Afiican. [He did this] because he 

had a crush on me before and I wouldn ‘t go out with him, or sleep with 

him. 

Another respondent (#1367) injured by two females described the following scenario: 

I work as a street cleaner. I was at work. One of the other guys fiom the 

job came into my zone and told me that the supervisor wanted me. But 

when I got there, there wasn ’t no supervisor. There were 2 girls there and 

they jumped me ... It was a setup. One of the guys who told me to go to the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
260 

supervisor likes me. I told him that I don ’t want to get involved with 

someone at work He’s been harassing me. He told me that ifhe can’t 

have me no one else will and he gonna make my life miserable. The girls 

came up behind me to thepont, punched me and then ran. mat 

triggered the violence was that] ... he might have paid them. 

a 

One respondent (#1189) who was injured by a male acquaintance described the 

importance of importance of upholding one’s reputation for males. She explained: 

Ijust had aJight because I didn’t want to have sex with somebody I didn’t 

know. [He got violent] cuz I told him no and I guess he hate to be told no. 

... he got to uphold his reputation and when somebody tell him no, it get 

messed up. 

d. Interpersonal-Concerns 

Fourteen percent of the respondents attributed the violence to two issues 

categorized as interpersonal concerns. The first involves includes issues of dislike, The 

second is referred to by researchers as “indirect aggression” and by respondents as “he 

say/she say” and includes spreading rumors and gossiping (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992). 

i. “Shehe Doesn’t Like Me” 

The following accounts illustrate the relevance of not being liked in the lives of 

the study participants. One respondent (#38 12) explained: 

I was coming from the store and my neighbors, they jumped me ... Six of 

them. [Because] the girl, she just doesn’t like me ... she said that she think 

that I’m cute. 

Another respondent (#2059) said: 

Its some girl across the street who don’t like me for some reason. Today 

she ran right up across the street and started trying topght me. I was 

punching and kicking her, then her girljriend came and held me and she 

bit me in my chest. Then I hit her head with a bottle. Then I tried to run 

in the house but she came after me so I was pouncing her till she ran. She 

just don’t like me. She’s jealous. It’s about jealousy, I don ’t know why. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
26 1 

ii. “He Say/ She Say” 

According to the respondents’ accounts rumors and gossip are commonplace. 

One respondent (#3443) who sustained an injury by a male friend shared the following: 

The boy hit me because of some ‘he say she say ’ argument. I was coming 

from my house. He snuck up on me and hit me. Ifripped out and over ... 

My mouth was bleeding. ..then he started runningfiom the cops. [It was 

over] some argument. I told some girl he was smoking dope. I don ’t 

know what’s going on. Iguess he was trying to prove himself to 

somebody. 

Another respondent (#3203) explained: 

I had got aphone call about 1:30p.m. A girl asked me ifI could come 

around the corner for a minute. I said ‘sure. ’ I didn ’t think nothing. She 

was questioning me. I turned around, and when I turned around there 

was another girl, and they jumped me and when I got up there was a 

whole bunch ofpeople on top of me. [It was becausela female had told 

another female that I had said something about her, which wasn’t true but 

she didn’t want to listen to my side of the story. 

e. Predatory Violence 

Predatory violence includes acts of theft, rape or attempted sex. Fourteen percent 

of respondents sustained an injury during predatory violence. One respondent (# 1448) 

who was injured by a stranger responded: 

I was going to my car to put my pocketbook in the trunk. Four girls drove 

by in a red Honda and stopped and said (Give that shit up’ and then I told 

her ifshe ain’t have a gun she ain’t getting nothing. She said she was one 

of the bad ones. She jumped out of the car and tried to steal my herring 

bone necklace. We got to tussling. There was a police ofJicer in the 

schoolyard and he told her to go away. She took ofl I realized I was 

bleeding. 

Another respondent (#1208) provided the following account of theft by a male 

acquaintance: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
262 

This guy had entered our house without our permission and tried to steal 

our cable box. He did steal our cable box. Then I started to get in a fight 

with him because I couldn’t understand why he would do that when I knew 

him for years. When he went to hit me back he pulled out a knife and cut 

my hand - that’s when my brother jumped into and startedfighting with 

him. After we caught him, we asked him about the money he borrowed 

fiom my grandmother - $100, but he didn’t have it. Earlier he and his 

sister tried to fight me and when Igot home he was just there. Nobody let 

him in and that’s how it started. .. he wanted money to get drugs. 

One woman who was injured by a stranger (#1254) responded: 

I was sitting in traflc digging in my pocketbook for a light and the glass 

just shattered and broke all over me. IpuIled 08 put my foot on the gas 

and went to my sister’s house ... [What triggered the violence was] maybe it 

was a smash and grab thing. Smash the window and grab my 

pocketbook.. I sped 08 I didn ’t have time to see what he or they was 

doing. 

Numerous women sustained injuries as a consequence of attempted sex. One respondent 

(#30 1 1) shared the following: 

I was putting my Christmas lights out and this street acquaintance who 

works at a local barbershop said, ‘suck my dick ’ I told him to getpom in 

fiont of the damn door. So he said, ‘don ’t make me do what I’m going to 

do. ’ He sucker punched me and knocked me down.. .He tried to force me 

to suck his dick. 

Another respondent (# 1232) shared the following: 

It happened yesterday because I didn’t want to have oral sex. He wrapped 

a belt around my legs ... He said, ‘I’ll teach you. ’ I really shouldn’t. He 

cut me, he beat me, he tied a belt around my ankles and cut my hair. He 

tried to force me to have sex but I fought him 08 

f. Fights Involving Children and Parenting 

Nine percent of the incidents involved issues related to children or 

parenting. The most common theme involved disputes between children. One 

respondent (# 1 025) explained: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
263 

The woman came banging. ..[to] my home saying that my son hit her 

daughter. I told her, her daughter is the one that hits my son and with 

objects too. The next thing I know I turned around and then she snuck me 

with a bottle. I had no chance to block it or anything. ..I called the police. 

When I came back down she had a bat or a board after my son. [Its 

because] he said my son hit her daughter ... She was just hollering. I mean 

kids will be kids .. .the yfight today ...p lay tomorrow. My son said her 

daughter was lying. He didn’t hit her, she hit him with a rope. I told my 

son not to play with her because she is sneaky. 

According to another respondent (#1467): 

Two four-year old children caused the fight. One being my nephew and 

the other being the grandson of a resident who lived across the street. The 

playground is where we were having a community meeting, in a 

recreational center. mat happened was we were in a center, while the 

children were playing outside of the center in the playground. All of a 

sudden I heard a child crying. ..Since I was leading this meeting, I told 

someone else to go check to see what was going on. And it was my sister 

who went outside to see what was going on. It happened to be her son and 

the other little boy. ..her grandson was crying when my sister got out there. 

The grandmother is 41 years old and is known in the neighborhood as 

[an] obnoxious, hard, loud, wildperson. She was hollering and 

threatening my nephew, cussing him saying ‘What the ‘F’ did you hit my 

grandson for?’ She continued cussing him out and getting closer to him 

like she was going to hit him. My sister asked her politely, Yfyou have 

anything to say to him, I’m his mother, say it to me. ’ I came out of the 

building because I heard 2 adults arguing, not knowing that one of them 

was my sister. As I approached the grandmother, she was walking close 

to my sister. I said ‘what’s going on? ’ She said your “F” nephew hit my 

“F” grandson and I want to know what the “F” he hit him for? ’ My 

sister was trying to tell her ifshe calmed down, we can try tofZnd out what 

happened. She said I know what happened your “F” son hit my “F” 

grandson ... I told her my sister’s 5 112 months pregnant, we are trying to 

do somethingpositive in the community here. We don ’t have time for this. 

She told me to mind my own business ... And then she walked away. We 

continued back with the meeting. An hour and a halflater, her family 

came inside the recreation center and uiiucked my sister. I kept screamin’ 

to them, ‘she ’s pregnant, Jight me. ’ But they kept going aftr my sister. 

The fight kept going on ... 15 people were trying to pull them off my sister. 

I got my sister away from them and sheltered her with my body. In the 

process, my back was towards them. They pulled my hair out and was just 

punchin’ me in the back and kickin’ me. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
264 

Another common topic involving children focused on issues related to parenting. One 

respondent (# 1089) who was injured by her brother explained: 

Me and my brother got in afight over my kids. He called DHS 

[Department of Human Services] on me. See, last night I wasn't home 

because my kids were with my husband. My brother came and he called 

DHS, so when I went there I was mad. 

One respondent (# 1 109) provided the following account: 

I was assaulted by my daughter 's boypiend... I defended myself the best 

way I know how. I got out of his sight and put a dresser and mirror in 

pant of the door. Then when I thought he had gone to his car I started to 

get dressed and go out. [It was about] me trying to chastise my granakon 

for his unruly behavior. It was about his son thinking his son is better than 

anybody else in the world. .. Ijust tried to use the bat as a protection shield 

just to keep him offme. 

g. Mental Problems 

e In six percent of the fights the respondent mentioned that mental problems 

contributed to violent outcome. In all, but one incident the respondent described 

the antagonist as mentally ill. In the exceptional case the respondent described 

herself as suicidal. 

One respondent (#2133) who was injured by her son explained: 

My son caught me. My son did this. And I was home asleep. My son is 

mentally disturbed, he won't admit it. I tries to get him help. He was 

trying to stab me with a knijie and then he took and hit me with a glass. I 

can't make it. I can 't go on ... I hate him. I hate him. Ijust hate him ... He 's 

crazy. I hate him and he hates me ... He 's mentally disturbed. I try to get 

him help, but he don 't listen. 

hother respondent (#3744) who was injured at work reported: 

I was working at a nursing home. One of residents at home cornered me 

and began hitting me. When I did get away he threw a pitcher of water at 

me. He was very agitated, verbally abusive ... I really don't know [why it 

happened] other then [him] being upset ... He was a psych[iatric] patient 

and really didn't belong on the floor. 

..* I. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
265 

h. For a Thrill 

Six percent of the respondents attributed the antagonists’ violent acts to wanting 

to thrill. This category also includes antagonists described as troublemakers or the 

type of person to act violent. One respondent (#2450) explained: 

I was walking to the bus to catch a bus and three guys were running 

towar& me and they just knocked me down ... I guess I didn’t get out of 

their way fast enough. They laughed andjust kept running. [They got 

violent]. .. For a thrill. .. for kicks. 

Another respondent explained (#3246): 

I was taking a bath and heard a girlfriend of mine coming up the stairs. 

She kicked open bathroom door hit me in the face with a blunt object. It 

was either a billy club or the butt of a gun. I went under the water thejirst 

time then I got out and realized blood was dripping from my head. 

There was a discrepancy over aphone bill. My phone was in her name at 

Jirst. Ipaid the bill when I moved and got my new phone put in my own 

name. But she thought I didn ’t pay the bill because the phone company 

disconnected her phone. [She did this because] she’s that kind ofperson. 

She tries to intimidate people. 

i. Physical Attractiveness 

Two percent of the incidents involved issues related to physical attractiveness. 

One respondent (#3 576) provided the following account: 

I was at my girlfriend’s. I saw another girl that I had an argument with 

over there ... [She got violent because] she’s jealous. pWhat triggered the 

violence was that] when I walked in my giryriend said to me how nice my 

hair looked. She got mad. 

2. The Role of the Respondent 

Table 7-7 summarizes the roles assumed by respondent during the violent event. 

All roles except, protector, are limited to descriptions of the respondents’ roles. The 

category labeled “Protection” includes incidents where either the respondent or antagonist 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
266 

% Mutual contribution (N=3 19) 

% Protection (N=3 19) 

YO Innocent victim (N=3 19) 

engaged in violence to protect a third party. The information in Table 7-7 was post coded 

from the open-ended responses that queried why and how the violent event occurred. 

Table 7-7: The Role of the Respondent ‘ 

24.5% 

17.0% 

14.4% 

% Drawn into violence (N=3 19) 

YO Tried to break up fight (N=3 19) 

I % ResDondent initiated Dhvsical violence N=3 19) I 7.5% I 

5.3% 

3.8% 

a. Mutual Contribution 

Twenty-five percent of the incidents are characterized as “mutual.” In 

these incidents the respondent contributed to the violent outcome through verbal 

or physical provocation prior to the violence and fought back with violence. 

However, the respondent often appears to be an innocent target of the initial attack 

A typical response (#1560) cited by a female injured by another female follows: 

I was in a fight with a girl who was two times bigger than me. The fight, it 

was actually with her mom who says that I disrespected her. This has 

been going on for a while. Then mom asked why I disrespect her and I 

said she disrespected me so I disrespected her and that’s when she smuck 

me, she popped me upside the head. So then I really called her a bitch 

and we startedfighting. [What triggered the violence was thug I called 

her mom a ‘B ’. 

One respondent (#1288) who sustained an injury by a friend’s relatives 

provided the following description: 

I got infight with girl. 1 was getting the best of her and so her two 

girlfriendi jumped in and startedfighting me. I could handle all three of 

them so she (one of the girls) dropped a cinderblock on my hea d... She 

said something. I said something. She said something again. Then she 

said, she ’d slap me. I said 20 ahead. ’ She put her handi up so I hit her. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
267 

Then she hit me in head with [a] children’s radio. I hit her in head with 

children’s radio and boot heel. 

One respondent (#3 155) who was injured by one of her parent’s male friends explained: 

I was going swimmin ’ and some guy I didn’t know but I seen him before 

asked me ifI could do it. He grabbed my butt and I grabbed his penis and 

put my nails in it. Then we started arguin ’ and he socked me in the jaw. 

He wanted to have sex and I told him no. /-What triggered his violence was 

that] Iput my nails in his penis. 

Another respondent who‘was injured by a co-worker described the following scenario 

(#1252): 

I was at work We was all around the table and this guy named Drew he 

kept laughing when I was talking. And I had called him a kid. And he 

asked one of his fiiend what did I say. And the fiiend told Drew. So he 

told me to stop ‘jiicking playing. ’ Then I called Drew a bitch and he 

pushed me to the jloor and I grabbed a chair to hit him with and he 

punched me in the eye. 

One woman, an innocent victim of a stranger robbery, contributed to the violent 

outcome by using verbal and physical aggression. She (#1609) explained: 

I was going to the check cashin ’place to pay all my bills and stufl Before 

I got to the check cashing place, two young black males pulled up to me in 

a burgandy Maxima and asked me directio ns... I was tellin ’ them how to 

get there.. . The driver gave the passenger a gun and the passenger watched 

for it and I turned away to run to the beer shop across the street. I wasn’t 

even really runnin’ because when you live in the hood, you see guns 

everyday. Shoot everyone has one. They are gonna make me get one. So 

the guy swung the door open, grabbed my shirt, snatched my purse. And I 

said ‘Oh no you don ’t, you son of a bitch’ and I went to hit him and we 

was fightin’. The driver must have got scared and drove ofi but I was still 

holdin’ onto the car, chokin the guy. He was pokin ’ me and hit my glasses 

of They drove oflike a bat out of hell and I was completely stunned. 

They dragged me for a block while the car was tryin ’ to get away. 

The finding that mutual contribution characterizes one forth of the incidents is 

consistent with past finding that violence to women is not one of simple victimization 

(Baskin and Sommers, 1998). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
268 

b. Protection 

Seventeen of the participants (including respondents and antagonists) engaged in 

violence in the service of protecting a third party. This includes 9 percent of the 

respondents and 9 percent of the antagonists. Three forms of protection emerged: (1) 

protecting someone from physical injury; (2) protecting someone’s resources; and (3) 

protecting someone’s reputation. 

An example of attempting to protect someone from physical harm follows. The 

respondent (#3220): 

My sister and her old man were fighting, When he picked up a board to 

hit her with I tried to stop him and he got mad and started hitting at me 

with it. Iput my arm up to block my face and he hit me on the right arm 

with it. He was attacking my sister and I tried to stop him @om hurting my 

sister. 

a One respondent described an attempt to protect her sister-law from being 

scammed by a cab driver. She (#3302) explained: 

My sister-in-law buzzed the door. ..I heard her arguing with this man so I 

came downstairs and I seen the man pushing her and that’s when I went to 

help her and he punched me in my face ... He went the wrong way and he 

tried to charge her more money. She told him that she wasn’t going to pay 

him more than $3.00. [What triggered the violence was] because Ipushed 

him. 

The next example illustrates the relevance of protecting someone else’s 

reputation. One respondent (#1262) who was injured by residents in a shelter explained: 

I was doin’ my daughter’s hair and I needed the lights on ten more 

minutes to finish. Lamps can stay on. This woman said she was turning 

the lights out and I asked ifshe could keep it 3n for a little while longer 

and she got real nasty with me. Words were exchanged, the lights were 

turned ofanyway, I laid down with my kids. Somebody told this lady’s 

daughter we exchanged words and she said, ‘Nobody disrespects my 

mother. Nobody disrespects my mother. ’ She came lookin ’for me and she 

hit me with a bottle of laundry detergent. I came offthe bed and we 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
269 

startedfighting. After that, I came to defend mysev Her and her mom 

jumped me somehow. I blacked out. 

Another respondent (#1373) described the following scenario. 

I got jumped..Igot kicked in the head with this girl’s boot. .. Basically a 

bump. It was a misunderstanding and one of the girls came after me and 

kicked me in the head. ..[She got violent because] she wanted to help her 

Ji.iend. . the girl that I accidentally bumped 

c. Innocent Victim 

In 14 percent of the incidents the respondent described herself as an innocent 

victim (although she may have contributed to the violent outcome through verbal or 

physical provocation). In five percent of the incidents she was drawn into the violence 

for reasons beyond her control and in four percent of the incidents she sustained an injury 

while trying to break up a fight. Thus, in 23 percent of the incidents the respondent 

described herself as an innocent victim or one who played an altruistic role. 

One respondent (#2026) who sustained an injury while trying to break up a fight 

gave the following description: 

My sisters wasfighting. I came outside to break it up. A girl head-butted 

me in the face ... I don’t even know what they were fighting about. 

I think she thought I was tryin’ to jump in the fight. I was just trying to 

break it up. I don’t go for that fighting crap. 

Another respondent had tried to break up a fight between her cousin and her cousin’s 

boyfkiend. She explained (#l404): 

They were fighting and I happened to be at her house. I was coming down 

the steps to get my nieces because they were fighting. I took my nieces 

back upstairs and 1 came back down the steps to break the fight up. I was 

in the middle ... in between them two. I had my back toward my cousin 

pushing her back, as I was pushing her back, her boyfriend was trying to 

swing over me to get to her with his left hand. As he was swinging to get 

her all I knew is that I blacked out because he hit me. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
270 

Other women sustained an injury because they were drawn into the fight for 

reasons beyond their control, usually serving as the target for someone else’s 

anger. In numerous cases the respondent sustained an injury because of situations 

that involved her male partner. One woman (#1097) explained: 

Me and my husband was assaulted going to the Chinese store. I knew one 

of the guys, My husband knew one. They were mugging us. We %e excrack users and my husband owed them money ... [The violence happened 

because] my boypiend not telling me about this debt that he should have 

told me about. We trying to clean up our lives. mat triggered the 

violence was] ’cause I asked them not to hurt my husband..He said ‘shut 

up bitch’ andpushed me. 

One woman (#2370) who was the target for her boyfriend explained: 

I was in Hoagie City. I ordered. This guy came in and was brushing 

against me. I told him to leave me alone. Ipaid, and then when I was 

leaving, he punched me, so Ipushed him. Then he started going off and 

hit me again. Some people in the place started yelling at him and then I 

went to use the phone (to call the cops). He knew me from my boypiend. 

He was angry and high. I think he took it out on me, but he was really 

mad at my boypiend. . .for getting evicted. .. and he thought he could go 

after me instead of my boy9iend. 

Another respondent (# 130 1) explained: 

I was just in a flght. We were fighting. I cut myselfwith a bottle. 

My sister retaliatedfrom these women jumping her because she was mad. They 

thought that because I’m pregnant I wouldn’t hit back so they jumped me. I 

wouldn ’t let them talk to me anyway they wanted to. 

d. Respondent Initiates the Violent Act 

In eight percent of the cases the respondent was the first person to use violence. 

In some incidents she provoked the argument. In other incidents, she reported being 

provoked, but used violence first. Two examples follow. One respondent (#3806) 

explained: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
27 1 

% Angermas a problemiwent off (N=3 19) 

‘YO Jealousy (N=3 19) 

‘YO Stressed (N=3 19) 

% Fear IN=3 19) 

I was arguing with a girl. She said something I didn’t like and I hit her. 

It was an argument [about] jealousy. [She become violent] because I hit 

her. 

e 

29.8% 

15.0% 

4.1% 

2.2% 

Another respondent (#3349) explained: 

Well, this girl constantly spreading rumors about me that s not true and 

its getting back to my husband. I beat her up cuz of what she said, and I 

told her I’m gonna whip her ass every time I see her ifshe talk about me. 

I’m not no violent person but I had enough of that chick. This been 

brewing for three summers. 

c 

In contrast to the examples above, in the following scenario (#3508) the respondent 

resorted to violence to prevent self-injury: 

My block is full ofyoung people ...go ssipers. Something about my kids told 

her nephew that I was going to beat her up. She called. ..I asked my kia’s if 

they said it.. . they said, ‘No. ’ I told her that if she wanted to say something 

to me she should come around to my house. She and her sister came over. 

We had words and startedfighting. I defended myself (my daughter 

brought me a hammer handle). She had a sharp metal pointy thing in my 

arm and my leg. She came aftr me. I can’t wait to move. This 

neighborhood is crazy ... I hit her first. .. Always hitfirst. Cause ifyou let 

them get in the first hit, you might never get up. 

3. Respondents’ and Antagonists’ Emotions 

Emotions on the part of the respondents and antagonists prior to and during the 

violent event are described in Table 7-8. Each category includes incidents where the 

respondent and/or antagonist mentioned the emotion under investigation. 

Table 7-8: Respondents’ and Antagonists’ Emotions 

1 One incident can be coded in more than one category. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
272 

a. Anger/ Has a Problem 

According to the respondents, in 29.8 percent of the incidents their own anger or 

anger by the antagonist contributed to the violent event. This category includes “having a 

problem” or “going off.” One respondent explained (#1189): 

Ijust had afight because I didn’t want to have sex with somebody I didn’t 

know ... He just got mad cuz I didn ’t want to have sex ... [What triggered his 

violence was] cuz I told him I wasn’t scared of him. That’s what made him 

really get mad. 

Another respondent (#3033) reported: 

My children’s father’s wfe and afiiend of hers attacked me after I was 

walking home with my children from school. Her fiiend sprayed me with 

mace. Then they startedpushing me on the ground, pulling my hair and 

punching me in the face. [It was because] Iput my son and daughter’s 

father in court for child support and [they are] mad. 

In the following scenario the respondent (#3279) described her own anger: 

I was with afriend of mine and we got into an argument because he s a 

child molester, and I let him play with my kids. I got angry and he said 

something nasty to me and I hit him and then he cut me. Iput ice on his 

cut, and ice on his hand and I startedpraying and the blood stopped. ..[it 

happened over] him being a child molester and not telling me. 

One respondent (#1415) who was injured by her supervisor at a residential home 

described feelings of rage: 

I was talking to a child advocate about my sister being adopted. My 

supervisor was rude while I was on the phone and she wanted me to get 

off the phone. I ignored what she was saying and when she asked me 

again I told her who it was and she told me to hang up or she ’dpull the 

plug. I got upset and started cursing at her and became violent because of 

her comments regarding my fcmily history, my rape and other problems in 

my family. I talked with my therapist and mother about how I felt wanting 

to assault the woman for throwing my past in my face. I became bothered 

by her following me and when she came down the steps I tried to hit her. 

She got mad and started banging my head against a dining room table. I 

became angry and bit her left arm and scratched her face. I also got 

scratches underneath my eyes because she dug her fingernails in my face. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
273 

b. Jealousy 

Fifteen percent of the respondents reported that jealousy contributed to the violent 

outcome. In addition to jealousy over an intimate partner, respondents reported jealousy 

over non-partners and money. One respondent (#3720) explained: 

When I entered the domicile, my children’s father ran upstairs. His other 

ex-girlfiiend, who was there, said ‘I heard you called my child a white B. ’ 

I get conzonted with this! I said ‘I don ’t know what you’re talking about. ’ 

Than she hit me. She threw thejirst punch. I hit her back twice and 

scratched her on her face. We were fighting and fell on the floor and 

broke a lamp ... This started four years ago. She couldn’t accept that he 

rejected her. He and I had two children together and were engaged to be 

married She’s living in the past. She’s trying to find a way back into his 

heart. But he don’t love her. [Its over] jealousy. Her daughter has a 

better bond with me than her. She s immature. 

One respondent (#1147) who was injured by her cousin explained: 

Somebody hit me in the head with a crowbar and it was not right. They 

took the tools. They took the purse and when I told the cops they let ‘em 

go. Yesterday they hit me 40 miles per hour in a car. Today I said give my 

tools andpurse. He started cursing me. I called the cops and he slapped 

my head into the phone. He wasproving me. He had no reason to. He hit 

me over the head. py did they do this?] The truth? The guy that just 

walked outside (my husband) got a $500 dollar job two days ago. It was 

about jobs. My husband gets a job for $500 and now everybody knows 

him. Before nobody cared. Cuz they 2.e jealous. 

c. Stress 

Four percent of the respondents described a stressful event that contributed 

to the violent incident. These events usually involved the death of a family 

member or separation from parents. One respondent (#1321) explained: 

Me and my sister were having an argument and my mom came in and she 

started arguing with my mom. We lost a sister a couple of years ago in a 

houseJire. My mom had to work hard since then and then my sister said, 

‘Hey bitch you ’re the cause of my sister dying. ’ I smacked her and we 

startedfighting. She picked up the ashtray and me in the head. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
274 

Another respondent (#1172) reported: 

My brother was killed March 28, 1996 and I always go through this phase 

where Ijust can ’t handle it. Ifelt like I wanted to go to sleep. I want to see 

him again. I cut my wrists and I wanted to die so I could be with my little 

brother. I got into ajght with my little sister who is trijling. She got 5 

children, 3 of which are DHS [Department of Human Services] and the 

bitch is pregnant again. So we were fighting and she hit me in the head 

with apipe. 

d. Fear 

In only two percent of the incidents feelings of fear were mentioned. One 

respondent (#3301) who was injured by a cab driver explained: 

Ever night when I come homefiom work, I catch a cab porn my sister’s to 

my house. My fare is $2.40 -$2.70. I got a cab driver tonight. I don’t 

know where he was taking me but he wasn’t taking me to my house, I was 

nervous and scared. I reached my house. Ipulled the balloons out, I told 

him to wait one minute. He came out grabbed me, pushed me up against 

the wall. I was crying, and he’s calling out. .. Black Bitches. I got to my 

apartment. He snatched my wallets and took my balloons. 

One respondent (#1125) responded: 

My fiance‘ and his brother were fighting. My fiance‘ and I are about to 

move to California. His brother was drunk I fell asleep. When I woke up 

his brother was running toward the car with a 2 x 4. He broke the window 

behind the driver S side. He thinkx I’m taking his brother from him. I was 

in the car. His nieces were telling me to drive away. I was in the driver’s 

seat. .. I don’t know ifhe was trying to kill me. I think he was. I drove the 

car into a gate ... it was so scary. 

It is notable that so few respondents mentioned fear as an emotion associated with the 

violence. This finding may be an artifact of the research process because emotions were 

not inquired about directly. However, it also may be that females associate fear with 

weakness and consequently do not admit (and/or experience) feelings of fear. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
27.5 

~ 

YO History of ongoing problems or retaliation for 25.1% 

past argumentlfight (N=3 19) 

4. Background Characteristics of the Violent Event 

Background characteristics including the presence of arguments and ongoing 

problems are presented in Table 7-9. 

Table 7-9: Background Characteristics of the Violent Event’ 

I % Current argument c~=319> 156.1% I 

The majority (56%) of incidents involved an argument or exchange of words prior 

to the violent event. In addition, 25 percent of the respondents described ongoing 

problems with the participant(s) including incidents that involved retaliation for a past 

argument or fight. One respondent (#2452) explained: 

It all started when me and Beatrice were livin’ in a shelter ... She would 

pick with me and call me retarded and get her little 8 or 9 year old son to 

pick on my 8 or 9 year old son tojight him. And when I sees Beatrice by 

herseg I would beat the shit out of her because what she did to my son. 

And she told my case worker ... that I was pickin’ on her ... she was lyin’. 

So I got put out ,@om the shelter/$rst and then she got put out second. 

There’s the goodpart here ... I got my section 8 house kublic housing] and 

she got an apartment. ..a piece of av apartment. She lost her section 8 and 

she holds that against me. She told her mother about me before I know 

that was her mother. I was friends with her mother ... We are the same age. 

Her mother would borrow money from me and come in my house. And I 

stopped loanin’ her money because she would take one to two to three 

months to pay me back and she started talkin’ about me because I said I 

need my money back. Beatrice’s mom told one of the drug dealer’s across 

the street that I told the cops that he was sellin’ dope. And he came and 

asked me. I told him she is lyin ’ on me cause I don’t let her get money 

from me no more ... Beatrice’s mother wants me to pay her money ($50.00) 

or she’s going to tell the drug dealers that I snitch on them. She said the 

drug dealers are going to puy some body to blow you house up And she 

asked me ifI was going to give her the money on Friday and I said I’m not 

givin ’ her nothin and she hyped. She grabbed me and hit me and then I 

threw her down ... Ican’t beat her, she weighs over 200 Ibs. Her daughter 

(Beatrice) had me from the back and hit me in the back with her knee. 

Beatrice’s mom bit my hand andpulled me on the ground. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
276 

Another respondent (#2 1 57) explained: 

I walked in my mother’s house, my brother says he was getting ready to 

go. I said I wasn T going anywhere. He came over to me and started 

beating stomping me. I never hit one punch back He pulled on my coat. 

He started stomping and kicking me. I don’t speak to him at all, because 

he was raping us when we were young, me and my sister. I couldn It even 

have afriend overnight. He beat me before, and my son. I can ‘t even look 

in his face. He used to put his peter in my face, in my mouth. My mother 

was real mean to me when I told her about the incest. He also called me 

lots of names, fat sloppy bitch, that’s good to you (that he had sex with 

me ... he thinks its a joke) what he did to me and my sister. 

Another respondent (#20 1 7) described an account that focused on retaliation: 

Since last night I was fightin ’. She bit me. This afternoon I was walkin’ to 

the other apartment and my girlfriend was already hit with a chain across 

her back. The girl who done it called her family and they came down ... [It 

was] 4-5 of us and 20-25 of them and everyone was standing allfine and 

dandy and suddenly this girl hits me and I start fightin’ and got slashed on 

my face with a razor blade. Then 4-5 females were fightin’ me. [It was] 

because I beat a girl up last night and they’re jealous. 

Another respondent (#3349) explained: 

Well, this girl constantly spreading rumors about me that’s not true, and 

its getting back to husband. Why I beat her up is cuz of what she said, and 

I told her I’m gonna whip her ass every time I see her ifshe talk about me. 

I’m not no violent person but I had enough of that chick This has been 

brewing for three summers. 

The finding that one quarter of the incidents are characterized by past problems suggests 

that some females hold on to and accumulate feelings of emotional distress. This 

observation is consistent with Campbell’s (1 993) research on expressive aggression. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
211 

YO Provocation by Antagonist (N=3 19) 

% Provocation by Respondent (N=3 19) 

5. Characteristics of Verbal Provocation 

42.3% 

34.8% 

Information on the verbal provocation is presented in Table 7- 10. 

Table 7-1 0: Characteristics of Verbal Provocation 

In 42 percent of the incidents the respondent described the antagonist as verbally 

provocative prior to the physical violence. One respondent (#3 836) explained: 

I was at work and a woman came in, and I told her I’d be with her in a 

second, I was on the phone. She was counting money on counter, and I 

told her I’d be with her again. She started calling me names, being 

disrespectful. I got tired so I wentfiom behind the counter and started 

fighting. She bit me. 

Another respondent (#342 1) responded: 

I was standing on Market Street at a store, waiting for my food, and a girl 

came up to me and said, ‘What do you and Gloria have to say about me, 

and told me to come outside and fight her. ’ And I said, ‘No. I’m too old 

for that. * Then I told her to get out of my face. As she left the door, she 

pulled out a blade and cut me on my leg. 

In 35 percent of the incidents the respondent described her own words or actions as 

provocative. For example, one respondent (#3 806) said: 

I was arguing with a girl. She said something I didn’t like and I hit her 

[What triggered her violence was] because I hit her. 

In many of these incidents both the respondent and antagonist exchanged provocative 

words. One respondent (#3926) reported: 

Friday night before Memorial Day my brother called my mother and he 

didn’t like now I answered him. [I] told him mommy was asleep. He 

started bad mouthing me and I hung up on him. He came over about 1 

hour later and kicked my ass. We didn ’tfight, he just beat me, jumped me 

when I was asleep, stomped me, my father pulled him 03 

Another respondent (#I 57 1) who was injured by a female acquaintance explained: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
278 

% Any alcohoVdrug involvement (N=3 19) 

% Drug or alcohol use/problem (N=3 19) 

% Drug use/problem (N=3 19) 

% Alcohol use/Droblem (N=3 19) 

I’d seen the girl that threatened me on the phone and I hit her. There was 

so many people tryin ’ to break up thepght. .. [It happened because 08 the 

threat on the phone. The threat was when she sees me she was gonna 

punch me in my face, mat triggered her violence was] ?cause Ipunched 

her in the eye. 

23.2% 

6.0% 17.2% 

2.2% 11.3% 

4.1% 7.8% 

6. Alcohol and Illicit Drug Involvement 

Information on alcohol and illicit drug involvement is provided in Tables 7-1 1 and 

7-1 2. In Table 7- 1 1 the “UseProblem” categories include mentions by the respondent of 

antagonist substance use prior to the violent event or that the antagonists’ substance abuse 

problem contributed to the violence. Mentions of the respondents’ own substance use or 

problems with drugs or alcohol also are included in this category. 

Table 7- 12 includes information on circumstances surrounding alcohol and drug 

involvement. This includes violent incidents that occurred within the context of drugseeking behavior, association with drug dealers and bar fights. 

Table 7-11: Alcohol and Illicit Drug Involvement 

I I I Respondent I Antagonist 

In almost one quarter (23%) of the incidents the respondent mentioned that 

substance use contributed to the violent event. Six percent ofltke respondents reported 

using alcohol or illicit drugs during the violent event or cited a problem with substance 

use as a contributing factor. In contrast, the respondents reported that 17 percent nf the 

antagonists had been using alcohol or drugs or had a substance abuse problem that 

contributed to, the violent event. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
219 

These percentages (6.0% and 17.2%) are substantially smaller than the 

percentages obtained through the use of closed-ended questions (see Table 7-3). 

Nevertheless, the vignettes provide informative data regarding circumstances of the 

violent events that involve substance use. For example, one respondent (#22 15) who 

. reported being injured by a trick explained: 

He owed me money and I was like can I have my money ... I kept asking 

and asking and he said, ‘I ’11 be back. ’ And I said, ‘You ’re not leaving here 

without giving me money. I want my money now. ’ He kept on trying [to 

leave] so Ipulled and threw him and that’s how it started. Then he bit me, 

punk, Can you imagine a man biting a woman. People were laughing. We 

were getting high. /What triggered the violence were] the drugs and he 

got paranoid. 

Another respondent (#323 1) who sustained an injury by a 73 year-old women explained: 

I was sitting around there. I had a few drinks and the woman that we call 

her Mama, she’s the oldest around here. She was kind of high too. We 

were talking about my ... my baby brother. We were in a hit-picking 

argument. She hadpicked up this bottle andjust threw it. It hit me in the 

head, then I had fell out. .. There was snow out and the snow brought me 

back consciously.. I think it was jealou sy... I was talking about my brother 

and she jealous. She is like that, she gets drunk and stuff 

One respondent (#1532) described a conflict with her brother. She reported: 

I’m a licensed cosmotologist and I do hair from Tuesday-Friday. I had got 

a side job so I could afford stug My brother and I work at the same video 

store. He had an assistance manager position. I worked Saturday and 

Sunday. Sunday two people called out and the head manager asked me ifI 

could stay, then I wouldn ’t have to work on Monday. My brother got mad 

because I didn’t go to work on Monday and I told him what the manager 

did. The argument carried on for three days. Last night he finally punched 

me in the arms, leg. .. everywhere ... Maybe he felt as though the job was 

more important than us and what we’ve had for a lifetime ... usually when 

he doesn ’t have his marijuana he gets an attitude. He didn ’t have his 

marijuana. 

One respondent (#1372) described a conflict with her mother. She explained: 

My mother and I got into a huge argument. She wants things her way. She 

pushed me in chair, she went to grab me, and she punched me in the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
280 

% Drug-seeking behavior (N=3 19) 

% Association with drug dealers (N=3 19) 

stomach ... [What triggered her violence was that] she wants me to bring 

money into the house. She has a drug problem. And I told her I’m not 

doing that. 

5.3% 

1.9% 

Another respondent (#2329) provided the following account: 

My grandma was drinking. She has a drug problem. I said something and 

she didn’t like what I said so she smacked my face. I ran and she chased 

at me. We got in a tussle and she fell then scratched my face. I guess [it 

happened] because she was drunk and I disagreed. [What triggered her 

violence was that] Isaid ‘I’m 16 now. ’ 

Another respondent (# 1 048) who was injured by an “ex-fiiend” explained: 

Me and my next door neighbor wasJighting and she stabbed me ... She just 

was talking while she had a knife against me. I supposedly had told 

somebody some bad things about her. And she approached me about them 

when it suppose to have happened a couple of months went by and I 

thought it was over. She jealous. She’s more of on a mannish side. She’s 

alcoholic. She carry herselfin a mannish way, like a gangster. Her mouth 

is bad. She don’t respect hersev She don’t even like hersev She had been 

drinking. And that’s what brought it on. 

Aside from substance use, about eight percent of the women were injured in a bar 

fight or as a consequence of drug seeking behavior or association with drug dealers. 

Table 7-12: Circumstances Surrounding Alcohol and Illicit Drug Involvement 

I % Bar fight cN=3 19) I 1.3% I 

Of the five percent (N=16) of women who were injured as a result of drug-seeking 

behavior, most respondents were victims of others’ drug-seeking activities. One 

respondent (#39 19) explained: 

I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I had my pocketbook snatched. 

The person that snatched my pocketbook hit me with something. I don’t 

know what it was. He came up to me and asked me ifI wanted to buy 

drugs. Isaid I didn’t do them. Istruggled with him. Ididn ’t let him get it. 

It had all my money, a money order, my kids ’pictures, things that are 

really personal and important to me. Then he hit me and something and I 

lost it. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
28 1 

YO Negative comments about/ 

experiences with police (N=3 19) 

Three respondents sustained injuries because of their own drug-seeking behaviors. One 

5% 

of these respondents (#3977) explained: 

I got into a little debate with this guy. I really didn 't know him well, but 

we ended up walking away from each other. As I was walking away a 

little later, I saw him in the distance running toward me or in my 

direction. Then as he got closer as I turned around he hit me in the back 

of my head with a gun. It fell onto the ground. It was a disagreement over 

a drug sale.. . drugs. 

Two percent of the respondents sustained an injury because of their association with 

others who were involved in drug sales. One respondent (#1605) explained: 

I was confionted with a matter that involved my boyfriend. It was a lie 

being told on him. The person who I had a confiontation with had said to 

another person that my boyfiiend had took $200 and that led up to what 

happened. My feelings is since she knows that my boyfiiend often deals 

crack offand on ... She told the people incognito that my boyfiiend took 

money from his old man. She didn 't get physical with me. She didn 't know 

that I knew what she told other people that my boyfiiend took $200from 

her old man ... but it didn't happen like that. So when she came over my 

girlfriends house, I came at her. 

7. Respondents' Experiences with Police 

Several respondents offered negative comments about police (see Table 7-1 3). 

Table 7-13: Experiences with Police 

Five percent of the respondents described the police as unhelpful or harmful. Six 

respondents sustained injuries by male police officers. One respondent (#3636) who 

sustained an injury by two undercover cops provided the following account: 

I was walking up [the] street. Ipassed the muffler store when Ipassed this 

car. This man in plain clothes, a regular car, opened the door and 

grabbed me and started with fighting me and he startedfrisking me and I 

was trying to get him offof me, and he threw me to the ground. I hit my 

head and hurt my back and shoulder and he handcuffed me. He didn't 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
282 

identib himself as an officer and I said why are you handcuffing me, what 

is the charge? [He said], ‘Resisting arrest, you’re resisting arrest. ’ The 

Black oflcer attacked me, the white oflcer told me I was an asshole. I 

said, ‘Ifyou had IDed yourselfl wouldn’t have had tojght you. ’ This is 

my first oflense. I’ve never been locked up before ... I was just walking 

down the street. They said that I hadpurchased a bag of weed and they 

were arresting me. 

e 

Another respondent (#1572) who sustained an injury by a police officer explained: 

I was coming from the store and a girlfiiend of mine was sitting on the 

steps rollingpot. I had a bag in one hand and a spring water. We were 

talking and the cops drove up and told her to throw it out and said face the 

wall. ..put our hands on the wall. I went to the car to call for female 

officer to search us, but she didn’t do nothing. ..A white cop came upfiom 

behind out of nowhere and started to 

‘Get oflof me. What are you doing? You aren’t supposed to be touching 

me. ’ The other two officers said he was in the wrong. ..He shoved me ... He 

hemmed me up by force ... twisted my arm behind me ... touched my body. 

with me. I was stunned. I said, 

Six respondents described the police as unhelpful. One respondent (#2256) who 

went to the police station for help described her experience: 

I was copping (that means to go get drugs) and I drove into a bad 

neighborhood. I had gotten what I wanted without having to get out of the 

car. Someone yelled my name (it’s written on the back of my car) and 

some man came to the window when I hesitated. It was the passenger 

side. He opened the door. He said, ‘Why didn’t you stop when I called 

your name. ’ He got in the car. I said, ‘Cause I don’t know you. ’ I tried to 

unlock my door and take the keys. He grabbed my hands and started 

yelling at me to shut up or he was going to hurt me. I tried to do 

everything logical. He had a gun in my side. I knew it was survival at 

that point. I would do whatever to stay alive. He told me to drive. I kept 

trying to throw and catch him offguard. I tried to get out of the car. He 

was hitting me. I got out of the car and realized there was another car 

following us to make sure the rape was successful. The two men caught 

me andput me back in the car and made me drive. The other car le$. He 

made me pull over and then he raped me in the car. I fought initially. I 

kept trying to run. I even saw apolice car go by. .. but they d1dn.t see me. I 

finally got out of the car and he chased me and caught me and raped me in 

the street. I could see him deciding ifhe was going to hurt me. I tried to 

act like I actually remembered him so he’d think I was crazy ...j ust to make 

him stop hitting me. We got back in the car ... I made sure I was driving. 

We see fiiends of his. There were borderline so I keptpretending I knew 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
283 

him, One of the guys got in the car. An exchange of money tookplace. 

We drop oflthe rapist so the other guy can have me. He thinks I’m a 

prostitute, right? Then he raped me. He forced me at gunpoint into his 

mother’s house. Then he let me go. I drove around all night, trying to 

decide ifI was going tojnd him and kill him. I couldn ’tfind him ... I went 

to the police and told them what had happened. When they saw my track 

marks, immediate disrespect. I le$ ... I was furious. I thought I didn’t need 

to be victimized all over again. 

Additional descriptions of the police by respondents follow (#347 1 , #1059): 

The two male cops had an attitude about domestic violence. 

I have no idea [what happened to the antagonist]. Knowing the police in 

my neighborhood probably nothing. 

Summary 

The information surrounding the violent event shared by the study respondents 

reflects the complexities of their lives. Several conclusions can be drawn based on the 

closed-ended questions. Typically, women were injured by age-peers and by someone 

they knew. Violence was almost universally intraracial and the antagonist usually 

inflicted the injury alone, without the help of others. In the majority of incidents 

bystanders were present and the police arrived at the scene. Over half of the antagonists 

reportedly had used drugs or alcohol prior to the violent event. The most common acts 

of violence by both the respondents and antagonists were slapping, punching, pushing or 

kicking. Respondents typically sustained injuries to the head or face. 

The majority of incidents involved an argument. The most commonly cited 

reasons for violence involve issues related to respect and moneyhesources which 

conforms with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. In communities characterized 

by a shortage of opportunities for conventionally-defined success, material and 

nonmaterial measures take on increased importance. In a significant minority of incidents 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
284 

the respondents contributed to the violent outcome through a verbal provocation. Yet, 

one quarter of the women became involved in the violence as an innocent victim or for 

altruistic reasons. 

The vignettes provide contextual information that detail intricacies of the violent 

events from the insider’s perspective. The next section will attempt to illuminate some of 

these complexities by analyzing the data disaggregated by gender of the antagonist. 

111. Bivariate Analyses 

A. Data Obtained From Closed-Ended Questions 

1. Victim-Offender Relationship and Characteristics of the Antagonist 

The victim-offender relationship and characteristics of the antagonist are 

described in Table 7- 14. All variables are disaggregated by gender of the antagonist. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
285 

Statistic 

X2=0.3 (del) 

X2=l.0 (de2) 

X2=30.8 (de3) 

X2=2 1.6 (de3) 

X2=10.3 (del) 

X2=12.5 (df-2) 

Table 7-14: Victim-Offender Relationship and Characteristics of the Antagonist 

P-Valut 

.617 

.594 

.OOO 

.OOO 

.006 

.002 

% Respondent lives 

with the antagonist 

I 

~ 90.1% 91.6% 

~ 6.6% 4.2 

, 3.3% 4.2% 

- 

(N=320) 

Race (N=3 19) 

19.2% 

13 2% 

56.3% 

1 1.4% 

3 .o% 

5 1.5% 

24.8% 

20.6% 

YO Black 

% White 

% Other 

22.6% 

14.8% 

29.7% 

32.9% 

3.4% 

26.0% 

41.8% 

28.8% 

~ 

Victim-offender 

relationship (N=322) 

YO Family member 

YO Friend 

% Acquaintance 

YO Stranger 

Antagonist age group 

(yrs.) (N=3 11) 

%< 16 

% 16-24 

7'0 25-35 

Yo >35 

65.3% 

18.0% 

16.8% 

% Age-peer (N=320) 

# of Antagonist@) 

(N=322) 

% One 

YO Two or three 

% More than three 

81.9% 

11.6% 

6.5% 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

Assault Assault 

There are no significant differences by gender of the antagonist with respect to the 

race of the antagonist or whether the antagonist lives with the respondent. 

There is a significant difference, however, in the victim-offender relationship by 

gender of the antagonist (X2=30.8, df-3, p=.OOO). According to Table 7-14, females 

injured by mdes are more likely to be victimized by a stranger (32.9% versus 1 i .4%). In 

contrast, females injured by females are more likely to be victimized by an acquaintance 

e (56.3% versus 29.7%). Females injured by females also are more likely to be injured by 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
286 

a younger antagonist (X2=21.6, de3, p=.OOO), an age-peer (X2=10.3, del, p=.OOO) and to 

sustain a group attack (X2=12.5, dgl, p=.002). 

The results are consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. 

Conflict and competition are likely to be emphasized during the younger years when 

issues related to identity formation and self- esteem are highly operative (Campbell et al., 

1998). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
287 

‘YO Event occurred 38.3% 

inside respondent’s 

residence (N=321) 

on respondent’s 

street (N=l99) 

Indoor, Outdoor or 

Both (N=320) 

YO Event occurred 17.5% 

% Indoor location 34.3% 

% Outdoor location 60.2% 

% Both indoor and 5.4% 

2. Time, Location, Involvement of Others 

The time, location and involvement of others including police and bystanders for 

‘e 

females injured by females and females injured by males are described in Table 7-15. 

Table 7-15: Time, Location, Involvement of Others 

36.4% 

17.6% 

42.2% 

50.0% 

7.8% 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

1 62.6% 

‘YO 12:Ola.m- 6:OO a.m. 

bvstanders (N=320) 

% Presence of 

outdoor I I 

88.0% 74.5% 

YO Police arrived 

Time of Violent Event 

(N=320) 

% 6:Ol a.m-3:00 p.m. 

‘YO 3:Ol p.m-6:00 p.m. 

‘YO 6:Ol p.m-9:00 p.m. 

% 9:Ol p.m-12:OO 

a.m. 

(N=3 12) 

% Bystander tried to 

stop violence 

(N=278) 

69.1% 56.3% 

14.5% 

3 1.3% 

29.5% 

4.8% 

19.9% 

71.1% 

26.0% 

22.1% 

28.6% 

13.6% 

9.7% 

Statistic 

p=O.l (del) 

Xz=O.O (del) 

X2=3.5 (df-2) 

9=2.198 (del) 

X2=12.4 (df-4) 

X”8.8 (del) 

X2=4.3 (del) 

;ked if the violence did 

P-Value 

.805 

1 .ooo 

.174 

.138 

.015 

.003 

.039 

)t occur in 

the respondent’s residence. 

Question on bystander involvement was asked only if bystanders were present. 

There are no group differences by gender of the antagonist in the location of the 

events. For both groups the majority of events occurred outdoors and in or near the e 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
288 

respondent's home. There also are no significant differences with respect to police 

arrival at the violent event. 

There was a significant group difference with respect to the time of the violent 

event (X2=12.4, df-4, p=.015). A smaller proportion of females were injured by females 

by than males between 6:Ol a.m. and 3:OO p.m.(14.5% versus 26.0%). In contrast, a 

larger of females were injured by males than by females between 3:Olp.m. and 6:OO p-m. 

(31.1% versus 22.1%). 

For both groups, bystariders usually were reported to be present. Bystanders, 

however, were significantly more likely to be present during female-on-female violent 

events compared to male-on-female events (2=8.8, del, p=.039). It is noteworthy that 

bystanders at intragender violent events were significantly more likely to try to stop the 

violence than bystanders at cross-gender violent events (24.3, del, p=.039). 

The finding that females involved in intragender assault are more likely to engage 

in violence during the after school and early evening hours likely reflects the times during 

which social interactions are the most fi-equent. The finding, however, that bystanders 

were more likely to try to stop female-on-female violence versus male-on-female violence 

is an unexpected finding. It is possible that bystanders were allies of the male antagonist 

or were &aid of sustaining injuries themselves. 

3. Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use by Respondents and Antagonists 

Substance use by respondents and antagonists for females injured by females and 

females injured by males are described in Table 7-16. This information is based on 

closed-ended questions asked of all respondents. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
289 

% Respondent used 

drugs within four 

hours of event 

(N=321) 

%Antagonist drug or 

alcohol use within 4 

hours of violent event 

(N=32 1) 

Antagonist alcohol use 

within 4 hours of 

violent event (N=321) 

%Yes 

Yo NO 

% Don’t Know 

Table 7-14: Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use by Respondents and Antagonists 

6.0% 

54.5% 

35.3% 

52.1% 

12.6% 

% Respondent used 

either alcohol or 

drugs within four 

hours of event 

(N=321) 

20.0% 

% Respondent used 

alcohol within four 

hours of event 

N=32 1) 

17.4% 

Cross-gender Test 

Antagonist drug use 

within 4 hours of 

violent event (N=321) 

% Yes 

% No 

% Don’t Know 

%I Respondent and 

antagonist drug or 

alcohol use within 4 

hours of violent 

event (N=321) 

Assault 

12.3% 

43.7% 

44.3% . 

12.0% 

14% 

57.8% 

40.9% 

39.6% 

33.0% 

19.5% 

27.9% 

46.8% 

32.5% 

20.8% 

24% 

Statistic 

X2=3.2 (del) 

Xz=0.2 (df-1) 

X2=5. 8 (df-2) 

X2=6. 1 (dF320) 

X2=4.5 (del) 

X2=6.9 (df-2) 

Xz=4.2 (del) 

According to Table 7- 16, there are no group differences by gender of the 

P- Value 

.074 

.629 

~ 

.056 

.014 

.034 

,032 

,039 

antagonist in respondent drug use, antagonist drug or alcohol use or antagonist drug use. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
290 

Several significant differences emerged. Respondents involved in cross-gender 

assault were significantly more likely than those involved in intragender assault to report 

alcohol or illicit drug use within four hours of the violent event (X2=6. 1, d+l , p=.014). 

Moreover, cross-gender events were more likely than intragender events to be 

characterized by substance use by both respondent and antagonist (2=4.2, del, p=.039). 

These findings point to the relevance of substance use for cross-gender assaults in 

particular. 

4. Violence Acts by Respondents and Antagonists 

A description of violent acts including weapon use is provided in Table 7-17. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
29 1 

Table 7-1 7: Violent Acts and Weapon Use 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

Assault Assault Statistic P-Value 

Violent Act by Antagonist 

% Slapped, punched, 83.8% 

pushed kicked or bit 

(N=322) 

something harmful 

(N=321) 

% Threatened with 43.1% 

82.6% 

41.6% 

% Hit with something 32.3% 

(N=321) I 

15.6% 

(N=321) 

Xz=0.2 (del) .690 

Xz=8.5 (del) 004 

24.6 (del) .016 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
292 

' 70.7% 

76.6% 

I Violent Act by Respondent 

1.9% 

YO Threatened with a 

weapon (N=321) 

--- 

% Hit antagonist with 

something (N=32 1) 

% Stabbed or cut 

with something 

(N=32 1) 

% Slapped, punched, 

pushed kicked or bit 

(N=322) 

back (N=321) 

YO Respondent fought 

% Respondent was 

carrying something 

to keep herself safe 

(N=321) 

6.0% 

7.8% 

1.2% 

3.6% 

39.6% X2=30.1 (del) 

.674l 

.ooo 

.ooo 

.029 

' Cells have expected count less than 5. Fisher's Exact Test statistic reported 

It is noteworthy that characteristics of violent acts by male and female antagonists 

are proportionately similar for having punched, slapped, punched, pushed, kicked or 

bitten, having threatened with a weapon and having hit the respondent. Likewise, there 

were no significant group differences for violent acts by respondents that involve threats 

or physical acts with weapons or objects. 

A greater proportion of females injured by females, however, were stabbed or cut 

(X2=8.5, del, p=.004). Females injured by males were more likely than females injured 

by females to be shot at with a gun (X2=4.6, del , p=.016) 

In addition, female respondents were significantly more likely to fight back 

against female antagonists than against male antagonists (X2=3 1.7, del, p=.OOO). 

Notwithstanding this difference, 45.5 percent of females injured by males fought back. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
293 

Moreover, females injured by males were more likely than females injured by females to 

report carrying something to keep themselves safe at the time the violence occurred 

(X2=4.8, del, p=.029). 

The finding that females were significantly more likely to fight back against 

female antagonists than male antagonists is not surprising given the size and strength 

differential between most men and women. The results suggest that male-on-female 

violence is potentially more dangerous than female-on-female violence; male antagonists 

are more likely to shoot a gun and respondents injured by male antagonists were more 

likely to be carrying a weapon at the time of the violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
294 

% FaceiHead (N=322) 65.3% 

YO Face (N=322) 54.5% 

5. Injury Information 

69.0% 2 =0.4 (del) .549 

50.3% X2=0.4 (del) .524 

Injury data is presented in Table 7-18. 

% Head (not face) (N=322) 

% ArdShoulder (N=322) 

% Neck (N=322) 

Table 7-IS: Location of Injury and Fatalities 

32.9% 38.1% X’zO.7 (del) .398 

28.1% 32.9% Xz=0.7 (df-l) .420 

18.7% 13.8% X2=l.l (del) -293 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

% HandNrist (N=322) 

% Breast (N=322) 

YO Chest (not 

25.8% 25.1% X’=.OO (del) .994 

4.2% 7.1% X2=.79 (del) .373 

11.4% 14.8% X2=.57 (del) .450. 

Breast)(N=322) 

YO Stomach/Groin (N=322) 

% Leg (N=322) 

% Someone was killed 

rn=? 1 

I % BacWButtocks (N=322) I 26.5% I 26.3% I X2=.00 (del) I 1.00 1 

12.6% 14.8% X2=.56 (df-l) .349 

21.6 % 27.1% X2=1.1 (del) .303 

-- 1.0% -- .225 

More than injury location can be coded per incident. 

Cells have expected count less than 5. Fisher’s Exact Test computed. 

1 

The most frequently cited &eas of injury for females injured by female and by 

male antagonists are proportionately similar. The most common locations include the 

face, head, &shoulder and backhuttocks. In the two incidents where someone was 

killed, the antagonist was a male, which provides further support for the seriousness 

associated with cross-gender assault. 

B. Data Obtained from the Open-Ended Questions 

1. Reasons for the Violence 

Reasons for the violence were post-coded from the open-ended questions and are 

presented in Table 7-19 by the gender of the antagonist. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
295 

~ (N=319) 

1 ‘YO Player behavior 4.8% 1.3% 

Table 7-19: Reasons for the Violence by Gender of the Antagonist 

I 9.9% 

1 % Gender-centric 

concerns (N=3 19) 

In tragender Cross-gender Test 

(N=3 19) 

% Mental problems 

Assault Assault 

% Money/resources I 15.0% 121.1% 

4.8% 6.6% 

(N=319) 

YO Physical Attractiveness (N=3 19) 

3.6% 0.0 

% Predatory violence 

(N=3 19) 

I 32*9% 

YO Personal respect 

(N=3 19) 

I 23-0% 

4.8% 

% Related to children 

or parenting 

I 22-8% I 4.6% 

% Interpersonal 

concerns (N=3 19) 

I 3.3% 

14.4% 

(N=3 1 9) 

% For a thrilllthat’s 6.0% 0.7% 

the type of person 

he/she is (N=3 19) 

Statistic 

X2=1 .6 

(df-1) 

x2=0.2 

(del) 

X2=2. 1 

(del) 

X2=3 .8 

(df-1) 

J?=10.7 

(de 1 ) 

x2=7.9 

(df-1) 

x2=20.2 

(de 1 > 

P=2 1.2 

(del) 

Xz=10.5 

(del) 

x2=5 .3 

(del) 

P-Value 

.204 

.654 

.lo8 

.052 

.oo 1 

.005 

.ooo 

.ooo 

.oo 1 

.022 

1 More than one reason can be coded per incident. 

Cells have expected count less than 5. Fisher’s Exact Test reported. 

There are no group differences for violence involving rnoneyh-esources, mental 

problems, player behavior and physical attractiveness. However, with regards to the 

remainder of the reasons, there are marked differences by gender of the antagonist. 

Females injured by females are significantly more likely than females injured by 

males to engage in violence for reasons related to personal respect (2=10.6, del, 

p=.OOl), gender-centric concerns (e.g. over boyfriends, rejection) (X2 =7.9, del , p=.005), 

interpersonal-concerns (e.g. he say/she say, issues of being disliked) (X2=20. 1 , del, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
296 

p=.OOO), issues of children and parenting (2=10.5, del, p=.OOl) and for a thrill 

(X2=5.3, del, p.022). In contrast, females injured by females are less likely than 

e 

females injured by males to experience violence within the context of predatory attacks 

(X2=2 1.1, del, p=.OOO). 

These results are consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory in 

several ways. First, it was expected that intragender violence compared to cross-gender 

violence would be associated with relationship issues including gender-centric concerns, 

and interpersonal concerns. Second, it was expected that intragender violence compared 

to cross-gender violence would involve issues of personal respect because intragender 

violence is characterized by a more equal playing field. 

2. The Role of the Respondent 

Table 7-20 summarizes factors that describe how the respondent became involved 

in the violent event. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
297 

YO Mutual (N=3 19) 

% Respondent initiates 

physical violence 

% Drawn into violence 

(N=3 19) 

Table 7-20: The Role of the Respondent 

27.5% 21.1% X2=1.1 (del) 

9.6% 5.3% p=1.6 (del) 

6.0% 4.6% p=O.l (df=l) 

(N=3 19) 

% Tries to break up 4.2% 3.3% X2=0.0 (del) 

Fight (N=3 19) 

% Respondent or 19% 15% X2=0.7 (del) 

protect third party 

from antagonist 

m=3 19) 

Antagonist fight to 

protect third party 

% Respondent fights to 

(N=3 1 9) 

10% 7% X2=0.4 (del) 

% Antagonist fights to 5% 

protect third party 

from respondent 

13% X2=5.4 (del) 

(N=3 19) 

% Innocent Victim 

(N=3 19) 

'-Value 

.224 

5.4% 24.3% Xz=21.7 (del) 

.212 

.764 

398 

.407 

.510 

.02 1 

.ooo 

The proportion of respondents who played a mutual role in the violent outcome is 

similar by gender of the antagonist. Twenty-eight percent of females involved in 

intragender assault and 2 1 percent of females involved in cross-gender assault reported 

that their own provocation contributed to the violent outcome and they fought back. 

Moreover, there were no group differences for additional roles assumed by the 

respondents, including fighting to protect a third party, initiating physical violence, 

getting drawn into the violence and trying to break up a fight. 

Notwithstanding these similarities there are striking differences by gender of the 

antagonist. Females are significantly more likely to attribute reasons of protection to 

.." .. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
298 

female antagonists than male antagonists (X2=5.4, del, p=.021). In contrast, females 

injured by females are significantly less likely to describe their position as an innocent 

victim (2=21.7, del, p=.OOO). 

The group differences are consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain 

Theory. It was expected that female antagonists would be more likely than male 

antagonists to engage in violence over protecting a third party given female socialization 

patterns that focus on care-taking responsibilities. Moreover, the difference regarding 

innocent victimization likely is attributable to violent injuries sustained during predatory 

attacks. 

3. Respondents’ and Antagonists’ Emotions 

Table 7-2 1 includes the most frequently cited emotions reportedly displayed or 

experienced by respondents and antagonists. 

Table 7-21: Respondents’ and Antagonists’ Emotions 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

Assault Assault 

problem/went off 

% Fear (N=3 19) 1.2% 3.3% 

% Jealousy (N=3 19) 23.0% 7.0% ’ More than one emotion can be coded per incident. 

Statistic P- Value 

X2=.50 (del) 

.373 

Xz=15.0(d+11 I .OOO 

Cells have expected count less than 5. Fisher’s Exact Test statistic reported 

There were no significant differences by gender of the antagonist for emotions 

including anger, stress and €ear. 

The most notable group difference involves jealousy. Females injured by females 

were significantly more likely than females injured by males to mention jealousy 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
299 

% History of ongoing 32.3% 

problems or 

retaliation for past 

argumentlfight 

(N=3 1 9) 

% Current argument 67.1% 

(N=3 19) 

(X2=1 5.0, (del, p=.OOO). This finding corresponds with Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory. Given that jealousy frequently involves interpersonal issues, it is not 

surprising that j ealousy is associated with female-on-female violence. 

4. Background Characteristics of the Violent Event 

Background characteristics by gender of the antagonist are presented in Table 7- 

22. 

Table 7-22: Background Characteristics of the Holent Event 

17.1% X2=9.0 (del) .003 

44.1% Xz=16.2 (del) -000 

There are important differences in background characteristics of the violent event. 

Females injured by females are more likely than females injured by males to report 

having a history of ongoing problems (X2=9.0, de3 18, p=.OOO) and to argue with the 

antagonist (X2=16.2, de3 18, p=.OOO). 

These differences are consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. 

It is likely that the presence of ongoing problems between females is related to 

interpersonal issues, and female gendered experiences of aggression characterized by 

withholding aggression for a period of time before releasing it. Moreovzr, engaging in 

violence as a form of retaliation is likely to reflect a need to reestablish one’s sense of 

personal respect. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
300 

70.7% 

5. Characteristics of the Verbal Provocation 

7-23: Characteristics of Verbal Provocation 

YO Provocation by 64.3% 

~ 

31.1% 38.8% 

In tragender Cross-gender Test 

Statistic P- Value 

(del) 

(del) 

4.6% 3.6% X2=0.O(del) 362 

Similar proportions of females injured by females and females injured by males 

3.9% 

reported acting verbally provocative and described verbal provocation by the antagonist. 

0.6% J? =2.7 (del) .057 

6. Alcohol and Illicit Drug Involvement 

4.2% 

Information on alcohol and illicit drug involvement captured with the open-ended 

7.8% X2=1.3 (del) .246 

questions is summarized in Table 7-24. 

Table 7-24: Alcohol and Illicit Drug Involvement 

9.0% 

13.8 

I a 

6.6% Xz=0.4 (del) .556 

21.1% J? =2.5 (del) .116 

% Respondent’s 

alcohol use/problem 

(N=3 19) 

7.2% 

% Respondent’s drug 

use/problem (N=3 19) 

YO Respondent’s drug 

or alcohol use/ 

Droblem (N=3 19) 

15.8% Xz=5.1 .025 

(de3 18) 

% Antagonist alcohol 

% Antagonist drug or 

use/problem (N=3 19) 

alcohol use/ problem 

N=3 19) 

% Any alcohoYdrug 

involvement 

(N=3 19) 

use/problem (N=3 19) 

% Antagonist drug 

19% I 28% I X2=2.7 I .097 

)ne incident can be coded in more than one category with the exception of no argument 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
30 1 

Association with drug 

dealers (N=3 19) 

Bar fight (N=3 19) 

Drug-seeking behavior 

(N=3 19) 

2.4 % 1.3% -- .687 

2.4% 0.0 J?=2.0 (del) .157 

2.4% 8.6% X2=4.8 (del) .028 

There were no group differences with regards to injuries sustained as a 

consequence of association with drug dealers or bar fights. Females injured by males, 

however were more likely than females injured by females to attribute the violence to 

drug-seeking behavior (X2=4.8,de3 18, ~028). All but two women reported injuries that 

resulted fiom others’ drug- seeking behaviors rather than their own. The group difference 

regarding drug-seeking behaviors is consistent with previously cited findings that point to 

substance use as a correlate of male-on-female violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
302 

% Negative comments 

about/experiences 

with Dolice Rs=3 191 

8. Respondents’ Experiences with Police 

Although study respondents were not asked specifically to comment on their 

1.8 7.9 x2 =5.3 .021 

(del) 

Negative comments or experiences about the police were associated with maleon-female violence compared to female-on-female violence (2 =5.3,df=1, p=.02 1). This 

is likely attributable to the finding that numerous male police officers inflicted injuries to 

female respondents and thus are classified as antagonists. 

Summary 

This chapter has illustrated similarities and differences by gender of the antagonist 

regarding circumstances of the violent event. The bivariate results point to a set of 

interesting preliminary findings. 

Females injured by females are at risk for interpersonal injuries by acquaintances 

and age-peers. Compared to females injured by males, they are more likely to experience 

a group attack and to fight back. In addition, the event is more likely to occur during the 

after-school hours. Bystanders are more likely to be present and to try to stop the 

violence. Females injured by females also are more likely to engage in violence over 

issues related to personal respect, gender-centric concerns, interpersonal concerns, issues 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
303 

involving childredparenting and jealousy. Ongoing problems and arguments are more 

likely to characterize intragender than cross-gender violence. 

In contrast, females injured by males are at risk for violence by strangers and by 

antagonists who are likely to act alone. Members of this group are more likely to be 

injured during the nighttime hours. Cross-gender incidents are more likely to be 

,characterized by substance use by both the respondents and antagonists. Females injured 

by males also are more likely to sustain injuries as a result of drug-seeking behaviors. 

Respondents injured by males are more likely than respondents injured by females to be 

innocent victims, to report carrying something to keep them safe at the time of the 

violence and to express negative experiences withkomments about the police. 

Females injured by females and females injured by males share similarities with 

respect to the setting of the violent event, whether the police arrived at the scene, and 

location of bodily injury. Similar proportions of both groups also report mutuality, 

getting drawn into the violence, or trying to break up a fight. 

The question arises as to why these similarities and differences exist. This 

question will be the topic of the following chapter. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
304 

CHMTER 8. A TEST OF GENDER SOCIAL STRUCTURAL STRAIN a 

THEORY: BIVARIATE AND MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES 

I. Introduction 

The goal of this chapter is to compare females intentionally injured by females and 

females intentionally injured by males in order to test the merits of Gendered Social 

Structural Strain Theory. As discussed in Chapter 3, development of this theory was guided 

by findings that suggest that some inner-city women who have not achieved conventionallydefined goals resort to violence as a means to achieve culturally-defined goals. Theorists 

from the strain theory tradition reason that unconventional means to achieve culturallydefined goals are adapted in response to social structural strain resulting from a blocked 

opportunity structure. 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, intragender female assault 

requires an integration of both female gender-specific and gender-neutral constructs. Factors 

defined as female specific take into account gender differences and explain a female-unique 

phenomenon. In contrast, factors defined as gender-neutral are hypothesized to affect males 

a 

and females similarly. 

If the proposed Theory of Gendered Social Structural Strain explains intragender 

female assault, but not cross-gender assault, then the need for a separate theory will be 

demonstrated. It is expected that variables, which measure female-specific concepts will 

distinguish between violent injuries to females by female antagonists and by male 

antagonists, respectively. The assumption underlying this comparative analysis of crossgender and intragender violence is that all concepts are gendered. 

In Part I of this chapter, bivariate analyses are conducted for all theoretically relevant 

e variables to determine if the independent variable is related significantly to the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
305 

X2=7.9 

(del) 

xz=20.2 

(del) 

XZ=5.4 

(del) 

X2=l.0 

(del) 

X2=0.4 

(de 1) 

predicted outcome (same-gender incident) without controlling for potentially confounding 

variables. 

In Part II, multivariate logistic regression is used to assess correlates 

simultaneously. This statistical technique permits identification of variables that will be 

useful in predicting whether a woman presenting to the ED for a violent injury by a non- 

.005 

.ooo 

.021 

.324 

.524 

intimate will have been involved in a same-gender or cross-gender violent event. 

11. Bivariate Analyses 

A. Culturally-defined Female-Specific Adaptations to Blocked Goals 

Table 8-1 summarizes hypotheses and results based on female-specific 

adaptations to blocked goals. 

Table 8-1: Female-SpeciJic Hypotheses 

being disliked 

YO of antagonist 

Intragender Cross-gender Test P1 3 -0% 5.0% 

Fiypothesis 

Player 

Hypothesis 

(N=3 19) 

Gender-Centric 

Concerns 

Hypothesis 

fN=3 19) 

InterpersonalConcerns 

Hypothesis 

(N=3 19’) 

RelationalProtection 

Hypothesis 

(N=3 19) 

DeferenceAggression 

Hypothesis 

Female-Valued 

Resources 

Hypothesis 

(N=322) 

(N=3 17) 

Measure Assault Assault 

cheat or flirt with 

rival females 

% of incidents 

over intimates, 

reproductive 

success 

% of incidents 

over he saylshe 

say or issues of 

22.2% 9.9% 

22.8% 4.6% 

violent to 

protect thud I 

Oartv I I 

I 11.8% 

uncommitted 

relationship 

the face 

Gender-centric concerns variable includes player behavior. 

Statistic Value 

X2=2.1 I .1082 

I 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
306 

Player Hypothesis 

The Player Hypothesis is not supported. Females presenting for emergency 

department (ED) care for violent injuries by females are not more likely to engage in 

violence for reasons related to male player behavior than are females presenting for ED 

care for violent injuries by males (X2 =2.1, del, p=. 108). 

Gender-Centric Concerns Hypothesis 

The Gender-Centric Concerns Hypothesis is supported. Females presenting for 

ED care for violent injuries by females are more likely to be injured because of conflicts 

involving intimates or potential intimates than are females presenting to ED care for 

violent injuries by males (X2=7.9, el, p=.005). 

Interpersonal-Concerns Hypothesis 

The Interpersonal-Concerns Hypothesis is supported. Females presenting for ED 

care for violent injuries by females are more likely to be injured because of conflict 

related to “he sayhhe say” and issues of being disliked than are females presenting for ED 

care for violent injuries by males (X2 =20.2, dPl, p=.OOO). 

Relational-Protection Hypothesis 

The Relational-Protection hypothesis is supported. Females presenting for ED 

care for violent injuries by females are more likely to be injured because of conflict 

related to protectingdefending friends or family than are women presenting for ED care 

for violent injuries by males (X2 =5.4, del, p=.021) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
307 

Personal Respect 

Hypothesis (N=3 19) 

Mutual contribution 

Hypothesis (N=3 19) 

Public View 

Hypothesis (N=320) 

Life-Cycle 

Hypothesis 

(N=322) 

Life-Cycle 

Hypothesis (N=320) 

Deference-Aggression Hypothesis 

The Deference-Aggression hypothesis, which is based on short-term uncommitted 

intimate-partner relationships, is not supported by the data. Women presenting for ED 

care for violent injuries by females are not more likely to be involved in short-term, 

uncommitted male intimate partner relationships than are women presenting for ED care 

for violent injuries by males (X2=1.0, del, p=.324). 

Female-Valued Resource Hypothesis 

The Female-Valued Resource hypothesis is not supported by the data. Women 

presenting for ED care for violent injuries by other women are not more likely to sustain 

% of fights that 38.3% 16.4% 

involve insults or 

slights 

% of respondents 27.5% 21.1% 

contribute to 

violent outcome 

and fight back 

% of bystanders 88.0% 74.5% 

present 

% of respondents 5 1 .5 yo 29.7% 

< 24 years old 

% of antagonists 5 5 -7% 4 1 2% 

who are agepeers 

an injury to the face than are women presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males 

(x"=0.4, del, p=.524). 

B. Culturally-defined Gender-Neutral Adaptations to Blocked Goals 

Table 8-2 summarizes hypotheses and results based on gender-neutral adaptations 

X" =1.1 

(del) 

X2 =8.8 

(d5l) 

X2=14.9 

(del) 

X2=10.3 

(del) 

to blocked goals. 

Table 8-2: Gender-Neutral Hypotheses 

.224 

.003 

.OOO 

.006 

Test PStatistic Value 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
308 

Personal Respect Hypothesis 

The Personal Respect Hypothesis is supported by the data. Females presenting for 

ED care for violent injuries are more likely to be injured because of issues over personal 

respect (fighting in response to a verbal insult, threat or slight, or to prove one’s ability to 

stand up for oneself) than are females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males 

(X2 =18.9, del, p=.OOO). 

Mutual-Contribution Hypothesis 

The Mutual-Contribution Hypothesis is not supported. Females presenting for ED 

care for violent injuries by females are not more likely to actively contribute to the violent 

outcome by using physical or verbal provocation and by fighting back than are females 

presenting for ED care for injuries by males (X2 =l. 1, del, p=.224). 

Public-View Hypothesis 

The Public-View Hypothesis is supported. Females presenting for ED care for 

violent injuries by females are more likely be injured in conflicts characterized by the 

presence of bystanders than are females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by 

males (2 4.8, del, p=.003). 

Life Cycle Hypotheses 

Both Life Cycle Hypotheses are supported. Females presenting for ED care for 

violent injuries by females are more likely to be under the age of 24 than are females 

presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males (X2=14.9, df-3 18, p=.OOO). 

In addition, females presenting for violent injuries by females are more likely to 

be injured by at least one antagonist who is within 5 years of the respondents’ age than 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
309 

are females presenting for ED care for violent injuries by males (X2=10.3, del, p=.006). 

C. Summary of Bivariate Results 

The bivariate analyses demonstrate that characteristics of the 167 injured females 

by females and 155 injured by males with whom they were compared differed markedly. 

This conclusion is based on the results of the hypothesis tests reported in this chapter. 

Female specific characteristics associated with increased risk of assault by another 

woman include engaging in violence for reasons related to gender-centric concerns, 

relational-protection and interpersonal-concerns. 

Gender-neutral factors associated with an increased risk of assault by another 

woman include respondents 24 years old and younger, injuries by an age peer, engaging 

in violent for reasons related to personal respect and presence of bystanders. 

In sum the results indicate that without controlling for the effects of potentially 

confounding variables, female-on-female violence compared to male-on-female violence 

is explained by both female-specific and gender-neutral factors. 

111. Multivariate Analyses 

In this section Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory is explored Mer by 

examining results of a multivariate logistic regression. Multivariate analysis allows 

assessment of the independent effects of individual variables in the model. In other 

words, the effect of each independent variable can be examined net of the effects of the 

other variables in the model. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 10 

Logistic regression is an appropriate procedure for this study because the 

dependent variable is dichotomous and representative of women classified as members of 

two distinct populations differentiated by the sex of the antagonist (Afifi et al., 1996): 

intragender assault and cross-gender assault. 

The statistical measure computed with logistic regression is the odds ratio, which 

is defined as the ratio of the odds of the exposure in the first group to the odds of 

exposure in the second group. When a dichotomous independent variable is used, the 

odds ratio is interpreted as the odds that group one exhibits the risk factor relative to the 

odds that group two exhibits it. In this analysis the Pearson Chi-square statistic is 

reported as a summary measure of goodness of fit for the regression model, as well as 

odds ratios. P-values, and the magnitude and direction of each coefficient also are 

reported. 

In the sections that follow the process of variable elimination by which the final 

model is specified is reviewed. In addition, the model’s goodness of fit is assessed. 

Finally, statistically significant associations with female-on-female violence and male-onfemale violence are highlighted. 

A. Process of Variable Elimination: Candidate Control Variables 

The candidate control variables that were considered for inclusion in the final 

multivariate model and their bivariate results are summarized in Table 8-3. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 8-3: Bivariate Results for Control Variable Candidates 

53.3% 

34.7% 

58.7% 

27.9% 

12.0% 

311 

37.4% 2 =9.9 .007 

40.6% (df=2) 

61.3% XZ=0.l .716 

(del) 

2 1.9% 

12.6% 2=10.4 .oo 1 

Respondent's Education Level 

(N=322) 

% Less than high school 

% High School 

% More that high school 

16.4% 

19.2% 

13.2% 

56.3% 

11.4% 

50.6% 

32.9% 

16.5% 

YO Receipt of government 

assistance =321 

exclusive of respondent 

(N=3 16) 

% Beaten by mother-figure 

during childhood (N=313) 

Victim-Offender Relationship 

(N=322) 

'YO Family member 

% Friend 

% Acquaintance 

% Stranger 

Past abusive partner (N=3 14) 

YO none 

'YO one 

% more than one 

+-- % Violence by male partner 

- 8.1% 24.1 .042 

(del) 

22.6% X2 =30.8 .ooo 

14.8% (de3) 

29.7% 

32.9% 

36.0% X2 =7.3 .026 

39.3% (de2) 

24.7% 

% Predatory violence (N=3 19) I 

7.2% 

58.7% 

% Low self-esteem (N=3 18) 14.6% Xz=3.8 .052 

(del) I % Depression (N=321) 69.5% X2 =3.6 .058 

10.8% 

% Childhood sexual abuse I (N=314) 

(del) 

8.5% X2 =0.3 .617 

Respondent substance nse 

within 4 hrs. of violent event ' 

(N=32 1) 

% Either alcohol or drugs 

% Respondent lives with the 

antagonist (N=320) 

Antagonist drug use within 4 

hrs. of violent event (N=321) 

% Yes 

% No 

% Don't Know 

Intragender Cross-gender Test 

Assault Assault Statisric , P- Value 

I .Ooo 

4.8% 123.0% 

(del) 

43.7% 46.8% X2 =6.9 

44.3% 32.5% 

12.0% 20.8% 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 12 

According to the bivariate results, low levels of education (X2 =9.9, de2, 

p=.007), violence by a male partner toward someone other than the respondent (X2=10.4, 

del, p=.OOl), and childhood physical abuse by the mother (9 =4.1, del, p=.042) are 

each significantly associated with female-on-female violence. The victim-offender 

relationship also is associated with the gender of the antagonist (X2=30.8, de3, p=.OOO). 

The proportion of females injured by female acquaintances was greater than the 

proportion of male acquaintances (56.3% versus 29.7%). However, the proportion of 

females injured by female strangers was smaller than the proportion of females injured by 

male strangers (1 1.4% versus 32.9%). 

e 

In addition, having an abusive partner in the past (9=7.3, del, p=.026), injury as 

a consequence of predatory violence (X2=21 .2, del, p=.OOO), respondent substance use 

(X2=6.1, del, p.014) and antagonist drug use (X”6.9, d62, p=.032) each are 

significantly associated with male-on-female violence. 

e 

With the goal of deriving a parsimonious final model several steps were carried 

out. First, multicollinearity diagnostics were assessed and revealed it unnecessary to 

remove any variables. None of the variance inflation factors (VIF) exceeded 1.5. 

Next, a 111 model was tested including all candidate control variables (see Table 

8-4). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
313 

FEMALE-SPECIFIC FACTORS 

'Table 8-4. Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis Of Factors 

Associated with Risk of Violent Injury by Females vs. Males: Full Model 

with all Candidate Control and Theoretical Variables 

I 1.2 

1.3 

0.7 

0.3 

0.2 

3.9 .049 

6.8 .009 

3 .O .086 

0.6 .458 

0.5 .460 

Relational-Protection 

Hypothesis 

Interpersonal-Concerns 

Hypothesis 

Gender-centric Concerns 

Hypothesis 

Deference-Aggression 

Hypothesis (short-term 

uncommitted relationshiD1 

Life-Cycle Hypotheses: 

Respondent < 24 yrs. old 

Female-Valued Resources 

Hypothesis (Injury to the 

face) 

0.1 0.1 .729 1.1 (0.6-2.1) 

Age-peer 

Mutual Contribution 

Hypothesis 

Personal Respect Hypothesis 

(bystanders present) 

Public View Hypothesis 

(1.0-10.9) 

(1.4-9.0) 

-0 .o 0.1 .778 1 .o (0.7-1 -2) 

-0.1 0.1 .788 0.9 (0.5-1.8) 

0.9 6.5 .011 2.4 (1.2-4.8) 

0.3 0.4 .542 1.3 (0.6-2.9) 

7 (0.6-3.1) 

7- (0.7-2.2) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 14 

I 8.2 

0.1 

~ 4.3 

ref 

1 5.2 

5.1 

1.7 

ref 

5.4 

Table 8-4. (continued) Multivariable Logktic Regression Ana@& Of Factors 

Associated with Risk of Violent Injuy by Females vs. Males: Full Model 

with all Candidate Control and Theoretical Variables 

.017 

.777 

.039 

ref 

,073 

.025 

.188 

ref 

.020 

I 

egrees of fieedom. 

male partner” are combined to 

Victim-Offender Relation: 

Family member 

Acquaintance/Friend 

Stranger 

Subject’s Education Level 

Less than high school 

High School 

More that high school 

Violence by partner exclusive 

of remondent 

ref 

2.5 

0.5 

4.3 

One or more abusive male 

ref 

(1.2-5.4) 

(0.3-1 .O) 

(1.7-1 1 .O) 

-- 

-0.1 

0.8 

ref 

0.8 

1 .o 

0.7 

1 .o 

-- 

1 .o 

0.6 

ref 

0.9 

-0.7 

(0.4- 1.7) 

(0.5-1.8) 

(0.3-1.3) 

(0.9-1.1) 

Beaten by mother-figure 

Low self-esteem I 

Demession I -0.5 

Respondent lives with I 0.0 

antagonist 

Childhood Sexual abuse -0.2 

Receipt of government I -0.0 

assistance 

alcohol prior to the event 

Antagonist used drugs prior -0.0 

Respondent used drugs or -0.4 

to the event I 

Categories “Friend“ and “Acquai%mce”-kY 

Categories “One abusive male partner” and “ 

preserve degrees of fieedom. 

.137 

.994 

.572 

.908 

ombined to preserve ( 

dore than one abusive 

-- 

0.9 

2.3 

ref 

-- 

(0.3-2.3) 

(1.0-5.0) 

ref 

-- 

2.7 

1.8 

-- 

(1.1-6.5) 

(0.8-4.1) 

iri 1 11.1-0.8/- 

0.4-2.9 

0.3- 1.2 

(0.3-2.9) 

According to Table 8-4, eight candidate control variables were not significant. 

Consequently, with the exception of education, they were excluded from the model 

because they were not were not correlated significantly with the dependent variable and 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
315 

their exclusion did not change the results of the model. These variables include low selfesteem, depression, respondent lives with the antagonist, childhood sexual abuse, receipt 

of government assistance, respondent used drugs or alcohol prior to the violent event and 

antagonist used drugs prior to the violent event. The results of the final multivariable 

analyses of factors associated with the risk of violent injury by females compared to 

violent injury by males are shown in Table 8-5. 

Table 8-5. Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis Of Factors 

Associated with Risk of Violent Injury by Females vs. Males: Final Model 

Aa'justed Confidence 

Variable Logit Wald P- Value Odds-Ratio Interval (95%) 

FEMALE-SPECIFIC FACTORS 

Relational-Protection 1.3 

HvDothesis 

Interpersonal-Concems I 1.2 

Hrsis 

Gender-centric Concerns 

H othesis 

Deference-Aggression 

Hypothesis (short-term I ~:~ 

uncommitted relationship) 

Female-Valued Resources 0.2 

I Hypothesis (injury to the 

face) 

6.5 .011 

3.7 .055 

0.7 .418 

0.6 .44 1 

I 

3.6 

3.4 

2.3 

1.4 

1.3 

I (1.1-1 1.7) 

I (1.3-8.6) 

I (0.7-2.2) 

GENDER-NEUTRAL FACTORS 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 16 

-0.9 

Table 8-5: (continued) Multivariable Analysis Of Factors Associated with Risk of 

Violent Injury by Females vs. Males: Final Model 

8.5 .003 0.4 (0.2-0.7) 

Victim-Offender Relation: 

Family member 

AcquaintanceDriend 

Stranger 

Respondent’s Education 

Level 

Less than high school 

High School 

More that high school 

Violence by partner exclusive 

of respondent 

One or more abusive male 

1.34 

partners ’ 

Beaten by mother-figure 

during childhood 

Predatorv violence 

8.8 .003 3.8 (1.6-9.2) 

CONTROL VARIABLES 

-_ 

-0.1 

0.8 

ref 

-- 

0.8 

0.4 

ref 

.168 

.064 

.305 

ref ref 

-- 

0.9 

2.2 

ref 

2.1 

1.5 

ref 

-- 

-- 

(0.4-2.2) 

(1.0-4.8) 

ref 

-- 

(1.0-3.4) 

(1.0-4.8) 

ref 

I (1-2-5-3) 

0.9 I 5.5 1 .019 1 2.5 . 

I 6.3 I .012 I 0.3 I (0.1-0.8) ~ 

-1.3 d 

Categories “Friend” and “A~quaintance~~ are combined to preserve degrees of fieedom. 

* Categories “One abusive male parhe?‘ and “More than one abusive male partner” are combined to 

preserve degrees of fieedom. 

B. Model’s Goodness of Fit 

According to the model Chi-square statistic (X2 =102.0, de18, p=.OOO), the null 

hypothesis that improvement in prediction is due to sampling error is rejected. The final 

model’s goodness of fit was compared to the goodness of fit of a trimmed model that 

included only those variables that were statistically significant (p<.05) in the final model 

while adjusting for age and education. A description of the trimmed model is provided in 

Table 8-6. The trimmed model was examined to confirm that the results from th final 

model (including 16 variables versus 8 variables in the trimmed model) were not affected 

by over-saturation (too few degrees of fieedom). The model improvement based on the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
317 

FEMALE-SPECIFIC FACTORS 

trimmed model Chi-square statistic was not statistically significant (X* =3.95 df-7, 

Hypothesis 

Interpersonal-Concerns 

Hypothesis 

p=.758) indicating that over-saturation was not a problem. 

1.3 

Table 8-6. Logistic Regression Analysis Of Factors Associated with Risk of Violent 

Injury by Females vs. Males: Trimmed Model 

Life-Cycle Hypotheses: 

Respondent < 24 yrs. old 0.2 

Personal Respect Hypothesis 0.8 

0.5 .470 1.2 (0.7-2.2) 

6.2 .012 2.2 (1.2-4.1) 

Relational-Protection I 1.3 

Victim-Offender Relation: ’ -- 11.4 .003 

Family member -0.1 0.0 .873 

AcquaintanceFriend 0.9 6.3 .012 

Stranger ref ref ref 

Subjects Education Level -- 4.0 .135 

Less than high school 1 .o 5.1 .056 

High School 0.6 1.7 .353 

More that high school ref ref ref 

Violence by partner exclusive 0.9 6.4 -012 

of respondent 

partners 

during childhood 

One or more abusive male -0.9 8.9 .003 

Beaten by mother-figure 1.3 8.1 .004 

-- -- 

0.9 (0.4-2.2) 

2.6 (1.2-5.3) 

ref ref 

-- -- 

2.7 (1.1-6.5) 

1.8 (0.8-4.1) 

ref ref 

2.5 (1.2-5.2) 

0.4 (0.2-0.7) 

3.6 (1.5-8.8) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
318 

C. Identification of Significant Associations with the Dependent Variable 

The hypotheses drawn from Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory include 

both female-specific and gender-neutral factors. Of the nine hypotheses tested, three are 

supported; of these, two are female-specific and one is gender-neutral with a femalespecific corollary. 

Controlling for other theoretical and control variables, involvement in 

violence over issues related to protecting a third party (relational-protection) increases the 

odds of beings injured by a female than by a male by a factor of 3.6. Moreover, 

involvement in violence over interpersonal concerns (del, p=.03 1) increases the odds of 

being injured by a female compared to a male by a factor of 3.4 (d+ 1, p=.O1 1). 

With respect to gender-neutral factors, controlling for other theoretical and 

control variables, involvement in violence over issues related to personal 

respect increases the odds of being injured by a female than by a male by 

2.5 times. The control variables that distinguish between intragender and cross-gender 

assault are noteworthy. When controlling for theoretical and other control variables, 

violence by an acquaintance increases the odds of being injured by a female by 2.2 times 

(del, p=.040). Having a partner who has been violent toward another male or female 

recently increases the odds of being injured by a female by 2.5 times (del, p=.O 19). In 

addition, having a history of childhood physical abuse by a mother-figure increases the 

odds of being injured by a female by 3.8 times (del, p=.003). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 19 

In contrast, when controlling for theoretical and other control variables, 

having a history of partner abuse increases the odds of being injured by a 

male compared to a female by 0.4 times (del, p=.003). Experiencing predatory violence 

increases the odds of being injured by a male by 0.3 times (del, p.012). There were no 

differences between females injured by females and females injured by males for several 

variables in both the female-specific and gender-neutral domains. In the female-specific 

domain, there were no differences with respect to whether the respondent’s partner 

relationship was characterized as short-term and uncommitted, or whether she sustained 

an injury to the face. In the gender-neutral category there were no associations for age of 

the respondent, injury by an age-peer, mutual involvement in the violent event or for the 

presence of bystanders. 

The results presented in this chapter are consistent with the expectations derived 

from Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. Female-specific concepts distinguished 

between violent injuries to females by female antagonists and by male antagonists, 

respectively. It is noteworthy, however, that when adjusting for theoretically relevant 

variables, several bivariate relationships lost significance. These variables include 

gender-centric concerns, respondent’s age, antagonist is an age-peer, and the presence 

bystanders. In the following chapter, a discussion of the study findings within the context 

of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory and implications regarding gendered theory 

is presented. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
320 

CHAPTER 9. REWSITING THE EMPIRICAL FINDINGS 

WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF “GENDERED SOCIAL 

STRUCTURAL STUN THE0RY”AND BEYOND 

I. Introduction 

This dissertation represents one of the first studies to examine violent injuries to 

women across a broad range of non-mrber male and female relationships including 

violence by family members, acquaintances, friends and strangers. This research 

provides a comparative analysis of female-on-female and male-on-female intentional 

violence. 

The research design applied in this dissertation provides a unique opportunity to 

test hypotheses derived fiom Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory by comparing 

females intentionally injured by non-partner females with females intentionally injured by 

non-partner males. This theory includes a blend of female-specific and gender-neutral 

theoretical concepts and therefore is considered a gendered theory. Central to Gendered 

Social Structural Strain Theory, is the prediction that risk factors for violence to females 

will vary by gender of the antagonist. If a gender-neutral construct does not differentiate 

between female-on-female and male-on-female violence then additional support is 

provided for the generalizability of the gender-neutral theory. However, if a genderneutral construct differentiates between intragender and cross-gender assault then 

additional support is points to the need for a female-specific corollary. Likewise, if a 

female-specific theory differentiates between intragender and cross-gender assault, then 

further evidence is provided for a gendered theory. 

In Part I1 that follows empirical results based on a test of Gendered Social 

Structural Strain Theory uncovered in this dissertation are discussed with respect to 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
32 1 

female-specific and gender-neutral adaptations that are likely to increase the risk of 

intragender violence compared to cross-gender violence. Part 111 includes a discussion of 

findings pertaining to the control variables. Part IV includes a discussion of the empirical 

findings within the context of gender, class and race. Part V includes implications for 

further research. 

11. A Test of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory: Empirical Results 

0 

A. Female- Specific Adaptations 

Finding #1: Relational-Protection 

As predicted by Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, female antagonists 

reportedly are more likely than male antagonists to become involved in violence for the 

purpose of defending or protecting friends or family members (see Table 8-5). This 

includes defending the reputation of family members or friends or protecting the loved 

ones from physical harm. 

Female-on-Female Violence: Relational-Protection 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, relational-protection is 

based on gender-neutral (Anderson, 1994,1999) and gendered (Adams, 1999) 

dimensions of the Code of the Street Approach as well as dimensions of feminist theory. 

These dimensions are discussed below within the context of the empirical findings. 

One of the basic tenets of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory is that 

historical discrimination and the failure of public institutions to respond to the needs of 

disadvantaged Black residents (male and female) have contributed to the emergence of 

self-help strategies. According to Anderson (1 999), the Code of the Street emerged 

among urban males and females in part because of the need for self-help strategies. These 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
322 

strategies are used as a method of grievance resolution, and include the use of violence 

(Anderson, 1999, Black, 1983). Past studies have shown that intragender male violence 

occurs as a consequence of self-help strategies (Anderson, 1999; Canada, 1995). The 

results of this dissertation demonstrate similar processes for intragender female assault 

(see Figure 9-1 below). The following account (#3966) illustrates the use of violence as a 

self-help strategy in lieu of seeking help from a care-giving institution. 

I wasJghting a 30 year-old women. Her daughter (who is I I or 12 years 

old) ... said I tried to fight her, I was coming home from the water ice 

stand, she jumped ofthe steps and threw a punch and so we started 

fighting. 

The empirical results highlighted in this dissertation suggest that self-help 

strategies also have a female-specific component. Adams’ (1 999) describes a gendered 

version of the code. She contrasts Anderson’s (1 994, 1999) masculine view of self 

respect, which focuses on protecting oneself, with a woman’s tendency to fight to 

preserve the respect that is awarded to others. She attributes this behavior to female 

socialization patterns that center on maintaining interpersonal relationships (Gilligan, 

1993). 

Becoming involved in violence over relational-protection also might be explained 

by feminist theory and research on socialization patterns in disadvantaged Black families. 

Daughters more so than sons, for example, have been socialized to take responsibility for 

themselves and their families (Browning et al., 1999; Dodson, 1998). The sense of 

autonomy and responsibility that Black females have developed as a consequence of their 

family responsibilities may extend to the use of violence for the purposes of defending or 

protecting family and/or peer-group members. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
323 

Female-on-Female Violence versus Male-on-Female Violence: RelationalProtection 

The results demonstrate that male antagonists who injure females reportedly are 

less likely to become involved in violence over issues pertaining to relational-protection. 

According to Gendered Social Structural Theory, males are expected to engage in selfhelp strategies as a consequence of socialization patterns that center on validating their 

manhood. Thus, socialization patterns serve as intervening mechanisms that shape the 

nature of gendered self-help strategies. The mechanisms underlying violence used as a 

self-help strategy were outlined in Chapter 3 and are reviewed below within the context 

of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
324 

Figure 9-1: Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Self-Help Strategies: 

Different Path ways to Intragender and Cross- Gender Assault 

Sources of Strain 

that Inhibit Underlying Adaptation 

Protection Blocked Goals Mechanisms to Blocked Goal 

-Lack of institutional 

support 

-High rates of FEMALE PATTERN 

offending and 

victimization and victimization; -Emphasis on interpersonal violence in the service of defending, 

+ Freedom from fear + - Socialized to be autonomous + Increases risk of female- on -female 

trust in mainstream relationship and protecting/ 

institutions defending others. 

- Female gendered role in the family 

k 

k 

-w Increases risk of male-on-male 

violence in the service of defending/ 

protecting others 

MALEPAITERN L 

b - Socialized to be autonomous + Does not increase the risk of male-on- 

- Emphasis on validating - female violence to the same extent as 

-Emphasis on loyalty Males may intervene to protect 

a third party, but this intervention is 

less likely to lead to violence. Under 

circumstances where the female 

and male intercessor internalike male 

dominant nom, it is not likely that the 

female will challenge the male 

“authority.” Therefore, it is unlikely 

that male will be required to use 

violence to prove his manhood. 

manhood female-on-female violence. 

The empirical finding reflects gendered mechanisms that underlie female 

violence and male violence. In the respondents’ accounts there was no mention of males 

fighting to protect a third party. According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, 

female-on-female violence is more likely to occur than male-on-female violence over 

relational-protection because females adhere to patriarchal norms. It is likely that women 

who internalize male-dominant norms do not respond to disrespectfid comments by male 

intercessors with provocations; women may resist alienating males if they perceive the 

males as highly valued resources. Therefore, it is unlikely that the male considered in this 

setting will be required to use violence in order to validate his manhood. Given the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
325 

perceived position of power awarded to males by society at large and by the women 

themselves, it would be expected that a greater degree of provocation by the female 

would be required for the male antagonist to resort to violence compared to the female 

antagonist. Threats by the male antagonist are likely sufficient measures that allow him 

to validate his manhood. In contrast, it is likely that women are more likely to respond to 

insults by females with provocations that, in turn, intensifj the risk of intragender 

violence. Thus, within the context of a patriarchal society, women likely perceive their 

female rivals as competitors. On the contrary, women likely perceive male intercessors as 

status superior. 

It also is possible that in contrast to situations of intragender male violence 

(Oliver, 1 994), incidents of cross-gender violence attributed to relational-protection by 

male antagonists do not occur. Alternatively, males may engage in violence against 

females for reasons related to relational-protection, but such acts may not lead to violence 

or violent injuries. 

a 

Finding #2: Interpersonal-Concerns 

The empirical results reveal that females injured by females are more likely than 

females injured by males to become involved in violence over interpersonal concerns 

including issues related to rumors, gossip, “he saylshe say” and “not being liked” (see 

Table 8-5). Twenty- three percent of female-on-female incidents reportedly were 

characterized by issues related to interpersonal concerns compared to five percent of 

male-on-female incidents. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
326 

Female-on-Female Violence: Interpersonal-Concerns 

According to Figure 9-2 (see below), the feminist component of Gendered Social 

Structural Strain Theory is based on research demonstrating that for females, the 

importance of creating and maintaining interpersonal relationships is central to their 

identity (Chodorow, 1978; Gilligan, 1993; Miller, 1986). That is, females seek status and 

a sense of self-worth by developing interpersonal relationships. According to Gendered 

Social Structural Strain Theory, when few means are available for achieving sociallydefined success, the importance of maintaining relational connections becomes 

intensified. Disadvantaged women who have had limited means to achieve 

conventionally-defined success (i.e. academic and occupational) and who have 

experienced blocked opportunity to self-enhancing interpersonal relationships with 

parents, teachers and other adults, place increased emphasis on gaining the approval of 

peers and others. 

Research has shown that some females seek friendships by damaging another 

female’s reputation (Owens et al., 2000). By revealing the faults (actual or fictitious) of 

another person the gossiper likely creates temporary group intimacy and simultaneously 

boosts her own status within the group. Through the use of indirect aggression defined by 

gossip or rumors a female builds herself up by tearing down another. 

In past studies and in this dissertation, females reportedly engaged in indirect 

aggression through gossip and rumors. Past research on samples of girls has shown !hat 

targets of indirect aggression suffer painful consequences (Crick, 1995; Crick and 

Grotpeter, 1996; Crick et al., 1996; Galen and Underwood, 1997) including a loss of self 

esteem and anxiety. Similar to past research (Owens et al., 2000), the respondents 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
327 

interviewed in this dissertation reported that they (or more often the antagonists) reacted 

to victimization by rumors with violence against the perpetrator of the gossip. One 

e 

respondent (#3686) explained: 

I was fighting two girls, grabbed ones hair, wrapped it around my fingers 

and was pulling on it. [It was about] he say, she say. She said something 

that I didn’t say,. . 

Thus, the use of indirect aggression is considered a female-specific pattern. Researchers 

have observed that intragender male is not characterized by gossip or rumors. Instead, 

males use alternative means to develop group cohesion and tend to express aggression 

using direct physical means (Owens, 2000) (see Figure 9-2) 

Female-on-Female Violence versus Male-on-Female Violence: InterpersonalConcerns 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory largely focuses on female rivalry over 

male partners. The respondents’ accounts, however, demonstrate the prevalence of 

violence over interpersonal relationships aside from issues concerning male partners. 

Issues of “not being liked” for example typically describe a conflict between a female 

respondent and female antagonist. Rumors also include issues unrelated to males. One 

respondent (#3508) explained: 

My block is full ofyoung people ...g ossipers. Something about my kids told 

her nephew that I was going to beat her up. She called. ..I asked my ki& if 

they said it. ..they said no. I told her that ifshe wanted to say something to 

me she should come around to my house. She and her sister came over. 

We had words and startedfighting 

The mechanisms underlying violeice as a consequence of interpersonal concerns 

are outlined below for female-on-female, male-on-male and male-on-female violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
328 

Figure 9-2: Genderspecific and Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Becoming Involved 

in Violence over Interpersonal Concerns: Different Pathways to 

Intragender and Cross-Gender Assault 

Structural Sources 

of Strain to Academic1 Underlying Adaptations to 

Occupational Support Blocked Goal Mechanisms Blocked Goal 

r 

FEMALE PATTERN 

-Educational system 4 Academic/ + Indirect aggression + Increases female- on -female 

-Adaptations to Poverty occupational to increase competition over fkiendships; 

(i.e. parentification) Secure interpersonal group intimacy retaliation for gossip in the form of 

relationships and increase individual’s violence to reestablish respect 

k Status 

Increases male-on-male competition 

for manhood and subsequent violence 

c 

MALE PATTERN 

Direct aggression + Does not contribute to male-onused to increase 

individual’s status and 

acceptance by group 

- female over gossip. Females arc less 

likely to spread rumors about males 

because the point of spreading rumors 

is to increase female paer group 

intimacy. Consequently, 

it unlikely that males retaliate 

as a consequence of gossip. Males 

are not likely to gossip about females; 

males tend to express their aggression 

directly. Thus, revenge by females 

over gossip rumors is unlikely. 

The empirical findings are consistent with past research on gender differences in 

mechanisms that contribute to violence. Males, for example, are more likely than females 

to display aggression outwardly and directly as a show of dominance and control. 

Research has shown that direct aggression is valued by the male peer group and often is 

considered a measure of status (Campbell, 1993). In contrast, research suggests that 

females engage in indirect aggression as a means to secure friendships and to establish 

group cohesion (Owens et al., 2000). This dissertation research suggests that in contrast 

to the male peer group, the female peer group values the intimacy brought about by the 

process of group gossip. One byproduct of gossip, however, is the use of violence as a 

form of retaliation. Thus, within the context of comparing female-on-female violence 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
329 

with male-on-female violence, fighting over issues related to interpersonal concerns is 

considered female-specific. 

Finding #3: Gender-Centric Concerns 

The empirical results demonstrate that females injured by females are not more 

likely than females injured by males to become involved in violence over gender-centric 

concerns including issues over intimate partners (past, current and potential), pregnancy, 

or player behavior (see Table 8-5). It is likely that this hypothesis was unsupported not 

because females don’t become involved in violence over gender-centric concerns, but 

instead because more males than expected acted violent toward females over gendercentric concerns. 

Female-on-Female Violence: Gender-Centric Concerns 

In spite of the absence of group differences, the respondents’ accounts point to 

gendered mechanisms that underlie intragender versus cross-gender asssault. Based on 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, it was expected that the demographic scarcity 

of eligible male intimate partners combined with blocked opportunities to academic and 

occupational achievement would increase the risk of female-on-female assault. It also 

was expected that player behavior by males would increase the risk of intragender 

violence among females who adhere to traditional patriarchal norms. Women who adhere 

to these beliefs have internalized norms established by the dominant male group 

including male superiority and the double standard according to which it is acceptable 

(even expected) for males to engage in player behavior but unacceptable for females to 

behave the same way. Thus, in response to player behavior the female engages in 

“horizontal group oppression” against the rival female. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
330 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory and past research (Artz, 

1998; Nurge, 2000) horizontal violence accomplishes two goals. These include: (1) 

punishing the rival female for behavior that is perceived as unacceptable (e.g., flirting 

with another female’s boyfriend) (2) and enhancing her position within the dominant 

male group by avoiding conflict with the male who instigated or at the least contributed to 

the conflict. Themes of horizontal oppression emerged from the respondents’ accounts. 

A typical account (#3576) follows: 

I was at my girljIriend ’s. I saw another girl that I had an argument 

with over there. She said, ‘Where your guns at? ’ I said, ‘I don’t need no 

gun for you. ’ She picked up a broomstick to swing at me. Before she 

could hit me Ipunched her in her face and keptpunching andpunching 

her. I only stopped cause she was biting me ... Nobody should hit me with a 

broomstick over no boy. [She got violent because] her boyji-iend was 

trying to talk to me. 

The data suggest that females involved in intragender violence over gender-centric 

concerns internalize patriarchal norms of male superiority in ways that are manifested 

beyond player behavior. For example, respondents who describe arguments over gendercentric concerns attribute such importance to having a boyfriend that such issues become 

worth fighting over. One respondent (#3539) explained: 

This happened in school. I was jumped by three girls. I fell on the floor 

and they started kicking me in the head. They ran when an teacher’s 

assistant came along. It’s a real skinny hallway. We bumped shoulders 

and she hit me. We wereJighting this summer too over a boy. She stole 

himji-om me. He was still liking me and she didn’t like that. 

Another respondent (#3 123) explained: 

I was making dinner. Thee doorbell rang ... I opened the 

door and there was a girl standing at door. As I was about to close the 

door, she pushed her way in. She grabbed me and I grabbed her back and 

she started saying she was going to kill me. In return she started to 

hit me with rock.. She told me I was going to let her lose her baby. She 

was around 6 months pregnant. I told her I’m not the one losing your 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
33 1 

baby you are ... She seemed to think that I came into their [her and her 

boyfriend] relationship.. .she wanted him back. 

According to the feminization of poverty component of Gendered SociaZ 

Structural Strain Theory, female-on-female violence also is associated with fighting over 

males for the purpose of obtaining material resources necessary for survival. The 

respondents’ accounts provided no information suggesting a link between intragender 

violence and seeking to secure a male in order to obtain material resources. This 

omission points to the previously cited finding that Black females have disconnected 

males with the role of resource provider (Ladner, 197 1). Instead, gender-centric concerns 

that increase the risk of female-on-female violence revolve around securing a male as an 

ultimate goal. Thus, it is likely that a woman wants to secure a male, not for the purposes 

of acquiring material resources, but for the purposes of meeting intimacy needs and 

establishing or maintaining self worth. 

Female-on-Female Violence versus Male-on- Female Violence: Gender-Centric 

Concerns 

Notwithstanding the absence of empirical support for a difference in magnitude 

between intragender and cross-gender assault over gender-centric concerns, the vignettes 

point to gendered mechanisms that shape the violent outcome. According to Figure 9-3, 

female-on-female, male-on-male and male-on-female violence are influenced by 

adherence to patriarchal norms; these norms, however, have different effects for 

intragender and cross-gender assault. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
332 

Figure 9-3: Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Adaptations 

to Marriage: Different Path ways to Intragender and Cross-Gender 

Assault 

Structural Sources Intervening Adaptations to 

of Strain to Marriage Blocked Goal Mechanisms Blocked Goals 

-Male udunder employment + Marriagang- + 

-US Public Policies term relationships 

-Adaptations to Poverty blocked 

-Relational 

k 

k 

Malc-on-Male violence in order 

to win status in the peer group. 

f 

f 

MALE PATTERNS 

patriarchal norms in response to rejection; 

(i.e. engages in player behavior) males engage in violence against 

female in order to 

interpersonal relationship reestablish public and private 

identity. However, it is expected 

that violence is less likely to occur 

compared to female-on-female. 

Under circumstances where 

the female and male antagonists 

internalize male 

dominant norms, it is not likely 

that the male will be required to 

use violence in to meet his goal 

in order to prove his manhood. 

-adherenceto + + Male -owFernale violence 

- Importance attached to 

FEMALE PAlTERNS 

-adherenceto + + Female-on- Female violence 

patriarchal norms (Le. tolerates 

- male player behavior) Importance 

attached to interpersonal violating patriarchal 

relationship norms therefore female 

rival female viewed as 

disrespecffil for 

target rival female. 

Displacement allows 

her maintain positive position 

in eyes of currenvpotential male 

partner. 

The accounts suggest that males adhere to patriarchal norms. Such norms include 

a sense of entitlement regarding their right to have sexual relations with females and is a 

likely underpinning of the player image. According to Gendered Social StructuraZ Strain 

Theory, within context of male player behavior and adherence to patriarchal norms by 

males and females, it is likely that intragender female violence emerges from female 

rivalry over male partners. In contrast, according to Gendered Social StructuraZ Strain 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
333 

Theory, it is likely that intragender male violence occurs in an effort to validate one's 

sense of manhood (see Figure 9-3). 

The vignettes suggest that some males assault females because the potential loss 

of or rejection by a female is experienced by the males as threats to their private and/or 

public identities (Anderson, 1990) (see Figure 9-3). There is likely a lower threshold of 

tolerance for rejection among males who have limited access to socially-defined success 

because of blocked opportunity. One study respondent (#3080) who was injured by a 

male neighbor explained: 

I was coming from church tonight as I reached my door afriend of 

mine approached me.. . and started to feel on me and grab me. 

I bit his finger ... he went in my kitchen, got a knife and stabbed me in the 

back and cut my neck. He was trying to get me to have sex with him. [He 

did this] because I wouldn't have sex with him. 

Another respondent (#3519) who sustained an injury by a male fiiend explained: 

Last night I got a phone call from a girlfriend of his. I told her we was 

justfiiends. I wasn't messing with him. Ipaged him that morning and 

asked him to bring my keys over. So he came over. I didn't open the door, 

I wanted him to hand them [to me] through the window. So he took offthe 

screen and crawled through the window. He wanted to fight. I went out 

and hit him with a stic k... He came back with his hammer, which is a gun. 

I threw a cup of bleach ... in his face. He reached down for his gun ... He 

shot the front window out. .. [He did this because] he think he can have 

all women. He can't accept rejection. 

This account is consistent with the "tough guy'' image described by Oliver (1989b). 

Males with limited conventional means to validate their manhood redefine manhood in 

terms of fearlessness and domination over women. Adherence to patriarchal norms is a 

frequent explanation for violence by males against female partners. The vignettes 

uncovered in this dissertation suggest that violence against women by males who 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
334 

experience rejection extends beyond the realm of intimate partner violence to include 

males in the community more generally. 

Finding ##4: Short-Term Uncommitted Relationship 

The results indicate that involvement in a short-term uncommitted relationship 

does not distinguish between intragender and cross-gender assault. It was expected that 

females who are involved in short-term, uncommitted intimate relationships would target 

their jealousy toward the female rival instead of the male intimate for fear of driving him 

away (Campbell, 1995, 1998). 

The proportion of females injured by females (1 5.7%) and the proportion of 

females injured by males (1 1.8%) who meet the criteria for a short-term, uncommitted 

relationship was smaller than anticipated. It is possible that the hypothesis is wrong or 

that the measure chosen to operationalize the concept is misspecified. A more accurate 

measure of short-term uncommitted relationship would be obtained by asking members of 

the community how they define this type of relationship. 

Finding #5: Female-Valued Resources Hypothesis (Injury to the face) 

The results indicate that injury to the face does not distinguish between 

intragender and cross-gender assault. It was expected that a female antagonist compared 

to a male antagonist would be more likely to cause injury to a female’s face. Campbell 

(1 995) suggests that females most value those attributes that males consider important 

(i.e., physical attractiveness). It was hypothesized that female antagonists would cause 

injury to the respondent’s face as a strategy to “de-beautify” the rival female. 

Notwithstanding the finding that injury to the face does not distinguish between 

intragender and cross-gender assault, female antagonists may have used this strategy. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
335 

The large proportion (50%) of male antagonists who inflicted injuries to the face 

points to the physical seriousness of the violence. Given that males probably are aware 

that females tend to attribute great importance to their physical attractiveness, the finding 

that one half of the males targeted the face suggests that males not only seek physical 

harm but emotional harm as well. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
336 

B. Gender-Neutral Adaptations 

Finding #1: Personal Respect 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, personal respect is drawn 

from the gender-neutral version of the Code of the Street approach (Anderson, 1994, 

1999). Central to the Code is the issue of respect. Past research has demonstrated that 

femalesand males.~aracterizedby.disadv~~~ and Hocked opportunity,resort 10- 

violence for reasons pertaining to personal respect. Figure 9-4 summarizes genderneutral and female-specific dimensions that give rise to adaptations involving respect. 

Figure 9-4: Gender-Specific and Gender-Neutral Dimensions of Becoming Involved in 

Violence over Personal Respect: Different Pathways to Intragender and 

Cross-Gender Assault 

Structural Sources 

of Strain to Academic/ Blocked Underlying Adaptation 

Occupational Support Goal Mechanism to Blocked 

-Educational system -+ Academic/ Securing and maintaining personal respec! 

- Udunder employment Occupational 

success If challenged individuals arc 

is emphasized by males and females. 

required to fight back to re-establish selfworth and maintain respect in the group; 

Adherence to patriarchal norms -+ male and female violence 

4 

k MALEPAlTERN this increases the risk of intrneender 

k 

% 

FEMALE PA’lTERN 

Adherence to patriarchal norms 

Does not increase the risk of mnle-on- 

+ feviolence to the same extent as 

intragender violence because female 

may be less likely to challenge the male. 

Under circumstances where the female 

and male intercessor internalize male 

dominant norms, it is not likely that the 

female will challenge the male 

“authority.” Therefore, it is unlikely 

that male will be required to use 

violence to prove his manhood. 

In this dissertation violence over personal respect includes fighting in response to a verbal 

assault, slight or provocation (e.g., name calling, looks of disrespect such as stares, a 

bump). Based on past research it was hypothesized that intragender female assault 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
337 

would parallel past studies of intragender male assault. That is, female-on-female assault 

would occur over issues related to securing and maintaining personal respect. 

The hypothesis comparing female-on-female and male-on-female assault set forth 

according to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory was supported. Females injured 

by females are more likely than females injured by males to become involved in violence 

over issues related to personal respect (see Table 8-5). Although this hypothesis is 

categorized as gender-neutral, a female-specific corollary was developed for the current 

analysis. Violence over personal respect was expected to be more prevalent among 

female-on-female incidents compared to male-on-female because intragender violence is 

more likely to be characterized by a more equal playing field and the imperative to fight 

back to save face. 

Female-on-Female Violence: Personal Respect 

It is notable that of all the reasons assessed for violent injuries, the study 

respondents' injured by females cited issues pertaining to personal respect most 

frequently. According to the women's accounts, many responded to a verbal insult with 

violence or verbal aggression that led to an escalation of the argument and eventual 

violence. One respondent (#33 88) explained: 

Me and Aisha got into afight and I didn't see her cousin had a knife... she 

stabbed me. I also had my extensions pulled out and had an injured back. I 

may have said something. They called me crazy and I called them 

junkies ... 'She's not going to fight you Alisha. She's crazy. She won't 

fight you. ' They were saying tt'?!rzgs to provoke me. 

In addition, it also is noteworthy that the majority of all incidents of female-onfemale violence resulted from incidents, which occurred in public with witnesses present. 

These findings are consistent with a central tenet of the Code that it is particularly 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
338 

operative for conflicts that occur in public with witnesses present (Anderson, 1994,1999). 

In these cases, acting tough is considered a source of esteem in the eyes of the larger 

community. One respondent (#356 1) provided the following account: 

My boyfriend was arrested. .. His family andfrienh thought I got him 

arrested. I was ridingpast my boyfriend’s aunt and she pointed her finger 

at me as ifshe wanted to talk about what happened. But the whole time he 

was talking to me she was leading me to [the corner] ... Her niece and she 

wanted to fight. Tanya [the niece] ... stabbed me in the back. [She got 

violent] because everyone was out there. She wanted to show ofl 

Consistent with past research, Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory also 

includes gendered respect as a key adaptation to blocked opportunity. Nurge (2000) 

found that a show of disrespect resulting from an accusation of promiscuity by one female 

toward another female is a point of conflict that, under some circumstances, may result in 

violence. It is interesting that none of the respondents in this dissertation described this 

form of disrespect. It is possible that some of the incidents over “he-say/she-say” involve 

rumors about sexual promiscuity that went undisclosed by the respondents. 

Female-on-Female Violence versus Male-on-Female Violence: Personal Respect 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, female-on-female 

. violence is more likely to occur over issues related to personal respect than male-onfemale violence because of the female’s adherence to patriarchal norms. As discussed 

earlier’in this section with respect to relational-protection, it is likely that women who 

internalize male-dominant norms do not respond to disrespectful comments by males 

with insults/slights. According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, women may 

resist alienating males if they perceive the males as highly valued resources. Therefore, it 

is unlikely that in an economically disadvantage community the male will feel compelled 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
339 

to use violence in order to validate his manhood. Given the perceived position of power 

awarded to males by society at large and by the women themselves, it would be expected 

that a greater degree of provocation by the female would be required for the male 

antagonist to resort to violence compared to the female antagonist. In this setting, threats 

by the male antagonist are likely sufficient measures that allow him to validate his 

manhood. In contrast, it is likely that women are more likely to respond to such 

comments by females with provocations that intensify the risk of violence. Thus, within 

the context of a patriarchal society, women likely perceive their female rivals as 

competitors. On the contrary, women are likely to perceive their male antagonists as 

status (and physically) superior. 

Despite the statistically significant association between violence involving 

personal respect and female-on-female violence, it is notable that 16 percent of the study 

respondents reported violence by males over issues related to personal respect. One 

respondent (#3339) who sustained an injury by a male acquaintance provided the 

following account: 

This guy we've known, [I] never had any relations [with him]. He came to 

my mom's house looking for me. My mom got angry that he was there so I 

went to the place we hang out and asked him why did he come to my 

house. He got angry andpicked up a milk crate and I think it had some 

glass in it and hit me over the head with it. .. He said I was a snitch and 

that I had told on his drug operatio ns... He said that I disrespected him in 

his immediate mind. 

Another respondent (#I 15 1) explained: 

My brother, you know, he has a history of hitting on his girlpiend .. He 

tried to take her purse and she knocked his CD 's over. He started hitting 

her. So I came in and told him to stop. [He got violent with me] ... when I 

told him he was less then a man. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
340 

These vignettes suggest that some males respond to insults by females with violence. 

Consistent with the “tough guy” image described by Oliver (1 989b), males with limited 

means to achieve socially-defined success resort to domination and violence to validate 

their manhood. The data suggest that in spite of the unbalanced playing field typically in 

favor of males (due to size and strength), some males engage in violence against females 

over insults. 

Findings #2: Mutual-Contribution 

It was expected that female-on-female violence compared to male-on-female 

violence would be more likely to be characterized by mutual involvement on the part of 

both the antagonist and respondent. However, the Mutual Contribution Hypothesis was 

not supported. This hypothesis is based on the Code of the Street and the central issue of 

respect. To maintain respect, once one’s self worth is challenged it is necessary meet the 

challenge with physical aggression or aggressive words which likely increases the risk of 

violence. 

It is likely that this hypothesis was not supported because the concepts mutual 

contribution and personal respect both have their origins in issues central to the Code of 

the Street. A further analysis revealed that mutual contribution is significantly related to 

personal respect (X2=20. 16, p=.OOO, del). 

Findings #3: Public View 

It also was expected that intragender violence compared to cross-gender violence 

would be characterized by the presence of bystanders. Consistent with the Code the 

Street, the presence of bystanders was expected to intensify the need to retaliate with 

violence in order to save face. The Public View Hypothesis was supported at the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
34 1 

bivariate level, which suggests that other variables in the model account for the variation 

originally attributed to the presence of bystanders. 

Findings #4: Age of the Study Respondent 

It was expected that females injured by females would be younger (under the age 

of 24 years old) than females injured by males. This association was statistically 

significant at the bivariate level, but once other variables are included in the model the net 

contribution of age is not significant. This suggests that other factors explain the effect 

originally attributed to age. 

It is possible that reasons for the violence are age-related. Risk factors for 

intragender violence previously identified are personal respect and interpersonal 

concerns. Members of this group may represent a younger cohort of women who become 

involved in dispute-related violence over competition for status. In contrast, risk factors 

for cross-gender assault include predatory violence and a history of partner abuse. 

Members of this group may represent an older cohort whose risky lifestyle or financial 

desperation contributes to their violent victimization. The extent to which females 

injured by females and females injured by males represent two different cohorts is a topic 

worthy of further study. It is possible that participation in violence among younger 

females is a predictor of the life course characteristic of older females. 

Findings #5: Injury by an Age-Peer 

It was expected that a female injured by a female would be more likely than a 

female injured by a male to sustain an injury by an age-peer. However, in the final model 

age-peer did not distinguish between intragender and cross-gender violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
342 

111. Empirical Findings Pertaining to Control Variables 

The results pertaining to the control variables point to additional factors that 

distinguish between intragender and cross-gender assault. Female-on-female violence is 

associated with several factors including the victim-offender relationship, violence by a 

male partner against someone exclusive of respondent, and childhood physical abuse by a 

mother-figure. Male-on-female violence is associated with predatory violence and a 

history of partner abuse. 

In Sections A and B that follow additional interpretations are described for 

intragender and cross-gender violence within the context of Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory and the Victimization Approach. Interpretations of control variables are 

provided in order to illuminate areas for further theory development of Gendered Social 

Structural Strain Theory and to illustrate additional gendered differences. 

A. Female-Female Violence 

Finding #1: Victim-Offender Relationship 

The results indicate that the victim-offender relationship is significantly related to 

the gender of the antagonist. In this sample 88.6 percent of females involved in 

intragender assault compared to 67.1 percent of females involved in cross-gender assault 

were injured by antagonists known to the respondents (see Table 8-5). This is consistent 

with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory which is based on the notion that females 

become involved in dispute-related violence frequently to protect family and friends and 

over issues relate to personal respect. These sources of conflict are expected to occur 

among people known to each other rather than strangers. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
343 

Finding #2: Recent Violence by a Male Partner Against Someone, Exclusive 

of the Study Participant 

The study results reveal that females injured by females are more likely than 

females injured by males to have male partners who engage in violence with others 

during the six months prior to the violent event (see Table 8-5). This finding suggests 

that male partners of females injured by females display “tough guy” behaviors, including 

overt dominance and a willingness to use violence to demonstrate one’s masculinity 

(Oliver, 1989b). 

It also is possible that the tough guy image is one component of a set of behaviors 

of masculinity that also includes the “player image.” Commitment to promiscuity by 

males can intensify female-on-female jealousy, competition for suitable male partners and 

the risk of female intragender assault. 

Finding #3: Childhood Physical Violence by Mother-Figure 

The third control variable that is associated with female-on-female injury is 

physical violence by a mother-figure during childhood. An integration of Gendered 

Social Structural Strain Theory and the Victimization Approach provides a likely 

explanation for this finding. Past studies drawn fiom the Victimization Approach suggest 

an association between childhood physical abuse by the mother and subsequent violence 

by the daughter (Artz, 1998). Even though the study respondents are victims of 

intentional injuries, a significant proportion of the respondents involved in intragender 

violence contributed to 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
344 

the violent outcome. One third (33%) of the respondents reported making aggressive 

comments prior to the violence and most (77%) reported having fought back with 

violence. 

The Victimization Approach is based on research documenting that women are 

pushed into crime or violence as a result of past victimization including child abuse 

(Carlen, 1988; Chesney-Lind, 1997; Gilfus, 1992). Several studies have illustrated the 

relevance of child abuse by the mother in particular. According to Artz (1 998), a rupture 

in the mother-daughter bond characterized by physical abuse is associated with the 

adolescent daughter’s use of physical aggression, rage, and lack of concern for harm 

caused to victims. Campbell (1 993) argues that because of psychological processes 

characteristic of gender identity formation (Chodorow, 1978), the relational bond between 

mother and daughter contributes to the daughter’s strong basis for empathy during 

adulthood. Campbell (1 993) observed that women are more likely to suppress aggression 

then to express it when they have learned to.associate aggressive behavior with the fear of 

losing an interpersonal relationship. It is possible that females with a history of physical 

violence by a mother-figure learn not to value interpersonal bonds (because they were 

broken during childhood) and subsequently do not associate violence with the loss of a 

relationship. Consequently, they may be more likely to act out physically rather than to 

withhold the aggression. 

Insights drawn from Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory provide a further 

explanation for the association between physical abuse by a mother-figure and female-onfemale violence. Past research (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Nurge, 2000) as well as 

findings from this dissertation suggest that some disadvantaged women residing in urban 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
345 

communities abide by the Code of the Street (Anderson, 1994, 1999). That is, once a 

woman’s self worth is challenged by a threat or insult, she is required by the larger 

community to meet this challenge with verbal or physical aggression. It is likely that for 

a respondent with a history of childhood physical violence by a mother-figure, living in 

neighborhoods characterized by the Code of the Street further intensifies her risk of 

participating in violence. 

B. Male-on-Female Violence 

Male-on-female violence is associated with a history of partner abuse and an 

injury that occurred as a consequence of predatory violence. Explanations for these 

associations fall outside the scope of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. History 

of partner abuse was included in the model as a measure of the Victimization Approach 

and predatory violence was included as a measure of Routine ActivitiesRisky Lifestyle. 

It is notable that the perspectives chosen to explain cross-gender violence 

including the Victimization Approach and Routine Activities/Risky Lifestyle are both 

victimization theories. The results of this dissertation point to the relevance of the 

Victimization Approach and Routine Activitieskifestyle Theory for understanding maleon-female violence between non-intimate partners. The Victimization Approach focuses 

on oppression in the lives of females and sequelae that include substance use, 

psychosocial problems and violent victimization. 

preliminary empirical results reviewed in Chapters 6 and 7 reveal that females injured by 

males are characterized by severe financial strain (i.e. having to borrow money to make 

ends meet) recent cocaine use, problem drinking, and a history of domestic violence by a 

Consistent with this approach, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
346 

male partner. The portrayal of females injured by males is one of having limited 

resources and substantial chaos in their lives. 

Proponents of the routine activities/lifestyle approach argue that the convergence 

in time and space of a likely offender, suitable target and absence of a capable guardian 

provide opportunities for victimization to occur. Lifestyle theorists center on the 

“suitable target” component focusing on factors that affect an individual’s vulnerability to 

victimization. Preliminary findings summarized in Chapter 7 demonstrate that females 

involved in cross-gender violence are more likely that females involved in intragender 

violence to engage in risky behaviors. Females injured by males were more likely to 

sustain an injury while engaged in drug-seeking behaviors and to use drugs or alcohol 

within four hours of the violent event. Participation in these activities is likely to increase 

a woman’s risk of contact with others who also are involved in risky activities. The 

empirical results also demonstrate that females injured by males are more likely to be 

involved in violent events where both the respondent and male antagonist reportedly had 

used alcohol or illicit drugs. This finding supports previous findings which point to 

routine activities and lifestyle characteristics of drug-involved females as these factors 

contribute to their risk of violent victimization (Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Goldstein et 

al., 199 1). Furthermore, females injured by males, in contrast to females injured by 

females, were significantly more likely to be characterized as innocent victims who have 

sustained an attack for no apparent reason. Almost five times as many women injured by 

men then women injured by women described themselves as innocent victims (24% 

versus 5%). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
341 

IV. Contributions that Emerged from a Test of Gendered Social Structural Strain 

Theory: The Relevance of Gender-Neutral and Female-Specific Theory 

The discussion presented in this Chapter illuminates the need for a gendered 

theory of violence to women by female non-intimates that integrates female-specific and 

gender neutral constructs. Consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, 

risk factors for violence to women vary by gender of the antagonist. These risk factors 

are both gender-neutral and female-specific. 

A. Gender-Neutral Theory: The Code of the Street 

In this dissertation, Personal Respect, a gender-neutral construct drawn from the 

nongendered Code of the Street Perspective, emerged as a risk factor for intragender 

female assault. As described in Chapter 2, a theory is categorized as gender-neutral if it 

was developed based on male-gendered or non-gendered assumptions. The finding that 

emerged in this dissertation is consistent with past research; both males and females 

become involved in violence for reasons pertaining to the Code of the Street (Anderson, 

1999; Baskin and Sommers, 1998; Nurge, 2000). 

Findings regarding Personal Respect uncovered in this dissertation contribute to 

our knowledge of female participation in violence. Past studies do not detail information 

on the gender of the antagonist or provide a comparative analysis by gender of the 

antagonist. The analysis carried out in this research also demonstrates the need to extend 

the gender-neutral dimension of the Code of the Street to include a female-specific 

corollary when gender of the antagonist is taken into account. Women involved in 

intragender violence compared to cross-gender violence may be more likely to become 

involved in violence over issues pertaining to Personal Respect because of dynamics 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
348 

involving adherence to patriarchal norms. Female-on-female violence likely involves a 

more balanced playing field characterized by an imperative to fight back to save face. In 

contrast, within the context of a patriarchal culture, male-on-female violence is less likely 

to result in a violent injury. Given the male’s position of status superiority, he may feel 

less compelled than a female antagonist does to use violence against a female in response 

to slights or insults. 

B. Female-Specific Theory: Feminist Theory and Gender Studies Research 

The findings revealed in this dissertation are consistent with a gendered 

perspective. As described in Chapter 2, a theory is categorized as female specific if it was 

developed based on female gendered assumptions and research has uncovered 

characteristics or motivations unique to female violence that in some way distinguishes 

female violence fiom male violence. In this dissertation, female-specific constructs that 

focus on relational issues distinguish between female-on-female assault and male-onfemale assault. They include Interpersonal-Concerns and Relational-Protection and are 

drawn from feminist theory (including the Gendered version of the Code of the Street) 

and gender studies research. 

Studies on gender differences drawn from the field of psychology have 

demonstrated that interpersonal relationships are more central to the identities of females 

than males (Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1986). Results uncovered in this dissertation extend 

the well-established findings pertaining to the interpersonal relationships for women to 

the arena of non-partner violence. That is, female-on-female violence is more likely than 

male-on-female violence to involve conflict over relational issues such as RelationalProtection and Interpersonal-Concerns. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
349 

gender 

pattern 

analysi 

issues 1 

male v 

female 

corolla 

Furthei 

mecha 

cross-g 

In sum, the results of this study provide further evidence for the relevance of a 

-specific theory that addresses gender differences in psychological needs and 

s of socialization within the context of blocked opportunity. The descriptive 

s of intragender female violence demonstrated that reasons for violence involving 

related to respect and gender-centric concerns are similar to reasons for intragender 

iolence. The results of the multivariate model demonstrate, however, that when 

-on-female violence is compared to male-on-female violence, gender-specific 

ries are necessary for understanding differences by gender of the antagonist. 

- research is required in order to identifl and test for the presence of underlying 

isms (i.e. adherence to patriarchy, player behavior) that shape intragender versus 

,ender assault to women. 

V, Interpreting the Empirical Results within the Context of Gender, Class and 

Race and Topics for Further Research 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory was developed to explain participation 

in violence by disadvantaged Black females. A basic principle of this theory is that 

gender, class, and race/ethnicity shape adaptations to blocked opportunity (see Chapter 3, 

Table 3-4); although, the dimensions of class, race/ethnicity and gender are not assessed 

empirically in this dissertation. In this section risk factors for female-on-female violence ' 

uncovered in Chapter 8 and topics that merit further attention are discussed within the 

context of gender, class and race. Vignettes are provided to illustrate themes that merit 

further exploration. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
350 

A. Gender 

Studies have identified four factors that contribute to female-on-female violence 

among females of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds (Adams, 1999; Artz, 1998; 

Nurge, 2000). These factors include: 1) horizontal group oppression, 2) gendered respect 

(fighting to preserve an untainted sexual reputation), 3) female gendered relationshipcentric patterns (fighting to secure and maintain interpersonal connections) and 4) 

resistance to objectification (fighting against those who adhere to sexist norms). 

Artz (1 998) applied explanations of horizontal group oppression and gendered 

respect to the violent behavior of white working class adolescent females in Canada. 

Nurge (2000) applied these explanations to Black and Hispanic female adolescents living 

in inner-city neighborhoods of Boston. Adams (1 999) applied both relationship-centric 

patterns including relational-protection (although she labeled this phenomenon relational 

respect) and resistance to objectification to explain female violence based on a case study 

of working class females of diverse ethnic backgrounds in a Midwestern community. 

It is noteworthy that risk factors for intragender violence by Black female 

residents of a low-income urban community uncovered in this dissertation, including 

relational-protection and interpersonal concerns, confirm relationship-centric patterns 

reported by other researchers. 

In this dissertation horizontal group oppression, a key component of Gendered 

Social Structural Strain Theory, was not measured directly. However, as illustrated 

earlier in this chapter the respondents’ accounts highlight this process. In contrast, none 

of the respondents provided examples of disrespect in the form of accusations of 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
351 

promiscuity. This is a topic worthy of further study particularly if gendered respect is 

considered so taboo that it goes undisclosed by study participants. 

The next factor identified by past research that contributes to intragender violence 

involves resistance to acts of sexual harassment or “objectification” (Artz, 1998). No 

such incidents were uncovered in this dissertation. This finding is not surprising given 

that Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory is based on the assumption that inner-city 

disadvantaged women involved in female-on-female assault are likely to adhere to 

patriarchal norms rather than to oppose them. To the extent that females internalize 

patriarchal norms, it would not be expected that the study respondents would fight against 

objectification. Instead they would be expected to fight against females who fail to 

adhere to patriarchal norms. 

B. Gender and Class 

Past research suggests that economically disadvantaged females (irrespective of 

ethnicity) compared to middle class females face additional sources of blocked 

opportunity compared to middle class females (Anderson, 1999; Nurge, 2000). 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, these additional sources of strain 

lead to adaptations that subsequently increase the risk of female-on-female violence. 

These adaptations are discussed below within the context of the lives of disadvantaged 

females (gender and class) and the risk of intragender female violence. 

Adaptation # 1 : Serial Monogamy and Player Behavior 

Past research suggests that increases in the rates of male unemployment combined 

with declines in rates of long-term monogamous relationships (Le., marriage) have 

contributed to patterns of serial monogamy and player behavior (Freudenberg et al., 1998; 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
352 

Oliver, 1989b, Wilson, 1996). Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory hypothesizes 

that these adaptations contribute to female-on-female violence. The available data do not 

permit conclusions to be drawn regarding these adaptations. However, the respondents’ 

accounts suggest that disruptions in romantic relationships are common occurrences and 

player behavior perpetuates intragender conflict. The accounts provide further evidence 

.for the “cycle of disrespect” (Nurge, 2000) which emerges in response to male player 

behavior. This cycle begins when a male disrespects his girlfriend by flirting with 

another female and subsequently the male’s girlfriend disrespects the female rival by 

blaming her for actions reportedly carried out by the male. The following account 

(#3327) illustrates the “cycle of disrespect:” 

I was in a club and it was crowded and when men approaches, you don’t 

know that they have a girlpiend. .. I was telling him that I was married. 

[His girljiriend came in and] saw us and said we’ll see you when you get 

When I was coming out the door ... she started cussing at me. I told her I 

didn’t need her man ... she broke the window of my car with the ‘club ’@om 

the car, and I got the bat out @om the back seat and I started swinging it. 

The impact of player behavior on intragender violence is a topic that merits 

further study. 

Adautation #2: Personal Respect 

The second adaptation involves personal respect Consistent with past findings 

(Anderson, 1999; Nurge, 2000), the respondents’ accounts presented in this dissertation 

suggest, that with few means to achieve academic or occupational success, disadvantaged 

females (and males) compete over available resources including personal respect. 

One of the key principles of the Code of the Street is that a show of nerve 

demonstrated by fighting back not only is a face saving device, but also reduces the risk 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
353 

*of future victimization (Anderson, 1999; Nurge, 2000). Many of the respondents’ 

accounts suggested the importance of saving face. For example, one respondent (# 1288) 

explained: 

I got in$ght with girl. I was getting the best of her ... She said something. 

I said something. She said something again. Then she said, ‘she’d slap 

me. ’ I said ‘go ahead. ’ She put her hands up so I hit her. 

Far fewer accounts uncovered themes related fighting in order to prevent future 

victimization. It is likely that the respondents have learned to associate fear with being a 

“punk;” that is, someone who lacks the nerve to fight back. Within this context it is not 

surprising that so few women voiced feelings of fear or intimation. 

Adaptation #3 : Instrumental Anmession 

The fifth adaptation characteristic of impoverished urban females involves the use 

of instrumental aggression (Campbell, 1999). According to a Campbell’s research, 

disadvantaged males and females both use violence to dominate and control others. 

However, Campbell (1 999) distinguishes male “normative” instrumental aggression from 

female “oppositional” instrumental aggression. In contrast to males whose use of 

instrumental aggression is considered “normative,” Campbell (1 999) asserts that female 

instrumental aggression develops as a consequence of past victimization and a fear of 

current Victimization. In this dissertation research, markedly high rates of victimization 

reported by study respondents provide support for Campbell’s observation that 

victimization is linked to female’s use of instrumental aggression. Of female respondents 

injured by females, 50 percent reported a history of partner violence, 24 percent reported 

a history of childhood physical abuse, 16 percent reported a history of childhood sexual 

abuse and 44 percent reported witnessing violence by a father-figure toward a motherposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
354 

figure during childhood. Moreover, the empirical results showed that violence by a 

mother-figure is associated with female-on-female violence. 

Many of the accounts presented in this dissertation reflect instrumental aggression 

use by females. The respondents’ accounts provide support for Campbell’s (1 993, 1999) 

“crazy bitch.” According to Campbell (1 999, p. 253): 

Once a girl has proved that she is capable of handling herself in a fight, 

she is licensed to proclaim herself to be a crazy bitch ... When [girls] have 

persuaded themselves of their own fearlessness, they begin to use 

aggression as a response to any potential threat. Aggression becomes 

preemptive rather than reactive. 

One respondent (#20 1 8) explained: 

I was assaulted by two girls. She had hit me with two chains and two crowbars ... 

She gets like that sometimes. She wants people to think she’s crazy. She wants 

people to be scared of her. 

It also is notable that none of the respondents’ accounts include descriptors of 

expressive aggression characteristic of middle class white females including guilt and 

embarrassment (Campbell, 1993). In contrast to middle class females who are ‘‘paididly 

aware that aggression expressed in public is viewed by many as bitchy, hysterical or just 

plain crazy” (Campbell, 1993, p. 50), the verbatim accounts indicate that some 

disadvantaged females find value in developing a “crazy reputation.” 

In contrast to middle class females, disadvantaged females reside in high-crime 

rate neighborhoods where exposure to violence is the rule rather than the exception and 

opportunities for conventional success are limited. The respondents’ accounts reveal that 

the safety of everyday living is disrupted by violence, which occurs as a mere a 

consequence of carrying out day-to-day activities. The data suggest that within this 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
355 

context some women have learned to associate their aggression with instrumental control, 

self-protection and as a means (perhaps the only means) to win valued sources of esteem. 

Further research is necessary to establish the link between the use of instrumental 

aggression as a means to prevent victimization. If in fact a female uses instrumental 

aggression in the service of warding away danger, but her actions contribute to the violent 

outcome then she is likely embarking on a path to danger rather than safety. 

Adaptation #4: Self-Help Strategies 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, the third adaptation 

involves self-help strategies that emerge in part because disadvantaged urban residents of 

diverse ethnichacial characteristics have lost faith in mainstream institutions (Anderson, 

1999; Black, 1983; Dodson, 1998). Consequently, some females (and males) respond by 

taking matters into their own hands, including the use of violence when deemed 

necessary, and socializing their children to do the same. 

A notable theme voiced by the respondents involves self-help strategies that 

extend to the use of violence by mothers. One respondent (#3902) explained: 

I was sending my daughter to the store and this boy tried to take her 

money, I went to his mother and I told her ... we had words. Next thing I 

know we startedfighting and two other females came out of her house and 

they jumped me. [what triggered the violence was that] I said something 

about her son trying to steal my daughter's money and she said that her 

son was not a thieJ And I said well why would my daughter come in and 

say he was trying to take her money. 

The data suggest that the notion of respect runs so deep that an assault on a child by 

another child is experienced by the child's mother as an assault on her own self-respect. 

So long as disadvantaged females face blockages to conventional means of success and to 

institutional protection, meeting basic needs for survival including securing and maintain 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
356 

self-respect and the respect of their loved ones will take precedence over relying on caregiving agencies or conflict resolution strategies. 

In addition, it is notable that according to respondents' accounts over 11 percent 

of female-on-female incidents involve a mother whose actions supported the use of 

violence. This is significant given that past studies (i.e. Ladner, 1971) have demonstrated 

that adults socialize their children to adopt self-help strategies including the use of 

violence. One respondent (#224 1) explained: 

My cousin said a lady down there was starting trouble ... Some little 14 

year- old hit me in my face. So we went to get the rest of my cousins. 

Then we were fighting. She bit me. I bit her bac k... mat triggered the 

violence was that] her mother and them ... she wasn't gonna$ght me at 

first but they told her to. 

The accounts substantiate a key component of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory; 

violence has become a legitimized method of social interaction among some females 

including mothers in this low-income urban community. To reduce violence by mothers 

who use it, as a strategy to protect loved ones, it is necessary to reduce violence in the 

larger community. 

Adaptation #5: Relational-Protection 

The fourth adaptation central to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory that 

intensifies the risk of female-on-female violence involves relational-protection. 

dissertation relational-protection, defined by fighting to protecddefend friends or family, 

was identified as a risk factor for female-on-female violence. 

In this 

The available data do not perrnit exploration of the extent to which patterns of 

relational-protection reflect female socialization patterns that center on interpersonal 

relationships, self-help strategies or socialization patterns in lower-class families that 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
357 

focus on rewarding daughters for taking care of the family. The vignettes presented 

earlier, however, demonstrate that, at the least, females who become involved in violence 

to protect third parties are taking matters into their own hands. 

C. The Intersection of Gender, Class and Race 

According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, Black women experience 

the cumulative (or multiplicative) effects of being female, disadvantaged and Black. In 

addition to the sources of strain and subsequent adaptations described above, Black 

disadvantaged females are faced with four additional barriers and subsequent adaptations 

that are hypothesized to increase the risk of intragender violence. The four barriers 

include: 1) reduced rates of marriage; 2) historical discrimination and social alienation 

from mainstream institutions; 3) victimization of Black males by mainstream society; and 

4) socialization processes shaped by historical discrimination. In the current study data 

were not available to test the relevance of these four barriers. However, themes drawn 

from the respondents’ accounts provide insights into these barriers and their adaptations. 

Adaptation ## 1 : Competition Between Mothers and Their Son’s Girlfriends 

The first adaptation that may contribute to intragender female violence involves 

’ 

competition between mothers and their sons’ girlfriends for the sons’ attention andor 

resources. According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, this adaptation 

emerges as a consequence of reduced rates of marriage in disadvantaged Black 

communities and subsequent competition over males. The rationale for this point is the 

contention that mothers come to rely on their sons as companions because mothers lack 

intimate partner relationships (Anderson, 1993). The presence of this adaptation was not 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
358 

formally tested; however the respondents' accounts point to this as a topic worthy of 

further investigation. One respondent (#3420) explained: 

[My boyfiiend's] mother doesn't like me and don't want me around. .. Well 

his mom came and told me to get out of the house. She had a knife and my 

boyfriend took it away ... Then she came upstairs had me pinned up against 

the dresser. That's when she cut me. [She got violent because] ... she is 

very protective of him. 

Another respondent (# 1423) provided the following account: 

Me and my husband went to his grandmother's house to visit his daughter. 

His aunts and grandmother don't like me and we had worh. His 

grandmother started calling me a bitch, I said I gotta go. His cousin told 

me to stop calling. [The violence happened because 08 them just being 

bitter about us being married .. they don't like me, but I think they are 

jealous too ... that I'm with him. 

This adaptation is topic worthy of further study. If in fact mothers become involved in 

violence with their sons' girlfriends because they lack their own partners, programs could 

be set in place that offer women the opportunity to increase their networks of social 

support. Another question for further study is the extent to violence occurs between 

mothers and their sons over issues related to resource sharing of finances. 

Adaptation #2: Self-Help Strategies in Response to Discrimination and Alienation 

from Mainstream Institutions 

The second adaptation involves the use of self-help strategies. According to 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory and past research (Anderson, 1999; Black, 

1983; Wilson, 1996), historical discrimination combined with social isolation fiom 

mainstream institutions has contributed to the use of self-help strategies including the use 

of violence. The respondents' accounts reflect that they take matters into their own hands 

rather than relying on helping-giving agencies or agencies of conflict resolution. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
359 

It is notable that numerous respondents described the police and members of the 

community as neglectful and even harmful (see Chapter 7). One respondent (#2256) who 

went to the police station after having survived a brutal rape described her experience 

with the police: 

I went to the police and told them what had happened When they saw my 

track marks [I was] immediate[ly] disrespected. I left ... I was furious. I 

thought I didn’t need to be victimized all over again. 

Another respondent (#2063) explained: 

I was going to the doughnut shop ... I dropped a $20 bill. This girl picked it 

up. I asked her three times, ‘Miss, please give me my $20 back ’...I went in 

the doughnut shop and asked them, ‘Please call the police for me. ’ He 

said, ‘Ma’am, I don’t want to get involved ’ She went to the trashcan and 

picked up a bottle and broke it because I asked again for the $20. 

Further research is necessary for identifying factors that contribute to self-help 

strategies in lieu of calling upon agencies of conflict resolution. Additional questions that 

merit attention focus on the availability (or lack) of agencies of conflict resolution (i.e. 

religious organizations) and the perceived feasibility of such programs given the context 

of the Code of the Street. 

a 

Adaptation #3: Socialization Processes that have Emerged fiom Discrimination 

The third adaptation specific to Black females involves the ability to express 

anger within the context of a community where violence is considered normative. 

According to Taylor and colleagues (1 999, the abilities to access and verbalize anger 

have emerged as a consequence of socialization processes that have resulted from 

historical discrimination. These processes emphasize autonomy, independence and 

taking care of oneself. For Black females residing in disadvantaged communities where 

the use of violence among some residents is considered normative and at times required 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
361 

’ economically disadvantaged and Black simultaneously. Additional research is required to 

obtain a more comprehensive understanding of intragender assault within the context of 

gender, class and race. The topics for research suggested below should be investigated 

with standardized questions as well as field research. The themes presented in this 

dissertation emerged from responses to open-ended questions. Thus, the phenomena 

under investigation possibly are underestimated. 

Based on the empirical findings uncovered in this dissertation, future studies of 

intragender violence should include examine in more detail gendered adaptations to 

blocked goals including interpersonal concerns and relational protection as well as the 

gender-neutral adaptation of personal respect. Central to these patterns is the notion of 

what may be termed “interpersonal relational capital.” That is, females earn self-esteem 

by accumulating interpersonal wealth. By engaging in group gossip, a female attempts to 

enhance group connection. By becoming involved in violence over a boyfriend, a female 

attempts to secure her partner relationship. By becoming involved in violence to protect a 

third party, a female attempts to strengthen her bonds to loved a one. 

a 

The respondents’ accounts point to the importance of gendered mechanisms on 

female-on-female violence. These include, for example, the influence of adherence to 

patriarchal norms as well as the role of gossip and group solidarity on the risk of 

intragender violence. 

. 

Future research on Black disadvantaged females living in urban should not be 

limited to gendered factors, but also should incorporate the gendered effects of economic 

disadvantage including relational protection and instrumental aggression. Gendered 

mechanisms that underlie relational protection (i.e. socialization processes to care for 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
362 

e 

others and “parentification”) and instrumental aggression (i.e. the links to victimization) 

are worthy of further study. 

To obtain a more encompassing understanding of female-on-female violence, 

factors specific to the Black experience should be studied further. These issues include 

issues of discrimination, the small pool of available marriageable males and social 

alienation from mainstream institutions (i.e. the police). 

In the field of criminology there have been few empirical studies or theories that 

have considered the relevance of gender, class and racelethnicity. Past research on female 

delinquency has pointed to the relevance of all three constructs (Chesney-Lind, et al., 

1999). The empirical results and verbatim accounts highlighted in this dissertation point 

to the importance of conducting further research on female involvement in violence that 

takes into account the cumulative or multiplicative effects of gender, class and 

racelethnicity. 

B. Moving Beyond the Study of Violence among Economically 

Disadvantaged Urban Women 

1. Theoretical Issues 

Further research is required to ascertain whether Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory is generalizable to women of diverse ethnicities. This theory is based on 

the strain and the structural-cultural perspectives as well as gender studies research, and 

thus seeks to explain violence among disadvantaged women who experience blocked 

opportunity (see Chapter 2). Although Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory 

includes components that address the cultural and social experiences unique to Black 

women that likely increase their risk of violence (i.e. historical discrimination), the theory 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
363 

is based on a broader conceptual framework that can be applied to understanding violence 

among women of different ethnicities. Generalizability of the results of this dissertation 

are limited to Black female residents of a low-income urban community who seek 

emergency department care for a violent injury. A brief review of the literature suggests 

that disadvantaged women of diverse ethnicities who face blocked opportunity adhere to 

cultural norms that intensify the risk of intragender violence indicating that such norms 

are not specific to Black women living in West Philadelphia. These norms include 

adherence to the code of the street, fighting in response to gossip, fighting in the service 

of protecting a third party and participating in horizontal group oppression. 

First, selected samples of women fiom different cities reportedly adhere to the 

code of the street and consequently become involved in intragender violence to secure 

and maintain respect. These samples include women arrested for non-domestic violent 

crime in New York City (Baskin and Sommers, 1998), adolescent clique members living 

in Boston (Nurge, 2000), and women residing in urban Philadelphia (Anderson, 1999). 

Second, working-class girls of diverse ethnic backgrounds fiom a Mid-western 

community reportedly engage in violence to protect family or fiiends (Adams, 1999). 

Third, low-income and working class Black females reportedly become involved in 

violence to regain respect lost as a consequence of rumors or gossip (Simmons, 2002). 

Finally, Hispanic and Black adolescents surveyed in a low-income Boston community 

(Nurge, 2000) reportedly participate in violence as a consequence of horizontal group 

oppression. 

The respondents’ accounts illustrated in this dissertation support the presence of 

mechanisms that underlie relational-protection, interpersonal concerns and personal 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
364 

respect and provide a launching point for further study of Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory. Future studies should include operationalizing intervening mechanisms 

and testing them directly, rather than relying on themes that emerge from open-ended 

questions. To broaden the generalizability of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory 

empirical tests should be carried out with women from diverse ethnic backgrounds. 

Further research that operationalizes these underlying mechanisms and examines such 

mechanisms among women of various ethnicities will further our understanding of 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory and increase the theory’s generalizability. 

The results of this dissertation reveal that female-specific factors, including 

relational protection and interpersonal concerns @e. gossip/issues of not being liked) are 

correlates of female-on-female violence. Chapter 2 proposed underlying female-specific 

mechanisms that shape relational protection and interpersonal concerns and, in tum are 

likely to contribute to female intragender violence. Women, for example, may be more 

likely than men to engage in violence to protect a third party because of female gendered 

socialization patterns that focus on taking care of others (Miller, 1978). Moreover, Black 

females in particular are hypothesized to engage in violence over relational-protection as 

a consequence of parentification and historicaVcurrent discrimination. Thus, fiture 

research should focus on operationalizing mechanisms such as socialization patterns 

focused on care-taking, parentification and discrimination, and the impact of these 

mechanisms on intragender violence among women of different ethnicities. 

Similarly, mechanisms underlying interpersonal concerns including gossip/rumors 

and issues of not being liked merit further exploration. Studies have shown that females 

e are more likely than males to engage in gossip in order to create group intimacy (Owens, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
365 

2000). Some women resort to violence as a means to restore their self-respect tarnished 

by gossip (Simmons, 2002). Identification of intervening mechanisms that focus on 

reasons for gossip among women of diverse ethnicities will deepen our understanding of 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory and further the theory’s generalizability. 

In addition to focusing on adaptations to structural strain, further tests of 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory should operationalize characteristics of the 

social structure for inclusion in statistical models in concert with individual-level 

variables. In accordance with past studies (Le. Campbell et al., 1998; Grisso et al., 1999) 

relevant theoretical concepts include the availability of marriageable males (i.e. the 

population sex ratio of females to males in the community, the male unemployment rate) 

and poverty (i.e. median income and level of education). Inclusion of such measures 

would provide the opportunity to examine the impact of cultural norms that emerge as a 

consequence of structural strain. 

2. Research Design Issues 

Several research design issues are reviewed in the following section in order to 

provide a starting point for further study of Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. A 

major goal of fiuther research includes identification of predictors of female-on-female 

violence and their underlying mechanisms. 

First, it is worth repeating that to enhance the generalizability of Gendered Social 

Structural Strain fieoty, fuhue studies should focus on economically disadvantaged 

young women (under 25 years old) fiom diverse ethnic communities including young 

Black, Hispanic and white women. This dissertation focused on women from 

Philadelphia and Nurge’s (2000) study focused on adolescent (1 5 and 16 year olds) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 66 

females from Boston. Thus, the next study of intragender female violence should be 

conducted in a non-Northeastern City such as Cleveland, Minneapolis or Los Angeles. 

Moreover, to maximize generalizability, the ideal sample design should consist of a 

probability sample. 

In order to identify and operationalize mechanisms that contribute to female-onfemale assault among women of diverse ethnicities, a first step would be to conduct focus 

groups with women from the representative communities. For the purpose of identifying 

and operationalizing concepts, a convenience sample would be a cost effective method of 

samplying. Women could be recruited from community centers, high schools, 

laundromats, and housing projects. Once concepts are identified and operationalized, 

they could be incorporated into a standardized interview instrument. Subsequently, the 

instrument should be tested for acceptability, appropriate wording and comprehension 

with focus groups recruited from the same sites. Finally interviewers would administer 

the questionnaire to a randomly selected group representative of white, Black and 

Hispanic women. 

3. Utilizing Existing Data Bases 

Future research of intragender female assault should include analyses of preexisting data including both NIBRS and the NCVS. Studies that utilize NIBRS and NCVS 

data will expand the scope of the study of intragender female violence beyond the 

restrictions imposed by the data available in this dissertation. Moreover, a multi-method 

approach offers the desirable feature of providing for triangulation, which ultimately can 

enhance the generalizability and validity of research results. The rationale for using 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
367 

NIBRS and the NCVS for further research largely is to test hypotheses derived from 

Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory. 

A major advantage of NIBB, in contrast to the UCR, is that detailed information 

is collected about the offender and victim for incidents that come to the attention of the 

police. Examination of data is possible by incident, victim or offender. Thus, similar to 

this dissertation, NIBRS could be used to collect victimization data. In addition, a study 

of intragender female assault using NIBRS permits assessment of situational factors 

characteristics of the incident. For example, NIBRS data could be used to increase 

knowledge regarding rates and patterns of female intragender assault by victim-offender 

relationship. Moreover, rates of violence to women can be examined disaggregated by 

victim-offender relationship, gender, and ethnicity of participants simultaneously. The 

NIBRS database includes numerous situational factors. A study of this type [assessing 

situational factors by incident] has policy and theoretical implications. According to 

Maxfield (1 999, p. 126): “understanding very specific types of crimes defined by their 

situational context is essential in getting the most out of problem solving, community 

policing and other evolving directions of crime control.” Analysis of numerous 

situational factors available in NIBRS will increase our understanding of intragender 

female assault. These factors include the following: incident datehime, description of 

where the offense occurred, the types of criminal activity involved in the offense, type of 

weapodforce involved, drug involvement, suspected drug type, age of victim, race of 

victim, ethnicity of victim, circumstance of assault (i.e. argument, drug dealing), type of 

injury, relationship of victim to offender, age of offender, and race of the offender (Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research, 2001). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
368 

An example of a future analysis of intragender female assault using NIBRS data 

follows. According to an observation stated in the previous section, focusing fitur!? 

research on a non-northeastern setting would likely enhance the generalizability of 

results. For example, NIBRS data on incidents (or victimizations) of female-on-female 

assault (simple combined with aggravated) could be selected for a Midwestern State. In 

order to describe the circumstances of the event, frequency distributions for situational 

variables could be calculated. It would be instructive to compare situational factors 

characteristic of female-on-female assault uncovered in this dissertation with similar 

situational factors characteristic of incidents that come to the attention of the police. This 

study would use the victimization segment of the NIBRS database in order to ensure 

comparability with the individual level of analysis considered in the dissertation. High 

rates of agreement based on different case finding methods would enhance the 

generalizability of the results. 

Using NIBRS also permits analyses that were not possible to conduct in this 

dissertation. For example, among intragender assault incidents that come to the attention 

of the police, rates by race/ethnicity (Black,white, Hispanic) could be compared. To date, 

one study of female-female assault using NIBRS was carried out. (Campbell et al, 1998). 

The researchers relied on group-level data for districts in Massachusetts. Thus, a study of 

intragender assault in a mid-western state would permit a comparative analysis of several 

situational factors and rates of female-on-female assault for different regions of the 

county. 

NIBRS data also could be used to test components of Gendered Social Structural 

Strain Theory. Similar to Campbell and colleagues (1 998), NIBRS data could be merged 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
369 

with census data. This would create a database that allows components of Gendered 

Social Structural Strain Theory to be tested. NIBRS data, for example, contains 

information on ethnicity while Census data include information on socio-economic status. 

Consequently, hypotheses derived from Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory could 

be examined on various populations. This approach could potentially lead to an inclusive 

theory otherwise not possible with a sample restricted to Black urban women. 

Studies of female intragender assault drawn from the NCVS will provide further 

insights about female-female violence nationwide. In contrast to NIBRS, the NCVS relies 

on victims’ reports, includes incidents that do not come to the attention of the police and 

only provides estimates at the national level. Similar to NIBRS, situational data are 

available for women assaulted by women. However, the NCVS is based on victims’ 

reports. NIBRS and the NCVS provide information about the victim and offender. Thus, it 

is possible to examine some aspects of female intragender assault using NIBRS and the 

NCVS, two very different case finding strategies. If similar results regarding situational 

characteristics of intragender female assault and tests derived from Gendered Social 

Structural Strain are uncovered, than the theory’s validity and generalizability will be 

enhanced. 

Situational factors contained in the NCVS that could be used for further study 

include characteristics of the victim, offender and event. Attributes of the victim 

include: marital status, level of education completed, race, age, frequency of time spent in 

the evening away from home, household income, living in urban areas, and home 

ownership. Attributes of the violent offender include: race, approximate age and the 

victim-offender relationship. Attributes of the event include: location, time, weapon used 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
370 

by the offender, nature of the injury, economic consequences (average loss to victim) and 

receipt of treatment by the victim. Consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain 

Theory, the impact of the victim’s socioeconomic status @e. victim’s household income, 

victim’s education level) on rates of assault could be assessed for women of diverse 

ethnicities. 

0 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
371 

CHAPTER 10. TOWARD FURTHER THEORY DEVELOPMENTAND 

EMERGING POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS 

OF ACQUAINTANCE-RELATED HOLENCE AS AN EXAMPLE 

I. Introduction 

The final goal of this dissertation is to quantify the responses to open-ended 

questions into a typology in order to characterize situational factors of non-partner 

violence to women. The vignettes accounts point to themes beyond the empirical tests 

carried out in previous chapters that further illuminate gendered patterns of conflict and 

emerging policy implications. 

Up to this point the analyses carried out in this dissertation have not considered 

the victim-offender relationship. Females in this sample sustained injuries by fiiends, 

acquaintances, family members and strangers. Given that the victim-offender relationship 

undoubtedly shapes the violent interaction, the following discussion is limited to one 

subgroup of respondents, including females injured by fiiends or acquaintance. This 

victim relationship was chosen because the data indicate that the majority (70%) of 

females injured by females and almost half (45%) of the females injured by males 

sustained injury by acquaintances or friends. Future research of situational factors is 

equally important for women injured by family members and strangers. 

11. A Proposed Typology of Situational Factors 

The results presented in this dissertation serve as a launching point for further 

research of situational factors within the context of Gendered SociaZ Structural Strain 

Theory. According to this theory, when individuals face blocked opportunities to 

conventional means of success they respond by adapting alternative gendered and nonposition or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 72 

gendered measures of success. Chapter 7 included summaries of the reasons for the 

violent event (i.e. personal respect, interpersonal concerns, and gender-centric concerns) 

and the various roles assumed by the respondents (Le. victim or mutual participant). This 

e 

chapter focuses more closely on reasons for the violent event, triggers, and the nature of 

the violent interactions for each of the roles assumed by the respondents. This chapter 

focuses more closely on reasons for the violent event, triggers, and the nature of the 

violent interactions for each of the roles assumed by the respondents. Within these larger 

categories, the constant comparative method was used to draw generalizations from the 

respondents’ accounts (Glaser and Straus, 1967). Topics were categorized according to 

common themes, and new categories were created for negative cases. 

Having information regarding reasons for the violent event for each of the roles 

assumed by the respondents will help to shape intervention strategies. Take, for example, 

the following two scenarios. One respondent sustains an injury while attempting to break 

up a domestic altercation between a husband and wife. Another respondent sustains an 

injury after an exchange of slurs with a female rival over issues related to jealousy. 

Approaches to intervention and prevention will vary for the two scenarios. The first 

would likely focus on effective mediation strategies while the second might focus on 

anger management and/or developing conflict resolution skills. 

The first component of the typology focuses on the roles assumed by the study 

respondents. According to the respondents’ accounts three different roles emerged from 

the data. They are labeled dispute-related participant, non-provocative victim, and thirdparty intercessor. A respondent is considered a dispute-relatedparticipant if she engages 

in an argument and reports the use of verbal and/or physical provocation prior to the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
373 , 

Respondent’s Role 

YO DisDute-Related ParticiDant 

violent injury. She is categorized as a non-provocative victim if there was no argument 

and according to her description she does not contribute to the violent outcome. She is 

defined as a third-party intercessor if she interceded in an interaction between two or 

more other antagonists. Two types of third-party intercessor emerged from the data. The 

respondent is considered a third-party intensijier if she intercedes in an interaction and 

contributes to the escalation of the conflict. She is categorized as a third-party 

neutralizer if she intercedes, but attempts to prevent or break up the violence. 

The goal of the following typology is to provide an explanatory framework for 

explaining the reasons for the violence, triggers for the violence, and the nature of the 

interaction that led up to the violence, for each of the different roles. These factors are 

described in the sections that follow with an eye toward identifying gendered patterns that 

intensify the risk of intragender and cross-gender violence. 

Tables 10.1 summarizes the different roles assumed by study respondents. The most 

Intragender Crossgender * 

(n=101) (~54) 

74.3 57.4 

frequently cited role irrespective of gender of the antagonist is dispute-related 

% Non-Provocative Victim 

Third Party Intercessor 

% Third-party Neutralizer 

YO Third-party Intensifier 

participant, followed by non-provocative victim and then third-party intercessor. For all 

17.8 27.8 

4.0 11.1 

4.0 7.4 

the roles described the antagonist is classified as aprovocative antagonist. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 74 

In the sections that follow situational factors drawn from the respondents’ 

accounts including reasons for the violence, triggers and the nature of the violent 

interactions will be described for each of the roles outlined in Table 10- 1. Gendered 

patterns that emerge from the data are identified as well as emerging implications for 

policy and program development. 

A. Dispute Related Participants: Provocative Respondent and Provocative 

An tagonis t 

1. Motivations for Dispute-Related Violence 

In accordance with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory the motivations for 

dispute-related violence vary by the gender of the antagonist (see Table 10-2). 

Table 10-2: Motivations for Dispute-Related Violence 

Percents do not add up to 100%. Multiple rcasom were coded per incident. 

say-she say, issues of not being liked, jealousy and arguments between children of dispute-related 

participants. 

Non-rational behaviors include incidents where the antagonist reportedly is high or intoxicated, has a 

problem, or is mentally ill. 

1 

* Interpersonal relationship concerns include issues over romantic relationships, relational-protection, he 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
375 

A Female-Specific Relational Focus 

Consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, the most frequently 

(49.3%) cited reason for violence by a female antagonist involves an interpersonal 

relationship issue. These include arguments over romantic relationships, he sayhhe say, 

issues of not being liked, jealousy, protecting fiiends or family and arguments between 

children. These issues reflect female-specific adaptations to blockages to male intimate 

partner relationships, to academic and occupational success, and to a sense of one’s own 

safety and the safety of family and fiiends. In contrast, interpersonal issues characterize 

only 1 2.9 percent of male-on-female incidents. Consistent with Gendered Social 

Structural Strain Theory, in the absence of conventional means of successes including 

material wealth and academic/occupational success, relationships becomes one of the few 

available sources of success and takes on such importance that they become worth 

fighting for. 

Male-SDecific Non-Rational Behavior 

The most frequently cited reason (35.5%) for male-on-female violence involves 

behaviors described by study respondents as non-rational. These behaviors include 

intoxication, acting crazyhaving a problem, or mental illness. The respondents’ reports 

indicate that non-rational behavior by males usually occurs within the context of goaloriented activities including stealing, arguments over money and attempted sexual 

assaults. For example, one respondent (#3011) explained: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 76 

I was putting my Christmas lights out and this street acquaintance who 

works at a local barbershop said, suck my dick ’ I told him to getj-om in 

j-ont of the damn door ... He sucker punched me and knocked me 

down ... He tried to force me to suck his dic k..[H e got violent] because he 

is a psycho. 

In contrast to cross-gender violence, non-rational behaviors characterized only 

13.7 percent of intragender incidents. While non-rational behavior by males 

reportedly occurs within the context of arguments over money, stealing or 

attempted sexual assaults, non-rational behavior by females usually occurs over 

interpersonal relationship issues or insults. One respondent (#2059) explained: 

It’s some girl across the street who don’t like me for some reason. Today 

she ran right up across the street and started trying to fight me. She just 

don’t like me ... It’s about jealousy. ..mat triggered the violence was] her 

drinking. 

A Gender-Specific Approach to Dispute-Related Violence 

Consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, arguments between 

females that escalate to violence emphasize the centrality of interpersonal relationships. 

In contrast, cross-gender arguments that lead to male violence against females revolve 

around issues of money, theft and attempted sex. This finding provides support for 

Campbell’s (1 999) observation that while some economically disadvantaged males and 

females have adopted the use of instrumental aggression, males were more likely than 

their female counterparts to use this type of aggression as a means to economic or sexual 

gain. 

2, Factors that Triggered the Antagonists’ Violence 

All study respondents were asked the following question: “What in particular 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
377 

triggered him/her/them in gettingphysical with you?’ It is noteworthy that the top two 

triggers cited for both cross-gender and intragender violence included a comment made 

by the respondent and a violent act by the respondent. The nature of the responses, 

however, reveal gendered differences as described below. 

Trimer #1: Something the Respondent Said 

Thirty-eight percent of female-on-female incidents and 33 percent of male-onfemale incidents reportedly were triggered by something the respondent said. In almost 

all cases the comments were aggressive. 

Respondents’ comments directed toward female antagonists involved a challenge 

and provocation. For example, one respondent (#1288) said, “Come on, slap me. ” 

Another (#1030) said, “I told her to get out ofmy face.” Another (#3249) explained, “I 

said I wouldpunch her in her face.. . I called her sorry ass.” These responses may reflect 

the use of female gendered oppositional instrumental aggression (Campbell, 1999). This 

type of aggression develops as a consequence of past victimization and a fear of current 

victimization. According to Campbell (1 999), threats such as “come on slap me” are used 

in an effort to prevent the violence. However, the vignettes demonstrate that these threats 

ultimately contribute to the escalation of violence and eventual physical injury. 

In contrast to intragender violence, comments directed toward male antagonists 

were less likely to include direct challenges. Instead, the respondents’ comments made in 

the presence of others seemed to humiliate male antagonists. For example, one 

respondent said, “[What triggered the violence was] my calling him a kid and the others 

laughing” (#3 109). Another respondent said, “Cause I embarrassed the man ” (#3 1 13). 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
378 

One question for further study is whether the respondents had been aware that such 

comments directed toward male antagonists would contribute to the escalation of the 

violence. Violence prevention programs should include educating women on the 

potential impact of their behaviors on the risk of violence. If women are aware of factors 

that such behaviors increase their risk of injury by male acquaintances then they may 

choose alternative behaviors. 

Consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory and Oliver’s (1989b) 

“tough guy image,” the vignettes suggest that some males adhere to a set of noms that 

define manhood in terms of fearlessness, emotional control, and willingness to resolve 

conflicts through violence. Several researchers have observed that a male who adheres to 

the “tough guy image” may assault his girlfiiend in public if she humiliates him 

(Anderson, 1999; Oliver, 1989b). The respondents’ accounts in this dissertation suggest 

that the “tough guy” image extends to disputes between acquaintance-related participants. 

The finding that provocative comments are the most frequently cited trigger 

substantiates the importance of respect. The examples suggest, however, that female 

respondents disrespect female and male antagonists differently. Disrespecting a female 

antagonist takes the form of provocation and bravado. In contrast, disrespecting a male 

antagonist takes the form of humiliation. In either case, the antagonist responds to the 

insult with violence probably in an effort to reclaim respect. 

Trimer #2: A Violent& by the Resoondent 

The second most common trigger for intragender and cross-gender violence 

involves a violent act by the respondent (1 3% versus 16%). The circumstances of the 

respondent’s use of violence, however, seem to vary by the gender of the antagonist. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
379 

According to the accounts a female respondent typically used violence against 

another female in response to a challenge or threat. One respondent (#3432) explained: “I 

e 

assaulted herfirst because she was in my face.” Another respondent (#1605) explained: 

She didn’t get physical with me. She didn’t know that I knew what she told 

other people that my boy$-iend took $200$-om her old man.. . but it didn’t 

happen like that so when she came over my girlfriend’s house, I came at 

her. 

By contrast, female respondents used violence against male antagonists in 

response to attempted sexual assaults. One respondent (#1252) said: 

The parent offriend grabbed my butt. /What triggered the violence] was 

that Iput my nails in his penis. 

Another respondent (#3 155) explained: 

I was coming$-om store and the guy touched me on the butt. I told 

him not to do that.. . He did it again.. . I wasn’t interested I guess he got 

mad and started trying to feel on me. [What triggered the violence was 

thag I hit him. 

Another respondent (#3080) described the following scenario: 

I was coming$-om church tonight as I reached my door afriend of 

mine approached me. He was drunk and started to feel on me and grab 

me. 

and I bit him. 

mat triggered the violence was thatJ I wouldn’t have sex with him 

The respondents’ accounts reveal that their presumed size and strength disadvantage does 

not prevent them from acting aggressive prior to the violence. It is possible that for some 

females the importance of maintaining self-respect and dignity overrides their fear of 

injuries by stronger males. Some women may take an aggressive stance as a form of self- . , 

protection learned as a consequence of past victimization. Further exploration of factors 

that contribute to aggressive responses by females in situations that pose danger including 

sexual assault attempts will likely help to identify factors that contribute to the violent 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
380 

outcome. The identification of strategies that reduce the risk of violent injuries resulting 

from attempted sexual assault is critical and should be included in violence prevention 

and reduction programs. 

e 

3. The Nature of the Violent Interaction 

According to the respondents’ accounts, in dispute-related violence the trigger 

typically is part of a sequence of events that follow Luckenbill’s (1 977) three-stage 

process of escalation developed with samples of males: 1) verbal conflict in which 

identities are challenged; 2) threats; and 3) physical attack in which retaliation appears to 

play a key role. One respondent (#3576) who was injured by a female explained: 

I was at my girljlriend ’s. I saw another girl that I had an argument with 

over there. She said ‘Where your guns at? ’ I said ‘I don’t need no gun for 

you. ’ She picked up a broomstick to swing at me. Before she could hit me 

Ipunched her in her face and keptpunching andpunching her, 

a This process of escalation characterized by an exchange of insults substantiates the 

finding that for female-on-female violence and male-on-female violence respect has 

become a commodity worth fighting over. Furthermore, the data suggest that for femaleon-female and male-on-female violence the tipping point at which time a threat erupts 

into violence involve the issues of respect. However, the pathways toward violence 

appear gendered. As mentioned above, female-on-female disrespect takes the form of 

provocation and bravado. In contrast, female-on-male disrespect takes the form of form 

of humiliation. 

4. Summary 

It is noteworthy that as many as 30 percent of dispute-related participants became 

involved in violence with male antagonists. One might hypothesize that because of the 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
381 

inherent strength and size differential, females would respond to male provocation with 

passive or apprehensive tesponses. The data suggest, however, that for a subgroup of 

respondents, the importance of respect takes precedence over the fear of injuries by 

female counterparts or stronger males. 

The respondents’ use of verbal and physical provocation cannot be understood 

apart from the structural strain and subsequent cultural adaptations characteristic of 

disadvantaged inner-city communities. When there are limited means to accumulate 

material wealth and nonmaterial success, individual place emphasize the importance of 

securing commodities that are available such as respect and relationships. This 

dissertation includes many accounts of violence used in the service of reclaiming respect 

and maintaining and securing relationships. 

B. Female Victim: Non-Provocative Respondent and Provocative Antagonist 

1. Motivations for Violence Between Non-Provocative Respondents and 

Provocative Antagonists 

Table 10-4 summarizes motivations by gender of the antagonist for females 

classified as victims. In these scenarios the respondent describes herself as nonprovocative and the antagonist as provocative. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
382 

Motivation Intragender 

(n=18) 

% Antagonist has an 66.7 

Interpersonal-Relationship 

Concern2 

rational behavior 

'YO Antagonist displays non- 26.0 

'YO Armunent over monev 11.0 

Crossgender 

(n=15) 

20.0 

60.0 

33.3 

% Antagonist steals 

% Antagonist displaces anger onto 

% Antagonist shows off 

% Antagonist plays a prank 

respondent 

' Percents do not add up to 100%. Multiple reasons were coded per incident. * Interpersonal relationship concerns include issues over romantic relationships, relational-protection, he 

say/ she say, issues of not being liked, jealousy and disputes between children of dispute-related 

participants. 

Non-rational behaviors include incidents where the antagonist reportedly is high or intoxicated, has a 

problem, or is mentally ill. 

5.6 0 

0 13.3 

0 6.7 

0 6.7 

Similarities and differences regarding underlying reasons for dispute-related 

violence and victim-related violence are noteworthy. For both types, females cite 

interpersonal issues as the predominant motivation for female violence. Moreover, victim 

and dispute-related participants attributed male violence to non-rational behaviors. It is 

notable, however, that 60 percent of victim participants attributed male violence to nonrational behaviors compared to only 35 percent of the dispute-related participants. 

There are several reasons why a higher proportion of females in the victim role 

compared to females in the dispuk-related role may have sustained injuries by males 

characterized by non-rational behaviors. It is possible, for example, that some disputedated participants had become aware of the antagonists' non-rational behaviors during 

the argument and subsequently responded in ways that deterred the violence. In contrast, 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 83 

the respondents' accounts suggest that the victims were unprepared for the violent 

response and therefore had little opportunity to take steps to prevent the violence. For 

example, one respondent (#135 1) explained: 

He [a@iend] came downstairs. He was giving me the figures for the 

mortgage ...p ayment and all of a sudden as I was sitting down ... he came 

behind me ... and @e] put his arm around my chest like he was hugging me 

and I felt something sharp ... He did not say anything because my sister 

was in the other room and he tried to cut my neck with a hook knife... I 

don't know why he attacked me. I was sitting at the table filling out the 

bills and he went as though he was trying to hug me and he cut me ... He 

just made a 360 degree about face. 

It also may be that males described as non-rational who injure victim-participants 

compared to males who injure dispute-related participants are characterized by more 

serious problems because they reportedly become involved in violence without 

provocation. These are questions that merit further attention and have implications for 

intervention and prevention strategies. For example, if a woman understands the signs 

and symptoms of problem behaviors and the associated risks associated with non-rational 

behaviors they may be more able to protect themselves from violent injuries. 

Another observation worthy of mention involves the findings that 19 percent of 

dispute-related participants, but no victims, sustained violent injuries within the context 

of attempted sexual assaults. It is possible that a non-provocative response by a female 

could deter violence that results from an attempted sexual assault by a male acquaintance 

or friend. In is equally possible that a non-provocative response paves the way for a 

completed sexual assault absent a violent injury or even death. It is worth repeating that .I 

further research is required to identifl responses to attempted sexual assaults that will 

minimize risk of physical and (emotional injuries) to females. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 84 

2. Factors that Triggered the Antagonists’ Violence 

In response to the question “What in particular triggered him/her/them in 

getting physicaZ with you?” the two most frequently cited responses for 

intragender violence include no trigger or “don’t know” followed by revenge. In 

contrast, the top two triggers for cross-gender violence included non-rational 

behavior (antagonist was high or mentally ill) followed by no trigger or “don’t 

know.” These triggers are discussed in more detail in the section that follows 

within the context of the nature of the violent interaction. 

3. Nature of the Violent Interaction 

According to the respondents’ accounts differences and similarities characterize 

the nature of intragender and cross-gender violent interactions. Numerous female-onfemale incidents involved a surprise attack for reasons related to revenge; but no male-onfemale violent incidents involved this method of attack. In addition, some females were 

injured in the process of trying to help male antagonists; but no female-on-female 

incidents were characterized by such circumstances. Aside from these differences, the 

data suggest that some female victims sustained injuries by female or male antagonists 

because the victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time or because they were 

victims of attacks that were directly toward them personally. These differences and 

similarities are discussed in the sections that follow. 

Differences in the Nature of the Interaction by Gender of the Antagonist 

“Getting; Snuck” 

Numerous victims injured by female antagonists described sustaining injuries by 

surprise attacks (i.e. “getting snuck”). According to the respondents’ accounts these 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 85 

incidents were triggered by the antagonists’ need for revenge. It is noteworthy that no 

females injured by males described this strategy of attack. 

The accounts suggest that the mechanism used to carry out the violent injury is 

related to the reasons and triggers for the violence. The most fiequently cited trigger 

involved revenge against the respondent for allegedly insulting or tarnishing another’s 

reputation. The use of a surprise attack was used to accomplish the goal of revenge. One 

respondent (#3927) explained: 

I was accused of saying something to this girl and then when I’m walking 

on the block, she snuck up on me, jumped me and then we starting 

Jighting. Everybody was holding me and she kicked me in the eye. 

In several incidents the respondent reportedly was set up for the attack. One 

respondent (# 1462) explained: 

A rumor went around the neighborhood..it was not true. The rumor was 

that I was suppose to have talked about this girl’s baby. .. So the girl that 

started the rumor.. . it was me, her and the little girl’s mother and little 

girl’s aunt. We were suppose to meet on the corner to talk about it. They 

arrived and the two girls jumped out of the car and jumped me. 

Another respondent (#3203) provided the following account: 

I had got a phone call about 7:30p.m. A girl asked me ifI could come 

around the corner for a minute. I said ‘sure. ’ I didn’t think nothing. ..when 

I turned around there was another girl, and they jumped me and when I 

got up there was a whole bunch ofpeople on top of me. [It was because] 

a female had told another female that I had said something about her, 

which wasn ’t true but she didn’t want to listen to my side of the story. 

The data reveal that some incidents involve an element of planning prior to the 

violent event and suggest that some femaie antagonists use aggression to achieve a 

predetermined goal. These incidents illuminate the role of agency for female 

involvement in violence. Women with agency are goal-oriented and become involved in 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
386 

assault as a consequence choice (Maher, 1997) rather than because of failed self-control 

(Campbell, 1 993). Consistent with Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory, female 

antagonists likely engage in planned assaults as a means to regain respect and accumulate 

relational capital. It is critical that violence prevention programs and other strategies be 

set in place that provide a means for females to address issues related to past insults prior 

to the escalation of violence. 

The accounts suggest that males are less likely to seek revenge by resorting to 

surprise attacks. This finding is likely attributed to the underlying motivations for 

violence. According to Gendered Social Structural Strain Theory and the respondents’ 

accounts, male antagonists are less likely than female antagonists to define their self 

worth in terms of interpersonal relational capital. Males probably don’t need to engage in 

surprise attacks carried out for purposes of revenge because cross-gender incidents are 

less likely to be characterized by interpersonal concerns (i.e. rumors, he say/ she say) or 

history of ongoing problems. 

The Helping Role 

Some victims injured by male antagonists reported sustaining injuries in the 

process of offering to help male antagonists. It is notable that no females injured by 

females described this type of interaction. In these cross-gender incidents, the 

respondents reported not knowing what triggered the violence. For example one 

respondent (# 1486) explained: 

I overheard ajkiend and his uncle having a disagreement in the hallway of 

my building. I went out into the hallway, and they was really going at it. 

Then his uncle lej?. I started talking to my friend, you know, giving him 

some advice and then he just comes with hisJst across my face. He kept 

hitting me. I don’t know why. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
387 

In situations of this sort, it is possible that male antagonists displace their emotional 

distress onto the females. It also is possible that, by assuming a helping role, the female 

contributes to the male's sense of vulnerability. In response, he may resort to violence in 

order to regain control and validate his sense of manhood. This is a topic that merits 

further research and has important policy implications. It is important to determine if 

there is something about the way in which a female attempts to help a male that 

intensifies his emotional distress. It is equally important to understand the male's 

experiences of emotional distress and of receiving help. Further exploration of these 

questions is important for developing strategies that reduce the risk of violent injuries to 

females. 

Similarities by Gender of the Antagonist 

Personal Attacks 

Female victims of unexpected attacks that were directed toward them personally 

by other females typically occurred within the context of interpersonal concerns (e.g. 

jealousy) and substance use. One respondent (#1579) explained: 

My fiance'e has children.. .and the mother of these children is extremely 

obsessive. Today Ipicked up the child instead of myfiance'e and she didn't 

like that. Twenty minutes later she was at the door. I opened it and she 

attacked me and accused me of stealing her child She pulled my 

hair ... dragged me outside andpushed me and kicked me in the abdomen. I 

really didn't want to fight back I usually don't pick up the child in the 

afternoon. Her mother usually does. Myfiance'e called her to tell her not 

to pick her up because I was and she didn't like that. She thinks I'm 

coming in between her and her child She's very jealous. 

Another respondent highlighted the antagonist's drug use. She explained (#3 168): 

I sat down on the couch and a good friend of mine who rents a roomj?om 

my uncle said, 'Get off my couch' the next thing I know she picked the bat 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
388 

up and just started swinging it. Hitting me all over so hard until the bat 

split. Then she started crying like she was losing it. ..I have no idea [what 

led up to the violence] ... She came down stairs and told me to get oflher 

sofa. I didn'tpay her no mind. [She got violent] because she is on drugs 

and she doesn't have any money to get any ... I didn't say anything to her to 

cause her to go off She just went there she's messed upThese examples illustrate the importance of identifying tactics that minimize the risk of 

injury by antagonists who become involved in unexpected violence. 

Victims of male violence also experienced unexpected attacks. In most crossgender events, however the male antagonist's violence reportedly was triggered by drugseeking or drug-induced behaviors, rather than interpersonal concerns characteristic of 

female-on-female incidents. For example, one respondent (#3 362) explained: 

I was walking in mypont door. As I closed my door, the door opened 

back up behind me. My landlord rushed me to the chair and started 

punching me. Then he broke ofl my broomstick and started beating me 

with that. His wife rushed in andpulled him oflof me. He said I owe him 

money, which I don't. [He got violent] because he has a bad cocaine 

habit. mat triggered the violence was that] he thinks someone owes him 

something. Ipaid him the rent I owed him, but his addiction makes him 

forget. 

Another respondent (# 1 125) explained: 

MyJiance'e and I are about to move to California. His brother was drunk 

I fell asleep. When I woke up his brother was running toward the car with 

a 2 x 4. He broke at the window behind the driver's side. He thinks I'm 

taking his brother j-om him. I was in the car. The girls (his nieces) were 

telling me to drive away... I was trying to drive away when he hit the 

window. I don't know ifhe was trying to kill me. I think he was ... His 

brother [got violent because] he is worried andjealous *that I'm taking the 

money source @om him. [What triggered the violence was that] it's all 

mental. We didn't get in any argument. .. 1 was asleep at the time this 

started He was drinking. 

The accounts by victims ' of personal attacks suggest that violent acts perpetrated 

by male antagonists involved a greater degree of potential harm than acts by female 

antagonists. It is likely that substance use combined with stress and male anger 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
389 

intensified the violent response. Intervention strategies are necessary for teaching 

females how to keep safe when volatile situations break out. 

8 

Being at The Wrong Place at the Wrong Time 

Victims also described sustaining injuries by female and male antagonists as a 

result of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. These incidents frequently occurred 

within the context of substance use by the antagonist. One respondent (#4006) explained: 

Somebody got drunk at a barbecue andpushed me and my slipper had 

come ofland I stepped straight into glass on the porch. She was just 

drinking too much ... She was picking with everybody about money. She 

wanted money to buy drugs. She was bothering everybody and I didn't 

think she was going to bother me. She even tried to stab her boypiend 

[What triggered the violence was thatl she wanted money. 

Another respondent (#25 16) provided the following account: 

I go to this lady's house ... she's paralyzed and I do all I can for her. Her 

older boy ... he takes drugs ... it's the first time he ever laid his hands on me. 

He took my shirt and held me and he slapped me against the 

banister ...m at led up to the violence was that] his mom was back in the 

hospital and he was upset about it and took it out on me. Ijust come by to 

clean the potty and stufi.. I don 't know right now [what triggered the 

violence] ... He probably got a bad phone call and I happened to be there 

to show that I care. 

These scenarios further highlight the importance of developing violence prevention 

strategies that educate women to recognize potentially dangerous situations. 

4. Summary 

In this section the respondents' accounts point to gendered differences and 

emerging policy and programmatic implications required for reducing and preventing 

violence to female victims by male and female antagonists. 

Similar to dispute-related incidents, the data suggest that female antagonists 

injured female victims over relational issues. In contrast, male antagonists reportedly 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 90 

injured female victims 'in part because of non-rational behaviors. Gendered differences 

also characterize the nature of the violent interactions. Intragender incidents involved 

surprise attacks, but cross- gender incidents did not. Cross-gender incidents involved 

attacks in response to efforts by respondents to help the antagonists, but intragender 

incidents were not characterized by this dynamic. 

This section also points to instructional components that merit further 

consideration for inclusion in violence reduction programs. Women would benefit by 

learning to recognize the signs and symptoms of non-rational behaviors; to respond to 

non-rational behaviors in ways that minimize the risk of injuries; to respond to attempted 

sexual assaults in ways that minimize the risk of injury; to confront and resolve ongoing 

conflicts prior to the outbreak of violence; to provide help to males in ways that will deescalate emotional distress and reduce the risk of violence; to identify high risk situations 

that could lead to violence; and to develop strategies for self-protection. 

C. Third-party Intercessor 

Table 1 0-5 summarizes motivations for violence by third-party intercessors. 

Only a minority (1 2%) of women who sustained injuries by acquaintance-related 

antagonists described their role as third-party intercessor. Notwithstanding, the role of 

third-party intercessor is important for understanding the potential risks of injury. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
391 

Protect or help third party 

Table 10-4: Third-party Intercessor 

4 

Motivation 

Third-party Neutralizer 

Respondent breaks up a 

domestic partner violent 

incident 

Respondent tries to prevent 

violence from occurring or 

breaks up fight in progress 

(not related to domestic 

violence). 

Third-party Intensifier 

Intragender 

(n=8) 

0 

4 

Cross-gender 

(n=10) 

3 

3 

4 

1. Motivations and Triggers for Violence between Third-party Neutralizers 

and Provocative Antagonists 

Females who assumed the role of third-party neutralizer and sustained injuries by 

males described conflicts between the antagonists as volatile. In three of the six 

incidents, the respondent described the antagonist as high or intoxicated. Triggers 

included issues related to trying to break up the fight @e., should have stayed out of it), 

intoxicatiodhigh on drugs and jealousy. The accounts reveal that third-party intervention 

is a risky endeavor. In three incidents respondents attempted to break up a domestic 

argument between a female and male and subsequently sustained an injury by the male. 

One respondent (#3220) explained: 

My sister and her old man wer.e$ghiing. When he picked up a board to 

hit her with I tried to stop him and he got mad and started hitting at me 

with it. ..He was attacking my sister and I tried to stop him. [What 

triggered the violence was] because he thought I should have stayed out of 

it. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
392 

Three additional respondents sustained injuries when trying to break up fights (not related 

to domestic violence) involving males. One respondent (#1325) said: 

That night I had a surprise party, my sister gave it to me. And she invited 

[her boyfriend’s cousin]. Everything was fine until he started trouble. He 

smacked my girlfriend in her face. After that he tried to smash the cake in 

my brother’s face. Then my sister and Dave got into an argument ... my 

sister walked up to him and hit him in the face. He got mad and started 

fightin. He picked up a bottle and hit me in the head I got involved by 

trying to make him stop fighting and hitting my sister. 

In these situations, the respondents undoubtedly are in a bind. They risk their own safety 

in the service of protecting loved ones. These incidents demonstrate the importance of 

educating women on the risks of third-party intervention and alternatives to violence (i.e., 

mediation if feasible). One strategy that merits Mer exploration involves training 

women in self-defense tactics. This would provide women the skills necessary for using 

violence effectively in the face of imminent danger. 

Women who assumed the role of third-party neutralizer and sustained injuries by 

females intervened in conflicts over interpersonal concerns or respect. Triggers for the 

violence included issues related to respect, and “antagonist is high or intoxicated.” One 

respondent (#20 10) said: 

We was walkin’ me and my girlfriend and her two children ... to catch the 

bus ... My girlfriend is sorta heavy and wearing tight clothes. So this one 

girl says to my friend take thatfucking stu-o# So we go and talk to the 

grandmother and straighten it out and her grandmother agrees she 

shouldn’t be saying stufflike that ... we didn’t want to start nothing with this 

group. So then this girl comes and maced my girlfriend and Ijumped in 

and I told her we straightened it out. But she kept F this and F you and 

my friend said ‘yuck your mom ” and that’s how the mace came. [What 

triggered the violence was] my girljiriend saying, yuck her mom ’ and her 

mom had passed (had died). 

Another respondent (20 1 S#) explained: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
393 

I was assaulted by 2 girls ... she's a bully. She was arguing with my other 

girlJLiend..She wanted to fight her but I wouldn't let her fight and she got 

mad. mat triggered the violence is tha t]... She wants people to be scared 

of her. 

These incidents further suggest the importance of educating women on the risks of thirdparty intervention and alternatives to violence. Again the use of self-defense tactics, 

although only a short-term measure, would likely reduce the risk of violent injury. 

2. The Nature of the Interaction involving Third-party Neutralizers 

The respondents' accounts suggest that the nature of the interaction for 

respondents who intervened in cross-gender versus respondents who intervened in 

intragender incidents differed. According to the vignettes, women who intervened in 

intragender events tried to prevent the violence from breaking out in the first place. In 

contrast, cross-gender events involved physical violence that already was in progress at 

the time of third-party intervention. 

Emerging policy implications involve identifying ways for women to intervene 

effectively, if at all, in violent incidents already in progress as well as identifling 

strategies that help women carry out their goal of violence prevention. 

3. Motivations and Triggers for Violence between Third-party Intensifiers 

and Provocative Antagonists 

Women who assumed the role of third-party intensz3er contributed to the 

escalation of the violence. In all cases, of intragender and cross-gender violence the 

antagonists had been arguing over a variety of reasons including jealousy, respect and 

money. In all cases, the respondent became involved in the event to protect a third party 

from physical harm or from disrespect. The cited triggers also involved relationalprotection as well as respect. One respondent (#3729) explained: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 94 

My sister was having a conversation with somebody and I said something. 

I kept saying something and I got punched in the ribs ... He was having an 

argument with my sister ...[H e got violent] because I was trying to help my 

sister. [What triggered the violence was that] I spoke up in defense of my 

sister 

Another respondent (#1547) described the following scenario: 

My niece was arguing with some guy [a local drug dealer]. He was 

threatening to hurt her. I told him that he wasn't going to do nothin and I 

told him to get out of my face because he don 't how me like that and then 

he kicked me in the face with his feet several times but I blanked out and 

he ran. [The violence was about] an argument between my uiece and this 

man. [mat triggered the violence was] 'cause I told him to get out of my 

face. 

The circumstances around women injured by women are strikingly similar. For example, 

one respondent (#3402) explained: 

My sister had a 'misfall 'fight with more than one person and I got in it 

helping my sister ... Two girls jumped her and my next to youngest sister 

WaSJighting and one of the girls tried to sneak up on her when she wasn 't 

watching so I hit her. [Its over] jealousy ... because one day my sister had 

money and they said you didn 't tell us and I said we don 't have to tell you 

when we have money. 

4. The Nature of the Interaction involving Third-party Intensifiers 

Intragender and cross-gender events both are characterized by arguments or 

physical violence between two antagonists other than the respondents. In an attempt to 

protect or defend a third party from physical harm or disrespect the respondent 

contributes to the initial outbreak of violence through the use of verbal insults or 

perpetuates the physical violence by joining the fight on the side of her loved one. It is 

noteworthy that in this subgroup of acquaintance-related antagonists, female respondents 

become involved in verbal and/or physical aggression to protect females from females 

and females from males. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
395 

' The policy implications noted above also apply to third-party intensifiers. It is 

necessary for violence prevention and reduction programs to include components that 

enable women to defend their loved ones in ways that reduce the risk of violence. 

111. Chapter Summary: Toward Further Theory Development and Emerging 

Policy Implications for Acquaintance-Related Violence 

The preliminary results presented in this chapter suggest that gendered patterns 

underlie the processes of interactions that lead to violence. Gendered patterns, for 

example, characterized the roles assumed by the respondents. A higher proportion of 

dispute-related participants sustained injuries by female antagonists versus male 

antagonists. A greater proportion of victim participants sustained injuries by male 

antagonists versus female antagonists. 

Gendered patterns also emerged with respect to motivations for the violence. 

Dispute-related and victim participants injured by females tended to fight over 

interpersonal-relationship concerns. In contrast, dispute-related and victim participants 

sustained injuries by males as a consequence of non-rational behkviors. 

The escalation process also involved gendered differences. Although respect 

seemed to play a key role in the escalation process irrespective of the gender of the 

antagonist, respondents tended to disrespect male antagonists with words or acts of 

humiliation. In contrast, respondents tended to disrespect female antagonists using direct 

threats or challenges. In addition, the escalation process characteristic of cross-gender 

conflicts in which the responderlib intervened was described as more volatile and 

potentially dangerous than intragender conflicts. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
396 

These' data suggest the violence prevention and intervention programs should 

address characteristics of intragender and cross-gender assault taking into consideration 

the gendered nature and patterns of interactions that lead to violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 97 

CHAPTER 11. CONCLUSION 

I. Introduction 

The empirical results presented in this dissertation have numerous policy and 

programmatic implications. The most obvious finding is that violence prevention and 

intervention efforts should include topics that address intragender and cross-gender 

assault among non-intimate partners. Of the all women who presented to the emergency 

department for an intentional injury during the study period, more than half (52%) 

sustained by an injury by a non-partner male or female. The goal of the following 

discussion is to raise issues that should be considered in the development of fbture 

policies and programs to reduce intragender female violence. 

11. Policy and Programmatic Implications 

Implication #1: Recognize the Adaptational Function of Violence in the Lives of 

Urban Females 

The empirical results demonstrate the adaptational function of violence in the 

lives of the study participants. Females become involved in violence as a means to earn 

and maintain personal respect, as a means to defend family and fiiends, as a means to 

maintain possession over boyfriends, peers and family relationships. The vignettes also 

support these results in addition to suggesting that females use violence as a means to 

secure financial resources and as a means to deter physical injuries. It is critical that 

policies and programs be based on the realities of the lives of the females as understood 

by females themselves. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
398 

Implication #2: Provide Females with Opportunities that Nurture Success and 

Empowerment 

The study respondents live in communities characterized by high rates of violence 

and structural strain. The West Philadelphia community is characterized by markedly 

high rates of poverty, disease, and crime. Within this context, women face hardships and 

tensions brought about by poverty, violence, and social isolation from mainstream 

institutions. 

Addressing the larger economic and social structural issues would go a long way 

toward changing community norms and increasing opportunities for females (and males). 

Given that this is not likely to happen any time soon, it is imperative that in the short term 

services and programs be developed to help women achieve self-enhancing success. By 

providing women with the means to identify and build on their own interests and 

strengths, they will have the opportunity to establish a sense of self-worth based on their 

own talents and accomplishments. Such a strategy will enable women to develop a more 

permanent sense of self-esteem rather than short-lasting victories rooted in competition 

and violence over relationships and respect. 

In addition, it is critical that programs focus on building trust between women. 

Of the women interviewed in this study, many reported becoming involved in violence 

over boyfriends. This finding, coupled with respondents’ accounts of male player 

behavior and subsequent displacement of anger targeted toward female rivals, suggests 

that women internalize patriarchal norms whereby they place a higher value on their 

relationships with males than females. While is important to work toward eliminating 

sexist norms, offering programs that build trust between women will have a more 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 99 

immediate impact on reducing intragender violence. If women trust each other, they will 

be less likely to resort to acts of disrespect (Le. through verbal insults/slights, and he 

say/she say). Consequently, rates of intragender violence are likely to decrease. ’ 

Implication #3: Recognize the Central Role of Relationships in the Lives of 

Women 

Consistent with past studies (Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1978), this dissertation 

substantiates the central role of relationships in the lives of women. The study 

respondents and female antagonists use violence as a means to accumulate “interpersonal 

relational capital” including boyfriends, female peers and family members. Thus, 

violence prevention and intervention programs designed for women should have as a core 

element the importance of building mutually respectful interpersonal relationships. This 

focus takes on increased significance when the markedly high rates of past victimization 

are considered. Irrespective of gender of the antagonist, more than half of the 

respondents reported past histories of victimization by an intimate partner, almost a 

quarter reported physical or sexual abuse during childhood, and almost half reported 

witnessing violence between parental figures during childhood. These early experiences 

hinder a person’s capacity to build trusting relationships and within the context of 

structural strain likely intensify competition and eventual involvement in violence. 

This recommendation was proposed by Nurge (2000) to reduce female gang involvement and fights. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
400 

Implication #4: Develop Conflict Preventiodntervention Programs and Policies 

Based on a Gendered Approach. 

The empirical results demonstrate that correlates for intragender violence differ 

from those for cross-gender violence. Females injured by female antagonists are more 

likely than females injured by male antagonists to become involved in violence over 

relationship issues, protecting friends and family, and personal respect. In contrast, 

females injured by males are more likely to have a history of victimization by a partner 

and to sustain an injury as a consequence of predatory violence. 

Some disadvantaged males with limited resources to validate their manhood 

through conventional means redefine success in terms of fearlessness and domination 

over women, which for some men extends to the use of predatory violence. In contrast, 

disadvantaged females who face blocked opportunities redefine success through the 

accumulation of “interpersonal relational capital” including boyfriends, female peers and 

family members. In communities characterized by economic disadvantage and limited 

means of conventional sources of success (i.e. academic and occupational), competition 

over available resources emerges. The gender differences uncovered in this dissertation 

suggest that violence reduction programs should include instructional components that 

educate females (and males) on how these differences motivate and shape cross-sex and 

intragender assault. 

Implication #5: The Drug/Alcohol and Violence Nexus and Weapon Availability 

The empirical results reveal markedly high rates of substance use by study 

respondents and antagonists prior to the violent event. More than one quarter of the 

respondents and more than one half of the antagonists reportedly had used illicit drugs or 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
40 1 

alcohol within four hours of the violent event. The vignettes support the quantitative 

findings and also reveal that drug-seeking behaviors motivated violence by some male 

and female antagonists. 

Descriptions of homicide events and the assault events described in this study 

share some similarities. Female homicide events have been described as follows: an 

argument escalates, no one backs down, one or both parties were using drugs or alcohol 

and a weapon usually a knife or cutting instrument was available (Hall, 1996). This 

process leading up to homicide is strikingly similar to the circumstances of some of the 

assault incidents uncovered in this dissertation. For example, there was an argument, no 

one backed down, and one or both of the participants had used alcohol or illicit drugs 

prior to the violent event. In contrast to the homicide events reviewed by Hall and 

associates (1 996) that usually involved the presence of weapons, only a minority of 

assault incidents described in this dissertation included weapon use. 

The factors that can turn an assault into a homicide should be at the center of 

violence reduction and prevention programs. The findings reported in this dissertation 

substantiate the need to develop programs that aim to reduce substance use, a behavior 

that is likely to intensify the severity of injury and contribute to the risk of homicide. 

Implication #6: Recognize the Diverse Roles Assumed by Females involved in 

Violence 

The empirical results demonstrate that females who become involved in violence 

take on diverse roles. Some women contribute to the violent event by using verbal or 

physical provocation prior to the violent injury. Others use violence to protecting loved 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
402 

ones from injury. Others are innocent victims. Still others sustain injuries while trying to 

break up a fight or prevent the violence. 

The diverse ways in which females become involved in violent events has 

programmatic implications. Violence prevention and intervention programs should not 

be limited to helping women develop skills to handle their own conflict. Programs 

should be extended to include instructional components that teach women negotiation and 

mediation skills as well as the capacity for self-protection. 

Implication #7: Increasing Public Safety within Communities 

Until women live in freedom of fear of victimization they will continue to use 

violence as a self-help strategy to protect themselves and their loved ones. The study 

respondents have experienced violence within multiple contexts of their loves. The 

majority reported a history of violent victimization. Almost one in five reported recent 

partner abuse and one quarter described their most recent partner as physically violent 

toward someone other than herself. These experiences coupled with the physical fights 

that disrupt day-to-day living contribute to the respondents’ use of violence employed in 

the service of self-protection. 

Over the long-term we need to work toward reducing discrimination and 

increasing trust between residents of disadvantaged Black communities and mainstream 

institutions including the schools, criminal justice system and service organizations. One 

step in this direction that would aim to reduce violence involves expanding the traditional 

role of police officers. Two-thirds of the study respondents’ reported that the police 

arrived at the violent event. Thus, in this community the police are afforded the 

opportunity to participate in violence reduction interventions as well as the reducing 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
403 

alienation that exists between Black residents and the Philadelphia police (Anderson, 

1999). Model programs that offer police officers training in clinical services and apply 

clinical concepts to police strategy (i.e. Gibson, 1995), should be assessed as possible 

intervention strategies. In some cities police officers receive special training specific to 

domestic violence incidents including mediation and resourceheferral counseling. The 

results of this dissertation substantiate the need to examine the applicability and 

feasibility of similar programs targeted to intragender and cross-gender violence among 

non-partners. 

In addition, emergency department health care providers have the opportunity to 

build alliances with women who sustain violent injuries and seek care. Many emergency 

departments offer their staff members training on intervention strategies and resource 

counseling related to domestic violence. The results of this study point to the need to 

expand training to include victimization of women perpetrated by non-intimate partners. 

Implication #8: Recognize the Need to Minimize Cultural Stereotypes Against Black 

Females and the Risk of Victim Blaming 

It is critical that the results of this dissertation not be used to further demonize 

Black disenfranchised females for their use of violence. This is particularly important 

given the media’s most recent fascination with the new violent female offender: the 

young woman of color (Chesney-Lind, 1997). Stereotypes and false images shape the 

general public’s understanding of social issues and the formulation (or absence) of social 

policy. With this in mind, it is important to reevaluate false images within the context of 

an objective understanding of the topic of female violence. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
404 

Several false images of the Black female include the Amazon, the sinister 

Sapphire, and seductress. Research has refuted each of these stereotypes (see for 

example, Ladner, 197 1 ; Young, 1986). Young offers examples of public policy 

implications that emerge for each stereotype (p. 323, 1086): 

If the Black woman is depicted as an Amazon, then she is domineering, 

assertive and masculine. In the case of the Black female offender, there is 

no reason for the criminal justice system to protect her ... because she can 

take care of herself. She will not be harmed by ... harsh dispositions. On 

the other hand if she is a female victim of wife-battering [or non-partner 

violence], there is no need to intervene, because she is inherently violent 

and again capable of protecting herself. 

If the Black woman is depicted as a ‘sinister Sapphire,’ then she is 

treacherous toward and contemptuous of black men, dangerous and 

castrating. As a Black female offender, she is deserving of harsher 

dispositions. On the other hand, if she is a Black female rape victim, she 

is being vindictive and is not a believable complainant. If she is a black 

female battering victim [or victim of non-partner violence], she deserves 

the violence perpetrated upon her because she precipitated it. 

If the Black woman is depicted as a seductress, then she is loose, immoral 

and sexually depraved. As a Black female rape victim, she can not be a 

legitimate victim. She precipitated her victimization and deserves the 

violence perpetrated against her. 

Victim blaming will not contribute to violence reduction or prevention. The results of 

this dissertation and subsequent policies should be interpreted within the context of 

gendered social structural strain. This includes historical discrimination, economic 

disadvantage, ’gender inequality and the subsequent use of violence as a cultural 

adaptation to blocked opportunity. According to Chesney-Lind (1 999, p. 299): 

The most recent female crime wave appeuss to be an attempt to reframe 

the problems of racism and sexism in society. As women are demonized 

by the media, their genuine problems can be marginalized and then 

ignored. Indeed they have become the problem. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
405 

i 

Female and male perpetrators of violence must be held culpable and accountable for the 

harm caused to others and to society. Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the central 

tenant of Gendered Social Structurd Strain Theory that norm violating behavior is a 

product of the social structure notably blocked opportunities for the achievement of 

conventional success, rather than a product of individual-level psychological 

characteristics. An expanded analysis of the topic of female violence of necessity will 

* 

,' ' 

include a multidisciplinary approach that integrates social and psychological factors. 

Ultimately, meaningful policies developed to prevent and reduce violence in urban 

communities must address issues of socio-economic disadvantage, and gender and race 

differences in the opportunity structure. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
406 

APPENDIX A: INTER WEW PROTCOL 

WOMEN’S HEALTH AND EMERGENCY CARE STUDY 

(WHE CARE) 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 

INTERVIEWER: 

DATE OF INTERVIEW: 

RECEIVED: 

CHECKING COMPLETE: 

DATA ENTERED: 

CONTINUATION BOOK USED: No = 0; Yes = 1 

SELECTED FOR VALIDATION: No = 0; Yes = 1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
407 

ID Number: 

Interviewer ID Number: 

-INITITAL EVALUATION 

Hospital : 

1= HUE' 2= Presbyterian 3= Misericordia 

Place of Interview: 

I= Hospital Room 2= Emergency Dept. 3= Clinic 

9= Other (Specia) 

- 

Date of Interview: 

Time Interview Began: 

- 

Time Interview Ended: 

- 

Approximate Duration of Interview: 1 

hr min 

Thank you for agreeing to talk with me about women's health. The questions will focus on 

reproductive history, STDs, social and family history. There will also be a number of questions 

about violence in women's lives. All of your answers will be completely confidential -- that 

means we don't share the info-piation with anyone -- not-even the nurses or doctors who are 

taking care of you today. Please feel free-to intempt and ask anything that is not clear. .- 

- 

- 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
408 

SECTION A 

DEMOGWmCS 

A 1. What is your date of birth? [--'-- I _- I 

mm dd yy 

a. What race do you consider y&rself - to be? (CIRCLE ONE, READ RESPONSES 

1 

- hian .......... ..................................................................................................... 2 

Black or Afican Americ-an ............................................................................... 3 

White ................................................... : ............................................................ 4 

- Don't Know ...................... .-. ............................................................................. 9 

ALOUD) 

Hispanic ..................................................... i. .................................................... 

Other (Specifi) - ..................................... 8 

- A-3. What is the highest grade or year of school that you completed? (CIRCLE .- ONE) 

None ........................................ .'................................................................. - : ..... 0 

1 

Some junior high school (7-9 years) ......................................................... -- ..... 2 

Some-high school (10-1 1 years) ....................................................................... 3 

4 

Some post high school training other than college (vocational, technical, ktc.1 5 

College graduate ......... : ................................................................................... 7 

Postgraduate work : ............ Don't Know . ............................................................................................-..... 9 

Some grade school (1 -6 years) .......................................................................... 

High schooI graduate (12 years ) Qr GED ........................................................ 

Some college .................................................................................................... 6 

............................................................................... 8 

- A4. Are you currently (READ RESPONSES ALOUD) ................................................................................................................ 1 single 2 

in a relation&ip ................................................................................................ 3 

Don't Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

married (including common law) ................................................................ .... 

A5, In the last year, did you become separated or divorced? 

No ........................................... : ......................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................... 1 

Don't Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

A6. [ONLY ASK FOR CONTROLS] Why did you come to the emergency roodclinic 

today? (NOTE REASON IN PATIENT'S WORDS) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
409 

SECTION B 

CIRCUMSTAIYCES OF EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT VISITS 

I FORCASESI 

B 1. What happened to you is very important, so can you tell me what happened, and speak 

slowly so I can get it all? (RECORD EXACTLY IN PATIENT’S OWN WORDS) . 

B2. Could you tell me the date this happened? - 

- - - B3. About what time of day was it? [--:-- 1 - [AM= 1 PM=2] 

B4. a. What was the address of where this happened? 

[---I 

code 

b. Were you working at the time? 

No ..................................................................................................................... 

Yes .................................................................... ._ ............................................ 

Don’t Know .... : ................................................ : ............................................... 

IF “YES”, Where? 

B5. Was it in- the place where you live? 

No .......................................................... .:. ........................... :.. ......................... 

Yes (SKIP TO B7) .......................................................................................... 0 

1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
410 

B6. Was it on the street where you live? 

No . . . _. .. . . . . . _. ._. . .. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . -. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . ._ .:. . .. . . . .. . . 

Yes ..__._..._._.........._....._...__....._....................... . .....-..... ..................................... . 

B7. Was it inside or outside? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 

Imide (SKIP TO BS) .............................. - ..................._.._........._.: __................. 

Outside (SKIP TO B9) .................................................................................... 

138. (IF INSIDE), What room or area was it in? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 

Bedroom ._ . . . .... . .. . .. . . . __. . . . ... ._. . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... . .:. . . . ... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ._. ... . . .. . . ... Bathroom . . . . . . . . . . ....... I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Living Room .._..._..._......___.._.._...................~... .. ........ .... _.. . . . .. ...... ..................... 

Kitchen/ Dining Room .................................................................................... 

Hallway .inside Home or Apartment ................._. ........... ............ ..... .... ........... - Hallway outside Home or Apartment ............................................................. 

Basement ............... ._.... .... .._..... ................................. ................................... 

oe _.... . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . ._.. . . . . . .. . . . . . .... .. . .... ._. . . .. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . _. ... . . ... . . ... 

Attic/ Storage Area/ Closet ............... .............................................................. 

Stairway inside ................................................................................................ 

Other Indoor Location mere) - 

Don’t Know ......................................... : ........................................................... 

IGaram 

- 

0 

1 

0 

1 

01 

02 

03 - 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

99 

[--- 1- 

code - 

B9. (IF OUTSIDE), Where outside? (CIRCLE ALL THAT - APPLY) 

Stairway outside ............................................................................................ 1 

Garden/ Yard Courtyard .............................................................................. 2 

SidewalW Curb/ Street .......................... : ....................................................... 3 

Porch ............................................................................................................ 4 

Alleyway .................................................................. 1 .........._..._.. 1 ................ 5 

Playground Park (non-school) ................................................................... 7 

Don’t Know ................................... :I .............................................................. 9 

- 

Public Transportation (What kind of transportation) 

Other Outdoor Location (Where) 

6[.--- 1 

8[--- 1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
411 

B 10. You may have told me this but I need to ask you the following. (READ ALOUD) 

. No Yes 

did you get slapped, punched, pushed, kicked, or bit ...................................... 0 

did you get threatened with something that could hurt‘you? .......................... 0. 

IF “YES”, What was it? 

did you get hit with something? .. . .__. . . ._. .. . ........ . ._. . .. . . . . .;-. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . -. .. . . . . . . . 0 

IF “YES”, With what? - 

did you get stabbed or cut with something? ............... :.........;...........................o 

IF “YES”, With what? 

did you get shot at with a gun ............................... : ..............._.._..................... 0 

. IF “YES”, Were you hit? 

IF :YES”, Did the gun belong to you? .................................. : ......._... :O 

hything else? (Specifi) - 0 

[ 

- 

B 1 1. Were you made to have sex? 

No .............................................................................. ....................... r ....... ..... 0 

Yes 1 .... .. . .. . .. .. . . . . . :.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . :. . . ._.. . .. .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . _. .. . .. . .. . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 

Don’tmow ...._....__ :........_....._....._......_..........._... ............................................ - 9 

IF “NO” OR “D0N”T KNOW”, Was be/ she/ they !trying to make you havesex? 

NO .......................................................... ~ ............................................ ................... O 

Yes 1 .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . ... .. ._. . .. . . . . . 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

.. - 

B 12. What else happened? 

B 1 j. Can you circle the areas where you were hurt or hit? (SEE MAP) 

face, ......................................................... 1 ......................................................... 

head not face .............................. .................................................................... 

neck ..... .... ... . . ....... ....... ..... ..... .. .. .... .... . .. .. .. _. .... . ...... ......... ........................ .... ...... 

back/butt ....... . .... ... ... ..... ............... .... ..... ... . .... . ..... .. .... ................ .. ..... ....... .. . . . .... . 

ann/shoulder .... . _. ..._ .... _...... . .. ............ ... . . . ... .... . .... .. ... .. . .. . ... ...... ... ............... ..... 

handwrist.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . breast ........ . ... .. . . ... .. ... . . . . . . ....... .. .. .. _._.. _... _. .._ .... . . . . ._ ._. . . . . .. . ...._.. .. _.... ... .. ........ 

chesthot breast .......................... .- ...................................................................... 

stomachlgoin. ... .. .. .... .... ...._.. ._.... ... .. .. ._. ..:... . .. .. .. ..... .. ._..... . ....._.__...... . ........ 

leg ........................... : ......................................................................................... 

footlankle ...._. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 

other (Specfy) 

Don’t know ................................. ............. ........................................ ................ 

- 

- 

- 

[-- 1 

code 

01 

02 

03 

04 

05 

06 

07 

08 

09 

10 

11 

- 99 

[--I 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
B14. Who did this? (IF NECESSARY ASK -ITHE MALE OR 

FEMALE) 

412 - 

PROBE: what is(his/ her/ their belationship to y 

Baby’s Father 1 

Bowend ._ - 2 

Ex-boyfriend 3 

Date- 4 

Spouse 5 

Ex-spouse 6 

Father 7 

Stepfather - - 8 

9 

10 

Grandfather/ S tep-grandfather 

11 

Female Partner 

Mother - 

Stepmother 12 

Grandmother/ Step-grandmother 13 

Brother 14 

Son 15 

Sister 16 

Daughter 17 

Fosterparent 18 

Foster _grandparent 19 

Cousin 20 

Friend 21 

Acquaintance/ Neighbor 22 

Parent of friend 23 

Other relative 24 

(Specvy) 

Stranger 25 

Other 

(Specqy) 

l? 

IF “YES”, 

How many did 

this to you? 

Was the 

person male 

or female? / 

How many 

were male? 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
413 

Blj. 

B 16. 

B17. 

- 

Now 

Were people other th? . there when I k/she/they started getting physical 

with you? 

No (SKIP TO B18) ........................................................................................ 0 

Yes ..................... -. :. ........................................................................... .: ........... 1- 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, What is your relationship to him/ her/ them ? 

L-I 

code 

Did anyone say anything or do anything to try to stop it while it was happening? 

No ...................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................... -1.. .......................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ...................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, What is your relationship to 

[-- 1 . code - -- 

Did anyone else other than hurt you? 

No .......................................................................................* .......................... - - 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................... 1 

Don’thow .......................................................... r : 9. 

I$ “YES”, What is your relationship- to him/-her/ the 

.................... .................... 

[-- 1 

code 

L 

(GO 

want 

BACK-TO 

to ask you 

- 

some more 

B14 AND 

specific guestions 

ADD) I 

about whaLhappened. You may have 

already told me some of this but I just want to make sure I have everything. 

B 18. What led to this happening? - PROBE: What was it about? - 

B 19. Why do you think -did this? 

[1

code 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
414 

code 

B20. What one thing in particular triggeredL-1 getting physical with you? - 

- 

code 

. B21. Did you ... ? (READ ALOUD) No Yes 

1 

.............. : .............".......................... 0 1 

or bite 1 him/ her/ them1 ......................................... 0 

I 

IF-EYEST, What-was it?_ [-- 1 - did you hit[ kim/-her/-themt with something other thmyour-hdS?.r ...... : ..... 0 1 

IF "YES', With- what?. - [-- I 

IF 'YES", With what? [--I 

[-- 1 

did you siab or cut /him/ herrthem ]with somethhg? .........................:............ 0 

shoed him/ her/ them1 with a gun ....................... ............................................. 0 

1 . 

1 

ni 

l[p7iGaqq ? - 

VI 

r 1 

- B22. Were YQU carrying something to keep yourself safe at the time you got hurt? 

0 

Ye3 ..................................................................... : ............................................ 1 

9. 

No (SKIP TO B24) ......................................................................................... 

Don't. Know ................................................... :.. .............. 1 .............................. - 

- 

B23. What? (CIRCLE.ALL THAT APPLY) 

Gnnl;:; ............................................................................................ ................... 01. 

Knife ................................. :: ............................................................................. 02 

Razor .................................................................. : ............................................ 03 

Club. .................................................................................................................. 05. 

Brass Knuckles ................................................................................................ 06 

Mace ... ........................................................................ : .................................... 07 

Other ................................................................................................................ 08 

OtherSharp-Object (Spci&). 04[--1 

Don't Know .... : ............................................................................................... 99 

Anything else (Specifrl - 10[--1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
415 

B24. What happened to ? (RECORD EXACTLY IN PATIENT’S OWN 

WORDS) 

[-- 1 

code 

B25. [ONLY ASK IF OTHERS WERE PRESENT AT THE-INCIDENP Did anyone else 

- 

get hurt? - 

NO .... ................................................................... ............................ z .............. 0 

Yes .................................................................................. .:. ............................. 1 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, What is your relationship to - r.1 

L--J 

code 

326. 

- 

B27. 

B28. 

B29. 

Was anyone killed? .- - No ........................................ : .................................. : ........................................ 0 

Yes ..................... z ..... : ..................... i.. ............................ ..........._..................... 1 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

EF “YES”, What is your relationship to 

- 

- [--I 

code 

Did anyone call the police? 

No (SKIP TO B31)- ......................................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, What is your relationship to the person who called? 

[-- 1 

[--:-.- 1 

code 

About how long-did it take for the police to come? 

hhmm 

Police showed up, but don’t know how long ................................................... 88 

Police did not show up (SKIP TO B31) ......................................................... 89 

Don’t Know ................................................................................... i ................. 99 

Was anyone charged with anything? 

No (SKIP TO B31) ......................................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................... 1 

IF “YES”, What is your relationship to [hid her/ them I? 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
416 

B30. What was the offense? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLYmAKE NOTES) 

Recklessness ........................................................................................... Bamry ........................................ : .................................................................... 

- Disorderly Conduct (DOC) ............................................................................. 

Public Intoxication (drunk) ............................................................................. 

Other Warrant Arrest ...................................................................................... 

....... 

Other (Specifi) - 

. Don’t Know .......... ........................................................................................ 

B3 1. Did you have a restraining order againsdhim/her/them] when this happened? 

No ...................... ............................................................................................. Yes ................................................................................................... L.. .. .:.... - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

9 

code 

[-- 1 

0 

1 

Now I’d like to &k.you some general questions about 

have told me some of this. 

. Again, you may already 

- 

B32. What race do you consider him/ her/ each of themito be? 

Black or Afiican American (Specifl number) .................................... [--I 

White I-- 1 (Specifl number. ...................................................................... Hispanic (Specifj, number) ................................................................ [--I 

...................................................................... [--I 

1 Other (Specifl number) [-- 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... [_-I 

them? [--I 

[-- 1 

[-- I 

[-- I 

Asian (Specifi number) 

B33. How old do you think 1-1 is? / Thinking about , about how old are each of 

age 

B34; Do you-think.. ’. -1 drinking beer;.wine or liquor within 4.hours.before 

this happened? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

1 2s 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 . 

KT ................................................................................................................. I 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
417 

Do you think 

happened? 

No (SKIP TO B37) .........._..................._..._...._._..._........._......._......_......_........... 0 

Yes ... . . . . . . . . . . ... ._. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .... . .:. . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . ... . .... . . . .. .. .... .. _. .. ...... ... . . . . . . -1 

Don’t Know ......................_.............................................................................. 9 

B35. [was/[ useg marijuana or drugs within 4 hours before this 

836. 

837. 

- 

B38. 

B39. 

What do you think /was// using? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 

Weed/ Marijuana ......_....._.................._..............................................-........-...... ‘ 

Cocaine/ Crack .............................................................................._................. 

Uppers/ Bennies/ Speed Crank! Amphetamines .._............._...-....................... 

Downers/ Barbs/ Barbiturates ................................ : ................ : ......_................. Heroin (Horse) ........................................ -- ..... ~ ................__ ~ ................................. 

Inhalants -- like whippets/ glue / NO .......................................... : .......__............ 

Anything else? (Specih) 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 

- - 

Were you drinking beer, wine, or liquor within 4 hours before this happ.ened? - 

No ..... . . . __. . .. _. .... . _. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. -.. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . ... ... .. . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . . 

Yes ............................................................................................. : .................... 

Don’t Know .:..; -..... ~ ........................................................... : ............................ 

Were you using marijuana or-drugs within 4 hours before this happened? 

No (SKIP TO SECTION C) .......................... .. ................................................ Yes ... .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . , . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 

What were you using?(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 

Weed Marijuana ............................................................................................. 

Cocaine/ Crack ................................................... ............................................. 

Uppers/ Bennies/ Speed Crank/ Amphetamines ............................................ 

Downers/ Barbs/ Barbiturates .............._. ........................................................ 

Heroin (Horse) ...... .......... i .............. . ... .... ._._...... : ... .. ..... ..._._..._..._ _. ......... .. .. _.. . . 

Inhalants -- like whippets/ glue / NO .............................................................. 

Anything else (Specifi) 

Don’t Know ............................................................. : ...................................... 

. 

- - 

- 

- 

- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

.9 

[---I . 

code 

0 

1 

9 

0 

1 

9 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

9 

code 

[-- 1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
418 

SECTION C 

MENSTRUATION AND CURRENT PREGNANCY HISTORY 

Now I’in going to ask you about your pregnancy history including all the pregnancies in 

your whole life. 

C1-. How many times in your whole life have you been pregnant? [,I - 

number 

C2. How many were live births? 

C3. How many were miscarriages or stillbirths? 

- 

- [,-I 

[-- 1 

number 

number 

C4. Do you think you could be pregnant now? -- 

NO (SKIP TO SECTION D) ......................................................................... 0 - 

Yes ............................ 1. ............................................................. : ...................... Maybe ............................................................................................................... 2 . 

Don’t Know .;. .................................................................... :.. ._.. 

-1 

9 

- 

- 

... ;. ................. 

C5. Have you had a positive pregnancy test? - 

No ..................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................... -1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
419 

SECTION D 

MEDICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL HISTORY 

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your medical history. 

D 1. 

- 

Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you had any kind of medical disease or 

condition like asthma or high blood pressure? 3. 

- 

No ......................... I .................................................... :... ................................. Yes .......................... : .................................... =. ............................................... .: 

0 

1 

IF “YES’, what? [--1€--1 

r ir 1 

D2. Do you take any medications regularly? 

No .............. . ........................................................................ 1 .......................... 0 . 

Yes ............. .__. ................................................................................................ 1- 

Don’t Know ............. : ........................................................................................ 

IF “YES’, what? 

.For what? - 

e- 9 - 

L-I [--I - 

[--I[-- 1 

[-- 1 

- 

D3. a. Over the past 6 months how often have you had abdominal, stomach or belly pain that 

was not associated with your period? 

Had abdominal pains but can’t say how often ................................................. 

Never had abdominal pains (SKIP TO D4) .................................................... 

l=wk 2=mm 37ast 6 months 

88 

89 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 99 

- 

b. 

D4. ._ 

When w& the last time? - 

Over the past 6 months, have-you had a headache so bad that you had to miss work, 

school or social activities? 

No.. .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ........:... :: ..................................................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES’, When was the last time? [--/-- I -- 1 

mm dd yy 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
... 

420 

D5. Over the past 6 months have you had any emotional problems or problems with your 

0 

nerves? 

No ......................................................................... -... ......................................... 

Yes ............................................. : ..................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

[l- I ---- I 1 IF ‘YES~’, When was the last time? 

mm dd yy 

D6. Over the past 6 months, have you. talked with a case worker, counselor; or any 

healthcare provider about any emotional problems or problems with your nerves? 

No.. ........................................................................ :. ......................................... 

Yes ..............................................................................: .................................... 0 

1 

- - 

IF “YES”, Whe? was the last time? [ - -1 - -1- - 1 

mm dd yy 

eSEC‘TION E 

HISTORY OF PID AM) STD - 

Now I’d like to ask you about different infections: 

El. Has a doctor or nurse ever told you that you had ... ? 

a. Pelvic inflammatory disease, PID, or a pelvic infection - No ................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, When was the last time a doctor or nurse told you you had PID? - 

[L.- I -- 1 

-w 

b. Herpes 

No.. 

Yes :. ............. 

IF “YES”, When was the last time a doctor or nurse told you you had herpes ? 

................................................................................................................... 0 

.................................................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know 9 ..................................................................................................... 

E--/-- I 

mYY 

c. An STD like gonorrhea, syphilis, trich, or chlamydia 

NO ..................................................................................................................... --0 

Yes ........ : 1 

Don’t Know. ..................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, When was the last time a doctor or nurse told you you had 

.......................................................................................................... 

- 

- (that) (if STD is not volunteered]? [--/--I 

mYY 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
42 1 

E2. Have you ever had AIDS or a blood test that was positive for HIV? (CIRCLE ONE) ................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................ ................................................... 1 

Maybe (Specify) .................................... 

Don’t Know 9 

No.. 

2 

.................................................................................................... 

~ [--I 

code 

SECTION F 

OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY 

Now I would like to ask you about work and school outside the home. 

F 1. Do you do something you get paid for now? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes (SKIP TO F3) 1 ’1 ........................................................................ ................ 

-- I 

- 

F2. Have you ever done anything you got paid for? 

No (SXJiP TO F6)- .......................................................................................... 

Yes (SKIP TO F4) ....................................... 1 

8- 

.................................................. 1 

F3. What kind of work do you do? (Spec@) [--I 

[-- 1 

[-- 1 

(lF MORE THAN ONE CURRENT JOB) - 

(SKIP TO F5) - - 

F4. What kind of work did you do most recently? -(Specifi) 

[ 1 - 

F5. How long[have/had\ you worked at this job? 

F6. Are you a student now? 

No ..................... .............................................................................................. .O 

Yes ................................................................................................ - ................ 1 

IF “YES”, Where? 

- 

. -1 [--I 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
- SECTIONG 

ne next few questions are about your living arrangements and people in your life such as 

family friends and neighbors. 

SOCIAL SUPPORT 

G 1. Think of the main place where you live, is it an apartment, a house, boarding house, 

Apartment .......................... women’s facility or shelter, or have you been homeless? 

............................................................................. 1 

G2. 

House .......................................................... : .................................................... 

Women’s facilitykhelter (What kind of facilityhhelter ) 

Boarding house ................................................................................................ 

Homeless (SKIp TO G7) ................................................................................ 

Is it public housing? 

No .................................................................................................................... 

Don’t Know ....: ............................................................................................... 

Yes (SKTp TO-G4) ....................... 1 .................................................................. - .. - 

-2 

3 

4 

5 

[-, 1 

0- 

1 

9 

G3. (IF Gl=HOUSE) Is it a house owned.by you or your fdly? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Don’t Know .._.................__................................................................................ 9 

Yes .............................................................................................................. :... 1 

- 

G4. Think of the main place where you live, do you live with any of the following people? 

CHOICES) - - N Y IF “YES”, How.many 

a. Partner 01 

01 

01 

c. Your mother 

d. Your father 

- 

b. Your own children 0 1- 1- 

e. Your brothers 01 [-- 1 

f. Your sisters 01 [-- 1 

g. Any other children 01- E-- 1 

h. Grandparent(who) 01 [--I 

- 

i. Partner’s family (who) 01 

j. Other family -(Who) 01 [-- 1 

k. Other friends (Who) 01 

1. Who else (Who) 01 

- 

TOTAL + RESPONDENT = [ 1 

Let’s see, including you that makes - - people living together right? 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
423 

G5. How many peoplein the main place where you live are males 16 years of age or older? 

[-, 1 

number 

G6. How long have you lived at this address? 

G7. How many people can you count on in times of need? 

[-- 4 -- 1 

- L- 1 

mm- w 

number 

- 

G8. (ASK ONLY FOR WOMEN WITH CHILD-REN) How many peoplewouid be able to - 

take care of your children for several hours if needed? [-- 1 - number 

- 

- G9. How often do you get together with a friend or relative you don’t live with? [ 1 

(PROBE: IF THEY SAY EVERYDAY? PROBE FOR TIMES/DAY - 1-k 2- 3-7 . - 

G10. About-how many times per.week do you talk.with a eend or relative on the telephone? 

@ROBE: IF THEY SAY EVERYDAY, PROBE FOR TIMESDAY) [-A - 1-k 2- 3-y~ 

G1-1. .How often would you like to see friends? (READ ALOUD) 

More often ............................................................................... ........................ 1 

Less often ........................................................................................................ 2 

- It’s about right ................................................................................................. 3 

G12. How often - would you like to see your family? (READ ALOUD) 

More often .................................. : 

Less often ................. : ........................................................................ ............. It’s about right ........................................................... : ..................................... 

.................................................................... 1’ 

2 

3 

G13. When was the last time you called on someone you know to defend or to protect you? 

I--’-1 

mw 

88 

89 

99 . 

Called on someone to protect you, but can’t say when .................................... 

Never called on someone to protect you .......................................................... 

Don’t Know. ........................... : ......................................................................... 

G14. [FOR CONTROLS1 HGW likely is it that someone wiil injuie y~ in the next year? 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
... 

424 

G15i FOR CONTROLS] If someone were going to huit you, who would it be? 

SECTION H - SYSTEM CONTACTS 

Now 1 would like to ask you about some services you might have received. 

- 

HI. Do you have a family doctor or a doctor that you see regularly? 

No ..................................................................................................................... 

Yes ................................... : .............................................................................. 

H2. When was the last time you saw a doctor.or nurse in a clinic or doctor’s office? 

r 

L-- / -- 1 

-w -.. 

H3. Not inchding today, how many times have you been; patient in an emergency 

department in the past six months? [--I 

number - 

-H4. Not including today, in the last six months, did you use any of the followingservices? 

(READ ALL RESPONSES) 

rn “YES”, 

NY For What? - 

a. Case worker/social worker/counselor/ 0 1 [--I 

.b. Police 01 [--I 

c. courts 01 [--I 

d. WIC Worker for .your children 01 

e. Welfare office 01 

therapist 

f. Women’s facility 01 [--I 

H5. Not including today, in the last six months, have you been a patient in a hospital 

o v e m i g h t ? 

No ............................................................. .: ..................................................... 

Yes ................................................................................................................... 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 

0 

1 

9 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
425 

aH6. Not including today, in the last six months, have you been arrested, in prison or on - 

probation? 

No ..................................................................................................... .: ............. 

. Yes .................................................................................................................... 

Don’t Know ...................................................................... : .............................. 

IF “YES”, For what? 

H7. Have you been in the military in the last six months? 

No ................................................ : ................................................................... Yes ................................................................................................................... 

Don’t Know. ..................................................................................................... 

0 

1 

9 

[-- 1 

0 

1 

9 

H8. Have you been involved with a drug or alcohol support group in the last six months? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

1- 

Don’t Know ................................................................................ : .................... 9 

Yes ........... ~ ...................................... : ................................................................. 

.- -- €39. Have you ever gone to a friend or relative’s house, or to a women’s shelter because you 

wanted to feel safe from someone? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes 1. 

Don’t Know .......... : ..... 1 .............. ...... I ............................................................. 9 

IF “YES,” Safe from whom? 

- .................................................................................................................. 

r-- 1 

Where did you go? - [--I 

religious service? - re-- 1 

H10. Over the past six months, about how many times did you go to church or attend a 

- number 

H 1 1. Do you participate in any other social activities or groups? - 

No..; ................................................................................................................. 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

b. If “YES”, About how many times per week or month do you participate in any of 

a. IF “YES”, What Kind? [,- 1 

these group activities? [-- 1 

1-k 2~1n1n 3-7 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
426 

'SECTION I 

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS 

11. The following questions concern how you have been feeling recently. For each 

question, please indicate how often you have felt this way during the past week. The 

choices are: 

&rely or none of the time (less than 1 day) ................................................... 

Some. or little of the time (1-2 days) ............................................................... 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Occasionally or a moderate amount of the time (3-4 days) ............................ 

Most of the time (5-7 days) ............................................................................. 

- 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
427 

SECTION J 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT 

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about financial support. 

J 1. How many people, not including yourself, depend on you financially, like for food and 

shelter? [-:I 

number - 

J2. Does someone help you out fmancially in anyway? By this I mean conhiluting to your 

rent, food bills or just helping you out. 

No (SKIP TO 54) ............................................................................................ 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1- 

a. If “YES”, What is the relationship of the \-[to you? r 

-- -1 - 

J3. Does this make up the most of your financial support? - NO .._ ............................................................. ................................................ :. 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. I 

Don’t Know ....................................... : ............................................................ 9 

54. Many people find creative ways to make money in order to make ends meet, in the past six . 

months have you: (READ ALL RESPONSES) - NY 

01 

b. Borrowed money 01 

c. Traded food stamps for cash 01 

d. Sold a WIC check 0- 1 

e. Exchanged sex for anything 01 

f. Sold Drugs 01 

g. What else? (SpeciD) 0 1 [--I 

- a. Babysat for money 

h. Don’t Know .:A ........................................................................................... 99 

J5. Do you receive food stamps? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know .................................................. : .................................................. 9 

J6. Do you receive SSI or SSDI? 

No ................................................................................................... .:.. ..... .-. .... 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 

Don’t Know ................................................................................ 7 .................... 

- 0- 

1. 

9 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
J7. Do you receive cash assistance from DPA? 

No ........................................... ~ .................................... ....... -- ........................... 

Yes . . . .’. . -. . . . . . . ~. . -. . . . . . . . . :.. . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. . . _. . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

-Don’t Know ............................................................._....... ............................. 

J8. Do you receive medical assistance for yourself-or your family? 

No ..._..._... .......... 1 ......_...._... .._..... ..~ .... ... .............. ....................... .................... Yes . ... . .. . . . . . .. . . . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . _. . . . .... . .. .. . . . .... .. . . . .. ... . . . .. . .. .. ..... :. . .. . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . .: . Don’t Know ._......................._......._._.._.........._............_...............__..~...___......_...._.. - 

J9. Do you have a WIC worker? - 

No .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .._ .. . .. .._ . _. _. . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . -. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . ... . . . ...._. . . 

Yes ..__. . . . . . . . .. . ... .. . ... . . _.._. .. . ._ .. ... . . .. .. . . . . .. . ._. . ....... . . . . ..... ....-.. . _. ... .... .. . ... .. .. . ... .. . . 

Don’t Know .................................................. ............ ...................................... 

- 

SECTION K 

USE OF DRUGS, AND ALCOHOL - - * 

-Now we are going-to talk about drugs and alcohol. 

- K1. How many of your friends ever smoked marijuana? (READ RESPONSES) 

All 

Most ._.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ~. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . 

Some .............................. ._................_ ~......................................................... 

None .._. . .:............... .... .. .. . .... .. ..... ..._. ..... .... ... .................................................... 

.... ...... ...................... ..._......._............. . ..... ......... . ........................... ....... ...... - 

K2. How many of your friends smoke marijuana now? (READ RESPONSES) 

All . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ._. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ._. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . ..._.... . .... . . . .... . .. . . 

- Most ................................................................................................................. 

Some ....... . ..... .............. ................ . . ..... .... .. . .. .... ............... ................ !. .. ...._........ None .................. I... ...._._.. .. ......... ... ....... . ......................... .............. ............. ..... 

428 

0 

1 

9 

0 

1 

9 

0 

1 

9 

- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

K3. Over the past six months, how often did youuse marijuana? [-- 1 

l=wk 2=mm 3=past 6 months 

Used marijuana in past six months, but can’t say how often ........................... 

Did not use marijuana in the p&t six months .................................................. 88 

89 

K4. When was the last time you used marijuana? 

K5. Over the past six months, how often did you drink beer, wine or liquor? [--I - - lvk 2=mm3=past6months 

Drank, but can’t-say how often ........................................................................ 

Did not drink beer, wine or liquor in past six month_s ..................................... 88 

89 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
429 

I I 

mm dd yy 

- K6. When was the last time you drank beer, wine, or liquor? [-- __ --I 

K7. Over the past six months, how often did you use cocaine or crack? I-- I 

lwk 2=m +past 6 months 

Used cocaine or crack but can’t say how often ................................................ Did not use cocaine or crack in past six months .............................................. 88 

89 

- K8. When was the last time you ever used cocaine or crack? [--/-- I -_ I 

mm dd 

I FOR K9 THROUGH K13, ASK A, AND ONLY ASK B IF A DOES NOT EQUAL YO0” 

I OR‘*NONE”. 

a. When was the last b. Over the last six 

time you ever used: months, how often did 

you use: 

K9. Uppers, bennies, speed, crank [ - - I I 3 [--A 1Fwk2=mm - 

or amphetamines mm dd yy 3=past 6 months 

K10. -Downers, barbs, barbiturates [--I __ I __ ] [ ] l=wk2=mm 

- -mm dd yy 3=past 6 months 

K11. Heroin [-- I -- I -- 1 [-- 3 I=wk2=mm 

mm dd. -yy 3=past 6 months 

K12. Inhalants - like whippets, glue, [ - I I - - ] [--I l=wk2=mni 

NO mm dd yy . 37~ast6months 

] 3=past6months 

K13. Anything else (Specifi) [--/--/--I [--1-l=wk2=- 

[ I-ddYY [ - 

- 

K14. How many times in your life have you been treated for drug or alcohol abuse? [ - - 1 

Treated for drug or alcohol abuse, but can’t say how many times .................. 

Never treated for drug or alcohol abuse (SKIP TO K17) .............................. 

number 

88 

89 

Don’t how ..................................................................................................... 99 

K 15. When was the last time you were treated for drug or alcohol- abuse? 

[-- I -- I -- 1 

mm dd yy - 

K16. What were you treated for? [-- 1 

IF K6z“NEVER IN WHOLE LIFE” SKIP QUESTIONS K17-K21. 

K17. How many drinks can you hold? [--I 

number 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
430 

K18. Have close friends or relatives womed or complained- about your denking in the past 

year? 

No ............................................. 1 ...................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know ............. : ................................... : .................... 1 .........., ?.-: .............. 9 

K19. Do you sometimes take a drink in the morning when you first get up? 

No .......................................................... i .......................................................... 0 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

K20. Has a liiend or fainily .member.ever told you about things you said or did while you 

were drinking that you could not remember? 

No ........................................................... .:... .................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know ............................................................................................ : ......... 9 

.- 

K2.1. Do you sometimes feel the need to cut down on-your drinking? 

No ....................................................................................... .:. .......................... -0 

Yes ........................................................................................ 1 ......................... 1 

Dont’ Know ................................................................ :.... ................................ 9 

- 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
43 1 

SECTION L 

SELF - ESTEEM SCALE 

When I read you the following statements, try to describe yourself as YOU really are, not 

how you'd like to be or think you ought to be. After I read each statement, I need you 

to decide if you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. I'll give you this 

sheet to look at so you can choose your answer. 

L 1. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an 'equal basis with others. 

Strongly Agree 1 

SBongly Disagree.. .......................................................................................... .- 4 

................................................................................................. 

Agree ................................................................................................................. z 

Disagree .................................................................................................. ........ 3 

L2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 

Agree ........................................... 1 ....... : ............................................................ Disagree ........................................................................................................... - 

- Strongly Agree .......... ...................................................................................... 

Strongly Disagree .................. ..-.. ...................................................................... 

. Strongly Agree ................................................. ; ............................................... 

Disagree ........................................................................................................... 

- 

- 

L3. Allin all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. - 

Agree ......................................................................... ...................................... 

Strongly Disagree ........................................................................................... 

- L4. I am able ro do things as well as most other people. 

Strongly Agree 1 

Agree ..................................... 1 ........................... .................= .................... ....:. 

- Disagree ..... : ................................ : ..................................................................... 3 

................................................................................................. 

2 

Strongly Disagree ............................................................................ : ................ - 4 

L5. I feel I do not have much to be proud .- of. 

1 

Agree ................................................................................................................ 2 

Disagree ............................................................................................................ 3 

- Stronol SY Disagree ............................................................................................. 4 

Strongly Agree ................................................................................................. 

L6. I take a positive attitude. toward myself. 

Strongly Agree ..... ~. ..................................................................................... 1 

Disagree ............................................................................. ............................. 3 

Strongly Disagree ........................................................................................... -. 4 

:. ... Agree .............................................................................................................. 2 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
432 

L7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. Strongly Agree .................................................................................................. 

Disagree . .=:. ...................................................................................... ..;. ........... Strongly Disagree ............................................................................................. 

Agree .................... : ................................................................................ : 

.......... 

L8. I wish I could have more respecrfor myself. Strongly Agree ............................................................................................... .. 

Agree ..... ~ ........................................................................................................... Disagree .~-, ....................................................................................................... 

Strongly. Disagree ............................................................................................. 

- 

- 

L9. I certainly feel useless at times. - Strongly Agree ............ i... ......................... ........................ ................................. 

Disagree .... 1 ................................... .................................................................. Strongly Disagree ...................................................................................... . v”-*’ 

Strongly Agree ....................... : .......................................................................... Agree ................................................................................................................ 

Disagree .......................................................................... : ................................. 

Agree .................................................................... I 

........................................... 

- 

L10. At times I think that I am no good at all. 

- 

Smngly Disagree: ............................................................................................ 

1 

2- 

3 

4 

- 1 

2 

3 

4 

- SECTION M 

THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO CASES OR CONTROLS TURNED CASES 

INJURED BY BABY’S FATHER, EX OR CURRENT PARTNER 

Nowl’d like to ipk you some questions about 

M1. When was the last time you were in an intimate relationship with 

- 

? 

[-- I -- I -- 1 

mm dd yy 

Currently in relationship .............................................. 7 ................................... 88 

Have been in relationship, but don’t remember when ..................................... 99 

M2. How lond have you been/ were you] together? 

M3. L-did] you live together? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes 1 .... _........................................ i.. ................................................................ 

IF “YES”, For how long bo/didl you live together? [--/-- 1 

mYY 

(IF CURRENTLY LIVE TOGETHER’ SKIP TO M5) - 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
43i 

M4. Over the pastsix months, how often have you seed hid her per week? 

[--I1-k 2=nim 3=past 6 months - 

M5. Does Ishe] do anything now that Ihe/ she)[gets/ got1 paid for? 

No ..................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes i ................................................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ............................ ........................................................... 9 

.............. 

- IF “YES”, What does mdo? 

c,, 1 

[-, 1 - 

- [-- 1 - 

M6. Many times people find creative ways to make ends mee tlenl Does/ h she now ake 

any money by: -- a. daywork, !&e doing repairs 

.No .......................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .I.. ................................................... -. ............................................... 1 

Don’t Know - .......................................................................................... 4 

b.. selling merchandise on the street 

No.. ............................................................................. : ......................... 0 

Yes ........................................................................................................ 1 

Don’tKnow .......... 1 .......................... ........................................ 1 ............ - 9 

c. selling drugs 

No ......................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ....................................................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know .. ......................................................................................... d. other ways 

No ......................................................................................................... 0 

Yes (SpeciD) 1 

Don’t Know ........................................................................................... 9 

- 

9- . 

[--I 

code 

Now Iet7s talk about)his/herj childhood. 

M7. Whenlhel] was growing up, did anyone hit bisll mom? 

No .............................................................................................................. 0 

Yes ................................................ .:. ........................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ............................................................................................ :- ....... 9 

IF “YES”, What was the person’s relationship to I-lmom? [--ICode- .. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
434 

M8. WhenIhe/she] m? was growing up, did PiS/lrnom, dad, or another adult beat-up on 

LNo ..................... : ..................................... : ................................................. 0 

Yes .............................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know ................................. . ...................................................... ........... 9‘ 

IF “YES”, What is the person’s relationship to [him/I? - [-- 1- 

code 

M9. Over the past six months, how often would you say he/ she has been in a physical fight 

with someone not 

U L- 1 including yourself! 

Never fought ............................ : ....................................................................... 89 

Don’t Know ................................................................... ................................ 99 

l=wk 2=mm 3=past 6 months 

M10. Over the past six months, not including tonight, how many times has he kicked, hit, 

punched, or pushed you? E,-] 

l=wk - 2-mm -- 3=past 6 months 

Never .............................................................................................................. 89 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 99 

- 

MI 1. When was the worst time including tonight? 

[ --A 1 . code 

M 12. Does 1-1 ever carry something to keep pzbafe? 

No (SKIP TO M14) ........................................................................................ 0 

Yes .................................................................. : 1 

Don’t Know - 9 

- - ........................................... .................................................................................................... 

M13. What does Ihe//usuaily carry? (CIRCLE ALL T-T APPLY) 

Gun .................................................................................................................. 1 

Knife ................................................................................................................ 2 

Razor ............................................................................................................... 3 

Club ................................................................................................................. 5 

Brass Knuckles ................................................................................................ 6 

Mace ............................................................................... : ................................ 7 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 

Other Sharp Object (Specifi) 4L- 1 

Other (Specifi) - sr-- 1 

- 

M14. How often does [heishe] drink beer, wine-or liquor? 

Drank but can’t say how often ......................................................... : ............... 88 

Never Drank .................................................................................................... 89 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 99 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
- M15. 

M16. 

Do you ever feel that I he/ she I should cut down on drinking? 

No ..................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................ :. . 1 

M17. At any-time didbe/ she( use: .... N Y DK If “YES” How often? 

a. Marijuana 0 1 9 [-- ] l-wk,2=mm - 

b. Cocaine/ Crack 0 1 9 [--I l=wk,2=mm 

c. Uppers, bennies, speed, crank, or 0 1 9 [--Il=wk,- 

d. Downers, barbs, Barbiturates 0 1 9 E-- ] l=wk,2=mm 

e. Heroin 0 1 9 [-- ] l=wk,2=mm 

amphetamines - 

f. Inhalants - like whippets, glue, NO - 0 1 9 [-- l=wk, 2=mm 

g. Anything else - (Specifi) r 0. 1 1 9 ~-_]l-wk,2=mm 

When was the last time that I he/ she I got drunk? [-- / __ /__ 1 

mmddyy - 

M18. When was the last timd he1 she(-got high on marijuana or drugs? [ / / 1 - mm dd yy 

Got high, but don’t know when the last time was .................................... : ....... Never got high (SKIP TO M21) ..... I ............................................... .............. 

88 

89 

Don’t know ...................................................................................................... 99 

M19. .What was1 he/ she1 using? (Spec@?) [-- 1 

- 

M20. 

M21. 

code 

Did you ever feel that 

No .... ............................................................................................................... 0 

IF “YES”, Which drugs? (Specifi) 

Before today, has 

No (SKIP TO M28) ................................................................................... 0 

.............................................................................................................. 1 

should cut dm on drugs? - 

Yes ............................................. ._ .................................................................. -1 

E-- 1 

code 

ever been arrested and charged for anything? 

Yes - 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
436 

M22. For what? (D.0 NOT READ, CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) - 

Shoplifting/ vandalism ......................................................... ........................... i 1 

parole/ probation violations .......-..............._................................................... . 2 

Forgery ............................... i ............................................................................ 4 

Drug Charges ................ .._.-........................................... ..;. .............................. 3 

Weapons Offense .............................. : ................................................... 1 ......... 5 

BU@~, larceny, B & E..., ............................... ............_......................... 1 ....... 6 

Assault ................ ............................................................................. ............... 8 

Arson .................. ........... : .............................................................................. :. 9 

Prostitution .......................................... ....,............ ............................................ 12 

Contempt of court ............................................................................. I ............ 13 

Anything else (SpeczD) 14L- 1 

Don’t Know ..................... : ............................................................................... 99 

. 

Robbery ...................................................................................... ...................... 7 

Rape .............................................................................................................. - 10 

Homicide, manslaughter .................................................................................. 11 

M231 When was the most recent time[heishdwas arrested? 

- 

- 

M24. Has ever been in jail or prison for a week or longer? 

No (SI(Ip TO MB) ...... ~ ...................................................................... -.-. ....... 

Yes .................. ................. .................................................................. --. .......I.. 

0 

1 

M25. When was the most recent timebefore today? - / -- 1 

mw 

M26. Is (he/shebn probation or parole? 

-No .................. .............................................................................................. .I. 0 ................................................................................................................... 1 Yes 

Don’t fiow-1 ................................ .I ................................................................... 9 

IF NOT CURRENT PARTNER, ASK M27. 

M27. Now I’d like to ask you, are you in a relationship now? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 ................................................................................................................... 1 

IF “YES”, How long have you been together? 

Yes 

Don’t Know ............ : ........................................................................................ 9 

[-- / -- 1 

m3-n w 

1 SKIP TO SECTION P 1 - 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
437 

SECTION N 

CURRENT/ MOST RECENT PARTNER 

THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO CASES NOTINJURED BY FATHER OF BABY, 

CURRENT OR PAST PARTNER, AND ALL CONTROLS EXCEPT CONTROLS 

TURNED CASES INJURED BY CURRENT OR PAST PARTNER 

NQW I’d like to ask you some questions about your most recent sexual relationship. 

- 

N1. Are you in an intimate relationship now? 

- No ...................................................................................................... 1 ............. 0 

Yes (SKIP-TO N3) .......................................................................................... 1 

DOI$~.KJIOW .:: ................ ; .................................................................................. 9 - - 

N2. When was the last time you were h an intimate relationship? [--/--/--I PROBE: When did this relationship end? mm dd yy 

Never been in relationship ....................... 1 ................ ...................................... -Have been in relationship, but don’t remember when ...................................... 89 

99 

-- 

N3. [ 1.s yo-w/waS your most recent bartner male or female? - - Male ................................................................................................................ 0 

Female .................... = ........................................ 1 ...............................-................ . 1 

N4. How 1ongLhave you been/ were you together? 

- N5 IDo/d you live together? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

IF “YES”, For how long.-bo/didl.you live together? (SKIP TO N7) [ - - / - - 1 

-w 

N6. lover the past six months, how often have you seed him/ her per week? 

1 CII [-, 1 

1-k 2=mm 3=past 6 months 

N7. What is the highest level of schooling-1 completed? 

None ................................................................................................................. 0 

1 

Some junior high school (7-9 years) ................................................................. 2 

Some high school (10- 11 years) ....................................................................... 3 

4 

5 

Some college .................................................................................................... 6 

College graduate ............................ ................................................................. 7 

- Postgraduate work ............................ ............................................................... 8 

Don’tKnow ....................... 7 ...................................................... 9 

Some grade school (1-6 years) ......................................................................... 

High school graduate (12 years ) or GED ........................................................ 

Post high school training other thm coilege (vocational, technict!, etc.): ....... 

. 

- 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
.. 

438 

N8. What race does-/ consider[himself/ herself/ to be? (READ CHOICES ALOUD) 

1 White .. ................................................................................................. 1 .............. 

Hispanic ........................................... i .................................... .- .......................... 2 

Black or Afirican Ament an .............................................................................. 3 

Asian .................................................................... : .................................... : ...... 4 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 6 

Other (Specifr ) 5 

N9. HOW old is [she]? 

..................................................................................................................... 

1 

0 

9 

Yes ...................................................................................................... i... ........ 

Don’t Know ......................... :..l...-...-.... ............................................................ 

IF “YES”, What does I he/ she I do? 

r 1 

N 1 1. Many times people find creative ways to make ends meet. (DoesllA&Jmake 

any money by: 

a. daywork like doing odd jobs, repairs - 

No .................................................................................... _. ..................... 0 

Yes - 1 

Don’t Know .......................................................................................... 9 

b. selIing merchandise on the street 

NO .......................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ....................................................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ........................................................................................... 9 

c. selling drugs 

No ......................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................... ; .................. 1 

Don’t Know .......................................................................................... 9 

d. otherways 

........................................................................................................ - 

- 

- 

No ............................................................................................... : ......... 0 

Yes (Specia) -1 - 

Don’t Know .......................................................................................... 9 . 

code 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
439 

Now let’s talk about (his/d childhood. 

N12. When [Klwas growing up, did anyone hit [her) mom? 

No .............................................................................................................. 0 

Yes .................................................. ............................................’.. ............... 1 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, What is the person’s relationship to 1-1 ? [--I 

code 

N13. Whedmd was growing up, did pj mom, dad, or another adult beat up on 

(himlherf? - 

I... .................................. I ............................................. : .......................... 0 

Yes .............................................................................................................. 1 

Don’tKnow ........... : ........................................................................................ 9 

IF “YES”, What is the person’s relationship to [him/l? [,-I 

code - 

N14. Over the past six months, h6w often would you say (he/)as beeh in i physical fight 

with someone? [-- 1 

Don’t Know ............................... .................................................................... - 99 

- l=hk 2=mm 3=past 6 months 

-Never fought .................................................................................................... 89 

N15. Does 1-1 ever carry something to keep Ihim/her]safe? - 

-No (SKIP TO N17) .......................................... : .............................................. 0 

Yes ............. .................................................................................... i 1 

Don’t Know ................................................................................................... 9 

........... 

N16. mat did Ihe/]usually carry? (CIRCLE ALL THAT-APPLY) 

Gun .................................................................................................................. 

Knife ............... : ................................................................. i .............................. Razor ............................................................................................................... 

- 

Other Sharp Object (Specifi) .~ 

._ Club ................................................................................................................. 

Brass Knuckles ................................................................................................ Mace ................................................................................................................ 

Other (Specifi) 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 

N 17. How often does [he/[ drink beer, wine or liquor? [-- 1 

l=wk 2=mm 

Drank but ........................................................................ canlt say how often 88 - 

Never Drank .................................................................................................... 89 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 99 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
a 

440 

N18. Do you ever Feel that I he/. she I should cut downon drinking? 

.NO .................. : ............. i .................................................................................. :. 

............................ : .................................................................................... i 

0 

Yes 1 

N19. .When was the last time that jheilgot dink? 

N20. At any time did1 he/ she1 use: 

N Y DK If “YES”Howoften 

. ........................................................................................ in thepast I six months? 

a. Marijuana 0 1 9- [-- 3 l-wk,2=mm 

b. Cocainel Crack 0 1 9 [-- 3 l=wk,2=mm 

c. Uppers, bennies, speed, crank, or 0 1 - 9 [--]l=wk,2=mm- - 

d. Downers, barbs, Barbiturates 0 1 9 [--1l=yk2=mm 

e. Heroin -0 1 9 [--]l=wk,2=mm 

f. Inhalants - like whippets, glue, NO - 0 1 9 1-,]l=wk,2=mm 

amphetamines - 

0 1 -9 [-- ] l=wk,2=mm - - g. Anything else (S’pecifi) 

r 1 

N2 1. When was the last time1 he/ shelgot high on marijuana or drugs? [ / / 1 

mm dd yy 

Got high, but don’t know when the last time was.: .......................................... 88 -. Never got high (SKIP TO N23) ...................................................................... 

Don’t know .............................................................. _. ....................... 1 ............... 

89 

99 

-N22. What was I he/ she 1 using? (Spec@) . [-- 1 

code 

N23. Did you ever feel that[%[ should cut down on drugs? 

NO ..................................................................... i ......................................... 1 .... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................... ;.. ............ 1 

IF ‘‘YES”, Which drugs? (SpeciB) [-- 1 

code 

N24. Has he/ she ever been arrested and charged for anything? 

No (SKIP TO SECTION 0) ..................................................................... 0 

Yes 1 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

0 

.............................................................................................................. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
441 

N25. For what? (DO NOT READ, CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 

Shoplifting/ vandalism .... ................................................................................ 1 

Parole/ probation violations ................................................................. ........... 2 

.Drug Charges .......: ...................................................................................... 1 ..... 3 

Forgery ............................................................................................................ 4 

.. 

Weapons Offense ............................. I .............................................................. 5 

Burglary, larceny, B & E .......... : ............... 1 ....................................................... 6 

. 

Robbery ............................... 1 ............................................................................ 7 

Assault ........................................ 7 .................................................................... 8 

&on .................................................... T .......................................................... 9 

Rape .............................................................................................................. 10 

.. 

.. Homicide, manslaughter ................................................................................. 1 1 

Prostitution ............................................. .-....................................................... 12 

Anything else (Specifi) 

Don't how .... : ............... 1 ................................................................................. 99 

Contempt of court .......................................................................................... 13 - 

14 [-- 1 

[--/--I *- 

.N26. When. was the most recent time [GI was arrested? - 

-YY 

- N27. Has[he/\ever been in jail or prison for a week or longer? - NO (SKIP TO N29) ......................... : .............................................................. .O 

Yes 1 - .................................................................................................................. 

N28. When was the most recent time? [-- I -- 1 

mYY 

- N29. Is[slon probation or parole? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

.Yes ................................. : ................................................................................. 1 

.Don't how ...... ............... ................................................................................ 9 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
e 

FOR CONTROLS AND FOR CASES WHO WERE NOT INJURED BY A PARTNER 

AND REPORT HAVING ANY PAST SEXUAL PARTNER 

442 

Think about the last time you and your most recent partner were together and had an argument, 

or fight, I am going to ask you some questions about that time. 

- 01. About how long ago did this happen? 

02. What time of day was it? 

03. How did this argument first begin? (RECORD EXACTLY IN PATIENT’S OWN 

- -0 

WORDS) 

[-, 1 

- code 

PROBE: 

What was it about? (RECORD IN PATIENT’S OWN WORDS) - 

[-- 1 

code 

04. Was anyone else there durirg the argument or fight? 

No ............................................................................... : ..................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know ..................................................................................................... 9 - 

IF “YES”, What is your relationship to (him/]? [-,I 

code 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
443 

05: During the argument did your partner: (READ ALL CHOICES) No Yes 

Remain calm ................................................................................................... 0 1 

Yell ................................................................................................................... 0 1 

Leave the room .................................................... : ..................... 1 ..................... 0 

Punch, slap, push, kick or bite you ........... : .................................................-... 0 

Threaten you with something that could hurt you? ......................................... 0 

. 1 

1 

I 

IF “YES”, With what? . 6. c_- 1 

IF “YES”, With what? [--I 

IF “YES”, Were -you hit? E-- 1 

[--I 

Stab or cut you ................................................................................................. 0 1 . 

Shoot at you with a gun? .................................................................................. 0 1 

Anything else (SpecifL ) ............. 0 1 

06. Did you ... ? (READ ALL CHOICES) No Yes 

or bite him/ her ......................................................... 0 1 

........................................................................................ 0 1 

€ 

= --- 

IF “YES”, With what? - [--I - Stab or cut 1-1 ................................................. 1 ...................................... 0 

IF “YES”, With what? [-- 1- . shoot at 1-1 

- with a -m ........................................................................... 0 1 

IF “YES~~, was ~T~ZFFI hit? [-- 1 - 

Anything’else (Specifl ) ............. 0 1 

- r 1 

I IF NO PHYSICAL INJURY SKIP TO OS. 

07. 

08. 

09 

- - 

What one thing in - particular triggeredlhim/l into getting physical with you? - 

- 

[-- 1 

code ._ 

How did the argument end? 

- 

[-- 1 

code 

DO YOU think [he/]was drinking Seer, wine, or liquor within four hours 

before the argument? 

No ..................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know .....................--........................................................! ........ .............. 9 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
444 

010, Doyouthink 1x1 was using marijuana or drugs within four hours before 

the argument? 

-0 

Yes ..__ ......__........_.....___.1.................................... ~ .... ~ ......... z ................................. 1 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

NO (SKIP TO 012) ...._..................._.............................................................. -. 

0 1 1. What do you think -king?. 

Weed/ Marijuana ..._._......._... .._._........._,...__......................................-................ : 

Cocaine/ Crack .... .. ... . .._ __. .... .. ... .. .. . . . . . .. . . ... . . . .. . . ...._. ... .. . ... .. . .. . . . ._ .. . .. . . . . . .. . . ...... . 

Uppers/ Speed Crank/ Amphetamines ............................................ Downen/ Barbs/ Barbiturates ............................ : ............................................ - 

Heroin (Horse) ..._........... ................................................................................ 

Inhalants - like whippets/ glue / NO .................................................... ..: ......... 

Anything else (Specifi) 

Don’t Know ......................_................................................. ........................... - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 - 

7.[-- 1 

9. 

- 012. Were you drinking beer, wirie or liquor within four hours before this happened? 

NO ............................................................................................................ : ........ 0 

Yes- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . ._. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Don’t Know ........ ....... _................ :... ........ .._....................................... ............. 9 

.O 13. Were you using any drugs within 4 hours before this happened? 

NO (SKIP TO SECTION P) .......................... 7 ................................................ 0 

Yes . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 1 

Don’t Know .............................................................................. ...................... 9 

0 14. What-were you using? 

Weed Marijuana ............................................................................................. 1 

Cocaine/ Crack ..........: .............................. .................. ........................ .......... 2 

Uppers/ BeMies/ Speed/ Crank/ Amphetamines ............................................ 3 

Downers/ Barbs/ Barbiturates ............................................ I ................. - ........... 4 

Heroin .................................................,.............................. ; ............................ 5- 

Inhalants -- like whippeg/ glue / NO .........._................................................... 6 

Don’t Know ............................... : ..._......... ..................................................... 9 

Anything else (Specifi) 7 I--.- 1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
445 

SECTION P 

PARTNER RELATIONSHIP HISTORY 

- 

Now I’d like to ask you some more questions about all your relationships. 

P 1. Thinlung of all your past sexual reladonships ever, how many of your partners kicked, hit, 

number 

None (SKIPTO P5) .................................................. .- ............. : ........................ 0 

Don’t Know ....................... : .............................................................................. 99 

punched or pushed you? [--I - 

- 

P2. How many were male?- - [-- 1 

number 

P3. When w-as the last time this happened? L-I-- I -- 1 -- dd w - 

P4. Can you tell me about the worst time ever? 

P5. IONLY ASK IF SUBJECT REPORTED HAVING BEEN PREGNANT] Did any 

partner ever physically hurt you when you were pregnant? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know ................................................................................................... 1 9 

IF “YES”, during how many pregnancies? L-1 

P6. Did any person ever force you to have sex when you didn’t want to? 

No ...................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’thow ........................................................................... : .............-......... 9 

IF “YES”, How many times did this happen? [-- 1 

number 

What is your relationship tolthat persod those people /? [-- - 1 

r 1 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
446 

I I I ONLY ASK IF SUBJECT HAS CHILDREN I 

P7. At some time did any .- partner hurt your children? 

No ......................................................................... ........................................... 0 

................................................................................................... 1 

9 

Yes ..: ......... .:. 

Don’t Know ....................... : ............................................................................. - 

IF YOU ANSWER “YES” FOR THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE TO TELL THE 

STAFF IN THEEMERGENCY DEPARTMENT. FEEL FREE TO NOT ANSWER 

- THE QUESTION, BUT ALSO FEEL FREE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. 

P8. Are - any of your children being hurt or in danger now? 

No ......... : .......................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ........................................... ;. ...................................................................... 1 

Don’t Know ... .....-........................................................................................... 9 

-- - 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
447 

-SECTION Q 

ADDITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS 

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about males other than your partners. 

Q1. 

Q2. 

- 

Q3. 

44- 

Q5. 

Not-including any of the people you may have already told me about, has any (other) male 

ever physically hurt you by kicking, hitting, punching or pushing you? 

NO (SKIP TO Q6) ........................................ : ................................................. 0 

Yes .: ................................................................................................................ 1 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

What is I his/ their/ relationship to you? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 

Father ..................................................................................... ......................... I 

Step father ........................................................... .- ............................................ 2 

Grandfather/Step-grandfather .......................................................................... 3 

Brother ........................................................................................................... :. 4 

Son ................................................................................................................... 5 

Foster parent ..................................................................................................... 6 - -- 

Foster ........................................................................................... grandparent 7 - 

Cousin ............................................................................................................. 8 

Friend ............................... ..:. ............................................................ .:. 9 

AcquaintancefNeighbor ................................................................................... 10 

Stranger ........................................................ ................................................... 11 

............. 

Other (Specih) - 12-E-- 1 ................................... - 

Has any (other) male that you haven’t told meabout physically injured-you? 

No ................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes ................................................................................................................... I? - 

Don’t know ...................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, What is your relationship to hm/them? [--I 

code 

When was the lasttime this happened? 

- 

Can you tell me about the worst time in the past year? 

[-- 1 

code 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
46. Did any male other than a partner ever physically hprt you-when you were pregnant? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1. 

Don’t Know ............ ._ ........................................................................ 9 

IF “YES”, during how many pregnancies? [-- 1 

[--I 

number 

What was your relationship to ? 

[-- 1 

Q7. Did any male you haven’t told me about ever force you to have sex when you didn’t want - to? 

No (SIUP TO Q9) ........................................................................................... -0 

Yes ........ : ......................................................................................................... 1- 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9 

IF “YES”, How many times did this happen? - [---I 

What was your relationship to thattpersod those peop3 ? -[-I 

- - [-- I 

Anyone else? [-=I - 

Q8. How about in the past year? 

No .................................................................................................................... 0 - 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 1 

Don’t Know ......................... ............................................... r. ......................... 9 

Now I’d like to ask you some questions about other females. - 

Q9: Not including any of the people you may have already told me about, in the past year 

has any (other) female physically hurt you by kicking, hitting, punching, or pushing you? 

No (SIUP TO Q14) ........................ T .............................. ................. ~ .............. 0 

- Yes .................... : ....................................................... ......................... : ....... 1 

Don’t Know ............................................................................................. ....... 9 

Q 10. What is Iher/{ relationship to you? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) .. Mother .............................................................................................................. 01 

Step mother .......................................................... : ......... ~ ................................. 02 

Grandmother/Step-grandmother ...................................................................... 03 

Sister ............. : .................................................................................................... 04 

Foster parent .........: ................ : ...................................................... ................... 06 

. Daughter ........................................................................................................... 05 

Foster grandparent ........................................................................................... 07 

Cousin .............................................................................................................. 08 

Friend .............................................................................................................. 09 

AcquaintanceMeighbor ................................................................................... 10 

Stranger ............................................................................................................ 1 1 - 

Anyone else (Specifi) . - 12[ __ 1 

Don’t Know ...................................................................................................... 99 

........................ 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
449 

Qll. 

Q12. 

Q13. 

- Q14. 

Has any other female that you haven’t told me about physically injured you? 

Yes ...................... .: ........ :. ............................................................................ .:. . 1 

Don’t know ...................................................................................................... 9 

No .................................................................. ................................................. 0 

IF “YES~~, mat is your relationship to )her/them? [-- I 

code ,. 

- 

When was the last time this happened? [ --/ - -/ - - 1 

-mmdd yy 

Can you tell me about the worst time? - 

Did any female other than a partner ever physically hurt you when you were pregnant? 

No .......... i ....... : ................................. ............. : 

Yes 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 9- 

IF ‘‘YES7> during how many pregnancies? 

0 .................................................................................................................. 1 ................................................. 

[-- 1 

number 

The next couple questions are abouc your childhood,/ that is before you turned 18 years old. I 

Q 15. I When you were growing up, 1 did your mom ever get hit? 

NO ....... .:. .......................................................................................................... 

Yes .: ................. 1. ............................................................................................ 

Don’t-Know .................................................................................................... 

IF “YES7*, What was your relationship to the person who did it? 

Q161 When vou were growing UD. I did any adult ever beat up on you? 

No ..... .:. ............................................................................................................ 

Yes .................................................................................................................. 

Don’t Know .................................................................................................... 

IF “YES”, What was lhis/]relationship to you? 

Anyone else? 

Q 171 When you were mowing UD. 1 did any adult force you to have sex? 

No .................. .:. ................................................................. - ...................... ,. .... 

Yes .............................................. 

Don’t Know ........................................................................... : ........................ IF “YES”, What was[his//relationship to you? 

0 

1 

9 

[-- 1 

code 

0 

1 

9 

[-- 3 

[--I 

0 

1 

9- 

[-,I 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
450 

SECTION R 

~DDJTIONAL INFORMATION 

Finally, we’d like to ask your opinion about Emergency Department Services. 

R1. We want to improve care in the Emergency Room, and really value your opinions. I am 

going to read a list of servieces. In the future, would you like to be offered any of the 

following in an ER? No Yes 

Talk with a counselor ........................................................................................... 0 1 

Get pain or nerve medicine .................................................................................. 0 1 

Find a new place to stay .... : .................................................................................. 0 1 

Find out- how to get a lawyer .._... ..................... .................................................. 0 1 

Child care in the waiting area ............................................................................... 0 1 

- 

- 

EU. Can you make any other Suggestions about Emergency Room services? 

e- 

- 

** END OF SURVEY** 

(Interviewers, please turn the page) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
45 1 

Reli-ability of Patient 

Good .......................................................................................................................... 0 

Fair ................................................................... : ..................................................... : 1 -- 

Poor ........................................................................................................................... 2 

Don't Know ................................................................................................................. 9 

.. 

Interviewer comments: 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
452 

APPENDIXB: QUALITATIWZ CODING MANUAL 

I. GENERAL RULE 

0 Many scenarios include information about prior incidents that in some way contribute to the current 

injury. Code all information unless specified otherwise. For example, do not code protection if it 

refers to past incident. 

11. HYPOTHESES 

1) “PLAYER HYPOTHESIS” 0 

0 

0 

0 

indication that a male is flirtinghaving sex with another female who is not is girlfriend. 

Involves more than one potential girlfriend 

must be indicatioddescription of male’s behavior 

include as player behavior if respondent is not directly involved. For example mother gets 

involved because her son is cheating on girlfriend and mother tried to prevent girlfriend 

from shooting son. 

2) “GENDER CENTRIC CONCERNS HYPOTHESIS” 

Female centric concerns 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Male centric concerns 

0 

0 

Competition over intimate or related to pregnancy 

includes indirect victimization; injured woman does not have to be a participant in the 

rivalry 

fight does not need to be between 2 potential female girlfriends. For example rivalry may 

be between girlfriend and boyfiend’s mother is included. 

include fights that mention that female is upset over breakup of boyfriend 

includes player behavior (see above) 

female or males tries to impress intimate or potential intimate 

Fight involves hairs, nails, clothes and any other issues related to physical attractiveness. 

This includes jealousy over one female being prettier than another. 

male feels rejected by females 

The word “rejection” doesnot have to be used for example: ‘‘I wouldn’t go out with 

him” is acceptable 

antagonist “pissed” because rejected but not rejected by the respondent 

3) “REM TIONAL-PROTECTION HYPOTHESIS” (antagonist is the protector) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

person who retaliates or helps is not the person who originally was victimized 

(physically or emotionally). 

Antagonist MUST be the protector not the person being protected 

refers to this fight only (exception to “General Rule” described above) 

do not include of antagonist is only trying to break up the fight; she must take a side 

include if try to protect someone’s reputation 

include if try to protect someone from getting hurt (physically) 

include if try to protect someone’s resources 

code respondent is protector under category called “respondent is protector” 

4) uMUTUAL CONTRIBUTION HYPOTHSIS” “MUTUALITY” 

Mutuality - uses physical or verbal aggression prior 

to injury 

include if respondent uses violence first 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
453 

5) INTERPERSONAL CONCERNS HYPOTHESIS’ 

0 

Include if respondent or antagonist says “helshe doesn’t like me” or respondent doesn’t 

like antagonist 

include if says “He saylshe say” 

respondentlantagonist is accused of saying something about someone or rumorslgossip 

someone “lied involves someone talking about someone else 

does not include a direct accusation unless its an accusation about having said something 

about someone else 

6) “PERSONAL RESPECT HYPOTHESIS” 

0 warrants a direct and irnmedia ‘t er e manse, which often manifested in a physical 

confrontation. Respect, honor, toughness, status and reputation have all been emphasized 

as key features of the (male) code of the street. Usually includes some type of name 

calling, dirty looks, slight. Also include perceived attack or affiont to their personal 

integrity. Target perceived to be full of herself, conceited. Snitching is a form of 

disrespect. 

Verbal insult, threats immediately prior to the violence. There must be an indication that 

someone is insulted. Its not enough for one person to be rudelangry. 

If the word threatened is used code respect only if antagonist threatens and respondent 

fights or says something in response to the threat 

Includes: show off in fiom’of others (increase face saving concerns and increase 

probability of retaliation), “trying to be smart” 

code respect if respondent says she fought because “she had family around her” 

exclude relational respectlprotection. If antagonist is protecting a third person but there is 

a violation of personal respect between antagonist and respondent then include in both 

categories 

0 

0 

11. CODES USED IN DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES 

1) Try to break up fight or mend things 

respondent injured as a result of breaking up fight 

2) Respondent Get Drawn Into Fight 

someone takes anger out on respondent rather than person really mad at 

respondent gets dragged into fight by forces beyond her own actions. For example, she is 

with her cousin who gets aggressive with antagonist and then antagonist injures her and 

cousin 

3) Respondent initiates violence 

Respondent is the first person to become physically violent 

Include if she gets violent first but gets injured by someone who jumps in 

4) Respondent is innocent target 0 

0 

respondent says she ‘don’t know why happened” 

obvious that respondent was innocent victim i.e. predatory 

include if innocent victim but she contributes to her injury by fighting back 

it was a respondent of mistaker identity 

5) Argument over Money 

0 

include if fight is over child support 

inlcude if fight is over a phone bill 

include if fight is over resources (Le. basketball tickets or a car) 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
454 

6) Predatory Crime 

0 includes theft 

0 includerape 

7) Jealousy - only code if the words “jealousy” or “possessive” are used 

8) Ongoing problems 

0 

0 

0 We “always” had problems 

0 

0 

0 

0 

must be some indication that problems are ongoing that is they did not start the day of the 

violence 

“we had a fight before and she wanted to finish it” assume ongoing problems 

“constantly” harassing me; “he’s been harassing me” “he’s always talking about wanting 

to jump me” “its not the first time he acted like this” “we always fight” 

don’t include is its just an accusation about he say/she say 

include if incident involves retaliation include if argument was over the phone and 

retaliation subsequently occurred face to face. 

Include if first argument was between respondent and third party and then antagonist 

attacks because of fight between third party and respondent. 

9) Dispute is related to the kids or parenting 0 

0 

0 

parendadult gets involved in fight because kids are fighting 

someone is criticized for not being a good mom 

over issues related to discipline 

10) Case or respondent is angery or has problem 0 

0 

0 

shehe’s got a problem, there’s some sort of problem 

“went off,’’ “psycho,)’ “split personality,” “flipped out,” “act strange”, “throwed,” “360 degree 

turnaround” 

pissed me off, got upset and started cursing, attitude, mad, htrated 

1.1) respondent or antagonist was scared . key words “scared” “scary” “feamessyy 

12) Drug seeking behaviors 

buying drugs only 

0 Include if respondent says “probably stole the money to get drugs” 

13) prank include play fighting 

14) antagonist fights for a thrill 

0 likes to fight, type of person she is, she’s in a fighting mood, thinks fighting solves 

everything, troublemaker, she gets like that 

15) respondent or antagonist is stressed 

0 

0 

fight over issue that someone “died” “dying” 

fight over issue that someone has “abandonment” issues 

fight over issue that someone was “killed” 

fight over issue feelings of upset because of a “fue” 

16) mentally ill 

0 

0 

mention of a psychiatric problem” “mentally challanged” sent to psych department” “tried to 

commit suicide” “he’s looney” “messed up and on medications, xanax” “he’s psychotic” 

include if respondent or antagonist is mentally ill 

17) argument: exchange of words prior to the violence 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
0 

455 

Bibliogrup hy 

Acoca L. and J. Austin. 1996. The Crisis: The Women in Prison. The National Council 

on Crime and Delinquency, Stamford: Conn. 

Acoca, L. and K. Dedel. 1998. No Pluce to Hide. The National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency. Submitted to the California Wellness Foundation and the Jessie duPont 

Fund. 

Adams, N. 1999. “Fighting to be Somebody: Resisting Erasure and the Discursive 

Practices of Female Adolescent Fighting.” Educational Studies, 30(2): 1 15-140. 

Adams, P.F., C.A. Schoenborn, A.J. Moss, C.W. Warren, and L. Kann. 1995. “Health 

risk behaviors among our nation’s youth: United States, 1992. ” Vital and Health 

Statistics Series 10, (1 92): DHHS Publication No.(PHS) 95-1 520. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. 

Adler, F., G.O.W. Mueller, and W.S. Laufer.1998. Criminology. Boston: McGraw Hill. 

Afifi, A.A. and V. Clark. 1996. Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis. London: 

Chapman and Hall. 

Ahmad, Y. and P.K. Smith. 1994. “Bullying in Schools and the Issue of Sex * 

Differences.’’ In J. Archer (ed.), Male Violence. London: Routledge. 

In Campbell, Anne, Steven Muncer and Daniel Bibel. 1998. “Female-Female Criminal 

Assault: An Evolutionary Perspective.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 

35(4), 413-428. 

Alarid, L.F., S. Velmer, J. Burton, and F.T. Cullen. 2000. “Gender and Crime Among 

Felony Offenders: Assessing the Generality of Social Control and Differential 

Association Theories.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(2): 171 -1 99. 

Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Anderson, E. 1994. “The Code of the Street. How the Inner-City Environment Fosters a 

Need for Respect and a Self-Image Based on Violence.” The Atlantic Monthly, 273(4): 

8 1-94. 

Anderson, E. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Lfe of the 

Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
456 

Arnold, R. 1989. “Processes of Criminalization from Girlhood to Womanhood.” In M. 

Zinn and B. Dill (eds.), Women of Color in American Society. Philadelphia: Temple 

University Press. 

a 

Artz, S. 1998. Sex, Power and the Violent School Girl. New York: Teachers College 

Press. 

Bachrach, C., M.J. Hindin, and E. Thomas. 2000. “The Changing Shape of Ties that 

Bind: An Overview and Synthesis.” In L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. and 

Thomson, A. Thornton (eds.), The Ties that Bind. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 

Baskin, D. and I. Sommers. 1998. Casualties of Community Disorder. Boulder, CO: 

Westview Press. 

Belknap, J. 1996. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. Cincinnati: 

Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

Berger, R. 1989. “Female Delinquency in the Emancipation Era: A Review of the 

Literature.” Sex Roles, 21 (5/6), 375-399. 

Bjorkqvist, K. K. Osterman, and A. Kaukuainen. 1992. “The Development of Direct and 

Indirect Aggressive Strategies in Males and Females.” In K. Bjorkqvist and P. Niemela 

(eds.), Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female Aggression. San Diego, CA: Academic 0 Press. 

Bjorkqvist, K. and P. Niemela. 1992. “New Trends in the Study of Female Aggression.” 

In K. Bjorkqvist and P. Niemela (eds.), Of Mice and Women: Aspects of Female 

Aggression . San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 

Black, D. 1983. “Crime as Social Control.” American Sociological Review, 48: 34-45. 

Browning, S.L. and R.R. Miller. 1999. “Marital Messages: The Case of Black Women 

and their Children.’’ Journal of Family Issues, 20(5): 633-647. 

Brownstein, H., B.S Spunt, S. Crimmins and S. Langley. 1995. “Women Who Kill in 

Drug Market Situations.” Justice Quarterly 12(3): 473-497. 

Bullock L.F. and J. McFarlane. 1989. “Higher Prevalence of Low Birthweight Infants 

Born to Battered Women.” American Journal of Nursing, 89: 1 153-1 155. 

Burbank, V. “Female Aggression in Cross-Culturai Perspective.” Behavior Science 

Research, 1987b; 2 1 :71- 100. 

Burris-Kitchen, D. 1995. Sisters in the Hood. Ph.D. Dissertation, Western Michigan 

University . 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
457 

BUSS, D. and D. Schmitt. 1993. “Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective 

on Human Mating.” Psychological Review, 100: 204-232. 

Campbell, A. 1986. “Self-Report of Fighting by Females.” British Journal of 

Criminology 26(1): 28-46. 

Campbell, A. 1993. Men, Women and Aggression. New York: Basic Books. 

Campbell, A. 1995. “Staying Alive: Evolution, Culture and Women’s Intrasexual 

Aggression.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 203-252. 

Campbell, A. 1999. “Fighting Female: Female Gang Members’ Social Representations of 

Aggression.” In M. Chesney-Lind and J. Hagedorn (eds.), Female Gangs in America. 

Chicago: Lake View Press. 

Campbell, A., S. Muncer. and D. Bibel. 1998. “Female-Female Criminal Assault: An 

Evolutionary Perspective.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(4): 41 3- 

428. 

Campbell J.C., M. Poland, and J. Ager. 1992. “Correlates of Battering During 

Pregnancy.” Research in Nursing and Health, 1 5:2 19-226. 

Canada, G. 1995. Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun: A Personal History of Violence in America. e Boston: Beacon Press. 

Carlen, P. 1988. Women, Crime and Poverty. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University 

Press. 

Chesney-Lind, M. 1989. “Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime: Towards a Socialist 

Feminist Theory.” Gender & Society, 3( 1): 132- 134. 

Chesney-Lind, M. 1997. The Female OHender. London: Sage. 

Chesney-Lind, M. and M. Brown. 1999. “Girls and Violence: An Overview.” In D.J. 

Flannery and C.R Huff (eds.), Youth Violence. Washington DC: American Psychiatric 

Press, Inc. 

Chesney-Lind, M. and J.M. Hagedorn. 1999. Female Gangs in America: Essays on 

Girls, Gangs, and Gender. Chicago, ILL: Lakeview Press. 

Chesney-Lind, M., and R. Sheldon. 1998. Girls, Delinquency and Juvenile Justice. 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Chodorow, N. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of California 

Press. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
458 

Cloward, R. and L. Ohlin. 1960. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent e Gangs. New York: Free Press. 

Cohen, A.K. 1966. Deviance and Control. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Cook, R.F., A.D. Bernstein and C.M. Andrews “Assessing Drug Use in the Workplace: 

A Comparison of Self-Report, Urinalysis, and Hair Analysis.’’ In L. Harrison and A. 

Hughes. (eds.), The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of 

Survey Estimates. NIDA Research Monograph. 167247-272. 

Craven, D. 1996. “Female Victims of Violent Crime.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ162602. WDC: USGPO. 

Crick, N.R., 1995. “Relational Aggression: The Role of Intent Attributions, Feelings of 

Distress, and Provocation Type.” Developmental Psychopathology, 7: 3 13-322. 

Crick, N.R., M.A. Bigbee and C. Howes. 1996. “Gender Differences in Children’s 

Normative Beliefs about Aggression: How Do I Hurt Thee? Let Me Count the Ways.” 

Child Development, 67: 1003-1014. 

Crick, N.R., and J.K. Grotpeter. 1996. “Children’s Treatment by Peers: Victims of 

Relational and Overt Aggression.” Developmental Psychopathology, 8: 367-3 80. 

“Current Population Survey Bulletin: Income and Poverty.” Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Commerce/Bureau of the Census, March 1997. 

e 

Daly, K. 1998. “Women’s Pathways to Criminal Court: Feminist Theories of 

Lawbreaking and Problems of Representation.” In K. Daly and L. Maher (eds.), 

Criminology at the Crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Daly, K. 1994. Gender, Crime, and Punishment. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale 

University Press. 

Daly, K. and M. Chesney-Lind. 1988. “Feminism and Criminology.” Justice Quarterly, 

5 (4): 498-538. 

Daly, M., and M. Wilson. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. 

Daly, M., and M. Wilson. 1990. “Killing the Competition: Female/Female and 

MaleMale Homicide.” Human Nature, 1 (1): 8 1 - 107. 

Danziger, S and P. Gottschalk. 1995. America Unequal. New York: Russell Sage 

Foundation. 

Davies, K. 1996. “Women As Victims and Perpetrators of Homicide: A Test of Three .I Theories of Women’s Criminality.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Ohio State University. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
459 

Davis, R.E. 1997. “Trauma and Addiction Experiences of Afiican American Women.” 

Western Journal of Nursing Research, 19(4): 442-465. 

* 

Dejong, A.R., A.R. Hervada, and G.A.Emmett. 1983. “Epidemiologic Variations in 

Childhood Sexual Abuse.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 7: 155-1 62. 

Deschenes, E.P. and F. Esbensen. 1999. “Violence among Girls: Does Gang Membership 

Make a Difference.” In M. Chesney-Lind and J. Hagedorn (eds.), Female Gangs in 

America. Chicago: Lake View Press. 

Dodson, L. 1998. Don ’t Call Us Out of Name: The Untold Lives of Women and Girls in 

Poor America. 1998. Boston: Beacon Press. 

Dunlop, E., B.D. Johnson, and L. Maher. 1997. “Female Crack Sellers in New York 

City: Who They Are and What They Do.” Women & Criminal Justice, 8(4): 25-55. 

Ellickson, P. and K.A. McGuigan. 2000. “Early Predictors of Adolescent Violence.” 

American Journal of Public Health, 90(4): 566-572. 

Ellickson, P., H. Saner, and K.A. McGuigan. 1997. “Profiles of Violent Youth: 

Substance Use and Other Concurrent Problems.” American Journal of Public Health, 87: 

985-991. 

Fagan, J. and D.L. Wilkinson. 1998. “Guns, Youth Violence, and Social Identity in 

Inner Cities. Crime and Justice, 24: 105-1 88. 

Farrell, R.A. and V.L. Swigert. 1978. “Legal Disposition of Inter-Group and Intra-Group 

Homicides.” Sociological Quarterly, 19565-576. 

Felson, R.B. 1982. “Impression Management and the Escalation of Aggression and 

Violence.” Sociological Quarterly, 45(4): 245-254. 

Felson, R.B. and S.F. Messner. 1996. “Big People Hit Little People: Sex Differences in 

Physical Power and Interpersonal Violence.” Criminology, 34 (3): 433-452. 

Fife, D., J. Barancik, B. Chatterjee. 1984. Northeastern Ohio Trauma Study, 11. Injury 

Rates by Age, Sex and Cause. American Journal of Public Health, 74: 473-478. 

Fine, M. and N. Zane. 1989. “On Being Wrapped Tight: When Low-Income Females 

Drop Out of High School. In L. Weirs (ed.), Dropouts zn Schools: Issues, Dilemmas, and 

Solutions. Albany: State University of New York Press. 

Finkelhor, D. and L. Baron. 1986. “Risk factors for Child Sexual Abuse.” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 1 :42-71. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
460 

’Forde, D.R. and L. W. Kennedy. 1997. “Risky Lifestyles, Routine Activities, and the e General Theory of Crime.” Justice Quarterly, 14: 265-294. 

Freud, S. 1933. New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton. 

Freudenberg, N, L. Roberts and B.E. Richie. 1999. “Coming Up in the Boogie Down: 

The Role of Violence in the Lives of Adolescents in the South Bronx.” Health Education 

and Behavior, 26 (6): 788-805. 

Galen, B.R., and M.K. Underwood. 1997. “A Developmental Investigation of Social 

Aggression Among Children.” Developmental Psychology, 33 : 589-600 

Garbarino J, and D. Sherman. 1980. “High-Risk Families and High-Risk Neighborhoods. 

Child Development, 5 1 : 1 88-1 98. 

George, M.J. 1999. “A Victimization Survey of Female Perpetrated Assaults in the 

United Kingdom.” Aggressive Behavior? 25:67-79. 

Gilfus, M. 1992. “From Victims to Survivors to Offenders: Women’s Routes of Entry and 

Immersion into Street Crime.’? Women and Criminal Justice, 4: 63-89. 

Gilligan, C. 1993. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s 

Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. m 

Gilligan, J. 1996. Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and Its Causes. New York: Putnam. 

Giordano, P. and S.M. Rockwell. 2000. “Differential Association Theory and Female 

Crime.” pp. 3-24, In S.S. Simpson (ed.), OfCrime and Criminality. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Pine Forge Press. 

Glaser B.G., and A.L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery ofGrounded Theory. Chicago, IL: 

Aldine. 

Government Accounting Office. December, 1999. “Women in Prison: Issues and 

Challenges Confronting: U.S. Correctional Systems.’’ GONGGD-00-22. Washington, 

D.C. 

Goldstein, P.J. 1985. “The Drugs-Violence Nexus: A Tripartite Conceptual Framework.” 

Journal of Drug Issues, 15:493-506. 

Goldstein, P.J. B. Spunt, P. Belluci andT. hliikr. 1991, “Volume of Cocaine Use and 

Violence: A Comparison Between Men and Women.” Journal ofDrug Issues, 21 :345- 

367. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
46 1 

Gove, W.R., M. Hughes, and M. Geerken. 1985. “Are Uniform Crime Reports a Valid 

Indicator of the Index Crimes? An Affirmative Answer With Minor Qualifications.” 

Criminology, 23(3) p. 452-501. 

e 

Greenfeld, L., M.R. Rand, and D. Craven. 1998. “Violence by Intimates: Analysis of 

Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends.” Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. March 1998; NCJ-167237. 

Greenfeld A.L., and T.L. Snell. December 1999. “Women Offenders.’’ Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. NCJ 175688. WDC: USGPO. 

Grisso, J.A. 1995. “Women and Violence in an Urban Community” Grant submitted to 

the National Institute of Health. PHS 398 (Rev 9/91) 

Grisso, J.A., C.G. Miles, and J.H. Holmes. 1996. “Injuries among Inner-City Minority 

Women: A Population-Based Longitudinal Study.” American Journal of Public Health, 

86 (1): 67-70. 

Grisso, J.A., D.J. Schwarz, and N.B. Hirschinger. 1999. “Violent Injuries Among Women 

in Urban Areas.” New England Journal of Medicine, 34: 1899-1 905. 

Hagedorn, J. M., and M.L. Devitt. 1999. “Fighting Female: The Social Construction of 

Female Gangs.” In M. Chesney-Lind and J.M. Hagedorn (eds.), Female Gangs in 

America: Essays on Girls Gangs, and Gender. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press. 

Hall, D., H. Brownstein, S. Crimmins., B. Spunt., and S. Langley. 1996. “Homicide by 

Women.” New York: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. 

Harrison, L. 1997. “The Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use in Survey Research: An 

Overview and Critique of Research Methods.” In L. Harrison and A Hughes. (eds.), The 

Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use: Improving the Accuracy of Survey Estimates. NIDA 

Research Monograph. 167: 17-36. 

Hausman, A.J. S. Howard S. and D. Prothrow-Stith. 1994. “Adolescents’ Knowledge 

and Attitudes About and Experience with Violence.’’ Journal of Adolescent Health, 

15(5): 400-406. 

“Health United States 1990.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Department of Health and Human Services Pub. No. (PHS) 9 1 - 1232. March 1991. 

Heimer, K., and S. De Coster. 1999. “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency.” .. 

Criminology, 37(2): 277-3 17. 

Heymann, J. and A. Earle. 1999. “The Impact of Welfare Reform on Parents’ Abilities to 

m Care for their Childrens’ Health.” The American Journal of Public Health, 89(4): 502- 505. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
462 

Hilberman E, and K. Munson. 1977-1 978. “Sixty Battered Women.” Victimology: An 

International Journal, 2:460-470. 

a 

Hill, G. and E. Crawford. 1990. “Women, Race and Crime.’’ Criminology, 28(4): 60 1 - 

625. 

Hindelang, M., M., Gottfredson, and J. Garofalo. 1978. Victims of Personal Crime: An 

Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, MA: 

Ballinger. 

Hindelang, J., T. Hirschi, and J. Weis. 198 1. Measuring Delinquency. Newbury Park, 

CA: Sage, 1981. 

Hirschi, T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1969. 

Hirschinger, N.B. “Women’s Health and Emergency Care Question By Question 

Manual.” Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. University of Pennsylvania 

Medical Center. Unpublished Document. 

Hirschinger, N.B., J.A. Grisso and D. Wallace.“A Case-Control Study of Violence 

among Women in an Urban Community” Submitted to American Journal of Public 

Health, January 2002. 

Holsinger, K. 2000. “Feminist Perspectives on Female Offending: Examining Real Girls’ 

Lives.” Women and Criminal Justice, 12( 1): 23-5 1. 

Home Office Research and Statistics Department. 1995. “Young People and Crime.” 

London: Home Office. 

Home Office Statistical Bulletin. 1996. “The 1996 British Crime Survey England and 

Wales. London: Government Statistical Service.” 

hooks, bell. 1993b. Sisters ofthe Yam. Boston: South End Press. 

Houseman, S. 1995. “Job Growth and the Quality of Jobs in the U.S. Economy.” Labor, 

77: 593-5 124. 

Inciardi, J. A. Lackwood and A. Pottieger. 1993. Women and Crack Cocaine. New 

York: MacMillan Publishing. 

Jacob, H. Using Published Data: Errors and Remedies. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 

1984. 

Jarrett, R.L. 1998. “African American Mothers and Grandmothers in Poverty.” Journal of 0 Comparative Family Studies, 29(2) 3 87-396. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
463 

Jensen, G., and D. Brownfield. 1986. “Gender Lifestyles and Victimization: Beyond @ Routine Activity Theory.” Violence and Victims, 1 : 85-89. 

Jordan, B.K., and W.E. Schlenger. 1996. “Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders among 

Incarcerated Women.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 53:5 13-1 19. 

Kann, L., S.A. Kinchen, B.I., J.R.Williams, R.Lowry, C.Hil1, J. Grunbaum, P. Blumson, 

J. Collins, and L. Kolbe 1998. “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States, 

1997.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47 (No. SS-3): 1-3 1. 

Keenan, K. and D. Shaw. 1997. “Developmental and Social Influences on Young Girls’ 

Early Problem Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin, 121( 1): 95-1 13. 

Kendall-Tackett, K.A., L.M. Williams, and D. Finkelhor. 1993. “Impact of Sexual Abuse 

on Children: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Empirical Studies. Psychological 

Bulletin, 1 13 : 164- 1 80. 

Kennedy, L.W. and D.R. Forde. 1999. men Push Comes to Shove. New York: State 

University of New York Press. 

Kingman, J. 1999. “Repeat Victimization of Victims of Violence.” Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 14: 79-90. 

Kirschenman, J. and K. Neckerman. 1991. “We’d Like to Hire Them, But ...” In C. 

Jencks and P. Paterson (eds.), The Urban Underclass. Washington, D.C.: Brookings 

Institution. 

0 

Kornhauser, R. 1978. Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago, Illinois: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Kruttschnitt, C. 1994. “Gender and Interpersonal Violence.” In A. Reiss and J. Roth 

(eds.), Understanding and Preventing Violence, Vol. 3. National Academy of Science. 

Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior, Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy Press. 

Ladner, Joyce A. 1971. Tomorrow s Tomorrow: The Black Woman. Lincoln, Nebraska: 

University of Nebraska Press. 

Lagerspetz, K., K. Bjorkqvist, and T. Peltonen. 1988. “Is indirect aggression typical of 

females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 1 1 -to 12-year old children.” Aggressive 

Behavior, 14: 403-404. 

Laidler, K. and G. Hunt. 1997. “Violence and Social Organization in Female Gangs.” 

Social Justice, 24(4): 148- 170. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
464 

Land, K, P. McCall, P and L. Cohen. 1990. “Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: 

Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Space?” American Journal of Sociology, 

95,922-963. 

0 

Laub, J.H. and R. J. Sampson. 1993. “Turning Points in the Life Course: Why Change 

Matters to the Study of Crime?” Criminology, 3 1 (3): 301-325. 

Leischied, A. W., A.Cummings, M.V., Brunschot, A.. Cunningham, and A. Saunders. 

2000. “Female Adolescent Aggression: A Review of the Literature and the Correlates of 

Aggression 2000-2005.” Solicitor General Canada, Public Works and Government 

Services Canada. 

Leonard, E.B. 1982. Women, Crime and Society. London: Longman. 

Loeber, R. and M. Stouthamer-Loeber. 1998. “Development of Juvenile Aggression and 

Violence: Some Common Misconceptions and Controversies.” American Psychologist, 

53 (2): 242-259. 

Lombroso, C. and W. Ferrero. 1895. The Female Offender. New York: Philosophical 

Library. 

Luckenbill, D. 1977 “Criminal Homicide as a Situated Transaction,” Social Problems, 

25: 176-86. 

Maccoby, E. 1988. “Gender Social Category.” Developmental Psychology, 24: 755-765. 

Maher, L. 1997. Sexed Work. Clarendon Press: Oxford. 

Maher, L. and R. Curtis. 1993. “Women on the Edge: Crack Cocaine and the Changing 

Contexts of Street-Level Sex Work in New York City.” Crime, Law and Social Change, 

18: 221-258. 

Maher, L. and K. Daly. 1995. “Women in the Street-Level Drug Economy: Continuity or 

Change?” Criminology, 34(4): 465-49 1. 

Malcolmson, J. 1994. Violence in Schools: An Overview of Findingspom the ‘Teaching 

in the 90’s Survey.’ Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation. 

Maniglia, R. 1998. “Appropriate Gender Specific Programming For Female Offenders 

and Girls at Risk.” For the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. 

Mann, C.R. 1990a. “Female Homicide and Substance Abuse -- Is There A link?” 

Women and Criminal Justice, 1 : 87- 109. 

Mann, C.R. 1996. When Women Kill. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
465 

Mathews, F. 1998. “Violent and Aggressive Girls.” Journal of Child and Youth Care, 

11: 1-23. 

Maxfield, M.G. 1998. Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. 

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 

Maxfield, M.G. 1999. “Special Issue on the National Incident-Based Reporting System.” 

Journal-of-Quantitative-Criminology, 15(2): 1 15-248. 

McFarlane J., K. Christoffel, L. Bateman, V. Miller, L. Bullock. “Assessing For Abuse: 

Self Report Versus Nurse Interview.” 1991. Public Health Nursing, 8(4): 245-250. 

Merton, R. 1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. 

Messerschmidt, J. 1997. Crime as Structured Action: Gender, Race, Class and Crime in 

the Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Miles-Doan, R. and S. Kelly. 1997. “Geographic Concentration of Violence Between 

Intimate Partners.” Public Health Reports, 1 12: 135- 14 1. 

Miller, E.M. 1986. Street Women. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press 

Miller, J. 1998. “Up it Up: Gender and the Accomplishment of Street Robbery.” 0 Criminology, 36( 1): 37-66. 

Miller, J. B. 1986. Toward a New Psychology of Women. Boston: Beacon Press. 

Morris, R. 1964. “Female Delinquency and Relational Problems.” Social Forces, 43: 82- 

89. 

Musick, J.S. 1991, “The High-Stakes Challenge of Programs for Adolescent Mothers.” 

In P. Edelman and J. Ladner. (eds.), Adolescence and Poverty: Challenge for the 2990s. 

Washington, D.C. : Center for National Policy Press. 

Mustaine, E.E. and R.Tewksbury. 1999. “A Routine Activity Theory Explanation for 

Women’s Stalking Victimizations.” Violence Against Women, 5 (1): 43-62. 

Nafiine, N. 1987. Female Crime: The Construction of Women in Criminology. Boston. 

Allen and Irwin. 

Nurge, D. 1998. “The Risks and Rewards of Gang Membership: A Qualitative Study af 

the Nature, Context and Gender Dynamics of Female Gangs and Cliques in Boston.” 

Ph.D. Dissertation Prospectus, Department of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
466 

Nurge, D. 2000. “The Risks and Rewards of Gang Membership: A Qualitative Study of 

the Nature, Context and Gender Dynamics of Female Gangs and Cliques in Boston.’’ 

Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University. 

a 

0’ Brien, R.M. 1985. Crime and Victimization Data, Vol. 4: Law and Criminal Justice 

Series. Beverly Hills: Sage. 

O’Brien, R.M. 1988. “Exploring the Intersexual Nature of Violent Crimes.” 

Criminology, 26 (1): 15 1 - 170. 

O’Campo, P., Gielen A.C., Faden, R.R., Xue X., Kass, N., and Wang, M.C. 1995. 

“Violence by Male Partners Against Women During the Childbearing Years: A 

Contextual Analysis.” American Journal of Public Health, 85: 1092-7. 

Ogilview, E. 1996. “Masculine Obsessions: An Examination of Criminology, 

Criminality, and Gender.” New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29: 205-226. 

Oliver, W. 1989b. “Sexual Conquest and Patterns of Black-on-Black Violence: A 

Structural-Cultural Perspective.” Violence and Victims, 4: 257-27 1. 

Oliver, W. 1994. The Violent Social World of Black Men. New York: Lexington Books. 

Oropesa, R.S., and B.K. Gorman. 2000. “Ethnicity, Immigration, and Beliefs about 

Marriage as a ‘Tie That Binds.’” In L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, and 

A. Thornton (eds.), The Ties that Bind. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 

0 

Owens, L., R. Shute, and P. Slee. 2000. “Guess What I Just Heard!: Indirect Aggression 

Among Teenage Girls in Australia.” Aggressive Behavior, 26: 67-83. 

Pajer, K. 1998. “What Happens to Bad Girls? A Review of the Adult Outcomes of 

Antisocial Adolescent Girls.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(7): 862-869. 

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: 

Sage. 

Pearce, D. 1990. “Welfare is not for women: why the war on poverty cannot conquer the 

feminization of poverty.” In L. Gordon (ed.), Women, the State, and Welfare. Madison, 

Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. 

Pivan F.F., and R.A. Cloward. 1971. Regulating the Poor. New York: Random House. 

Pollack, W. 1998. Real Boys. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc. 

Pollak, 0. 1950. The Criminality of Women. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania 

Press. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
467 

Pollock, J.M. 1999. Criminal Women. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Company. 

Porter, G. November 2000. “Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1988-1997.” Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. FS-00017. WDC: USGPO. 

e 

Prothrow-Stith D and Weissman M. 199 1. Deadly Consequences: How Violence Is 

Destroying Our Teenage Population and A Plan to Begin Solving the Problem. New 

York: Harper Collins Publishers. 

Radloff, L.S. 1977. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in 

the General Population.” Applied Psychological Measurement, l(3): 385-40 1. 

Raley, R.K. 2000. “Recent Trends and Differentials in Marriage and Cohabitation: The 

United States.” In L. Waite, C. Bachrach, M. Hindin, E. Thomson, A. Thornton (eds.), 

The Ties that Bind. New York : Aldine de Gruyter. 

Rand, M.R. and Strom, K. August 1997. “Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital 

Emergency Departments.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 156921. WDC: USGPO. 

Rice, M. 1990. “Challenging orthodoxies in feminist theory: A black feminist critique.” 

In L. Gelsthorpe and A. Moms (eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. 

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. 

Richie, B.E. 1996. The Gendered Entrapment of Battered, Black Women. London: 

Routledge. 

a 

Richie, B.E. 2000. “Exploring the Link Between Violence Against Women and Women’s 

Involvement in Illegal Activity.” In Research on Women and Girls in the Justice System, 

NCJ 180973. 

Rivera, B. and C. S. Widom 1990. “Childhood Victimization and Violent Offending.” 

Violence and Victims, 5: 19-35. 

Romenesko, K. and E. Miller. 1989. “The Second Step in the Double Jeopardy: 

Appropriating the Labor of Female Street Hustlers.” Crime and Delinquency, 35: 109- 

135. 

Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 

Russel, D.E. 1986. The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and Women. New 

York: Basic Books. 

Russel M., S.S. Martier, and R.J. Sokol. 1994. “Screening for Pregnancy Risk-Drinking.” 

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 18(5): 1 156-1 16 1. a 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
468 

Sampson, R. 1987. “Urban Black Violence: The Effect of Male Joblessness and Family e Disruption.” American Journal of Sociology, 93 : 348-82. 

Sampson, R., and W. Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social 

Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology, 94:774-802. 

Sampson, R.J. and J.H. Laub. 1994. “Urban Poverty and the Family Context of 

Delinquency: A New Look at Structure and Process in a Classic Study. ” Child 

Development, 65: 523-540. 

Sampson, R. and J. Lauritsen. 1990. “Deviant Lifestyles, Proximity to Crime, and the 

Offender-Victim Link in Personal Violence.” Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency, 27 (2):llO-139. 

Sampson R. and J. Lauritsen. 1994. “Violent Victimization and Offending: IndividualSituational-, and Community-Level Risk Factors.” In A. Reiss, J. Roth (eds.), 

Understanding and Preventing Violence Vol. 3 Social Influences. Washington, D.C.: 

National Academy Press. 

Sampson, R., and W. Wilson. 1995. “Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban 

Inequality.” In J. Hagan and R. Patterson (eds.), Crime and Inequality. Stanford, CA. 

Stanford University Press. 

Schuster, I. 1983. “Women’s Aggression: An African Case Study.” Aggressive a 

Behavior, 9:319-33 1. 

Schuster, I. 1985. “Female Aggression and Resource Scarcity: A Cross-Cultural 

Perspective.” Unpublished manuscript. 

Schwartz, M. and V. Pitts. 1995. “Exploring A Feminist Routine Activities Approach to 

Explaining Sexual Assault.” Justice Quarterly, 12( 1): 9-30. 

Schwarz D.F., J.A. Grisso, and C. Miles. 1993. “An Injury Prevention Program in an 

Urban African-American Community.” American Journal of Public Health, 83 : 675-680. 

Schwarz D.F., Grisso J.A., and Miles C. 1994. “A Longitudinal Study of Injury 

Morbidity in an African-American Population” Journal of the American Medical 

Association, 27 1 (1 0): 755-760. 

Shaw, C., and H. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

Shaw, M. and S. Dubois. 1995. “Understanding Violence by Women.” Correctional 

Service of Canada: Toronto. Canada. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
469 

Short, Jr., and F. James. 1997. Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime. Boulder, a Colorado: Westview Press. 

Simon, T., J. Mercy, and C. Perkins. 2001. Injuries From Violent Crime, 1992-1998. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Special Report. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

Simpson, S. 1991. “Caste, Class and Violent Crime: Explaining Difference in Female 

Offending.’’ Criminology, 29(1): 115-135. 

Simpson, S., and L. Ellis. 1995. “Doing Gender: Sorting out the Caste and Crime 

Conundrum.” Criminology, 33 : 47-77. 

Smart, C. 1976. Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique. London: 

Routledge and Kegan Paul. 

Snyder, Howard N. 2000. “Juvenile Arrests 1999.” Bureau of Justice Statistics; NCJ185236. 

Sommers, I. and Baskin, D. 1993. “The Situational Context of Violent Female 

Offending.” Crime and Delinquency, 30: 136-1 62. 

Stack, Carol B. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New a York: Harper Torchbooks. 

Stark E. 1984. “The Battering Syndrome: Social Knowledge, Social Therapy and the 

Abuse of Women.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Sociology, SUNY-Binghamton. 

Steffensmeier, D. 1978. “Crime and the Contemporary Women: An Analysis of 

Changing Levels of Female Property Crime, 1960-1975.” Social Forces, 57566-584. 

Steffensmeier, D. 1980. “Sex Differences in Patterns of Adult Crime, 1965- 1977.” 

Social Forces, 58: 1080-1 108. 

Steffensmeier, D. and E. Allan. 1988. “Sex Disparities in Crime by Population 

Subgroup: Residence, Race and Age.” Justice Quarterly, 553-80. 

Steffensmeier, D., and E. Allan. 1996. “Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory 

of Female Offending.” Annual Review of Sociology, 22:459-487. 

Steffensmeier, D., and D. Haynie. 2GX. “Gender, Structural Disadvantage and Urban 

Crime: Do Macrosocial Variables also Explain Female Offending Rates?” Criminology, 

38: 403-438. 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
470 

Steffensmeier, D., and R. Terry. 1993. “National Trends in Female Arrests, 1960- 1990: 

Assessment and Recommendations for Research.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 

9: 413-441. 

Steinberg, L. 1991. “The Logic of Adolescence.” In P. Edelman and J. Ladner. (eds.), 

Adolescence and Poverty: Challenge for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: Center for 

National Policy Press. 

Sullivan, M.L. 2001. “Hyperghettos and Hypermasculinity: The Phenomenology of 

Exclusion.” In A. Booth and A.C. Crouter. (eds.), Does it Take a Village? Community 

Eflects on Children, Adolescents, and Families. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence 

Erlbaum. 

Sum, A., and N., Fogg. 1991. “The Adolescent Poor and the Transition to Early 

Adulthood.” In P. Edelman and J. Ladner. (eds.), Adolescence and Poverty: Challenge 

for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: Center for National Policy Press. 

Sutherland, E., and D. Cressey. 1978. Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. 

Talbott, E. 1997. “Reflecting on Antisocial Girls and the Study of their Development: 

Researcher’s Views .” Exceptionality, 7:267-272. 

Taylor, M., C. Gilligan, and A.M. Sullivan. 1995. Between Voice and Silence: Women a and Girls, Race and Relationship. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 

Taylor, R. 199 1. “Poverty and Adolescent Black Males: The Subculture of 

Disengagement.” In P. Edelman and J. Ladner (eds.), Adolescence and Poverty: 

Challenge for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: Center for National Policy Press. 

Taylor, R, S. Gottfredson, and S. Brower. 1984. “Block Crime and Fear: Defensible 

Space, Local Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning.” Journal of Research in Crime 

and Delinquency, 21: 303-33 1. 

Thomas, W.I. 1928. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown. 

Tilden, V. and P. Shepard. 1987. “Increasing the Rate of Identification of Battered 

Women in an Emergency Department: Use of a Nursing Protocol.” Research in Nursing 

and Health, 10: 209-21 5. 

Timmons-Mitchell, J., C.Brown, C. Schulz, S. Webster, L. Underwood and W. Semple. 

1997. “Comparing the Mental Health Needs of Female and Male Incarcerated Juvenile 

Delinquents. ” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15: 195-202. 

Trimpey M. 1989. “Self-Esteem and Anxiety: Key Issues in an Abused Women’s 

Support Group.” Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 10:297-308. 0 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
47 1 

Ulzen, T.P.M., D.C. Psych and H. Hamilton. 1998. “The Nature and Characteristics of 

Psychiatric Co-morbidity in Incarcerated Adolescents.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 

43(1): 57-63. 

0 

U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 

1994-1997: Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 1995-1998. 

Veysey, B. April, 2002. Personal Communication. Rutgers University, School of 

Criminal Justice, Newark, NJ. 

Weatherby, N.L., R. Needle, H, Cesari, R. Booth, C.B. McCoy, J.K. Watters, M. 

Williams, and D.D. Chitwood. “Validity of Self-Reported Drug Use among Injection 

Drug Users and Crack Cocaine Users Recruited Through Street Outreach.” Evaluation 

and Program Planning, 17(4):347-355. 

Widom, C.S. 1989b. “Child Abuse, Neglect and Adult Behavior: Research Design and 

Findings on Criminality, Violence and Child Abuse.” American Journal of 

Orthopsychiatry, 59: 355-367. 

Widom, C.S., and M.G. Maxfield. February 2001. “An Update on the Cycle of 

Violence.” National Institute of Justice, NCJ- 1 84894. 

Wilson, W. 1996. When Work Disappears. New York: Random House, 1996. 

Wilson, W. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

0 

Wilt, S.A., S.M. Illman and M. Brodyfield. 1997. “Female Homicide Victims in New 

York City 1990-1994.” New York Department of Health Injury Prevention Program. 

Wolfe, L.R. 1994. “Girls Stabs Boy at School: Girls and the Cycle of Violence.” 

Women ’s Health Issues, 4(2): 1 09- 1 16. 

Wolfgang, M.E., and F. Ferracuti. 1975. The Subculture of Violence: Toward an 

Integrated Theory in Criminology. London: Tavistock. 

Yancy, W., S. Saporito, and R. Thadani. 1995. Neighborhoods, Troubles, and School: 

The Ecology of Philadelphia’s Public Schools. Philadelphia: Temple University Center 

for Research in Human Development and Education. 

Zanis, D.A., A.T. McLellan, A.T., and M. Randall. “Can You Trust Patient Self-Reports 

of Drug Use During Treatment?” Drug &Alcohol Dependence, 35(2): 127-32. - 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.
472 

NANCY BETH HIRSCHINGER 

1962 

1981 

Born October 12 in New York, New York 

Graduated from River Dell High, Oradell, New Jersey 

1981-1983 

1983-1985 

1984 

1989- 1991 

1991 

1990- 1995 

1995-2000 

1996 

1996-2002 

W 

1998- 1 999 

1998-2000 

Attended University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 

Attended University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 

B. A., University of Pennsylvania, Major: International 

Relations 

Attended Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 

New York 

M.A., Teachers College, Columbia University, Social 

Psychology 

Employed by the University of Pennsylvania, The Center for 

Mental Health Policy and Services Research, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania as a Research Specialist 

Employed by University of Pennsylvania, The Center for 

Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania as a Project Manager 

Awarded 4-Year Excellence Fellowship by the State of New 

Jersey for Graduate work at Rutgers University 

Attended Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, 

Newark, New Jersey 

Instructor in the School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers 

University, Newark, New Jersey 

Instructor in Criminal Justice, the Wharton School of the 

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

200 1 Awarded Dissertation Fellowship by the National Institute of 

Justice 

2002 Ph.D. in Criminal Justice 

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.